Excusing and Diminishing Causes Canons 1321 to 1324 establish liability for a canonical penalty. For example, canon 1322 treats those who normally lack the use of reason, such as infants or the mentally insane, as incapable of breaking the law. This is the case even when an individual appears sane while carrying out the act. The Church presumes such folks are not capable of forming the intention of acting out of malice; therefore, they are incapable of being excommunicated.
Canon 1323 list several circumstances in which one is not liable to a penalty when acting contrary to the law. These circumstances apply to individuals who, although they committed an infraction:
were under 16 years of age,
were ignorant of violating the law through no fault of their own,
were physically forced to carry out the action in question,
acted under grave fear of something more terrible happening, provided that the action is not intrinsically evil or harmful to souls,
acted in self-defense or defense of someone else against an unjust assailant, provided that the person only used that force deemed necessary in self-defense,
lacked the use of reason,
through no fault of their own, mistook a situation for one involving a grave necessity or the need for defense against an unjust aggressor.
Similarly, the first paragraph of canon 1324 lists several circumstances in which a penalty must be diminished, or a lesser penance substituted, for someone who violates the law. In other words, the law gives the offender some leeway without completely letting him off the hook. These circumstances apply to individuals who:
only had the imperfect use of reason,
lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or other culpable actions that reduced their mental state,
acted in a moment of passion without time to think carefully through their actions,
were 16 or 17 years old at the time of the offense,
acted under grave fear, if the act is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls,
acted out of self-defense, but went beyond what was reasonably necessary to stop the aggressor,
acted in response to someone who was being seriously and unnecessarily provocative,
negligently mistook a situation for one involving a grave necessity or the need for defense against an unjust aggressor,
through no fault of their own were ignorant of a penalty attached to the law,
acted with only partial imputability in a very serious matter.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=64144.0