'Public defection from faith' does NOT require joining a sect for tacit resignation from office
Canonist Gerald V. McDevitt explains the concept of 'tacit resignation of office' showing there is a lower bar for 'public defection from the faith' and accompanying renunciation than some claim.
Editor’s Notes
Bishop Gerarld Vincent McDevitt studied at the Pontifical Roman Seminary in Rome, and was ordained in 1942. Following ordination, he completed his doctorate in Canon Law in 1945.
What follows in this article is an extract from his doctoral dissertation The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, published here with the kind permission of The Catholic University of America Press.
The dissertation is on the concept of “tacit resignation” in Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon law, the meaning of a “public defection of faith” in §4, and how this public defection results in the resignation mentioned.
In 1952, McDevitt’s star began to rise, and he was appointed secretary at the Washington DC Apostolic Delegation. In 1962, John XXIII appointed him auxiliary bishop of the Archdioceses of Philadelphia, and was consecrated by Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi, with Bishops Joseph Carroll McCormick and Francis James Furey serving as co-consecrators.
He was present at Vatican II, where he was seen as a conservative and opposed the usual liberal causes of the day. He died in 1980, aged 63.
In the extracts to follow, McDevitt explains the following key points:
Does “public defection from faith” entail joining a sect?
No: “It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.”
How public is “public”?
McDevitt cites Can. 2197 §1: “A delict is: Public, if it is already known or is in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known.”
He adds: “[T]he defection from the faith may be public by reason of the fact that it is already known to a notable part of the community. The law does not prescribe any special number as being necessary to constitute a notable part of the community. Determination of this point is left to man's prudent judgment.”
He adds: “The authors are in agreement that this is the type of publicity postulated for making the defection a public one.”
Is “public defection from faith” a crime, and tacit resignation a penalty?
No. “[T]he tacit renunciation is not inflicted as a penalty,” even though there are acts mentioned in Can. 188 which constitute crimes.
He says: “It is true that some of the acts enumerated in canon 188 constitute delicts, and have special penalties attached to them, but the effect of a tacit renunciation is not to be considered in the nature of a canonical penalty.”
Are those who are not subject to penal laws nonetheless subject to Can. 118?
Yes. Because it is not a penal law, McDevitt writes that “cardinals” – who are not subject to penal laws – “are subject to the prescriptions of canon 188.” This argument would seem to apply also to a putative Roman Pontiff.
What if someone who publicly defects from the faith still wants to retain his office?
Tacit resignation still occurs “even if the person should manifest his intention of retaining the office at the time he places the act.”
McDevitt adds: “The tacit renunciation occurs in spite of any contrary intention on the part of the incumbent.”
Is this just a presumption, needing the ratification of the Church?
No. Tacit resignation is not a presumed resignation, but an actual renunciation “equivalent in juridical effect to the full formalities prescribed for the execution of an express renunciation.”
He continues: “It is tacit because it does not observe the formalities required for an express renunciation, but it is equivalent to an express renunciation in all its effects. The law attaches the effect of a resignation to these acts, but it is not presuming a resignation or an intention of resigning.”
Tacit Renunciation and the Public Defection from the Catholic Faith
From
The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office
Gerald V. McDevitt
Headings, bullet points and some paragraph breaks added
Published with kind permission of The Catholic University of America Press
The Concept of a Tacit Renunciation
Chapter X, pp 112-7
Definition of tacit resignation
Besides express renunciation of an ecclesiastical office the Code takes cognizance of another type of resignation which it terms a tacit renunciation. This type of resignation obtained in law before the Code, but the term “tacit renunciation” was never expressed in any law. It was used by the authors to designate a type of resignation which was effected by the placing of certain specific acts.
Today, the term “tacit renunciation " is used by the Code itself to designate this type of resignation. The legislation of the Code on tacit renunciation is contained in canon 188, which reads as follows :
Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194)
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
Makes religious profession with due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices;
Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office;
Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office];
Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
Contracts marriage even, as they say, merely civilly;
Against the prescription of Canon 141, § 1, freely gives his name to a secular army;
Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless, having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning;
Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears nor answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary. [Text from Edward Peters’ Translation]
How tacit resignations work
As the law itself states, the placing of any of the acts mentioned in this canon effects the vacancy of the cleric’s office without the need of any declaration on the part of the superior. This effect is attributed to a tacit renunciation as sanctioned by the law itself.
It is called a tacit renunciation to distinguish it from an express renunciation which is made according to the various formalities prescribed in the law. In a tacit renunciation no formalities are prescribed. All that is necessary is that the cleric perform one of the acts or be accountable for one of the omissions to which the law attaches the effect of a tacit renunciation of office.
In reality a tacit renunciation resembles a privation, but it can not be considered a privation since the law terms it a tacit renunciation. In the old law Wernz preferred to use the expression, “ablationes ob factum non-criminosum” (“removals due to a non-criminal act”), rather than the term “tacit renunciation,” because of the fact that this type of vacancy was effected even when the person had no intention of relinquishing his office.1
This argument can not be used now, since the Code has officially adopted the term “tacit renunciation” to designate this specific way of losing an ecclesiastical office.
How tacit resignation works “ipso iure”
When the law states that an office becomes vacant by a tacit renunciation, what is the force of this expression? In other words, what is the true concept of a tacit renunciation?
Some authors state that the law presumes a resignation in these instances.2 Coronata adds that canon 188 furnishes an example of a presumption “iuris et de iure.”3 Such a presumption can be removed only indirectly, that is, by an undermining of the foundation upon which the presumption rests.4 Toso is not certain that a presumption is involved in a tacit renunciation, but he says that if there is a question of a presumption here, it is a presumption “iuris et de iure.”5
The writer is of the opinion that there is no presumption involved in the sanction which the law attaches to a tacit renunciation. A presumption is a probable conjecture of an uncertain thing.6 What is the thing that is being presumed by the law in a tacit renunciation?
Certainly the law is not presuming the actual intention of the person to resign when he places these acts, for in many cases it is absolutely certain that the person has the contrary intention of retaining his office when he does these things. The vacancy of the office is effected by the placing of these acts, even if the person should manifest his intention of retaining the office at the time he places the act.
The tacit renunciation occurs in spite of any contrary intention on the part of the incumbent. The law does not merely presume a resignation in these cases. Rather, it attaches the effect of a resignation to these acts when placed by the incumbent.
And if the incumbent demonstrates that he did not place any of the acts enumerated in canon 188, then he is not simply destroying a presumption, but he rather is certifying the claim that he did not place an act to which the law attaches the effect of a tacit renunciation.
The specified acts equivalent to express renunciation
The writer believes that the law accepts the acts enumerated in canon 188 as equivalent in juridical effect to the full formalities prescribed for the execution of an express renunciation.
If a person places an express renunciation, one does not say that it is presumed that he has resigned his office. The resignation is a fact and, unless the person can prove that there was something lacking for the validity of the resignation, the resignation is a closed issue.
In like manner, if a cleric places one of the acts enumerated in canon 188, his resignation is not presumed by the law, but it is a fact as sanctioned by the law, and unless he can prove that there was some, substantial vitiation of the act, the resignation stands.
The fact that the law calls it a tacit renunciation, and not a presumed resignation, is another argument in favor of this opinion, for the words have entirely different meanings.
Hence, the writer is of the opinion that a tacit renunciation is a true renunciation and not merely a presumed one. It is tacit because it does not observe the formalities required for an express renunciation, but it is equivalent to an express renunciation in all its effects. The law attaches the effect of a resignation to these acts, but it is not presuming a resignation or an intention of resigning.
“Tacit” and '“presumed” are not equivalent in the Code
Even if it were true that no important difference of consequence would follow from considering, a tacit renunciation simply in the nature of a presumed resignation, yet the writer believes that it is a mistaken terminology which makes “tacit” and “presumed” equivalent in meaning.
The authors before the Code quite commonly employed these two terms interchangeably,7 but in spite of this fact the writer believes that such a usage is lacking in precision. In concluding this discussion the writer quotes as a more fitting description of a tacit renunciation the one given by Wernz-Vidal:
... ius in certis factis agnoscit contineri tacitam renuntiationem, quam ipsum ius admittit et sancit tamquam sequelam iuridicam illius facti, quin opus sit ulla declaratione.8
("... the law recognises that in certain actions there is an implicit renunciation, which the law itself admits and sanctions as a legal consequence of that action, without any need for a declaration.")
“Every type of office” includes even cardinals, as it is not a penal law
It is to be noted that every type of office becomes vacant by means of a tacit renunciation when the incumbent places one of the acts specified in canon 188, for the canon uses the words “quaelibet officia.”
Likewise all clerics come under the prescriptions of this canon since the canon makes no distinction. While cardinals are not subject to the penal law unless they are expressly mentioned,9 the writer believes that they are subject to the prescriptions of canon 188 without any such special mention, since in his opinion this canon is not a penal canon.
It is true that some of the acts enumerated in canon 188 constitute delicts, and have special penalties attached to them, but the effect of a tacit renunciation is not to be considered in the nature of a canonical penalty.
Tacit renunciation by the acts in themselves, rather than as delicts
In treating of public defection from the faith, Coronata notes that the tacit renunciation which results in consequence of this defection is not strictly the effect of a penal sanction.10 This statement is quite true.
Certainly the tacit renunciation cannot be considered a penalty for a religious profession, which according to canon 188, n. 1, effects a tacit renunciation. There is certainly nothing in such an act that would warrant a penalty.
Even with regard to the acts in canon 188 which constitute crimes the writer believes that the tacit renunciation is not inflicted as a penalty. This fact seems quite clear to the writer, especially in view of the manner in which the Code refers to the tacit renunciation in the canons which treat of penalties.
The quotation from the following two canons will serve to demonstrate the distinction that the Code makes. Canon 2168 §2, in treating of the procedure against non-resident clerics, states the following:
In monitione Ordinarius recolat poenas quas incurrunt clerici non residentes itemque praescriptum can. 188, n. 8…
(In the warning, the Ordinary shall recall the penalties that non-residential clerics incur and the prescription of Canon 188, n. 8…)
Canon 2314, in dealing with the crime of those who are guilty of heresy or apostasy, reads as follows:
§ 1, 3. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firmo praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur.
(§ 1, 3. If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.)
The same procedure is followed in the other canons which make mention of a tacit renunciation. It is plainly evident that a distinction is being made between the threatened or enacted penalty on the one hand, and the tacit renunciation on the other. Nowhere in the Code is the tacit renunciation called a penalty. It is always set off in a separate ablative absolute clause when it is enumerated with penalties.
For this reason the writer is of the opinion that a tacit renunciation is not to be classified as a penalty. The authors do not expressly designate it as a penalty, but they do list it along with the penalties when they consider the juridic effects consequent upon specific crimes.11
The direct purpose of this discussion was to demonstrate that cardinals are subject to the prescriptions of canon 188. Concomitantly the presentation of the arguments served the further purpose of clarifying that in this canon the law is not imposing a penalty, but is rather accepting the specified acts as tantamount to an express renunciation of office.
It may here be noted also that a tacit renunciation and a privation of office are very similar, but that the law nevertheless consistently places them in different categories.
The completeness of Canon 188
The list contained in canon 188 is an exhaustive one. The number of acts which effect a tacit renunciation has been considerably increased in the Code. Formerly there were only four ways in which a tacit renunciation was effected, namely,
By the reception of a second incompatible office
By a solemn religious profession
By the contraction of marriage on the part of a minor cleric
By a voluntary enlistment for military service.
To these acts the Code has added four other acts which now entail a tacit renunciation instead of the privation of office sanctioned in the former law.
Besides, the Code has extended the effect of a tacit renunciation to any kind or mode of religious profession and also to the attempted contraction of marriage on the part of a major cleric.
These points will be discussed in the sections treating of the specific acts enumerated in canon 188. A few general remarks have been made here merely for the purpose of directing attention to the fact that there have been some substantial changes made in the law.
Distinction between tacit renunciation in consequence of non-criminal and of criminal acts
In order to bring the treatment of the individual tacit renunciations within the compass of two chapters, the writer has chosen to employ a correspondingly adapted division of the various acts which are listed in canon 188.
Of the two remaining chapters, then, the first will treat of the acts which are non-criminal; the second will consider the acts which are criminal, namely, in the specific sense that they have determined penalties attached to them in the Fifth Book of the Code of Canon Law.
Tacit Renunciation in Consequence of Criminal Acts: Public Defection from the Faith
Chapter XII, pp 136-40
Can. 188, n. 4
[Si clericus] A fide catholica publice defecerit.
[“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric] Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls is concerned, the Code prescribes that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith.
Prior to the Code the law imposed a privation of office and benefice on a cleric for such a crime.12 This penalty was certainly imposed upon those clerics who were publicly guilty of heresy and of apostasy, but because of two apparently contradictory laws it was disputed whether the penalty applied also to those who were publicly guilty of schism.13 The present law attaches a tacit renunciation instead of a privation of office to a public defection from the faith.
Since canon 188, n. 4, uses a general terminology, it is necessary to determine the meaning of a defection from the faith and also to determine the extent of publicity that is required if the act of defection is to become the basis for a tacit renunciation of office.
Public defection from the faith in relation to heresy, schism and apostasy
Since three specific crimes, namely, heresy, apostasy and schism, will enter into this discussion, it is necessary to give the definitions of them as found in the Code. These definitions are contained in canon 1325, §2, which reads as follows:
Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens Christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide Christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.
(After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.)
These definitions are quite clear. Apostasy is a total defection from the faith, while heresy is only a partial defection, but as MacKenzie remarks,14 they are essentially the same, since the rejection of any one truth involves the same blasphemous attitude towards God that is involved in a denial of all the truths.
Schism, on the other hand, is rather an offense against obedience and charity than against faith, although heresy is almost always joined to it.15
The authors are not in agreement as to whether schism is to be included in the meaning of the term “defection from the faith,” as used in canon 188, n. 4.
Augustine,16 Blat,17 Toso18 and Coronata19 do not regard schism as constituting a defection from the faith as understood in canon 188, n. 4, since schism as such does not essentially militate against the possible retention of the faith even in its entirety.
Maroto,20 Vermeersch-Creusen,21 Cocchi22 and Sipos,23 on the other hand, consider schism pure and simple as sufficient to constitute a defection from the faith and hence to call for the application of the sanction enacted in canon 188, n. 4.
Heneghan includes those who are guilty purely of schism in his interpretation of the clause, “qui notarie aut catholicam fidem abjecerunt,” in canon 1065, §1.24 The expression which Heneghan interprets in this manner is substantially the same as the expression employed in canon 188, n. 4, which reads as follows: “A fide catholica publice defecerit.”
McDevitt’s view: this “defection” includes schism
According to the strict interpretation of-the words contained in canon 188, n. 4, and of the definition of schism, it must be admitted that the canon does not indisputably comprehend the condition of pure schism, since in its essence schism does not denote defection from the faith, but rather connotes a violation of obedience and charity.
However, one could doubt that the law intends to exclude the consideration of schism from this canon, for in canon 2314, §1, n. 3, which provides penalties for the public adherence to a non-catholic sect, cognizance is taken of canon 188, n. 4, with the words “firmo praescripto can. 188, n. 4.”
Since the wording of canon 2314, §1, n. 3, applies to a schismatical sect as well as to a heretical one, and since the application of canon 188, n. 4, is confirmed in this canon, one could reasonably be led to conclude that the wording of canon 188, n. 4, means to comprise also the condition of pure schism.
In practice it will be extremely rare that a case of pure schism will arise, for almost invariably and all but inevitably some heresy will be joined to it. This is especially true since the time of the solemn definition of the primacy and the infallibility, of the Roman Pontiff.
If, however, there should arise a case of pure schism on the part of a cleric, the writer believes that the cleric would not lose his office by a tacit renunciation since the sanction of canon 188, n. 4, is of but doubtful efficacy in view of its questionable comprehension of the condition of pure schism, and especially since the effective application of that sanction involves the forfeiture of a vested right.25
How public must the defection from the faith be?
The defection from the faith must be public.
It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.
The defection must be public according to the definition of publicity which is found in canon 2197, § 1:
Delictum est publicum, si iam divulgatum est aut talibus contigit aut versatur in adiunctis ut prudenter iudicari possit et debeat facile divulgatum iri.
(A delict is: Public, if it is already known or is in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known.)
The authors are in agreement that this is the type of publicity postulated for making the defection a public one.26
Thus the defection from the faith may be public by reason of the fact that it is already known to a notable part of the community. The law does not prescribe any special number as being necessary to constitute a notable part of the community. Determination of this point is left to man's prudent judgment.
Besides being public by reason of actual divulgation, the defection from the faith may be public also because of the fact that the circumstances force one to conclude that it will be easily divulged in the future. Thus if even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith, or if the sole and only witness was a taciturn person who later threatened to divulge the crime because of an enmity that has arisen between him and the delinquent, the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1.27
Renunciation of office independent of excommunication
A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by apostasy or heresy in a public manner according to the explanation just given.
Since the writer holds the opinion that a tacit renunciation is not of the nature of a penalty, he holds also that the prescriptions of canon 2229 concerning excusing causes with reference to latae sententiae penalties do not apply to the case of a tacit renunciation of office on the part of a cleric who has perpetrated the act which is mentioned in canon 188, n. 4.
Thus the writer believes that even if it were thinkable that a cleric was excused from incurring the excommunication involved in a defection from the faith in view of the prescriptions of canon 2229, §3, n. 1, he still would lose his office by a tacit renunciation. In this regard a tacit renunciation is like an irregularity, which, while in many respects it looks like a penalty, is nevertheless not a penalty in a truly canonical sense.
Conclusions
To the whole work, p 156
8. A tacit renunciation of an ecclesiastical office is not a presumed resignation; it is a true resignation admitted by the law as equivalent to an express renunciation.
9. A tacit renunciation of an ecclesiastical office is not a penalty, even though some of the acts which effect such a renunciation are criminal acts. Therefore, Cardinals are subject to the prescriptions of canon 188. (156)
From: The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, G. V. McDevitt. Thanks again to The Catholic University of America Press for permission to re-publish this piece.
Read Next:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter and Telegram:
Ius Decretalium, II, n. 531
Coronata, Institutiones, I, n. 260 ; Maroto, Institutiones, I, n. 684 ; Augustine, A Commentary, II, pp. 160-161; Chelodi, Ius de Personis, n. 149.
Loc. Cit.
Can. 1826.
Commentaria Minora, II, 154.
Can. 1825
Schmalzgrueber, Jus Ecclesiasticum, lib. I, tit IX, n. 2; Reiffenstuel, Jus Canonicum, lib. I, tit IX, n. 9; Santi, Praelectiones, lib. I, tit IX, n. 3.
Ius Canonicum, II, n. 329
Can. 2227, §2
Institutiones, IV, n. 1864
Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, III, 513; Coronata, Institutiones, IV, nn. 2178, 2196.
C. 9, X, de haereticis, V, 7—Jaffé, n. 15109; Nicholas II, const "Noverit universitas," 3 mart 1280—Bullarium, IV, 47; a 12, de haereticis, V, 2, in VI°; a un., de schismaticis, V, 3, in VIa —Potthast, n. 24520; c. un., de schismaticis, V, 4, in Extravag. com.—Potthast, n. 25324; Paulus IV, const "Cum ex apostolatus," 27 Jan. 1567—Fontes, n. 117.
Cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, II, n. 537; Gennari, Sulla Privazione del Beneficio Ecclesiastico e sui Processo Criminale dei Chierici (2. ed, Romae, 1905), pp. 22-23 ; 30-31 ; Lega, De Judiciis Ecclesiasticis (4 vols. Vol. Ill, 1899, Romae), III, nn. 333-334; 434.
The Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 77 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932), p. 19.
Ibid., pp 16-17.
A Commentary, II, 161
Commentarium, II, n. 135
Commentaria Minora, II, 155
Institutiones, I, n. 263
Institutiones, I, n.684
Epitome, I, n. 306
Commentarium, II, n. 101
Enchiridion, p. 164
The Marriage of Unworthy Catholics, Canons 1065 and 1066, The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 188 (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1944), pp. 96-97.
Cf. can. 19.
Blat, Commentarium, II, n. 135; Cocchi, Commentarium, II, n. 101; Coronata, Institutiones, 1, p. 301, footnote 7 ; Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 210.
Cf. Michiels, De Delictis et Poenis (Vol. I, Lublin : Universitas Catholica, 1934), I, 117-118; Coronata, Institutiones, IV, n. 1645.
Thanks for posting this.
This destroys all my arguments regarding the need for juridical processes per Canon 2314.
I saw a thorough contradiction between this understanding of automatic loss of office due to public defection and the provisions of Canon 2314 no. 2.
Now I concede:
1. To understand "public" as "notorious" is to accuse the Code of Canon Law of imprecision. Although, the notion of "defection" necessarily requires pertinacity. Does notoriety confirm pertinacity? Hmmm ... something to think about.
2. However, in analysing the apparent conflict between this interpretation of Canon 188 no. 4 (automatic loss without any canonical intervention) and Canon 2314 no. 2 (requiring canonical intervention), I realised my stupidity was the problem, not a real contradiction.
Question: Why is privation of office listed as one of the penalties that follow when a public heretic does not heed canonical warnings, if automatic loss of office should have already occurred per Canon 188 no. 4?
Answer:
The inclusion of the loss of office in Canon 2314 no. 2 allows the Church to enforce or confirm the removal of a cleric from office, even if Canon 188 no. 4 theoretically provides for automatic loss of office. In some cases, practical or procedural issues might delay the application of Canon 188 (such as lack of knowledge by a certain group of people, insufficient evidence of public defection, doubt or delays in recognising the vacancy of the office). Canon 2314 no. 2 thus serves as a more formalised means of ensuring that clerics who defect from the faith face disciplinary action, including the formal loss of office, even if the automatic effect in Canon 188 was not fully recognised or acted upon at the time of defection.
In short, Canon 2314 no. 2 functions as a safeguard to ensure that a cleric is penalised properly, including the loss of office, if Canon 188 no. 4 did not or could not operate automatically due to practical reasons.
This article shows that it is possible for those not usually bound by Canon Law to tacitly resign their office by acts which include public defection from the faith (heresy and/or apostasy). I don't think any true Catholic would be unhappy to accept Francis I's tacit renunciation of office on September 13, 2024 if not much earlier.