supplied jurisdiction miaskiewic canon 209

Download Supplied Jurisdiction Miaskiewic Canon 209

Post on 10-Apr-2015

171 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Supplied Jurisdiction according to canon 209. Historical synopsis and commentary.Submitted for the Degree of Dr of Canon Law by Fr. S. Miaskiewicz, J.C.L. in 1940.

TRANSCRIPT

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA CANON LAW STUDIES No. 122

SUPPLIED JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO CANON 209AN HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS AND COMMENTARYA DISSERTATIONSubmitted to the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Univensity of America in Partial FulfIIIment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF CANON LAWBY

FRANCIS SIGISMUND MIASKIEWICZ, J.C.L.Priest of the Archdiocese of Boston

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS WASHINGTON, D. C. 1940

21

2

NIHIL OBSTAT:CLEMENT V. BASTNAGEL, J.U.D.Censor Deputatus.

IMPRIMATUR:WILLIAM CARDINAL OCONNELLArchiepiscopus Bostoniensis.

Boston, May 9, 1940

Copyright 1940, by The Catholic University of America Press

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE WATKINS PRINTING CO., BALTIMORE [EXACT COPY ADOBE ACROBAT VERSION, 2004]

3

TO HIS EMINENCE WILLIAM CARDINAL OCONNELL IN REVERENCE AND GRATITUDE

4

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PRELIMINARY NOTIONSARTICLE I. JURISDICTION . . . . A. Definition . . . . . . . . . B. Division of Jurisdiction . C. Subjects of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 3 . 13 . 18

ARTICLE II. THE SUPPLYING OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . 21

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTARTICLE III. ARTICLE IV. ARTICLE V. ARTICLE VI. THE ROMAN LAW INFLUENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 THE PRE-GRATIAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . 41 THE INFLUENCE OF GRATIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 THE INFLUENCE OF THE GLOSSATORS . . . . . . . 50

ARTICLE VII. THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT UP TO THE CODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 A. Application to Both Fora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Breadth of the Application of the Principle of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Application to Cases of Delegated Power . . . . . . . D. Common Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Quality of the error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Place of the error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Subjects of error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Extent of common error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. The measure of common error . . . . . . . . . . E. Necessity of a Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Probability of Fact and of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Probability as a source of jurisdiction . . . . . . II. Supplying in probability of fact or of law . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 62 67 69 70 72 74 78 81 87 90 98

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

21

vi

Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209

CANONICAL COMMENTARYINTRODUCTION ARTICLE I. CONDITIONS REQUISITE FOR THE SUPPLYING OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Common Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Introductory notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Error and ignorance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Traditional interpretation of common error . . . . III. Interpretative error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Arguments against the strict interpretation of common error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Arguments for the interpretative theory . . . . 3. Highlights of the interpretative theory. . . . . IV. Appraisal of the interpretative theory . . . . . . . I. Textual arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Contextual arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Difficulties alleged against the traditional Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Context of the Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Sequels of the interpretative theory. . . . . V. Theory identifying error and ignorance . . . . . . I. Gist of the ignorance theory. . . . . . . . . . . II. Evaluation and criticism of the ignorance theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. General notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. The common good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Canon 209, a repetition of the old law . . c. Canon 209, and epikeia . . . . . . . . . . . II. Qualifications of common error . . . . . . . . a. Extent of common error . . . . . . . . . . . b. Quality of common error . . . . . . . . . . (a) Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Probable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) Explicit or implicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 115 115 115 116 116 121 124 127 128 130 133 135 135 143 148 151 151 152 156 157 157 160 161 163 163 168 168 169 169

Table of Contents

vii

(d) Actual or virtual . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) Practical or speculative . . . . . . . . . c. Measure of common error . . . . . . . . . d. Place of error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. Subjects of error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Doubt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Doubt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Positive and probable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Pre-Code interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Text of the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Consideration of the context of the Code . . . 4. Involvement of the common good . . . . . . . 5. The practice of the Rota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Doubt of law and of fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Preliminary notions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Scope limited to ecclesiastical laws alone . b. Relation between canon 209 and canon 15 2. Doubt of law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Kinds of doubts of law . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) Intrinsic probability . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Extrinsic probability. . . . . . . . . . . a Private probability of law . . . . . b Public probability of law . . . . . . b. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Doubt of fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Decisions of the Roman Rota . . . . . . . . b. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169 171 172 175 176 176 178 182 184 185 188 191 192 193 194 194 194 194 196 197 197 198 199 200 202 210 212 217 219

ARTICLE II. APPLICATION OF CANON 209. . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 A. In Reference to the Twofold Forum . . . . . . . . . . B. In Reference to Ordinary and Delegated Power . . I. Jurisdictional power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. In positive and probable doubt either of fact or of law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. In common error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 . . 223 . . 224 . . 225 . . 225

viii

Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209

a. Ordinary power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Delegated power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) Universal delegation . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Delegation for one case . . . . . . . . . II. Assistance at marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Historical survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Post-Code interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Non-jurisdictional character of the act of assistance at a marriage ceremony . . . . . b. Applicability of canon 209 to marriage . . c. Extent of application to marriage . . . . . . (a) Ordinary assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Delegated assistance . . . . . . . . . . . a Pre-Code attitude . . . . . . . . . . . b Attitude of the Code . . . . . . . . . a In doubt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b In common error . . . . . . . . . Application to universal delegation to assist at marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application to assist at one marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Non-jurisdictional power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Non-jurisdictional power wielded by one who has an office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Purely dominative power . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Pre-Code background. . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Post-Code doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225 230 232 235 239 239 248 248 248 256 256 258 258 260 260 261

. 263 . 271 . 279 . . . . . 280 282 283 286 288

ARTICLE III. LICIT USE OF CANON 209 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 A. Common Error . . . . . . . . . . . I. Minister . . . . . . . . . . . . II. The faithful . . . . . . . . . . B. Doubt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Penal Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . I. Imputability of the censure . II. The sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 291 296 298 300 302 303

Table of Contents

ix

III. Applicability of canon 209 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 IV. The necessary jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 V. Presumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 ALPHABETICAL INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 CANON LAW STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

x

Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209

FOREWORDCanon 209 in

Recommended

View more >