THE MANDATE OF CANON 812 IN THE LIGHT OF CANON 18

G.N. IHENACHO

Can. 812: Qui in studiorum Can. 812: Those who teach

superiorum institutis quibuslibet theological disciplines in any
disciplinas tradunt theologicas, institutes of higher studies
auctoritatis ecclesiasticae whatsoever must have a mandate
competentis mandatum habeant from the competent ecclesiastical
oportet. authority.

Introduction
Canon 812 is found in the second chapter of the third title of book three
of the CIC that deals with the teaching office of the Church. It is situated
with the eight (8) canons related to Catholic universities and other institutes
of higher studies. According to the canon, teachers of theological disciplines
in institutions of high studies/universities/colleges must have a mandate from
the competent church authority1.
For a better understanding of this canon, it is important to examine some
concepts used in the canon. «Those who teach theological disciplines in any
institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the
competent ecclesiastical authority» (can. 812). Some of the notions of this
canon are not very clear. They are either general or ambiguous. However, in
the interpretation of these concepts, we will keep in mind canon 18, which
states that «laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights,
or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretations». A
careful reading of can. 812 shows that it falls into the category talked about
in can. 18. It restricts the free exercise of those who teach theological
disciplines.

Those who teach

According to S.A. EUART, «canon 812 involves a right and duty situation,
that is, the granting, withdrawal, or denial of a mandate for teachers of
theological disciplines. The requirement is in the nature of a restriction upon
the rights of those engaged in sacred disciplines to freedom of expression

1
Cf. A. STABELLINI, Il mandatum del Can. 812 CIC e la missio canonica dell’art. 27
§1 SpCh. Dispozizioni normative convergenti o divergenti?, Corona Lateranensis 64,
Citta di Vaticano 2015, 133&140.
 The mandate of Canon 812 2

and prudent expression»2. In line with can. 18, can. 812 should be subjected
to a strict interpretation. Thus, in identifying the subject of this canon, those
who have the responsibility to request the mandate, the phrase “those who
teach” has to be narrowed as much as possible to the ordinary and minimal
meaning of the word.
Those who are bound to obtain a mandate are individual persons –
laymen/women, clergy and religious – who teach or intend to teach
theological disciplines in catholic universities or other institutes of higher
studies. However, it also implies that the institutes should ensure that the
theology teachers are in possession of the mandate3.
In the university setting, we find several classes of teachers. Does the norm
of can. 812 apply to all of them or a group of them? Certainly, it deals with
the teaching of theological disciplines4. According to EUART, «this canon
applies to Roman Catholics of the Latin Church in virtue of canon 11 and
would not apply to non-Catholics who teach theology in catholic colleges
and universities »5. She went on to justify her argument by quoting Ex Corde
Ecclesia, which refers «to Catholic theologians as those who fulfil a mandate
from the church »6. This means that it is only those who are baptized in the
Catholic Church and are in full communion with it are subject to can. 812.
They need the mandate if they wish to teach theological disciplines in higher
institutes of learning. STABELLINI adds that, those who are hired by institutes
of higher studies to teach theology with a contract from which it appears that
the teaching in question is their main responsibility, are subject to the norm
of can. 812. On the other hand, teachers, who teach only one lesson, and
occasional teachers are not bound by the mandate of can. 8127.

Theological Disciplines
What exactly do those theological disciplines mean? The meaning of the
term is not clear. In line with canon 18, the phrase “theological disciplines”
has to be subjected to a strict interpretation.

2
S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)» in J.P. BEAL – J.A.
CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN, ed., New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law, Bangalore
2010, 969.
3
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 969; A.
STABELLINI, Il mandatum del Can. 812, (cf. nt. 1), 196.
4
Cf. A. STABELLINI, Il mandatum del Can. 812, (cf. nt. 1), 199.
5
S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 969.
6
S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821(cf. nt. 2), 969.
7
Cf. A. STABELLINI, Il mandatum del Can. 812, (cf. nt. 1), 199.
 The mandate of Canon 812 3

Theological disciplines are those courses that are studied and taught in the
light of faith, in such a way that their transmission is in an intrinsic
relationship with the transmission of the word8. EUART says, «The meaning
of theological disciplines might be understood in light of article 51 of the
norms for the correct implementation of the apostolic constitution sapientia
christiana issued by the congregation for catholic education in 1979»9 which
lists the subject under theological disciplines. Hence, «care should be taken
not to broaden the notion beyond the academic discipline of catholic
theology or beyond the discipline that are formally theological»10. So what
exactly should be included under theological disciplines?
A restrictive interpretation of theological disciplines will limit the
mandate to only those who teach dogmatic theology in institutes of higher
learning.
A strict interpretation of theological disciplines will impose the mandate
on those who teach the following subjects in institutes of higher learning;
 Fundamental theology (ecumenism, non-Christian religions and
atheism)
 Biblical theology
 Moral and spiritual theology
 Pastoral theology
 Liturgical theology
 Dogmatic theology
A broad interpretation of theological disciplines will require the mandate
on those who teach the following subjects in institutes of higher learning;
 Mystery of God, the Trinity; Christology; soteriology; Theological
anthropology; Sacramental theology; Eschatology; ecclesiology;
Mariology; Grace
 Introduction to Sacred Scripture, Holy Scriptures, history of
theology.
 Biblical Exegesis: Pentateuch, historical books, Synoptic Gospels,
Acts of the Apostles; Johannie body, Pauline Body, Prophecy,
Apocalyptic, Psalms and sapiential writings.
 History of the Church, Patrology and Archeology;
 Liturgy
 Canon Law

8
Cf. A. STABELLINI, Il mandatum del Can. 812, (cf. nt. 1), 214-215.
9
S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 969.
10
S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 970.
 The mandate of Canon 812 4

An extensive interpretation of theological disciplines will extend the

mandate on those who teach the following subjects in institutes of higher
learning;
 Philosophy: Philosophy of knowledge; Metaphysics
 Philosophical theology (natural theology)
 Philosophy of man
 Moral philosophy
 Political philosophy
 History of philosophy (ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary).
 Auxiliary disciplines: some humanities and languages (Hebrew,
Greek, Latin)
These courses are no doubt related to theology but do not seem to be
considered theological disciplines; thus, they would be beyond the scope of
canon 812.

Mandate
The term mandate is unclear, what really does it mean?11 Some canonist
hold that can. 812 and the concept of mandatum are innovations of
ecclesiastical law on the teaching of catholic doctrine. Can. 812 requires an
ecclesiastical mandate from a competent ecclesiastical authority for teachers
of theological discipline in catholic institutes of higher learning12. The
prerequisite of a mandate seems to represent a juridical response to a possible
danger to faith and an effort to safeguard the doctrine of the Church, rights
of the faithful and the good of the church13.
EUART, notes that the early drafts of can. 812 required a missio canonico
for those who teach theology and related disciplines in any kind of institutes
of higher studies. According to EUART, the notion of canonical mission as
applied to teaching in the church is rooted in the conciliar legislation of the
middle ages as requirements for preaching. However, later in the nineteenth

11
Cf. REDAZIONE DI QUADERNI DI DIRITTO ECCLESIALE, ed., Codice di diritto
canonico commentato, Milano 20014, 689.
12
Cf. A.G. URRU, «La Funzione di insegnare», in GRUPPO ITALIANO DOCENTI DI
DIRITTO CANONICO, ed., Il diritto nel misterio della Chiesa. II, Il popolo di Dio, stati e
funzioni del popolo di dio, Chiesa particolare e univesale, la funzione di insegnare,
Quaderni di Apollinaris 9, Roma 20013, 629; V. DE PAOLIS, «Il libro primo del codici.
Norme generali (cann. 1-203)», in GRUPPO ITALIANO DOCENTI DI DIRITTO CANONICO,
ed., Il diritto nel misterio della Chiesa. I, Il diritto nella realta umana e nella vita della
Chiesa. I libro I del codice. Le nome generali, Quaderni di Apollinaris 5, Citta di Vaticano
20013, 300.
13
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 966.
 The mandate of Canon 812 5

century, missio canonico was broadened to all public instruction. The church
required all teachers of theology to have a missio canonico from the bishop
to ensure freedom from state in the teaching of theology at all levels of
education. With time, the requirement of a missio canonico for some form
of public ecclesiastical teaching became an explicit part of the universal law
in the norms of the 1931 Apostolic Constitution Deus Scientiarum Dominus,
which governs ecclesiastical faculties and universities14.
EUART pointed out that in 1979 Apostolic Constitution, Sapientia
christiana promulgated by Pope John Paul II replaced the previous norms
regulating ecclesiastical faculties and universities, but retained the
requirement of a canonical mission for teachers of discipline related to faith
and morals. According to him, the deletion of missio canonico and the
insertion of mandatum in the final version of can. 812 of the revised code
does not suggest that those who compiled the draft considered ecclesiastical
authorization unnecessary. Rather, it would seem that the removal of missio
canonico simply reflected their concern about the nature of the ecclesiastical
authority needed for public ecclesiastical teaching. The use of mandatum
rather than missio canonico in the promulgated version of can. 812 indicates
that the mandate is neither a delegation nor a granting of jurisdiction. It does
not confer an ecclesiastical office neither does it give the one mandated
disciplinary authority over others in the church15.
It is not clear what this mandate is really all about, but according to some
canonists, what does seem clear from the promulgated decree is that missio
and mandatum are two distinct concepts. Historically, missio connotes
entrusting to the laity certain tasks and certain offices which are proper to
the hierarchy but which require neither the power of orders nor the power of
jurisdiction for their lawful exercise. Mandatum on the other hand, refers to
those apostolic activities which are proper to the laity in virtue of their
baptism, but which at times, are joined more closely to the apostolic
responsibility of the bishop. Mandatum could be understood as the juridical
recognition by the hierarchy that a particular apostolic activity carried out by
a person is in communion with the Church. Those who work under the
Mandatum carry out an activity of which they are fully and personally
responsible, with the institutional guarantee that their action is in communion

14
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 966-967.
15
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 967-968.
 The mandate of Canon 812 6

with the Church. While those who act in virtue of the missio canonico do so
in the name and on behalf of the Church16.
Hence, the change from canonical mission to mandate in can. 821 is not
without significance. It seems that the term mandatum signifies a
relationship between the bishops and the theologian, in which theology is
carried out in communion with Church hierarchy and in a manner respectful
of the proper roles of bishops and theologians. In regards to the purpose of
can. 812, which is mainly to uphold the orthodoxy of catholic teaching, it
would seem that the mandate for those who teach theological disciplines is
to be understood as an official guarantee about the doctrinal rectitude of the
discipline and the moral integrity of the teacher, placed to protect the right
of students and the ecclesial community to receive a science that moves in
the horizon of revelation entrusted to the Church17.

Competent Ecclesiastical Authority

The canon does not specify exactly what church authority is competent to
grant the mandate. The term is very general and it would seem that the canon
intends that there could be more than one authority in the church competent
to grant the mandate. The Holy See is certainly capable of granting the
mandate (Can. 331), but we could employ the principle of subsidiarity and
the principle of canon 18 to the interpretation of can. 812. Analyzing the can.
812 from the text and context, we see that can. 810 assigns the duty and right
of vigilance over catholic doctrine and catholic institutes of higher studies to
the conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops (can 810 § 2). However, it
seems that the diocesan bishop is the person suitable to confer the mandatum
of can. 812. The reason for this stand could be based on the fact that the
bishops, as successors of the apostles, are recognized as true and authentic
effecti sunt fidei Magistri (CD, 2 b). The responsibility to exercise this office,
within the diocese, belongs, in a peculiar and primary way, to the diocesan
bishop, who in a particular church, exercises, for the benefit of the faithful,
the munus docendi, sanctificandi et regendi. Thus, as a shepherd of his
proper diocese, the diocesan bishop is the competent ecclesiastical authority
to confer the mandatum by virtue of his own office, to teachers of theological

16
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 968;
REDAZIONE DI QUADERNI DI DIRITTO ECCLESIALE, ed., Codice di diritto canonico
commentato, (cf. nt. 11), 689.
17
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 968-969
and REDAZIONE DI QUADERNI DI DIRITTO ECCLESIALE, ed., Codice di diritto canonico
commentato, (cf. nt. 11), 689-690.
 The mandate of Canon 812 7

disciplines in the institutes of higher studies in his territory. Thus, he is able

to ensure that he, who teaches theological disciplines, carries out its task in
communion with the magisterium of the church18.
Additionally, it might be argued that religious ordinaries who are
equivalent to the diocesan bishop could grant the mandate to members of
their own institutes teaching in their own institutions. The law does not
restrict the granting of the mandate to bishops or religious ordinaries
personally. Therefore, as an act of ordinary executive power, it seems that
the granting of the mandate may be delegated to others according to the
norms of law, arguably to lay persons as well as clerics (can. 137 §1). The
extent to which others besides the diocesan bishop and the conference of
bishops may be competent to grant the mandate of canon 812 will depend on
the extent to which the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops chooses
to delegate such responsibility19.
Conclusively, the Apostolic See, the episcopal conference and the
ordinaries mentioned in can. 134 §1 are recognizable as active subjects to
confer the mandatum, but it must be affirmed that, normally, the said
mandatum, is to be conferred by the diocesan bishop, personally or by proxy.

Conclusion
The task to teach the theological disciplines is restricted to the necessity
of the mandate in can. 812. Beyond the requirements of scientific and
pedagogical qualifications, those who teach or intend to teach theological
subjects, both in the universities and in the other institutes of higher studies
need a mandate of the competent ecclesiastical authority in writing before
they could exercise that task. The canon restricts the right to free exercise of
those who teach theological disciplines and as such should be subjected to a
strict interpretation based on the recommendation of can. 18.

18
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 970; A.
STABELLINI, Il mandatum del Can. 812, (cf. nt. 1), 180-183.
19
Cf. S.A. EUART, «Title III. Catholic Education (cc. 793-821)», (cf. nt. 2), 970.