AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATIONS ON THE 1983 CODE Lawrence G, Wrenn Canon Law Society of America Washington, DC 20064 Copyright 1993 by Canon Law Society of America rights reserved ee DEMig ISBN0.943616-61-1 om SAN: 237-6296 fe a ao Vy ( A wm sy \ 4 j oe saawyxa ‘a SNOLLON AMVYNIWTTAUd “V SINALNOO JO F1GVL aGcebff Extraordinary Mi Holy Communion to Exercise Their Office When Ordinary Ministers Are Present and Unimpeded . . 44 17, Tlie Right of Aggrieved Faith Recourse Against a Decree of Their Bishop oe 46 18, ‘Those Who Procure an Abortion, either by Ejecting an immature Fetus or by Killing a Fetus, are Excommuni 19. Religious Judges on the Roman Rota Are (Ovm Religious Ordinaries or Their Obli 20. The Impossibility of an Auxiliary Bishop Being President or Pro-President of a Conference of aes or of a Regional Gathering of Bishops . 52 21. The Right of the Diocesan Btop to Appoint the President of a Chapter of Canons .. 55 2. The Inability of the Dioctzan Bis o Tax the External School of Religious Inst 2 iency of on the Third Ballot of an mn in accord with Canon 119, 1°. a) 24, ty of Bishops Emerii Being Elected by ‘Their Conference as Members of the Synod of Bishops .....-.. 62 D. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ... 64 49208 AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATIONS ‘ON THE 1983 CODE" ‘A. SOME PRELIMINARY NOTIONS 41. The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law (the “Code Commission”) was r II on January 2, 1984 and given the exclusive right to render authentic interpretation of the canons of the Code of Canon Law and of other universal laws of the Latin Church.’ On June 28, 1988, Pope John P. Canons of the Easter Churches. 2. The interpretation of law may be defined as a declaration or an explanation of the true sense already contained, at least obscurely, in a law. 3. A couple of points. may be made regarding this definition. Perhaps the more obvious of the two is that an interpretation is not a reworking or i order to impose upon the law a sense into something else; rather meaning when, for one reason oF an to the Canon Law Society of Great Bri ‘Albans, Hertfordshire. competence of the Law Counc see textbus interpretandis,” Periadica 8 (1989) 50352.2891 wourg, PL BOURD, 28 971 wourD, 29 24 fo £1 wong Wp wowersadiryy 1999p, plow 24) Jo a¥e9n 29910 VE “ino /uoyssturuos 247 Jo 2ouayoduica {eH} St | “Puom aup Jo 9su9s s9d¢ orowoydx9 we pare $f *039) ado 30 2df1 prooes 24, skeaye som rey ‘a1oyozoy) ‘ape st uoryeyouda: 70 Aue 0Kou sem oxy} YorYMA InOgE AE] E SOILED mn wepop & :anesado suyeuios ajdouyd syyoxou “woos yyfien 3 Se ajdims se sKeaye you st woneyasdsoqH jurexa asoq) wor} s29]9 94 TH 1! YNoy) UE woneresdsaqur jo adAa yea Jo sojdurexg ,-w40) yeqp yo asuos neyoadson z ‘ne pa ot 0c eu) ovens 12 operaudizyy| umuvanr}s}9eg und] 's9pU2E SRUOPTT, "5 (aD sayestoy) 981g rT wouDg ‘eus (G61) Te SHY, Ze A (6t6t “TaBIAH ‘a 207 19) m7 Hou fo 2p20 Hay 28 wo KionoxnweD ¥ ‘sunsRBnY Sa}, eye 1212p 10 seo ayPMI oF Ayduns sep e Jo asodind ayy, “shes 91 ouLD -2aput Smueaw ay, “Injgnop “adnralgo neysi89) pue 2sodind oy; ‘soBessed e YBnoU pred 40, Kpuareyjns qnosyy 1 ayBnowp rou acy Aoyp asneaaq sdeysod Surusow xp imoge 3qnop aanoafqns ‘mos 0 jouw [EnpLApUy -jmAgnop Ajasnoalgo you yseay ve ‘EIA ap jo Sumeaw 9x7 oy apous joxdsayu aypovaap w paye st 2dAi st) ou, Jo sod) yuasayyp om rnoge Bury 9q weo woneyouds0quy ue Ieyy SKes UK s{ uoneyosds9)u1 Jo uoryayap ayy Surpsedox opew 9q 01 ‘uoryeuejdxo ue 10 woue> 2yp Jo osu9s on om Y>IeD Yom pIp rey We Sem] "wIA} oWp Jo suds sadoudua 94) ut uoneroadsoqm 5 ur HOW Spam Fst F9HN pu) YSU NOX 31 4Q “uoruEdO nf seat ‘spuom 2940 UI ‘uormdo s,auRsMBNY “psOM yeHA JO suas sedoud ayy uy uonereadsoqa ae you sem}! ‘2u0;o20%9 uORMUTOP kq “Et Due me] aup Jo asuos ons) om aumideo 100 pip uoruido Aresuo> s.ounsnsny em Papnjouos 9q wsnws yy ‘s40jes2q1 oadsOsIeS UW] “AK] 2M UT PoUTEIUOD 2su9s anny amp porepap yor woIssHUWE aped ay) Aq uoNeesd:o}Ut Ine UE SEA SILL, DHOHPED-uOU S| Woy JO 2HO fquo SUaTed Jo WI0q ‘250q) Sapnpour ,sorfomeD-uow Jo wi0q,, aseayd om) TeM Pos UorssIuWO-> POD ay so] S4aK UR aWOS ‘SsojompaNoN BAN} OM} UT ‘Ye OY ‘SER “wows o¥ uy punoy se ‘ua aq) SSHOMIED-OU ONY MeDMI OF ,soqomNED-UOU Jo wiog,, osesyd rem ,paraudson 0 ‘SuNsNERY seq WeoqoUTy-ssyng 1033 om) “6I6T OF paysHgNd AxeyuotmWD e UY “aBeuseU Jo ‘104 a4 0} punog you oz0M AS24094 wy KouEsUY oss pastes o19M OWA PUR ({I2Ur soya 40) Parepsop woaq z9}e] sey ey YEA puoode ut Dey UE Nou ax ‘9s0%) SauNUaYo pur ‘ou oy) [Te Ae] BuNosdzoqUN ase ‘pliOMmthat would seem warranted by a literal reading of the canon."® This suggest that besides the two types of interpretation already menti (declarative and explanatory) there are two other types as well (restrictive and extensive). Indeed most commentators on both the 1917 ani have taken precisely that position and the wording of the 17, $2in the 1917 Code and c. 16, 2 in the 1983 Code) seems to corroborate their view." My own sense, however, is that, just as there are b: i ject objectively doubtful tion (declarative and explana- interpretation are not, therefore, types but This matter of types and subtypes requires further explanat type of interpretation is a declarative interpretation. A declarat tion can extend or restrict the obvious meaning of a can 40, it should be called not an extensive or restrict jon there is no real extension or restriction but only an apparent ‘one, because the practical limits of the law were, in fact, objectively certain all declarative interpretation that is quasi-extensive or roactive). ‘The second type of interpretation ‘Alter the ruting in other wor ‘rom the form of marriage than might previ ‘The present canon 16,82, for example 6. Schematically, the various types and subtypes of interpretation may be iagrammed as follows: Declarative Proper Tnterpretation ‘Explanatory extensive c 4 ‘Improper Ultra-ExplanatoryB6r 3 aD ‘ep (66) U1 SHY ‘sup (16D 11 Sr% weg) 240ur sem "P98 OyIeD-uoM wom ang syoYTeD w22q 20u0 pry jed-tiow © 0} paroype pey oYM spoqtsoA9 wu 0} pasaype pue (sun202fop) ome 12 ow 2801 fIwo 3g 9s e224 00} peo 9q yOu pynoys aseayd 10S WORSSTUNMOD 2M 6T6T ‘DI 3240190 UO “mel mp Jo sonay amp Jo Buspeos ANS w Aa poworpay 2800n puosog afeyzem Jo wie} 2p wo3y pasnax9 ome oy 9{d0od jo soquIME am puoxxs 01 swoaddo 30 swusor wo " aquosap 01 (e124 rmod ajoyr amp st Awaz sip pu) ‘yea 5 BtEIXe 10u sem ssuodsax Gc6T 34p We) “Tox2Moy ‘ons st syeuIOS OM Jo osuodsox ZT BMP 104 ‘OUIN aM Te yEqE UO¥EI Atparqnopun zm oym sisiuoues Surpuersino kueus amp “oso}o20K) ‘ends jomneptou som wow Jo uo fo swuoze Jo w10q 049 1 94 PINOHS (4 pozpop Apeosje pey worsstmMO yp “GT6T Se Aya se Posnox2 2q plnow syuored 2yoqTe-UoU Om Pry OYA 980m) . JO wu10y 249 01 pay aq plow ywosed ayOMPeD-uoU BuO savy OY asOm) yA vuosear yuosedde ou sj 2104p snug, “syuored 210m Goma fy ome sem ‘usedseg ost jorpe-wou st wow Jo 2u0 Ajuo squared Jo W309 aso oxpsoooe ‘worsioop 6z6t 2Mp pulyag Buluoseas ot “sosuodsay s,uorssqmuso) amp Jo asujap “S201 ¥ srt @e6k ‘wR sMOARKOA sdk, 00 smmzoay ‘wuedseg “par snsing 295, “Leet 30 200 sounewos ‘paysssepp aq 0} st uoneroudsonuy yemy moy 200 jos wonepasds oq) soyyFoU “Yeapp S| FunpKzen9 you yyy swap st H “asoyoay peomY yPH0998 otp OF angefou oyp ur fed assy omp 07 fy LE6I. ST AINE Wo papuodsas worssiuswO> oy, “,{2A]SUDIKS 10 aanIE|DOp 81 626t ‘02 Aimy uo van ‘Z§ ‘6601 UoUED Jo UoNeIesdsoNU! am J9q1OUM,, POYSE sem UOWsyIOD om aKaMOy ‘OW sxvOX yeIOAIg “(AB ‘wx0} 24p1 wo4y pasnoxo 2q prnom oy ajdood yo roquinu 2p popu wonPrasdzoqut axysuayeo uv Ayyporoads axon 20 Mt ‘sr0yasaqp sem asuodsoa 6z6T oMp TEM pur “Iqnop aan ‘mp rey seodde pinom 1 ido osoddo om pray ‘osuodsos 6261 om 01 40124 ‘pey apo L161 m1 uo SuoYeIuoWUED amp Jo ISOM 28 ‘6601 uous ut ,sorompe-y-40U 30 u qu 210 6261 HF eH V s9pun) porow 999 Kpeaste sey “aAIeUORD-LONE “y ‘yp ur somdde ** somo prom axp 231104, ‘Baywoyo} ayy poyse sem uorsstunt0: otf Ap2oyg “18e} 01 punog aiam autu-Cigyy pure oui (samuo) ,2somn e,, eM pres z§ ‘yozt NoUED, iwoamyoq nmmpsog aduyg “| “‘woyssruru05 apo 24) Kq word aq Aney reHD sosuodsas Jo aBues TRY 24) aqus953p Afprenbope you pynow Koyp touyesy aq) aypuey you pInom sazoBove soma yey arensvowsp ys 2p0> LEE 2 Hos] Uy eax 2 yn fy ‘aroysso00u 91s punoydyrmu mens woW Showrey siq ut wopsiK Yau ‘Te soe‘ ‘foug Jo uew ay prnom 1eYM “parvora Ai S| zoneUE astu9 op ToMOYA szOPUOM aUO YEN ‘poopul ‘Ku: (PIAL “wonerosdaoqa Jo sadfagns wyfta axe asoy) euLayDSexplanatory? The answer, it seems, is that there was no really objective doubt here since it can be assumed that a reasonable legislator would certainly not have wanted to penalize a person who grew up as a noa-Catholic (and therefore “had adhered to a non-Catholic sect”) but then became a Catholic and wanted to enter a religious community. All along, in other words, the true sense of the law referred only to those who were raised as Catholics, then “fell away” and finally returned. Vermeersch-Creusen aptly ref ‘Commission's response as a “declaration.” 4. Simple Explanatory. Canon 1098 had said that couple could contract marriage before two witnesses only, and without the presence of a a competent priest “could neither be had nor reached without grave nicnce” (si haberi vel adi’ nequeat sine graviincommodo). Did this mean that the couple could marry validly before two witnesses only if the priest was they do so even if the priest was just morally le to’perform the ceremony for some reason? On March 10, 1928 the Commission issued the following question and answer; Whether canon 1098 is to be understood as referring only to the physical absence of the Pastor or Ordinary of the place? Reply: In the affirmative.” AL frst blush the Commission's response seems fairly straightforward and does not seem to involve the sol doubt, so classifying the Fesponse as explanatory seems qu . Nevertheless the f that a few years later the Commission issued a second response on the sam question (a response which will be examined presently since it serves as the example for the next category, ie, extensive interpretation). This second response was so at odds with the first response that it seems proper to conclude, given the fact that the Commission itself apparently could not make up its mind on the subject, that there must-have been an objective doubt resent, 5. Extensive. On July 25, 1931 the Commission issued the following question and answer: Whether the “physical absence of the pastor or Ordinary,” mentioned in the reply of March 10, 1928, includes also a case where the pastor or Ordinary, although materially present in the place, is unable by reason of grave inconvenience to assist at the marriage asking and receiving MA, Vermectsch and J. Creusen, Epitome fur Canoniel (Rome: Desssin, 1932) |, 483, n. or. "aAs 20 (1928) 120; CLD 1s $42 the consent of the contr: ing parties. Reply: In the affirmati Given these two responses of 1928 and 1931, and assuming that the first is not dead wrong, the logical conclusions seem to b requiring physical absence was a simple explanato: the second response, extending the meaning of ph is entirely possible, of course, that the first response, that of 1928, was, final Cicognani suggested when he said ‘apparently revises” the first." But classifying the first response as simple explanatory and the second as extensi first of all, to reflect more faithfully the actual wording of the twe responses, and secondly to be the position, at least by extrapolation, of most of the au- thors.” 6. Restrictive, Canon 423 n is to be composed of “pri ny of that sort would be beyond the ordinary competence of the Com: sus Werna and Petrus Gregorian University, 146) 697, n.73". The‘oengats> “LS-SHC (I) Looe ORL (ASI) 9L V5 9su9s s9peoaq ayy Suzoaey sHoNMsHOD ay JIE Atyeon}eAd,, Jo vormdo SIO, -poyeap seis wruoy prom amp Sutsn ‘uoueo ap eq) “9spotet Sim) uno soa a] SEEK JO OREAGa|AD aM MH SaIedpVed ays 10 a4 Se BOYO 8 nq atm puosds w snl ou UO}TALNNO, KOHL aA10994 01 Uostod posodsIp Ayodoud e 30 wis ay; pasose) ssoynsue> ayp ,ff8 Ajqwonead,, SsojaqUaASE ‘aonezez9qq1 aAfssaoxa jo sioBuep ajqyssod ayy Inoqe sioyynsuo>. am Suoure worssnosip pue usa9uo9 amos sex 210m) BnOKATE ‘SLT Ut POYEAp BaIoq seis WouPD syuA LOY “IEMT wunNesDe sauOHOrIUMUAUED oq} WOH] 109] St If syeqpng KOH SOW Op ponrsoos sey OYA wostod ¥,, TEM SKes C14 wou, je PUODES 249 0} aauDSou Ysaf ays 0} aatyounffy :asuodsoy 24 asuoyong 249 fo wonougaye0 oy w soradioniod ouo so woyfo so 40 ‘oun puoz2s 9 Guo kop auvs 24) ud 1 anode dow isuO¥ON KOHL ISON O41 osiou Kpoaszo soy OYM 2UO ‘216 WOUDD OF SupuoroD ‘owroUAL IANO LL eq sues amp wo aap, uO paruisag worunMMED KOH “1 “spas aoonossody my am wm pagsngnd 10% Koy {pm tr sapz0 oop wx paveas-aze Koy, “wom Asse) oF duane pure (ZamstTe ue uonsonb aqqnop urewuoo yaeo g pure ¢ sioquimu sous ‘fqyemipe x1s-KyuaAd) ‘9POD ERT OMI YO sasuodsoy snoy-KruoMy ISI OP MOU SUTUTEXD IT AdO9 €861 AHL NO TI9NN09/NOISSINWOD ‘SHL 40 SASNOSTY THE QNIAMISSVTO “O or ep po twevtoan one 295 IC 0010) PEF 25. 18 (61) XX seonDopmanHeDy, -woyssyunt03 ‘ay Aq pouyap 01] se me] oxp Jo asuas on oY UPI aAnoINSe2 10K Sem uoneiaudso.u! we yong -uonerosdioqm aaNDusos-esyN Ue UI BuIBE UD “Ez6T 98019 UE ONDINE ay oats ‘oxaM fay wowed to ss078) “wse] om Jo suas ann omp puokag sao rm ,wonerasdsayu,, we sonsst soA9u YouNo>/uoIs Stung omp veIp pauunsse sy yt ‘fexouad uy -s10y Aydde Apureys09 worssteaM0> ‘xp yo siamod am puokeq Suioq uoneysdioqm yons Aue ynoqe sxzeWOs Wuasqe AyooisKyd sem oud om areas 0} ojdno9 © pamoyfe 6OL woUrD Te “wey 24 Jo asuas ony 249 99 01 paseppap Ajesnuatpne w29q sey rey uoag ouRD 2xp 30 SurTEaM ‘xf pudtX® pinow 11 sous ‘donerosdza1U axssUDPKa-esyIN UE Iq KYIEEID PINON. Stmepsa}04g 5% pastes pue wi0g w99q pry oyN 2509) apnpout OF aseayd Jem) uon9 pinom yeip womdo ayp ‘Sonoupe ,AeMe Us ; ide omy painsos WH “Eq Apu pauonuow ‘Zp uowes uo Buys s.uorssiamo; ay was ss 2q aStur uonerardsony axysuoyxo-esyn ue Jo ojduweNo ue SscTOqIAAAN |of the word itenum surely constituted a solidly probable position, When, Wor of the narrower sense of the word, ems, solving an objective doubt. This interpretation of the Commission was, therefore, a truly RESTRICTIVE interpretation, and so was not retroactive. Prior to the ruling, people were free to receive the Eucharist as often as they participated at Mass; after the ruling they were permitted to receive only twice same day, 2 2, ‘The Nonneceasity of Using the Documentary Pracess for Simple Lack of Form Cases The Doubt: Whether, in onder to prove the state of freedom of those who, canonical form, attempted marriage before a civil official is necessarily required, or the pre-nuptial investigation dealt with in canons 1066-1067 suffices. ‘The Response: Negative to the first; affirmative to the second.” There are basically two types of lack of form cases: the simple and the ed. ‘The simple type is the one in which a Cathol tion from the form, marries before a ci ly and did not require ‘ype, however, required the full judicial Code allowed the documentary or informal process only for certain selected impediments. With the promulgation of Causas matrimoniales in 1971, however, the availability of the documentary process was extended, by Norm XI, to include cases based “on defect of canonical form.” Given the fact that the express. purpose of Pope Paul VI in promulgating those norms was to expedite the matrimonial process,” and not to slow it down or make it more cumber- some, it was widely assumed that Norm XI applied only to the more complicated type of lack of form case. If such a case, in other words,énet the usual requirements of a documentary procedure, after March 28, 1971, be handled by the informal rather than the formal judicial process. But the sense was, at least in the United States, that th type of lack of form case could continue to be handled by a simple a tive procedure. AAS 76 (1984) TA; Periodica 73 (198) 257-290, — ex defecu formae canonicae, ®2 — expedition fat ipse matrimonials processus. B12 (2961) AIK s>uouPoqMUUE SL Ppowed ‘ML (P86) 9L SY JPM se fPuNoD yey Jo 279219 soUUY 2) Jo JoqUIOMI e 2g 0} 25E—9 ATED -Hemome pynom ato ‘ypun6 ajoq amp Jo z2quroM & 29 0} paseaD uO jf UaK ‘qpunos ayy yo aparo souut we Ayjeas 24am BBaqI09 OM © se aoIyo ut weUIOS pom soquFaUr [f>uNC e -2q 0} paseo OY JOYNSUOD © saypoypa moge atos Jo 11ed ay uo Iqnop o4f 0} asus 2aUd ey) OVE} fedoULAd 2q) qnop ou sem pue ToISTyUED aIqesopIsHOD 0} pay FUMED resoMigsaxd 2 JO [aso sOUUT JO pury e se affo[[oD oy Jo GONeZZI}OeTeYD STIL .cdnos8 sajrews © quem passnasip sanaq axe req) suonsanb aveaqop AqyBiy autos axe axon asme2aq ‘Kypuones pue ‘poune> yesox‘qsoud ‘amp Jo sBunoow qwanboxy yonpuco oy ‘sascoo1p ase] up Ajpeoodsa resoxiqsoxd yp Jo suzquiow at Suowe woxy,, spsom ay) yey PopustUOIOE suoqes OM Jo OM) ‘uoIssIUNHOS 241 Jo UoISSOs AreUD|d TR6T s9q!IO am TY e810) NSu09 Jo BBaqoo ® ajnmnsuoo 0} juno jexaiqsasd amp Jo ssoquow oq) SuourE wosy doysig ‘uesoaoip oq payva|2s £]20x} 29 01 axe sysotad atHOs,, saveIs T§ ‘ZS HOUR: Bunyan] som 1§ Zos uous &q pounbos sequen turn a) voy dquo sist s0}pnsU0D sa\oUD node OF uoHDBYGO Wo op staojoysi8ay ayy fo puna ayy ,waquow pe,, pun 2aayo8an :2suodsoy oY stuny 220}du 0} 1ay30u0 nnoddo ssn doysiq unsao0rp ayy 201ffo swouf s95030 soynsu0s at ava af ayy Suump s9y2yyA 219MM >YUL “IT aanouunlfy :2suodsoy ou, ‘soymsuos sv 2oxffo uy surpuaas jrounoo pouortgsaud ays fo s2quiaue 9 2q 0} s2s029 oY suoynsuo> fo aBojoo ay1 fo soquow 0 ‘T§ ‘206 Wown2 oF Buspu0z00 ‘YUM IQnOG UL soynsuog y Jo yuaurave|doy pum AyNGHS aM, “¢ + ‘9% (6L61) 1X sPuoRoLIRUIE 96s (0u61) $9 oppoung «SopetuounNniyY seSne> "WH SSUOREOULY), OHOLTC opUE}C ‘ade? 10) 355, 20 AALLWUVIOAG ATANIS © 5 ‘su0}or01p “asuodsou oy, “so ou pue suour ou ‘sfes uorssqunmiog ax Jo astodsax amp yey Ajostooud St yoy “2s0 93 jo 322} 2yduns o1p 20 aunpooosd aanenstunmape a4) sm 49.2589] 18 ‘spsom sox ux me] 4, “ey 94 &q Papuan f260]9 asoup PuOKO4 soseo Jo sequin 24) propa Asesso00u jou Saop asuodsas oWp 29U}s 3A 1b 1 ON, “29 you Paaw a eM) Afxour Inq 2509 twIO} JO yoE] a}dumIS ide 09 104 ow ssao0d Kxewounoop amp ey) kes 304 S0Op asuodsox rounsasenb yous nsozsenb 40 axisuars9-1senb It J0 usanb yxou oq) nel “AzoyeuEyexo uw apod 241 Jo asuodsos ou new sim moge aqnop Au 32 apny sea x04 ‘aun 24 Aq eqn “ss0}asaKp F298 prnom I, amnpasoud annentorape ww Aq sone wH0) Jo oe] adults Fumpeey Jo 2tNeId 2 ‘iu9m ynorpyR you sea ssoTeWwoMGGD asap >a wnowry ,¢sse00ad perrpnf peousoyey aq) poambox mou nq ompaooad aanenstinempe we &q poypuey 24 19800] ou pnod ase uo) yo ype Jo odKs ofduns amp eM) ‘Suyfes sem EX WON TEM “9194 O10! 123 YOU paau a¥ TEIN SuoseDA 105 ‘uORIdO 2M) JO 240m ‘saAAMOY ‘s2/PHOWMIOW spsNE WO siO;E\UDWIOD oWIOgunderstood that the council and the each having its own distinct 4. A Conference of Bishops’ Need for Authorization in order to Issue a has been further understood that, while it makes good General Executory Decree rsbyteral council as the exclusive’ pool from whieh the ly selected (since the council represents in a special way The Doubt: Whether the expression “general decrees” in canon 455, $1 also ”), nevertheless, once chosen as a consultor, includes general executory decrees of the sort in canons 31-33. then becomes a member of an entirely distinct body and enjoys a office as a consultor that is quite independent of his term of office as a The Response: Affirmative.” ‘member of the pre Canon 455, §1 says that: “a conference of bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which either the common law prescribes it or a is only obliged to special mandate of the Apostolic See determines it, lure to do so would result in there being less in the college. Both of these responses are SIMPLE. ‘There has never been an objective doubt about this matter. Nor has there been an objective doubt about the fact that the bish replace a consultor when his than sic consult we response from the Code Commission a doubt existed as to thorization (either by law or mandate) was required only for decrees of for general executory decrees as well. A general may be defined as a common prescription issued by a competent legislator for a community capable of receiving a law, whercas a general executory decree isa decree that either determines more precisely the methods to be observed in applying the law, or urges the observance of a law. DECLARATIVE responses, Why The doubt comes from the fact that the Code never refers ive decrees as general legislative decrees. Rather it always yem simply “general decrees.” As a result, the term “general decree” becomes ambiguous. One is not sure whether it is a generic term and exceutory decrees, or whether itis a specific term that refers only to legislative decrees. When, therefore, canon 455, §1 said that a conference needed authorization ““4AS 77 (1985) 77; Periodic 74 (1985) 609-616. canon 538, §3 where a conference is expected to issue norms regarding ing fora retired pastor, or as in canon 1126 where a conference i 3 Way in which the promises in a mixed marriage are to be made, how tobe established in the external forum and how the non-Catholic party is 10 be of them, 81,25; 1277 and 1292 $1. Canon 495,81, islatva is used inthe Code of Canon Law only to modify Indes Verborum ae Locutionum Codi lurks Canonic, a . (Roma: Commentarium pro Reliioi, 1983) 236. aor 28 tos woury,, "R-L19 (SB6t) 9s ByPOHG TLL (SB) LL SY% yp “Ayjes#aq]09 pe oF pamomfe axe [ouNCD ‘oq pue souzedns orp 2124 "29g KOH] 2X Aq poxoudde u>9q ancy yoy ‘san mnanued Jo suonnynstos i sojdurexo s24I0 axe au9q]) Mg. “UND goods ‘Ue oxy snosgijay w Jo TessiUNsIP amp THA Op ‘2pop 241 ur siyp Jo aowe}su uo {quo s} o34J, “JUNO tHo}loo soyes Inq [UNOS a4 woul axndos Uosied & su0}98900 ‘Dey UH fase az2y) osMeI2q, ‘suraas 1 ‘pasod sem wonsanb aqf, {uoIssiuwo> apo aq 07 pasod uonsonb ‘yp Sem uoM Ayn ‘zeapp 08 st EJF Ng. "uoNsINb puosog pu s29!> st SNP ITV 1 soy 1emp pue *poq 24) Jo xoquiout © tou st oq douts ‘on e Ye—1q 0} waAD ‘Kpoq eM) UF B}0A e KofuD Jou Soop osumy doysiq 24, ‘posoord o1 doysiq aq) 20} s2pso wy uoneUaRE aq Jo sOAEy tur aoa ysttut dos yey) Jo sxoqurow Suyon op) JJey Wey) o10W Jem) suEOME Si, “S1oyMSUOD Jo aBoqoo oy) Jo WosUOD ayB “TS ‘Z6ZT NOUED YIM P1000 ‘sp2ou 24 Mp Op 0} J9ps0 uy -sdoysiq Jo ouax2;UED amp Aq poulLUDrep MUUCH pu mMUUTUE 24) Ua2MIOq sf anfeA asoyM Ays2do4d yaNY> soudns ayn £9 oe a4p yo Bupe|d ayp uayp pee daosd 2p Jo quasuoo oyp asa :paxyoaut sioe ayesedas ow) axe asa4p pur ‘souodns 249 pure dnosd oy :panjoaur soqynua oyezedas om way axe asaya ‘nosd ‘wos Jo quasuoD oy) paUteIgO seq 24S 10 94 JOYE AjuO Pe uIPrGD e aoe|d eeu sosodns © yyy sores ae] mp ‘240jo20%N ‘HORM “198104 10 TTY o} YsasUOD 30 sope on youues souodas © rem A] UF Poorssopun Ayex90—8 S11, ww24nO82N :2suodsoy au 2 2 pag 01 18001 @ ‘soo ayp says Simos fo Bu 241 soy souadns ap ‘1§ ‘Z2r woUDD ‘nim Biad20y 1 ‘10 0) z7p10 u1 suosiad Jo &poq P fo 10 jounoo ou fo 1wasuCD 240 anny ssmusovedns ays yous sambas ay ayy uodYM “oYROUM. “IQhed UL souadns y Jo smimig Sano, won au, “Ss ar "AISNALXA U0 pinom | ‘seas09p K1omn99x9 Osfe snf Jou opnyur pynom 1§ ‘¢¢p wowed ‘gsuodsax oMp 01 Hurpsoa9e ‘sous pue ‘agnop aansafgns Ajuo yum Suwop ox am ‘oxoJosa¥) ‘soUNG seansap fuomnoaxo jeioue ine anssr or paysua sorpsHa} amp ye payradxo 2q 0} 1 Jo Soou9soyuoD amon Sey SWOY GPIYM YER ssoULIEM rera098 amp wang (q pur ‘oa.sap yesoua® est o2s29p Ai0Moax9 [es9us8 'V (e suostas om s0} sump Avs | "yqnop aarofgo ue ommNsueD OF wa! NTS 10u fiqeqoad ose fowp ‘are swwoundse osom sv onssosdutt pur fiytom sy ‘soorpap aaneisiay e19u98 0) quo ‘suoyoz0y9 ‘soqdde pur ‘wonexdiowm pus v o1 Pofgns ‘gL wours oy Bixpsoase ‘st 1x ‘owsaptOD w Jo wed om) UO ,sIYBL JO 9sPDIOKD 2045 tp SHINS, 1 ‘Esp HOUND aoUr (9 pa muorpne erpads Aue poou s10}9101) You pynoys pue ‘sdoysiq Jo 2ouas2]UO9 v Jo dousIaduos feuorsed sodoad 24p tages 2q 0} wra0s pinom (Parjdde oq 03 st we Tey Yorg u s2oUENS amoup 30 shew ay) Aostoasd oxour soutuUsaTep 40 MMe] BUIOS Jo sOUTeALOSq0 ‘241 sam Adams qpuyst) d9x09p Loynoax9 esau w Bumnssy (q i7§ ‘coy uouRD Sump owes oq) ueour ysnu 1 s29x99p aaneystio] yes2u—3 0} Kuo SupIa}O1 S€ 6 UOUw WL PaqlDSep 40 pomMap st ,29199p [Bs9u08,, MID) oq) aDUIS (C uontsod soy} 20 suoseas Suwor[oy 24) posayjo ‘saaxoap aaneysiBop jexous8 JO aowenssi oy 10 Au uorIezuoINe popeat souarayuoy v TEN) woRNdO 21N JO 940K oY asoyp ‘uorssIIMMIED aper ayy wos} asuodsax ayp OF L011 “saassop aane[sio] 0} fuo s9Ja4 07 asuas ayods syy ur 20 soas9ap AxoIn9ox9 [Pur aaneysi#9] tfloq epnyour o1 asuas apoueH su ut pasn Suroq Sem ,,29:39p Tesous, aseayd amp saqporyn seojaun sem 11 “99s09p [e19U98 & aNsst O1 Japs0 UHappears to expand doubt as posed ions a specific case that is quite different fr of canon 699, §1 and other similar arrangements found in particular con: tions. The doubt posed to the Commission deals only with those cases ere the superior needs the consent of some group in order to act. And within that context, the principle remains crystal clear: the superior is not a member, certainly not a voting member of the group whose prior consent is needed ig order for the superior to act. ‘The response of the Commi is, therefore, a SIMPLE DECLARATIVE, 6. The Inability of a Diocesan Bishop to Dispense Outside the Danger of Death from Canonical Form in the Marriage of Two Catholics ‘The Doubt: Whether outside the case of urgent danger of death the diocesan bishop can dispense according to canon 87, §1 from the canonical forms for the ‘marriage of two Catholics. ‘The Response: Negative. Canon 1127, $2 all local ordinary to dispense from the form of marriage where one party is non-Catholic; canon 1079, §1 inary to dispense from the form of marriage even where lows the diocesan bishop, after the fact, to sanate a marriage which was invalid because of lack of form, None of these canons, however, allows the diocesan bishop to dispense two Catholics from the form before the fact and outside the danger of death, The question posed to the Commission was whether he could do that by reason of canon 87, §1, which reads as follows: “As often as he judges that a dispensa- tion will contribute to the spiritual good of the fa 1 diocesan bishop san dispense from both universal and particular disciplinary laws established ‘ory or for his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church jowever, from procedural oF penal laws or from those ion is especially reserved to the Apostolic See or to wee the form of marriage is not a procedural or penal law but a inary one, there is no problem with the bishop dispensing from it as far nature of, form of marriage reserved to the Apostolic Sec. ion’ response, the answer, it would seem, was that the form of marriage is not one of those laws. The Code of Canon Law, the form of marriage as a law that is reserved to the Apostolic Sce. The Code lists many other laws that are reserved, among them being mergers and unions of institutes of consecrated life, “AAS 77 (1985) 7H; Perfodioa 4 (15S) 624-628, Canon 2. a