Canon Law

Notes, Commentary, Discussion, Papers & Bibliography from (formerly:canonlaw.wikispot.org)

User Tools

Site Tools


book2

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
book2 [2017/07/12 04:50]
amycsj [Part I: Christ's Faithful]
book2 [2017/07/12 04:52] (current)
amycsj [Part I: Christ's Faithful]
Line 25: Line 25:
     * **Second, theological position** is advanced by Munich U. Hinder, Correcco. They are against Beyer, they want to start from the nature of the church and build on this. These are church obligations and church rights; start from an ecclesiological model. Rights based on word, sacraments and apostolic succession. Each has active and passive rights. You end up with different rights than Beyer, these are not human rights, but christian rights.     * **Second, theological position** is advanced by Munich U. Hinder, Correcco. They are against Beyer, they want to start from the nature of the church and build on this. These are church obligations and church rights; start from an ecclesiological model. Rights based on word, sacraments and apostolic succession. Each has active and passive rights. You end up with different rights than Beyer, these are not human rights, but christian rights.
     * **Third, legal/​theological approach** developed by Johannes Neumann. Legal theory with theological correction, later left the priesthood. "Human rights also in the church."​ Takes fundamental rights, but then puts each through the screen of theological deepening. Freedom of expression, this is accompanied with respect. Freedom of scientific research, but with accommodation for the hierarchs.     * **Third, legal/​theological approach** developed by Johannes Neumann. Legal theory with theological correction, later left the priesthood. "Human rights also in the church."​ Takes fundamental rights, but then puts each through the screen of theological deepening. Freedom of expression, this is accompanied with respect. Freedom of scientific research, but with accommodation for the hierarchs.
-    * **Fourth, Anthropological method** was proposed by Greimacher and Walf. The discussion gives the impression the Church can decide, instead, they are embedded in the nature of the person. People cannot abandon them at the church door, and the church can't deny them for the same reason. It questions the legitimacy of the question. **Code** did not choose among these - there is a mix of theories, you can invoke various theories that lead to one or another result. Legal theory is found in 208 equality, 215 association,​ 220, privacy, 221.3 legality, 221.1 due process. Theological theory is found in 210 holy life, 211 proclaim the gospel, 213 spiritual assistance. Legal/​Theological is found in 218 academic freedom with submission to magisterium. Castillo-Lara says the rights listed are merely a sampling, but there are more - like the anthropologists. Because of the variety of underlying legal theories, sometimes it is not clear how theological or legal a norm should be interpreted and applied. E.g. Canon 213 with the right to assistance by Pastors, especially word and sacrament. Soft right, but also duty to have enough pastors to provide the sacraments, don't hinder those who would like to minister. E.g. celibacy not in East, in west only since 12th century, lateran council, also categorical prohibition of ordination, e.g. of women. +    * **Fourth, Anthropological method** was proposed by Greimacher and Walf. The discussion gives the impression the Church can decide, instead, they are embedded in the nature of the person. People cannot abandon them at the church door, and the church can't deny them for the same reason. It questions the legitimacy of the question. 
-  * Shouldn'​t this be in an institutional document - the constitution,​ the human rights conventions. There was a strong move for lex ecclesiae fundamentalis ​ that would have overarched the Latin and Eastern Codes. Eastern Code drafter Zuzek was advocating this even in the late 80's and early 90's. It would have strengthened the  CCEO. It was opposed from the left and the right. Only the intelligent favored it and they are always a small minority. Conservatives opposed it because it could be a start of all sort of further rights. It could also be a problem for ecumenical thinking. Progressives opposed it because they wanted to base the constitution of the church on the Gospel - but that is not a legal document. Later progressives thought that they had missed an important opportunity. Peter Erdo - Budapest Cardinal said that it is problematic to place natural right norms on a higher level than divine law. E.g. No crime, no punishment. The hierarchy of the hierarchy would be lower than the fundamental rights. Hervada and Lombardia were the best promoters of the Lex Ecclesia Fundamentalis - since it was an important part of a true legal system.+    * **Code** did not choose among these - there is a mix of theories, you can invoke various theories that lead to one or another result. Legal theory is found in 208 equality, 215 association,​ 220, privacy, 221.3 legality, 221.1 due process. Theological theory is found in 210 holy life, 211 proclaim the gospel, 213 spiritual assistance. Legal/​Theological is found in 218 academic freedom with submission to magisterium. Castillo-Lara says the rights listed are merely a sampling, but there are more - like the anthropologists. Because of the variety of underlying legal theories, sometimes it is not clear how theological or legal a norm should be interpreted and applied. E.g. Canon 213 with the right to assistance by Pastors, especially word and sacrament. Soft right, but also duty to have enough pastors to provide the sacraments, don't hinder those who would like to minister. E.g. celibacy not in East, in west only since 12th century, lateran council, also categorical prohibition of ordination, e.g. of women. 
 +  * Shouldn'​t this be in an institutional document - the constitution,​ the human rights conventions. There was a strong move for lex ecclesiae fundamentalis ​ that would have overarched the Latin and Eastern Codes. Eastern Code drafter Zuzek was advocating this even in the late 80's and early 90's. It would have strengthened the  CCEO. It was opposed from the left and the right. Conservatives opposed it because it could be a start of all sort of further rights. It could also be a problem for ecumenical thinking. Progressives opposed it because they wanted to base the constitution of the church on the Gospel - but that is not a legal document. Later progressives thought that they had missed an important opportunity. Peter Erdo - Budapest Cardinal said that it is problematic to place natural right norms on a higher level than divine law. E.g. No crime, no punishment. The rights of the hierarchy of the hierarchy would be lower than the fundamental rights. Hervada and Lombardia were the best promoters of the Lex Ecclesia Fundamentalis - since it was an important part of a true legal system.
   * Where does this leave the fundamental rights of all the Christian faithful? Is it possible that these fundamental rights that are spread through the code have a superiority to other canons. At least there is the tacit foundation of the rights of all, then the laity and clerics as sub groupings. But are the fundamental rights of all above other norms of the code or local norms.   * Where does this leave the fundamental rights of all the Christian faithful? Is it possible that these fundamental rights that are spread through the code have a superiority to other canons. At least there is the tacit foundation of the rights of all, then the laity and clerics as sub groupings. But are the fundamental rights of all above other norms of the code or local norms.
   * What text says is more important that the will of the legislator. Look first to the text, then to context, then to will of legislator. You can opt for an interpretation of norms that respects the fundamental rights. But //Lex specialis derogat generali.// General norm is equality, unless legislative inequality.   * What text says is more important that the will of the legislator. Look first to the text, then to context, then to will of legislator. You can opt for an interpretation of norms that respects the fundamental rights. But //Lex specialis derogat generali.// General norm is equality, unless legislative inequality.
book2.txt · Last modified: 2017/07/12 04:52 by amycsj