L’individuazione del superiore competente in ordine all’attuazione del can. 698 CIC/83

• Authors: PRZEMYSŁAW MICHOWICZ

Title variants

EN

Identification of the competent superior as an effect of implementation of the can. 698 CIC/83

PL

L’individuazione del superiore competente in ordine all’attuazione del can. 698 CIC/83

• Languages of publication: IT

Abstracts

PL

Głównym zamierzeniem niniejszego elaboratu było poszukiwanie odpowiedzi na pytanie o doktrynalne i praktyczne zastosowanie prawa zakonnika (ius cum supremo Mderatore comunicandi), względem którego właściwy przełożony rozpoczął postępowanie wydające. W celu właściwego określenia prawnego charakteru postępowania, autor odwołał się do narzędzi procesowych jak apelacja czy przejęcie przez władzę wyższą kompetencji instancji niższej (avocare), jak również przywołał normę ogólną wyrażoną przez kan. 139 KPK/1983. Przytoczone rozwiązania, w świetle rozważanej ustawy nie przyniosły jednak wystarczającej i pełnej odpowiedzi na postawiony problem. W zakończeniu autor proponuje, by najwyższy przełożony określił dekretem brak kompetencji przełożonego wyższego in loco, ustanawiając – jeśli to konieczne – inny podmiot do uzupełnienia dochodzenia. 

EN

The paper proposes the constructive reflection on the possible procedural configuration inherent in the proceedings of dismissal, in particular consideration of the hypothesis exposed in the can. 698. The Legislator assures to the accused religious the right to communicate and to offer his proper defenses directly to the supreme Moderator of the Institute. The Author tries to indicate the competent religious Authorities in order to receive the legal claim from the religious, accused for having committed crimes or illegal acts specified in the can. 695 and can. 696. Using the legal instruments like appeal and call to the proper jurisdiction – foreseen in the Code of canon law - helped to verify whether and how the exercise of the right to communicate with the supreme Moderator may be equivalent to the mentioned procedural instruments. Unfortunately, the conclusions we reached do not allow assigning any nomen iuris to the hypothesis in which the demand submitted by the accused religious could be accept by the highest Authority of his proper Institute. Eventually, the Author proposed the possible solution of the specified doctrinal problem. It is likely that the supreme Moderator, having determined his exclusive competence in order to lead the entire case and having communicated it to the Superior in loco, could have a burden to supplement the evidences and finalize the cause. It was also considered inopportune or inadvisable to accept the demand forwarded by the religious simultaneously with the notification of the arguments against him. It can’t be excluded another hypothesis according to which the same supreme Moderator will end the dispute using the extra canonical solutions.

Keywords

IT

diritto di difesa; dimissione dall'Istituto; competenza; Superiore religioso; appello; diritto di difesa; dimissione dall'Istituto; competenza; Superiore religioso; appello

PL

diritto di difesa; dimissione dall'Istituto; competenza; Superiore religioso; appello

EN

right to defense; dismissal; competence; appeal; call to proper jurisdiction; religious Superior

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
• Journal: Prawo Kanoniczne
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 59
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 23-39

Dates

published

2017-01-21

Contributors

author

PRZEMYSŁAW MICHOWICZ

References

• ARRIETA J.I., El Pueblo de Dios, in AA. VV., Manual de derecho canónico, Pamplona 1988.
• ARROBA CONDE M.J., Diritto processuale canonico, Roma 2006.
• ARROBA CONDE M.J., Prova e difesa nel processo di nullità del matrimonio canonico, Lugano 2008.
• BEGUS C., Adnotationes in Decreta, in Apollinaris LXXXIV/2 (2011).
• BOREK D., La dimissione dei religiosi a norma del can. 694 del Codex del 1983: è una pena espiatoria latae sententiae?, in Commentarium pro Religiosis 81 (2000).
• DANEELS F., 'Avocación', in J. Otaduy – A. Viana – J. Sedano (ed.), Diccionario General de Derecho Canónico, vol. I, Navarra 2012.
• EARL B., Diffrent models of Authority in dimissal from Religious life, in Angelicum 85 (2008).
• GARCÍA MARTÍN J., Le norme generali del Codex iuris canonici, Roma 2006.
• GHERRI P., Corresponsabilità e diritto: il diritto amministratvio, in P. Gherri (ed.), Responsabilità ecclesiale, corresponsablità e rappresentanza, Città del Vaticano 2010.
• MCDONOUGH E., Separation of members from the Institute. Canons 684-709, in AA.VV., A handbook on canons 573-764, Minnesota 1985.
• MICHOWICZ P., La dimissione facoltativa dall’Istituto religioso secondo il Codice di diritto canonico del 1983. Le problematiche nell’applicazione della procedura, Theses ad Doctoratum in Utroque Iure, Romæ 2013.
• MICHOWICZ P., È possibile risolvere la questione dell’incardinazione anomala di cui al can. 701 del CIC/8?, in Annales Canonici 10 (2014).
• MIRAS J. – CANOSA J. – BAURA E., Compendio di diritto amministrativo canonico, Roma 2007.
• MONETA P., 'Apelación judicial', in J. Otaduy – A. Viana – J. Sedano (ed.), Diccionario General de Derecho Canónico, vol. I, Navarra 2012.
• MORRISEY F.G., Comento sub can. 698, in Comentario exegético al Código de Derecho Canónico, vol. II/2, A. Maroza-J. Miras-R. Rodriguez-Ocaña (ed.), Pamplona 1997.
• ORTIZ M.A., I ricorsi gerarchici, in Giudizi nella Chiesa. Processi e procedure speciali, Gruppo Italiano Docenti di diritto canonico (ed.), Milano 1999.
• Pap. l. 80 D. de R. J. 50, 17, in L. DE-MAURI (ed.), Regulae juris, ed. XI, Milano 1936, ristampa facsimile, Milano 2010.
• PUNNOLIL J., The right of defence of the accused in the process of dimissal of a religious in CCEO, Excerpta ex Dissertatione Doctoratum, Romæ 2007.
• RINCÓN-PÉREZ T., La vida consagrada en la Iglesia latina, Pamplona 2001, p. 270;
• SKORUPA A., Przyczyny i procedura wydalenia duchownych z instytutu zakonnego, in Prawo Kanoniczne 54/3-4 (2011).
• SUPREMUM SIGNATURÆ APOSTOLICÆ TRIBUNAL, coram [non datur], decretum diei 27 Novembris 1982, Prot. N° 13954/82 CA, in Monitor Ecclesiasticus 108 (1983).
• SUPREMUM SIGNATURÆ APOSTOLICÆ TRIBUNAL, coram PALAZZINI, decisio diei 8 Novembris 1975, Prot. N° 4937/73 CA, in Commentarium pro Religiosis 57 (1976).
• SUPREMUM SIGNATURÆ APOSTOLICÆ TRIBUNAL, coram SABATTANI, decretum diei 26 Aprilis 1986, Prot. N° 17083/85 CA, in Monitor ecclesiasticus, 61 (1986).
• SUPREMUM SIGNATURÆ APOSTOLICÆ TRIBUNAL coram SABATTANI, decisio diei 20 Ianuarii 1986, Prot. N° [non datur], in Monitor ecclesiasticus 61 (1986).
• SUPREMUM SIGNATURÆ APOSTOLICÆ TRIBUNAL, coram SABATTANI, decisio diei 23 Ianuarii 1988, Prot. N° 15721/83 CA, in Daniel W. L. (ed.), Ministerium iustitiae: Jurisprudence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Montréal 2011.
• SUPREMUM SIGNATURÆ APOSTOLICÆ TRIBUNAL, coram STAFFA, diecisio diei 24 Novembris 1973, Prot. N° [non datur], in Apollinaris LXVII (1974).

Identifiers

DOI

10.21697/pk.2016.59.2.02