Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T08:06:36.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensus Fidelium and Canon Law: Sense and Sensitivity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Helen Costigane SHCJ
Helen Costigane SHCJ*
Affiliation:
Heythrop College, University of London, Kensington Square, London, W8 5HN
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Canon law has had a negative press for many years and is often seen as insensitive, unnecessary or static. This article looks at the origins and sources of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, what it covers, and who is expected to hear it. It considers to what extent canon law finds a resonance in the minds and hearts of the People of God, ways in which the echo is heard or not, and the response of the supreme legislator to this. The idea of ‘law in theory’ and ‘law in action’ is explored in relation to a particularly neuralgic issue today, that of governance, and then three issues are considered where there continue to be particular problems of reception.

Keywords

Canon lawSensus fideliumDeathFinanceMarriage
Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 98 , Issue 1074 , March 2017 , pp. 157 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Code governs the Latin Church only; the Eastern Catholic Churches are governed by a separate Code promulgated in 1990.

2 The official language of the Code is Latin; this translation is from the Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd edition, eds. E. Caparros, H. Aube, et al, Wilson & Lafleur, Montreal, 2004, p. 7. Future references are abbreviated to CCLA, with page number.

3 Orsy, L., ‘Theology and Canon Law’ in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. Beal, J. et al, Paulist Press, 2000, pp. 1–9Google Scholar.

4 Morrissey, F., ‘Introduction’ to A Handbook on Canons 573‐746, eds. Hite, J., Holland, S., Ward, D., Collegeville Minn, Liturgical Press, 1985, p. 13Google Scholar

5 Peters, E. N., The 1917 Pio‐Benedictine Code of Canon Law, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2001, p. 23Google Scholar.

6 Orsy, L., Theology and Canon Law: New Horizons for Legislation and Interpretation (Collegeville Minn, Liturgical Press, 1992), pp. 85–86Google Scholar.

7 Ibid, p. 41.

8 Coriden, James, ‘Lay Persons and the Power of Governance’, The Jurist, 59, 1999, pp.343–4Google Scholar.

9 Sullivan, Francis A., ‘St Cyprian on the Role of the Laity in Decision Making in the Early Church’, in Common Calling, ed. Pope, S. J., (Washington, 2004), pp 39–49Google Scholar.

10 See M. Woods, ‘Catholic Church in Germany hit by mass withdrawals’, Christian Today, 20 July 2015, http://www.christiantoday.com/0 (accessed 3 September 2016).

11 This decree was approved by the Congregation for Bishops. See J. Luxmoore, ‘German bishops defend exclusion of Catholics who stop paying tax’, Catholic Herald, 26 September 2012, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk (accessed 3 September 2016).

12 M. St Leger, ‘German court upholds tax challenge’, National Catholic Reporter, 28 August 2009, http://www.ncronline/ (accessed 2 September 2016).

13 M. St Leger, ‘Church wins appeal in German court’, National Catholic Reporter, 4 May 2010, http://www.ncronline/ (accessed 2 September 2016).

14 See the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (14 September 1994); John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Council for the Family (24 January 1997); Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who Are Divorce and Remarried (24 June 2000); Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, 2007.

15 See Provost, J. H., ‘Intolerable Marriage Situations: A Second Decade’, The Jurist, 50, 1990, pp. 573–612 (587)Google Scholar.

16 Provost, p. 588, note 54.

17 Buckley, T., What Binds Marriage?: Roman Catholic Theology in Practice (Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1997), p. 110Google Scholar.

18 ‘Epikeia’ can be defined as ‘a reasonable judgement to act against the law's letter’ (see Grisez, G., The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol 2, Quincy IL, Franciscan Herald Press, 1983, p. 282Google Scholar), and applied when a strict interpretation or application of the law makes it unreasonable and failing to serve the good. (See Gula, R., Reason Informed by Faith, New York, Paulist Press, 1989, p. 256Google Scholar).

19 See R. G. Carey, ‘The Good Faith Solution’, The Jurist, 29, 1969, pp. 428‐438; May, W. E., ‘Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage’, The Jurist, 37, 1977, pp. 266–286Google Scholar.

20 Häring, B., No Way Out? Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1989Google Scholar.

21 The English translation of this document can be found in Origins, 10 March 1994, vol 23, pp. 670‐676.

22 CDF, Epistula ad Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos de Receptione communionis Eucharisticae a Fidelibus qui post divortium novas inierunt nuptias, 1994. An English version appears in Origins, 24/20, 27 October 1994, pp. 337‐341.

23 See T. Davey, ‘The Internal Forum’, The Tablet, 27 July 1991, pp. 905‐906.

24 See G. Grisez, J. Finnis and W. W. May, ‘Indissolubility, Divorce and Holy Communion: An Open Letter to Archbishop Saier, Bishop Lehmann and Bishop Kasper’, New Blackfriars, 1994, pp. 321‐330.