|
To work for the proper implementation of canon law is to play an extraordinarily constructive role in continuing the redemptive mission of Christ. Pope John Paul II |
|
6 mar 2019 |
|
|
|
|
Research links
|
Related
Annotations of CLSA Advisory Opinions
|
|
Overview
This page undergoing development |
Annotations on CLSA Convention Proceedings
The Canon Law Society of America was founded in 1939 and has held an annual convention, usually in October, every year since. For the first thirty years, presentations made at the convention were published, if anywhere, in the pages of The Jurist. But beginning with the thirty-first annual meeting (1969), convention proceedings were published in monograph form. This greatly facilitates the ability of researchers to access the canonical and theological insights developed for and shared at CLSA conventions.
|
|
User notes |
Presented below, in chronological order, are the titles of presentations published in the CLSA Proceedings; discrepancies in titles between those listed in tables of contents and those posted over the articles themselves—of which there are many—are usually resolved in favor of titles as they appeared over the actual articles. Where three or more authors are indicated for a given piece, only the first (typically, a committee chair) is listed here. A few entries, although cast as convention presentations, were of purely internal interest to the CLSA, and are not annotated here; on the other hand, some materials presented as being of interest only to the CLSA are, I think, of wider scholarly value, and I included them herein.
The annotations following each entry are mine. While I have tried to summarize the content objectively, my own deficiencies as a canonist, my enthusiasm for many of the essays, and my disappointment with a few, will be apparent. |
|
Quick Links
|
31, 1969, Cleveland 33, 1971, Atlanta 34, 1972, Seattle 35, 1973, Washington 36, 1974, St. Paul 37, 1975, San Diego 39, 1977, Houston 40, 1978, St. Louis 42, 1980, Orlando 43, 1981, Chicago 44, 1982, Hartford 46, 1984, Milwaukee 48, 1986, Denver 49, 1987, Nashville 50, 1988, Baltimore 51, 1989, Seattle 52, 1990, Cleveland 53, 1991, San Antonio 54, 1992, Cambridge 55, 1993, Honolulu 56, 1994, Atlanta 57, 1995, Montréal 58, 1996, St. Louis 59, 1997, La Jolla 60, 1998, Orlando 61, 1999, Minneapolis 62, 2000, Arlington 63, 2001, Albuquerque 64, 2002, Cincinnati 65, 2003, Portland 66, 2004, Pittsburg 67, 2005, Tampa 68, 2006, Fort Worth 69, 2007, Costa Mesa 70, 2008, Philadelphia 71, 2009, Indianapolis 72, 2010, 73, 2011, 74, 2012, 75, 2013, 76, 2014, 77, 2015, 78, 2016, 79, 2017, 80, 2018, |
|
Annotations |
Thomas Gumbleton, “Due process in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 1-9. • Due process is not the most important issue facing the Church (race, poverty, and war are more important); needed reforms of procedures must take into account new awareness of “co-responsibility” (which in turn is rooted in personal dignity) in the Church; Pio-Benedictine removal process for pastors is not clear or effective as to pastor’s rights, same is true for suspension ex informata conscientia and for cases involving various student/teacher rights issues in Catholic schools; is supportive of CLSA proposals on due process.
Robert Kennedy, “Address on due process to National Conference of Catholic Bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 10-17. • Due process is about much more than courtroom techniques or judicial decision-making; it applies to legislative and administrative decision-making as well; anglo-american due process traces its roots to Christian culture, but due process arguments are at risk of being hijacked by agenda-driven groups in Church; leadership’s following of published norms on due process eliminates unnecessary suspicion about arbitrariness in Church life; due process stages should include conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication, and all are already envisioned in Pio-Benedictine Code; due process should be made expressly applicable to administrative recourse since that is the most problematic area; most problems can be defused with better awareness of good definitions and by clear delineations of authority; an excellent essay.
Robert Kennedy, et al., “Report of the ad hoc committee on due process to the Canon Law Society of America”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 18-51. • A very thoughtful, and to my mind overwhelming, argument that due process, properly understood, is supported in and supportable by sound ecclesiology and canon law; analysis is thin only in regard to “doctrinal due process issues” (my term); follows the three-step delineation of due process (conciliation, arbitration, adjudication) and makes several concrete suggestions for implementation (such outlines always appear more complicated on paper than they are in real life); necessary minor modifications notwithstanding, this is clearly the most sophisticated modern proposal on ecclesiastical due process ever set out, and reflects well on anglo-american genius for effective procedures.
Ralph Brown, “The development of local jurisprudence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 52-55. • Outlines the beginning of tribunal reporters in England, predicts little development in revised procedural law, and notes that 10-year delays in publishing Rotal cases hampers development of local jurisprudence in accord with it; suggests several cultural limitations at work in the Rota but uses a problematic example (impotence) to illustrate that capacity for marriage can be culturally dependent; describes “moral certainty” as “preponderance of the evidence”, and calls for greater openness to an “anglo-saxon canonical jurisprudence”; a short but thoughtful piece.
Ladislaus Örsy, “Intolerable marriage situations: conflict between external and internal forum”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 56-68. • Describes the methodology followed in getting canonical (esp. Huizing) and theological (esp. Kosnik, Haring, Farley & Reich) opinions together on forum -conflict situations; recognizes that some conflict is inevitable and says that burden is on law/authority to minimize conflicts; suggests taking people’s testimony on their relationship with Christ as (very nearly) conclusive about their eligibility for admission to the Eucharist, if not for recognizing their subsequent marriages; proposes consortium totius vitae as a better definition of marriage than that found in Pio-Benedictine Code; recommends a three-person board (theologian, canonist, and counselor) to hear cases in lieu of a tribunal process.
Jaroslav Pelikan, “Law and dogma: some historical interrelations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 69-77. • Calls for closer collaboration in historical studies between experts in doctrine and those in law.
William Ball, “Law and religion in America: the new picture”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 78-88. • Excellent overview of the historical origins of Church-state conflicts in America, and solid analysis of several current issues facing civil courts on establishment and free-exercise grounds; underestimated perhaps the links between Griswold and the yet-to-be Roe and Doe cases.
John Noonan, “Papal dissolution of marriage: function and fiction”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 89-95. • Concisely explains the three papal marriage documents that were incorporated directly into the 1917 Code (Altitudo, Romani Pontificis, Populis) and issues a provocative call to keep legal fictions to a minimum in the future; very well done.
John Gorman, “Young priests in transition”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 96-101. • Despairs of finding a definition of priesthood, but settles on a “functionalistic” model instead of an “essentialistic” one; suggests de-emphasis for priestly role in service to people, but greater emphasis on “formation” of people (e.g., “the Bible in one hand, a newspaper in the other”); admits modern priests have less interest in liceity issues; they see law as shackling; conveys well the late 1960s “youth” assumption, even among the ordained, namely, that no generation ever experienced what it had experienced.
Kevin O’Rourke, “The new instruction on formation of religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 102-111. • Discussion of Renovationis causam (1969); suggests that the document recognizes need for experimentation, greater decision-making by institutes, and adaptation to new circumstances, but regrets that exterior aspects of consecration are assumed to reflect too closely the interior development of religious, and that community life, especially for novices, is underdeveloped; brief survey of minor legal changes brought about by the document; proposes an American office in the Congregation (if not an American branch of dicastery) and speculates on the possibility of intentionally temporary profession as a form of genuine religious commitment and exercise.
Alex Brunett, “The [arch]diocesan synod of Detroit: the theology underlying the synod document”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 112-115. • Superficially overviews some “themes” underlying the 1969 archdiocesan synod, with no mention of canonical issues.
Thomas Gumbleton, “The [arch]diocesan synod of Detroit: renewal in process”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 116-121. • Describes dioceses and parishes as communities of priests (i.e., all the baptized), and outlines a projected and very significant increase in the role of deans and deaneries in archdiocesan governance.
Francis Borgia, “Recent experiences in religious renewal”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 122-128. • Non-canonical observations about trends in religious life; idiosyncratic; of limited usefulness.
Bernard Law, “Ecumenism in [the] U.S.A. – problems and prospects”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 129-131. • Overview of groups with which ecumenical discussions are taking place, highlights mixed marriage and Eucharistic-sharing as leading concerns.
Dennis Burns, “Committee report on the legislation of [the] Councils of Baltimore”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 132-142. • Taking as a starting point John Barrett, A Comparative Study of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore and the Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Studies No. 83, (Catholic University of America: Washington, DC, 1932), the special committee examined over 50 decrees from various Councils of Baltimore that might still be in effect. The committee found virtually all of them to have been abrogated or heavily derogated by subsequent universal legislation, with many others falling into desuetude because of changed circumstances. The committee recommended formal repeal (with Vatican approval if necessary) of all remaining decrees, lest they remain on the books as relics; a solid study.
Michael O’Callaghan, “Committee report on regional tribunals”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 143-148. • Interesting look at the state of American tribunals on the eve of the APN; finds that formal cases take over three years to decide and that advocates are not using Pio-Benedictine provisions to push for speedier sentences in accord with law; says there are enough trained canonists, but that they are not assigned to or sufficiently committed to hearing marriage cases; calls for an American third-instance court and urges Roman delegation for ratum and privilege cases.
New Orleans LA, 1970
Thomas O’Meara, “Theological reflections on institutional renewal in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 1-14. • Outlines some factors to weigh in deciding on whether to call a national pastoral council; describes canon lawyers as “structural theologians”; asks whether Hildebrandian assumptions behind medieval law (esp. corpus mysticum, civitas Dei, sacerdotium, duplex ordo) serves canon law today; calls for significant de-emphasis on law in coming decades; sees canon law in decline as part of national, perhaps Western, move away from law because it is too associated with exclusionary power; brief remarks on parishes and Örsy.
James Brundage, “The creative canonist: his role in Church reform”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 15-28. • Pio-Benedictine Code structure does not encourage creativity in canon law or among canon lawyers; gives examples of how past major issues being influenced by creative canonistics; regards later ius novum and most of ius novissimum as being stale periods in canon law; suggests that revised Code should avoid abstract principles and pull language directly from the documents whence various rules have arisen (as was done in Decretal law); should make more room for precedent (uses 20th century German law as an example); should make local adaptation of universal law easier and argues that the number of complaints on this point should be seen as evidence of the plausibility of the complaints as a whole; warns about losing sight in the meantime of the numbers of real people with canonical problems (esp. marriage cases) and urges creativity in seeking solutions for them.
William LaDue, et al., “A general analysis of the proposed schema on the Lex Fundamentalis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 29-46. • Valuable review of pre-1969 history of LEF, and offers good outline of current content along with reasoned critiques; highlights strengths and weaknesses, includes discussion of Relatio; essential reading.
William Stringfellow, “The law, the Church and the needs of society”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 47-52. • Basically an apologia for the Berrigan brothers’ protest of the Vietnam War by one of their more famous lawyers; sprinkled with Scripture-based remarks meant to be challenging, but which were frequently just irritating; virtually nothing of interest for canon law.
Patrick O’Malley, “The Canon Law Society of America and the needs of the ministry”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 53-59. • Impression of canon lawyers among priests in NFPC has changed in 10 or 15 years from one where canon lawyers are “climbers” to be feared to one where they are helpful experts in the process of changing Church governance structures; encourages CLSA to keep speaking up because it is listened to by bishops; encourages specifically more leadership education, as all Church reform must include the top; expresses gratitude for CLSA help on projects such as Washington 19, and asks for help in matters such as justice for priests leaving ministry.
Francis Reh, “A bishop looks at the CLSA”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 60-61. • Admonishes the CLSA to remain primarily a canonical organization and to avoid venturing too far or frequently into other disciplines.
Francis Braceland, “Psychoneurotic interpersonal reaction: incompatibility and the tribunal”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 63-70. • Good overview of terms and categories from a medical perspective; acknowledges the difficulty of identifying personality incompatibility at the outset of a marriage, but suggests some particular pairings that are commonly very problematic; respects the limits of psychiatric analysis and the role of tribunal judges.
Richard Westly, “The problematic of permanent commitment”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 71-79. • Philosophers cannot be content with observing actions and deriving obligations; suggests that the main objection to keeping promises and commitments lies in having made them in the first place; over time, the one who promises is not the same one who keeps promises, so “infidelity” is an unfair criticism to make of one who does not keep promises; rightly distinguishes between promises and contracts, but blurs definitions of both in so doing; alerts one to the difference between “brute facts” and “institutional facts”; says that assumptions that lead to establishment of institutional facts need to be rechecked for current applicability.
Carol Jegen, “Theological considerations on the problematic of permanent commitment”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 80-87. • Theological analysis of commitment must include, but go beyond, the philosophical aspects; discusses Scripture-based images of commitment (contract, marriage); acknowledges but does not describe differences between promises and vows; draws on several authors for support of the notion that true commitment is for one’s whole life, although discerning such commitments might be flawed in particular cases.
John Buckely & Ronald Schmidt, “Experience and possibilities of canonical legal aid”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 88-90. • Outlines practical problems encountered by canonists who offered to assist the Washington 19, and urges the CLSA to offer some form of on-going support for canonical advocacy.
Robert Banks, “Interim report of the ad hoc committee on academic freedom”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 91-92. • Summarizes the results of a survey sent to US seminaries on academic freedom; results of very limited canonical value.
Atlanta GA, 1971
Robert Kennedy, “Introductory address”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 1-10. • Law is only one part of governance, but it provides the crucial bases for community organization, protection of justice, and the dignity of shared responsibility; bishops are making mistakes in not sending more men to study canon law during the revision period; disagreement is easier to bear if there is certainty that one’s position has been heard and considered, even if it is rejected; acquiescence in bad decisions is not always a virtue in a society; offers numerous insightful observations, many drawn from common law, well worth pondering.
Walter Burghardt, “Church structure: a theologian reflects on history”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 11-22. • Looks at three “unexamined assumptions” with importance for structures: 1) grants apostolic succession, but questions to Whom (Jesus or the Holy Spirit?) and how (laying on of hands or otherwise?); 2) draws on Dulles to suggest that a clear model of priesthood cannot be found in New Testament and that various models (at least five) of priesthood need to stay in balance, and outlines related questions vis-à-vis episcopate; 3) cites Novak and Murray on “nonhistorical orthodoxy” and sternly rejects “classicism” for “historical consciousness”; briefly, but highly, critical of LEF.
Anthony Padavano, “A theology of Church government”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 23-27. • Repeatedly denies that the office of bishop is divinely instituted; offers a vague and basically idiosyncratic distinction between the Church as society (which is not necessary) and as community (which is essential).
Thomas Swift, “The human dimensions of authority and obedience in a faith community”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 28-41. • Very diffuse remarks on authority and obedience, with little of direct canonical applicability; suggests authority as an expression of communion and obedience as a response to (the expression of) communion; observes that laws (of any sort) are unimportant in early stages of undertakings, but become both more important and less connected to activities over time; advises against too much regretting of past mistakes and urges focus on future possibilities.
William Sexton, “A comparative examination of the exercise of authority in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 42-54. • A non-canonical study with several points of interest to canonists; reviews three major stages in institutional development (familial, bureaucratic, and communal), warns against leadership assuming agreement when there is only member silence; notes that one need not understand the whole in order to make a real contribution to the part; offers observations on collegiality and subsidiarity as organizational models; critical of the process followed for Humanae vitae and LEF.
Felix Lopez “Performance evaluations for pastors”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 55-61. • Well done study as to why most performance evaluations of pastors fail to generate reliable data; suggests that “forced choice” questionnaires developed over time will generate the best results; testers should make clear that data will be used to help pastors, and only indirectly to help (bishops) make assignment decisions; suggested profile of successful pastor was not surprising, but was concise and accurate (e.g., identified such things as Eucharistic-centeredness as being directly correlated to pastoral effectiveness).
Leonard Voegtle, “Report on religious seminar”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 62-64. • Team talking-notes; reports that early post-conciliar attempts at mixed (lay-religious) congregations are running into problems; while various Founders were frequently misunderstood in their time (so controversy is not proof of error), novelty is not always right either; too many religious are unfamiliar with their own histories and are losing touch the importance of a Christ-centered life for apostolic effectiveness.
William LaDue, et al., “A critique of the revised schema of the Lex Fundamentalis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 65-77. • Outlines several factors strongly militating against promulgation of the LEF; is unclear, though, whether new deficiencies in the 1971 draft or a deeper awareness of the general problems associated with any LEF caused the strongly negative view; suggests instead that efforts be made toward a fundamental “statement of rights and fundamental principles”.
Seattle WA, 1972
John Ellis, “Those called to lead – then and now”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 4-33. • In the genre of a letter to a bishop-elect, outlines some aspects of episcopal leadership styles; not a canonical study, but offers some engrossing depictions of American-Roman relations and relationships between bishops and faithful.
Richard Dillon, “Theory and norms of the governing ministry derived from the Gospel of St. Matthew”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 34-53. • Technical and not easy to follow, argues that Matthew gave little guidance on Church structures and instead emphasized the primacy of the Church’s teaching function; several examples offered; is critical of Ray Brown; bring your Greek dictionary.
Raymond Goedert, “Selection of bishops: a canonical and pastoral critique of the new norms”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 54-61. • Good outline of the heavy criticism that greeted the 1971 bishop-selection norms, and then a clever juxtaposition of those norms against the 1971 Instruction on social communications; suggests that, if the social communications norms really mean what they say, there is room to maneuver within the episcopal selection norms; good example of dialogue and engaging a topic in terms of parallel documentation.
Thomas Lynch, “Teenage marriages and diocesan norms”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 62-69. • Notes that no one has a right to enter a contract which he is incapable of fulfilling and urges raising the age at least for licit marriage; good overview of numerous teenage marriage problems; outlines one diocesan program designed to stem such weddings; indicated some early success.
James Coriden & Martin Mangan, “Team ministry”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 70-75. • Talking-notes with a couple of description/examples of team ministry; major example seems restricted to priest-only teams, comments of presenters notwithstanding; not a canonical presentation, is more practical oriented; pretty good bibliography included.
Dennis Burns & Bertram Griffin, “Tribunal procedure”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 76-82. • Talking-notes with descriptions of three approaches to tribunal work where resources are very short; more practical in orientation than canonical or theoretical.
David Hynous, “Theology of participative leadership”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 83-85. • Leadership in communities benefits by a good understanding of aspects of authority; draws much on Greeley.
Barbara Thomas, “Participative leadership in religious life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 86-97. • A non-canonical study, gives a descriptive, if rather detailed, narration of how some institutes are currently being governed (or not, as the case may be); of very limited value to canonists.
Robert Kennedy, “Administrative law: new proposed Roman norms”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 98-103. • Sets out briefly the context for proposed norms, gives good summary of approach found in norms, and reviews several positive elements and few negative points; well done.
Washington DC, 1973
Joseph Bernardin, “Keynote address”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 1-07. • General remarks on marriage, some statistics to back up a sense of the problems; calls for great attention to teenage marriage; asks how one incorporates a sense that marriages grow with the understandings of matrimonial law; tribunal systems need significant improvement if they are to handle the potentially large numbers of cases; says it is unclear whether Causas or APN will be binding in the future.
Pat & Patty Crowley, “The meaning of conjugal love”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 8-12. • Mostly personal and superficial remarks by married lay consultants to the Paul VI’s birth control commission and Vatican II (Gaudium et spes ); they think marriage law should stress “radical realism”; had a few words to say on marriage in Africa; little of value to canonists.
Thomas Lynch, “Implementation of past CLSA research in the area of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 13-16. • Good overview of contributions of American canonistics to marriage law (substantive, procedural, jurisprudential); remarks on prorogation of APN in light of Causas, indissolubility, non-consummation case, Wrenn’s work, and (Maida’s) Tribunal Reporter; reports some successes, some failures.
John Catoir, “An analysis of the evolution of tribunal practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 17-21. • The APN has reduced waiting periods, tribunal critics do not understand that American tribunals re following developments originating in the Rota, esp. capacitas implendi; law needs to be implemented with love; Rome is “slowing up” with regard to marriage cases; seeing mercy in law means a judge can apply them both more faithfully; canonists should struggle against bureaucratic delays, not give up in their face; internal forum is proximate to morals; ignorance as the eighth sacrament.
Bertram Griffin, “Future challenges in the area of marriage legislation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 22-32. • Thought exercise toward revoking 1917 CIC 1014 (favor of law for marriage); interesting look at how deeply non-permanence has infiltrated American thinking on marriage (divorce mentality is not simply an error, but a value judgment), how contraceptive mentality is making its impact felt, and what ligamen means to people today; predicts increase in nullity cases being proven, suggests America will influence other nations; thinks marriage should get as much CLSA attention as priesthood (which, he suggests is in serious danger from malformed men) and thinks tribunals are inadequate for dealing with real questions in marriage breakdown.
John Lynch, “Ecumenical marriages”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 33-54. • Well composed remarks on the sea change in ecumenical or mixed marriages since Vatican II; includes social commentary; discussion form, dispensations, Matrimonia mixta; notes indifferentism among mixed marriages; comments on various approaches to raising the children and choice of faith, many countries well reviewed; requiruntur does not mean are required; Matrimonia is a non-event for most Protestant denominations; implies that the impact of modernity on nuclear family demands is underestimated in law; discusses Herberg’s and Hocken’s studies and Bp. Hammes’ permission for Eucharistic sharing; bishops conference is working on rite of mixed marriage.
Marion Reinhardt, “Error qualitatis in errorem personae redundans”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 55-69. • Good article in English about error amounting an error of person; introduction with Gratian, Thomas, Sanchez, and Ligouri, about kinds of error about person that result in matrimonial invalidity, followed by discussion of Sens case (22 April 1968) and coram Canals (21 April 1970); discusses Fedele’s and Giacchi’s argument over cases; concludes that fraud need not be proven in error cases and that one’s refusal to marry otherwise need not be proven, but both points would help the case for nullity by making error easier to identify.
John Finnegan, “Spiritual direction of the Catholic divorced and remarried”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 70-83. • An engaging but rather diffuse piece, warns that canonical answers must always be mediated pastorally; lengthy discussion of spiritual direction and internal forum, advises that priests know the literature here very well and not move people to internal forum solutions too quickly; reports on and comments on Seper's CDF letter of 1973 on internal forum.
John Dolciamore, “Interpersonal relationships and their effect on the validity of marriages”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 84-100. • A good essay in several parts; first, a helpful overview of 20th century Rotal cases showing a gradually larger awareness of psychological factors in marriages cases, stresses how bonum prolis emphasis was reflected even in the kinds of psychological grounds accepted or rejected by Rota; second, gives summation of early American experiences under APN, even such things as experiments in tribunal forms and interviewing techniques; third a long look at Gaudium et spes observations on marriage and how those might impact tribunal decisions, with anthropological and even Biblical arguments; useful comments on early stages of canonical revisions coming in marriage law.
Paul Golden, “Teaching canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 101-105. • Canon Law should be required of everyone entering pastoral ministry even though most places struggle to present even two good lecture courses in it; courses should presume ecclesiology, and should be more prominent in diocesan continuing and adult education programs; suggests some current titles for bibliographic inclusion.
Francis Gorkey, “The relationship of religious to the local Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 106-111. • General remarks on the evolving state of religious-bishop relations; admonition to all to remain open to new charisms among religious and to respect them as genuine exercises in spirituality; not many canonical observations.
William LaDue, “Causas matrimoniales and the American Procedural Norms – a comparison”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 112-120. • Focusing only on areas of difference, good historical overview of APN and Causas, with explanations of Roman and European commentaries; tribunal competence, tribunal composition, and mandatory appeals are discussed; good citations; interesting in light of procedural reform discussions that were going on at the same time.
Thomas Green, “Causas matrimoniales and the A.P.N. – a survey”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 121-125. • Report on a rather small but articulate tribunal survey on APN vs. Causas; finds overwhelming antipathy toward Causas, and strong support for retaining APN, especially in regard to single judge cases, expanded jurisdiction, and rejection of mandatory appeal; makes suggestion for American third-instance tribunal and has concerns about pushing people into internal forum solutions.
Charles Curran, “Divorce – from the perspective of moral theology”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 1-24. • A straight-forward call to change the teaching on indissolubility, in four parts; signs of the times suggest that change is coming; Scriptural rejection of divorce is not reliable because Christ’s teaching was already being modified by contemporary circumstances; historical consciousness shows us where other teachings seemingly similarly solid were changed; and personalism emphasizes people over institutions; good citations and bibliographic references; precise changes desired are not clear.
William LaDue, “The sacramentality of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 25-35. • Questions whether every valid marriage of the baptized must be a sacrament; historical overview of evidence for and against recognizing that Christian marriages are sacraments, with evidence building over time, but the distinction hanging on in some key places (e.g., Thomas, and even more so Scotus, questioning, with Cajetan, how a sacrament can be conveyed by a proxy); Trent could have, but clearly did not, link validity and sacramentality, and only in the 19th century during bitter struggles with the States, did popes assert an identity between the two concepts; gives some notes on samples cases where sacramentality is very hard to see, and on formal defection; good study.
Francis Bauer, “Relative incapacity to establish a Christian conjugal union”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 36-44. • Interesting classical Freudian analysis (id, ego, superego) of personality profiles and family of origin issues; suggests plausible instances of relative incapacity to form a conjugal union; urges incorporation of cultural data in assessing individual’s capacity for marriage.
Kevin O’Rourke, “The new law for religious: principles, content and evaluation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 45-70. • Analysis of prima versio canons on consecrated life; shows uncertainty about manner of promulgation for revised law; the outline of five revision principles for religious law explains why first draft of canons seemed so diffuse and confusing; gives short glossary of new terms; mostly extensive paraphrasing of proposed norms for those without access to originals; discussion of types of institutes; concludes with positive evaluation of first version.
Francis Morrisey, “Proposed legislation on defective matrimonial consent”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 71-82. • Broadly in response to d’Avack’s remarks on marriage revision looks at essentially the prima versio of de Sacramentis; shows how most innovations in law are already found in Rotal jurisprudence, speculates on how cases might proceed under the new consent canons and in light of consortium totius vitae, and considers briefly exclusion of education of children as a caput nullitatis; a densely written article, lots of good analysis.
John Miller, “Liturgical law: its nature and purpose, its development and interpretation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 83-85. • Too brief to be helpful, but basically warns against minimalist compliance with liturgical law lest the fundamental power of the liturgy, properly understood, be inadequately expressed.
John Noonan, “Abortion on demand as the law of the land”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 86-97. • Devastating short critique of the Roe and Doe abortion cases for a canonical audience, hence superb reading for any educated but non-civil lawyer audience; outlines several areas where abortionism, with its uneasy conscience, will strive for even greater recognition than it already attained; says that Roe cannot be whittled down, it can only be overturned; good observations on the strategies of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, and on the zeal with which federal trial courts have promoted abortion at every opportunity; Noonan at his most trenchant.
Frederick McManus, “Role of the canonist: interpreter and advocate”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 98-105. • Fine presentation of the balancing needed between the norms of law as written and the practice of law in life; stresses need to understand current law thoroughly, and being able to place it in theological, social, and historical context; warns against over legalization at the local level while decentralization at the top goes on; warns that individual replies from Rome are being take as universal law; looks at models of clarity (or lack thereof) in conciliar norms, discusses rights and duties of advocates, especially in how cases affect the common good; canonists should not take on every cause that comes their way; hardly a paragraph does not contain some useful insight.
André Brossard, “Role of the advocate in the development of jurisprudence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 106-108. • Fairly detailed outline of talk; highlights include: advocates are not to be treated as second class citizens, and they should avoid over-arguing cases in their recitation of facts; advice seems to assume good access to the earlier sentences of judges in questions, which is hard to do at any level other than the Rota.
Thomas Green, “Report of the special committee … on the proposed schema De delictis et poenis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 130-139. • Overview of prima versio on sanctions; recognizes it as an improvement over Book V of the Pio-Benedictine Code, but suggests several deficiencies, including inadequate setting out of ecclesiological foundations for penal law and insufficient understanding of the implications of communio for penal law, notes omission of many “delicts” peculiar to leadership (e.g., numerous variations on negligence and abuse of office); calls for more definitions and suggests the need to understand better the changed circumstances of modern Christians for its impact on the enforceability of penal canon law; questions retention of latae sententiae penalties; gives numerous good but short observations on specific proposed canons; important reading.
Bryan Hehir, “The Church in mission: canonical implications”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 1-11. • Diffuse comments on social justice in light of Gaudium et spes, chiefly ,that Church’s special contribution to social justice lies in its ability to create a “community of conscience”; final remarks on canon lawyers’ contribution to social justice focus on the need to seek justice for women in the Church, establishing criteria for “qualitative” pastoral care, and making informed decisions on the use of material goods.
Margaret Brennan, “Standing in experience: a reflection on the status of women in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 12-25. • Argues that all good law arises from experience, and questions whether experience has been fully appreciated in the reform of religious law, especially for contemplatives and nuns; complains about lack of holy orders for women; offers decent overview of document sequences by which some reforms in religious law, esp. for contemplatives, have developed.
Richard McCormick, “Indissolubility and the right to the Eucharist: separate issues or one?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 26-37. • Sets out well the status quaestionis and, in regard to the “negative” option (that these two issues are inseparable and practice cannot be changed without infidelity to the Gospel), is very accurate; but in the “positive” option (that the two issues are separable and practice can accommodate some form of readmission), the narration does not show the same impartiality, e.g., by its assuming facts not considered in opponents’ arguments; personally supports severing the two issues; does not address the possibility that the two issues are separable (as any moral issue is separable from the issue of eligibility to receive the Eucharist) without necessarily denying the authenticity of “negative” practice based on the perceived inseparability.
Dennis Burns, “Moral certitude”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 38-47. • With extended quotes from Pius XII’s Rotal addresses, Edward McCarthy’s dissertation, De certitudine morali… (1948), and coram Abbo (3 July 1969), explains that moral certitude is a practical, not a speculative, judgment, it excludes rational and prudent fear of error, and (more questionably) is achieved when prudent doubt as to outcome is improbable; allows confusion of praesumptio hominis with conclusio hominis to go on; discusses well applying this test to individual parts of a case; but does not explain why, if preponderance of the evidence (my term) is sufficient declare nullity, one even needs of a presumption of validity in the first place.
Anthony Bevilacqua, “Problems in chancery practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 48-69. • An incredibly dense (in the good sense!), detailed analysis of numerous issues in canonical practice, both matrimonial and chancery; marriage topics include matrimonial form and recordation, official ministers and extraordinary form, mixed marriage and disparity of cult, proxy marriage, inter-ritual issues and sanation, vetita, and civil-only weddings; chancery topics include extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, sharing Eucharist, laicization issues, and alienation; impossible to convey the conciseness and creativity of analysis and the proposed resolutions; even suggestions that seem dubious are powerfully argued; an amazing canonical tour de force.
Thomas Green, “Sacramental law: reflections on the proposed schema”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 70-83. • Extensive yet concise review of the many negative aspects of first draft of canons on sacraments; criticizes the brief time period allowed for episcopal and academic response and the draft's failure to incorporate many conciliar insights and terminology into proposed norms; objects to attempts to legislate prematurely on several topics that are theologically open to debate; important reading.
Edward Pfnausch, “Implications of pre-marital preparation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 84-93. • Strong call to make marriage preparation programs realistic and effective; rather blunt recitation of factors that are causing marriages to be undertaken in the Church with greatly diminished chances of validity, let alone success; a bit too much reliance on Rogers, but overall a serious discussion of the problems implied by automatic sacramentality in the face of serious lack of catechesis on and acceptance of Christian marriage teachings.
David Hynous, “Challenges to religious life—the new norms for religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 94-100. • Reactions to prima versio draft of canons on consecrated life, asks how expectations set out for religious life differs sufficiently from those accorded all the baptized, suggests concept of community is not adequately explained, and questions whether charisms of religious life are fully appreciated in proposed law.
Virgil Elizondo, “The Spanish-speaking and the law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 101-105.• Some interesting demographic observations on growing Hispanic presence in the US, but too much focus on time-sensitive problems and advocacy at the expense of accuracy to be of lasting value; no canonical discussion at all.
Stanislaus Swierzowski, et al., “The use of objective and projective personality test data in the determination of nullity of marriages: a new method”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 106-128. • Ambitious but flawed attempt to explain the use of multiple “personality profile tests” in marriages cases; greatly over-estimates the “simplicity” of such tests and under-estimates the preparation needed to administer and score them correctly; most technical terms remains undefined, there are obvious errors in the tests results; the dubium is poorly phrased; in brief, the article is good evidence for how “deterministically” some tribunals regard psychological “data”; a DOB could have made a strong argument against nullity in this case, but nothing is offered contra nullitatem.
Anthony McDevitt, et al., “Report of the committee on alternatives to tribunal procedures” Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 162-178. • A complex set of arguments that basically sidesteps issues of divorce and remarriage (and ultimately indissolubility) in order find a way to permit reception of the Eucharist by those divorced and remarried outside the Church; calls for a study of ways in which their second (or subsequent) unions can be recognized; looks at Pio-Benedictine Code provisions and Council of Baltimore, and arguments from custom and issues of personal worthiness; admits to quite a bit of disagreement in ranks of committee; to my mind, this short-changes several arguments against readmission; seems more of an advocacy piece, and less of an analysis.
Lucy Vasquez, et al., “[Report of the] committee on the status of women in the Church” Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 185-192. • A list of Pio-Benedictine Code canons that distinguish between men and women, though each distinction is taken as indicating discrimination; the effectiveness of some critiques (such as having 75 men and no women on the Coetus on Religious) is diluted by the lengthy discussion of the all male priesthood as if it were matter of purely ecclesiastical law; overview of how any other Christian communities are admitting women to official ministries.
Thomas Green, “[Report of the] task force committee studying [the schema] De sacramentis” Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 193-205. • Careful, mostly negative, observations on the prima versio of sacraments other than marriage; finds inadequate incorporation of Conciliar insights, spots several attempts to legislate answers to questions that are still theologically open, and finds some basically poor drafting techniques; scores various ecumenical insensitivities; makes too many individual points to list here, but is an important assessment of proposed law at the time.
Thomas Green, “Report of a special committee of the task force of the Canon Law Society of America on the marriage canons of the proposed schema documenti pontificii quo disciplina canonica de sacramentis recognoscitur”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 205-217. • Incisive comments on prima versio of canons on marriage; is critical of the draft's failure to translate Conciliar norms into law in a number of areas, and of legislation pre-empting theological discussion of certain points; nearly every controverted issue in marriage law is touched upon here; reflects common fear that revised law was going to be promulgated in stages; important reading.
Robert Kennedy, “The early republic’s challenge to Catholic Church governance: bicentennial reflections of an American canonist”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 1-18. • Not a history talk, but rather, objectively considers the possibility of applying anglo-american legal insights to Church law, and fairly (and pointedly) responds to several objections to same; notes that American federalism is much more akin to the ecclesiology of Vatican II than is European monarchial or highly centralized governmental models; ecclesiology of the Church is not based on consent-of-the-governed models; suggests that ecclesiastical legislators act more like common law executives, and explores the possibility that diocesan pastoral councils and presbyteral councils (priests senate) could act as something of a bi-cameral legislature; excellent application of law and political science skills to Church governance theory questions; Kennedy has a genius for seeing what is already in the law and helping the Church become aware of it.
Robert Sanchez, “The early republic’s challenge to Catholic Church governance: bicentennial reflections of an American canonist: a response”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 19-23. • Complimentary reaction to Kennedy’s talk, but spends time disagreeing with him on a point (the dubious Christianity of the Founders) that Kennedy admitted was open to debate; references to Las Siete Partidas; general remarks on delay in statehood for desert Southwest states, and several good comments on the Gospel of Matthew and its numerous warnings about authority and its exercise in the Church.
Richard Cunningham, “Recent Rotal decisions and today’s marriage theology: nothing has changed—or has it?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 24-41. • Densely written, with solid notes and good bibliography, including list of leading Rotal cases; excellent snap-shot of Rotal attitudes in the early 1970s on marriage, especially on what makes consent (and whether love is needed), capacity, and consortium; says Rota follows theology, it does to make it; shows clear divisions of opinions in cases, but overall trend is toward Conciliar understanding of marriage; sees marriage less as a static act and more as a dynamic sign; a few digs at celibate old men unavoidably casting marriage too academically, but suggests real reliance on what people in successful marriage say it is; fine overview.
Paul Golden, “Teaching canon law today”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 42-51. • Presents results of informal inquiry among canon law teachers (21 out of 55 then) as to course content, offers mixed remarks on Garrone's 1975 letter. Garrone's text provided.
Anthony Bevilacqua, “Problems areas in chancery practice (refusal or deferral of marriage and baptism)”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 52-73. • Another excellent, very dense (but not unreadable) outline of canonical issues and possible resolutions; numerous marriage issues, especially bases for delaying marriage, featuring creative use of some canons and cautions against unrealistic applications of others; brief but good discussion of some famous Rota cases; same kind of look at delays in baptism; well worth reading.
Ronald Schmidt, “Facilitating tribunal procedure”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 74-91. • Outlines results of tribunal survey; nothing dramatic, but underscores need for more people to study canon law, and discuses “Brooklyn Procedure”; offers some practical advice for streamlining process while observing canonical minima; some divorce statistics offered.
Barbara Thomas, “Models of governance for religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 92-98. • No one model of religious life is right; should include participation, consultation communication, and co-responsibility (exactly how these are distinguished is not clear); charts four models of religious governing structure: bureaucratic, therapeutic, participative, collaborative, but says few institutes fall entirely into just one category; no explicit canonical connections, but interesting as background.
John Dreher, “New wineskins for new wine: the need for pastoral planning and leadership development for a Church in transition”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 99-106. • Superficial remarks on some leadership reforms undertaken in the Diocese of Providence; concludes that pastoral planning is only one part of leadership.
Rita-Mae Bissonnette, “Ecclesiastical ministry and women”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 107-117. • Calls for women to be admitted to ministry of lector and acolyte after Minsteria quaedam; suggests that “intrinsic” models of governance found in Scripture are more important than “extrinsic” models; correctly sees emerging distinction between power of orders and power of jurisdiction, and holds that women are capable of jurisdiction; describes large number of women in “pastoral associate” positions engaged in care of souls (based on Proulx 1973 paper); outlines CDF Declaration of 24 June 1973; argues for greater involvement of women in decision-making bodies now. See also "Consensus Statement", etc., from Symposium on Women and Church Law, CLSA Proc 38: 183-193.
James Provost, “Tribunal future shock: alternatives for justice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 118-122. • Suggestions for establishing diocesan “circuit courts” or “district courts” using what seem to me to be significantly under-qualified personnel to handle the predicted surge in nullity cases; a few interesting statistics on marriage breakdown in general and among Catholics.
Francis Morrisey, “The conveyance of ecclesiastical goods”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 123-137. • A good look at alienation and conveyanceing issues, though only a few comments directly on the revision of law currently underway; sets outs some historical reasons as to why canon law focuses on real estate even though economy is now cash-based, let alone credit-based; offer numerous good working definitions of concepts, particularly from a Canadian perspectives, but certainly not limited to use therein; numerous common sense observations; project started as committee report, is well worth consulting.
George Graham, “Personality disorders and their effect on the validity of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 138-149. • Superb introduction to the canonical aspects of personality disorders, based on DSM-II, and situated in Rotal jurisprudence; fact patterns for three sample cases (hysterical, inadequate, anti-social) are examined; outstanding piece.
Dennis Burns, “Report on Privilege of the Faith cases” Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 167-182. • Outlines several of the practical problems in processing such cases experienced between American instructing tribunals and Roman dicasteries, including such simple things as Roman officials obviously not being able to read English acts, requests for document types that are useful in Europe but are plainly useless in the US, a practice of making de facto requirement of some materials that are not required by the instruction (e.g., questioning why a disparity of cult dispensation was granted in some cases), the morally dubious practice of not granting favors unless they petitioner is already civilly married to a Catholic (!); basically finds cases to be moving more expeditiously under new norms; has several pages of sample questions and reference tables.
Adam Maida, “Visionary or reactionary: the canonist’s challenge to create”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 1-09. • Canon lawyers should treat law in real life, trust their judgments, be more engaged as advocates (personal and theoretical), have a sense of how civil law impacts on their work, and engage in serious continuing education.
John Finnegan, “The Detroit conference—‘A Call to Action’ as a model of Church governance”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 10-18. • Argues that the model presented here is one wherein consultation (not deliberation) is emphasized (using ancient Rome’s stress on auctoritas as supplementary of potestas); says Call to Action should be continued, but should recognize its organizational flaws and member weaknesses (called a “virtue-gap”); distinguishes between Call and the (now defunct) National Pastoral Council; interestingly, several examples of the idiosyncratic vocabulary used with this group.
Ladislaus Örsy, “Hierarchy and religious: responsibilities, rights and duties, ”Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 19-29. • Reflections on religious and bishops relations; few concrete suggestions, but interesting as a sort of conversation starter; suggests that the wide variety of religious, and bishops for that matter, makes coming up with common norms difficult.
John Lucas, “The role of the tribunal in second marriages: the prohibition?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 30-48. • Using policies developed in Chicago as a starting place, looks at several interesting aspects of prohibitions against second marriages; good overview of psychological profiles and categories frequently used in establishing prohibitions; sees disputes over who should lift vetita (tribunal or chancery, depending on how one views the nature of act); cautions against prohibitions that are vague, or can’t be fulfilled, or are retaliatory (say, for contumacy); looks briefly at canonical history of vetita over time and at different types (generally two, monita and vetita).
Richard Carney, “New applications of [1917 CIC] 1127”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 49-52. • A startling proposal to use 1917 CIC 1127 to “resolve doubts about validity” as a way to declare one free to marry against the prescriptions of 1917 CIC 1014; has identified what are at least ambiguous supporting statements by approved authors, but did not demonstrate that the same context applied to their writings; did not offer citations for his most important assertions, including that Rome has issued such Freedom to Marry declarations under similar circumstances; for all that, an interesting read.
Richard Ryan, “The dispensing authority of the residential bishop”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 53-62. • A careful and balanced exploration of the dispensing power of bishops in light of Christus Dominus and De Episcoporum muneribus; finds rather more such power in bishops per se than has been realized yet; sees examples of this in marriage cases and laicizations; notes that liturgical law is probably more susceptible to bishop’s authority than it was before.
Thomas Green, “Procedural law: reflections on proposed schema”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 63-81. • Explanation of the “Dublin Analysis” of the prima versio of De Processibus; notes that a law designed to cover 1% of cases is awkward in dealing with the other 99%; sees speeding achievement of justice and adaptation to local needs (e.g., concordats or no) as the two most important points to be pursued; good summaries of other English-speaking canonical societies’ critiques, and useful comparisons of De processibus and APN; heavy notes, important reading.
Patrick Geary, “Civil discovery and confidentiality of Church documents”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 82-86. • Incisive comments on scope of privilege in light of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Serbian Orthodox case, and the First Amendment; discuses difference between priest-penitent privilege and tribunal immunity; suggests gathering witnesses testimony in judicial manner for best chance at protection, though underestimates how difficult that would be; excellent legal writing.
Henry Bowen, “Ecumenism and the local community”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 87-93. • Practical, as in non-canonical, descriptions of how ecumenism can work on a parish level; sows a lot of mixing of categories and has little evidence of higher supervision; others can determine which of these undertaking might have been licit, let alone valid.
Francis Lonsway, “The case study method of teaching canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 94-97. • Superficial, and debatable, overview of the “case method” for studying canon law; wants to make study of canon law more immediately applicable for students, but runs contrary to almost every tested accepted and method for teaching canon law; this paper seems to have been a “hand-out” for the session and thus reads more poorly than it probably was in the actual session. In any case, canon law is not (currently, at least) a case system of law, and therefore the "case system" of study is not suitable for canon law; this is very different from the situation of case study in common law.
Columkille Regan, “The schema of canons on institutes of life consecrated by professional of the evangelical counsels”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 98-111. • Acknowledges that prima versio of norms was very unlike anything drafted before and, while it was basically praised, saw many problems of imprecision and undue mixing of law and theology; highlighted both thematic and specific faults, such as many undefined but new terms, sudden substitutions of certain terms that had been accepted; good analysis, little extra verbiage; a copy of the prima versio at hand is essential to make us of this study.
Dennis Burns, “Procedures in second instance courts”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 112-130. • Virtually complete survey of US second instance during the period when mandatory appeal was in abeyance; notes some excellent canonical criticisms made by second instances vis-à-vis first, but curiously calls for a second instance alternative body that would not be made up of canonists; numerous helpful tables describing second instance functioning; not much canonical analysis of judicial authority or jurisprudence, but good practical data; is aware of some problems such as what happens when second instance sits as first, but offers no resolutions.
—, “A statement concerning the revision of the Code of canon law” Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 167-171. • Broad statement of concerns about content and methodology being followed in reform of canon law; critical remarks on the LEF and several primae versiones; notes deficient use of revision principles, draws on Paul VI 1977 Address to the Rota to underscore that new law requires serious rethinking, not just rephrasing of older provisions; notes that common law insights are continually ignored by “civilians”; consultation appears pro forma; applauds extension of time to review, but cautions against individual promulgations of any sections.
Joseph Francis, “The role of the canonist as advocate for justice in the local Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 1-06. • An unfocused talk that boils down to: canonists should be advocates for peace and justice; claims John Paul I was a canonist.
Donald Conroy, “Canonical challenges in the pastoral ministries of families”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 7-12. • Overview of development and structure of NCCB’s “The Plan of Pastoral Action for Family Ministry”; not many canonical points, notes that plan calls for special attention to engaged ministry, mixed marriages, and divorced persons; calls for “trialogue” between canonists, theologians, and pastoral ministers.
Thomas Green, “Reflections on the ‘People of God’ schema”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 13-33. • Thorough and detailed, both theoretical and practical, of prima versio, De Populi Dei; Green draws on Ottawa Symposium, CLSA task force, and his own massive erudition on the revision process; seemingly no significant area of schema goes undiscussed; copious notes and references, but assumes access to text, of course; essential reading.
James Cain, “The chancery in a changing Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 34-37. • Acknowledges that a definition of “chancery” is vague at present, and is complicated by unusual American history regarding chancellors; many former responsibilities (both consultative and administrative) have been given to other new structures in the Church, emphasizing shared responsibility; thinks future of chancery might be in pastoral planning.
Walter Cuenin, “The marriage of baptized non-believers—questions of faith, sacrament and law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 38-48. • Frequent references to LaDue, sets out concisely the recent history of challenges to automatic sacramentality of marriage of the baptized, and urges that a way be found to recognize purely civil unions without imposing sacramentality; proposes four-fold guidelines for assessing the faith of those seeing marriages, and explains briefly the three levels of marriage commitment studied by bishops of France.
Francis Morrisey, “The current status of procedural law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 49-59. • Morrisey objected strongly to Schema de Processibus, but urged that real efforts be made to work within its limits; a straight-forward advocacy article, not always right, but well grounded in law and practice; weak in recasting the action of the defender of the bond (Morrisey admits he is arguing praeter legem here); good, if short, history section, demonstrates that highly formalized procedure for marriages cases is quite new in canonical history; explains minor procedural modifications that went on before the Council, discuss APN and Dublin Proposal, makes several important theoretical and practical suggestions; important reading, good notes.
Francis Buckley, “The right to the sacraments of initiation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 60-73. • An interesting but uneven article setting canonical initiation questions in their wider theological and pastoral context; good examination of baptism, very spotty remarks on confirmation, and mixed commentary on Eucharist (esp. first Communion) and inter-communion issues; helpful in-text bibliographic references.
David O’Connor, “Guidelines and practical issues in the drafting of new constitutions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 74-100. • Very thorough examination of how institutes should renew their fundamental documents (chiefly, constitutions and directories) in light of Perfectae caritatis and Ecclesiae Sanctae; Q&A format was a good idea; numerous examples, lots of citations and references; questionable recommendation to forge ahead with renewal drafting despite tentative nature of prima versio on religious life; stayed free of most of the competing “theologies” of renewal that were swirling around religious circles; although designed as practical workshop, has many good insights on religious law in general.
Robert Sanson, “Some procedural innovations: legal? healing?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 101-108. • After a rambling start, gives some interesting examples and impressive citations to support arriving at moral certitude from a single witness, shows due discretion cases being heard without expert testimony, and suggests a fact pattern that plausibly suffices for an internal forum solution; mentions Lesage’s calls for new judicial terminology and cites Keating’s famous dissertation , The Bearing of Mental Impairment on the Validity of Marriage: An Analysis of Rotal Jurisprudence (Gregorian 1963).
John Hedderman, “The permanent diaconate: its development and its canonical implications”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 109-116. • Acknowledges that education of deacons is too unsystematic even for their limited roles, regards schema treatment of deacons as seriously wanting; light on canon law.
Paul Golden & Richard Hill, “Report on survey of teachers of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 40 (1978) 117-124. • A survey (not a sampling or poll) of canon law teachers, asking fewer but more focused questions, and yielding good results for assessing canon law education (just before, it seems, serious reductions in same set in); a few survey results are confusingly set out, but good notes help clarify some issues.
Ralph Brown, “Non-inclusion: a form of simulation?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 1-11. • Beginning with some startlingly simple observations on the malleability of presumptions (an institute that is improperly defined in canon law) in real life, goes on to suggest that prior “presumptions” about what is willed by people choosing marriage has dramatically changed in 50 years, and that older jurisprudence relying on such presumptions is untenable; argues that many people are simulating by way of non-inclusion of traditional presumptions about marriage (e.g., that it is for having children); looks at some Rotal cases that already recognize this problem and at the “non-inclusion” notion as it appears revision of Code; strong essay, good notes.
Carroll Dozier, “Rights of people in the Church—a pastor speaks”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 12-18. • Unfocused remarks amounting to “keep the human person at the center of law”; several citations to Pacem in terris, final quips about general absolution.
Roger Mahoney, “Due process within the National Conference of Catholic Bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 19-23. • Reports that while NCCB and arch/dioceses have made progress on conciliation procedures, development of arbitration procedures is much slower; outlines efforts to dove-tail arbitration process with De procedura administrativa; calls for greater rights education in the Church, better recognition of conflict of interest situations, and acknowledgment that sometimes adjudication must be imposed against people’s will; suggests more ecclesiastical resolution of conflicts is needed lest civil courts intervene inappropriately.
William Logar, “Liberty and justice for all: an ecclesial interpretation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 24-31. • General observations on practical difficulties and gaps in trying to minister to culturally diverse groups; no great insights, but some good examples from marriage cases and leadership appointment concerns.
Thomas Green,“Educating for the new law—a proposal for a commentary”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 32-36. • Describes the very earliest steps in the preparing what became the (first) CLSA Commentary (1985) all the more interesting because the possibility of a 1980 Schema was not clearly foreseen, and the scope of the subsequent revisions in the primae versiones, 1980 Schema, and even 1982 Schema was underestimated. See also committee report at CLSA Proc. 41 (1979) 130-136.
Michael Morrissey, “Issues in chancery practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 37-38.• Very short look at an Iowa diocese trying to implement conciliar call to make more use of lay in-put in diocesan decision-making; few canonical observations.
Joseph Janicki, “Limited term of office and retirement”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 39-59. • A very thorough and balanced look at the issues, with good history of 20th century juridical developments, including establishment of a streamlined procedure to replace older (pre-1917 Code) trial system of adjudicating pastor tenure issues; emphasis on cura animarum as top value; offers substantial survey results with good analysis; good discussion of pending legislation with several insights as to how new law should be interpreted; looks at a related issues for associate pastors and similar ecclesiastical offices; ample footnotes and references, well done article.
Thomas Molloy, “The theological foundation of ecclesiastical due process”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 60-67. • With the advantage of time and hindsight, offers some impressive reflections on due process, especially in the US, and suggests that due process needs to pay more attention to the preservation of communio; outlines several ways in which due process protections are available but under-utilized in canon law; admits frankly the obstacles to canonical due process, and suggests that NCCB norms are better in some respects than the Code; short but insightful historical remarks.
David O’Connor, et al., “Current issues in religious law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 68-75. • Really three short talks on patrimony, which apparently many religious misunderstand (O'Connor); a variety of civil tax issues and confidentiality privilege assertions, which many religious have mistaken assumptions concerning (Hite); and recognition of new institutes, which should not be granted just because a group comes up with a cogent constitution (Galante); all good essays.
Germain Lesage, “Relative incapacity and invalidity of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 76-82. • An uneven piece showing how relative incapacity does have a following on the Rota, esp. with Serrano Ruiz, but makes several references to Robinson’s (problematic) approaches; shows Lesage’s continuing care about vocabulary; interesting points.
Marion Reinhardt, “Relationships with Roman dicasteries”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 41 (1979) 83-90. • Very informative review of Apostolic Signatura (and a few CDF and Sacraments) relations; numerous practical points (even if some, such as marking “urgent” cases on the first page of a file, are painfully obvious); fair outline of the practical problems and more than occasional suspicions that some Roman dicasteries harbor of Americans who simply do things differently than they are used to; sees that cultural differences are sometimes are elevated into legal issues; discusses problems with fees, mandatory appeal, competence; notes vetita, issues and Roman law’s proclivity to substitute an appellate court’s opinions on the facts for that of trial courts (quite contrary to anglo-american thought processes); calls for overall simpler procedure in marriage nullity cases, pace Italy and Spain with concordat issues to deal with; very insightful article, packed with useful information.
Donald Heintschel, “A new Code: a mandate for CLSA’s tomorrow”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 4-13. • Homiletic in tone, with a variety of literary allusions; sees an air of “confrontation” (e.g., the Washington 19 and Theresa Kane) as being good for canon law; some interesting observations on Paul VI’s teaching on law, reminds people of the problematic legal example set by Veterum sapientiae and some early post-conciliar religious habit legislation; worries that new Code could face the same fate if it is not seen, as Greeley would have it, as being socially relevant.
Joseph Komonchak, “A new law for the People of God: a theological evaluation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 14-44. • Very close and detailed, frequently negative, analysis of ecclesiological implications of legislative texts, including both schema De Populo Dei (oddly abbreviated IPD) and the 1971 LEF; special notes on theological approach of VC2, common mission of the Church, and the relationship between primacy and collegiality, and “sharing the Spirit of Christ” and Lumen gentium generally; discusses fundamental rights and duties; notes ambiguous treatment of Synod of Bishops and episcopal conferences; sees some parallels between reaction of Fathers to first drafts of conciliar texts and reactions of consultants to first drafts of canons; overall good notes, good use of coetus reports from Communicationes.
James Provost, “The People of God: law or politics?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 44-59. • Interesting approach, looking at “factual” situations and then asking how canon lawyers should respond; is not always clear whether he is asking for input toward reforming canons, or is making suggestions toward using them better as they are; frequent references to other workshops in same convention; questions include rule of law vs rule of men, admission to sacraments and Church membership, role of women, and rights and rites.
Michael Himes, “The current state of sacramental theology as a background to the new Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 60-77. • Interesting essay in current sacramental theology, but I am unsure as to how much of it describes major trends vs how much of it describes trends that Himes is interested in; limited application to canon law until last few pages; while the theological preambles he suggests cannot be placed in law, the lack of theological orientation to canons on sacraments does “stick out” once Himes points it out; frequent allusions to Schleiermacher and Rahner, discusses Church as sacrament, word and sacrament, and dominical institution; the relatively few canonical comments are directed to 1975 Schema; interesting to sacramental theologians, but of limited use to canon lawyers.
Francis Morrisey, et al., “Marriage legislation in the new Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 78-106. • Overlook Morrisey’s self-deprecatory statement that this is only a superficial look at the proposals for revised law; this is a superb study (notwithstanding my differences with a few remarks); almost every important area is examined with the brevity and incisiveness that true mastery of the issues offers; every page contains several useful or important comments; Felhauer and Alesandro handled specific sections, all authors think the revised law is a major improvement over Pio-Benedictine legislation and is basically faithful to Rotal jurisprudence to the degree it can be at this time; there is an excellent bibliography and a great set of sample questions and answers that should be used by every JCL student preparing for comps.
John Kinney, “Rights and duties of the faithful in the Schema ‘People of God’: an encouragement to exercise them”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 107-114. • These were turbulent times in the development of rights language, and Kinney overviews the scene, including De Populo Dei and LEF; presents norms in substance, then leads discussion of ideas for educating people as to rights in the Church; draws on Pacem in terris; about half the article only relates what came up in small group discussions; gives translation of rights canons from De Populo at the end; some useful bibliographic leads in the text.
Norman Bauer, “People of God Schema: clerics—function vs. call”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 115-123. • Says that little in the proposed law reflects on “call”; mostly negative, but not strident, comments on revision, this talk was designed for people who had not read the originals, notes that legislation seems heavy-handed precisely in areas that law calls for local adaptations; several comments on incardination/excardination issues in light of Ecclesiae Sanctae; most areas of proposed law discussed.
Rose McDermott, “Schema of canons on institutes of life consecrated by profession of the evangelical counsels: revision or update”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 124-131. • Excellent narration and analysis of the great shift from the prima versio on consecrated life to what would appear as the 1980 Schema, all the more difficult to do because not all of the revised canons were published at the time; very balanced and accurate, probably the best brief article on this controversial phase of the project I have seen; essential reading.
Michael Sheehan, “Is there any life in the Church beyond diocese? supra-diocesan structures and Church governance in Book II, the People of God”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 132-150. • Brief but helpful comments on several aspects of episcopal conferences (e.g., history, authority), and on their relationships with ecclesiastical provinces and state Catholic conferences (especially helpful overview) and regional councils; admits that several coordinating issues have yet to be worked out; extensive appendices on proposed norms and offers apparently all references to episcopal conference in proposed law.
James Mallet, “Diocesan structure and governance”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 151-160. • Overview of what was essentially the 1980 Schema version (just published); not much analysis, but rather highlights of differences between prima versio and 1980 Schema; points to some remaining discrepancies between proposed law and source documents such as De episcoporum muneribus and “Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops”; concentrates on bishops, governance, and parishes; more in-text references would have been helpful, but has useful Appendix summarizing a large part of the new law.
Edward Dillon, “De processibus: an analysis of some key provisions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 161-170. • After short but insightful intro on Causas, looks at rise in annulment numbers as a function of increased resources dedicated to hearing cases; formulates several responses to the re-imposition of mandatory appeal, including sending all affirmatives to Rome (which idea had not a little a support) and of using Peter’s Pence to offset additional costs of second instance; urges bishops to send more men to study canon law, is fearful of people with a couple of canon law workshops under their belt acting like canon lawyers; offers some ideas for regional second instance tribunals based on NCCB regions.
Aaustin Bennett, “The practical effect on the fiscal administration of Church finances of Book Five: the law regarding church possessions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 171-178. • Generally positive overview of prima versio on temporal goods; mostly personal remarks arising from common sense and experience; most canons commented on, but not quoted; a copy of the prima versio is essential.
Thomas Green, “Reflections on penal law reform”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 42 (1980) 179-187. • Clear, concise, insightful remarks on the sanctions alter textus (some of which had not been published even in Communicationes); less on specific canons, more on general trends and assumptions; ample notes and bibliography, especially good at alerting English readers to developments in German circles; important reading.
Francis Morrisey, “The significance of particular law in the proposed new Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 1-17. • Engaging remarks on the notable local adaptability found within the proposed law, which is there in recognition of the principle of subsidiarity; concentrates on episcopal conferences and Synod of Bishops, but good remarks on diocesan and parish pastoral councils and regional councils (whose future has yet to be worked out in light of new law); notes that not all places in the world are ready for all changes (hence, not all new institutes are mandatory), and suggests it was a mistake of VC2 to spring too much at once on people who were not prepared for it; says it is finally clear that new Code will not be promulgated piecemeal.
Richard McBrien, “A theologian looks at the role of law in the Church today”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 18-31. • General comments on law as related to theology and mission, the LEF, and specifically the mandate to teach; several interesting observations (many from Green) but some odd remarks (such as complaining that women cannot serve in the Synod of Bishops); the LEF enunciates some good principles but withdraws from them by delving into too much detail on, e.g., sacraments; all of the examples of bad guys are on the right; short bibliography.
Remi De Roo, “Ecclesial structures and social justice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 32-44. • General remarks for those working within Church structures; history is the result of choices, and structures (which are not only administrative but basically any organized relationship, such as marriage) were meant to serve, especially by protecting freedom; few explicit canonical references.
Roch Pagé, “The parish pastoral council”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 45-61. • Declaiming experiential knowledge of parish pastoral councils and not offering much in the way of special canonical analysis, this is nevertheless a sophisticated look at two sets of Canadian surveys in the area, outlining several strengths and (as yet, more) weaknesses of this new institute operating with basically only schema-type input; a few references to Apostolicam actuositatem, questions whether the idea of pastoral councils is too new to be effectively legislated yet and notes anomaly of bishops being able to exempt themselves from diocesan pastoral councils while still ordering their establishment in parishes; sees councils as means to ends, and as means, suggests they will someday be supplanted by something else; balanced and thoughtful.
Gerard Sheehy, “Joint seminar: approaches to jurisprudence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 62-83. • Disappointing article; four judges from different nations were asked to write a sentence on an actual shared case; only the in iure sections are produced here, which is a weakness; Wrenn’s section had little original material and consisted of lengthy quotes from other sources, Harman was more analytical but harder to follow in many places, Lahaise was unengaging, and Cousins was far too brief; all authors did try to relate local jurisprudence to Rotal cases, and in that regard were interesting.
Richard Issel, “Contemporary marriage: a psychologist’s view”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 84-94. • Good discussion of narcissism and obsessive personalities, especially applicable in tribunal work, but not without interesting applications to diocesan and religious life; good, brief comments on various editions of the DSM.
Anthony Bevilacqua, “Selected questions in chancery jurisprudence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 95-123. • Another canonical tour de force, major topics include controversies over matrimonial form and wedding recordation, parish mergers as distinct from suppression, removal of pastors and mandatory retirement, roles of permanent deacons (especially in marriage and blessings), lay preaching, Masonic membership, and alienation limits; each topic is addressed practically with a heavy dose of law; draws on Ecclesia Sanctae, of course, and makes some references to 1980 Schema.
Richard Cunningham, “Glossing in the eighties—or teaching the new Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 124-131. • An introductory course in canon law should acquaint students with the concept of law in general, the historical context of canon law, basic techniques of interpretation and research, the role of governance as service, and fundamentals of practical ministry; there is no suggestion herein that an intro canon law course can be effectively combined with a marriage course. See also a resolution on canon law education CLSA Proc. 43 (1981) 314-317.
Edward Egan, “Appeal in marriage nullity cases: two centuries of experiment and reform”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 132-144. • DOB is most important office in deciding whether appeals are necessary, and first instance cases are being decided correctly; very interesting historical look at Spanish Rota and “Polish Rota”; examines Roberti’s legislative history of Pio-Benedictine Code in procedures; looks at APN and Causae (not just Causas) matrimoniales; good perspective piece by an active Rotal judge.
William O’Neill, “The application of modern business machines for tribunal use”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 145-169. • A very thorough look at computing technology that, of course, was almost completely obsolete within 10 years; discusses copiers, shredders, pricing, personnel, etc.; additional similar essay by Dora on same topics; he suggests waiting till prices drop and technology improves; of almost no interest today. See also K. Ruzick, "Research report on office automation", CLSAP 44 (1982) 303-334.
Dennis Burns, “Practical tribunal issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 170-183. • Competent overview of several new procedural demands about to be made on tribunals; thin only in expressing concerns about dealing with recalcitrant respondents.
Margaret Modde, “Governance in institutes of consecrated life: new law, new praxis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 184-193. • Generally complementary of revised law, uses a head-and-members ecclesiological model to describe new law on relationship between superior and organs of governance; stresses opportunities for new constitution in light of revised law, notes simplification in canons can be used to augment protection of conscience for members; brief remarks on supra-institutes associations and looks for yet another revision of the law in the future.
Leo Donovan, “Official Church teaching and theology in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 194-207. • Somewhat wordy but readable overview of relations between theologians and bishops, as precursor to CLSA/CTSA Consensus Statement on conflicts and resolutions due to come out later; relatively few specific proposal for norms (pace para. 20, which seems to value diversity to theological opinions for its own sake), though this is not surprising given the time it came out; interesting observations on role of publicity (chiefly, it cannot be avoided in modern times, so anticipate it); notes that CDF has urged episcopal conference to establish advisory committees on doctrine.
Dennis Klemme, “Tribunal forms: an update”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 208-237. • A mini-course in matrimonial procedures, with indications as to where formularies would be useful, but little practical advice on how to draft them or use them; scattered interesting comments (e.g., on who has authority to appoint advocates); makes use of Pio-Benedictine Code, APN, and Causas, as well as 1980 Schema.
William Varvaro (1938-2007), “Proposed legislation for the permanent deacons: developments and difficulties”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 238-253. • Provides good overview of 1980 Schema provisions; shows uncertainties and inconsistencies in the proposed law; offers a fair amount of practical advice on a variety of issues; useful reading.
Anthony Diacetis & Michael Place, “Alternative possibilities for pastoral care of the remarried”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 43 (1981) 270-284. • Useful in bringing together the major themes in the CLSA’s efforts to de-juridicize marriage cases; good bibliographies (that in turn point to more comprehensive bibliographies); openly and strongly critical of new Code, plainly supports anti-indissolubility trends; not much by way of new content, but a real time-saver for basic research in this area.
John Alesandro, “Law and renewal: a canon lawyer’s analysis of the revised Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 1-40. • Really a small book in terms of depth, filled with good background information and practical insights; uses Ten Principles for reform of canon law (1967) as hermeneutical key; too many interesting topics to list, but is a survey of basically all of revised law, including Church’s juridical character and special nature of canon law; discusses canonical reform history, ecumenical implications, some lost elements in Pio-Benedictine Code including some that were unfortunately neglected all along (especially on consultations), explains interpretive importance of how canons are arranged in 1980 Schema, has good remarks on meaning of ex integro, predicts fast approaching reform Regimini Ecclesiae universae; looks at subsidiarity, basic rights and (still weak) procedures for protection of rights; has some good ecclesiological reflections; interesting remarks on Church and canon law as “sacraments”; several comments on 1981 Plenarium; shows an understanding of Rome’s general (not complete) desire for reform but also its concern, even fear, about the effect of loosening control; recounts “American” successes at achieving some reforms, and its failure in other areas; raises questions about the sufficiency of the Ten Principles themselves for the task of reform, and notes that in some respects even conciliar texts are becoming dated; regards the revised Code as “workable” in no mean sense; very important reading at a number of levels.
James Provost, “Ecclesial rights”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 41-62. • Strong descriptive essay on origins and applications of various rights theories in the Church; distinguishes clearly four kinds of rights (natural, ecclesial, ecclesiastical, communal); explains two broad schools of rights (very useful for navigating European essays on this topic), namely newer interdependent rights, and older static rights; presents (a bit less convincingly) some political models of rights as applied in the Church; excellent discussion of two schools on rights working during revision process, notes that LEF model will prevail; notes that any rights language represents of risk by the Legislator, looks at few special areas (e.g., just wages, expression of opinions) in revised law; informative essay with good notes.
Michael Himes, “Reflections on American attitudes toward law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 63-92. • American attitudes toward law are, and always have been, complex, ranging from adulation to scorn, with a good bit of pragmatism; American political history and even geography have influenced legal attitudes (e.g., space can resolve problems more quickly than time or logic); numerous well-selected insights form American literature (e.g., outlaw as hero) and political essays; outlines the very near rejection of Common Law at outset of American legal history; relatively few direct ecclesiastical observations, and requires perhaps more legal education than most have to appreciate the nuances, but a thoughtful essay.
Robert Carlson, “Chancery issues: impediments and dispensations, validity of acts, relationships between bodies”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 93-104. • Solid, practical look at three areas of chancery practice, marriage dispensations, administrative acts, and consultative bodies; formal defection from Church can be assessed by looking in reverse at what is required for formal (adult) entrance into the Church, e.g., profession of faith, registration, etc; reminds that routine acts are still canonically governed, and not to lose sight of legal requirements thereof; outlines new inclusion of laity in synods and existence of presbyteral councils, including offering several cautions on reworked priests senates; suggests that diocesan pastoral councils should be more about consensus building than split votes, predicts some tension between DPCs and presbyteral councils; a few good remarks on diocesan finance councils.
Kenneth Ruzik, “Competence, nullity of the acts, and the appeal process: a look at the procedural law of the new Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 105-120. • Positive and reliable overview of changes from APN and Causas to 1981 [sic] Schema; best remarks found in discussion of appeal; useful suggestions on improving terminology; notes importance of using terms correctly when mandatory appeal comes into effect lest cases be delayed due to different usages among different tribunal staffs.
Sharon Holland, “Select issues in religious law: admission, separation, approbation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 121-140. • Solid survey of three areas, with especially strong, and negative, analysis of the “going non-canonical” option being considered by several American female institutes in the 1970s; seems to think that “collegial” always means “equal” participation; notes that emergency expulsion is not dismissal, interesting remarks on canonical mission and mandate; very good article.
George Robinson, “Law in the life of the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 141-153. • Tensions in Church law reflect tensions between persons and community, and between humanity and divinity; good examples from mixed marriage reforms and dubious sacramentality of weddings without faith; destroys shallow criticisms of revised law based solely on the number of canons devoted to this or that topic; balanced comments on ecclesiology of Pio-Benedictine Code, some sociology of religion mixed in; good observations on the difference between Latin minds and anglo-saxon in attitudes toward law; a provocative essay.
Philip Reifenberg, “Ordinary people”: in re: Jarret-Butler: advocate’s brief”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 154-165. • An interesting idea, taking a well-done movie on family breakdown (“Ordinary People”, 1980) and writing pro or con nullity documents based on the film. Unfortunately, considerable facts not presented in the films are intruded into the canonical documents, making it difficult for people to assess the canonical outcomes of the case based only on their knowledge of the film. Beyond that, the advocate’s brief attempts detailed psychological and psychiatric diagnoses of respondent-wife, and concludes that she suffered from no less than several personality disorders!
John Bell, “Ordinary people”: in re: Jarret-Butler: observations of the defender of the bond”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 165-170. • An interesting idea, taking a well-done movie on family breakdown (“Ordinary People”, 1980) and writing pro or con nullity documents based on the film. Unfortunately, considerable facts not presented in the films are intruded into the canonical documents, making it difficult for people to assess the canonical outcomes of the case based only on their knowledge of the film. Beyond that, the defender’s brief eventually makes the obvious objections to nullity, chiefly that this marriage functioned for nearly 20 years until the death of one son and the attempted suicide of the other destroyed it; that is not nullity.
David Fellhauer, “Ordinary people”: in re: Jarret-Butler: Judge’s votum”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 170-174. • An interesting idea, taking a well-done movie on family breakdown (“Ordinary People”, 1980) and writing pro or con nullity documents based on the film. Unfortunately, considerable facts not presented in the films are intruded into the canonical documents, making it difficult for people to assess the canonical outcomes of the case based only on their knowledge of the film. Beyond that, this judge’s votum applied the law correctly and concluded non-constat on the evidence presented; interesting discussion of applicable law during the late revision period.
Ellsworth Kneal, “Ordinary people”: in re: Jarret-Butler: Judge’s votum”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 174-180. • An interesting idea, taking a well-done movie on family breakdown (“Ordinary People”, 1980) and writing pro or con nullity documents based on the film. Unfortunately, considerable facts not presented in the films are intruded into the canonical documents, making it difficult for people to assess the canonical outcomes of the case based only on their knowledge of the film. Beyond that, this judge accepted numerous allegations from advocate’s brief and concluded constat de nullitate on “relational incapacity” on the part of respondent-wife, finding “pathological and unmistakable” grounds.
John Myers, “The diocesan fiscal officer and the diocesan finance council”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 181-188. • Good overview of 1980 Schema; practical suggestions (such as, those appointed to fill in for 5-year terms should only serve till end of term, and bishops should specify scope of larger administrative acts, perhaps even episcopal conferences should define them); brief historical remarks suggest new norms rediscovering very old practices, brief remarks on presbyteral council and college of consulters where they touch on financial matters; expect much of financial administration (not decision-making) to pass into hands of laity; new law emphasizes use of experts in this area.
Daniel Ward, “Liturgy and law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 189-197. • Arguing that liturgical law differs essentially from juridic law, suggests that interpretation of liturgical laws needs also to follow patterns different from juridic law; draws on Kelly, McManus, Huels, and Örsy in a short but provocative piece.
Sidney Marceaux, “Presbyteral councils”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 198-206. • Steady and balanced examination of presbyteral councils in 1980 Schema and source documents leading up to it; concentrates on membership, competence, authority, and relationships with other bodies in diocese; shows several effective ways to defuse potential conflicts with bishops and other consultative bodies; scope of authority is sketched perhaps a bit broadly, but still within the boundaries of reasonable interpretation; a good read, with practical advice.
Joan Leonard, “The vow of poverty and the temporal goods of religious according to the proposed Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 207-218. • Suggests that revised law will not differ greatly from Pio-Benedictine Code in temporal goods, except that greater emphasis is placed on living the vow of poverty according to particular constitutions; notes that several aspects of a modern cash-less economy are still not adequately addressed in new law.
Michael Connolly, “De munere docendi: some orientations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 219-232. • Survey of some six themes (with some specific examples) of “progress and preservation” in revised law; basically argues that Conciliar ecclesiology is the best interpreter of new norms on education; expresses common concerns about American Catholic academe in light of such issues as the mandatum docendi; some good remarks on parental primacy over education of children; seems to want to associate every preservation of a Pio-Benedictine norm with “regression” in new law, but does not over-do the point.
Michael O’Reilly, “Canonical procedures for the laicization of priests”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 233-246. • Excellent review of the sometimes tortuous history of laicizations in the later 20th century; focuses on 1980 norms, but sets them in historical context and makes numerous good observations on various curious juridical aspects (such as non-promulgated laws, and documents supposedly sub secreto being routinely published in AAS); ample footnotes and correlations to 1980 Schema, brief remarks on readmission to ministry; shows practical experience of cases as well as solid understanding of legal principles.
Ellsworth Kneal, “Laicization: CLSA survey, 1982”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 247-250. • Overview of American dioceses and experiences, suggesting considerable consternation over apparently wide inconsistencies in Roman responses to petitions.
Ellen O’Hara, “Members and guests: Church membership revisited”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 251-262. • An uneven piece starting with an excellent presentation of post-conciliar ecclesiological and canonical criteria for membership in the Church, followed by less focused remarks on rights in the Church (including various complaints about discrimination against women in the Church) and closing with some rather general comments on ecumenism; citations to Dearden and McBrien, some odd criticisms against Morrissey.
Thomas Molloy, “Administrative recourse in the revised Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 263-273. • Dense (in the good sense) article on fundamental options and categories of administrative recourse; makes much use of civil law parallels, explanation of single system and double system reviews; good comparisons of early drafts of administrative recourse norms; illustrates development of recourse in Pio-Benedictine Code and Regimini, into proposed law; notes how much Napoleonic and Italian review systems, both rather complex, have influenced canonical thinking (sometimes for the worse); concludes that most serious weakens in administrative recourse is at lower levels of Church governance.
Donald Frugé, “Taxes in the proposed law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 274-288. • Very able discussion of taxation (a term properly employed variously in law and practice), cathedraticum (widely misunderstood) parish assessments, and so on; excellent review of pertinent revision drafts, all set well in historical (20th century) context with some decent ecclesiological questions (e.g., should taxes serve as a means of redistributing ecclesiastical wealth?); good citations, including some to important non-published materials; essential reading.
James Brundage, “Canon law as an instrument for ecclesial reform: an historic perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 1-17. • Provocative look at three events (Liber Extra, Trent, and 1917 Code) for possible parallels with promulgation of 1983 Code; saw all three as opportunities to introduce new ways of doing canon law, saw each as having examples of where that was achieved and where it failed to take root; several remarks on the de facto abdication of justice as a diaconia (in all but marriage law, and even there, it is awkward) and urges that great efforts be made under the 1983 Code to reclaim the tribunal system and mediation, etc., as ways of doing justice in the Church; thoughtful essay.
Thomas Green, “Rights and duties of diocesan bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 18-36. • Much more than a survey of new canons on bishops, rather, a thoughtful examination of six themes in episcopal leadership, with frequent insights from notions of communio and subsidiarity; topics were bishops as facilitators of collaboration (with excellent comments on consultation canons), as moderators of charismatic gifts in diocese (found first in canon 157!); bishops' decisional-latitude (a bit vague, but includes such notions as dispensation); stress on accountability for bishops and for all diocesan leaders, conflict resolution (with good thoughts on late revision process loss of administrative tribunals), due process, and even mandatory appeal in marriage cases, and a few comments on ecumenism; all topics worthy of considerable expansion.
Sharon Holland, “Internal governance in consecrated life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 37-48. • Basic overview, stresses enhanced role of chapters in governance, notes that provisions on governance from Book I apply in more ways than some religious superiors seem to be aware; offers comments on consultation and consent; mostly descriptive of new law.
Harmon Skillen, “Officials of the tribunal: terminology, qualification, responsibility”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 49-62. • Descriptive presentation of new procedural norms; not much analysis, but some illustrative examples from Pio-Benedictine law; good for someone who needs a paraphrase of Book VII.
Bertram Griffin, “The role of the canonist in the contemporary Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 63-78. • A very thoughtful and detailed reflection on Sacrae disciplinae leges in light of Old Testament themes, e.g., the ten words of creation, the Decalogue, and ten “words” on canon lawyers in 1983 Code; topics included novus habitus mentis, three-fold munera in the practice of canon law, rights and duties, and ecclesiology; notes several times that words are the tools of lawyers (good theological and ecumenical illustrations as to why lack of form cases should be called annulments), calls for rethinking term annulment (that proposal was turned down in convention business session the year before, but it passed this year, at pp. 324-326); I wish I could give such a talk on ten days’ notice.
James Coriden, “Laws and non-laws”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 79-91. • The novus habitus mentis called for twice by Paul VI is tantamount to de-juridicizing canon law and classifying it as a species of theology; fairly representative of this school of thought, including that it overlooks several rather obvious replies to supposedly proof-statements that canon law is really just theology; first two sections plausibly argued (pace comments on a non-priestly Eucharist), but third section on relations between teaching authority and disciplinary authority seems thin.
Thaddea Kelly, “Collaboration: key concept for religious and bishops in the diocese”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 92-99. • Unfocused, generic remarks on relations between religious and bishops; some comments on Mutual Relations; not informative.
Daniel Murray, “The preliminary experience of mandatory review in diocesan tribunals”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 100-111. • Argues that problems of mandatory appeal are real, but have been exaggerated; a comprehensive survey of US tribunals shows that three systems exist, metropolitan, interdiocesan, inter-provincial; all have strengths and weaknesses (especially in how second, or third, instance is handled within the archdiocese itself); some practical suggestions on forms; not much law, but some practical observations.
Charles Torpey, “Offices of the diocesan curia: interrelationships and creative possibilities”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 112-125. • Some general remarks on moderator of the curia and his relation to other officers; superficial remarks on governance, and some general suggestions for diocesan organization and titles.
Judith Barnhiser, et al., “The canonist: obstructionist or enabler for women in the church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 126-153. • Predominately demographic surveys, but both Bennett and Skillen used extensive personal experience statements which leaves the reader unable of course to verify or contextualize the accuracy of their comments about themselves; outlines some canons on women, includes extensive working sheets that were distributed; of uneven quality throughout.
James Cuneo, “Deceit/error of person as a caput nullitatis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 154-166. • Careful comparison of error and deceit in marriage law, including related norms from Book I; excellent outline of Pio-Benedictine approach, legislative history, and relevant philosophical and psychological factors; good examples, but first half of article is hard to follow because both error and deceit are set out together, rather than separately; good observations on future jurisprudence issues; good notes, not for beginners; essential reading.
Anthony Diacetis, “Ligamen and multiple successive marriages: the state of the question”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 167-170. • Simply talking notes on the topic; uses the confusing expression “internal validity”; with the benefit of hindsight, we might wonder how such a simple question with such an obvious answer could have ever caused so much consternation.
Edward Dillon, “Confidentiality in tribunals”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 171-181. • An interesting, in some ways startling, look at how many exceptions to “publication” of the acts really exist in the Code; against the backdrop of protecting the right of defense, argues that obligations of confidentiality can even apply between advocate and client, for example, or to procurators; several good illustrations of earlier commentary on Pio-Benedictine Code provisions and Provida Mater, not always consistent with 1983 Code but important for seeing the 1983 Code in relief; some good practical suggestions on publication in problematic cases; makes one wonder whether some recent intimations of “denial of the right of defense”, being so easy to make, and so susceptible of replies from other canons, are perhaps actually covers for other complaints; important reading.
Thomas Doran, “Rights and duties of pastors”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 182-192. • An overview, or a step beyond, of the canons on pastors in 1983 Code; repeated references to several conciliar documents, showing just how many places the treatment of pastors came up in Vatican II; under 1917 Code pastor was chiefly an administrator, but now is charged with three-fold munera of Church; especially good, if brief, comments on homilies and property law; solid survey.
Anne Fulwiler, “Degrees of voluntary separation and congregational responsibility”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 193-200. • Good clear overview of the present types of separation from religious institutes, namely, alternative residences, exclaustration (petitioned or imposed), transfer, and indult of departure; not much history, and indicates some gaps in the law which is still evolving; a solid place to start one’s research, good for terminology and basic issues.
Otto Garcia, “Ecumenical aspects of the revised Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 201-220. • Because the Second Vatican Council was so important for ecumenical issues, and because the 1983 Code legislates so extensively based on the Council, it should be no surprise that the 1983 Code contains many important ecumenical provisions; these go far beyond the mere appearances of the word “ecumenical”; makes good comments on pastoral responsibilities for non-Catholics, sacramental sharing, conditional baptism, reciprocity (generally not required), godparents and witnesses (though does not point out that “Christian witness” to baptism is an ersatz office), and offers some thoughts on the degree to which non-Catholics enjoy rights and duties in the Church.
Richard Hill, “Authority and obedience in consecrated life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 221-229. • Obedience was the last evangelical counsel to develop as religious life (itself an ecclesial, but not hierarchical institution) moved from individual hermits to monasteries to urban religious settings over about 1,000 years; examines issues related to decision-making, styles of leadership, etc; is critical of some outdated, even childish, examples of the virtue of obedience, but warns that “conscience” is being exaggerated at the expense order; relates comments to Perfectae caritatis and Evangelica testificatio; excellent discussion.
William Wolfe, “Punishment for individual crimes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 230-234. • Superficial overview of specific penalties, rather like a popularization of Green’s writings; is critical of “iusta poena” canons; uses a few odd expressions such as “stealing an ecclesiastical office” and says that in some penal canons clerics “are reminded that they lose their office”; misreads 1983 CIC 1372.
Charles Guarino & William Varvaro (1938-2007), “Survey on the use of the ‘vetitum’”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 45 (1983) 285-289. • Presentation of survey results toward developing uniform policies on application of vetita; 136 arch/diocese responded; no analysis, just data.
Daniel Hoye, “The implementation of the 1983 Code of canon law on the national level: progress and problems”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 1-11. • Practical overview from the then-general secretary of the NCCB; quick appendix of all canons to be acted upon by conference, review of which topics have been treated (fast & abstinence, single judges, lay judges, cautiones, matrimonial form, holy days, and tenure for pastors); looks in more detail at qualifications for judges, pastor tenure, and priests and religious in political office; interesting comments on experience of interaction with Vatican officials and their different ways of reading the same laws.
Rembert Weakland, “Local implementation—ecclesial life under the 1983 Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 12-23. • Superficial remarks peppered with distracting colloquialisms (e.g., “bishops spouting off off the record”), nothing of importance here.
Rosalio Castillo Lara, “Some reflections on the proper way to approach the Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 24-40. • Within the literary parameters of intelligenti pauca, this article is packed with interpretative insights; criticisms of the Code that were appropriate during the revision process are inappropriate during the implementation period, and those that are appropriate should be made in scientific circles; law needs to be widely explained for best reception; antinomianism is on the wane and was based usually on faulty understandings of law; there is more theology in law, but it remains a legal discipline; pastorality is written into the whole code; good remarks on novus habitus mentis; unity of discipline is a gift to the Church; John Paul II wrote Sacrae disciplinae leges himself; good notes, but strikingly few anglo-american references; professional canonical ethics requires respect for law, individual responsibility is enhanced by 1983 Code; essential reading.
William McCready, “A sociologist looks at marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 41-42. • A very few superficial (and undocumented) remarks on some trends in marriage; of little value.
Thomas Malloy, “The canonization of civil law—I: The law on labor relations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 43-45. • Short but well-done look at the notion of “incorporation”; suggests administrative tribunals as a good means for determining how civil law should be observed by ecclesiastical intuitions; excessively tentative in drawing its sound conclusions.
John Folmer, “The canonization of civil law—II: The law of personal injury”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 46-65. • Argues convincingly that 1983 CIC 128 is the fruit of Pio Ciprotti’s long work in this area, and offers strong analysis of cc. 22 and 128 in relation to the civil (or mostly, common) law of vicarious liability for torts and crimes; excellent discussion of issues, uses good (if sometimes discouraging) examples, and sounds a clear warning that bishops are underestimating their liability exposure for sexual misconduct by clergy; I disagree with some of the points made on c. 128 (there are two different standards for two different groups, I think), but only Folmer’s clarity makes such disagreement fruitful; essential reading in this area, a fine article.
Ladislaus Örsy, “Reception and non-reception of law: a canonical and theological consideration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 66-70. • St. Thomas’ definition of law needs to be supplemented by notion of reception; such a broader understanding of law would respect intelligence of those subject to law; process of reception of Code is not unlike process for reception of Council.
Fred Sackett, “Temporalities for religious—Six practical cases: I. Canon law considerations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 71-81. • Practical overview of certain canonical areas (not really “cases”); would not limit membership on finance councils to religious, mention of special faculties of nuncio in alienation cases; looks at alienation issues and warns about poor terminology in “retirement” of religious.
Peter Campbell, “Temporalities for religious—Six practical cases: II. Financial and civil law considerations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 82-97. • Practical overview of certain civil areas (not really “cases”); identifies, but does not deeply discuss, various trouble spots (unrelated business income tax, retirement funding, non-religious members in corporations, civil definitions of churches, etc.); good for issue identification purposes; points to some excellent resources for civil counsel and administrators.
John Bell, “Petitioner’s forum: A new competence in a new Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 98-113. • Good review of history in APN and Causas, and helpful in showing the different methods being applied in practice to obtain consent for jurisdiction, but insufficiently critical of some of those dubious methods, and rather confusing in discussion of jurisdiction over unlocatable respondents; nice remarks on ablative absolutes; overall useful article.
Edmund Daly, “The needed mandate to teach”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 114-129. • While written pre- Ex Corde Ecclesiae, accurate introduction to several issues arising as a result of differing canonical and conciliar uses of term “mandate”; alerts reader to discussions by Alesandro, Orsy, Coriden, ACCU, and others; presents accurately the objections to 1983 CIC 810 and 812, but is less clear about he responses to those objections; important reading.
Linda Gaupin, “RCIA: canonical issues, a liturgical response”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 130-140. • Balanced look at several misleading assumptions behind much of the RCIA-Tribunals conflict; leans strongly, and correctly, toward to restricting RCIA to catechumens while finding other methods for outreach to baptized non-Catholics, alienated Catholics, and those needing confirmation; not technical in language, this would be good reading for parish RCIA coordinators.
Richard Groves, “Hermits and consecrated virgins—current issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 141-148. • Able overview of 1983 CIC 603 and 604; identifies several open questions, lightly outlines Conciliar development; leaves open the possibility of either sex being considered for either way of life, notes large role of bishop; important reading.
Elizabeth McDonough, “Religious houses—acquisition of rights”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 149-160. • Concise historical outline of predecessor norms, outlines importance of clearly identifying “religious houses”, as they are understood in revised law, as distinct from other types of property; good legal writing.
Michael Place, “Ordination and emerging ministries”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 161-174. • A look, primary from experience of pastoral theology, at the concept of ministry; draws heavily from O’Meara and Kilmartin, looks less at canonical issues, but notes that canon law is not the place to resolve emerging ministry questions, for such are really ecclesiological issues; weakened somewhat by acknowledging, but then ignoring, the fact that Vatican II never referred to lay work as ministry (instead call it a share in official apostolates); good advice against letting nominalistic expressions dictate results of inquires in this area.
James Provost, “Permanent deacons in the 1983 Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 175-192. • Overview of canonical issues transitioning from post-conciliar law to 1983 Code, esp. NCCB 1984 revision draft of guidelines on the permanent diaconate, including where Sacrum is still in effect (e.g., diaconal service on councils); interesting discussions of legislative and administrative authority of episcopal conferences and of strict interpretation (Provost is a master of Book I); highlights several unresolved issues including obligations of continence (which Provost rejects) and diocesan obligations for support (which Provost accepts); suggests granting deacons consultative vote on presbyteral council.
J. Sekellick, “Inter-ritual issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 46 (1984) 192-211. • An ambitious effort to navigate inter-ecclesial issues before promulgation of CCEO; helpful on several points, but also frustrating in that only “half” examples are frequently used, and relatively little effort is made to square conciliar texts with pre-conciliar Eastern law; is “apostasy” really rejection of the Catholic faith?; alerts readers to imprecisions in the use of the term “particular church”; frequently does not give the texts in question (or even paraphrases thereof) when it would have been easier to do so and inconvenient for readers to find them on their own; gives a sense of the conflicts even among Eastern provisions of various Churches, and serves as a ready reason for why codification of eastern law was necessary; interesting transitional piece, but research should obviously now focus on Eastern Code.
Avery Dulles, “Ecclesial futurology: moving towards the 1990s”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 1-15. • Using Rahner’s five predictions (or better, calls) from his The Shape of the Church to Come (1974, all of which wilt under Dulles’ gentle scrutiny), Dulles offers a solid, balanced analysis of likely trends and needs of the Church in 90s; excellent remarks on new ecclesiological structures such as episcopal conferences, cautions against the perennial temptation to politicization of the Church, and puts emphasis on sanctifying mission as the Church’s fundamental service to the world, one around which all others revolve; excellent remarks on missionary activity and the need for doctrinal clearness and confidence; important reading.
Richard Cunningham, “Invitation, interpretation and inspiration: the canonist’s response to the Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 16-34. • Wide ranging remarks on considerations to be borne in mind during interpretation of law; based loosely on Sacrae disciplinae leges, spends time on some practical examples (taxes, penalties, rights) arising under 1983 CIC 17, and links present issues to many themes raised in earlier CLSA conventions; several good historical examples of what happens when close attention it paid, or not, to words; generally useful.
Francis Morrisey, “The contributions of synods to the elaboration and implementation of the new Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 35-47. • Superficial, and rather political remarks, plainly supporting a “left” theology in the Church; tries to find a theme in Synods, with mixed results; skip to Conclusion on p. 46 to see whether article would serve one’s research needs.
John Huels, “Select questions of Eucharistic discipline”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 48-65. • Focuses on three Eucharistic questions: sharing at weddings, in which discussion the overlapping and/or inconsistent legislation on sacraments and ecumenism is ably set out, along with good discussion of the application of liturgical law (such as distinguishing between permission and dispensations); various matters for Eucharistic bread and wine, again, wherein inconsistent legislation or at least administrative practices are set out calmly and accurately; and discussion of reception by mentally handicapped, which is somewhat weaker with a fair amount of a priori reasoning; there seems sounder ways to reach the same good results; ample use of notes, offers good citations to varied sources throughout.
John Myers, “Ecclesial ministries for laypersons within the diocese: development and integration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 66-83. • Explosion in lay ministry rests on solid theological developments, especially Conciliar and canonical recognition of fundamental equality of all the baptized; generic ministry and elitism is to be avoided, and task differentiation requires careful selection and training; several suggestion on descriptions and profiles to be followed, notes that pastors and bishops need not await Roman direction to begin establishing lay ministries; suggests that more resources should be devoted toward equipping laity to fulfill their role in the world, not just in the Church.
Michael Rosswurm, “The competent forum and protecting respondents’ rights”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 84-96. • Interesting questions on tribunal competence, including a variety of ways to obtain competence in 1983 CIC 1763, 4° (some of dubious merit), plausibly asks whether norms are for validity (one wonder how such questions could not have been anticipated during many years of revision); argues that American procedural knowledge heavily influenced new norms.
Rosemary Smith, “Issues of separation and transfer of religious: context and procedure”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 97-114. • Careful examination of various methods of separation, opens with review of relational studies by Steidl-Meier and how they relate to transfer, but covers all forms of separation, voluntary or otherwise; generally very thoughtful, little history but certainly more than paraphrase of canons; light only, I think, in not suggesting more that not all transfer and separations are a good idea, and that institutes should spend more time helping religious to ask whether their plan is a just a flight from deeper issues.
Clinton Doskey, “Declaration of nullity: its effect on admission to clerical and religious life—I. Annulments and entrance into religious life, priesthood and diaconate”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 115-126. • Unsatisfactory presentation; major anomalies in the Fagiolo and Baum letters are left unaddressed (perhaps even unrecognized); no explanation is offered as to how one civilly surrenders matrimonial rights; Provost’s correct point that formation personnel cannot demand tribunal records is not balanced by noting that no candidate has a right to admission in the first place (so such “requests” can certainly be made of candidates), and is then undercut by commenting that such information is to be sought “by hook or by crook”.
Francis Bauer, “Declaration of nullity: its effect on admission to clerical and religious life—II. The admission of previously married and annulled to sacred orders, diaconate and religious life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 126-129. • Rather few canonical observations, but filled with good sense and practical advice from the perspective of a professional psychiatrist well known in canonical circles; makes questionable assertion that previously married men are a “significantly greater” risk for orders, would have better to say that they offer “significantly different” risks in formation, i.e., ones that formation personnel might not be good at spotting on their own.
Ann Kevan, “Canonical status”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 130-138. • The evangelical counsels are a gift to the Church, and only the Church, rooted in the Gospel and in law, is the authentic guarantor of the counsels; the intervention of the Church is highest at time of foundation and at renewal of constitutions; maintaining early charism is difficult but not impossible; leaves little doubt that “going non-canonical” is tantamount to institutional suicide and is not being appreciated for the major spiritual and juridic concerns it raises.
Francis Midura, “Computers in tribunals”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 47 (1985) 139-143. • Overview of computer technology in tribunals; historical curio, but nothing of lasting canonical value.
Philip Murnion, “The parish as sacrament of the obedience of Christ”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 1-11. • Not a canonical essay, but a thoughtful set of observations from sociology on parish (and really, ecclesial) life; advises sociologists not to exaggerate their conclusions and or to intrude into theological areas where they have no competence, but also cautions Church leaders not to dismiss sociology’s contribution on the incomplete truth that the Church, after all, is divine, for such it to deny the humanity of the Church.
Lawrence Wrenn, “Refining the essence of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 12-28. • Starting with a review of the “Jemelo hypothetical”, explores the possibility that bonum coniugum is the fourth good of marriage, and if so, what that means; confronts directly several Rotal cases and Thomistic observations; has numerous strong insights, reads in places like an advocate’s brief, so does not examine some rather obvious questions raised by the argument, but for all that is quite well-done and thought-provoking; especially good insights toward the end on the wedding liturgy and its emphasis on love (lex orandi); good examples drawn from modern culture (e.g., using Woody Allan films); an excellent essay.
Ladislaus Örsy, “The sacrament of penance: problem areas and disputed questions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 29-45. • Fr. Örsy never writes only about the topic assigned, he always situates his discussion in the wider context, here, that of ecclesiology; this is a serious discussion of several canons on confession and penance, offering some historical overviews, and raising several questions based on underlying values and literary forms; his appendix example I found weak, though; important reading, would be a good follow-up to his monograph from about 10 years earlier.
Rosendo Urrabazo, “Matrimonial consent in the Hispanic community”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 46-53. • A readable essay, certainly, with a nice quote from his father at the end, but almost everything that is here asserted to be typical of Hispanic marriages can basically be said about any American marriage; of little relevance to canon law.
Richard Groves, “Priestless parishes: exploring the future”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 54-60. • Pithy outline of some options for dealing with clergy shortage at the parochial level; situates the problem statistically first, then focuses on Canon 517 and options for diaconal or lay leadership; nb: use of term “lay-deacon”; Groves’ enthusiasm for such leadership alternatives blurs objectivity of analysis, which is light in any case, but overall still a useful backgrounder for the topic.
James Coriden, “Alternative dispute resolution in the church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 61-82. • Begins with an excellent summary of how ADR is taking hold in American legal circles, then outlines some canonical institutes, esp. in Pio-Benedictine Code, that serve as incentives to ADR in the Church; ably ties remarks in with due process efforts of the 1970s; only weakness is in discussion of what amounts to ADR in 1983 Code, because too much is attempted by Coriden here; says what ought to happen, but does not advert to what to do when things do not go according to norm; over-estimates suitability of lawyers and judges as ADR workers; needs to recognize better that, in civil systems, ADR works in part because people know there is a functioning, effective court system that could take the case otherwise, but is that true of canon law in our day?; includes appendix outlining Archdiocese of Seattle approach to ADR; important reading in this area.
James Serritella, “Confidentiality, the Church and the clergy”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 83-93. • The author is a civil lawyer, and is strong in presenting the diversity of approaches taken by civil jurisdictions to the concept of confidentiality; makes a few good practical suggestions for augmenting civil protection for confidential communications and activities in ecclesiastical work, but is weak in recognizing the degree of clarity already provided here in canon law that in turn could be argued in a civil context; does not clearly discuss waivablity issues in ecclesiastical confidentiality; several of his suggested analysis questions seem to overlap with each other; overall, a useful start for thinking about these issues, but one should, as admitted in article, make greater use of canonical categories and experience.
Raymond Burke, “Canon 1095: canonical doctrine and jurisprudence—I. Canon 1095, 1° and 2°”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 94-107. • One of the most sophisticated analysis of these provisions I have ever seen; assuming the distinction between numbers 1 & 2 together, and 3, can be sustained, Burke’s study does it (using Pompedda’s “subject-object” distinction); looks at St. Thomas’ and Sanchez’s depictions of metaphysical psychology and, again assuming they withstand modern critiques (e.g., either “use of reason” and “discretion of judgment” are identical, as St. Thomas argues, or they are not, as I am inclined to think) Burke upholds them; article has shorter discussions of legislative history, temporary incapacity, role of experts, and the general wisdom of staying close to the law, particularly procedural law; I think he blurs the distinction between “public” and “private” documents, and he does not grapple with the flawed canonical understanding of "presumptions", but then no one (besides perhaps Orsy) ever does; an important study, worth revisiting frequently.
David Fellhauer, “Canon 1095: canonical doctrine and jurisprudence—II: canon 1095, 3°”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 107-117. • Readily acknowledges that number 3 is the product of a legislative comprise of serious Rotal disagreements; explores real or proposed distinctions between “assume” and “fulfill” obligations, asks what obligations are “essential”, whether “good of the spouses” has entered Rotal jurisprudence (it has), and whether the incapacity here must be “perpetual” (still debated); brief outline of debates over relative incapacity; outlines the debate over the degree of distinction existing between number 2 and 3, but does not attempt resolution.; reads overall as an introduction, but obviously reflects good awareness of the importance of these issues, especially on appeal.
Joseph Galante, “Consecrated life: new forms and new institutes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 118-125. • While mostly a superficial overview of terms, the last couple of pages offers some practical guidelines for assessing the authenticity and viability of new forms of consecrated life; aside: would Fourth Lateran's forbidding new religious institutes, and Pius V demanding cloister of all female religious, be examples of non-reception of law?
James Parizek, “Pastors on the go: the pastor’s rights in the removal process”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 126-138. • Notes differences between “removal” and “transfer” and offers brief historical introduction to modern processes, but frequently uses, it seems, rhetorical questions to assert rights that might (or might not) be in the law; wordy in places, attempts to cover too much material (e.g., types of appointments) with too little time spent pursuing the good questions identified; the law reads unclearly in several respects, and that problem should be directly dealt with; an uneven piece.
Jordan Hite, “Property issues for religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 139-142. • Six practical cases around Canons 1291 and 638 on alienation (or not, as the case may be) under different forms; good concise examples, not much discussion; very practical in approach.
Walter Kenny, “The tribunal of second instance: the New York model interdiocesan tribunal”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 143-145. • A few remarks on New York’s appellate experience; nothing terribly unique here; funny line about the Signatura saying it would likely approve a request if the request were re-written in Latin.
Daniel Murray, “Tribunals of second instance: a survey”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 145-154. • Another tribunal survey with some interesting observations on variety of approaches but, whether recognized or not, limitations in questions limit the usefulness of the data generated; good advice about reporting to Rome precisely what is going on in second instance, as they can only go with what is reported; no specifically canonical analysis is offered.
Robert Kealy, “Methods of diocesan incorporation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 163-177. • A strongly argued defense of “corporation sole” registration which argument, while ultimately incompatible with, for better or worse, unambiguous Roman directives in this area, makes sobering reading for those who must attempt to apply the law (for which law much can be said) in the best possible way; important reading.
Larry Kirby, “Sanctuary: a canonical history of the right of asylum”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 48 (1986) 178-190. • Historical overview, sees parallels in Jewish, Greek, and Egyptian (but not Roman) cultures, asylum stressed reverence for the holy place and the power of bishops to intercede for justice (not necessarily immunity); penalties for violating asylum were strict (typically excommunication); explains oath of impunity (essentially, cooling of anger) and mobile asylum; justice apparently could trump reverence; Trent asserted that asylum was of divine origin; as assertions of the right spread and nation-states rose, asylum went into decline; argues (unconvincingly) that the failure of 1983 Code to mention asylum constitutes a lacuna in the law, or (better), that 1983 CIC 1213 protects the right of the Church to exercise power freely within churches; suggests that modern asylum movement (in regard to Central America) is one of intercession; has short bibliography.
Ann Rehrauer, “The diocesan synod”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 1-15. • Straight-forward survey of some relevant canons with a little history, some thematic suggestions, and some personal advice for or approaches toward synods; comes down on the side of participants “representing” groups rather “being representative” of the diocese; honest comments on the misunderstandings behind term “merely consultative”; not much analysis, clearly more geared toward a talk.
Julian Herranz, “The personal power of governance of the diocesan bishop”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 16-34. • Impressive analysis of what it means to say that episcopal power is personal, plenary, and restricted by obligation of communion; argues that the three-fold division of authority is not terribly new in canon law and does not admit of the importance some want to attach to it; exaggerates the independence of canonical judiciary; frankly acknowledges several weaknesses in Pio-Benedictine Code in this area (including both theoretically and terminologically); repeatedly offers helpful remarks about ecclesiastical governance as being established by Christ, not by consent of the people, etc.; solid footnote discussions throughout, and is willing to name names of authors who disagree with him; takes a very limited attitude toward use of delegation in general and dispensation in particular (remarking, e.g., that the list of laws for which dispensation is, at best, ill-advisable is much longer than basic norms on dispensation would seem to imply), is also very cool toward delegation of chancellors (lay or ordained) in regard to marriage issues; offers numerous jurisprudential insights with grace of expression; essential reading.
Thomas Richstatter, “Instituted lay ministry: the history and future of Canon 230”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 35-44. • Almost entirely about history, but fascinatingly told; stresses importance of the placing of 1983 CIC 230 in a group of norms on laity, not clerics; good review of remote history (e.g., clerics were exempted form civil jurisdiction), including outline of very slow Roman acknowledgment of wider liturgical roles of laity during the 20th century; concise explanations of differences between ordination and institution, principles of “authenticity”, two competing curial theologies for minor orders, and some complications of applying law on formal installation for people who have been acting in such roles for many years; interesting remarks on American women’s ordination issues as arising not from emphasis on equality, but rather from refusal to understand and accept the implication of being different members of one body; important reading.
Royce Thomas, “Ecumenical issues in the revised Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 45-60. • Notwithstanding a rambling introduction and a rambling conclusion, the article raises in a thoughtful way several good questions, mostly by asking simply what given canonical texts mean; little history or theological analysis offered; sees rights and duties as being functions of degree of membership, but even that criterion does not always work; numerous short but provocative questions on liturgy, women, education, associations of the faithful; some examples poorly chosen, some solutions weak, but for all that, shows the significance of several unresolved canonical issues in ecumenical relations.
Donald Heintschel, “NCCB implementation of the Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 61-66. • Status report on several of the 84 canons calling for mandatory or optional implementation at the conference level; special discussion of the frustration over reaching agreement with Rome in areas such as alienation, pastors’ tenure, and extraordinary form of absolution.
Rosemary Smith, “Lay persons in the diocesan curia: legal structures and practical issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 67-76. • Basic overview of several canons especially from Books I and II, good at identifying questions early on in process of implementing the Code, but does not attempt a detailed investigation (there would be too many issues for that); articulates well some real issues of lay/ordained cooperation that fall outside of law and instead reflect mentalities.
Richard Lyons, “The permanent diaconate: a commentary on its development from the end of the Second Vatican Council to the 1983 Codex iuris canonici”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 77-100. • Survey of the process of restoration of permanent deaconate; not much by way of commentary, but some good outlines of various documents, especially Sacrum diaconatus ordinem; in discussing 1917 Code, omits references to carrying over the basic norms on clerics, and does not address issues related to 1983 CIC 277.
Peter Shannon, “Deference or neutral principles: the dual approach by civil courts to ecclesiastical disputes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 105-114. • Able overview of the inconsistent approaches adopted by American courts toward religious disputes, the traditional “deference approach” of Watson v. Jones (1871) or the so-called “neutral principles” approach of Jones v. Wolfe (1979); tentative look at how the Curran case might fare under both approaches; a short, solid study.
Kevin Vann, “Canon 1098 of the revised Code of canon law: key points and questions in its historical development and interpretation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 115-134. • Good overview of contractual dolus under Roman law and medieval canon law, and decent narration of the revision of what became 1983 CIC 1098; jarring introduction to practical analysis of canon by bringing in Black’s Law Dictionary, a work from a very different legal tradition; attempts too much in discussions of dolus as compared to fraus, error, and metus; a rather lengthy discussion of libelli in dolo that assumes rather more sophistication on the part of the petitioners than they have; explains questions of the (non-)retroactivity of c. 1098 well; forgets to weigh c. 1059 in assessing whether non-Catholics are bound by c. 1098; interesting call for Church personnel to make up in their own lives for what is lacking in some who violate laws; distracting typos (e.g., “endangered” for what surely must have been “engendered”) and some deficient citations.
Sharon Holland, “Secular institutes: can they be both clerical and lay?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 135-144. • Summary of status quaestionis since Provida Mater Ecclesia (1947), good overview of terms, also helpful as an introduction to several authors and topics prominent in the field but perhaps not known well outside of it.
David Hynous, “Issues in sacred orders”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 145-154. • Heavily anecdotal and only lightly resourced, not much advice, but still an interesting summation of a few novel fact patterns that will need to be addressed in future priestly formation.
Ellen O’Hara, “Issues of aggregation, mergers and dissolutions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 155-168. • Looks at a variety of the “combination” procedures that are being used in religious life; helps sort out the unfortunately inconsistent uses applied even by Roman dicasteries; spends time on Ecclesiae Sanctae II; remarks limited to institutes of women religious; several issues, terms, and concepts taken for granted, a reminder that unless one is very familiar with the life of religious, one is limited in understanding the law of religious.
Melanie DiPietro, “Canonical and civil liability for lay ministries”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 169-186. • An able piece that sets out major terms in civil law regarding tort liability for ministry (not just lay ministry) and tries to assess some of the same issues in terms of canonical standards; the article is important for setting issues on the table, though I disagree with several of its applications; nevertheless, until people begin looking seriously at canonical norms, we can’t debate how they should be applied; interim suggestions seem sound; important reading.
John Myers, “The economic pastoral: foundation in the Church’s mission; challenge for the Church’s life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 187-193. • Outlines some connections between various canons and several points made in “Economic Justice for All;” of passing interest only.
James Provost, “Presbyteral councils and colleges of consultors: current law and some diocesan statutes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 194-211. • A fine study of the law on these two institutes in light of a very good survey of practice in the USA; brief history and then crystal clear comparisons and analysis of major issues; not too many footnotes, not too few; decent analysis of Conciliar contribution to presbyteral collaboration; Provost never takes an unconsidered opinion; essential reading.
John Faris, “Synodal governance in Eastern Catholic Churches”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 212-226. • Based on the 1986 Eastern Schema, a good explanation of “synods”, of which there are many kinds, in Eastern Catholicism; helpful observations on general terminology, check footnotes for interesting insights on western episcopal conferences in light of Eastern synods; important reading.
John Proctor, “Clerical misconduct: canonical and practical consequences”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 49 (1987) 227-244. • Despite the breadth of issues tackled in this article, most issues are ably treated; too much emphasis on “therapeutic” responses to misconduct, but as this in turn arises at least in part from recognizing how ineffectual penal law, as drafted, is in responding to crime, it’s hard to argue otherwise; surpassed in some ways by later studies and, of course, by the deluge of 2002, this study still rewards revisiting even twenty years later; list of so-called "derivative" rights of the faithful not well thought-out; generally clear writing style, helpful footnotes.
G. Fogarty, “Canon law in American history and the history of American canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 001-023. • Very informative review of American canonical developments driven by stormy bishop-priest relations, parishless dioceses, and chronic mutual US-Vatican miscommunications; examines role of collegiality, Americanism, Vatican I, major episcopal personalities, and the origins of the episcopal conference; very provocative outline of differing approaches of common law and civil law.
J. Malone, “The Canon Law Society in the Church in the United States”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 024-032. • Lists the APN, critiques of revision schemata, ands various proposals on due process as being among CLSA’s best services; urges new efforts in education (for designated bishops, ordained ministers with little canon law, and laity taking over leadership roles); predicts more collaborative ministry and sees need for local administrative tribunals which are still possible under 1983 Code.
J. Alesandro, “Response to Bishop Malone’s address [I]”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 033-039. • A very thoughtful talk that suggests a novus habitus mentis is more important than new tribunals, cautions that due process boards can fall prone to litigiousness, suggests a vicar for grievances and better use of canons on recourse; proposes that obedience to law should mean more than bare compliance and rehabilitates the notion of canon law as a sacred discipline; wants canon lawyers to make much more creative use of computers, offers good suggestions.
B. Griffin, “Response to Bishop Malone’s address [II]”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 040-051. • Using SDL, outlines several areas that the novus habitus mentis should impact canon law, especially power and authority as service; using theme of canonists waking from a long post-Trent sleep; a few interesting remarks on references to the Holy Spirit in the 1983 Code.
J. Schotte, “The World Synod of Bishops: media event or pastoral powerhouse?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 052-069.
R. Deeley, “An interpretation of Canon 812”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 070-085.
J. Beal, “Confining and structuring discretion: a nuts and bolts approach”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 086-105.
R. Sanson, “Elements of a good sentence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 106-128.
J. Amos, “Associations of the Christian faithful: history, analysis, and evaluation in the 1983 Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 129-138.
R. McDermott, “Canonical issues of vicars for religious: ecclesial dimension, community life, [and] internal governance”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 139-158.
John Faris, “The revision of Eastern canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 159-170.
W. Wolfe, “The future Eastern code: A view from the west”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 171-180.
E. Rinere, “Marriage tribunal: the mystery ministry?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 181-197.
G. Piette, “Canonical consideration in personnel administration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 198-215.
Roch Page, “Particular councils and conferences of bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 216-221.
D. Morrow, “The chancellor as archivist”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 222-232.
M. Connolly, “Creative stewardship in the religious communities: the challenge of the 1990’s”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 233-248.
J. Renken, “Parishes without resident pastor: comments on canon 517 § 2”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 50 (1988) 249-263.
H. Flaherty, “Ministry as total Church experience and responsibility”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 001-010.
D. Hoge, “Realizing the future potential of parish life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 011-022.
E. Everitt, “Marriage preparation: rethinking the system”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 023-029.
M. Breitenbeck, “The use of experts in marriage nullity cases”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 030-047.
E. O’Hara, “Guidelines and instruments for discerning the viability of religious institutes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 048-064.
J. Perry, “The accessibility of due process for the laity”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 065-082.
M. Modde, “Canonical and stewardship responsibilities for healthcare facilities”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 083-094.
R. Hill, “[The pastoral provision:] ordination of married, protestant ministers”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 095-100. • Excellent survey, shows pastoral provision to be several things, not just one process.
M. Place, “Apostolic visitation and limitation of the power of a diocesan bishop: a report on the work of the committee”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 101-112.
L. Vazquez, “The Womens’ Pastoral: process, myth and present reality”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 113-122.
T. Green, “The authority of episcopal conferences: some normative and doctrinal considerations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 123-136.
W. Schumacher, “Regional tribunals in the U.S.A.: history, structure, and functioning, 1968-1989”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 137-172.
M. DiPietro, “Legal considerations in the use of pre-admission psychological testing”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 173-184.
G. Gallaro, “The mystery of crowning: an inter-ecclesial perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 51 (1989) 185-200.
Cleveland Ohio, 1990 R. Cunningham, “Back to the future”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 001-010.
S. Preister, “Marriage in the year two thousand: unresolved tensions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 011-025.
M. Place, “Marriage in the year 2000: a theological perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 026-035.
H. Skillin, “Marriage in the year 2000: a canonical perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 036-046.
James Coriden, “What became of the bill of rights?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 047-060.
J. Huels, “The law on lay preaching: interpretation and implementation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 061-079. • Thoughtful, but not entirely convincing, discussion of lay preaching ("homilies" being impossible by definition); engages Fox's classic studies (though I am not sure they were talking about the same things, quite) and decides that basic values combine to permit lay preaching at liturgies presided over by clerics under some situations; critical remarks on German norms (somehow approved by Rome), British, and Canadian; many good insights, but some weak analogies.
E. Dillon, “The rights of the respondent in matrimonial trials”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 080-106.
J. Penna, “The office of episcopal vicar”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 107-119.
R. McDermott, “Canon 702, §2—equity and charity to separated members”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 120-133.
A. Gallin, “Catholic higher education in the 1983 Code of canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 134-151.
J. Doyle, “The formal act of leaving the Catholic church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 152-160.
A. Rehrauer, “Welcome in! Canonical issues and the RCIA”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 161-169.
F. Morrisey, “Denial of admission to the sacraments”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 170-186.
B. Cusack, “Power of governance: theoretical and practical considerations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 187-205.
E. McDonough, “Sanctions in the 1983 Code: purpose and procedures; progress and problems”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 206-221.
N. Cafardi, “Closing churches, merging institutions, and dividing dioceses: developments in Church property since 1983”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 52 (1990) 222-234.
San Antonio TX, 1991
J. Provost, “The nature of rights in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 001-018.
W. Varvaro, “Trends in Rotal jurisprudence: surveying U.S.A. cases (1980-1985)”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 019-062.
R. Bass, “Due process: conciliation and arbitration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 063-077.
J. Beal, “To be or not to be, that is the question: the rights of the accused in the canonical penal process”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 077-097.
J. Cuneo, “Education in the rights of persons at the canonical training workshops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 098-123.
J. Donlon, “Incardination and excardination: the rights and obligations of the cleric and of the Church-a matter of pastoral justice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 124-153.
John Faris, “Canonical issues in the pastoral care of Eastern Catholics”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 154-164.
G. Gallaro, “Codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium: noteworthy issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 165-179.
R. Hill and V. Bartolac, “Recognition and protection of rights in consecrated life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 180-189.
F. McManus, “The profession of faith and oath of fidelity”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 190-220.
F. Morrisey, “The pastoral and juridical dimensions of dismissal from the clerical state and of other penalties for acts of sexual misconduct”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 221-239.
J. Olivas, “Catholic marriage in the Hispanic community of the United States (southwest)—an interpretation of faith and culture”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 240-248.
M. Plewka, “The right of defense in certain stages of the matrimonial process as found in the decisions of the Roman Rota”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 53 (1991) 249-262.
Cambridge MA, 1992 W. D’Antonio, “Autonomy and community: indicators of change among the American Catholic laity, “Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 001-024.
B. Cusak, “The role of the laity in the Church: theory meets reality, part I”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 025-037.
J. Hoehnen, “The role of the laity in the Church: theory meets reality, part II, ”Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 038-042.
P. Golden, “Laity and the Church: a response and a call”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 043-054.
P. Baillargeon, “The rights and duties of parents in the sanctification of their children”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 055-071.
D. Barr, “Basic civil law concerns for tribunals”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 072-086.
M. Farley, “The concept of commitment as applied to questions of marriage and divorce”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 087-097.
V. Finn, “Canon 214: the right of the Christian faithful to follow their own form of spiritual life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 098-109.
G. Gresko & D. Zwifka, “Canonical training for lay ministry: models and mentality”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 110-129.
M. Henchal, “A ministry for gathering in steadfast faith: lay presiding”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 130-146.
T. Monroe, “[Cooperation between clergy and laity: ambivalent texts and collaborative context: Part I:] the rhetoric and reality of collaboration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 147-161.
J. Koury, “[Cooperation between clergy and laity: ambivalent texts and collaborative context: Part II:] The Code and collaboration: recent literature”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 162-184.
M. Moode, “Lay governance in Catholic institutions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 185-194.
E. Pfnausch, “Protection of rights of persons in the Church: a hearing”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 54 (1992) 195-207.
Honolulu HI, 1993
G. Robinson, “The challenge of justice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 001-016.
G. Griffin, “The challenge of ecumenism for canonists”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 017-038.
J. Beal, “Administrative tribunals in the Church: an idea whose time has come or an idea whose time has gone?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 039-071.
G. Ingels, “Canonical advocacy: basis and principles”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 072-086.
JM. McNally, “Due process in consecrated life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 087-097.
D. Ward, “Canonical advocacy: practical representation of a party”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 098-107.
R. Calvo, “The impact of culture in marriage cases”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 108-120.
M. Lavin, “Approaches to traditional grounds and the bonum coniugum: something old, something new, something borrowed, something askew”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 121-141.
E. Pfnausch, “Dysfunctions affecting the validity of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 142-155.
W. Varvaro, “Rotal Jurisprudence 1985-1990”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 156-166. • Warns that American cases going to Rome with procedural flaws are being overturned without the Rota’s having to deal with the substantive issues in the case; outlines the De Jorio / Burke debate on bonum fidei; sees growing Rota willingness to question sacramentality of marriages of baptized and suggests that drug abuse cases are getting more favorable attention; argues that psychological grounds are gaining adherents around the world, even in the Rota.
L. Jarrell, “Canonical issues surrounding the sacraments of initiation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 167-183.
A. Olivas, “Cultural aspects of sacramental celebration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 184-191.
J. Robertson, “Liturgical and canonical issues of sacramental celebration, especially reconciliation, anointing of the sick and orders”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 192-213.
D. Walkowiak, “Sacramental law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: an inter-ecclesial perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) 214-233.
Atlanta GA, 1994 S. Euart, “Reflections on the Code’s response to the Council’s call for unity in diversity”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 001-017.
J. Hoffman, “Adopting structures within the particular Church of the twenty-first century, I”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 018-022.
J. McRaith, “Adopting structures within the particular Church of the twenty-first century, II”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 023-027.
J. Alesandro, “Dismissal from the clerical state in cases of sexual misconduct: recent derogations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 028-067
P. McGreevy, et al., “CLSA experiment in due process committee report”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 068-079.
P. Cogan, “The non-Catholic and convalidation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 080-089.
J. Galante, “The relationship of the diocesan bishop and institutes of pontifical right”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 090-096.
O. Garcia, “The assignment of non-diocesan priests”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 097-111. R. Irons & K. McDonough, “‘Problem clergy’ other than misconduct cases: profiles and canonical possibilities”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 112-129
J. McIntyre, “Married priests: a research report”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 130-152.
N. Rachford, “Two lungs, two ventricles: the Eastern Canons as suppletory law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 153-170.
C. Roeber, “Sponsorship of ministries of individual religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 171-196.
F. & C. Sambrone, “Black culture and marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 197-200. • Non-canonical overview, stresses that blacks represent many cultures, but are strongly inclined to family stability and orality; blacks suffer the most when urban parishes close.
Montréal, Québec, 1995 A. Desrochers, “L’aviner des tribunaux ecclésiastiques de mariage au Canada: évaluations, souhaits et prévisions”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 001-016.
F. Morrisey, “The Latin and Eastern Codes and possibilities for the future”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 017-033.
I. Žužek, “Authentic interpretations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 034-090 (Thomas trans.).
J. Beal, “Where’s the Body? Where’s the Blood? The teaching authority of the diocesan bishop and the rights of Catholic school teachers”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 091-128.
E. Caparros, “La présence de droit canonique dans le droit étatique”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 129-146.
James Coriden, “Freedom of expression in the Church in light of Canon 212 (CIC) ”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 145-165.
MP Couturier, “La protection des droits dans un institut religeux”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 166-180.
C. Darcy, “Models of participation in religious community chapters”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 181-200
M. Gallagher, “The future of small religious institutes: merging and other issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 201-215
J. Guidon, “Une nouvelle façon de concevoir la formation initiale et continue des prêtres par la formation humaine intégrale”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 216-230.
A. Mendonça, “The importance of considering cultural contexts in adjudicating marriage nullity cases with special reference to countries of Southeast Asia”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 231-292.
M. O’Reilly, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church within the framework of Book IIII of the 1983 Code”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 293-305.
J. Provost, “Error as a ground in marriage nullity cases”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 306-324.
E. Rinere, “Canonical education of official Church ministers”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 325-336.
L. Robitaille, “Proof in defect of the will cases: jurisprudence regarding positive acts of the will contrary to marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 337-354.
G. Routheir, “Les implications, pour l’Église universelle, de la reviviscence des synodes diocésains”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 355-376.
D. Smilanic, “The publication of the acts: Canon 1598 § 1”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 377-386.
M. Thériault, “La procédure des recours administratifs: survol et évaluation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 57 (1995) 387-427.
St. Louis MO, 1996
L. Örsy, “The theological task of canon law [: a canonist’s perspective]”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 001-023.
J. Tillard, “Ecclesiology of communion and canon law: the theological task of canon law: a theologian’s perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 024-034.
J. Alesandro and A. Placa, “Church agents and employees: legal and canonical issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 035-082.
W. Basset, “The Supreme Court and freedom of religion: present trends”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 083-133.
James Coriden, “The Holy Spirit and canon law: an exploration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 134-147.
Craig Cox and H. Skillin, “Advocacy: the western region’s experience”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 148-175.
D. Gottemoeller, “Vita consecrata: the post-synodal exhortation on consecrated life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 176-186.
M. Hack, “Selected issues in the administration of a diocesan tribunal (everything they don’t teach in canon law class)”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 187-209.
G. Ingels, “Advocacy: emerging issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 210-218.
E. Kneal, “The mentally impaired: can they marry? may they marry?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 219-236.
P. Lagges, “Conditional consent to marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 237-260.
P. Lagges, “Force or fear”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 261-282.
D. Smilanic, “Reverential fear”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 283-291.
E. McDonough, “Jurisdiction exercised by non-ordained members in religious institutes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 292-307.
L. Robitaille, “An examination of various forms of preaching: toward an understanding of the homily and Canons 766-767”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 308-325.
P. Shea, “Clergy records: Part I–Civil law considerations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 326-345.
R. Wiatrowski, “Clergy records: Part II–Canon law considerations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 346-353.
R. Smith, “Strengthening the Bonds of Peace revisited”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 354-367.
M. Weisenbeck, “Emerging expressions of consecrated life in the United States: pastoral and canonical implications”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 58 (1996) 368-390.
La Jolla CA, 1997 J. Huels, “Back to the future: the role of custom in a world Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 001-025.
T. Reese, “The experience of special synods”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 026-046.
R. Schreiter, “The world Church and its mission: a theological perspective”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 047-060.
W. Bassett, “A note on the law of contracts and the canonical integrity of public benefit religious organizations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 061-086.
L. Blyskal, “The first international conference on women deacons”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 087-104.
R. Carbonneau, “The Chinese Catholic Church and the quest for a reconciliation narrative”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 105-122.
J. Catoir, “The internal forum”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 123-129.
James Coriden and J. Provost, “Canonical implications related to the ordination of married men to the priesthood in the United States of America”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 130-135.
F. Easton, “The defender of the bond: then and now”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 136-162.
M. Foster, “The promotion of the canonical rights of children”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 163-203.
D. Motiuk, “Catholic and Orthodox issues in Ukraine”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 204-222.
K. Schmidt, The ‘raising of children’ as an essential element of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 223-266.
P. Shea, “Exclaustration”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 267-281.
J. Sherba, “Canon 1096: ignorance as a ground for nullity”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 282-299.
M. Wijlens, “Ethical issues confronting the professional canonist”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 59 (1997) 300-313.
Orlando FL, 1998 M. O’Gara, “Apostolicae Curae after a century: Anglican orders in light of recent ecumenical dialogue on ordained ministry in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 001-018. • Interesting argument, but does not adequately distinguish between Leo's alleged motives for declaring Anglican orders null, and the efficacy of his declaration, does not address the possibility that a break in succession cannot be repaired by later insertion of more Catholic terminology (nemo dat), and makes too much of some Conciliar language on communio as a substitute for minister's and recipient's specific intention in celebration of rites; if author had been a canonist, would surely have outlined Gasparri's fascinating role on Leonine commission, but that is not mentioned.
R. Weakland, “Structuring communio in a Church formed by many cultures”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 019-030.
L. Wrenn, “When is an invalid marriage null?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 031-043.
G. Bittner, “Issues in the relationship and role of the diocesan attorney and the diocese”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 044-067.
D. Frugé, “Diocesan taxation of parishes in the United States, a sign of communio or source of tension?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 068-081.
J. Graham, “The relation between religious institutes and the diocese”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 082-090.
J. Komonchak, “People of God, hierarchical structure, and communion: an easy fit?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 091-102.
J. Lynch, “The office of bishop in mainline protestant churches”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 103-123.
J. Martos, “Paradigm shifts in the theology of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 124-131.
R. McDermott, “Associates and associations joined to religious institutes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 132-149.
C. Reid, “Roots of a democratic Church polity in the history of canon law: the case of elections in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 150-178.
J. Renken, “The parish: community of the Christian Faithful within the Particular Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 179-223.
W. Varvaro, “Rotal jurisprudence in the 1990s”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 60 (1998) 224-242. • After a very general overview of recent cases, most of this article focuses on Rotal auditor Cormac Burke’s battle against “relative incapacity” as a caput nullitatis.
Minneapolis Minnesota, 1999
J. Huels, “Principles of liturgical adaptation in light of justice and forgiveness”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 001-025.
O. Lipscomb, “American, Roman and Catholic: still searching for common ground”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 027-048.
R. Torfs, “Ecclesia semper reformanda: a European perspective on the future of the law, the journey ahead”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 049-091.
M. Bartchak, “Procedures for favor of the faith cases”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 093-121.
D. Brewer, “A new tribunal for a new millennium”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 123-135.
–, “The final report on the committee on the experiment in due process in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 137-159.
S. Holland, “Visitation in religious institutes: a service of communion”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 161-178.
Ronny Jenkins, “Faithful in all things conjugal: recent developments in the bonum fidei”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 179-194.
R. Kealy, “Canonical aspects of Catholic identity in the institutional setting”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 195-209.
F. Marini, “The adjudication of inter-ritual marriage cases in the tribunal”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 211-249.
K. McDonough, “Beyond bureaucracy: new strategies for diocesan leadership”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 251-265.
F. Morrisey, “‘Chaplains’: Canon 564–canonical theory and current practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 267-281.
M. Souckar, “The return of a cleric to active ministry: a canonical study and procedural model”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 283-304. • See also Jurist 54/2 605-616.
D. Ward, “Privacy/confidentiality issues in religious institutes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 305-315.
J. Provost, “Rights in canon law: real, ideal, or fluff [I]?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 317-342.
R. Torfs, “Rights in canon law: real, ideal, or fluff [II]?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 61 (1999) 343-384.
Arlington VA, 2000 J. Hotchkin, “Canon law and ecumenism: giving shape to the future”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 003-018.
J. Punderson, “Hierarchical recourse to the Holy See: theory and practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 019-047.
R. Sklba, “Law in the service of the Gospel: biblical reflections on critical issues facing the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 049-061.
D. Barton, “Education and catechesis of children: rights of parents and rights of bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 063-092.
J. Beal, “Hierarchical recourse: procedures at the local level”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 092-106.
Craig Cox, “Is it the same truth? Conformity of sentences in marriage nullity cases”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 107-128.
L. DiNardo, “The diocesan synod before and after the Vatican instruction”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 129-134.
S. Euart, “The restructured NCCB at the turn of a new millennium: implications for the future”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 135-151.
G. Jorgensen, “Culture and error non-simplex—not so rare”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 153-216.
D. O’Connell, “The norms implementing Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the United States: implications for dioceses”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 217-232.
N. Rachford, “Norms of particular law for the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburg, USA and it implications for Latin dioceses”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 233-243.
A. Rehrauer, “Current issues in liturgical and sacramental law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 245-262.
R. Smith, “The personal patrimony of individual members of religious institutes: current issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 62 (2000) 263-281.
Albuquerque New Mexico, 2001
D. Christiansen, “One Church, many cultures”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 001-010.
D. Pelotte, “Many peoples living in one Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 011-016.
J. Renken, “Law in the service of Church in America”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 017-036.
T. Brundage, “Canonical issues in due process”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 037-048.
James Conn, “Bishops and the apostolates of religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 049-083.
John Faris, “The pastoral care of migrants and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 085-099.
J. Graham, “Error”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 101-109.
P. Counce, “Use of the computer and internet resources for canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 111-125.
J. Huels, “Ministry to the sick and dying in view of the shortage of priests”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 127-146.
J. Johnson, “Elements of a good judicial sentence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 147-172.
A. McGrath, “Communicatio in sacris: an effort to express the unity of Christians or simply an exercise in politeness?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 173-214.
R. Ramirez and C. Darcy, “Canonical ministry to migrants”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 215-232.
S. Woods, “Anointing of the sick- theological issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 63 (2001) 233-254.
Cincinnati Ohio, 2002
L. DiNardo, “Complementarity and the clergy”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 001-013.
J. Grogan, “Complementarity in an era of heightened accountability”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 015-025.
M. Wijlens, “Ecclesial lay ministry, clergy and complementarity”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 027-47.
D. Pilarczyk, “Magisterium, ministry, membership”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 049-057.
L. Budney, “The parish as employer”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 059-072.
D. Conlin, “The McGrath thesis and its impact on a canonical understanding of the ownership of ecclesiastical goods”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 073-096.
F. Easton, “Favor of the faith cases and the 2001 norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 097-119.
J. Foster, “The relationship of public and private worship”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 121-143.
P. Gori, “Hostility in the tribunal context”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 145-155.
L. Jarrell and D. Ward, “From words to deeds: inclusivity in ministry”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 157-175.
J. McAulffe, “The Islamic tradition: an overview”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 177-190.
Roch Pagé, “The principle of subsidiarity revisited”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 191-208.
A. Palmieri, “Parishes entrusted to the care of religious: starting afresh from Christ”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 209-239.
A. Rehrauer, “An introduction to liturgical law: sources and interpretation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 64 (2002) 241-252. • A useful overview of an unwieldy area, describing major liturgical books, literary forms of liturgical law, and norms for interpretation; discusses some of the more noteworthy adaptations currently in use in the USA; there are some distracting typographical errors.
Portland Oregon, 2003
G. Bittner, “Tensions in subsidiarity: illustrations from the diocesan Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 001-030.
Avery Dulles, “The universal and particular Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 031-041. • The Church universal is ontologically and temporally prior to the local Church; bishops are members of the college before they are ordinaries; observations on episcopal conferences and synod of bishops; supports Hittinger’s notion of subsidiarity as decision-making at the appropriate level, instead of simply at the lowest level; reminds that true inculturation has a socially transforming effect; short remarks on value of a strong Petrine office.
S. Euart, “Complementary legislation of episcopal conferences: reflections on the U.S. experience”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 043-063.
James Coriden and J. Ritty, “The selection of bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 065-091.
A. Cusack, “Trends in Catholic education: issues of episcopal authority”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 093-107.
W. King, “The corporation sole and subsidiarity”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 107-134. • Masterful overview of history (back to the fourth century!) of what became known as corporation sole (thin only regarding post-conciliar reforms); excellent analyses in terms of subsidiarity and “path dependence”; strikes hard at the notion of Church as business instead of Church as governance; does not (I think) adequately discuss analogy weakness in that governors do not appoint mayors, and incardination is to a diocese, not a parish; adapts the European Union “Principle of Proportionality” to ecclesiastical matters; looks at how communio (etymologically considered), co-responsibility, enlightened canonical accountability, and consultation function in law; examines insulation of parishes from diocesan liability and Ghirlanda’s “decision-taking”; major call to observe canons long before there is a crisis.
J. Lucas, “Levels of Church authority: conflict or complementarity relations between first and second instance tribunals”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 135-150.
R. Oliver, “Sacramentorum sactitatis tutela: overview and implementation of the norms concerning the more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 151-172.
Kevin O’Rourke, “The revised ethical and religious directives”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 173-180.
F. Quillin, “To be (evaluated) or not to be: discussion of tribunal evaluations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 181-189.
P. Smith, “Religious Law: present reality; future possibilities”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 191-212.
M. Souckar, “The principle of subsidiarity and the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 213-239.
William Woestman, “Simulation revisited”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 65 (2003) 241-256.
Pittsburg PA, 2004 T. Doran, “The sacraments: actions of Christ and actions of the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 001-012.
Robert Flummerfelt, “The theology of marriage: complementarity between the Latin and Eastern Codes”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 013-025.
K. Irwin, “Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi in the rites of Christian initiation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 027-056.
J. Beal, “Finding method in the madness: writing sentences in lack of due discretion cases”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 057-079.
P. Cogan, “The sacrament of reconciliation: issues, praxis and the future”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 081-092.
J. Donlon, “Remuneration, decent support and clerics removed from the ministry of the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 093-113.
Ronny Jenkins, “The Charter and Norms two years later: towards a resolution of recent canonical dilemmas”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 115-136.
G. Jorgensen, “The role of the expert in tribunal proceedings”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 137-151.
R. Krisman, “The RCIA: canonical issues”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 153-170.
E. Rinere, “The disruptive religious: Part I: religious authority and the disruptive religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 171-178.
A. Espelage, “The disruptive religious: Part II: a focus on the individual”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 179-193.
P. Vere, “Calling God’s special children to holiness: sacramental access for the mentally and cognitively challenged”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 195-206. • Special needs children have the right to sacraments, and catechesis should be adapted to their abilities; cases of doubt should be resolved in favor of reception.
G. Yanus, “Sacramental life of parishes without a resident pastor: Part I: the parish”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 207-220.
T. Sullivan, “Sacramental life of parishes without a resident pastor: Part II: the role of the parish administrator”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 221-241. |
|
Staging |
A chronological bibliography of some other publications concerning the CLSA
Richard Cunningham, An annotated bibliography of the work of the Canon Law Society of America, 1965-1980 (Canon Law Society of America 1982), ISBN: na, 121 pages.
Richard Cunningham, ed., Reflections on the occasion of the 50th anniversary (Canon Law Society of America 1988), ISBN: 0-943616-41-7, 66 pages.
—, "Index, CLSA Proceedings, vols. 31 (1969) – 56 (1994)", Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 56 (1994) 424-456. On-line (PDF) here.
—, "Index, CLSA Proceedings, vols. 57 (1995) – 65 (2003)", Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 (2004) 424-456. On-line (PDF) here. www.canonlaw.info (2008 May).
Role of Law Award
The presentation and acceptance speeches for this annual CLSA award are under-appreciated sources for canonical research: the former, because they usually give an outline of the professional work of the recipient; the latter, because they offer insight into the opinions of the recipient in a way less "structured" than academically-oriented publications tend to. On occasion, only the nominating speech (nom.) or the acceptance speech (acc.) was published in CLSA Proceedings
1973 - McManus 1974 - Boyle, nom. 1975 - Goedert 1976, Wrenn 1977, Kennedy 1978, Kuttner 1979, O'Rourke 1980, Lynch, T 1981, Dolciamore, acc. 1982, Heintshel 1983, Risk 1984, Lynch, J 1985, Green 1986, Alesandro 1987, Coriden 1988, Brockhaus 1989, Griffin, nom. 1990, Morrisey 1991, Provost 1992, Örsy 1993, Burns 1994, Pospishil 1995, Vazquez 1996, Varvaro 1997, Cunningham 1998, Fellhauer 1999, Holland 2000, Burke 2001, Kneal 2002, McDermott 2003, Easton 2004, Woestman 2005, Golden 2006, Cusak 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
CLSA "Code of Professional Responsibility"
First Version discussion CLSA Proc 41 (1979) pp. 136-145
Second Version text CLSA Proc 45 (1983) pp. 254-260
Other notes
Beginning in 1981, short descriptions of contributors appeared at the end of the proceedings.
Indexes to entries, and even some of the entries themselves, are available at the CLSA website, here. Specialized canonical bibliographies should be made available on computer. John Alesandro, CLSA Convention, 1988
|
