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 Proc.

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 -

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.

Canon Law Other Proceedings of the Canon Law Society of America

Specialized canonical bibliographies should be made available on computer. - John Alesandro, CLSA Convention, 1988

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guide to the Convention Proceedings

of the Canon Law Society of America

An on-line annotated bibliography

by Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD

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 have been 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. This Guide is offered in service to those wishing to make still more efficient use of CLSA Proceedings.

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 were of wider scholarly value, and I include 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. Finally, this Guide is a work-in-progress. I welcome corrections or comments toward making it a more useful service to canonistics.

Cleveland OH, 1969

T. Gumbleton, “Due process in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 001-009.

• 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.

R. Kennedy, “Address on due process to National Conference of Catholic Bishops”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 010-017.

• 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.

R. 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) 018-051.

• 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.

R. Brown, “The development of local jurisprudence”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 052-055.

• 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.

L. Örsy, “Intolerable marriage situations: conflict between external and internal forum”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 056-068.

• 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.

J. Pelikan, “Law and dogma: some historical interrelations”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 069-077.

• Calls for closer collaboration in historical studies between experts in doctrine and those in law.

W. Ball, “Law and religion in America: the new picture”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 078-088.

• 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.

J. Noonan, “Papal dissolution of marriage: function and fiction”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 089-095.

• 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.

J. Gorman, “Young priests in transition”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 31 (1969) 096-101.

• 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.

K. 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.

A. 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.

T. 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.

F. 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.

B. 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.

D. 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.

M. 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

T. O’Meara, “Theological reflections on institutional renewal in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 001-014.

• 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.

J. Brundage, “The creative canonist: his role in Church reform”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 015-028.

• 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 20^th 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.

W. LaDue, et al., “A general analysis of the proposed schema on the Lex Fundamentalis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 029-046.

• 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.

W. Stringfellow, “The law, the Church and the needs of society”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 047-052.

• 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.

P. O’Malley, “The Canon Law Society of America and the needs of the ministry”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 053-059.

• 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.

F. Reh, “A bishop looks at the CLSA”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 060-061.

• Admonishes the CLSA to remain primarily a canonical organization and to avoid venturing too far or frequently into other disciplines.

F. Braceland, “Psychoneurotic interpersonal reaction: incompatibility and the tribunal”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 063-070.

• 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.

R. Westly, “The problematic of permanent commitment”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 071-079.

• 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.

C. Jegen, “Theological considerations on the problematic of permanent commitment”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 080-087.

• 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.

J. Buckely & R. Schmidt, “Experience and possibilities of canonical legal aid”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 088-090.

• 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.

R. Banks, “Interim report of the ad hoc committee on academic freedom”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 32 (1970) 091-092.

• Summarizes the results of a survey sent to US seminaries on academic freedom; results of very limited canonical value.

Atlanta GA, 1971

R. Kennedy, “Introductory address”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 001-010.

• 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.

W. Burghardt, “Church structure: a theologian reflects on history”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 011-022.

• 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.

A. Padavano, “A theology of Church government”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 023-027.

• 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).

T. Swift, “The human dimensions of authority and obedience in a faith community”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 028-041.

• 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.

W. Sexton, “A comparative examination of the exercise of authority in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 042-054.

• 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.

F. Lopez “Performance evaluations for pastors”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 055-061.

• 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).

L. Voegtle, “Report on religious seminar”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 062-064.

• 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.

W. LaDue, et al., “A critique of the revised schema of the Lex Fundamentalis”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 33 (1971) 065-077.

• 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

J. Ellis, “Those called to lead – then and now”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 004-033.

• 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.

R. Dillon, “Theory and norms of the governing ministry derived from the Gospel of St. Matthew”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 034-053.

• 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.

R. Goedert, “Selection of bishops: a canonical and pastoral critique of the new norms”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 054-061.

• 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.

T. Lynch, “Teenage marriages and diocesan norms”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 062-069.

• 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.

J. Coriden & M. Mangan, “Team ministry”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 070-075.

• 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.

D. Burns & B. Griffin, “Tribunal procedure”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 076-082.

• Talking-notes with descriptions of three approaches to tribunal work where resources are very short; more practical in orientation than canonical or theoretical.

D. Hynous, “Theology of participative leadership”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 083-085.

• Leadership in communities benefits by a good understanding of aspects of authority; draws much on Greeley.

B. Thomas “Participative leadership in religious life”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 086-097.

• 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.

R. Kennedy, “Administrative law: new proposed Roman norms”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 34 (1972) 098-103.

• 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

J. Bernardin, “Keynote address”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 001-007.

• 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.

P. & P. Crowley, “The meaning of conjugal love”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 008-012.

• 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 lasting value to canonists.

T. Lynch, “Implementation of past CLSA research in the area of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 013-016.

• 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.

J. Catoir, “An analysis of the evolution of tribunal practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 017-021.

• 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.

B. Griffin, “Future challenges in the area of marriage legislation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 022-032.

• 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.

J. Lynch, “Ecumenical marriages”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 033-054.

• 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.

M. Reinhardt, “Error qualitatis in errorem personae redundans”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 055-069.

• 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.

J. Finnegan, “Spiritual direction of the Catholic divorced and remarried”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 070-083.

• 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.

J. Dolciamore, “Interpersonal relationships and their effect on the validity of marriages”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 35 (1973) 084-100.

• A good essay in several parts; first, a helpful overview of 20^th 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.

P. 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.

F. 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.

W. 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.

T. 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.

Saint Paul MN, 1974

C. Curran, “Divorce – from the perspective of moral theology”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 001-024.

• 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.

W. LaDue, “The sacramentality of marriage”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 025-035.

• 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 19^th 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.

F. Bauer, “Relative incapacity to establish a Christian conjugal union”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 036-044.

• 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.

K. O’Rourke, “The new law for religious: principles, content and evaluation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 045-070.

• 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.

F. Morrisey, “Proposed legislation on defective matrimonial consent”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 071-082.

• 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.

J. Miller, “Liturgical law: its nature and purpose, its development and interpretation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 083-085.

• 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.

J. Noonan, “Abortion on demand as the law of the land”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 086-097.

• 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.

F. McManus, “Role of the canonist: interpreter and advocate”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 36 (1974) 098-105.

• 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.

A. 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.

T. 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.

San Diego CA, 1975

B. Hehir, “The Church in mission: canonical implications”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 001-011.

• 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.

M. Brennan, “Standing in experience: a reflection on the status of women in the Church”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 012-025.

• 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.

R. McCormick, “Indissolubility and the right to the Eucharist: separate issues or one?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 026-037.

• 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.

D. Burns, “Moral certitude”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 038-047.

• 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.

A. Bevilacqua, “Problems in chancery practice”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 048-069.

• 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.

T. Green, “Sacramental law: reflections on the proposed schema”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 070-083.

• 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.

E. Pfnausch, “Implications of pre-marital preparation”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 084-093.

• 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.

D. Hynous, “Challenges to religious life—the new norms for religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 37 (1975) 094-100.

• 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.

V. 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.

S. 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.

A. 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.

L 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.

T. 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.

T. 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.

Philadelphia PA, 1976

R. Kennedy, “The early republic’s challenge to Catholic Church governance: bicentennial reflections of an American canonist”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 001-018.

• 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.

R. 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) 019-023.

• 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.

R. Cunningham, “Recent Rotal decisions and today’s marriage theology: nothing has changed—or has it?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 024-041.

• 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.

P. Golden, “Teaching canon law today”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 042-051.

• 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.

A. Bevilacqua, “Problems areas in chancery practice (refusal or deferral of marriage and baptism)”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 052-073.

• 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.

R. Schmidt, “Facilitating tribunal procedure”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 074-091.

• 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.

B. Thomas, “Models of governance for religious”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 38 (1976) 092-098.

• 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.

J. 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) 099-106.

• Superficial remarks on some leadership reforms undertaken in the Diocese of Providence; concludes that pastoral planning is only one part of leadership.

R-M. 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.

J. 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.

F. 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.

G. 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.

D. 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.

Houston TX, 1977

A. Maida, “Visionary or reactionary: the canonist’s challenge to create”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 001-009.

• 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.

J. Finnegan, “The Detroit conference—‘A Call to Action’ as a model of Church governance”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 010-018.

• 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.

L. Örsy, “Hierarchy and religious: responsibilities, rights and duties, ”Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 019-029.

• 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.

J. Lucas, “The role of the tribunal in second marriages: the prohibition?”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 030-048.

• 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).

R. Carney, “New applications of [1917 CIC] 1127”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 049-052.

• 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.

R. Ryan, “The dispensing authority of the residential bishop”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 053-062.

• 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.

T. Green, “Procedural law: reflections on proposed schema”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 063-081.

• 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.

P. Geary, “Civil discovery and confidentiality of Church documents”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 082-086.

• 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.

H. Bowen, “Ecumenism and the local community”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 087-093.

• 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.

F. Lonsway, “The case study method of teaching canon law”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 094-097.

• 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.

C. Regan, “The schema of canons on institutes of life consecrated by professional of the evangelical counsels”, Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 39 (1977) 098-111.