The Penal Process and the Protection of Rights in Canon Law ed. by Patricia M. Dugan

Abstract

THE PENAL PROCESS AND THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN CANON LAW. Proceedings of the conference held at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, March 25–26, 2004. Patricia M. Dugan, ed. Montreal: Wilson & Lefleur. Woodridge, IL: Midwest Theological Forum, 2005. The title adequately describes the subject of the twelve presentations at this two day conference. These conferences for professional canonists are anything but light reading, since they presuppose a background in penal law and the penal process. The fact that they were given in Italian, a language with a more complicated grammatical construction and longer sentences than English, did not facilitate their translation. The difficulty for English speaking readers is not lightened by the references to Italian civil jurists and authors in some of the presentations. Of particular interest are: “The Balance of the Interests of Victims and the Rights of the Accused: The Right to Equal Progress” (Joaquín Llobell ); “Penal Sanctions, Penal Remedies and Penances in Canon Law” (Velasio DePaolis); “Prescription in Penal Matters” (David Cito); “The Procedure and Praxis of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding Graviora Delicta“ (Charles J. Scicluna); “Considerations on Imposing Penalties in Specific Cases” (Anglo Urru); and “The Special Penal Norms of the United States and Their Application” (Kenneth E. Boccafola). Boccafola analyzes theAmerican Essential Norms in light of the code, i.e., the universal law of the Church, and finds them wanting. Among other things, he states that clearly the general tenor of the Essential Norms cannot be easily harmonized with the principles of the code and the principle of proportionality that John Paul II spoke of in addressing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, e.g., the obligation of bishops to seek derogation from the institute of prescription, and the requirement that a priest or deacon be removed from ministry for even one act of sexual abuse of a minor. He points out that Norm 9 seems to be a revival of the suspensio ex informata conscientia (CIC/17, cc. 2186–2194) by a bishop using an administrative act utilized at his own discretion. A particular value of this work is that the presentations to a great extent were given by persons living at a distance—both physical and the psychological-political climate—from NorthAmerica. This made it possible for the presenters to take a more dispassionate look at the subject of their individual talks. The atmosphere in the media, especially in the book reviews 551 552 the jurist United States, makes it most difficult, if not impossible, to consider with equanimity the punishment of an individual, who has repented and reformed his life after the sexual abuse of a minor many decades ago. The purpose of canonical penalties is threefold: “the reparation of the scandal , the reestablishment of justice, reform of the offender” (c. 1341). In such a case a zero tolerance policy of the Essential Norms, demands a dispensation from prescription and the penal dismissal from the clerical state, a penalty that was not foreseen by the lex vigens at the time of the delict. (Cf. CIC/17, c. 2359, §2) The protection of minors can be assured by the restriction of ministry without the extreme measure of penal dismissal from the clerical state for crimes committed many years ago, which seems foreign to the whole spirit of canon law. There are translation problems in “The Balance of the Interests ofVictims and the Rights of the Accused: The Right to Equal Progress” by Joaquín Llobell on page 85 where one finds “The Council of Trent, in a text taken word-for-word from the CIC/17, reminded bishops to act with Pauline meekness when some faithful committed a crime.”At the bottom of the same page we read: “After all, the role of a good pastor requires in some instances to start a penal process . . .” Evidently here the Latin word pastor means a bishop and not parish priest or pastor, as he is called in the United States. William Woestman, O.M.I. Office for Canonical Services Archdiocese of Chicago Chicago, Illinois ADVOCACY VADEMECUM edited by Patricia M. Dugan. Gratianus Series. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, 2006. Serving as a canonical...