Brian T . Austin

An earlier study addressed a number of theoretical and disputed questions regarding the canonical institute of prescription of criminal action. This study identifies the changes introduced to this institute by the revised Book VI of the Latin code. It then addresses a number of important practical questions, with particular attention to the praxis of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The study concludes with a consideration of some alternatives to the penal process.

Despite the renewed interest in penal law occasioned by the ongoing scandal of clerical sexual abuse of minors, a number of theoretical questions regarding the canonical institute of prescription of criminal action remain disputed. This study describes the juridic foundations of prescription and addresses a number of these questions. It also offers an overview of the various reasons proposed in the doctrine for this institute.

The promulgation of the 1983 Code marked a significant step forward in the struggle for the juridic protection of fundamental human rights in the Church. The last twenty-five years have witnessed a number of significant steps backward in this regard, particularly with respect to the principle of penal legality. In order to evaluate the current status of this principle, this article describes the essential elements of this principle according to the maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege and the disposition of the 1983 Code; and it identifies and classifies the derogations from this principle in the ius vigens. The author concludes that these derogations have gravely undermined the principle of penal legality and, as such, present a significant threat to the protection of fundamental human rights.

On 15 May 2006, the second revised edition of the USCCB’s decree Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons came into effect. More than ten years later, certain questions remain. Section one of this article considers the legality of the Norms, in particular the question of the apparent absence of a special mandate. Section two considers prescription in cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors, in particular the question of the interpretation of the faculty granted to the CDF to derogate from the terms of prescription on a case by case basis. Section three considers the right of defense, in particular the right of the accused to some form of contradictorium.

This excellent, short study of the effect of grave fear (metus gravis) upon juridic acts in the ius vigens offers a concise overview of the entire subject from a Thomistic perspective. Although there are one or two references to the Digest, the A’s principal doctrinal sources are some of the great commentators on the 1917 code: Michiels, Roberti, Wernz-Vidal, Conte a Coronta, and Cappello.

When a priest petitions to be dispensed from the obligation of celibacy (c. 291), is a diocesan bishop or major superior of a clerical institute of pontifical right still obliged to impose the suspensio ad cautelam (Normae, art. 4)? If so, does this suspension have the nature of a penalty?

This dissertation evaluates the legality and justice of the 2002 rescript authorizing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" to derogate from the terms of prescription on a case-by-case basis." Chapter two investigates the juridic foundations of the institute of extinctive prescription and provides an historical overview of its raison d'ëtre. The results suggest that the positive law right not to be accused of a crime after a certain period of time is ultimately derived from the natural law right of defence. This chapter also argues for the existence of an objective doubt of law regarding this institute. Chapter three investigates the precise juridic nature of the favour contained in the 2002 rescript. Due to its ambiguous nature, this chapter argues that it must be interpreted strictly. It also argues that a broad interpretation of the rescript violates the principle of legality as expressed in the CIC/1983, as well as in a number of other national and international legal systems. Chapter four argues that the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas in general and his exposition of the natural law in particular remain of fundamental importance for the science of canon law. More specifically, Thomas's treatise on law is used in order to argue that the retroactive application of the 2002 privilege on a case-by-case basis is irrational, unfair, arbitrary, and endangers the right of defence. Chapter five considers some alternative remedies which might be adopted by the legislator in order to restore the order of justice.