Folia Theologica et Canonica, Supplementum (2016)
Péter Szabó, The Penal Legality and Guarantees of Self-Defense in Canon Law: CIC/CCEO
FOLIA THEOLOGICA ET CANONICA (2016) 191 -198 Péter Szabó THE PENAL LEGALITY AND GUARANTEES OF SELF-DEFENSE IN CANON LAW: CIC/CCEO As we know this topic, the direct culpability of a violation of non-penal laws, or in other terms, the only restricted observance of the “principle of legality” in the penal field, is a hotly debated characteristic of the discipline of the Latin Church. Even today it is universally understood by notable authors that the Church cannot renounce penal measures to guarantee her self-defense, and consequently, at least according to some canonists, can. 1399' is considered as absolutely necessary. Other authors in turn, while recognizing the complexity of the problem, rightly highlight inherent risks in this norm. Along this line, on the one hand, it has been admitted that the freedom left to the arbitrary decisions of ecclesiastical authority is clearly excessive, on the other hand, nonetheless it is evident that the Church has to steer clear of an uncritical imitation and mechanical transposition of “protective or guarantee elements” (forme garantistiche) proper to contemporary civil law systems.2 Fundamentally, in this field of duality are also found the real point of our topic: the dilemma of “inadmissibility to adhere” to the principle of penal legality and not less the “actual usefulness” of its non-observance. It is well known that penal law is one of the areas in which the two Codes are really dissimilar. One of the most striking differences is precisely the strict observance of the principle under discussion in the existing system of Eastern ' Praeter casus hac vel aliis legibus statutos, divinae vel canonicae legis externa violatio tunc tantum potest iusta quidem poena puniri, cum specialis violationis gravitas punitionem postulat, et necessitas urget scandala praeveniendi vel reparandi (c. 1399/CIC 1983); cf. for example; Fedele, P„ II principio «nullum crimen sine lege» e il diritto penale canonico, in Rivista italiana di dirimo penale 9 (1937) II. 489-525. Gomez de Ayala, A., Nullum crimen b) diritto canonico, in Enciclopedia de! diritto, XXVIII. Milano 1978. 961-967. Sanchis, J., La legge penale e il precetto penale (Monografie giuridiche 7), Milano 1993. 39-72. Gottero, R., La «norma generale» del diritto penale canonico (can. 1399), in Quaderni di diritto ecclesiale 10(1997/3) 343-354. Eicholt, B., Geltung und Durchbrechungen des Grundsat7.es «nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege» im kanimischen Recht, insbesondere in c. 1399 CICI1983 (Adnotationes in Ius Canonicum 39), Frankfurt am Main 2006. Erdő, ?.. Il peccato e il delitto. La relazione tra due concetti fondamentali alla luce del diritto canonico (Monografie giuridiche 44), Milano 2014. 2 “(•••) la questione è molto complessa: se da un lato lo spazio lasciato all’arbitrario del superiore gerarchico dalla legislazione vigente appare decisamente eccessivo, dall’altro occorre anche in questo campo guardarsi dall’equivoco di un’acritica imitazione e di una meccanica trasposizione di forme garantistiche proprie degli ordinamenti degli Stati contemporanei”, Feliciani, G., Le basi del diritto canonico dopo il codice de! 1983, Bologna 1984. 123.
