Folia Theologica et Canonica, Supplementum (2016)
Péter Szabó, The Penal Legality and Guarantees of Self-Defense in Canon Law: CIC/CCEO
194 PÉTER SZABÓ II. Let us see, now, what are the alternative guarantees of the same requirement (of the penal efficiency, and, ultimately, of the protection of the communio ecclesiastica) in the Eastern Code where, as it is known, there is completely absent a nomi similar to that of can. 1399/CIC '83. I think there are at least three characteristics worthy of special attention. 1. The first is the difference we can find between can. 1341 (CIC ’83) and 1403 (CCEO’90), on the limits defined by law as for the possibility to start a penal process. In fact, while the Latin Code simply excludes it (i.e. “tunc tantum promovendam curet") when there is a hope that the situation can be sufficiently repaired even by fraternal correction, rebuke, or other means of pastoral solicitude, can. 1403 of the Eastern Code, in contrast, refers only to the possibility to abstain (i.e. "abstinere potest”) from penal reaction in a similar situation.10 11 In other words, while in the Latin Code the rule is that there is no possibility to start a penal process when there is an alternative possibility, in the Eastern Code the Hierarch is not obliged (but only authorized) to abstain from it. I think it is not necessary to emphasize how the apperception and practice of this difference, at first glance perhaps not so evident,11 could be important to support the real efficiency of Eastern penal law. What is more, according to § 2 of can. 1403 (CCEO) in case of an offense which carries a penalty whose remission is reserved to a higher authority, the Eastern Hierarch cannot at all abstain from penal reaction unless he obtains the permission in this sense from the same higher authority. 2. A second and very important but actually very scarcely known and hardly ever applied feature of the updated Eastern penal law is represented by the fact that the authorities seems to be not obliged to grant the remission of any penalties until the damage caused by the offence is repaired. Let me quote here a passage from the history of the Eastern codification to make clear this diversity of key importance: “In regards to the «ius ad absolutionem» or «ad remissionem poenae», the schema adheres to the rule by which «ex natura rei» the «ius ad remissionem» 10 CCEO can. 1403 - § 1. Etsi de delictis agitur, quae poenam secumferunt iure obligatoriam, hierarcha audito promotore iustitiae a procedura poenali, immo a poenis irrogandis prorsus abstinere potest, dummodo ipsius hierarchae iudicio haec omnia simul concurrant: delinquens in iudicium nondum delatus suum delictum hierarchae in foro externo sincera ptenitentia motus confessus est necnon de reparatione scandali et damni congrue provisum est. CIC ’83 can. 1341. - Ordinarius procedúrám iudicialem vel administrativam ad poenas irrogandas vel declarandas tunc tantum promovendam curet, cum perspexerit neque fraterna correctione neque correptione neque aliis pastoralis sollicitudinis viis satis posse scandalum reparari, iustitiam restitui, reum emendari. 11 For an opposite opinion which try to minimize the difference deductible from the above reported oriental norm, see: “il citato canone [c. 1341] trova pieno riscontro nel CCEO can. 1403 la cui formulazione è meno perentoria, ma non meno incisiva, per il conseguimento dela medesima finalità”, di Mattia, G., La normativa di diritto penale nel Codex iuris canonici e nel Codex canonum Ecclesiarum oriental ium, in Apollinaris 65 ( 1992) 161.
