Folia Theologica et Canonica, Supplementum (2016)

Péter Szabó, The Penal Legality and Guarantees of Self-Defense in Canon Law: CIC/CCEO

THE PENAL LEGALITY AND GUARANTEES OF SELF-DEFENSE IN CANON LAW: CIC/CCEO 193

(5) Finally, for some authors just the term “iusta poena” referred to by our norm a priori precludes any grave penalty.6

As all the above mentioned types of penalties are excluded, it is not clear which -among the only possible “ferendae sententiae”, expiatory temporal ones- there could be a proportionate penalty to the grave situations envisaged by can. 1399/CIC ’83. If this is not the case, it should be asked whether the infliction of a clearly inappropriate penalty could really help to clarify the situation. Could it not rather increase the scandal as a sign of the incapacity to adequately face the challenge? This question is still more urgent if we take into consideration that in the case of the application of can. 1399 all the norms of penal process are to be followed.7

So we cannot but agree with the statement according to which “the actual scope and practical operability of the juridical instrument provided in this canon is very limited, almost nonexistent. Only with difficulty can it be considered as pastorally effective measure against urgent and grave situations that can be more speedily resolved with greater effectiveness and justice by other means; including non-penal ones, as provided by law; for example by correction (cf. c. 1339, § 2)”.8 Indeed, as it is emphasized by the doctrine, the practical un-usefulness of can. 1399/CIC ’83 is also verified by the fact that its aim can even be better realized by a simple penal precept or by an equivalent warning with the threat of penalty.'*

In conclusion, as it seems to be quite clear from all which I have said above, can. 1399/CIC ’83, at least from practical point of view, is not really capable in a significant way to aid the efficiency of penal law in the Latin Church.

‘ Cf. “Quelli maggiori sono già stati previsti dalla legge penale e adeguatamente puniti sia con pene medicinali sia con pene espiatorie, sia latae sìa ferendae sententiae. L’autorità competente, quindi, non dovrebbe far ricorso alle pene maggiori, ma soltanto a quelle medie o minori” C

alabrese, A., Diritto penale canonico, Cinisello Balsamo 1990. 292; refered by Sanchis, J., La legge penale e il precetto penale (fin. 1 ), 54.

7 Sanchis, J., La legge penale e il precetto penale (ftn. 1), 48; cf. "Inanzitutto, sebbene sia preceduta dal titolo, forse un po’ ambiguo di «Norma generale», essa, per la sua collocazione nella parte II del Libro VI non deroga al regime giuridico previsto per le altre norme tipicizzatrici di comportamenti delittuosi, ma è assoggettata ai limiti legali previsti dalle norme contenute nella parte I, che fungono da principi fondamentali dell’attuale sistema penale canonico”, de Paolis, V. - Cito, D., Le sanzioni nella Chiesa (ftn. 3), 368.

* Exegetical Commentary (ftn. 4), IV/1.561 [Sanchis, J.[.

9 See for example: Sanchis, J ..La legge penale e il precetto penale (ftn. 1 ), 61. Arias-Gómez, J., El sistema penai canònico ante la reforma del CIC, in Ius canonicum 15 (1975) 237-238. Gottero, R., La «norma generale» del diritto penale canonico (can. 1399) [ftn. 1 ], 353-354. Green, Th. J., Penal Law. A Review of Selected Themes, in The Jurist 50 (1990) 246: “(...) we need to be alert to the risk (...) of arbitrary actions by church authorities inattentive to the extraordinary nature of can. 1399. At times the good of the community requires an expeditious procedure in dealing with especially serious and scandalous legal violations to which a penalty is not attached. Yet perhaps an appropriate penal precept (c. 1319) might enable church authority to cope with such a problematic situation without necessarily having recourse to this canon [c. 1399] (...)”; see also: Pighin, at footnote 3, above.