Walor zasad i warunków określonych w kan. 65 § 1 KPK dotyczących odniesienia się do innego ordynariusza w przypadku odmowy udzielenia łaski przez własnego ordynariusza
The value of the rules and conditions laid down in can. 65 § 1 CIC/83 concerning reference to another Ordinary in the case of refusal to grant favor by one's own Ordinary

Summary/Abstract: In the study presented here, the author has reflected on the value of the principles and conditions set out in can. 65 § 1 CIC/83 concerning the reference to another Ordinary in the case of refusal of favor by one's own Ordinary. He expressed the view that in interpreting this regulation, one cannot content oneself with a literal interpretation. He took the view that the fact that there is no explicit reference in the text of the first paragraph of can. 65 CIC/83 indicating the non-existence of an invalidating or disqualifying act (can. 10), one cannot conclude with certainty that this regulation does not have such a character. He showed that, in the case of the hypothesis concerning the mention of the refusal of favor, the occurrence of subreption and malice cannot be excluded. He argued that if subreption met the conditions set out in can. 63 § 1 CIC/83, then this would result in the nullity of the rescript issued. If, on the other hand, there was malice, despite the fact that, by virtue of can. 125 § 2 CIC/83, the decision of the Ordinary was valid, it could still be invalidated because of the injustice involved. Of a different nature, according to the author, is another condition involving the need for consultation. He showed that in Latin legislation, unlike in Eastern legislation, it is a requirement introduced into the structure of the act, not required for validity, but only for lawfulness.

• Details
• Contents