University Faculty
of Canon Law
www.iuscangreg.itCIC1983CCEOLaw of the Latin ChurchOriental lawParticular LawProper law / statutesSources of past lawJurisprudence STSAInternational TreatiesWebsitesLiteraturePeriodica de re canonicaCanon Law BibliographySearch enginesLinklistSitemapProfessorsFamous professors from the 20th century
Jurisprudence of the Apostolic Signatura in contentious-administrative cases
 
 

Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
Sententia definitiva of 01.12.2009, Prot. N. 38743/06 CA


Petitioner Rev.dus X
Respondent Congregatio pro Clericis
Object Translationis
coram Burke
Publication IE 27 (2015) 105-114; W.L. Daniel, Ministerium Iustitiae II, 105-116
Download
Translations angl.: W.L. Daniel, Ministerium Iustitiae II, 105-116; it., IE 27 (2015) 105-114
Content Constat de violatione legis in procedendo.
Notes Cf. prot. nn. 38743/06 CA - DS; 46792/12 CA
Sources 
?
Legenda
 
Canons of the Code 1983
All the canons that are found in the in iure and in the in facto part of the decisions are reported in the sources.
The canons that constitute the main object of the decision or on which the decision sets out a principle of interpretation are reported in bold.
The canons of the 1983 Code are shown in italics:
- if they do not appear in the text of the decision but if the decision deals with them;
- if they correspond to canons of the 1917 Code, of which the decision (prior to 1983) deals.

Other sources
All the sources that are found in the in iure and in the in facto part of the decisions are reported.
CIC cann. 51; 274 § 2; 1740-1747; 1741, n. 1; 1742 § 1; 1748-1752; 1747; 1748; 1749; 1750; 1752
Legal Summary
1. Sufficit ut inter rationes adductas bonum animarum de quo in can 1748 reapse habeatur ut translatio legitima censeri possit (in casu adductae fuerunt etiam causae amotioni aptae).
1. Suffice it that among the reasons listed was in fact the good of souls referred to in can 1748, such that the transfer could be considered legitimate (in this case also, causes for removal were also considered).
2. Officium ad quod Episcopus parochum transferre vult propter bonum animarum vel Ecclesiae necessitatem aut utilitatem (cf. can. 1748) necessarie determinatum esse debet. Violatio legis proinde in procedendo habetur si procedura quoad translationem ad aliud officium parochi instituitur at decretum translationis ad officium cappellani denique editur; nam ad translationem ad officium cappellani deficiunt invitatio, de qua in can. 1748, colloquium cum duobus parochis, de quo in can. 1750, immo et articulatio rationum in ipso decreto, de qua in can. 51.
2. The office to which the Bishop intends to transfer the pastor for the good of souls, or need, or usefulness of the Church (cf. can. 1748) must necessarily be determined. There is therefore a violation of the law in proceeding if the procedure for the transfer to another parish is used, but the final decision is for the transfer to the office of chaplain; for the transfer to the office of chaplain lacked the invitation mentioned in can. 1748, the consultation of the two parish priests mentioned in can. 1750, indeed the same articulation of the reasons in the same decree mentioned in can. 51.
3. Illegitima translatione decreta, non eo ipso cadit suspensio ab Episcopo forte parocho translato irrogata ob inoboedientiam praescriptis de quibus in can. 1752, quatenus ad can. 1747, § 1 remittit.
Cf. etiam prot. n. 38743/06 CA - DS
3. Having decreed the illegitimacy of the transfer, the present suspension, which was imposed by the Bishop on the transferred pastor on account of disobedience to the prescriptions mentioned in can. 1752, does not cease automatically, in so far as the canon refers to can. 1747, § 1.
 Italian - German - Spanish - French - Portughese
Comments J. Canosa, «Aspetti dello statuto giuridico dei chierici trattati in due decisioni della Segnatura Apostolica», IE 27 (2015) 117-124

Author of the legal summary in Latin: © G. Paolo Montini
Translation into English: © Sean Dewitt