PHẦN V. THỦ TỤC THƯỢNG CẦU CÓ TÍNH CÁCH HÀNH CHÍNH VÀ THỦ TỤC GIẢI NHIỆM HAY THUYÊN CHUYỂN CÁC CHA SỞ (Điều 1732-1752)

Whatever is laid down in the canons of this section concerning decrees, is also to be applied to all singular administrative acts given in the external forum outside a judicial trial, except for those given by the Roman Pontiff himself or by an Ecumenical Council.

§1 When a person believes that he or she has been injured by a decree, it is greatly to be desired that contention between that person and the author of the decree be avoided, and that care be taken to reach an equitable solution by mutual consultation, possibly using the assistance of serious-minded persons to mediate and study the matter. In this way, the controversy may by some suitable method be avoided or brought to an end.
§2 The Episcopal Conference can prescribe that in each diocese there be established a permanent office or council which would have the duty, in accordance with the norms laid down by the Conference, of seeking and suggesting equitable solutions. Even if the Conference has not demanded this, the Bishop may establish such an office or council.
§3 The office or council mentioned in
§2 is to be diligent in its work principally when the revocation of a decree is sought in accordance with can. 1734 and the time-limit for recourse has not elapsed. If recourse is proposed against a decree, the Superior who would have to decide the recourse is to encourage both the person having recourse and the author of the decree to seek this type of solution, whenever the prospect of a satisfactory outcome is discerned.

§1 Before having recourse, the person must seek in writing from its author the revocation or amendment of the decree. Once this petition has been lodged, it is by that very fact understood that the suspension of the execution of the decree is also being sought.
§2 The petition must be made within the peremptory time-limit of ten canonical days from the time the decree was lawfully notified.
§3 The norms in §
§1 and 2 do not apply:1° in having recourse to the Bishop against decrees given by authorities who are subject to him;2° in having recourse against the decree by which a hierarchical recourse is decided, unless the decision was given by the Bishop himself;3° in having recourse in accordance with cann. 57 and 1735.

If, within thirty days from the time the petition mentioned in can. 1734 reaches the author of the decree, the latter communicates a new decree by which either the earlier decree is amended or it is determined that the petition is to be rejected, the period within which to have recourse begins from the notification of the new decree. If, however, the author of the decree makes no decision within thirty days, the time-limit begins to run from the thirtieth day.

§1 In those matters in which hierarchical recourse suspends the execution of a decree, even the petition mentioned in can. 1734 has the same effect.
§2 In other cases, unless within ten days of receiving the petition mentioned in can. 1734 the author of the decree has decreed its suspension, an interim suspension can be sought from the author’s hierarchical Superior. This Superior can decree the suspension only for serious reasons and must always take care that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
§3 If the execution of the decree is suspended in accordance with
§2 and recourse is subsequently proposed, the person who must decide the recourse is to determine, in accordance with can. 1737
§3, whether the suspension is to be confirmed or revoked.
§4 If no recourse is proposed against the decree within the time-limit established, an interim suspension of execution in accordance with §
§1 and 2 automatically lapses.

§1 A person who contends that he or she has been injured by a decree, can for any just motive have recourse to the hierarchical Superior of the one who issued the decree. The recourse can be proposed before the author of the decree, who must immediately forward it to the competent hierarchical Superior.
§2 The recourse is to be proposed within the peremptory time limit of fifteen canonical days. In the cases mentioned in can. 1734
§3, the time limit begins to run from the day the decree was notified; in other cases, it runs in accordance with can. 1735.
§3 Even in those cases in which recourse does not by law suspend the execution of the decree, or in which the suspension is decreed in accordance with can. 1736
§2, the Superior can for a serious reason order that the execution be suspended, but is to take care that the salvation of souls suffers no harm. [An Authentic Interpretation of canon 1737, 20.VI.1987, establishes that a group of faithful, lacking juridical personality and even recognition envisaged in can 299
§3, cannot legitimately make hierarchical recourse against a decree of the diocesan bishop, but they may do so as individual members of the faithful, acting singly or together, provided they have a true grievance]

The person having recourse always has the right to the services of an advocate or procurator, but is to avoid futile delays. Indeed, an advocate is to be appointed ex officio if the person does not have one and the Superior considers it necessary. The Superior, however, can always order that the one having recourse appear in person to answer questions.

In so far as the case demands, it is lawful for the Superior who must decide the recourse, not only to confirm the decree or declare that it is invalid, but also to rescind or revoke it or, if it seems to the Superior to be more expedient, to amend it, to substitute for it, or to obrogate it. SECTION II: THE PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF PARISH PRIESTS PRIESTS

When the ministry of any parish priest has for some reason become harmful or at least ineffective, even though this occurs without any serious fault on his part, he can be removed from the parish by the diocesan Bishop.

The reasons for which a parish priest can lawfully be removed from his parish are principally:1° a manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;2° ineptitude or permanent illness of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily;3° the loss of the parish priest’s good name among upright and serious-minded parishioners, or aversion to him, when it can be foreseen that these factors will not quickly come to an end4° grave neglect or violation of parochial duties, which persistsafter a warning;5° bad administration of temporal goods with grave harm to the Church, when no other remedy can be found to eliminate this harm. [See also the observations in Explanatory Note of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, 13.XI.1997]

§1 If an investigation shows that there exists a reason mentioned in can. 1740, the Bishop is to discuss the matter with two parish priests from a group stably chosen for this purpose by the council of priests, at the proposal of the Bishop. If he then believes that he should proceed with the removal, the Bishop must, for validity, indicate to the parish priest the reason and the arguments, and persuade him in a fatherly manner to resign his parish within fifteen days.
§2 For parish priests who are members of a religious institute or a society of apostolic life, the provision of can. 682
§2 is to be observed.

The resignation of the parish priest can be given not only purely and simply, but even upon a condition, provided the condition is one which the Bishop can lawfully accept and does in fact accept.

§1 If the parish priest has not replied within the days prescribed, the Bishop is to renew his invitation and extend the canonical time within which a reply is to be made.
§2 If it is clear to the Bishop that the parish priest has received this second invitation but has not replied, even though not prevented from doing so by any impediment, or if the parish priest refuses to resign and gives no reasons for this, the Bishop is to issue a decree of removal.

If, however, the parish priest opposes the case put forward and the reasons given in it, but advances arguments which seem to the Bishop to be insufficient, to act validly the Bishop must:1° invite him to inspect the acts of the case and put together his objections in a written answer, indeed to produce contrary evidence if he has any;2° after this, complete the instruction of the case, if this is necessary, and weigh the matter with the same parish priests mentioned in can. 1742
§1, unless, because of some impossibility on their part, others are to be designated;3° finally, decide whether or not the parish priest is to be removed, and without delay issue the appropriate decree.

When the parish priest has been removed, the Bishop is to ensure that he is either assigned to another office, if he is suitable for one, or is given a pension in so far as the case requires this and the circumstances permit.

§1 A parish priest who has been removed must abstain from exercising the function of a parish priest, leave the parochial house free as soon as possible, and hand over everything pertaining to the parish to the person to whom the Bishop has entrusted it.
§2 If, however, it is a question of a sick man who cannot be transferred elsewhere from the parochial house without inconvenience, the Bishop is to leave to him the use, even the exclusive use, of the parochial house for as long as this necessity lasts.
§3 While recourse against a decree of removal is pending, the Bishop cannot appoint a new parish priest, but is to make provision in the meantime by way of a parochial administrator. PRIESTS

The good of souls or the necessity or advantage of the Church may demand that a parish priest be transferred from his own parish, which he governs satisfactorily, to another parish or another office. In these circumstances, the Bishop is to propose the transfer to him in writing and persuade him to consent, for the love of God and of souls.

If the parish priest proposes not to acquiesce in the Bishop’s advice and persuasion, he is to give his reasons in writing.

Despite the reasons put forward, the Bishop may judge that he should not withdraw from his proposal. In this case, together with two parish priests chosen in accordance with can. 1742
§1, he is to weigh the reasons which favour and those which oppose the transfer. If the Bishop still considers that the transfer should proceed, he is again to renew his fatherly exhortation to the parish priest.

§1 If, when these things have been done, the parish priest still refuses and the Bishop still believes that a transfer ought to take place, the Bishop is to issue a decree of transfer stating that, when a prescribed time has elapsed, the parish shall be vacant.
§2 When this time has elapsed without result, he is to declare the parish vacant.

In cases of transfer, the provisions of can. 1747 are to be applied, always observing canonical equity and keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law. ************************************** GLOSSARY advena the term to describe a person when he or she is actually present in the place where he or she has a quasi-domicile. ferendae sententiae the term to describe one of the two forms of penalty, namely, that which is imposed by the judgement of a court or by the decree of a Superior, when a person has been found guilty of an offence. (cf latae sententiae below.) incola the term to describe a person when he or she is actually present in the place where he or she has a domicile. inter vivos the term to describe a legal arrangement whereby, during lifetime, a person at once transfers proper to another person or corporate body. (cf mortis causa below). latae sententiae the term to describe one of the two forms of penalty, namely, that which is automatically incurred on committing an offence, without the intervention of a judge or Superior. (cf ferendae sententiae above.) magisterium the term to describe the teaching authority of the Church. mortis causa the term to describe a legal arrangement made by a person during lifetime, whereby only after his or her death property is transferred to another person or corporate body. (cf inter vivos above.) motu proprio the term to describe a rescript (cf can. 59
§1) which grants a favour not on the request of a petitioner, but on the sole initiative of the granting authority. peregrinus the term to describe a person when he or she is outside the place where he or she has a domicile or quasi-domicile, while still retaining that domicile or quasi-domicile. The plural is peregrini. presbyterium the term to describe the body of priests who are dedicated to the service of a particular Church, under the authority of the Bishop or other Superior equivalent to a Bishop. vagus the term to describe a person who has neither a domicile nor a quasi-domicile anywhere. The plural is vagi. **************************** PROMULGATION OF THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION Sacrae Disciplinae Leges To Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to the other members of the People of God JOHN PAUL BISHOP Servant of the Servants of God For an Everlasting Memorial Over the course of time, the Catholic Church has been wont to revise and renew the laws of its sacred discipline so that, maintaining always fidelity to the Divine Founder, these laws may be truly in accord with the salvific mission entrusted to the Church. With this sole aim in view, we today, 25 January 1983, bring to fulfilment the anticipation of the whole Catholic world, and decree the publication of the revised Code of Canon Law. In doing so, our thoughts turn back to this same date in 1959, when our predecessor, John XXIII of happy memory, first publicly announced his personal decision to reform the current body of canonical laws which had been promulgated on the feast of Pentecost 1917. This decision to renew the Code was taken with two others, of which that Pontiff spoke on the same day: they concerned his desire to hold a synod of the diocese of Rome and to convoke an Ecumenical Council. Even if the former does not have much bearing on the reform of the Code, the latter on the other hand, namely the Council, is of the greatest importance for our theme and is closely linked with its substance. If one asks why John XXIII had clearly perceived the need to reform the current Code, perhaps the answer is found in the 1917 Code itself. There is however another reason, the principal one, namely that the reform of the Code of Canon Law was seen to be directly sought and requested by the Council itself, which had particularly concentrated its attention upon the Church. As is quite clear, when the first announcement of the revision of the Code was made, the Council was something totally in the future. Moreover, the acts of its teaching authority, and particularly its teaching on the Church, were to be developed over the years 1962-65. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to see that John XXIII’s insight was most accurate, and his proposal must rightly be acknowledged as one which looked well ahead to the good of the Church. Therefore, the new Code which appears today necessarily required the prior work of the Council and, although it was announced together with that ecumenical gathering, it follows it in order of time, since the tasks needed for its preparation could not begin until the Council had ended. Turning our thoughts today to the beginning of that long journey, that is to 25 January 1959 and to John XXIII himself, the originator of the review of the Code, we must acknowledge that this Code drew its origin from one and the same intention, namely the renewal of Christian life. All the work of the Council drew its norms and its shape principally from that same intention. If we now turn our attention to the nature of the labours which preceded the promulgation of the Code and to the manner in which they were performed, especially during the Pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul I and then up to this present day, it is vital to make quite clear that these labours were brought to their conclusion in an eminently collegial spirit. This not only relates to the external composition of the work, but it affects also the very substance of the laws which have been drawn up. This mark of collegiality by which the process of this Code’s origin was prominently characterised, is entirely in harmony with the teaching authority and the nature of the Second Vatican Council. The Code therefore, not only because of its content but because also of its origin, demonstrates the spirit of this Council in whose documents the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation (cf Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 9, 48) is presented as the People of God, and its hierarchical constitution is shown as founded on the College of Bishops together with its Head. For this reason therefore, the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences were invited to associate themselves with the work of preparing the new Code, so that through a task of such length, in as collegial a manner as possible, little by little the juridical formulae would come to maturity and would then serve the whole Church. During the whole period of this task, experts also took part, people endowed with particular academic standing in the areas of theology, history and especially canon law, drawn from all parts of the world. To each and every one of them we express our deepest gratitude today. We recall, first of all, those Cardinals, now deceased, who headed the preparatory Commission, Cardinal Pietro Ciriaci who began the work, and Cardinal Pericles Felici who over a period of several years guided the labours almost to their goal. We think then of the Secretaries of this Commission, Monsignor, later Cardinal, Giacomo Violardo and Father Raimondo Bidagor SJ, both of whom lavished their talents of learning and wisdom on their role. Together with them, we recall the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, and all who were members of this Commission as well as the Consultors of the individual study groups engaged over these years in that strenuous task. God has called these to their eternal reward in the meantime. For With pleasure we also refer to the living: in the first place, to the present Pro-President of the Commission, our venerable brother Rosalio Castillo Lara, who has worked so outstandingly for so long in a role of such responsibility. Next, we refer to our beloved son, Monsignor William Onclin, who has contributed to the successful outcome of the task with assiduous and diligent care. Then there are others who played an inestimable part in this Commission, in developing and completing a task of such volume and complexity, whether as Cardinal members, or as officials, consultors and collaborators in the various study groups or in other roles. In promulgating this Code today, therefore, we are fully conscious that this act stems from our pontifical authority itself, and so assumes a primatial nature. Yet we are no less aware that in its content this Code reflects the collegial solicitude for the Church of all our brothers in the episcopate. Indeed, by a certain analogy with the Council itself, the Code must be viewed as the fruit of collegial cooperation, which derives from the combined energies of experienced people and institutions throughout the whole Church. A second question arises: what is the Code? For an accurate answer to this question, it is necessary to remind ourselves of that distant heritage of law contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments. It is from this, as from its first source, that the whole juridical and legislative tradition of the Church derives. For Christ the Lord in no way abolished the bountiful heritage of the law and the prophets which grew little by little from the history and experience of the People of God in the Old Testament. Rather he fulfilled it (cf Matt.5,17), so that it could, in a new and more sublime way, lead to the heritage of the New Testament. Accordingly, although St Paul in expounding the mystery of salvation teaches that justification is not obtained through the works of the law but through faith (cf Rom.3,28; Gal.2,16), nonetheless he does not exclude the binding force of the Decalogue (cf Rom.13,8-10; Gal.5,13-25; 6, 2), nor does he deny the importance of discipline in the Church (cf 1 Cor.5 and 6). Thus the writings of the New Testament allow us to perceive more clearly the great importance of this discipline and to understand better the bonds which link it ever more closely with the salvific character of the Gospel message. Granted this, it is sufficiently clear that the purpose of the Code is not in any way to replace faith, grace, charisms and above all charity in the life of the Church or of Christ’s faithful. On the contrary, the Code rather looks towards the achievement of order in the ecclesial society, such that while attributing a primacy to love, grace and the charisms, it facilitates at the same time an orderly development in the life both of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it. As the Church’s fundamental legislative document, and because it is based on the juridical and legislative heritage of revelation and tradition the Code must be regarded as the essential instrument for the preservation of right order, both in individual and social life and in the Church’s zeal. Therefore, over and above the fundamental elements of the hierarchical and organic structure of the Church established by the Divine Founder based on apostolic or other no less ancient tradition, and besides the principal norms which concern the exercise of the threefold office entrusted to the Church, it is necessary for the Code to define also certain rules and norms of action. The instrument, such as the Code is, fully accords with the nature of the Church, particularly as presented in the authentic teaching of the Second Vatican Council seen as a whole, and especially in its ecclesiological doctrine. In fact, in a certain sense, this new Code can be viewed as a great effort to translate the conciliar ecclesiological teaching into canonical terms. If it is impossible perfectly to transpose the image of the Church described by conciliar doctrine into canonical language, nevertheless the Code must always be related to that image as to its primary pattern, whose outlines, given its nature, the Code must express as far as is possible. Hence flow certain fundamental principles by which the whole of the new Code is governed, within the limits of its proper subject and of its expression, which must reflect that subject. Indeed it is possible to assert that from this derives that characteristic whereby the Code is regarded as a complement to the authentic teaching proposed by the Second Vatican Council and particularly to its Dogmatic and Pastoral Constitutions. From this it follows that the fundamental basis of the ‘newness’ which, while never straying from the Church’s legislative tradition, is found in the Second Vatican Council and especially in its ecclesiological teaching, generates also the mark of ‘newness’ in the new Code. Foremost among the elements which express the true and authentic image of the Church are: the teaching whereby the Church is presented as the People of God (cf Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 2) and its hierarchical authority as service (ibid n. 3); the further teaching which portrays the Church as a communion and then spells out the mutual relationships which must intervene between the particular and the universal Church, and between collegiality and primacy; likewise, the teaching by which all members of the People of God share, each in their own measure, in the threefold priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, with which teaching is associated also that which looks to the duties and rights of Christ’s faithful and specifically the laity; and lastly the assiduity which the Church must devote to ecumenism. If, therefore, the Second Vatican Council drew old and new from the treasury of tradition, and if its newness is contained in these and other elements, it is abundantly clear that the Code receives into itself the same mark of fidelity in newness and newness in fidelity, and that its specific content and corresponding form of expression is in conformity with this aim. The new Code of Canon Law is published precisely at a time when the Bishops of the whole Church are not only asking for its promulgation but indeed are insistently and vehemently demanding it. And in fact a Code of Canon Law is absolutely necessary for the Church. Since the Church is established in the form of a social and visible unit, it needs rules, so that its hierarchical and organic structure may be visible; that its exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, particularly of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, is properly ordered; that the mutual relationships of Christ’s faithful are reconciled in justice based on charity, with the rights of each safeguarded and defined; and lastly, that the common initiatives which are undertaken so that Christian life may be ever more perfectly carried out, are supported strengthened and promoted by canonical laws. Finally, canonical laws by their very nature demand observance. For this reason, the greatest care has been taken that during the long preparation of the Code there should be an accurate expression of the norms and that they should depend upon a sound juridical, canonical and theological foundation. In view of all this, it is very much to be hoped that the new canonical legislation will be an effective instrument by the help of which the Church will be able to perfect itself in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, and show itself ever more equal to carry out its salvific role in the world. It is pleasing to set out these reflections of ours in a trusting spirit as we promulgate this principal body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin Church. May God grant that joy and peace, with justice and obedience, may commend this Code, and that what is bidden by the head will be obeyed in the body. Relying, therefore, on the help of divine grace, supported by the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge and assenting to the pleas of the Bishops of the whole world who have laboured with us in collegial good will, by the supreme authority which is ours, and by means of this Constitution of ours which is to have effect for the future, we promulgate this present Code as it has been compiled and reviewed. We order that henceforth it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and we commit its observance to the care and vigilance of all who are responsible. In order, however, that all may properly investigate these prescriptions and intelligently come to know them before they take effect, we decree and command that they shall come into force from the first day of Advent of the year 1983, all ordinances, constitutions and privileges, even those meriting special and individual mention, as well as contrary customs, notwithstanding. We, therefore, exhort all our beloved children to observe, with sincere mind and ready will, the precepts laid down, buoyed up by the hope that a zealous Church discipline will flourish anew, and that from it the salvation of souls also will be ever more fervently promoted, with the assistance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church. Given at Rome, in the Vatican, on the 25th day of January 1983, in the fifth year of our Pontificate. JOHN PAUL II