Talk:Canon 1397 §2

Date
When was this enacted? RJFJR (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Unless an act is intrinsically evil"?
Sorry if I'm wrong, but reading through the code of canon law, the text seems to suggest that the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication doesn't apply if an act is intrinsically evil and a person acts out of grave fear. Canon 1324 includes three § points, of which §1 specifies situations in which a penalty should be tempered (including grave fear specifically if an act is intrinsically evil), and of which §3 states that, in the case of any of the situations mentioned under §1, a person is not to be punished by a latae sententiae penalty. This could not be referring back to the point stating that person is not to be punished by any penalty if they act under grave fear and the act is not intrinsically evil because that section is in a different canon law and is not prefaced with §1, and because the article here would then be wrong in suggesting that the person can punished by another penalty (since specifically a person is not to be punished at all under those circumstances). The relevant portions of canon law are here, as taken from the Vatican website linked to in the article:

"Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed: 5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls; §3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty."

The article present here on Canon 1324 essentially says the same thing, so as of now, these two pages conflict. I'm not certain whether the article linked to in French might be incorrect, but I have decided to change this because both a page on this website and the actual canon referred to contradict the content currently present. Sorry for the long post here, but I thought that this was a significant enough change to merit an explanation. Chri$topher (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Canon 1398. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203065937/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008122958/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#-2C6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224152526/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224152526/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224152526/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323035104/http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=31598 to http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=31598
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153757/http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,cnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo,338133,0.htm to http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,cnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo,338133,0.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)