Talk:Canon law of the Catholic Church/Archive 1

Article creation
This article was created on May 13th, 2006 with material moved from the article, Canon law which at this time will remain a general article on the subject.

As I am able to have time, it I will be filling out the additional sections listed here:


 * Major divisions of canon law
 * Religious life
 * Orders
 * Marriage/Annulments
 * Sacraments

If you have any suggestions or thoughts for these articles, please let me know. --Vaquero100 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Page rename
unilaterally moved this page to a different name, giving as the reason ''The title used in wikipedia's main article is RCC. Unless that changes, these pages should reflect that consensus''. It's not clear how that reason is relevant here. The article CC redirects to RCC, and as this was determined by a specific vote, it could be argued that it is the consensus view that CC and RCC are interchangeable. It's also not clear how the naming of this article relates to the so-called "main article." Furthermore, discussions at RCC have generally agreed that in the specific topic of "Catholic Church and Canon Law", "Catholic" is not ambiguous and does not need modification with "Roman." Therefore I ask that the move be reverted, ideally self-reverted by Andrew. Gimmetrow 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the last move of this article because it was done without due process. At the very least, this requires a discussion on the talk page.  If this kind of unilateral action continues, it will have to be reported.  Vaquero100 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm thinking of it, an anon added a lot of content to Canon law, such that now the "summary" there is about as big as the article here. Suggest it be reduced back to a summary with content merged here. Gimmetrow 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Vaquero's reversion has been re-reverted by . The redirect at Canon law (Catholic Church) was deleted for some reason, causing confusion. To avoid a move war I am listing this on requested moves for comment. Gimmetrow 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should not be at Canon law (Roman Catholic Church) It also seems odd to maintain the disputed name during a dispute. Gimmetrow 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Short response - if it were up to me I would probably name this article "Canon law of the Catholic Church". The article at Canon law should discuss ecclesiastical law in general, esp. history. In the context of canon law, "Catholic Church" is not really ambiguous - and in a sense there is a consensus on this, as the point has been made multiple times in the CC/RCC naming discussion and nobody has objected as far as I can recall. Note that this article does cover the Eastern Catholic Churches, who may (in this context) not identify as Roman, and so "Roman" is arguably inappropriate. (I don't see what you are referring to in the Catholic encyclopedia article.) We really need some uses of Catholic Church without Roman to avoid the opposite form of POV pushing. Gimmetrow 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the context of Canon law, there is no real confusion about what Catholic Church means
 * Insisting on Roman in this context appears to push a POV where none is needed
 * Moves away from the original name were done without discussion, and apparently out-of-process.
 * Parenthetical elements in titles are generally undesirable.
 * Seeing as both names are disputed by some party, I think keeping it here while we're talking this out is appropriate to do. I moved this because Vaquero100 has been moving around pages removing the word "Roman" without any kind of discussion. The Catholic encyclopedia linked in this article mentions several other Catholic denominations. Right now, the article only mentions the Roman Catholic Church so I don't see what a move would accomplish. If these are mentioned in the article so all different types of Catholicism are included, I'd be happy to move no questions asked. - Mgm|(talk) 16:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary moving of this article cannot be excused by objecting to purported arbitrary moves of other articles. Mgm, It is intersting that when an article is moved against your POV you find it contemptible.  If, however, it it moved in accordance with your personal POV, it must remain while "this is in discussion."  I think we need to request some editors whose biases are at least not so blatantly transparent.
 * Frankly, as Gimmetrow so politely indicated already, this HAS already been discussed. Fishhead64 posted the matter at Requests for Comment directing the conversation to Talk:Roman Catholic/Church Name. Please see the discussion there.
 * Also, please see the discussion at CC v. RCC. One of the perpetual problems in these discussions is that folks drop by for a moment make a quick comment based on their non-WP presumptions (particularly religious ones) and when they are faced with well-reasoned argument, they refuse to engage. I never realized before coming to WP how intractible and viceral people's reactions are to "Catholic Church."  Those who weigh in on this topic so vociferously usually do so from a religious POV.  They are not your average reader, they usually have a theological background.  All the evidence from objective WP approved sources regarding general use of the English language point overwhelmingly toward "Catholic Church."  Those who vote on this topic seem to do so on their pre-judgements and ignore the arguments based on general use as well as those based on the self-identification of the entity and the official name of the entity.  This is what AndrewC was doing the other day.  He just made changes based on whatever, ingnoring entirely the best arguments on the subject.
 * If this is how WP actually functions, then there is a fatal irreparable flaw. Perhaps that flaw lies in Administrators approving new administrators who share their biases. Perhaps, it is just human nature.  But there is something wrong when an organization purports to be based on rational argument is more governed by feelings, pre-judgements and political leveraging.    Vaquero100 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another sign of blatant hostility is MGM's and Andrew's refusal to make intelligent edits rather than simply conveniently reverting material which might draw into question their very actions.

An example is this section:


 * ==Terminology==
 * Roman Catholic Church is especially an inaccurate term with regard to the Church's canon law as Eastern Rite Catholics have their own canon law and never use "Roman" to describe themselves. Eastern Rite Catholics are in communion with Rome and are Catholics but are not "Roman Catholics." It is always incorrect to refer to the Canon Law of the "Roman Catholic Church" unless one is speaking only of the law governing the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

Somehow I doubt that either AndrewC or MGM have any real familiarity with the subject of Canon Law in the Catholic Church. I have taken 3 graduate courses. It's not a degree, but I know enough to state the above. If there were any question about a source for this material, I would be glad to furnish it. Precisely how many canons of Catholic Canon Law have either of you two read???

Vaquero100 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Without commenting either way on what this page should be called, shouldn't the template on top of this talk page be changed somehow? It currently suggests moving the article to the name where it already is located. — Mi r  a  07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bracketed article naming
When I named this article originally, I used the brackets without realizing that it is not preferred by some WP editors. I am certainly not wedded to this format, although I have used it for several articles.

The origins of this format lie in the months long discussion of articles related to the Catholic Church. Some editors expressed concern that articles related to the Catholic Church should not simply be titled Catholic X, because that might be confused with the theological (or credal) concept of "Catholic" as used by some churches, Anglicans in particular. Articles which clearly refer to an aspect of the Catholic Church as an institution, it has been suggested, should reflect the institutional nature of the article to avoid confusion with the theological sense of the word.

My personal sense of this distinction is that it will make no difference to the average user. These are the kinds of hairsplitting distinctions that satisfy specialist editors (or at least mollify some of them to some degree). In the case of Canon Law as stated above by Gimmetrow, how can there be a "Catholic Canon Law" in the theological sense? Canon Law as product of institutions, cannot really refer to anything but the particular institutional and distinct and fairly unrelated systems of canon law in the various churches which call themselves Catholic in the sense of their proper name (Polish National Catholic Church, Independent Catholic Church, Catholic Church, etc.) and those who identify themselves as Catholic theologically (Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Churches, etc.) Such an article would be unwieldly and non productive. Even an article on Anglican Canon law can do little more than discuss the evolution of canon law in England and then note that each Anglican province has its own church law which is independent.

Anyway, if this article were named "Canon law of the Catholic Church," I would be fine with that. What is particularly objectionable in my view and from the point of view of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is the use of "Roman," for reasons stated above. If the current format is problematic, I would be glad to discuss other article naming ideas that anyone might have. We can discuss that here, but as I said, other articles should follow the same format agreed upon here, I would think anyway. Such articles include Eucmenism (Catholic Church), Consecrated life (Catholic Church, and others I will have to check on. So, this conversation might work well in a venue attached to the Catholic Church article or on the Wikipedia WikiProject Catholicism 101 in order to centralize it.  Vaquero100 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1998 update
I would be indeed grateful to Cat Whisperer, if he would give information in this article about the 1998 update to the Code of Canon Law. I presume there are others too who are as ignorant about it as I confess I am. Does the Latin text referenced have the update? Lima 14:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Cat Whisperer 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. In the article I have taken the liberty to alter the word "update", which made at least me think of something much broader than a modification of two canons. Lima 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

changes made
THis material was removed for two reasons. First, it doesn't belong here. Second, it isn't true. There are lots of faculties of canon law, not just the Gregorian, and just as many, or more, canonists in the US (for instance) from CUA. The Angelicum is as widely known. Why the peroration on the fantasticality of the Greg. in the middle of this article is beyond me. There are also an awful lot of cardinals who have never earned a degree from the Greg. Finally, plenty of canonists practice in diocesan and metropolitan tribunals having never been "admitted to the bar" of the Signatura, which is a lawyer's court for disputes among Roman dicasteries -- the Rota is where the vast majority of cases wind up in any event.HarvardOxon 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As HarvardOxon points out, there are other schools than the Greg........and to practice Canon Law, you need a JCL.....period.DaveTroy 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the footnotes?
Hey all, thanks for writing such great articles!!

That being said, I went back, edited and added footnotes, refs and citations, which do not seem to appear as footnotes in the article. The info is there when you click into edit the page, and the footnote number is there......but the ref/footnote itself didn't make it in.

HELP??? LOL Did the footnotes fall off the page?

DaveTroy 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Cat Whisperer 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!DaveTroy 13:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Corpus Juris Canonici
The article Corpus Juris Canonici is in its subject a near duplicate of this article. I am somewhat surprised that it has not been identified until now. patsw 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Corpus Iuris Canonici is just one aspect of the overall subject of Catholic canon law. I think they should be separate articles.  I still support the proposed merge of Corpus Juris Canonici into Corpus Iuris Canonici. -- Cat Whisperer 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cat Whisperer. Lima 04:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment to Talk:Corpus Iuris Canonici. I think Cat Whisperer should just go ahead and boldly merge the two articles about exactly the same matter discussed there.  Lima 04:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem of similar contents of the articles Corpus Iuris Canonici and Catholic canon law. Perhaps this article should show the history of the Catholic canon law and contain a list of single laws as the Corpus Iuris Canonici, while special articles as Corpus Iuris Canonici should show the content of these laws, the sense of their regulations and the development of legal institutions, used by these laws.Thw1309 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The L in Canon law should be capitalized.

Canon Law is a legal situation. The Corpus Juris Canonici is a historical instantiation of it that is no longer operative but has been replaced. They are not the same thing. The articles should not be merged. Considering that there hasn't been any discussion since April, I'm pulling the suggestion. TMLutas (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles on individual canons
Because many current ecclesiastic controversies seem unjustified given the ignorance of the norms set forth by Canon law, I presume that it would be a good thing for Wiki-editors to make a thorough examination of some of the more complicated pieces of canonical jurisdiction. For instance, Canon 1398 excommunicates people that have procured an abortion ; it is considered controversial yet it is often misunderstood for various reasons. Another interesting canon is Canon 915, which has been invoked by Archbishop and Chief canonist Raymond Burke in order to oblige politicians who support Abortion to refrain from taking communion. For the election or even the possible resignation of a Roman Pontiff, the law is canon 332. ADM (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Article needs section on penalties etc. under canon law
For the non-Catholic reader in particular some discussion is required of what the Church's legal framework (canon law plus any relevant executive functions) can do by way of sanction, discipline, or punishment. As I understand it, in earlier times this would include indefinite imprisonment and torture, but not spilling of blood or the death penalty (the Church and state worked together then; the Church would pass sentence of death, the state would automatically execute the sentence). This is particularly relevant to Catholic sex abuse cases: the Church has been very reluctant to involve or even inform the state, but what is done, and what can be done, under canon law? Are any penalties appropriate for very grave offences against the person available? Pol098 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that parents discovered abuse long before church did and could have gone to authorities. Parents did not want their child to testify. This is true today with most of teacher abuse problems, perhaps 1000/annually in US. Most are dropped. A few plea-bargains. Few trials. Church (like principals in school) have only second hand information, and usually third hand. About 15% of all reports (church and teacher) are false. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

canonic law?
The hdr at the bottom of the infobox says: "Canonic Law of Vatican I". Is "Canonic" correct? Should it instead be "Canon Law"? Eagle4000 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. Not finding any support for "canonical." (Maybe in mathematics? :)  Student7 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Private revelation
I presume that this template has been added because canon law controls the admission of testimony of religious revelation to individuals. This seems a bit arcane since it seems out of context. The article fails to mention this. Otherwise, it seems to me that the template is irrelevant and conveys, rather, the opposite impression; that canon law is construed by private revelation when it is just the reverse! Student7 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing sections, unverified claims
This article is missing information on:
 * extent and structure of the code (penal code, common, civic...???)
 * applicability and scope
 * interoperability with "local secular law"

Unverified and fuzzy phrases: "fully developed legal system", "fully articulated legal code" Richiez (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added refs to both these phrases from reputable sources. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the structure of the code, see Code of Canon Law.                                                                              Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

thou shall not take the name of the lord in vane
why does no one initate thetaking of the lord in vane. I know knights who were outrite takers of the name of Jesus in vane--it has to be a mortal sin.why does the church put up with it? someone take the ball and carry it--how can one go to confession and not be absolved of this sin---the church turned its back on us but it is bigger than me to change it. bob bruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.127.41 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Do not confuse morality with canon law. Canon law does have provisions against some things meant with the second commandment, to wit blasphemy and perjury, others are just sins which are dealt with by confessors, and others - I'm inclined to say - that are hold to be sins in English-speaking mentality are not sinful at all. 2. You can be absolved of the sin if you go to Confession... but then I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say.--93.135.42.249 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Coercive force
It lacks the coercive force present in most legal systems. Doubt that. It has excommunication, and lesser penalties. They are meant to be coercive, and excepting the religiously indifferent, plus the very rare species of heretic who, in an approximation of Chesterton's words, rather excommunicates the Church that acknowledge it really is the Church that is excommunicating him, they are.--93.135.42.249 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I researched this and changed the article to reflect your point, since I found secondary literature that used the wording of coercive penalties. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Canon Law
This article needs aditional information on the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches. Alternatively, someone could create a separate article on Eastern Canon Law. I'd love to do it but don't know enough on the subject and don't have appropriate reference resources on hand. Majoreditor 03:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing the same need as you do, I recently created the article "Oriental canon law" as a general article on the canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Cannot read a clear consensus for moves for now following this discussion. Some pages seem to be more discussed than others. Consider breaking this RM into pieces (like the first 3 or last 2 (mention other pages here for better context)?) if further discussion is warranted. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

– To introduce some WP:CONSISTENCY and improve PRECISION. This will (1) reconcile the inconsistency between Catholic canon law articles disambiguated imprecisely as (Catholic Church) with those disambiguated as (canon law), and (2) improve the precision of the (canon law) disambiguator by specifying that it is Catholic canon law in question. UPDATE: Per 's comments, I've amended the clerical celibacy entry. It did not deal primarily with canon law. The new nomination for that article's title addresses its WP:NATURAL issue. Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC), amended 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Canon law (Catholic Church) → Catholic canon law
 * Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) → Clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church
 * Seal of the Confessional (Catholic Church) → Seal of the Confessional (Catholic canon law)
 * Affinity (canon law) → Affinity (Catholic canon law)
 * Impediment (canon law) → Impediment (Catholic canon law)
 * Presumption (canon law) → Presumption (Catholic canon law)
 * Person (canon law) → Person (Catholic canon law)
 * Custom (canon law) → Custom (Catholic canon law)
 * Dispensation (canon law) → Dispensation (Catholic canon law)
 * Interpretation (canon law) → Interpretation (Catholic canon law)
 * Promulgation (canon law) → Promulgation (Catholic canon law)
 * Notary (canon law) → Notary (Catholic canon law)
 * Canon (canon law) → Canon (Catholic canon law)
 * Decree (canon law) → Decree (Catholic canon law)
 * Laicization (Catholic Church) → Laicization (Catholic canon law)
 * Excommunication (Catholic Church) → Excommunication (Catholic canon law)
 * Neutral problem fixed, not knowledgeable enough on the overall topics to nay or yay. Oppose until you go through each one and make sure the move is appropriate. The 'Clerical celibacy' article has little to do with canon law, and there's another one out of the three I checked which doesn't fit. Please limit the scope of this RM to applicable articles. Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just went through them all to double-check. The only one that's questionable is the clerical celibacy article; I've amended that entry of the nomination.  Other than that, they all refer to the main topic "in Catholic canon law" or "in the (jurisprudence of) canon law of the Catholic Church"; or in the case of the seal of the confessional, deals primarily with Catholic canon law, modern and historical, except for the section on its application to civil law.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Do you still oppose? Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 18:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping. Will go through and study this, probably tomorrow. I'm often surprised, but not as much anymore, how few editors comment on these moves. Randy Kryn 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Move most: it is more WP:PRECISE.
 * but not Canon law (Catholic Church) → Catholic canon law
 * I think, that to match the Oriental canon law, redirects from Catholic canon law and Latin canon law are just as precise. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's equally precise, but the current title Canon law (Catholic Church) is not as natural as it could be. The disambiguator could easily be taken out of the parentheses, either as Catholic canon law (in the vein of Catholic theology, Catholic ecclesiology, etc.) or, less desirably, as Canon law of the Catholic Church (in the vein of Sacraments of the Catholic Church). Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 15:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, then Canon law (Catholic Church) → Canon law of the Catholic Church is my preference, per type-of-thing in a scope or a range. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But then we have to consider WP:CONCISE; clearly "Catholic canon law" is more concise than "Canon law of the Catholic Church", and equally precise. Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 15:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging — Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 18:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC); again 22:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose all – I see no benefit in touching anything there. — JFG talk 23:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support all per PRECISE. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all - I agree with JFG; I see no benefit in touching anything there. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.