Suchergebnisse

W dość długi już katalog umów zawieranych po Soborze Watykańskim II przez Stolicę Apostolską z państwami afrykańskimi wpisała się umowa ramowa (Accord-cadre) w sprawach wspólnego interesu (sur matières d'intérêt commun) zawarta 6 listopada 2012 r. z Republiką Burundi. Traktat ten, obejmujący preambułę, 22 artykuły oraz aneks, reguluje szeroki wachlarz spraw interesujących obydwie strony. Stanowi znaczący, jak się wydaje, instrument służący wzajemnemu, obustronnie wzbogacającemu dialogowi kultury z wiarą.
Preambuła umowy, obejmująca siedem akapitów, wskazuje cel, przesłanki i okoliczności jej zawarcia. Uzgodnienia zawarte w Umowie ramowej, zawarte w poszczególnych artykułach, dotyczą następujących spraw: zasady ogólne, sprawowanie kultu Bożego, nominacje kościelne, przestępstwa duchownych i osób zakonnych oraz sekrety: spowiedzi i zawodowy, dobra materialne kościelnych osób prawnych oraz duchownych, budownictwo sakralne i kościelne, posługiwanie się przez Kościół środkami przekazu, małżeństwo, zrzeszanie się wiernych, prowadzenie przez Kościół placówek oświatowych i wychowawczych, prowadzenie przez Kościół instytucji dobroczynnych, udział finansowy Państwa w działalności Kościoła na rzecz narodu, opieka duszpasterska nad zaangażowanymi w siłach zbrojnych i bezpieczeństwa oraz nad przebywającymi w zakładach i instytutach zamkniętych, postanowienia końcowe.
Należy mieć nadzieję, że umowa Stolicy Apostolskiej i Republiki Burundi, uchylając rozdźwięk między Kościołem a kulturą plemienną tego kraju, stanie się – w jakiejś mierze – skutecznym narzędziem inkulturacji na kontynencie afrykańskim.

Indissolubility is an essential attribute of marriage derived from God's law, and the exclusion of indissolubility renders the marriage null and void (can. 1101 § 2 CIC). In proving exclusio boni sacramenti, an extremely important role is played by the indication of the cause (motive) of the simulation act, including the further cause (causa remota). Although this reason is not directly related to a particular marriage, it – to some extent – influences the will of the spouse rejecting the attribute of indissolubility.
When it comes to the reasons for the further exclusion of the indissolubility of marriage, three basic ones can be discerned in the most recent rotal jurisprudence: a mentality favoring the institution of divorce, the lack of sufficient religious formation and the special personality of contractors.
The postulate of priests, during the canonical pre-wedding examination, to pay close attention to the convictions and views of the spouses regarding the indissolubility of marriage seems fully justified.

The negative sentence c. Salvatori in the case under the gravis defectus discretionis iudicii (can. 1095, n. 2 CIC) on both sides, taken in the second instance, when the first ruled positively in relation to both parties, is an example of a reliable assessment of the collected material evidence.
In the sentence, quite a lot of space was devoted to the role and tasks of an expert in the cases of can. 1095, n. 1-3 CIC. It is worth emphasizing here that an opinion prepared solely on the basis of the case file is not a true expert opinion. Salvatori pointed to the practice developed in rotational jurisprudence, according to which a judge should reject an expert's conclusions when they do not comply with the case files or violate the rules of logic or go beyond the premises on which they are based, or when they are inconsistent with Christian anthropology.
Ponens convincingly demonstrated the groundlessness of prof. D. (with respect to the woman) grossly inconsistent with the case files and going far beyond the premises that served him to formulate such a thesis.

Even though marriage arises from the consent of parties (can. 1057 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law), it is necessary to preserve the canonical form (ordinary or extraordinary) for the validity of this relationship.
Assuming that the form of marriage was established in order to eliminate secret marriages, canon 144 § 1 of the current Code of Canon Law states that in the event of factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.
Canon 144 § of the same Code, on the other hand, declares that the same provision applies to the powers referred to, e.g. in canon 1111 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law. This canon regulates that a local ordinary can delegate (to priests and deacons) of assisting at celebrating marriages.
After discussing the role of a marriage witness and the character of his/her delegation as well as the development of legal form of supplying this delegation, the author takes up the issue of supplying this delegation in an event of common error or positive and probable doubt of law or fact in historical context, and then provides examples of supplying the delegation to assist in marriage in sentences of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota (from years 1992 -2006), including a precedent-setting sentence in the case of Stankiewicz of 15 December 1992.
In conclusion, attention was paid to the ratio legis of the legal norm on supplying the delegation, which is bonum commune.

The subject of this study is the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota Court regarding deceptive misleading (canon 1098 CIC) from 2010-2012, contained in Decisione seu sententiae. During this period, the title of marriage annulment was included in twelve judgments; ten of them have been published.
The analysis of rotating sentences was presented in the following thematic areas: deceptive misleading as a factor protecting marriage consent; deceptive action; error as a result of deception; the attribute of a person as an object of deceptive action (in genere and in individual judgments); deceptio dolosa prove.
Undoubtedly, the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota also provides for the area of ​​deceptive misleading, the appropriate point of reference in the resolution of nullitatis matrimonii cases by church tribunals of lower degrees of jurisdiction.