In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Persistent Disobedience to Church Authority: History, Analysis and Application of Canon 1371, 2° by Stephen S. Doktorczyk
  • Edward N. Peters
Persistent Disobedience to Church Authority: History, Analysis and Application of Canon 1371, 2°, by Stephen S. Doktorczyk. Tesi Gregoriana. Serie Diritto Canonico 105. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2016. Pp. 5–335.

This well-written doctoral dissertation from the Gregorian University treats an important, though neglected, topic in canon law, namely, persistent disobedience to ecclesiastical authority as penalized in canon 1371 of the Code of Canon Law.

Doktorczyk’s methodology is excellent. Chapter one begins with the remote history of canon 1371, that is, with the decretal law in force for several centuries prior to the codification of 1917. Chapter two examines the [End Page 241] Pio-Benedictine predecessor norms to the current law, chiefly canon 2331 §1 of the 1917 code, and discusses the post-conciliar drafts of what was to be become canon 1371 of the new law. Chapter three examines canon 1371 in its text and context, while the fourth chapter examines several actual cases of disobedience to ecclesiastical authority that were taken up on recourse to Rome, thereby providing useful insights into how Roman dicasteries approach these questions. A final chapter suggests some interpretations of terminology and raises questions for further exploration.

My criticisms of this work are few. At the level of a doctoral dissertation written for scholars in the field, imprecisions such as referring to an alleged seer as a “presumed seer” (229, 286) or to suspected criminal behavior as “presumed criminal behavior” (232) should be avoided, as should euphemisms such as describing a delinquent cleric as being “less than obedient” (233) to competent ecclesiastical authority or, after noting the narrower range of penal options accorded a bishop under the revised law, describing the 1983 code as “not overly helpful” (283) to bishops in this respect. Other infelicities of expression (e.g., the “rector cautions heavily against lightly accepting” a candidate, at 240, and saying that Gasparri “placed” two fonts for 1917 CIC c. 2331 in the third century (18) instead of saying that Gasparri “drew on” two fonts that dated to the third century) distract from smooth reading.

Moreover, in discussing several actual cases of disobedience to ecclesiastical authority, it is crucial to relate the facts of the case in the order they actually occurred and not in the order that they came to be known by researchers lest, as happens more than once in this work (e.g., 204–208), readers are led to expect one resolution of a case only to be presented with a different outcome and only afterward having that outcome explained in terms of facts later disclosed.

Eastern canon law, which treats disobedience to ecclesiastical authority in a single norm that is narrower than Latin canon 1371, namely, CCEO canon 1446, is only lightly touched upon in this work (161–173). Perhaps there is not much commentary on which to draw here but, if so, a note to that effect might have been useful. Doktorczyk’s checklist of questions for ordinaries faced with disciplinary cases (285–287) is thoughtful and of genuine practical value, but his discussion of the kind of disciplinary authority possessed by pastors over their associates (152) needs clarifying. [End Page 242]

In sum, Doktorczyk’s able study will leave readers well prepared to advise ecclesiastical leadership figures faced with disciplinary cases, and will help others to pose and ponder the more theoretical questions that this work surfaces, for example, the nature of a canonical “just penalty” in the face of disobedience, the special problems occasioned when ecclesiastical leadership figures themselves are disobedient to higher ecclesiastical authority, and perhaps most importantly, how exactly one enforces law within a religious society that, notwithstanding its foundations in divine law, nevertheless operates as a voluntary human organization. [End Page 243]

Edward N. Peters
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI
...

pdf

Share