The obligation to observe the constitutions and decrees of Church authorities: An analysis of Canon 754.

Abstract

To what extent does c. 754 give power to the ecclesiastical magisterium to require juridically from Christ's faithful the reception of its pronouncements? What is the meaning and purpose of the canon? The Author examines canon 754 in its historical, ecclesiological and juridical context. He divides his study into five chapters: the first offers a brief overview of the underlying ecclesiologies relating to the teaching office of the Church; the second deals with the sources of c. 754. The next two chapters approach the canon directly: its process of formulation and its interpretation (ch. 3), and a doctrinal and juridical analysis of it (ch. 4). The last chapter attempts to apply the canon to the life of the Church today. Two visions on the role of the ecclesiastical magisterium were present during the process of formulation of c. 754: one is represented by the principal sources of the canon, the epilogue of the Dogmatic constitution Dei filius of Vatican I and c. 1324 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law; both reflected, in some way, a juridical approach to the exercising of the office of the magisterium, whose particular office of teaching was marked by an apologetic attitude. The other was the vision of Vatican II, which rediscovered the role of the magisterium as a service. Thus, while c. 754 is more positive than its counterpart c. 1324 of the 1917 Code, it retains a voluntaristic juridical approach to the magisterial authority of pastors. Its present form seems to endow the ecclesiastical magisterium with the power to require juridically from the faithful an internal assent to its teachings. Therefore, the Author suggests that the appropriateness of maintaining the canon in the Code should be reconsidered in the future, or at least be transformed in the line that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches did. He also offers some guiding points to help Christ's faithful discern the nature of ecclesiastical documents to have an adequate response to them; he gives an overview of each legitimate authority referred to in c. 754. He thinks that not all doctrinal pronouncements fall under c. 754, instead, he divides into two categories the specific documents which the proper ecclesiastical authority enacts to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions. Finally, he suggests that c. 754 must be interpreted in the light of some of the fundamental rights and duties of all the Christ's faithful regarding their participation in the teaching office of the Church, such as the right, and at times the duty to express their opinion publicly in the Church (c. 212 S 3), or their just freedom to research and express their findings in the field of sacred disciplines (c. 218). This might reduce the juridical significance of c. 754 on the magisterial authority of ecclesiastical pronouncements.