Last week’s post examined the spirituality of canon law and the danger of death. Today’s post focuses on sanation as another manifestation of the spirituality of canon law. Sanation comes from the Latin word sanatio, which means ‘healing’ or ‘curing’.
To understand sanation, it is first important to explain a juridical act. A juridical act is an action that has a legal effect, and it must be validly done to produce this effect. Canon 124 lists the components required for the validity of a juridical act.
The first is that a legally capable person must perform the act. This means that one who is not legally capable through ordination, occupying an office or delegation to act acts invalidly. An example of an invalid act is a priest attempting to ordain a deacon, an act reserved exclusively to validly ordained bishops.
The second is that the act must contain those elements that constitute the essence of the act. The matter for the sacrament of holy orders is the imposition of hands, while the form is the words. Absence or defect in any of these invalidates the ordination.
The third is the formalities, which differ according to various acts. Regarding celebrating the sacrament of holy orders, the formalities are the freedom of the bishop to carry out the act and the freedom of the candidates to receive the sacrament. Canon 125 §1 provides that an act performed as a result of force imposed from outside, so much so that the person is unable to resist it, is considered invalid. In some cases, an act performed as a result of grave fear or deceit is also invalid (Can. 125 §2)—for instance, the sacrament of marriage (Cann. 1098 & 1103).
The fourth is the requirements which the law prescribes. Situations vary. For instance, it could be that one acts within a particular time frame (peremptory time limit). Failure to act within that frame makes the subsequent action invalid because of the loss of the right to act. While there are no clear-cut requirements for the validity of ordination, an instance is the need for a renunciation by a plaintiff to be in writing for validity (Can. 1524 §3).
Canon 126 affirms that an act is invalid when performed due to ignorance or error concerning the substance of the act or a necessary condition. Ignorance means the lack of knowledge, while error refers to a positive judgement which is objectively false. As one cannot desire what is not known or what is inherently false, when ignorance or error concerns the substance of the act or a necessary condition, the act is invalid.
Sanation as a juridical concept is a response to an invalid act. To sanate a juridical act means to retroactively validate an act that was previously invalid due to some defect. This can be achieved through various means, depending on the nature of the defect and the applicable law.
Sanation is a manifestation of the spirituality of canon law because it helps the faithful to avoid undue suffering resulting from invalid acts, some of which they are not guilty. This is particularly important because sacramental confession does not change the status of an invalid act nor its effects. This is because confession concerns the internal forum, while juridical acts primarily concern the external forum. Lifting this burden in the external forum prevents the faithful from suffering, thereby facilitating their journey towards holiness.
There are several ways of sanating juridical acts: ratification, derogation, and confirmation. The first two are always a formal act by the competent authority, while confirmation can be a formal act by the competent authority or an action by one of the parties involved in the act.
Ratification is a formal act by which a competent authority approves and validates a previously invalid or unauthorised act. An example is retroactive validation (sanatio in radice) of marriage due to an existing impediment and defect of canonical form (This will be discussed next week).
The second is derogation of prescription. Prescription in canon law refers to the period when one loses the right to challenge an act due to the passage of a specific period of time defined in law. An instance is the case of sexual abuse by clerics, where the prescription (prescribed time within which the victim can report the case) is twenty years from when the minor reached eighteen years or, in the case of an adult, when the habitual act ended. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith can derogate (restore the victim’s right to report after 20 years) the case if the situation warrants it (Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, art 8 §3).
The third is confirmation, which occurs when a party with the right to challenge a juridical act (due to a defect) subsequently accepts or approves it, effectively waiving their right to claim invalidity. As a formal act, confirmation appears in the context of a hierarchical recourse done when an invalid decree has injured a person. The hierarchical superior of the author of the decree can confirm the decree, declare it invalid, rescind or revoke it, amend it, substitute it or obrogate (replacing it with a new one contrary to the former) (Can. 1739).
Another instance is when a will is signed under duress. Based on canon 125 §1, the act is invalid. However, the affected party can confirm the contract by refusing to challenge it and by continuing to perform its obligations after the duress has ended (cf. Can. 1152 §2).
Before sanating a juridical act, the following must be present. The first is that the intention to perform the act remains even if it had been invalid. As noted, one cannot legitimately desire what is not known or what is false inherently.
The second criterion is that the defect is curable. An act can be sanated if the invalidity stems from something that can be cured. For instance, the criterion for validity of ordination is male gender, baptism, the imposition of hands and the words. If any of this is missing, it cannot be sanated because they constitute the essence of the sacrament.
The third is if the law permits sanation. The law does not permit sanation in all cases.
A clear example of inability to sanate is the recent case of those who were baptised with “In the name of the father and of the mother, of the godfather and of the godmother, of the grandparents, of the family members, of the friends, in the name of the community we baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” instead of the required form of the sacrament. In their response, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith clearly states that such persons has to “be baptised in forma absoluta.”
The terms used here are essential. First, the Church does not say they should be rebaptised. This is because there was no baptism in the first place, and the sacrament is not received twice because of the indelible mark it creates on the faithful. The second is that the baptism is to be done in forma absoluta (absolutely), rather than conditionally. Conditional baptism means that the baptism is done on the condition that if the previous act was invalid, then the new act becomes valid, and if the previous baptism ceremony was valid, the new ceremony is invalid. Eliminating conditional baptism means that the defect of form renders baptism completely invalid and insanable.
Finally, there is a need for good faith and intent on the part of the person confirming or ratifying the act.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
