The past few weeks have focused on the third principle that influenced the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Today’s post examines the fourth principle, which focuses on dispensations.
Dispensation is the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation (Can. 85).
Merely ecclesiastical laws are those laws whose sole source is the legislative authority of the Catholic Church. They only bind those baptised in the Catholic Church or received into it (Can. 11). These laws still bind non-practising Catholics or those who defect to another Church because of the indelible mark of baptism, which means that ‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic’ (semel catholicus, semper catholicus). The adjective ‘merely’ means that the laws in question do not concern divine natural or divine positive laws that are declarations or interpretations of divine law and bind even the unbaptised.
Relaxation of a law only mitigates or suspends the obligation of a law in a particular case; it does not abrogate or derogate a law. Those who possess executive power and those who are empowered by the law itself or by a delegation can grant a dispensation. Laws that define things essentially constitutive of juridical institutes or acts are not subject to dispensation (Can. 86).
The fourth principle reads.
“In order that the Supreme Legislator and the bishops may collaborate in the care of souls and may exercise the pastoral office in a more positive fashion, those faculties to dispense from general laws which until now have been extraordinary are to become ordinary with reservations to the supreme power of the universal Church or other higher authorities only in those areas which require an exception on account of the common good.”
This fourth principle is in response to canon 81 of the 1917 Code, which states,
“Ordinaries below the Roman Pontiff cannot dispense from the general laws of the Church, even in a specific case, unless this power has been explicitly or implicitly granted them, or unless recourse to the Holy See is difficult and there is also grave danger of harm in delay and the dispensation concerns a matter from which the Apostolic See is wont to dispense.”
Canon 87 of the 1983 Code, which obrogates canon 81 CIC 17, now reads:
Ҥ1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.
§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291.”
In the same vein, whenever he judges that it contributes to the good the faithful, the local Ordinary (diocesan bishop or his equivalent in law, Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar only) can dispense from diocesan laws and laws issued by a plenary or provincial council or the conference of bishops (Can. 88). Canon 89 states that “parish priests and other priests or deacons cannot dispense from universal or particular law unless this power is expressly granted to them.”
This change “recognises the bishop’s power of dispensation, not as a concession from the Holy See, but as intrinsic to his power of governance”. This comes from the Second Vatican Council, which resolved the dilemma on whether bishops’ power to dispense came with episcopal consecration and office or as a delegation from the Pope (Christus Dominus, 8; cf. Lumen Gentium, 27).
The fourth principle aligns with the spirituality of canon law because it empowers diocesan bishops and local ordinaries to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws when doing so contributes to the faithful’s spiritual well-being.
In the same vein, apart from dispensations being interpreted strictly to safeguard the value of the law and enhance the common good (Can. 92), the diocesan bishop cannot dispense from procedural laws because they safeguard justice and the rights of the faithful (Can. 221; e.g. Can. 1598). The bishop also cannot dispense from penal laws because one of the purposes of penal law is the conversion of the offender, which fits into the offender’s journey of holiness. Moreover, doing so would cause grave harm to the common good and the good of each of Christ’s faithful (Can. 1311 §2).
Hence, dispensation must be granted only when there is a “just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given”. If this is not done, the dispensation is illicit if given by the legislator himself or his superior; it is invalid if done by one lower than the legislator (Can 90 §1).
Following doubts on the extent of the bishop’s power to dispense, the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law had to clarify certain specific areas.
(a) Whether, outside the case of urgent danger of death, the diocesan bishop, in accordance with the norm of can. 87, § 1, can dispense the canonical form of marriage for two catholics. Response: Negative (1985).
(b) Whether the diocesan bishop can dispense from the precept of can. 767, § 1, which reserves the homily to a priest or deacon. Response: Negative (1987).
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
