External violation meaning in canon law

[aaa]

What exactly is the definition of external violation?

EDIT: as is used in Can. 1321

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I am no expert in canon law. I believe that, generally speaking, external refers to public acts.

 

[DarkLight]

Could we get some context?

 

[Vico]

What exactly is the definition of external violation?

Provable in the objective dimension, the external forum, although it may be occult.

 

[pianistclare]

CAF member acanonlawyer can answer this.
@acanonlawyer, care to weigh in?
Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

Could we get some context?

Sure.

 

[ahs]

Sure.

That was very well done. And I admit that I had a pretty good chuckle.

 

[FrDavid96]

What exactly is the definition of external violation?

What canon?

There is no such thing as “external violation.” Your question is missing some words. As it is, it doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no such thing as “external violation.”

Click my link. Canon 1323.

(Unless, of course, you’re hoping that someone responds “external violation of a law or precept”, in which case… click my link. )

 

[DarkLight]

Sure.

Ok, so which of those results are the one you’re actually referring to? Because there’s lots of occurrences of those words, I have no idea if the one you’re thinking of is even in the search results.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

There is no such thing as “external violation.”

Click my link. Canon 1323.

(Unless, of course, you’re hoping that someone responds “external violation of a law or precept”, in which case… click my link. )

I clicked the link. Yes, I agree with the link (the first one).

Secondly: That’s the result of a word search. We still need for the OP to provide a complete idea “external violation of a law or precept” if that is indeed the subject of the question.

Still: both of your points are well noted.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, so which of those results are the one you’re actually referring to?

The first link. I’m making the (not unreasonable?) presumption that the OP is talking about this notion from the canons themselves.

 

[DarkLight]

The first link. I’m making the (not unreasonable?) presumption that the OP is talking about this notion from the canons themselves.

I think google personalizes results, but I got several results from several different canons and I’m not sure they’re all using it in the same way.

 

[De_Maria]

What exactly is the definition of external violation?

Does this help?

It is important to avoid a misunderstanding at this point. It is well known, that Canon law, like civil law, is concerned with externally ascertainable facts and their external effects. It is not directly involved with what takes place in the individual’s soul, for until the internal act is externalised, it cannot be known with certainty. In technical terms, moral imputability is said to belong to the internal forum, known with certainty only to the individual and his Creator, and to the confessor in the sacrament of Penance. Canonical imputability and its effects belong to the external forum and are assessed in accordance with outward words and deeds, not with hidden interior dispositions. For this reason Canon Law provides that when a Catholic commits an external infraction of a law, he is presumed for legal purposes to have done so knowingly and culpably, unless and until he should prove the contrary (Canon 2200/2).
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html

This is written by a schismatic and based upon the 1917 code of canon law. But the principles should be the same.

 

[acanonlawyer]

If we’re talking about penal law (which it seems we are), then I’d say that it simply means a perceivable, criminal act. There are no thought crimes in canon law (that doesn’t mean the Church says it’s fine to think whatever we want)–only those actions that can be perceived by another, and are subject to a penalty, are crimes.

Dan

 

[aaa]

New to posting on this site, sorry for the lack of context…

I meant “external violation” as it is mentioned in Can. 1321

 

[aaa]

Made an edit in the original post with a bit of context

 

[aaa]

Thanks for the reply!

 

[DarkLight]

Got it. It sounds like the other posters upthread have covered it - it sounds like it’s referring to that someone has performed an act that would violate canon law and subject them to the penalties, the “external violation” being the act performed. The rest of the canon discusses who is and is not subject to canon law penalties.