W
Wm777
Guest
I am not a lawyer, but I have “a lawyers question” about canon law…
I was talking with a friend about how most common law is formed, which - if I understand it correctly - is something like this…
One or more persons may find themselves in a predicament they can’t resolve themselves, so they will take it to court… if the matter under contention is basically the same as has happened in other cases before it, a judge will make a ruling based upon the prior rulings… I dont think those prior rulings are necessarily law, but they are more like interpretive opinions of whatever law governs a specific region, so the judges will tend to follow those interpreted opinions to keep a common, uniform understanding in tact…
But - before I get to my question - let’s introduce one more scenario… specifically, when a new situation occurs, which hasn’t been decided upon before… Like - back around 2000 - when the internet became popular, and so many new issues came forward… in these cases, it still seems like the means above must have worked somehow… somewhere, somehow - a judge must have been presented with a case, and then made a ruling… and that interpretation is kind of what ended up being somehow turned into a law…
The scenarios above are for common law, but what about for canon law? Certainly new situations present themselves to the church, so - on emerging, particular and practical issues, i.e. when there is no precedent, how does the church decide what is sinful or “ecclesiastically illegal”? And is there a “default” action we use?
Most people seem to think the Pope makes a decision, and that’s that… no use quibbling over it… But the question I am asking concerns canon law on such low levels, it would deliberately make it impossible for the Pope to handle every such matter… so how is canon law formed (at various levels)?
I was talking with a friend about how most common law is formed, which - if I understand it correctly - is something like this…
One or more persons may find themselves in a predicament they can’t resolve themselves, so they will take it to court… if the matter under contention is basically the same as has happened in other cases before it, a judge will make a ruling based upon the prior rulings… I dont think those prior rulings are necessarily law, but they are more like interpretive opinions of whatever law governs a specific region, so the judges will tend to follow those interpreted opinions to keep a common, uniform understanding in tact…
But - before I get to my question - let’s introduce one more scenario… specifically, when a new situation occurs, which hasn’t been decided upon before… Like - back around 2000 - when the internet became popular, and so many new issues came forward… in these cases, it still seems like the means above must have worked somehow… somewhere, somehow - a judge must have been presented with a case, and then made a ruling… and that interpretation is kind of what ended up being somehow turned into a law…
The scenarios above are for common law, but what about for canon law? Certainly new situations present themselves to the church, so - on emerging, particular and practical issues, i.e. when there is no precedent, how does the church decide what is sinful or “ecclesiastically illegal”? And is there a “default” action we use?
Most people seem to think the Pope makes a decision, and that’s that… no use quibbling over it… But the question I am asking concerns canon law on such low levels, it would deliberately make it impossible for the Pope to handle every such matter… so how is canon law formed (at various levels)?
Last edited: