SPLIT: Meaning of "reprobated" in canon law

[Digitonomy]

From another thread:

FrDavid96:

Reprobate means that it has always been a violation of the law (it might be Divine Law or human law). Abrogated, on the other hand, means that it was, at one time, permitted, but is now no longer permitted.

The word reprobate carries a very negative connotation indeed. It implies contempt for the law; moral depravity, unprincipled, etc.

Digitonomy:

Your definition does not seem to coincide with the meaning of the word as used in the Code of Canon Law. Since the word isn’t used frequently, I’ll quote each use:

Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future.

Can. 396 §2. A bishop is permitted to choose the clerics he prefers as companions and assistants on a visitation; any contrary privilege or custom is reprobated.

Can. 423 §1. One diocesan administrator is to be designated; any contrary custom is reprobated.

Can. 526 §2. In the same parish there is to be only one pastor or moderator in accord with the norm of ⇒ can. 517, §1; any contrary custom is reprobated and any contrary privilege whatsoever is revoked.

Can. 1076 A custom which introduces a new [marriage] impediment or is contrary to existing impediments is reprobated.

Can. 1287 §1. Both clerical and lay administrators of any ecclesiastical goods whatever which have not been legitimately exempted from the power of governance of the diocesan bishop are bound by their office to present an annual report to the local ordinary who is to present it for examination by the finance council; any contrary custom is reprobated.

Can. 1425 §1. With every contrary custom reprobated, the following cases are reserved to a collegiate tribunal of three judges:

My suspicion is that you’re thinking back to Canon 24, where we are told that a custom which is reprobated is not reasonable and therefore can’t obtain the force of law:

Can. 24 §2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

However, it’s pretty clear from the use of “reprobated” elsewhere in the CIC that customs or privileges which are reprobated may once have been perfectly fine. The unwritten implication in Canon 24 is that such customs are not reasonable under the current Code of Canon Law. Simply from the use of the word “reprobated” we can’t conclude that the use of glass or other currently illicit materials was never legitimate or proper. What we can say is that it is not reasonable or licit now.

Pregustator:

What does “reprobated” mean, in Canon Lawnglish? Does it mean “is a grave offense against God’s Majesty” or does it mean “formerly fine, but we changed our mind and now we’d rather you didn’t do it”? Anyone know?

Digitonomy:

I see no reason to depart from the standard definition we get from Merriam-Webster:

1: to condemn strongly as unworthy, unacceptable, or evil
2: to foreordain to damnation
3: to refuse to accept : reject

However, despite FrDavid’s comment and part of the definition above, I don’t think the Church is characterizing reprobated customs as evil or damnable.
It’s also worth noting that “reprobate” is etymologically related to “reprove.”

MarkThompson:

I think this is correct. The Latin verb reprobo means “reject, disapprove,” but to my knowledge it does not carry the connotations of moral hideousness that “reprobate” (as a very or as a noun) does in English. So under a reasonable reading, you’d have merely “… contrary custom is rejected” and the like.

FrDavid96:

It (reprobate) might not carry the exact same meanings in Latin as it does in English (which has a much stronger connotation of “evil”), but the English definition does help us to put the use of the word into context. Since the word connotes “evil” in English, it’s difficult to say that the word in Latin means that it was at-one-time perfectly legitimate. It’s the difference between saying that the word is stronger in English than in Latin; and saying that the word means the opposite in the two languages.

 

[Digitonomy]

Your examples of the word “reprobate” only re-inforce what I said. Note that the word is used in reference to “customs” not laws. Laws become “abrogated” customs which are/were contrary to the laws are said to be “reprobate” because the custom itself was never in accord with the law. On the other hand, customs which were in accord with the law would become abrogated by virtue of the fact that the law changes.

This is not necessarily true, since we read

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

It seems possible that a custom could be in accord with local particular law, and thus its status would be uncertain when the new universal law was promulgated. Reprobating such customs as part of that canon would clarify matters. It would also cause Canon 24 to kick in, to prevent any such custom from popping up again.

Furthermore, if “abrogate” were a proper term to use in relation to customs, we might expect the two words to be used in proximity from time to time in the CIC. However, all the uses of abrogate/abrogated/abrogates mention only laws. In fact, it’s clear from the beginning of the Code that we have four terms: abrogate, revoke, reprobate, and suppress. Only the latter three are used with customs, and while suppress is mostly used regarding societies, orders, associations, as well as holy days, and revoke is used also for letters, faculties, decrees, rescripts, reprobate is used only for customs, (and in the compound subject of Canon 396, privileges). Clearly some decrees and other such acts are/were always contrary to law. It would seem like “reprobate” would also apply to them according to your definition, but at least in the CIC it is not used in these cases.

Finally, your argument requires that none of the customs reprobated were ever in accord with the law prior to their reprobation. Just as a start I would suggest that the use of glass chalices was probably permitted at points in the early centuries of the Church. Neither my French (1983 and 1917) nor my Latin (1983 and 1917) are adequate to quickly compare the canons in the OP to those in the 1917 Code, but I may hack away at it in coming days.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pages 88 and 89:

Canon 24 states two kinds of customs that are always unreasonable: those contrary to the divine law and those that are expressly reprobated in the law (ius). Reprobated customs should not be confused with customs that have been abrogated or prohibited in law; the latter may revive and some day become legal: reprobated customs cannot. The juridical text must expressly state that it is reprobating a custom, as with the words reprobata contraria consuetudine. The code expressly reprobates contrary customs in six canons. These practices may never attain the force of law as long as the laws that reprobate them remain in force. Unlike customs contrary to divine law that are intrinsically unreasonable, expressly reprobated customs are not necessarily unreasonable by nature, that is, they could be justified in certain circumstances; instead, they must be considered unreasonable simply because of their explicit reprobation in the law.

 

[Digitonomy]

Originally posted by Just Lurking at 9:27 pm
From the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pages 88 and 89:…

Near-definitive answers from Just Lurking - researched, typed up, and posted in under 30 minutes or it’s free!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Essentially, documents will “reprobate” certain practices because after a certain amount of time they might be consdered to have attained the level of “local custom.” In order to avoid this official documents will reprobate specific actions that the Holy See doesn’t want to see people claim to have attained canonical status as local customs.

Despite what many will attempt to claim on these boards, all around the world Bishops and priests do various “local customs” every day. Some are permitted and some are not. Usually no one cares about them until they become too widespread to stop. Its at that point that only the Holy See can step in and stop it.