Appointment of Canonical Counsel: Canons 1395 and 1717
A cleric accused of sexual abuse of a minor (c. 1395, §2) is encouraged to retain the assistance of canonical counsel (Essential Norms, 6). Only the bishop can approve someone as a canonical advocate (c. 1483). When during the process of initial investigation, meeting with the diocesan review board,...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Print Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
2006
|
| В: |
Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
Год: 2001, Том: 3, Страницы: 353-355 |
| Нормированные ключевые слова (последовательности): | B
Католическая церковь (мотив), Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1717
/ Католическая церковь (мотив), Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1395
|
| Индексация IxTheo: | SA Церковное право SB Каноническое право |
| Итог: | A cleric accused of sexual abuse of a minor (c. 1395, §2) is encouraged to retain the assistance of canonical counsel (Essential Norms, 6). Only the bishop can approve someone as a canonical advocate (c. 1483). When during the process of initial investigation, meeting with the diocesan review board, preliminary investigation (c. 1717), etc., is it appropriate for the bishop to appoint a canonical advocate and what is the difference between the counsel and the advocate in such things as access to files, testimony, acts of the case, etc., in helping the accused? |
|---|---|
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
|