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,...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | Print Article |
| 語言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| 出版: |
2006
|
| In: |
Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
Year: 2001, 卷: 3, Pages: 353-355 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
天主教會, Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1717
/ 天主教會, Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1395
|
| IxTheo Classification: | SA Church law; state-church law SB Catholic Church law |
| 總結: | 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? |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
|