My Methodology concerning the 1917 Code of Canon law research
I received a question on Social Galactic that made it clear to me that I have not explained the method in which I’ve researched canon 188.4 in the context of the whole English translation of the 1917 code. Let me clarify this.
After my initial run in with Kurgan in March of 2020 (a year and half ago). I realized that I did not know enough about the subject that I was trying to discuss. I pledged to myself that I would read the whole 1917 code, from cover to cover, and that I would go to where it lead me. After all, being an ordained catholic deacon, I do have a “dog in this fight”, and a responsibility to know my faith and to be able to pass it on to others. I also was interested in whether or not I was validly ordained (could kurgan be right??). I had to find the answer.
At that point in time, I could not say with certainty that kurgan was wrong. So my reading began, in my spare time, for 1 1/2 years.
I had purchased a copy of the 1917 Code in English to help during my diaconate studies. You can download a copy here:
My goal was to read this from a neutral perspective, without any conclusion already reached in my mind. My reading paused at page 19 (in the 1917 pdf version) when it listed all of the commentaries that were necessary to truly understand the 1917 code:
From the section entitled RESEARCHING THE 1917 CODE:
“After taking into account the words of the law in text and context, and how the law was evaluated by leading scholars, one will turn next to standard commentaries on the law. There are several multi-volume, pan-textual commentaries on the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English. In order of author, the major ones are as follows: John Abbo (an Italian canonist and papal diplomat with various duties in North America) and Jerome Hannan (vice-rector of Catholic University of America and later bishop of Scranton) wrote The Sacred Canons, a highly regarded two-volume work. It appeared in various editions, being first published in 1952 by Herder of St. Louis. Although considered by many as pan-textual in scope, the work actually concentrates on Books I–III of the 1917 Code (comprising over 1,600 pages), while summarizing sanctions (Book V) in just over one hundred pages and treating of procedures (Book IV) in hardly twenty-five pages. The commentary is consistently insightful and reliable. Most of the canons discussed by Abbo and Hannan in Books I–III are also paraphrased or practically translated. (1st commentary mentioned. If you want you can read a PDF version on the internet archive website. I didn’t read this commentary because it is from the 1950’s, though I will read it in the near future). Dom Augustine (né Charles Bachofen), a Benedictine monk writing from Missouri, penned his eight-volume Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law over several years. This work appeared in various editions by Herder of St. Louis. Paraphrases of some canons are worked into the text, but generally Augustine assumes the reader’s facility with the Latin original. Besides the high level of scholarship expected in a comprehensive work, Augustine, more than any other author in English, attempted to explain the 1917 Code in light of pre-code law, citing such authorities as Reiffenstuel and Schmalzgrüber with some frequency. (2nd commentary. This is the commentary I am referencing the most in my discussion of 1917 canon law. It was published the same year that the 1917 code was promulgated, and is over 4,000 pages long. I refer to it as “Commentary Dom Augustine). Stanislaus Woywod was a Franciscan priest trained in civil law. His two-volume Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law was first published by Wagner of New York in 1925 and went through numerous editions, the later ones revised under the direction of fellow Franciscan Callistus Smith. The work is considerably more scholarly than its “hand-bookish” title would indicate. Virtually every canon is carefully discussed and, although Woywod only claimed to be paraphrasing the text of the old code, many of his renditions of canons read more like thoughtful translations than mere paraphrases. There are frequent allusions to civil law counterparts of various canonical institutions, some of which comparisons are rather dated by this point but which are always illustrative of their subjects. (3rd commentary. I have read this commentary, but did not find it very helpful compared to the Dom Augustine commentary) Each of these works should be consulted for a thorough grounding in English-language positions on Pio-Benedictine canonical issues. A few one-volume works should, however, also be listed for their utility in general research.”
Reading from the 1917 Code that these commentaries are vital to understanding the 1917 Code, I found the Dom Augustine and Woywod commentaries online in their entirety.
Dom Augustine Commentary here:
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n319/mode/2up
Stanislaus Woywod commentary here:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/canonlaw/commentary%20.pdf
So at this point, not only did I have the 1917 Code to read, but also over 4,500 pages of commentary on the Code. This was going too take awhile (1 1/2 years to be exact!). In case you are questioning the worthiness of the Dom Augustine 4,000 page commentary, he has a full page photo in the introductory section of the 1917 Code itself.
ABOUT THE CROSS REFERENCES
Using Canon 188 as an example, there is a reference to the similar canon in the 1983 code, and also cross references within the 1917 code itself.
You can view more information concerning canon 188.4 by going to canon 2314, which will send you to other sections within the 1917 code. These cross references are to the right of every canon like you see with canon 188.
So, my reading and research path is as follows:
1 - I read the canons in the 1917 code and determine if there is any relevance to the subjects that need to be discussed concerning canon 188.4,
2 - I go to all of the pertinent cross references and read those also. Cross references tend to lead to more cross references, and I follow all paths until the end is reached.
3 - I read the commentaries of Dom Augustine and Stanislaus Woywod, to delve into the mind of the church and legislator at the time. Both of these commentaries were released around the same time the 1917 Code was promulgated, in 1918.
4 - I follow all cross references in the commentaries to other sections in the 1917 Code, which leads to reading other sections in the commentaries. This is why it has taken me 1 1/2 years to complete.
5 - I organize all of my research, and only at this time will I add my own commentary in red bold font as to separate in from the rest of the text. This is to clarify the text, and hopefully, somewhat simplify this long and complex endeavor.
In summation, the canon leads to the cross references, and all of the canons referenced leads to the commentaries. As far as the Latin goes, I do not know Latin. However, the commentary by Dom Augustine includes the complete Latin, and the English translation of all of the canons. It also takes into account all of the materials that were referenced to assemble the 1917 Code. The Latin is not present in the 1917 English translation, but is discussed in great detail in the Dom Augustine commentary. I will be addressing certain Latin terms that are pertinent to this discussion in future posts.
I am using only the 1917 Code itself. (In its entirety), and the commentaries of Dom Augustine and Stanislaus Woywod, over 4,500 pages of the most highly regarded commentary there is, to prove my points. My commentary is in red to add clarification and to help you navigate around the material. The only deceit is coming from the Kurgan, who needs to avoid these commentaries and the entirety of the 1917 Code (and have you avoid these commentaries), in order to hold onto his indefensible position.
END OF PART 3
Comments
Post a Comment