The Protection of Women’s Dignity in Catholic Marriage Law
– The Diriment Impediment to Abduction
Copyright (c) 2024 Ujházi Lóránd
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The ecclesiastical legislator interprets the right to marry as broadly as possible, in accordance with the principles of canon law. Nevertheless, an examination of the current Code of Canon Law reveals that the right to marry is not absolute. The legislator has provided the clearest articulation of the limitations in the system of diriment impediments to marriage. In the revised legislation, the system of impediments has been streamlined, both in
its structure and in the number of impediments. The legislator nevertheless deemed it pertinent to retain a few of the impediments that now appear anachronistic. This study is concerned with the diriment impediments of abduction of women. It presents an analysis of the legislative situation with regard to the protection of women’s dignity, marriage, and community, with a particular focus on historical and structural aspects. The objective of this paper is to address the uncertainties that arise from the text of the statute, based on the authors’ interpretations. Finally, a brief comparative analysis is presented of the other existing codes of the Catholic Church, namely the Canons of the Laws of the Eastern Churches and the Code of the Latin Church.
Keywords:
How to Cite
References
ABATE, Antonio (1987): Gli impedimenti matrimoniali nel nuovo Codice di Diritto Canonico. Apollinaris, 60(3/4), 451–505.
BAÑARES, Juan Ignacio (2004): Így lehet [Commentary on canon 1089]. In MARZOA, Ángel – MIRAS, Jorge – OCANA, Rafael, Rodriguez (szerk.): Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. Vol. III/2. Toronto: Wilson & Lafleur, 1198.
BEAL, John (1988): Kommentár az 1089. kánonhoz [Commentary on canon 1089]. In BEAL, John – CORIDEN, James – GREEN, Thomas (szerk): The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. New York: Paulist Press, 1291.
BRUNDAGE, James (1978): Rape and Marriage in the Medieval Canon Law. Reveu de Droit Canonique, 28(8), 62–75.
CALABRESE, Antonio (2006): Diritto penale canonico. Vatikán: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
CAPPELLO, M. Felix (1947): Tractatus canonico-moralis de sacramentis, De matrimonio. Róma: Domus Editorials Marietti.
CASTAÑO, F. Jose (1988): Gli impedimenti matrimoniali in generale. Apollinaris, 61, 69––87.
CASTAÑO, F. Jose (1989): Natura e ruolo degli impedimenti matrimoniali. In FUNGHINI, Raffaelo (szerk.): Gli impedimenti al matrimonio canonico. Vatikán: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 29–40.
CHIAPPETTA, Luigi (1988): Il Codice di diritto canonico. Nápoly: Edizioni Dehoniane.
Communicationes, 9. (1977), 366.
D’AURIA, Angelo (2002): Gli impedimenti matrimoniali. Róma: Lateran University Press.
D'Avack, Pietro Agostino (1970): Impedimenti al matrimonio (diritto canonico). In Aa. Vv. Enciclopedia del Diritto. Milánó: Giuffré, 251–260.
DOYLE, Thomas (1985): Kommentár az 1089. kánonhoz [Commentary on canon 1089]. In CORIDEN, A. James – GREEN, Thomas – HEINTSCHEL, Donald (szerk.): The Code of Canon Law, A Text and Commentary. New York: Paulist Press, 770.
GASPARRI, Pietro (1932): Tractatus canonicus de matrimonio. Róma: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.
KUMINETZ Géza (2001): Katolikus házasságjog. Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
MONETA, Paolo (1989): Gli impedimenti al matrimonio canonico. In FUNGHINI, Raffaello (szerk.), Diritto al matrimonio e impedimenti matrimoniali. Vatikán: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 15–28.
NAVARRETE, URBANO (1989): Gli impedimenti relativi all dignità dell’uomo: aetas, raptus, crimen. In GRAZIANI, Ermanno (szerk.): Gli impedimenti al matrimonio canonico. Vatikán: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 71–94.
PETROVITS, Joseph (1921): The New Church Law on Matrimony. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
XII. PIUS (1949): Motu proprio. Crebrae allatae. Acta Aapostolicae Sedis, (31)3, 89–117.
PÓSÁN László (2012): A pogány hiedelemvilág továbbélése a középkori Poroszországban. Történeti tanulmányok, (20), 57–66.
REGATILLO, Eduardo (1962): Derecho matrimonial eclesiastico. Bishui Plain: Santandler.
Ripszám Dóra (2024): Az emberkereskedelem elmélete és gyakorlata, különös tekintettel a gyermekre. Pécs Doktori (PhD) értekezés Pécsi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Doktori Iskola.
SABBARESE, LUIGI (2006): Il matrimonio canonico nell’ordine della natura e della grazia. Róma: Urbaniana University Press.
SALACHAS, Dimitros (2001): Kommentár a CCEO 806. kánonjához [Commentary on Canon 806 of the CCEO]. In VITO PINTO, Pio (szerk.): Commento al Codice dei Canoni delle Chiese Orientali. Vatikán: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 678.
SCHÖCH, Nikolaus (2014): Giustizia e misericordia nel processo di nullità matrimoniale. Due principi incompatibili? In ERRÁZURIZ, Carlos José – ORTIZ, Miguel Angel (szerk.): Misericordia e diritto nel matrimonio. Róma: Edusc, 75–97.
Sess. XXIV. De. ref. matr. C. 6.
SILVESTRI, Pasquale (2004): Il rato. In SILVESTRI, Pasquale (szerk.): La nullità del matrimonio canonico. Róma: Guida, 45–98.
SIPOS István (1940): A katolikus házasságjog rendszere. Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
SIPOS István – GÁLOS László (1960): A katolikus házasságjog rendszere. Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
SZABÓ Péter (2012): A keleti egyházak szentségi jog. Nyíregyháza: Szent Atanáz Hittudományi Főiskola.
SZEREDY József (1879): Egyházjog. Pécs: Madarász Endre.
VÖLGYESI Levente (2022): A házassági javak megjelenése a Corpus Iuris Canoniciben. Diké. A Márkus Dezső Összehasonlító Jogtörténeti Kutatócsoport Folyóirata, 6(1), 50–56. Online: https://doi.org/10.15170/Dike.2022.06.01.04
WERNZ, Franz Xaver (1928): Ius Decretalium, Ius Matrimoniale Ecclesiae Catholicae. Róma: Ex Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide.
WERNZ, Franz Xaver – VIDAL, Petri (1946): Ius Matrimoniale. Róma: Universitatis Gregorianae.