Back to jgray.org homepage
|
This thesis was prepared for a Doctoral Degree in Canon Law at the Pontifical Lateran University.
Copyright © 2015 by Jason A. Gray This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the author except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.
An electronic version of this text may be downloaded in pdf format here. Hardback or paperback copies can also be purchased for a discount here.
| After joining the Congregation of the Causes of Saints and enrolling at the Lateran University, I worked on a thesis dedicated to the study of the promoter of the faith. The promoter is most often recognized by the moniker, the devil’s advocate. The law governing causes of canonization was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, though it was removed from the new code before it was promulgated in 1983. Since this time, the relative norms have existed in separate documents that contain this special legislation. The changes introduced in 1983 were significant, and represented a departure from some traditions that predated the 1917 code, even existing for many centuries. This study of the promoter of the faith provides an opportunity to address the various changes that were made when moving from the 1917 code to the 1983 special legislation. This thesis also makes observations that are relevant to the office of the promoter of justice and the defender of the bond.
|
Chapter 1. History of the development of the promoter before 1917
1.1 Canonizations under local authority
1.1.1 The early martyrs
1.1.2 The early confessors
1.1.3 Synods and episcopal canonizations
1.2 Canonizations under papal authority
1.2.1 Early period of papal canonizations
1.2.2 The transition toward papal reservation of canonizations
1.3 The rise of the inquisitorial system and the promotor fiscalis
1.3.1 Development of the inquisitorial system
1.3.2 Response to the inquisitorial system
1.3.3 The first appearance of the promotor fiscalis
1.4 The promotor fiscalis in causes of canonization
1.4.1 The inquisitorial process applied to causes of canonization
1.4.2 The rise of the promotor fiscalis in causes of canonization
1.5 The Sacred Congregation of Rites and the promoter of the faith
1.5.1 The Creation of the Sacred Congregation of Rites
1.5.2 The promotor fiscalis within the Sacred Congregation of Rites
1.5.3 The purpose of the promoter of the faith
1.5.4 The effect of the promoter of the faith in causes of canonization
1.6 Contributions after Urban VIII
1.6.1 Contributions of Innocent XI
1.6.2 Contributions of Clement XI and Benedict XIV
1.6.3 Contributions of Leo XII
1.6.4 Excursus: The introduction of the defender of the bond
1.7 Conclusion
Chapter 2. The promoter of the faith in the 1917 Code of Canon Law
2.1 The nature of causes of canonization and the office of promoter of the faith
2.1.1 The location of the norms in the code
2.1.2 The cause as a type of ecclesiastical trial
2.1.3 The role of the promoter of the faith
2.1.4 The value of the contradictorium
2.1.5 The stages of the process
2.2 The role of the promoter of the faith in gathering the proofs
2.2.1 Insure that the acts are legitimate
2.2.1.a The citation and presence of the promoter
2.2.1.b Oaths and secrecy
2.2.1.c Specific interventions of the promoter
2.2.2 Insure that the proofs are complete
2.2.2.a Complete proofs and moral certitude
2.2.2.b The selection of witnesses
2.2.2.c Composition of the interrogatory
2.2.2.d Examination of the witnesses
2.2.2.e Presentation of documents
2.2.2.f Conclusion of the process and publication of the acts
2.2.2.g The processes for the gathering of writings and non-cult
2.3 The role of the Promoter General of the Faith in evaluating the proofs
2.3.1 The connection between the diocesan and Roman promoters
2.3.2 Offer opinion on the cause
2.4 Conclusion
Chapter 3. History of the promoter after 1917
3.1 Provisions omitted from the 1917 code
3.2 The reforms of Pius XI
3.2.1 Già da qualche tempo (1930)
3.2.2 Normae servandae (1939)
3.2.3 Consequences of the reforms in ancient causes
3.3 The reassessment of the 1917 code
3.3.1 The view of the code from 1917 to Vatican II
3.3.2 The announcement of Vatican II and a new code
3.4 The reforms of Paul VI
3.4.1 Regimini Ecclesiae Universae (1967)
3.4.2 Sanctitas Clarior (1969)
3.4.2.a The association of bishops with the Supreme Pontiff
3.4.2.b The development of the process
3.4.3 Sacra Rituum Congregatio (1969)
3.4.4 The effect of these reforms
3.5 The legislation of John Paul II
3.5.1 Preliminary discussions
3.5.2 The 1980 schema
3.5.3 Debate prior to the promulgation of the new law
3.5.4 The 1981 schema
3.5.5 The 1982 schema and 1983 promulgated text
3.5.6 The Regulations of the Congregation (1983)
3.6 Developments after the promulgation of the new law
3.6.1 Pastor Bonus and Iusti Iudicis (1988)
3.6.2 Decisions of the Congregation (1999)
3.6.3 The new Regulations of the Congregation (2000)
3.6.4 Sanctorum Mater (2007)
3.7 Conclusion
Chapter 4. The promoter in the current legislation
4.1 The nature of causes of canonization and the office of the promoter
4.1.1 The location of the norms
4.1.2 The cause as a type of ecclesiastical trial or academic study
4.1.3 The role of the promoter of the faith and the promoter of justice
4.1.4 The value of the contradictorium
4.1.5 The stages of the process
4.2 The role of the promoter of justice in gathering the proofs
4.2.1 Insure that the acts are legitimate
4.2.1.a The citation and presence of the promoter
4.2.1.b Oaths and secrecy
4.2.1.c Specific interventions of the promoter
4.2.2 Insure that the proofs are complete
4.2.2.a Complete proofs and moral certitude
4.2.2.b The selection of witnesses
4.2.2.c Composition of the interrogatory
4.2.2.d Examination of the witnesses
4.2.2.e Other interventions of the promoter of justice
4.2.2.f Conclusion of the inquiry and publication of the acts
4.3 The role of the Promoter of the Faith in evaluating the proofs
4.3.1 The lack of connection between the diocesan and Roman promoters
4.3.2 Offer opinion on the cause
4.4 Conclusion