As theologians generally say, there are three criteria according to which a civil right can be judged in a purely criminal manner: first, the declaration of the legislator; secondly, the attitude of folk tradition and custom; Third, the imposition of a sentence so severe that it is disproportionate to the importance of the law. However, the second and third criteria are not universally valid; Because custom can be socially harmful and the harsh punishment can be designed in such a way as to avoid an unusual frequency of violations, without indicating that the law should be considered purely criminal. Some who use this language do not mean what they seem to mean. They want to claim the theory, which has been sufficiently discussed above, that modern laws do not bind in conscience because modern legislators do not have the right intention. If this assertion were reasonable, civil legislation would not even attain the dignity of purely criminal decrees; Because they imply a moral obligation. Fortunately, those who use the term in the true sense of the word and declare that all modern civil laws are purely criminal are neither numerous nor authoritarian. According to the general opinion of moral theologians, the presumption is always in favor of a complete obligation. {17} Like all other hypotheses, this one can only be overcome by positive facts and arguments. With respect to a particular law, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that it is purely criminal probation. Roman canon law is a fully developed legal system with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code[17], principles of legal interpretation and coercive sanctions, although in most secular jurisdictions it does not have binding civil force. An example where conflicts arose between secular law and canon law was the English legal system, as well as systems such as the United States, which derived from it.
Here, criminals could apply in favor of the clergy. Being in sacred orders or fraudulently pretending to be so meant that criminals could choose to be tried by ecclesiastical courts rather than secular courts. Ecclesiastical courts were generally more lenient. Under the Tudors, the extent of the clerical advantages of Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I was gradually reduced. The papacy challenged secular authority over priestly crimes. The advantage of the clergy was systematically removed from English legal systems over the next 200 years, although it still took place in South Carolina in 1827. [Citation needed] In English law, the use of this mechanism, which at the time was a legal fiction for first-time offenders, was abolished by the Criminal Law Act of 1827. Of course, all ethically valid civil laws must conform to the moral law of nature. A law that contradicts a commandment of natural law has no moral force, even if it has been solemnly promulgated or severely sanctioned or vigorously enforced. Such a decree is not a law at all, but, as St.
Thomas calls it, “a kind of violence.” 1959 The Law of Nature, the very good work of the Creator, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his decisions. It also provides the moral foundation indispensable to the building of the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law to which it is linked, whether by reflection drawing conclusions from its principles or by additions of a positive and legal nature. As for legislators who firmly believe that civil laws are not binding in the strict sense, for example, those who, along with English lawyer John Austin, reduce the moral obligation of legal laws to the bad chance of being punished for violations, – it is not clear that there is even an implicit intention to create a moral obligation. {15} Tanquerey argues in favour of the reality of such an intention on the grounds that the legislator wants its laws to exert all possible binding forces on the will of citizens, and is therefore quite willing for them to feel bound by conscience. However, it is not an implicit intention to impose an objective moral obligation. It does not recognize the objective link, which is the essence of the real obligation, the link between the will of the legislature and the will of the addressee of the law. The only thing covered by such an intention is the state of mind of the citizen. The legislator is quite prepared for this to be influenced by the persuasion of the obligation; that the objective moral obligation, which constitutes an obligation, should extend from its will to the will of the citizen, the legislator does not even have an implicit intention, because it completely rejects the possibility of such a commitment. His intention includes only a subjective condition, not an objective relationship. It is difficult to imagine how such legislators can have the even implicit intention of making a real law or imposing a moral obligation. For a civil law to become seriously binding, two conditions are therefore necessary: first, that the subject matter be of great importance; second, that the legislature intends the law to have that effect within the framework of conscience.
In the absence of any of these conditions, the law binds only under the threat of venial sin. If the subject matter is of minor importance, the legislature cannot obtain the inherently contradictory performance of making the obligation serious; If the legislator does not want an extremely important law to be bound under the threat of mortal sin, it will not be mandatory to that extent. The canon law of the Catholic Church contains all the ordinary elements of a mature legal system: laws, courts, lawyers, judges. [7] The canon law of the Catholic Church is formulated in the Code of Law of the Latin Church[8] and in a Code of the Eastern Catholic Churches. [8] This canon law contains principles of legal interpretation[9] and sanctions. [10] In most secular jurisdictions, it has no binding civil force. Those who know and are qualified in canon law and professors of canon law are called canonists[11][12] (or colloquially canons[11][13]). Canon law as a sacred science is called canonism. Indeed, any civil right can rightly be regarded either as a confirmation of natural law or as an application of its rules, principles or conclusions derived.
{4} Of the first are the laws prohibiting theft, assault and adultery. The latter class includes laws that determine individual property rights and prescribe the collection and collection of taxes, as well as regulations governing traffic on roads and roads.