CODEX IURIS CANONICI

CODEX IURIS CANONICI. – This is the name given to the code promulgated in 1917 containing the universal law of the Latin Church.

CONTENTS:

I. The need for codification

II. Preliminary matters concerning codification

III. The work of codification

IV. The Code

V. The authentic interpretation of the CIC

VI. The sources of the CIC.

I. NECESSITY OF CODIFICATION

The causes that led to the collection of the universal laws of the Church in an authentic and systematic collection were analogous to those that gave rise to the civil Codes.

The plurality and confusion of the legislative sources of the various States—Roman, canonical, and common law; royal laws; municipal statutes; general and local customs—and the consequent multitude and confusion of the collections containing them, meant that, beginning in the sixteenth century, increasingly numerous and authoritative voices, among them those of F. Bacone, G. Leibniz, and L. A. Muratori, called for profound innovations capable of eliminating uncertainty and disorder. Three methods were proposed: the ancient system of compilation, whereby all laws would be unified in a single collection in the form in which they had been promulgated, while at the same time removing all existing contradictions; an intermediate system between compilation and codification, which would permit the original texts to be retained but supplemented by a still greater number of new ones, and would unify the law in force throughout the nation; finally, the system of codification (proposed by Leibniz in 1716), that is, the collection in a single body of the law of each country, so that even the ancient laws would find a place in it, but corrected and adapted to circumstances, expressed in a new and concise form, with the old and useless formulas omitted.

Criticism did not spare the collections of ecclesiastical laws. Tommaso Campanella even appealed to Paolo V for a single code to be compiled that would include both canon law and civil law.

The Corpus iuris canonici (v.) no longer met the needs of modern times: of the six collections composing it, Gratian’s Decretum, the Extravagantes of Giovanni XXIII, and the Extravagantes communes remained private collections; the other three, namely the Decretales of Gregorio IX, the Sextus of Bonifacio VIII, and the Clementiae, were official collections, but incomplete and outdated: the last of them had been promulgated in 1317. The Decretales Clementis VIII, more commonly called Liber septimus Clementis VIII, Pietro Matteo’s Liber septimus decretalium, and P. Lancelotti’s Institutiones iuris canonici attempted to meet a need that was felt ever more keenly after the reforming work of the Council of Trent; but these three works had no official character. The first volume of the Bullarium of Benedetto XIV, on the other hand, did have such a character. In his legal acumen, he must have recognized the defective state of the legislative sources, but he did not find himself in suitable circumstances to remedy II. Meanwhile, the laws multiplied; the decrees of the Roman congregations were added to the papal acts, but both the former and the latter were scattered in individual documents and collections, always incomplete and private: consequently, only very few could have a perfect knowledge of ecclesiastical legislation.

For whereas, with respect to the laws contained in the three authentic collections of the Corpus, the principles governing the interpretation of universal laws were in force, for all the others it was necessary to investigate their scope and nature, whether territorial or personal. In every case, moreover, including laws contained in the Corpus and those not contained in it, it was necessary to determine whether they were still in force, or whether the intrinsic or extrinsic circumstances that had deprived them of their binding force had arisen. In fact, even when contained in official collections, the laws in some cases dated back to the earliest centuries of the Church; they were sometimes repeated and therefore useless, many had been expressly abrogated, and others had fallen into desuetude. Nor were there lacking laws promulgated for the universal Church that were in fact particular, because in very many places they had ceased to be in force by virtue of concordats, privileges, dispensations, customs, or subsequent laws; nor were there lacking genuine and irreconcilable contradictions between norms issued on the same subjects at times and under circumstances so distant and different. Interpretation was further rendered more difficult by the excessively confused and prolix form in which the laws had been drafted, convoluted and divided into narrative, explanatory, and operative parts, and complicated by clauses and formulas lacking normative content. Finally, while for certain matters the number of laws was excessive, for others they were entirely lacking.

To eliminate analogous disadvantages and difficulties that were complained of in civil legislation, various States had systematic collections in which, after the superfluous and contradictory elements had been removed, common, customary, and even statutory law was retained as supplementary sources. Thus Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy had proceeded with the Regie Costituzioni of 1723; Carlo Felice with the Leggi civili e criminali pel Regno di Sardegna of 1827; and Pope Gregorio XVI with his Regolamento legislativo per gli Stati pontifici of 1834. Under the impetus of the same causes, the Prussian Code of 1794 and the French (or Napoleonic) Code of 1804 were promulgated; there were, however, profound differences between them: the Prussian Code contained, in addition to private law, public law, and was therefore extremely extensive (nineteen thousand paragraphs), whereas the Napoleonic Code contained only private law; the Prussian Code replaced the common law but left local, provincial, and customary law in force; the Napoleonic Code, on the other hand, was exclusive.

II. PRELIMINARIES OF THE CODIFICATION

From the beginning of the preparatory work for the First Vatican Council, in 1864, the majority of the cardinals, headed by Cardinal de Reisach, expressed the wish that the Council itself should address the reform of ecclesiastical discipline (Coll. Lacensis, VII, p. 1013, in note). The codification of the whole of canon law did not, however, seem practically possible. A special commission was nevertheless established, charged with preparing reform proposals.

On 12 September 1867, the commission began its work, but was unable to complete it because of the interruption of the Council. Even earlier, namely on 2 September 1869, the bishops of Campania, headed by Cardinal Riario Sforza, Archbishop of Naples, had insisted on the compilation of a new Corpus iuris canonici, especially in order to make the handling of cases easier and more expeditious, while at the same time rejecting the idea of a code similar to the civil codes which, by limiting themselves to stating the rule, leave its reasons unknown. Eleven French bishops asked that the Council establish a commission for the preparation of a new Corpus iuris to be approved by the Council itself. The bishops of Germany, Austria, and Belgium thought that the initiative should be taken and carried out by the Pope rather than by the Council. The first to ask for a genuine code, analogous to the civil codes, were the Belgian bishops, who were joined by those of the provinces of Québec and Halifax. Finally, on 19 February 1870, thirty-three bishops of various nations signed a petition to the Pope for the compilation of a code to be promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff: «Opus sane arduum; sed quo plus difficultatis habet, eo magis est tanto Pontifice dignum» (Coll. Lacensis, VII, p. 889).

The occupation of the Papal States and the anticlericalism raging in Italy prevented the Holy See at that time from carrying out these wishes. Various profound reforms and simplifications were nevertheless introduced into the discipline: it is enough to recall the Apostolicae Sedis of 18 October 1869 on latae sententiae censures, which is in a sense a particular codification of canon penal law; the Officiorum et munorum of 25 January 1897 on the censorship and prohibition of books; the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, dated 11 June 1880, «de modo quo oeconomice procedere debent Curiae ecclesiasticae in causis disciplinaribus et criminalibus clericorum»; and the constitution Conditae a Christo of 8 October 1900 on religious with simple vows.

Meanwhile, some canonists had privately undertaken attempts at codification. In 1873 Gaspare de Luise published in Naples a Codex canonum Ecclesiae in which, among the disciplinary prescriptions, dogmatic truths were included, together with public law as well as private law, and which contained many superfluities and omissions. Another Italian, Em. Colomiatti, published in Turin from 1888 to 1907, likewise, a Codex iuris pontificii seu canonici in nine volumes: more a collection of constitutions and decrees than a code. In Rome, from 1896 to 1902, E. M. Pezzani published his Codex S. Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae: a work left incomplete and, although superior to the preceding works, stuffed with too many dogmatic and public-law elements. A similar work was compiled in Paris in 1899, under the title Ius canonicum generale distributum in articulos, by A. Pillet: it presented the various rules in brief and precise articles and sought to demonstrate practically the possibility of a canonical codification. Attempts at partial codifications were not lacking either: P. Peries, in Canoniste Contemporain, in 1892 and 1893 arranged matrimonial canonical procedure in articles; likewise, in Madrid, in 1895, J. Cadena y Eletta, with a Proyecto de Código procesal canónico; I. Hollweck, on the other hand, attempted in 1899 to codify penal law: Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze (Mainz 1899). In general, however, especially among the Germans, codification was regarded as extremely difficult, if not impossible: thus by R. Scherer, H. Lämmer, J. B. Sägmüller, F. X. Wernz, as well as by various lay professors, among whom F. Ruffini is remembered (La codificazione del diritto ecclesiastico, Prato 1904). But even those who considered it possible disputed its scope and the system to be followed: most held that the new code should also encompass external public law; others wanted it to contain explanatory notes in addition to the rules; some called for the preservation of the traditional order, whereas others proposed a new one.

Such was the state of affairs at the time of the election of Pius X. Mons. P. Gasparri, secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, demonstrated to the new Pope that codification was possible (P. Gasparri, Storia della codificazione del diritto canonico, in Acta Congressus iuridici internationalis VII saec. a Decretalibus Gregorii IX et XIV a Codice Iustiniano promulgatis, Rome 1937, p. 4). A few days later Cardinal C. Gennari confirmed to the Supreme Pontiff the advisability of the suggestion, so that, by a letter of 11 January 1904, Pius X charged the same Cardinal Gennari with preparing the motu proprio «da spedirsi a tutti quelli emm. cardinali e consultori che in seguito designeremo insieme come i più abili per tale lavoro» (Il Monitore ecclesiastico, 1917, p. 269 ff.). At the beginning of March 1904, the Pope convened the cardinals residing in Rome several times in order to learn their opinion on the matter. This result too being favorable, on the feast of St Joseph in the same year he issued the motu proprio «Arduum sane munus», «de Ecclesiae legibus in unum redigendis» (Acta Pii X, I, Rome 1905, p. 219–22; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 36 [1903–1904], p. 549 ff.).

III. THE WORK OF CODIFICATION

This document announced the establishment of a commission of cardinals and consultors. The latter were to elaborate the material and present their drafts at meetings presided over by the secretary of the commission of cardinals. Once approved by the consultors, the draft was submitted to the commission of cardinals and, after being approved by that body as well, submitted for the approval of the Holy Father; the secretary of the commission of cardinals was Msgr. Gasparri. For this reason too, the administrative and chancery work relating to the codification was entrusted to the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, of which Msgr. Gasparri was secretary. In addition to the consultors, assistance was also sought from canonists and theologians, Italian and foreign, residing outside Rome and called “collaborators.” In accordance with the promise of the motu proprio, according to which the entire episcopate was to be invited to collaborate, Cardinal Merry del Val, Secretary of State, addressed a circular on 25 March 1904 to all the metropolitans, asking them, after obtaining the opinions of their suffragans and of the other Ordinaries who in any way had the right to intervene in the provincial council, to report to the Holy See, no later than four months from the date on which they had received the letter, their views on the changes and corrections to be made to ecclesiastical legislation.

The circular authorized the bishops of the individual nations to appoint, by common agreement, one or two particularly capable persons to be included among the consultors. The bishops could, however, if they preferred, designate their representative from among the members of the commission or, finally, appoint a fellow countryman who, even if residing outside Rome, would correspond with the commission itself (Acta Sanctae Sedis 36 [1903-1904], p. 603). From the motu proprio «Arduum sane munus» it was not clear whether the intention was to draw up a genuine code or another collection like those of antiquity. The letter of the secretary of the commission to the Catholic universities, dated 6 April 1904 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 37 [1904-1905], pp. 130-31), removed every doubt. In this letter the plan of the work was outlined in broad terms, subject to amendment, and it was stated that the work to be undertaken was twofold: the Code, to be drawn up in canons or articles like the recent civil codes, and the collection of legislative acts subsequent to 1317, that is, the collection of the sources.

The rectors of ecclesiastical universities were asked to indicate which professors were willing to draw up in articles or canons one part or another of canon law, so that they might be included among the collaborators. A similar invitation was also addressed to certain professors at state universities.

First of all, the table of contents of the Code was discussed; it was subsequently modified as the work progressed. An enumeration was then compiled of the best canonists throughout the Church, and each of them—consultors or collaborators—was assigned the section whose canons he was to elaborate. Each chapter or section of the general outline was drafted by at least two consultors, and the points of greatest importance or difficulty by three or four, but always in such a way that none of them knew of the others. The work of the consultors and collaborators was regulated by a special law dated 11 April 1904, reproduced, in its operative section, in the preface to the Code. To proceed more rapidly, two commissions were appointed instead of one, dealing with distinct subject matters. Each commission consisted of approximately ten members: one met on Thursday mornings, the other on Sunday mornings. Msgr. Gasparri presided as president, assisted later by Msgr. E. Pacelli, now the Supreme Pontiff. Although the work of codification proceeded in the strictest secrecy, the same motu proprio «Arduum sane munus» announced that the acts relating to it would be published. This is what Msgr. F. Roberti began to do with the publication of the Schemata de processibus, I, Rome 1940.

In addition to the two particular commissions, there was the plenary commission of all the consultors—approximately twenty-five—in which the examination of the canons approved by the particular commissions was entrusted. In the plenary commission, however, each member considered it his duty to express his opinion on every canon, and consequently the discussions became excessively protracted. The large commission was therefore no longer convened; instead, the printed draft to be discussed was sent to the individual members, with instructions for each of them to write his opinion in the margin beside every canon (P. Gasparri, Storia della codificazione, p. 7). After examining the opinions of the members of the large commission and eliminating those that did not merit consideration, Msgr. Gasparri submitted the others to the commission of cardinals, together with the drafts of the two particular commissions. The cardinals studied them first individually and then collectively, at least twice. Whenever a question presented particular difficulties, the opinion of the competent dicastery was also requested.

Created a cardinal in 1907, Msgr. Gasparri was shortly afterward also appointed ponente, that is, relator, of the commission of cardinals; the secretary remained the secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Ecclesiastical Affairs: first Msgr. R. Scapinelli di Leguigno, and then Msgr. E. Pacelli. Cardinal Gasparri, however, always retained the presidency of the consultors’ commissions, even after his appointment as Secretary of State.

The pontifical laws promulgated after the establishment of the commissions for drafting the Code were prepared by them. Among these, special mention should be made of the decree Ne temere of 2 August 1907 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 40 [1907], p. 526), and the decree Maxima cura of 20 August 1910 (AAS, 2 [1910], p. 636). In this way it was possible to ascertain, before incorporating them into the Code, how the new norms would be received.

In 1912, when nearly all the sections of the Code had been approved by the commission of cardinals, Pius X, accepting an idea of Cardinal Gasparri, wished them to be sent to all the cardinals and prelates who were summoned to the ecumenical council, so that they might express their judgment and observations. On 12 March 1912, the first two books were sent: Normae generales and De personis. On 1 April 1913, the third, De rebus, and on 1 July of the same year, what until then had been the fourth book: De delictis et poenis. On 13 November 1914, the book De iudiciis ecclesiasticis was sent. All the recipients—approximately 3,000—were bound by pontifical secrecy. Each of them, however, was authorized to entrust the work of revision to two or three persons of his confidence, whether secular or regular clergy. The observations of the episcopate were submitted directly to the commission of cardinals. As a result of them, the draft underwent profound changes: the fifth book became the fourth, and the latter took the place of the former; various titles and rubrics were changed; norms not previously contemplated were introduced, while others were suppressed.

The death of Pius X (20 August 1914) and the World War did not interrupt the work of codification. In July 1916, the commission of cardinals completed its review of the bishops’ observations; and in the same year the Code was printed, ready for promulgation. Benedict XV nevertheless wished it first to be sent to the cardinals residing in the Curia and to the dicasteries of the Holy See, so that they might express their views. Finally, on 4 December 1916, the Pope announced in his consistory address that the work had been completed. Even in 1917, however, various provisions concerning the organization of the Roman Curia (AAS, 9 [1917]) influenced the drafting of the Code (cf. cann. 247, 257, 258).

IV. THE CODE

On Pentecost Day, 27 May 1917, the Code was promulgated by the constitution Providentissima Mater Ecclesia. On 28 June 1917 it was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and on the same day Cardinal Gasparri presented its first copy to the Supreme Pontiff, in the presence of the cardinals, consultors, and collaborators. In his reply, the Pope declared, among other things, his firm intention not to heed requests for derogations and exemptions. According to the constitution Providentissima, the Code was to enter into force on 19 May 1918, Pentecost of the following year. Nevertheless, by a decree of 20 August 1917, it was ordered that certain norms be applied in advance, namely cann. 239 § 1, 240, 600 n. 3, 859 § 2, 1108 § 3, 1189, 1247 § 1, 1250–1254, 1401 (AAS, 9 [1917], p. 475). Codex Iuris Canonici is the title of the collection (it is customarily abbreviated as CIC).

In the Church, the use of the word code was quite rare in past centuries. It is nevertheless found in the acts of the Fourth Council of Toledo of 633, to designate the Codex Ecclesiae Hispaniae; toward the end of the eighth century the Dionysio-Adriana collection was likewise called Codex canonum; similarly, the collection of the constitutions of the African councils was published in 1645 by Chr. Justel under the title Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae; in 1675 P. Quesnel published his collection under the title Codex Ecclesiae Romanae; Codex Carolinus was the name given to the collection of letters from various Popes to Carlo Martello, Pipino il Breve, and Carlomagno; and Codex encyclicus to a collection of 41 letters, the principal part of which was addressed to the Emperor Leone I in 485 by synods collectively representing the entire Christian world.

In civil law, the name code designated a collection of laws, such as the Code of Justinian, which was authentic, systematic, and exclusive. The same is true today in canon law.

The new collection is called C. i. c. and not iuris ecclesiastici, both because of the more ancient and prevalent use of the former expression and to avoid misunderstandings.

As early as Nov. CXXXVII of Justinian, ecclesiastical laws were called « canones » and contrasted with civil laws, the « leges ». The decisions of the earliest councils were designated by the name canons, whereas the disciplinary definitions of the pontiffs were called Decretals or Decreta. This usage continued with Gratian (Praeemium, and c. 2, D. III), the decretists (cf. J. F. Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen, I, Stuttgart 1875, p. 29, note 3 and p. 255), and the Decretals (cf. c. 11, X, I, 2; c. 2, V, 7, in VI). At the Councils of Basel and Constance, at the Council of Trent, and in the schemas of the First Vatican Council, disciplinary decisions were instead called decrees, and dogmatic declarations canons; nevertheless, usage continued to designate by the name canons the laws contained in the Corpus Iuris. Protestant jurists of the eighteenth century then began to designate as « ius ecclesiasticum » the laws of the State concerning ecclesiastical matters. This is likewise the sense attributed to the expression in Italian universities. It is therefore evident that the title « Codex iuris ecclesiastici » might have caused misunderstandings.

The CIC is divided, as are the Decretals, into five books, but the distribution of the material is new, as is the method. Before the CIC are placed the constitution by which it was promulgated, the motu proprio « Cum iuris canonici », by which the Pontifical Commission for Authentic Interpretation was established, and the Profession of Faith: the latter recalls the title De Summa Trinitate et de Fide catholica, with which the authentic collections of the Decretals began after the Code of Justinian. In an Appendix are placed eight constitutions taken from the old law. The first, namely the Vacante Sede Apostolica dated 25 December 1904, has now been replaced by the Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 8 December 1945: this has also deprived the second and third of all force, namely the Commissum Nobis of 20 January 1904 and the Praedecessores Nostri of 24 May 1882, as well as the motu proprio « Cum proxime » of 1 March 1922 (cf. Apollinaris, 19 [1945], pp. 177–79).

Each of the five books of the Code is generally divided into parts, sections, titles, chapters, articles, and canons (of which there are 2414).

Even in the external division of the material, the CIC differs profoundly from the preceding collections. The internal form of the individual canons differs still more profoundly. Whereas the Decretals dealt with particular cases and also included the explanatory and motivational portions, the canons contain only the norm in concise form. In the collections of the Decretals, the text was reproduced, though abbreviated, in the same words as the sources, whereas the CIC, although generally reproducing pre-existing norms, ordinarily uses different terms. For the same reason, the style of the Decretals was extraordinarily varied; that of the CIC also reflects the multitude of its collaborators, but with less evident discrepancies. Finally, the collections of the Decretals did not comprise all the canon law in force at the time of promulgation, and, in addition to genuine disciplinary norms, they contained dogmatic definitions and liturgical prescriptions. The CIC omits liturgical norms and also dogmatic truths, except when they constitute the foundation of disciplinary laws. The latter, on the other hand, are all included in II.
The authority of the CIC is defined in the aforementioned constitution Providentissima. In its terms, the CIC must be called an authentic, universal, and exclusive collection. All the laws contained in it are therefore binding upon the entire Latin Church, regardless of whether they had previously been particular or general laws or customary norms, or whether their origin lay in «pure» sources. The laws contained in the CIC, even if they had arisen previously in different periods or from different legislators, have the same binding force, as though all had been promulgated at the same instant. The CIC may also be called an exclusive collection, because it abrogates all legal or customary norms that it does not expressly or implicitly reproduce (can. 6). It is not, however, exclusive in an absolute sense, because it leaves in force: Eastern ecclesiastical law; strictly liturgical prescriptions; concordat law; immemorial or centenary customary law, even if contrary to it, provided that in such a case it has not been expressly condemned and is tolerated by the Ordinaries; particular law, even when contrary to the CIC; vested rights, privileges, and apostolic indults still in use and not expressly revoked.

The individual canons have the force of universal laws. The inscriptions or rubrics of the books, parts, sections, titles, chapters, and articles are authentic, but are not true laws, because they merely indicate the subject matter they contain. They may nevertheless serve as a means of interpretation. The index preceding the CIC is nothing more than a list of the rubrics and therefore has the same value as they do. The documents inserted at the end of the CIC have the same binding force as the canons, even if they were previously particular laws. The preface, notes, and analytical-alphabetical index, on the other hand, have a purely private value. Since, for the interpretation of the new law, it is necessary in most cases to go back to the earlier law, the notes are an excellent aid. The indication of a source, however, does not imply that the new norm conforms to the old one; nor does the omission of such an indication establish the independence of the new law. In a few rare cases, the indication of the source was in fact inadvertently omitted.

Translations and versions of the CIC into other languages have been prohibited, in order to avoid alterations of meaning. With the permission of the Holy See, however, the canons concerning lay and religious orders have been translated, owing to the insufficient knowledge of Latin that those most directly concerned may possess. Recently, permission has also been granted for some complete translations. None of these translations, however, is authentic.

V. THE AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CIC

The authentic interpretation of the CIC, by virtue of the motu proprio « Cum iuris canonici » of 15 Sept. 1917 (AAS [1917], p. 483), is reserved to a special and permanent pontifical commission. The authority of the commission is not legislative, but solely interpretative. This power, however, comprises not only declaratory interpretation, but also properly explanatory interpretation of a doubtful law, as well as properly restrictive and extensive interpretation. At the plenary meeting of 9 Dec. 1917, the Pontifical Commission established that doubts of lesser importance and difficulty could be resolved by the cardinal president. At the same plenary meeting it was also decided to respond only to doubts submitted by Ordinaries and by the major superiors of religious Orders and congregations, and not to questions from private individuals unless they were submitted through their Ordinaries (AAS, 10 [1918], p. 77; 11 [1919], p. 476). The Commission’s responses have the same binding force as the canons.

According to the motu proprio « Cum iuris canonici », the Pontifical Commission would also have the task of formulating in canons the new universal laws that amend or make up for the silence of the CIC, and of indicating in the code the respective canons to be replaced or supplemented. This function, however, has never been carried out.

VI. THE SOURCES OF THE CIC

They were collected and published by Cardinal P. Gasparri and Cardinal G. Serèdi. The sources drawn from the Corpus Iuris, the Council of Trent, and the liturgical books were omitted from this collection, because they are readily accessible to every scholar. The other sources, formerly scattered among many collections, are now gathered together in 8 vols. and arranged in the following order: first are given, in chronological order, the laws of the general councils that are found neither in the Corpus Iuris nor in the acts of the Pontiffs nor in those of the Council of Trent. These are followed, again in chronological order, by the laws of the Supreme Pontiffs that are not in the Corpus Iuris; then by the norms issued by the Sacred Congregations, tribunals, and offices of the Holy See: the acts of each Sacred Dicastery are arranged chronologically, and the order of succession of the Dicasteries is that established by the CIC. The sources cited number 6464 in all.

RIB.: I. Noval. Codificationis iuris canonici recensio historico-apologetica. Rome 1918; P. Vidal, Il nuovo Codice di diritto canonico, in Civ. Catt., 68 (1917), 60 (1918), passim: U. Stutz, Der Geist des CIC, Stuttgart 1918; A. Scharnagl, Das neue kirchliche Gesetzbuch, 2nd ed., Munich 1918; H. Henrici, Das Gesetzbuch der katholischen Kirche, Basel 1918; N. Hilling, in Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, 98 (1918), pp. 71–86; A. Bernareggi, Metodi e sistemi delle antiche collezioni e del nuovo Codice di diritto canonico, Magenta 1919; A. Ortscheid, Essai concernant la nature de la codification, Paris 1922; M. Falco, Introduzione allo studio del CIC, Turin 1925; B. Zongolowicz, in Przeglad Teologicznej, 8 (1927), pp. 142–61; Kl. Mörsdorf, Die Rechtssprache des CIC, Paderborn 1937; P. Gasparri, Storia della Codificazione del diritto canonico, in Acta Congresses iuridici internationalis, IV, Rome 1937, pp. 3–10; P. Ciprotti, Osservazioni sul testo del CIC, Vatican City 1944. Dino Staffa