Reflection on the Exceptions to the General Norm on Dolus in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law

Abstract

Canon 103, § 2 of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law stated that juridical acts placed out of dolus were valid, if the law did not state otherwise. However, there were four instances when the law did state otherwise, namely; in case of canonical election, if the voter was subject to dolus in order to vote for a certain person, the vote was invalid (canon 169, § 1); in the case of resignation, the law stated that the resignation was invalid if it was made out of dolus (185); in the case of novitiate, the law stated that the novitiate was invalid if the person who entered into religious life would have been induced by dolus to do that, or if the Religious Superior would have been induced by dolus to receive a candidate into religious life (542, l°); and in the case of religious profession, the law stated that the religious profession had to be given without dolus (572, § 1, 4°) in order to be valid. Yet, the canonical commentators pointed out that there were some requirements in each case for dolus to invalidate the juridical act. Thus, in the case of canonical election it must be proved that the voter voted being deceived by either substantial dolus or antecedent dolus. Merely concomitant dolus had no effect on voting. In the case of a resignation from an office again it must be proved that either substantial or antecedent dolus was involved. The same thing was true in the case of admission to the novitiate and in the case of religious profession, i.e. either substantial or antecedent dolus must be involved.

Article history: Received 03.05.2024; Revised 05.05.2024; Accepted 15.05.2024

Available online: 07.06.2024. Available print: 30.06. 2024