Find in Library

The author of the presented article carried out an interpretation of can. 53 which in­cludes two conflict-of-law rules to be used in case of a conflict of singular decrees. According to the analysis, the first rule included in can. 53 CIC remains in close re­la­tion to 34th interpretive rule included in Pope Boniface VIII’s “Liber Sextus” which sta­tes that “the particular overrides the general”. The main idea behind the fun­ctio­ning of this interpretive rule is the assumption that the more particular the decree is, the more attention is paid by the ecclesiastical power to its formative process, which leads to a more precise expression of a clearly specified situation. The second interpretive rule states that if decrees are equally general or equally par­ticular, the decree later in time repeals the earlier to the extent that the later one is contrary to it. The rule’s “ratio legis” is based on the assumption that the power issuing a later decree is aware of having issued the previous one.