Administering justice in marriage annulment proceedings is a delicate ministerial function of the Church. At stake is the truth of a sacrament and the salvation of the spouses. This requires that such processes be carried out with the maximum diligence and in compliance with deontological criteria and procedural principles. In the new canonical procedural norms, if it is not well applied, there is a risk of endangering the very indissolubility of marriage, the cornerstone of Catholic dogma. This work studies, from a dynamic perspective, the intervention of the Judicial Vicar and the Defender of the Bond in the shortest matrimonial process, analyzing the most problematic novelties introduced by the new canons that govern said judicial procedure. Likewise, an attempt is made to deduce, from the current regulations, the criteria that should govern their actions according to the criteria of the contradictory and due process, with special attention to those issues that pose the most problems in forensic praxis the introduction of libel.

The article comments on the foundations and theological implications of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in particular highlighting the of mercy. Particular attention is given to the different denominations of this Sacrament throughout different historical periods and in the documents of the Church, to the role of the confessor that follows from them and to the inviolability of the sacramental seal within the merciful welcome to the penitent.

Originating several centuries ago, the pontifical secret over the course of time has become progressively less rigorous. Even though found today in only a few normative texts, the pontifical secret presents a challenge to the transparency needs of our time, especially in light of events which, were it maintained, could risk that the «secret» be read as a concealment or cover-up, an obstacle to the pursuit of truth. How can canonical norms today balance confidentiality that protects good reputations with understandable desires for shared knowledge and care for the truth?

Originating several centuries ago, the pontifical secret over the course of time has become progressively less rigorous. Even though found today in only a few normative texts, the pontifical secret presents a challenge to the transparency needs of our time, especially in light of events which, were it maintained, could risk that the «secret» be read as a concealment or cover-up, an obstacle to the pursuit of truth. How can canonical norms today balance confidentiality that protects good reputations with understandable desires for shared knowledge and care for the truth?

Widely publicized revelations in the summer of 2018 about the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy and the failure of Church authorities to address this abuse adequately placed in a harsh light the deficiencies in structures of accountability in the Church, deficiencies that have been exacerbated by absence of transparency in church governance. Lack of accountability and transparency have, in turn, badly eroded the legitimacy of church governance in the eyes of the public, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

Restoration of trust in Church leadership will require developing improved and transparent structures of accountability for Church authorities that engage not only their hierarchical superiors but also the faithful they serve.  Lack of transparency in the canonical penal process through which complaints of sexual abuse of minors by clerics are adjudicated have led to complaints of injustice by clerics subjected to the process, victims who often believe their complaints have been ignored or treated as unimportant, and the community of the faithful that is not informed that church authorities have dealt appropriately with complaints of abuse.

1. Introduction. 2. Concept of Transparency: phenomenology, relationship with advertising, the foundation of transparency in the Church. 3. Right of defence: concept and foundation; transparency at certain times in the process, when the norm is lacking, when the rule is not well interpreted, a rule on transparency.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation has had a very complex and non-linear development both in its history and theology. This article highlights some of the more important turning points in its process of development. In of the Seminar at which this paper was presented, the writer has made a special effort to refer to the development of the concept of the Seal of Confession along with that of the sacrament itself. All throughout the Tradition, this Seal has been considered absolutely inviolable.

The aim of this article is to examine the responsibility of the confessor in a few concrete cases that might arise in the confessional, when the penitent is a cleric abuser, or the victim, or when the penitent is a third party. If it is never permitted to impose on the penitent, as a condition for absolution, the obligation to turn himself in to civil authorities, what about self-reporting and absolution? In this context, the issue of abuses calls for the serious consideration of the meaning of reserving the concession of the faculty to hear confessions to the Bishop. It is necessary that the Bishop be responsible for the completion of the sacramental path. Some operative conclusions, also in of the topic of formation.

This contribution begins with the affirmation of Saint Alfonso M. de Liguori «the task of the confessor is an office of charity, instituted by the Redeemer only for the good of souls». It reflects on some dimensions of the continuous formation of confessors, which is first of all a father, a teacher, then a doctor and finally the judge.

The Author presents the main indications of the post-Conciliar magisterium on the theme of formation and offers various elements of reflection in response to the ever new and delicate situations that our consciences are confronted with.

In light of the magisterial indications, and without wanting to fall into the case history, the Author tries to reflect on some concrete pastoral cases by emphasizing two unavoidable aspects: the intangibility of the sacramental seal and mature paternity in the administration of God’s mercy.

This article looks at problems in canonical penal processes raised by the lack of accessible jurisprudence in the form of written reasons for decision from prior cases and the effect this has on victims and the right of accused to mount a defence.  The article suggests how the approach of civil courts in publishing written reasons where confidentiality has to be maintained might be utilised by canonical tribunals in dealing similar issues.