Book Review

Thomas Kuzhinapurath, Salvific Law, Salvific Character of CCEO: A Historical Overview,

Carmel International Publishing House, ISBN 978-93-80483-54-2, Trivandrum, 2014.

In the context of prescriptions to be observed in the transfer of pastors, the final canon
(c.1752) of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici interjects a fundamental notion that could be
rightly placed at the end of every canon: having before ones eyes the salvation of souls,
which is always the supreme law of the Church. One might presume that the phrase was
expressly included in this canon because the legislator considered it appropriate to end CIC
on such a note.
Although the 1990 Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium on a less spiritual - -
and literary more temporal note regarding the computation of time in canon 1546, this
doctoral work uses this Code as a basis of the examination of the salvific character of canon
law.

The contribution of the work is the treatment of law within the context of soteriology.
The study, therefore, opens with a terminological and theological examination of the notions
of salvation and law. The study proceeds with an extensive examination of the history and
key issues related to the codification of Eastern canon law and the title, structure, the
underlying theology and ecumenical perspective of the CCEO.

The author demonstrates the salvific character of the CCEO by examining the Codes
treatment of the Eucharist as the culmination of the salvific work of the Church and by terms
that explicitly refer to salvation and the welfare of the souls i.e., salus (most often
incorporated in the phrases such as mystrium salutis and oeconomia salutis), salus animarum
and aequitas. Treatment of aequitas draws attention to the goal of the law to uphold the
values of a community that might suffer as a result of the strict enforcement of the law. In
case of the Church, the supreme value is the salvation of souls.

In the fourth and final chapter, the author examines the salvific character implicit in
the CCEO within the context of the administration of penal justice and the sacrament of
penance. The author accurately addresses the medicinal role of penal law as articulated in the
CCEO, but perhaps additional attention could have been given to the teaching responsibility
of the Church in the face of criminal behaviour. Certain institutions such as oikonomia,
dispensations, privileges and sanatio in radice have as their goal the welfare of the souls,
even when arrangements are contrary to the provisions of the law.

This work serves a valid and important purpose of reminding all those engaged in the
juridical governance of the Church that the end is never the law, nor even the welfare of the
Church, but the salvation of souls.

Corbishop Dr. John D. Faris

Courtesy: Studia Canonica, Canadian Canon Law Review, St. Paul University, Ottawa, Canada.