Talk:Roman Rota/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I changed the clause "it does not authentically interpret the law" to "it does not set precedent" because although "it does not authentically interpret the law" is correct technical terminology (the role of the court is to decide cases, not issue interpretations of law), "it does not set precedent" conveys the meaning better to a lay audience. 69.140.157.138 03:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent modifications

I made modifications to several changes to the article. I'm going to make comments.

First, the Rota is not a tribunal of discretionary jurisdiction, though the paragraph on its appellate role seemed to say that it was. I changed this text back to how it was and included citations to Pastor Bonus. If what the original author was trying to say was that the dean reviews each case before the court and is empowered to summarily affirm a lower court's decision if the appeal lacks merit, then the author should say so and include citation to either Pastor Bonus, the Code, or the statutes of the Rota.

I also realize that the author may have been describing the procedure in the Rota for appeal of a decision which had two conforming judgments but, because it was a nullity decision or another status-of-persons decision, was not res judicata. If this is the case, may I suggest citing Canons 1643 & 1644 as well as the relevant Rotal statute describing the power of the Dean and including this as an addition to the paragraph describing the Rota's jurisdiction.

I also removed the full text of the Rotal section of Pastor Bonus. As the article text covers and cites to the section already, its inclusion is duplicative.

Including the titles of the Rotal auditors is a good idea, but given the Wiki's requirements for verifiability, the titles require citations. I'm sure that the titles and precedence could be found in the Rotal statutes, which, if I remember correctly, can be found in an appendix to the English translation of the Spanish Exegetical Commentary.

Finally, the auditors may in fact be the best canonical jurists, but as the wiki is a tertiary source, any statement noting the reputation of the auditors should be cited to someone noting their reputation. Otherwise it would be POV and would have to be removed. Maybe the Catholic Encyclopedia or a similar source discusses Rotal reputation.Pmadrid (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

'Sacred', is no longer used as applied to the Roman RotaIuris-can (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)