A strong defense but we will disagree.
Please clarify whether the judge was speaking to the matter at hand or to
another unrelated matter.
I think the learned judge's suggestion (that you quoted) that the matter be
addressed to the Holy See is an excellent suggestion. I have no difficulty
understanding the Perugian court's process in establishing the filiation of
the individual with his adoptive parents nor the genealogical counting of
generations in order to establish the limits of consanguinity. My concern is
with the nobillary matter.
The learned judge's comments about the obligation of good Catholics to
accept court rulings is quite stirring, but it does not address itself to
the question as to whether the diocesan court in fact had the authority or
jurisidiction to take on and extend a Savoy nobillary grant in favour of an
adoptive son. That matter would appear to rest with the Savoy dynasty and
not the Church and if the Church were to incorporate an individual into the
Roman or Papal nobility this would seem a matter for the Pontiff directly
and not the local tribunal. The quoted passages of Canon Law are interesting
and address themselves to the general competencies of courts and matters
relevant to filiation but not to the nobillary question specifically.
If the court has exceeded its jurisidction its ruling of course would have
no effect. With respect to the learned judge, discussion of the decisons of
the courts are matters that may be discussed and considered and are often
the subject of scholarly inquiry such as we have here - admittedly there are
times when the Pontiff declares some matters decided and directs Catholics
not to continue discussion but this is not one of them. The issue being
discussed here is ultimately not the individual who brought the matter or
his filiation. He is not of course accountable for any decision made by an
independent tribunal and cannot be faulted for bringing matters before any
court. The issue is really the competencies of that court to decide in the
nobillary matter in question by assuming jurisidction over Savoy grants and
the court's competency to extend the nobillary rules of the Savoy monarchy
to include adopted children and to treat Savoy nobilllary grants as though
they were in law grants of the Roman Church.
The appeal to the good Catholic by both the learned judge and by Martin are
again stirring but misplaced. I will happily assert that I am a Catholic in
good standing and feel that the matters raised in the ruling are worthy of
further discussion and review. Threats of legal action are in mind
completely misplaced, but if someone believes I am disrespectful of a the
ruling of a Church court then I'll helpfully add that I am domiciled in the
Archdiocese of Edmonton, Canada and as a Catholic subject to the local
archdiocesan court. It would seem a Church rather than a civil matter. As
far as the gentleman himself, his reputation is not diminished by questions
related to the competency of the Perugian Church court or questions related
to Savoy nobillary practices. I have no reason to believe that he is not a
man of good standing in his community, but I am not bound to accept a
decision about what is described as a Church validated comital title on the
basis of a ruling by a diocesan court in a filiation matter. Whether I
accept a claim to a noble title or not of course does not either enhance or
disparage the individual's character or reputation. So if there is a legal
remedy that leaves Church venues. Let's see what the Apostolic Signatura or
other appropriate Church legal forum has to say. Can you ask the learned
judge you quoted to assist in bringing the matter forward through the
"Martin Goldstraw" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Because we have not until now replied to this thread it may appear to
readers of this forum that the Armorial Register is not willing or able
to comment. This is not the case.
Mr Sainty has chosen to make public by use of this forum a number of
allegations and assertions some of which, by implication, bring the
name of Burke's Peerage into disrepute; the assertions made by Mr.
Sainty are that Burke's Peerage & Gentry Armorial Register takes
little or no care in who it accepts as registrants and that there
exists no procedures at all to vet any applicants. Mr Sainty has no
knowledge of the extensive vetting procedure taken in each case and his
assertions are unfounded and ill informed. A great deal of research,
care and forethought goes into the acceptance (or rejection) of
applicants and there have been a number of rejections since the
beginning of the project. We do not claim infallibility and where we
have been misled we will act.
Of the three persons so openly criticized by Mr. Sainty one had already
been identified by us as being somewhat suspect and was simply awaiting
removal by the web master at the time Mr Sainty made his post in public
- had he extended us a little courtesy and contacted us privately he
would have been told that this was so. We do not intend to defend the
temporary inclusion of this particular individual; proof of titles was
promised but never materialized. The entry was premature but whilst
waiting for proof of titles to be forwarded our own checks highlighted
the difficulties with the claims and the entry was subsequently
Mr. Sainty made further allegations that the register had included two
other gentlemen who purported to hold titles to which they had no
right. He is wrong to assert that we simply accepted their word without
any form of checks being undertaken. As with all our applicants, both
of these gentlemen had fulfilled the requirements and fully satisfied
us that they were entitled to use the styles and titles claimed.
Mr. Sainty was informed of all this by private correspondence and yet
continues to publicly challenge the rights of the persons concerned. He
is of the view that his opinion is worth more than the weight of a
properly convened Catholic ecclesiastical court. The Armorial Register
does not set itself above any court of law whatever the jurisdiction.
Any dispute between Burke's Peerage and the Armorial Register and Mr.
Sainty will be taken forward away from this thread and I am informed
that the gentlemen who have been so openly maligned will be taking
their own remedies in law.
Appended to this missive is an explanation of the Apostolic
Constitution and the Code of Canon Law but first readers of this thread
might appreciate a short quote from a Judge in the Catholic
Ecclesiastical Court - the very level of Court whose judgment Mr.
Sainty questions and criticises. I feel it is particularly appropriate
under the circumstances to relay it to the participants of this forum
as it fits perfectly with this particular thread and could almost be
addressed to Mr. Sainty himself who purports to be a good Catholic:
The fundamental principle of every Catholic is obedience to the
universal precepts and laws laid out by His Holiness the Pope. The
universal law is the will of the Pope and is made manifest through
Apostolic succession by means of Their Excellencies the Bishops. The
application and execution of the universal law is made manifest through
three orders of justice. The Pope may at any time suspend and/or take
upon Himself any case before these orders of justice. Any verdict given
by any of these orders of justice, once given, is the will of the Pope
in accordance with the universal law (code of canon law). Not only is
not given to any Catholic to discuss the validity of such verdicts,
they are bound by obedience to observe their terms.
A decree, by its own intrinsic nature, in accordance with the universal
law (the code of canon law), is the most perfect expression of an
executive order (I shall not quote the appropriate canons as I am sure
you would not have the patience and time to read them). Up until now,
your insinuations have been merely malign and not supported by any
ecclesiastical juridical argument.
The Holy Roman Apostolic Church cannot be assimilated to ludicrous
examples of fake kings, princes, barons, etc. and fake orders of
chivalry well known to the present zealous "censors" who have come
That which is here taking place at the expense of a gentleman who has
placed himself in the hands of the universal law of the Catholic Church
cannot be considered an act nobiliary climbing. That which I have read
insults the person, insults the institution, insults the universal law
and the Pope who regulates it. I am not interested if such actions come
from a Protestant but it is intolerable that this come to pass on the
part of a Catholic.
I hope that for the good and in defense of Catholicism, and for the
good and in defense of His Holiness the Pope and the laws of
promulgation, that the assertions made and undersigned in this space be
brought to the attention of the Apostolic Signatura.
For and on behalf of Burke's Peerage & Gentry
Point 1. Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus" of 28 June 1988
IV Tribunals (art. 117 - 130)
Art. 126 - 130 The Roman Rota
Art. 126 - The Roman Rota is a court of higher instance at the
Apostolic See, usually at the appellate stage, with the purpose of
safeguarding rights within the Church; it fosters unity of
jurisprudence, and, by virtue of its own decisions, provides assistance
to lower tribunals.
Art. 127 - The judges of this Tribunal constitute a college. Persons
of proven doctrine and experience, they have been selected by the
Supreme Pontiff from various parts of the world. The Tribunal is
presided over by a dean, likewise appointed by the Supreme Pontiff from
among the judges and for a specific term of office.
Art. 128 - This Tribunal adjudicates:
1. in second instance, cases that have been decided by ordinary
tribunals of first instance and are being referred to the Holy See by
2. in third or further instance, cases already decided by the same
Apostolic Tribunal and by any other tribunals, unless they have become
a res iudicata.
Art. 129 - § 1. The Tribunal, however, judges the following in first
1. bishops in contentious matters, unless it is a question of the
rights or temporal goods of a juridical person represented by the
2. abbots primate or abbots superior of a monastic congregation and
supreme moderators of religious institutes of pontifical right;
3. dioceses or other ecclesiastical persons, whether physical or
juridical, which have no superior below the Roman Pontiff;
4. cases which the Supreme Pontiff commits to this Tribunal.
§ 2. It deals with the same cases even in second and further
instances, unless other provisions are made.
Art. 130 - The Tribunal of the Roman Rota is governed by its own law.
Point 2. Apostolic Constitution "Sacrae Disciplinae Leges" of 25
During the course of the centuries, the Catholic Church has been
accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so
that, in constant fidelity to her divine Founder, they may be better
adapted to the saving mission entrusted to her. Prompted by this same
purpose and fulfilling at last the expectations of the whole Catholic
world, I order today, January 25, 1983, the promulgation of the revised
Code of Canon Law.
This note of collegiality, which eminently characterizes and
distinguishes the process of origin of the present Code, corresponds
perfectly with the teaching and the character of the Second Vatican
Council. Therefore the Code, not only because of its content but also
because of its very origin, manifests the spirit of this Council, in
the documents of which the Church, the universal "sacrament of
salvation" (cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium,
nos. 1, 9, 48), is presented as the People of God and its hierarchical
constitution appears based on the College of Bishops united with its
Therefore, in promulgating the Code today, I am fully aware that this
act is an expression of pontifical authority and, therefore, it is
invested with a "primatial" character. But I am also aware that this
Code in its objective content reflects the collegial care of all my
brothers in the episcopate for the Church. Indeed, by a certain analogy
with the Council, it should be considered as the fruit of a collegial
collaboration because of the united efforts on the part of specialized
persons and institutions throughout the whole Church.
A second question arises concerning the very nature of the Code of
Canon Law. To reply adequately to this question, one must mentally
recall the distant patrimony of law contained in the books of the Old
and New Testament from which is derived, as from its first source, the
whole juridical - legislative tradition of the Church.
The Code, as the principal legislative document of the Church, founded
on the juridical - legislative heritage of Revelation and Tradition, is
to be regarded as an indispensable instrument to ensure order both in
individual and social life, and also in the Church's activity itself.
Therefore, besides containing the fundamental elements of the
hierarchical and organic structure of the Church as willed by her
divine Founder, or as based upon apostolic, or in any case most
ancient, tradition, and besides the fundamental principles which govern
the exercise of the threefold office entrusted to the Church itself,
the Code must also lay down certain rules and norms of behavior.
Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed. The
greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy
preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate,
and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and
May God grant that joy and peace with justice and obedience obtain
favor for this Code, and that what has been ordered by the Head be
observed by the members.
with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this
Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the
present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that
for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin
Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned,
in order that it may be observed.
So that all may more easily be informed and have a thorough knowledge
of these norms before they have juridical binding force, I declare and
order that they will have the force of law beginning from the first day
of Advent of this year, 1983.
And this notwithstanding any contrary ordinances, constitutions,
privileges (even worthy of special or individual mention) or customs.
I therefore exhort all the faithful to observe the proposed legislation
with a sincere spirit and good will in the hope that there may flower
again in the Church a renewed discipline
Point 3. Code of Canon Law
- On the exercise of the Tribunal of a Diocese (Ordinary/First Degree),
Canons 391 and 1408.
Can. 391 §1. It is for the diocesan bishop to govern the particular
church entrusted to him with legislative, executive, and judicial power
according to the norm of law.
§2. The bishop exercises legislative power himself. He exercises
executive power either personally or through vicars general or
Episcopal vicars according to the norm of law. He exercises judicial
power either personally or through the judicial vicar and judges
according to the norm of law.
Can. 1408 Anyone can be brought to trial before the tribunal of
domicile or quasi-domicile.
- The Ordinary Tribunal one must present oneself before is determined
by canon 102, para 1.
Can. 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by that residence within the
territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is
joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called
away or has been protracted for five complete years.
- The Tribunals are competent to perform genealogical "histories",
from the first documented ancestor in order to prove genealogical
descent, in accordance with Canon 108.
Can. 108 §1. Consanguinity is computed through lines and degrees.
§2. In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are
generations or persons, not counting the common ancestor.
§3. In the collateral line there are as many degrees as there are
persons in both the lines together, not counting the common ancestor.
- In performing such genealogical checks, the Tribunal cannot disregard
Can. 110 Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil
law are considered the children of the person or persons who have
- Regarding the pronouncement of the Tribunal, Canons 1608, 1618:
Can. 1608 §1. For the pronouncement of any sentence, the judge must
have moral certitude about the matter to be decided by the sentence.
§2. The judge must derive this certitude from the acts and the proofs.
§3. The judge, however, must appraise the proofs according to the
judge's own conscience, without prejudice to the prescripts of law
concerning the efficacy of certain proofs.
§4. A judge who was not able to arrive at this certitude is to
pronounce that the right of the petitioner is not established and is to
dismiss the respondent as absolved, unless it concerns a case which has
the favor of law, in which case the judge must pronounce for that.
Can. 1618 An interlocutory sentence or a decree has the force of a
definitive sentence if it prevents a trial or puts an end to a trial or
some grade of a trial with respect to at least some party in the case.