“Person” in CIC and CCEO Matrimonial Law. On the Idea of Vetera et Nova Harmonization in the Church Doctrine and Jurisprudence
Abstract
serious confrontation with the subject: “Person” in the Code of Matrimonial Law (CIC and CCEO), is an—invariably relevant—challenge that the study of canon law and jurisprudence have to face. The argument for the validity of this conclusion is provided by the famous John Paul II’s thesis, proclaimed in the Familiaris Consortio exhortation (1981) and the famous 1997 Address to the Roman Rota, which can be summarized in the following words: the foundation and structural principle of interpersonal (ethical and legal!) relationships in marriage is matrimonial love. This axiom—still insufficiently present in the thoughts of canonists and church judges—reflects the deepest truth, of which “prophetically” the author of the monumental works Love and Responsibility and The Acting Person gave testimony; the truth that not elsewhere, but in the conciliar spiritually person-centric vision of matrimonial community (communio/consortium), a hermeneutic key should be sought for an adequate and complete understanding of the structure of marriage, harmoniously integrating its two personal and institutional dimensions.
Karol Wojtyła’s/John Paul II’s brilliant thought deserved to be confronted with the premises that prove the hypothesis that the mere declarative identification in the expressed judgments/concepts with the idea of a personalistic aggiornamento (“programmed” especially in numbers 47–52 of the Council’s Constitution Gaudium et Spes) does not yet guarantee the adequacy and completeness of the canonistic approaches to the “truth of matrimony.” This is both in the sphere of theological exposure in accordance with the Magisterium (in the light of the “Image of God”) and at the praxis level: the interpretation and application of the normative records in the nodal canons of CIC and CCEO. The first part of the study is dedicated to illustrating such a state of affairs – in various proposals of doctrine and jurisprudence: from a concept that is completely misguided and destined to fail in advance; through a concept that, because of its extremely conservative approach to the need for vetera et nova harmonisation, has not stood the test of time, to concepts, indeed, universally acknowledged in the study of canon law, whose authors (or their adherents), after all, should be suggested to implement certain necessary corrections: bigger or smaller. In the second part, the research contemplation focuses on the conclusions of the realization of the conciliar postulate of “harmonization” in presenting a person-centric vision of matrimony. These synthetic remarks constitute an attempt to show the basis for an adequate interpretation of the formula adopted by the two codes announced in the title: “a partnership of the whole of life”.
Keywords
person; Karola Wojtyła’s/ John Paul II’s personalism; legal anthropology of matrimony; the Code Matrimonial Law (CIC and CCEO); personalistic concepts of canonical matrimony; the conciliar postulate of “harmonization”
References
Bartnik, Czesław St. Personalizm, 284–286. Lublin: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Czas,” 1995.
Baumann, Urs. Die Ehe – ein Sakrament? Zürich: Benziger, 1988.
Benedict XVI. “Address on the Occasion of the Inauguration of the Judicial Year of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (January 22, 2011). http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110122_rota-romana.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
Benedict XVI. “Address to the Members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (January 27, 2007). http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/january/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20070127_roman-rota.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
Bernhard, Jean. “A propos de l’hypothèse concernant la notion de consommation existentielle du mariage.” Revue de Droit Canonique 20 (1970): 184–192.
Bernhard, Jean. “Perspectives renouvelées sur l’hypothèse de la «consummation existentielle et dans la foi» du mariage chrétien.” Revue de Droit Canonique, vol. 24 (1974): 334–349.
Bernhard, Jean. “Réinterprétation (existentielle et dans la foi) de la législation canonique concernant l’indissolubilité chrétien.” Revue de Droit Canonique, vol. 21 (1971): 243–278.
Bertolini, Giacomo. “Il matrimonio come istituzione: un vincolo di giustizia in quanto verità dell’amore.” Anthropotes, vol. 31 (2015): 213–252.
Beykirch, Ursula. Von der konfessionsverschiedenen zur konfessionsverbindenden Ehe?: Eine kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen [Forschungen zur Kirchenrechtswissenschaft, Bd. 2] (Würzburg: Echter, 1987).
Bonnet, Piero Antonio. “Essenza, proprietà essenziali, fini e sacramentalità (cann. 1055—1056).” In Diritto matrimoniale canonico, vol. 1, edited by Piero Antonio Bonnet and Carlo Gullo, 95–154. [Studi Giuridici, vol. 56].Città del Vaticano: LEV, 2002.
Botero, Silvio. Divorciados vueltos a casar: un problema humano, una tradición eclesial, una perspectiva de futuro. Bogotà: Editorial San Pablo, 2002.
Burke, Cormac. “Challenges to Matrimonial Jurisprudence Posed by the 1983 Code.” The Jurist, vol. 41 (2007): 441–452.
Burke, Cormac. “I fini del matrimonio: visione istituzionale o personalistica?” Annales theologici vol. 6 (1992): 227–254.
Burke, Cormac. L’oggetto del consenso matrimoniale. Un’analisi personalistica. Torino: Giappichelli, 1997.
De Luca, Luigi. “La Chiesa e la società coniugale.” Il diritto ecclesiastico, vol. 81 (1970), no. 1, 257–277.
Cantelmi, Tonino, Martina Aiello. “Il modo di essere e farsi persona-uomo e persona-donna nella relazione interpersonale.” In La centralità della persona nella giurisprudenza coram Serrano, vol. 3, edited by Maria C. Bresciani, [Studi Giuridici, vol. 86], (Città del Vaticano: LEV, 2009), 7–22.
Carreras, Juan. “L’antropologia e le norme di capacità per celebrare il matrimonio (I precedenti remoti del canone 1095 CIC ’83).” Ius Ecclesiae, vol. 4 (1992): 79–150.
Carreras, Juan. “Commento al discorso di Giovanni Paolo II al Tribunale della Rota Romana in occasione dell’apertura dell’anno giudiziario.” Ius Ecclesiae, vol. 9 (1997): 774–782.
Carreras, Joan. “La dimensione giuridica del matrimonio e della famiglia.” In Il concetto di diritto canonico. Storia e prospettive, edited by Carlos J. Errázuriz, Luis Navarro, 191–205. Milano: Giuffrè, 2000.
Code of Canon Law (promulgated: May 27, 1917).
Code of Canon Law (promulgated: January 25, 1983).
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (promulgated: October 18, 1990).
Corecco, Eugenio. “Il matrimonio nel nuovo Codex Iuris Canonici. Osservazioni critiche.” In Studi sulle fonti del diritto matrimoniale canonico, 105–130. Padova: Cedam, 1988.
Curran, Michael J. Conjugal Consummation in the Catholic Church. A Problem for Human and Theological Sciences. Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1988.
Doherty, Denis J. Divorce and Remarriage. Resolving a Catholic Dilemma. St. Meinrad, IN: Abbey Press, 1974.
Errázuriz, Carlos Juan. “La capacità matrimoniale vista alla luce dell’essenza del matrimonio.” Ius Ecclesae, vol. 14 (2002): 623–638.
Errázuriz, Carlos Juan. Il diritto e la giustizia nella Chiesa. Verso una Teoria Fondamentale del diritto canonico. Milano: Giuffrè, 2000.
Francis. Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016).
Fumagalii Carulli, Ombretta. “Armonizzazione conciliare e tutela della persona nel nuovo codice di diritto canonico.” Il diritto ecclesiastico, vol. 98, no. 2 (1987), 500–511.
Fumagalli Carulli, Ombretta. “Il Concilio Vaticano II e il matrimonio canonico: capacità e consenso nella convergenza tra pastorale e diritto.” Jus, vol. 60, no. 2 (2013): 211–229.
Fumagalli Carulli, Ombetta. Il governo universale della Chiesa e i diritti della persona. Con cinque Lezioni magisteriali di: Giovanni Battista Re, Crescenzio Sepe, Mario Francesco Pompedda, Jean-Louis Tauran, Julián Herranz. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2008.
Fumagalii Carulli, Ombretta. Il matrimonio canonico tra principi astratti e casi pratici con cinque sentenze rotali commentate a cura di Anna Sammassimo. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2008.
Gerhartz, Günter. “La indisolubilidad del matrimonio y su disolución por la Iglesia en la problemática actual.” In Matrimonio y divorcio, edited by René Metz and Jean Schick, 207–243. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1974
Góralski, Wojciech. “Przedmiot kanonicznej zgody małżeńskiej.” Śląskie Studia Historyczno-Teologiczne, vol. 34 (2001): 173–183.
Góralski, Wojciech, and Andrzej Pastwa. Rodzina suwerenna – Kościół domowy. W nurcie współczesnej myśli prawnej Kościoła powszechnego i Kościoła w Polsce. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2015.
Guindon, André. “Case for a ‘consummated’ sexual bond before a ‘ratified’ marriage.” Eglise et Théologie, vol. 8 (1977): 137–182.
Hervada, Javier. Diálogos sobre el amor y el natrimonio. Pamplona: EUNSA, 19873.
Hervada, Javier. Introduzione critica al diritto naturale. Milano: Giuffrè, 1990.
Hervada, Javier. “Libertad, naturaleza y compromiso en la sexualidad humana.” Persona y Derecho, vol. 19 (1988): 106–109.
Hervada, Javier. “Il matrimonio /cc. 1055–1062/.” In Codice di Diritto Canonico. Edizione bilinque commentata, vol. 2, edited by Pedro Lombardía and Juan Ignacio Arrieta, 749–753. Roma: Logos, 1987.
Hervada, Javier. “Obligaciones esenciales del matrimonio.” Ius canonicum, vol. 31 (1991): 59–83.
Hervada, Javier. Qué es el derecho? La moderna respuesta del realismo jurídico. Pamplona: EUNSA, 20082.
Hervada, Javier. Studi sull’essenza del matrimonio. Milano: Giuffrè, 2000.
Hervada, Javier. Vetera et Nova. Cuestiones de Derecho Canónico y afines (1958–1991). Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Navarra, 1991.
Hervada, Javier, and Pedro Lombardía. El Derecho del Pueblo de Dios. Hacia un sistema de Derecho canónico, vol. 3/1: Derecho Matrimonial. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 1973.
Hudson, J. Edward. “Marital consummation according to ecclesiastical legislation.” Studia canonica, vol. 12 (1978): 93–123.
International Theological Commission. “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage” (1977). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1977_sacramento-matrimonio_en.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to the Members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for the Inauguration of the Judicial Year” (January 29, 2004). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2004/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040129_roman-rota.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to Members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (January 29, 2005). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2005/january/documents/hf_ jp-ii_spe_20050129_roman-rota.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to the Prelate Auditors, Officials and Advocates of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota (January 18, 1990). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1990/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19900118_rota-romana.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to the Prelate Auditors, Officials and Advocates of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (February 1, 2001). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2001/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20010201_rota-romana.htm. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to the Prelate Auditors, Officials and Advocates of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (January 28, 2002), http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2002/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020128_roman-rota.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (January 27, 1997). http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1997/january/documents/hf_ jp-ii_spe_19970127_rotaromana.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. “Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota” (January 21, 2000). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_ jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana.html. Accessed: December 13, 2018.
John Paul II. Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (December 30, 1988).
John Paul II. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981).
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993).
John Paul II. Letter to Families Gratissimam Sane (February 2, 1994).
Kowal, Janusz. “L’indissolubilità del matrimonio rato e consumato. Status quaestionis.” Periodica de re canonica, vol. 90 (2001): 273–304.
Kupczak, Jaroslaw. Gift and Communion: John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014.
Lahidalga, Aguirre, and José María de. “La indisolubilidad absoluta del matrimonio y el matrimonio en la Iglesia hoy: estado de la question.” Lumen, vol. 20 (1971): 289–330.
Lüdecke, Norbert. “Der Ausschluss des bonum coniugum. Ein Ehenichtigkeitsgrund mit Startschwierigkeiten.” De processibus matrimonialibus, vol. 2 (1995): 117–192.
Lüdecke, Norbert. Eheschließung als Bund. Genese und Exegese der Ehelehre der Konzilskonstituzion “Gaudium et spes” in kanonistischer Auswertung [Forschungen zur Kirchenrechtswissenschaft, Bd. 7]. Würzburg: Echter, 1989.
Lüdicke, Klaus. “Matrimonial Consent in Light of a Personalist Concept of Marriage: On the Council’s New Way of Thinking about Marriage.” Studia Canonica, vol. 33 (1999): 489–492.
Lüdicke, Klaus. Die Nichtigerklärung der Ehe. Materielles Recht [Beihefte zum Münsterischen Kommentar, Bd. 62]. Essen: Ludgerus Verlag, 2012.
Lüdicke, Klaus. “Rez. Burke, Cormac, L’oggetto del consenso matrimoniale….” De processibus matrimonialibus, vol. 6 (1999): 264–270.
Mackin, Theodore. The Marital Sacrament. Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press, 1989.
“Mężczyzną i niewiastą stworzył ich”. Afirmacja osoby ludzkiej odpowiedzią nauk teologicznych na ideologiczną uzurpację genderyzmu, edited by Andrzej Pastwa [Studia Teologiczne i Humanistyczne, vol. 2,3]. Katowice: Księgarnia św. Jacka, 2012.
Molinski, Waldemar. Theologie der Ehe in der Geschichte. Aschaffenburg: Paul Pattloch Verlag 1976.
Navarrete, Urbano. “Commentarium ad allocutionem Ioannis Pauli II ad praelatos et officiales Rotae Romanae, die 27 ianuarii 1997 habitam.” Periodica de re canonica, vol. 86 (1997): 368–385.
Müller, Hubert. “Communio als kirchenrechtliches Prinzip im Codex Iuris Canonici von 1983.” In Im Gespräch mit dem dreieinen Gott. Elemente einer trinitarischen Theologie. Festschrift zum 65. Ge-burtstag von Wilhelm Breuning, edited by Michael Böhnke and Hanspeter Heinz, 481–498. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1985.
Navarrete, Urbano. Structura iuridica matrimonii secundum Concilium Vaticanum II. Momentum iuridicum amoris coniugalis. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 19942.
Peña García, Carmen. “El fundamento de la absoluta indisolubilidad del matrimonio rato y consumado en la teología actual.” Estudios Eclesiásticos, vol. 79 (2004): 599–647.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “L’»alleanza« sistemica del diritto e della pastorale. Osservazioni sull’arte dell’applicazione del diritto nell’intera preparazione canonica alla celebrazione del matrimonio.” Annuarium Iuris Canonici, vol. 2 (2015): 75–93.
Pastwa, Andrzej. Il bene dei coniugi. L’identificazione dell’elemento ad validitatem nella giurisprudenza della Rota Romana [Biblioteca Teologica, Sezione Canonistica, 7]. Lugano—Siena Eupress FTL–Edizioni Cantagalli, 2018.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “Consent and Sacrament in the Orthodox Matrimonial Law. An Ecumenical Perspective.” In Conclusion of Marriage by Proxy in the Internal Law of Churches and Other Religious Associations, edited by L. Świto and M. Tomkiewicz [Studi Giuridici, vol. 58]. Città del Vaticano: LEV, 2018), 31–51.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “Intima personarum et operum coniunctio – personalistyczny profil José Marii Serrano Ruiza idei małżeństwa kanonicznego.” In “Servabo legem tuam in toto corde meo.” Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Księdzu Profesorowi Józefowi Krzywdzie CM, Dyrektorowi Instytutu Prawa Kanonicznego UPJPII z okazji 70. rocznicy urodzin, eds. Arkadiusz Zakręta, Andrzej Sosnowski, 397–410. Kraków: Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawła II w Krakowie. Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2013.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “Irrevocabilis consensus personalis. Antropologické předpoklady systému manželského práva v CCEO.” Studia Theologica, vol. 18, no. 2 (2016): 75–89.
Pastwa, Andrzej. Istotne elementy małżeństwa. W nurcie odnowy personalistycznej. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2007.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “ ‘Już nie są dwoje, lecz stają się jednością’. Paradygmat antropologiczny wyznacznikiem prawnokanonicznego ujęcia natury węzła małżeńskiego.” In “Mężczyzną i niewiastą stworzył ich.” Afirmacja osoby ludzkiej odpowiedzią nauk teologicznych na ideologiczną uzurpację genderyzmu, edited by Andrzej Pastwa, 134–152. Katowice: Księgarnia św. Jacka, 2012.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “Kanonické paradigma nerozlučitelnosti. O vztahu přirozenosti a kultury v katolickém chápání manželství.” Studia Theologica, vol. 22, no. 2 (2020): 85–98.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “Il matrimonio: comprensione personalistica e istituzionale.” Ius Ecclesiae, vol. 25 (2013): 387–408.
Pastwa, Andrzej.“Przymierze miłości małżeńskiej.” Jana Pawła II idea małżeństwa kanonicznego. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2009.
Pastwa, Andrzej. Realism of Personalist Vision of Marriage: Legal-canonical Cogitations. In Personalizmus v procese humanizácie ľudskej spoločnosti, edited by Pavol Dancák, 343–355. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove, 2014.
Pastwa, Andrzej. “Responsible Procreation – Co-Responsibility of Spouses. From Adequate Anthropology to the Legal Anthropology of Matrimony.” In Philosophy and Canon Law [Between the Culture of the Right to Responsible Parenthood and the Culture of the “New” Human Rights: Reproductive and Sexual], vol. 6 (2020): 37–55.
Pius XI. Encyclical Letter Casti connubii (December 31, 1930).
Pontificium Consilium de Legum Textibus. “Instructio »Dignitas connubii« servanda a tribunalibus dioecesanis et interdioecesanis in pertractandis causis nullitatis matrimonii (January 25, 2005).” Communicationes, vol. 37 (2005): 11–92.
Pree, Helmut. “Die Ehe als Bezugswirklichkeit — Bemerkungen zur Individual- und Sozialdimension des kanonischen Eherechts.” Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht, vol. 33 (1982): 339–396.
Puig, Fernando. La esencia del matrimonio a la luz del realismo jurídico.Pamplona: Navarra Gráfica Ediciones, 2004.
Puig, Fernando. “Realismo giuridico e dottrina canonistica contemporanea sull’essenza del matrimonio.” Ius Ecclesiae, vol. 16 (2004): 433–453.
Ratzinger, Joseph. “Zur Theologie der Ehe.” Theologische Quartalschrift, vol. 149 (1969): 53–74.
Sarmiento, Augusto. El matrimonio cristiano. Pamplona: EUNSA, 20073.
Sentence of Nov. 26, 1992 coram Burke (Armagh). In Apostolicum Rotae Romanae Tribunal, Decisiones seu sententiae. Città del Vaticano: LEV, 84/1992, 577–587.
Sentence of Mar. 26, 1998 coram Burke (Pelplinen). In Apostolicum Rotae Romanae Tribunal, Decisiones seu sententiae.Città del Vaticano: LEV, 90/1998, 259–281.
Sentence of Oct. 29, 2012 coram Heredia Esteban (Paulopolitana et Minneapolitana), Prot. N. 20.428.
Serrano Ruiz, José María. “L’esclusione del ‘consortium totius vitae,’ in La simulazione del consenso matrimoniale canonico, [Studi Giuridici, vol. 22]. Città del Vaticano: LEV 1990), 95–124.
Serrano Ruiz, José María. L’ispirazione conciliare nei principi generali del matrimonio canonico. In Matrimonio canonico fra tradizione e rinnovamento, 13–78. Bologna 19912.
Serrano Ruiz, José María. “Visione personale del matrimonio nel CCEO: aspetti sostanziali e di diritto procedurale.” Iura Orientalia, vol. 7 (2011): 121–139.
Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologica, vol. 1–6. Taurinii 1886.
Vatican Council II. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes on the Church (December 7, 1965).
Viladrich, Pedro-Juan. “La famiglia sovrana.” Ius Ecclesiae, vol. 7 (1995): 539–550.
Wojtyla, Cardinal Karol. The Acting Person. Translated by Andrzej Potocki, edited by Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. Company, 1979.
Wojtyla, Karol. Love and Responsibility. Translated by Harry T. Willetts. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1981.
University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2679-5107
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Owners of the submitted texts grant the Reader the right to use the pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA). The user can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
