In this article, I argue that the church must build up its theology of marriage in a more disciplined manner because the culture no longer sustains the Christian notion. In making a substantive argument I rely on the Lutheran “two ways that God reigns” approach in which we share “places of responsibility” with all humans, but in which the Christian virtues of faith, love, and hope transform those places into genuine Christian callings. I then contend strongly for the continued rejection of same-sex marriage among orthodox Christians. I conclude with what I hope is a compassionate pastoral approach—gracious tolerance—toward homosexual Christians.

The author of the study deliberates whether the right to contraception can be described as a human right. He makes his speculations on the basis of a broader context of reflections concerning the relationship of human rights with the natural law, to which the former ones refer. The point of reference is recognizing the right as a good which co-creates a man. Contraception is not such a good since it is not an ontological value, that is, the one which does not entail anti-values.

This study successfully verifies the thesis that both eponymous anthropological criteria (responsible procreation and co-responsibility of spouses), referring to the nature of personae humanae, have an invaluable epistemological value in the matrimonial law. Opening a wider horizon of cognition and interpretation, they become indispensable in the accurate/reliable deciding of cases concerning the invalidity of marriage. The subsequent stages of the discourse proposed here, step by step from the general guidelines of adequate anthropology to the detailed assumptions of the legal anthropology of matrimony, have very clearly confirmed the words of John Paul II that “[…] an authentically juridical consideration of marriage requires a metaphysical vision of the human person and of the conjugal relationship” (Address to the Roman Rota, 2004).

The classic conception of human rights, expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed in Paris on December 10, 1948, has been receiving attempts at reinterpretation in the recent 50 years. The appearance of the concept of “new human rights” in the public sphere serves as an example here. However, the scope of the term “new rights” and the precise meaning of “reproductive and sexual rights” are not entirely known. The change in perception of human sexuality, the affirmation of sexual liberation, and the acceptance of violating social taboo in the name of the “new human rights” invites reflection on how the concept of sexual rights relates to the ban on sexual contacts between relatives. Does a ban on incest lose its rationale in modern times, and does the penalisation of such acts constitute merely anachronistic oppression? Are the currently enforced normative solutions clear and free of questions and controversy in this matter? Lastly, one is compelled to inquire whether sexual contacts between relatives are perhaps already among the “new human rights.” The present article endeavours to answer these questions.

The Code of Canon Law of 1983 came up with a list of obligations and duties of the Catholic faithful. This list is analogical to those of the charters of fundamental rights and freedoms found in the documents of international law and in the constitutions of democratic countries. the inspiration of church law by civilian law was a reality from the very beginnings of the development of Canon Law: first by Roman Law, in the modern world by complex codifications of civil law, and after Vatican II also the idea of universal human rights. The specifics of the Catholic Church in relation to a democratic state is the incorporation of the subject of law into the Church through baptism which brings, above all, duties and obligations. Thus the catalogue which may now be seen in the Code contains first and foremost a list of duties, not rights, which are not stressed in the modern state. In fact, the modern state has very few demands; often just the payment of taxes and compulsory school attendance. The article deals with the individual obligations and rights found in the Code of Canon Law and compares them with their analogies in constitutions. The concept of civil and canonical norms tends to get closer primarily in the case of inspiration by natural law, whereas the obligations of the faithful represent a specifically ecclesiastical goals, for which no analogy in civil law can be found. After all, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls, indeed, the state does not have such a supernatural goal.

The aim of this article is to show how culture influences church legislation and to identify possible dangers associated with it. The article illustrates examples of changes in Church law that take place under the influence of culture. The conclusions are as follows: canon law submits to culture and it is a possible threat because it loses its ecclesiastical and salvific character. The legislator should be aware of such a phenomenon and try to preserve specific features, especially the purpose of canon law.

Andrzej Pastwa, Il bene dei coniugi. L’identificazione dell’elemento ad validitatem nella giurisprudenza della Rota Romana - review

Mária Potočárová, Etika v rodinných vzťahoch - review

Carlo Fantappiè, Per un cambio di paradigma. Diritto canonico, teologia e riforme nella Chiesa - review.

Notes on Contributors

No 6 (2020): Between the Culture of the Right to Responsible Parenthood and the Culture of the “New” Human Rights: Reproductive and Sexual (II)

Colophon