( CRIME OF SOLICITATION )
FROM THE SUPREME AND HOLY CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICEFOR ALL PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER DIOCESAN ORDINARIES
“EVEN OF THE ORIENTAL RITE”
ON THE MANNER OF PROCEEDING IN CASES OF SOLICITATION
The Vatican Press, 1962
52. These things, having been taken care of, there should be a procedure to present the accusation to the person accused, according to formula P, having cautiously and most diligently made sure that the person of the accused and especially of those denouncing him be not revealed, and, on the part of the accused, that he in no way violate the sacramental seal. Now if something in the surge of speech slips out which seems to savor of either a direct or indirect violation of the seal, the judge should not permit this to be referred to the acts by the notary; and if, by chance, it has been inconsiderately [put into the acts], he should order, as soon as he notices it, to be completely deleted. In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth (cfr. Canon 1744).
53. The indictment of the accused having been completed in all matters and the acts having been seen and approved by the Promoter of Justice, the judge is to issue a decree concerning the conclusion of the case (Canon 860), and, if by chance he is a delegated judge, he should transit all the papers of the proceedings] to the Ordinary.
54. If it happens, however, that the accused remains contumacious, or, for some grave reason the indictments cannot be pursued in the diocesan curia, the Ordinary, saving to himself the right of suspending the accused adivinis, should defer the entire case to the Holy Office.
Chapter IV - The Discussion of the Case, the definitive decision, and the Appeal
55. The ordinary, having received the acts, unless he wishes himself to proceed to the definitive decision, should delegate the judge (cfr. n. 5), another one, in so far as it can be done, different from the one who conducted the inquisition or the indictment (cfr. Canon 1941, $ 3). The judge, however, whoever he is, whether the Ordinary or his delegate, should designate, according to his prudent decision a space of time for the defender a defense and to tender this in a double copy, one copy to be given to the judge himself and the other copy to the Promoter of Justice (cfr. Canons 1862-63-64). However, the promotor of justice, within a time period likewise previously established by the judge, should tender in writing his own inquiry (requisitoriam) , as they now call it.
56. Still, a congruent time having been interposed (Canon 1870) the judge, according to his conscience, informed from the acts and from the proofs (Canon 1869), will pronounce a definitive decision, either a condemnatory decision, if he is certain of the crime, an acquittal, if he is certain of his innocence; or an abandonment of the charges, if he is invincibly doubtful because of the lack of proofs.
57. The decision is rendered according to the respective formulas connected to this instruction and will have been put in writing, with the addition of an executory decree (Canaon 1918). First of all, the promoter of justice having been notified beforehand, the decision must be solemnly made known to the accused, who has been cited for this by the judge who is presiding at the Tribunal, with the notary present. If, however, the accused, rejecting the citation, has not appeared, the intimation of the decision should be made through letter, having obtained exact testimony of its reception through the public post office.
the accused, if the thinks he has been [wrongly treated], and the promoter
of justice have the right of appealing from this decision to the Supreme
Tribunal of the Holy Office, according to the prescription of Canon 1879
and following within ten days from the solemn notification of the same;
and the appeal of this type has the effect of suspending the decision [suspensivo],
but not so if it is given