Soma tena nililoandika ndugu yangu Chuaka. Pengine wewe ni mkatoliki zaidi ya papa ama ni mlutheri zaidi ya malasusa n.k. nilisema hivi Mkristo akifuata mafundisho ya Kristo mwenyewe ambaye hakuwahi kuwa mkristo hatokuwa na haja ya kudai mahakama yoyote ile kwa sababu Mungu ni upendo na Yesu ni baba wa upendo. Yesu hakuwahi kufundisha kuhusu kisasi wala kushitakiana. Angalia alivyowaambia wale wayahudi waliompelekea kahaba wakimjaribu na alivyowajibu vizuri huku wakitupa mawe na kuondoka zao. Kasisitiza sana tujiadhari na chachu ya waandishi na mafarisayo...!!! Shida yako ni kutumia nguvu pasipo maandiko mkuu...!!!! Rejea tena na tena haya ninayokuandikia utapata maama yangu vyema...!!! Jumuia ndogo ndogo.....!!!!!
Wakatoliki tudai mahakama za canon law
- Thread starter CHUAKACHARA
- Start date
Soma tena nililoandika ndugu yangu Chuaka. Pengine wewe ni mkatoliki zaidi ya papa ama ni mlutheri zaidi ya malasusa n.k. nilisema hivi Mkristo akifuata mafundisho ya Kristo mwenyewe ambaye hakuwahi kuwa mkristo hatokuwa na haja ya kudai mahakama yoyote ile kwa sababu Mungu ni upendo na Yesu ni baba wa upendo. Yesu hakuwahi kufundisha kuhusu kisasi wala kushitakiana. Angalia alivyowaambia wale wayahudi waliompelekea kahaba wakimjaribu na alivyowajibu vizuri huku wakitupa mawe na kuondoka zao. Kasisitiza sana tujiadhari na chachu ya waandishi na mafarisayo...!!! Shida yako ni kutumia nguvu pasipo maandiko mkuu...!!!! Rejea tena na tena haya ninayokuandikia utapata maama yangu vyema...!!! Jumuia ndogo ndogo.....!!!!!
CHUAKACHARA
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 3, 2011
- 12,358
- 6,422
- Thread starter
- #122
Please soma wakorintho 1: 1-6
sehemu nyingine kuwa na Kadhi sio kigezo cha Tanganyika kuwa nayo. hii ni nchi huru yenye uwezo wa kuamua mambo yake. tunasema dini zote zijitegemee zenyewe kwenye mambo yake na uendeshaji wake. msitake kutunyonya kama kupe hapa.sisi tulipe kodi kwa ajili ya maendeleo ya wote bila kuangalia dini ya mtu bali utanganyika wake halafu tuwagharamie ninyi waislam kuendesha mahakama zenu za kidini ambazo hazina manufaa kwa watanganyika wote? acheni ubinafsi. hata Mungu mnayemuabudu hajaagiza mubague binadamu wenzenu.
Pascal Ndege
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 24, 2012
- 2,977
- 1,897
The tribunals of the Roman Catholic Church are governed by the Code of Canon Law in the case of the Western Church (Latin or Roman Rite), and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in the case of the Eastern Catholic Churches (Byzantine, Ukrainian, Maronite, Melkite, etc.). Both systems of canon law underwent massive revisions in the late 20th century, resulting in the new code for the Latin Rite in 1983, and the compilation for the first time of the Eastern Rite Code in 1990.
First instance
Cases normally originate in the tribunal of the particular church (i.e. the diocese or eparchy) of the parties to the case. This tribunal in canon law is called the tribunal of first instance. The bishop of the church possesses the power to judge for his church; however, since the bishop has many different duties in his diocese, most cases are handled by judges whom he appoints, led by a priest known as the judicial vicar or officialis.
A single judge can handle normal contentious and penal cases. A college of at least three judges, however, must try cases involving an excommunication, the dismissal of a cleric, or the annulment of the bond of marriage or of sacred ordination (can. 1425 §1). The bishop can assign up to five judges to a case that is very difficult or important (can. 1425 §2). Otherwise, the judicial vicar assigns cases to the judges and, in those cases which require three or more judges, presides over the panel or assigns one of his assistant judicial vicars to preside, if there are any. The judicial vicar and the assistant judicial vicars must be priests with doctorates or at least licenses in canon law. The other judges need only be clerics with licenses, but the episcopal conference can permit members of the laity with the same academic qualifications to serve as judges on a panel.
There are other officers of the tribunal. The promoter of justice, for instance, is a canon lawyer whose job is to represent the diocese as the prosecutor in penal cases and who also can intervene in contentious cases if they concern the "public good", acting as a watch dog for the people of the diocese. Another important officer is the defender of the bond, another canon lawyer whose job is to present reasons to the tribunal why a marriage is valid in cases of alleged nullity and why an ordination is valid in the rare cases of alleged nullity of Holy Orders. The tribunal also has notaries who swear in witnesses and commit their testimony to writing. Like any good legal system, parties in a case have the right to appoint an advocate who can argue for them at the tribunal. If a person cannot afford an advocate, the tribunal can assign one to them free of charge.
Unlike courts of common law tradition, ecclesiastical tribunals do not follow the adversarial system. Based on the same Roman civil law that is behind much European law, the procedure of a canonical court is more akin to the inquisitorial system, with the judges leading the investigation. As a general rule, the defendant has the favorable presumption of law, which means that the defendant will win by default unless a majority of the judges is convinced with moral certainty of the petitioner's case (can. 1608). This presumption also applies in penal cases (can. 1728). There are few exceptions to this rule; in those cases, the burden shifts to the defendant.
Some matters cannot be introduced at the diocesan level and can only be introduced before the following:
Appellate tribunal for the diocese: cases against the diocese itself or an institution represented by the diocesan bishop
Roman Rota: cases against the heads of religious orders, cases against dioceses or church institutions that are immediately subject to the Holy See, and non-penal cases against bishops
The Pope himself: any case where a cardinal, Eastern rite patriarch, papal legate, or head of state is a defendant and any penal case involving a bishop.
Appeal
The appellate tribunal is known as the tribunal of second instance. Normally the second instance tribunal is the tribunal of the metropolitan bishop. In the case where the appeal is from a first instance decision of the metropolitan's own tribunal, the appeal is taken to a court which the metropolitan designated with approval of the Holy See, usually another nearby metropolitan, thus ensuring that appeals from one diocese are never heard by the same diocese. As an example, a case in the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts would be appealed to the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston, but a case originating in the Archdiocese of Boston would be appealed to the tribunal of the Archdiocese of New York, by agreement between the archbishops of New York and Boston.
Some cases are automatically appealed (for instance, when a marriage is found to be null). The appealing party does not need to appeal to the metropolitan; the party can instead appeal to the Holy See, in which case the Roman Rota would hear the case in the second instance. If the case was before the Rota in the first instance, then a different panel of the Rota hears it in the second instance.
With the exception of cases regarding personal status, if the first instance and second instance tribunals agree on the result of the case, then the case becomes res judicata and there is no further appeal. If they disagree, then the case can be appealed to the Roman Rota, which serves as the tribunal of third instance. The Rota is a court of fifteen judges called auditors who take cases in panels of three and serve as the final arbiters of most cases.
There is no appeal from a court case that the Pope has decided personally.
Other tribunals
The Roman Curia has two other tribunals which either deal with specialized cases or which do not deal with cases at all. The first is the Apostolic Signatura, a panel of five cardinals which serves as the highest court in the Roman Catholic Church. Normal cases rarely reach the Signatura, the exception being if a party appeals to the Pope and he assigns the case to them or if the Pope on his own initiative pulls a case from another court and gives it to them. The court mainly handles cases regarding the use of administrative power, including penal cases which were decided using executive instead of judicial power, which is the usual case. It also handles disputes between dicasteries and other tribunals over jurisdiction, complaints that a Rotal decision is null and should be retried, and matters regarding advocates and inter-diocesan tribunals.
There is normally no right of appeal from the decision of the Apostolic Signatura (can. 1629 #1 ); however, laypersons and clerics have rarely convinced the Pope to hear their case afterwards, usually if they are facing excommunication or some other form of severe censure, such as the loss of the right to teach theology or to administer the sacraments (a theologian and priest who faced censure got Pope John Paul II to hear his case and even asked the Pope to alter his own decision, though the Pope did not reverse the ruling in either case).
The other tribunal is the Apostolic Penitentiary. This tribunal has no jurisdiction in what is known as "the external forum," meaning cases and events which are publicly known, only matters of the "internal forum," which involve entirely confidential and secret matters, including (but not limited to) what is confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. It primarily deals with cases that arise only within the confessional and which by their nature are private, confidential or whose facts are secret. Such cases are normally brought before the court by a person's confessor, who writes up the relevant facts of the cases, but only what is absolutely necessary, using standardized Latin pseudonyms. The confidentiality of the person, and the priest's absolute obligation to preserve the secrecy of the Sacrament of Penance, are still in force in such cases. This court, under the authority of the Cardinal Major Penitentiary, who acts in the Pope's name, answers the confessor and empowers him to impose a penance and lift a penalty. For instance, the act of desecrating the Eucharist is one which incurs an automatic excommunication for the person who so acts (an excommunication from the moment of the act, which no court need actually meet to impose), and the power to lift this excommunication is reserved by the Pope to himself. Should this person then approach a priest in confession, repentant, and explain his act and the fact that he acted in secret, the confessor would write to the tribunal laying out the simplest outline of facts, keeping the person's identity secret, and would most likely be empowered to lift the excommunication and impose some private act of penance on the person.
First instance
Cases normally originate in the tribunal of the particular church (i.e. the diocese or eparchy) of the parties to the case. This tribunal in canon law is called the tribunal of first instance. The bishop of the church possesses the power to judge for his church; however, since the bishop has many different duties in his diocese, most cases are handled by judges whom he appoints, led by a priest known as the judicial vicar or officialis.
A single judge can handle normal contentious and penal cases. A college of at least three judges, however, must try cases involving an excommunication, the dismissal of a cleric, or the annulment of the bond of marriage or of sacred ordination (can. 1425 §1). The bishop can assign up to five judges to a case that is very difficult or important (can. 1425 §2). Otherwise, the judicial vicar assigns cases to the judges and, in those cases which require three or more judges, presides over the panel or assigns one of his assistant judicial vicars to preside, if there are any. The judicial vicar and the assistant judicial vicars must be priests with doctorates or at least licenses in canon law. The other judges need only be clerics with licenses, but the episcopal conference can permit members of the laity with the same academic qualifications to serve as judges on a panel.
There are other officers of the tribunal. The promoter of justice, for instance, is a canon lawyer whose job is to represent the diocese as the prosecutor in penal cases and who also can intervene in contentious cases if they concern the "public good", acting as a watch dog for the people of the diocese. Another important officer is the defender of the bond, another canon lawyer whose job is to present reasons to the tribunal why a marriage is valid in cases of alleged nullity and why an ordination is valid in the rare cases of alleged nullity of Holy Orders. The tribunal also has notaries who swear in witnesses and commit their testimony to writing. Like any good legal system, parties in a case have the right to appoint an advocate who can argue for them at the tribunal. If a person cannot afford an advocate, the tribunal can assign one to them free of charge.
Unlike courts of common law tradition, ecclesiastical tribunals do not follow the adversarial system. Based on the same Roman civil law that is behind much European law, the procedure of a canonical court is more akin to the inquisitorial system, with the judges leading the investigation. As a general rule, the defendant has the favorable presumption of law, which means that the defendant will win by default unless a majority of the judges is convinced with moral certainty of the petitioner's case (can. 1608). This presumption also applies in penal cases (can. 1728). There are few exceptions to this rule; in those cases, the burden shifts to the defendant.
Some matters cannot be introduced at the diocesan level and can only be introduced before the following:
Appellate tribunal for the diocese: cases against the diocese itself or an institution represented by the diocesan bishop
Roman Rota: cases against the heads of religious orders, cases against dioceses or church institutions that are immediately subject to the Holy See, and non-penal cases against bishops
The Pope himself: any case where a cardinal, Eastern rite patriarch, papal legate, or head of state is a defendant and any penal case involving a bishop.
Appeal
The appellate tribunal is known as the tribunal of second instance. Normally the second instance tribunal is the tribunal of the metropolitan bishop. In the case where the appeal is from a first instance decision of the metropolitan's own tribunal, the appeal is taken to a court which the metropolitan designated with approval of the Holy See, usually another nearby metropolitan, thus ensuring that appeals from one diocese are never heard by the same diocese. As an example, a case in the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts would be appealed to the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston, but a case originating in the Archdiocese of Boston would be appealed to the tribunal of the Archdiocese of New York, by agreement between the archbishops of New York and Boston.
Some cases are automatically appealed (for instance, when a marriage is found to be null). The appealing party does not need to appeal to the metropolitan; the party can instead appeal to the Holy See, in which case the Roman Rota would hear the case in the second instance. If the case was before the Rota in the first instance, then a different panel of the Rota hears it in the second instance.
With the exception of cases regarding personal status, if the first instance and second instance tribunals agree on the result of the case, then the case becomes res judicata and there is no further appeal. If they disagree, then the case can be appealed to the Roman Rota, which serves as the tribunal of third instance. The Rota is a court of fifteen judges called auditors who take cases in panels of three and serve as the final arbiters of most cases.
There is no appeal from a court case that the Pope has decided personally.
Other tribunals
The Roman Curia has two other tribunals which either deal with specialized cases or which do not deal with cases at all. The first is the Apostolic Signatura, a panel of five cardinals which serves as the highest court in the Roman Catholic Church. Normal cases rarely reach the Signatura, the exception being if a party appeals to the Pope and he assigns the case to them or if the Pope on his own initiative pulls a case from another court and gives it to them. The court mainly handles cases regarding the use of administrative power, including penal cases which were decided using executive instead of judicial power, which is the usual case. It also handles disputes between dicasteries and other tribunals over jurisdiction, complaints that a Rotal decision is null and should be retried, and matters regarding advocates and inter-diocesan tribunals.
There is normally no right of appeal from the decision of the Apostolic Signatura (can. 1629 #1 ); however, laypersons and clerics have rarely convinced the Pope to hear their case afterwards, usually if they are facing excommunication or some other form of severe censure, such as the loss of the right to teach theology or to administer the sacraments (a theologian and priest who faced censure got Pope John Paul II to hear his case and even asked the Pope to alter his own decision, though the Pope did not reverse the ruling in either case).
The other tribunal is the Apostolic Penitentiary. This tribunal has no jurisdiction in what is known as "the external forum," meaning cases and events which are publicly known, only matters of the "internal forum," which involve entirely confidential and secret matters, including (but not limited to) what is confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. It primarily deals with cases that arise only within the confessional and which by their nature are private, confidential or whose facts are secret. Such cases are normally brought before the court by a person's confessor, who writes up the relevant facts of the cases, but only what is absolutely necessary, using standardized Latin pseudonyms. The confidentiality of the person, and the priest's absolute obligation to preserve the secrecy of the Sacrament of Penance, are still in force in such cases. This court, under the authority of the Cardinal Major Penitentiary, who acts in the Pope's name, answers the confessor and empowers him to impose a penance and lift a penalty. For instance, the act of desecrating the Eucharist is one which incurs an automatic excommunication for the person who so acts (an excommunication from the moment of the act, which no court need actually meet to impose), and the power to lift this excommunication is reserved by the Pope to himself. Should this person then approach a priest in confession, repentant, and explain his act and the fact that he acted in secret, the confessor would write to the tribunal laying out the simplest outline of facts, keeping the person's identity secret, and would most likely be empowered to lift the excommunication and impose some private act of penance on the person.
Pascal Ndege
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 24, 2012
- 2,977
- 1,897
Tunataka Mahakama kwenye katiba tumekaa kimya sana
Pascal Ndege
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 24, 2012
- 2,977
- 1,897
Mbona wenzetu wanataka Mahakama ya kadhi ???
Goodluck Mshana
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 7, 2011
- 1,271
- 1,119
Wenzako mwenyewe..don't generalize
Pascal Ndege
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 24, 2012
- 2,977
- 1,897
Si ruzuku tu wanataka pia ajira maana wanasoma zaidi sheria za dini pale Morogoro. Jambo jingine ni kwamba wanataka kulifanya taifa letu taifa la kiislamu.
Kwa nini wasianzishe mahakama hiyo wao wenyewe? Why serikali? Let us say no.
Mingoi
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 21, 2012
- 11,715
- 6,119
Una ushahidi katika hilo au umeamua kufurahisha ulimi tu?
CHAI CHUNGU
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 20, 2012
- 7,113
- 930
Ruksa maana ni haki yenu!!!
Zina tumika vatkan na makanisani hamna nchi hata moja inatumia.lkn hamkatazwi daini ni haki yenu,sheri za kiislam sasa zinatumika na mahakama ya mwanzo zinafanya ,tatizo mahakimu hawana ujuzi wa kutosha,mambo ya ndoa,mirathi na wakfuu.KENYA UGANDA,AFRIKA KUSINI UK hata ZENJI ipo.nchi yetu wote hii,sisi ni ndugu.
Abdulwahid
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 3, 2014
- 2,759
- 1,555
Peleka wala ucwe na wacwac na waislam tutawaunga mkono
Samcezar
JF-Expert Member
- May 18, 2014
- 13,096
- 22,640
Oyaaa na mashoga please mjitokeze kwa wingi ili kila kundi litambuliwe kikatiba...........maana mashoga nao wanahitaji kusikilizwa haki zao za kimsingi.............#mwaga mboga wangine wapige teke ugali......#jino kwa jino......#akupigaye kibao mgeuzie shavu la pili halafu akishapiga na hilo la pili anza kumtembezea kichapo cha maana ili ajue heshima ni bure haiuzwi dukani...........
Pascal Ndege
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 24, 2012
- 2,977
- 1,897
Kuna sheria kali katolic ya kurudisha ulichoiba
Similar Discussions
-
Waziri hana mamlaka ya kutoa hukumu kwenye mgogoro wowote ule. Ndio maana Bunge na Mahakama zetu havina nguvu
- Started by fazili
- Replies: 17
-
Wakatoliki wanajua kuomba kuliko Waprotestanti
- Started by Filosofia ya Rorya
- Replies: 61
-
Mahakama kupitia Jaji Mkuu imjibu Makonda. Kukaa kimya wananchi wataamini asemayo- Started by Jaji Mfawidhi
- Replies: 94
-
-
Waziri wa Ardhi hana imani na mahakama; wizara yake inawezaje kutoa hati, ikatuhumu, ikaweka wafu ndani, then ikahukumu?
- Started by Resilience
- Replies: 3