The article tries to demonstrate the current status of the canonical science, starting out from the assumption of the codificatory paradigm into canon law, analyzing, e.g., the methods applied, the main institutions of research and teaching in canon law and its relationship to theology; and points out current challenges, e.g. to overcome the identity-crisis (theological or juridical nature of canon law?); develop an appropriate theory of canon law; enforce the centrality of the human person in the system of canon law.

The author carries out his considerations starting from number 28 of the Ratio Institutionis Sacerdotalis of December 8th, 2016, which sees formation to the sacred ministry as «a period of testing, maturing and discernment by both the seminarian and the house of formation». Both the seminarian and the formators, in order to avoid automatic passage from one stage to another, must periodically check whether there are present the qualities that the Church requires for access to ministry. The aims of the various stages are described. The author then analyzes maturation in its human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral dimensions, and he insists that maturation requires a personalized accompaniment, which itself presupposes flexibility in the formation program. Finally, the author delves more deeply into the questions, in what does vocational discernment consist and who has to do it.

The author describes and reflects on the discipline categorically excluding persons in irregular marriage situations from Penance and Holy Communion that prevailed under the 1917 and 1983 Codes until 2016. The second part of the paper, presented in the following issue of Periodica, will deal with fundamental change of this discipline prescribed by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia Chapter Eight.

Moving from the jurisprudence to the opinions of the various authors, this article offers a synthetic perspective of discrepancies, terminological issues, reasons and timing, regarding the prescription of the criminal action and penal action in Canon Law. By reason of the limited bibliographic resources — provoked by the scarce interest of the doctrine on the subject and by the legislative gaps —, the solution to all the practical and terminological issues presented is not to be found and several
questions remain open yet.