Father John gives us a full explanation in WDTPRS in an at length post . He summarizes the story as follows: In a way, the change to stabiliter and non vult strengthen the rights of lay people in this regard. I don’t really understand the ramifications of the juridical sounding habitualiter (a dreadful Latin word). Yes, you have that right. On one portion, at least, the Canon lawyers may be involved ... Update: This portion of his interpretation is very meaningful and comes near the end: In article 7, non potest ("cannot") is not non vult ("does not want"). There is a big difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to do something. We are all able to do things we would prefer not to do. So, if a priest is capable, if a bishop is capable, but does not want to do something for the requests of lay people, the matter goes to Rome. In other words, if the cleric is capable, and the means are there, there is even less excuse not to rec