So if canon law is Torah for Catholics, than the New Commentary on Canon Law by John P. Beal et al must be the Talmud. What the law allows and what the law means is open to interpretation and discussion, if not debate.
Thus, Rabbi Jonah ben Sivalon of Scranton quotes above mentioned Commentary (which was ordered for our library today) in insisting that, absent a requisite four-member council to adjudicate a dismissal, the Commentary interprets the law to mean the missing member would normally be the regional superior of the man in question.
Canon 172 (of Catholic Torah) states such a vote "must be secret, certain, absolute and determinate." But, Rabbi Jonah posits, "What does certain, absolute, determinate mean?"
Notably "absolute." Does that require a minimum of four out of five (including the super G's vote) if not a unanimous vote as Sivalon maintains, or is it merely three out of five, as Rabbi Shlomo Don't-Use-My-Name-in-Your-Blog insists?
Again according to Sivalon, Fr. Roy Bourgeois has secured the services of noted (albeit controversial) canon lawyer Fr. Thomas Doyle. Thus, I can only hope the spotlight should soon shift away from our Maryknoll general council to the Vatican dicastery where the final verdict will be issued.
Until further developments appear in the NCR, I shall refrain from any more attempted arbitration between these dueling rabbis.