Last week’s post focused on John Paul Lederach’s analysis of reconciliation. Today’s post discusses how canon law prevents conflicts and controversy. I include controversy prevention because tensions between Church personnel often spill over to the faithful, causing controversy.
Just as Christ encouraged conflict prevention to promote peace and harmony among people, the Church also promotes conflict prevention and controversy prevention through the establishment of institutions and ecclesiastical offices to administer sacraments and these institutions.
First, the Church establishes institutions to manage existing conflicts and prevent future conflicts. For instance, the apostles established the institution of the diaconate to manage the dispute between Hebrew and Hellenist widows regarding the distribution of ecclesiastical goods (Acts 6).
Second, canon 145 §1 defines an ecclesiastical office as “any function constituted in a stable manner by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance to be exercised for a spiritual purpose”. There are four features of an ecclesiastical office. First, it is a function or a position of responsibility involving defined rights and obligations. Second, it is constituted in a stable manner; that is, the continuity of the post is guaranteed so that it survives indefinitely if the holder of the post changes or if the post becomes vacant. In light of this, one who replaces another person should continue from where his or her predecessor stopped. Third, it is established by a divine or ecclesiastical ordinance, and finally, it is established for a spiritual purpose.
An ecclesiastical office can be acquired through (a) free conferral by the competent ecclesiastical authority (Can. 157), appointment by the competent authority of someone who has been presented in accordance with the law (Cann. 158-163), (c) simple election and acceptance when the law does not require confirmation (Can. 187) (d) confirmation or admission by the competent authority following an election or postulation (Cann 179; 180-183). An ecclesiastical office validly conferred is lost through (a) the expiry of the term fixed by law, (b) by reaching the age determined by law, (c) resignation, (d) transfer, (e) removal, and (f) privation (Cann. 184 -196).
Ecclesiastical offices are indispensable in conflict and controversy prevention. First, the major causes of conflict between Church personnel are interference in another’s duty and abuse of authority. Canon 145 §2 states that “the obligations and rights proper to individual ecclesiastical offices are defined either in the law by which the office is constituted or in the decree of the competent authority by which the office is at the same time constituted and conferred”. Based on this provision, obligations and rights are attached to all ecclesiastical offices. The universal law defines some, while the diocesan bishop who provides for the office can include extra duties. When the obligations and rights are defined, it prevents usurpation of another’s authority and abuse of one’s authority, thereby preventing conflict and controversy.
Consequently, although there is a leader among officeholders, being a leader does not mean that other persons were not appointed to an ecclesiastical office. Peter was not the first Jesus appointed. Andrew brought Peter to Jesus (John 1:35-42), yet Jesus made Peter the leader (Matt 16:18). Therefore, the parish priest or principal of a mission school is not the employer of the assistant parish priest or vice principal—the bishop appointed both. The seminary rector is not the employer of other formators, nor are the latter his employees. The bishop appointed the rector to the office of a rector just as the same bishop appointed other formators.
However, this does not mean that the parish priest, principal, or rector cannot assign duties to their subordinates, who are bound to follow the directives. It also does not mean that the leaders do not deserve respect from their subordinates. On the other hand, it also means that the superiors should not abuse their privileged position of authority, including fulfilling their obligations towards their subordinates, such as feeding, amenities, and remuneration.
Canon 1378 states: “§1. A person who, apart from the cases already foreseen by the law, abuses ecclesiastical power, office, or function, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the power or office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm. §2. A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another or scandal, performs or omits an act of ecclesiastical power or office or function, is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.”
It is important to consider three realities regarding the actions and omissions of one occupying an ecclesiastical office that cause conflicts and controversies: conflict of competence, ignorance, and crisis of competence.
First, conflict of competence is when two or more ecclesiastical offices are competent to execute the same task. When this happens, the competent authority intervenes to clarify this. For offices provided by the diocesan bishop, the bishop clarifies. The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura intervenes when it concerns marriage tribunals not subject to the same appellate tribunal or between dicasteries of the Roman curia (Praedicate Evangelium, art. 196-197).
Second, ignorance is sometimes an excuse for conflicts. Ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis neminem excusat). This legal principle means that if people break the law, they are still liable even if they do not know they contravened it. This principle is necessary to avoid people feigning ignorance about a law they intentionally violated. Without this principle, the law loses its effect, and society falls into disorder. In moral theology, invincible ignorance refers to the condition of those who, through no fault of theirs, do not know that the Christian message is true (cf. CCC, 847-848). The opposite, vincible ignorance, means a person could remove ignorance by applying reasonable diligence in a given set of circumstances. To be vincible (capable of being overcome) connotes imputability (one is held liable for not overcoming).
Therefore, canon 1325 provides that crass, supine or affected ignorance is irrelevant when considering who is culpable for an offence committed. Crass ignorance means “gross ignorance about what a reasonable person should know”. Supine ignorance is “a careless indifference to knowing what other persons regard as necessary knowledge”. Affected ignorance is one “deliberately cultivated to excuse a legal violation” (T. Green, “Can. 1325”, in J. Beal – J. Coriden – T. Green (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1545).
To prevent ignorance, among other reasons, the law requires the competent authority to make the provision of ecclesiastical offices in writing to identify the obligations and rights of the appointee (cf. Can. 156). Such letters of appointment always refer to the description of the duties according to the code of canon law. It also adds extra duties—territory-specific—that the competent authority wishes to add.
The crisis of competence is the third reality, and it occurs when one says ‘I am not responsible’, and the other says ‘I am not also responsible’. Who is then responsible? Nobody? The crisis of competence happens due to the ignorance of an officeholder or the lack of or insufficient definition of duties by the office provider.
The fourth way canon law encourages conflict and controversy prevention is through specific norms exhorting this practice. Can. 1446 §1 states: “All the Christian faithful, and especially bishops, are to strive diligently to avoid litigation among the people of God as much as possible, without prejudice to justice, and to resolve litigation peacefully as soon as possible.” Furthermore, the Church recommends alternative dispute resolution to disputes rather than through the judicial process. Hence, Canon 1713 provides that “in order to avoid judicial contentions, an agreement or reconciliation is employed usefully, or the controversy can be committed to the judgment of one or more arbitrators.”
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
