Last week’s post examined the right of Christ’s faithful to immunity from coercion in choosing a state in life. Today’s post focuses on canon 220, which states, “No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy.”
This canon expresses two rights “based on natural, rooted in the dignity of the human person and acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council”: the right “to a good reputation” and “to the protection of privacy” (Gaudium et Spes, 26).
The canon protects the individual from unlawful harm to one’s good reputation. The word ‘unlawful’ or ‘illegitimate’ is essential to analysing this right. This is because protecting the common good, the Church itself, or another individual may require some actions or statements that might damage someone’s reputation. In this case, the purpose of the action or statement is not to carelessly harm the reputation of another but to protect another value, which, sadly, would have the unintended effect of hurting another’s reputation.
The code provides instances of safeguarding reputations and inflicting penalties (which are often public) only as a last resort. For instance, during the preliminary investigation following the semblance of truth that a delict (offence) has taken place, “care is to be taken that this investigation does not call into question anyone’s good name” (Can. 1717 §2). When the investigation is complete, and there is a semblance of truth, the law recommends beginning a judicial or administrative procedure to impose or declare penalties when the Ordinary perceives that fraternal correction, warning or correction is insufficient to restore justice, reform the offender and repair scandal (Can. 1341). These “pastoral care methods” are geared towards safeguarding an offender’s reputation.
Another major instance occurs regarding clerics under the penalty of censures (excommunication, interdict, and suspension), which prohibits the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals or placing acts of the power of governance. Canon 1335 §2 provides that these censures are “suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death.” Besides, when it concerns a censure in the internal forum (an undeclared latae sententiae censure – to be explained more in the coming weeks), the prohibitions are suspended not only in cases of danger of death, but also whenever a faithful for a just cause requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance (Can. 1335 §2).
Furthermore, canon 1352 §2 states: “The obligation of observing a latae sententiae penalty which has not been declared, and is not notorious in the place where the offender actually is, is suspended either in whole or in part to the extent that the offender cannot observe it without the danger of grave scandal or loss of good name.” In a penal trial too, the law empowers the judge to bind participants to swear an oath to secrecy if the knowledge of some details “would put at the risk the reputation of others” (Canon 1455 §3).
The protection against unlawful harm to one’s good reputation influenced the Church’s long-time response to sexual abuse perpetrated by the clergy. The Church has been accused of covering up cases of sexual abuse by clerics, dealing improperly with cases reported, unnecessary delays in prosecution, insufficiently punishing the offenders, undervaluing the pain and trauma of victims, and overall complicity as long as it safeguards the reputation of the priesthood and the Church. Consequently, the Church has updated its penal laws and made organisational and administrative innovations to ensure that cases are reported and appropriately handled. For instance, Pope Francis’ apostolic letter, Vos Estis Lux Mundi, has eliminated the code of confidentiality or the offence of violation of office confidentiality from clerics and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life who report that abuse has taken place (cf. VELM, art. 4).
The code also contains some references to the right to privacy, such as the freedom of seminarians to choose any confessor (can. 240 §1) and the prohibition to hear the opinion of the spiritual director or confessor concerning admission or dismissal of seminarians (can. 240 §2). This right to privacy also occurs in religious institutes where “superiors are to acknowledge the freedom due to the members concerning the sacrament of penance and the direction of conscience” (can. 630 §1). Similarly, the law forbids superiors “to induce members to make a manifestation of conscience to themselves” (can. 630 §5).
In any case, while the right is to be safeguarded, one willingly relinquishes this right to a good reputation and privacy when one commits an offence or other form of misconduct.
The right to a good reputation and privacy is essential in the journey of holiness because it helps avoid situations that can cause scandals, undermine the faith and impede repentance. When one’s good reputation is illegitimately damaged, it causes scandal because of the sense of the faith and sense of justice of the faithful. When this occurs, one wonders what happened to Christian charity and concern for another. Those whose good reputations are illegitimately damaged may find it difficult to find peace with the Church. They may be unwilling to receive the sacraments or participate in other Church activities, undermining their faith journey.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
