Last week’s post examined the right of Christ’s faithful not to unlawfully harm their good reputation or violate their privacy. Today’s post focuses on canon 221, which states:
“§1 Christ’s faithful may lawfully vindicate and defend the rights they enjoy in the Church, before the competent ecclesiastical forum in accordance with the law. §2 If any members of Christ’s faithful are summoned to trial by the competent authority, they have the right to be judged according to the provisions of the law, to be applied with equity. §3 Christ’s faithful have the right that no canonical penalties be inflicted upon them except in accordance with the law.”
This canon expresses three principles necessary to guarantee the rights of the faithful. The first principle is the right to lawfully vindicate and defend one’s rights.
To vindicate means to “show to be right by providing justification or proof”, while to defend is “to take action against attack or challenge.” While there is the right to vindicate and defend one’s rights, the Church urges “all Christ’s faithful, and especially Bishops, …to strive earnestly, with due regard for justice, to ensure that disputes among the people of God are as far as possible avoided, and are settled promptly and without rancour”(Can. 1446 §1; cf. 1733 §1).
One can vindicate or defend one’s rights in two ways. The first is in a trial done in an ecclesiastical tribunal before the appropriate ecclesiastical tribunal, while the second is through recourse against administrative decrees at the appropriate organ of administrative recourse (Cann. 1732-1739). Administrative recourse culminates in the Apostolic Signatura, which “adjudicates recourses against individual administrative acts” (Praedicate Evangelium, art. 197 §1).
The second principle is the right to be judged according to the provisions of the law, to be applied with equity. This means that when any member of the faithful is summoned to trial, due process applied with equity must follow. As noted in the past, canonical equity manifests in the quality of laws, the norms of their application, and the attitude of spirit and soul that tempers the rigours of the law. For instance, a party in litigation has the right to an advocate or procurator (Can. 1481 §1). The same goes for one making an administrative recourse (Can. 1738) and the accused in a penal trial (Can. 1481 §2). An advocate safeguards the rights of a party in a canonical process, while a procurator represents another in judicial matters.
In a trial, the judge must, under pain of nullity, permit the parties to view the acts before the case is judged (Can. 1598 §1); in a trial, a sentence is valid if one of the parties was denied the right to defence (Can. 1620, 7°); one has the right to appeal a sentence (Can. 1628). In penal trials, the accused has the right to the last word (Can. 1725).
The third principle is the right that no canonical penalties be inflicted upon the faithful except in accordance with the law. At the onset here, one must state that the law calls for penalties only when the Ordinary “perceives that neither by methods of pastoral care, especially fraternal correction, nor by a warning or correction, can justice be sufficiently restored, the offender reformed, and the scandal repaired” (Can. 1341).
When the Ordinary has decided to start a penal trial, the legal provisions must be followed. First, if an external violation of the law (words, actions or omissions) is not considered a delict (crime), one cannot be punished for it. The reason is that delict entails that an offence has been established as such with a corresponding penalty for those who contravene it. Second, it also means that the external violation must be imputable by reason of malice (“the deliberate will to violate a law, which is countered on the part of the intellect by a lack of knowledge and on the part of the will by a lack of freedom” (Canon 2200 §1 CIC 17) or culpable negligence (all forms not directly willed by the agent but happened due to imprudence, inexperience, and disregard of laws, regulations or precepts) on the accused (Canon 1321 §2), else one is punished illegitimately and immorally.
On the other hand, the penal procedure must follow due process to enable the accused to defend and vindicate his rights. First, the one who did the preliminary investigation should not be a judge (Can. 1717 §3). Second, there must be a preference for judicial penal procedure (Can. 1342 §1). Third, the trial itself must respect canonical provisions. Fourth, the judge must judge rightly, increasing or diminishing the penalty as the case may be. Fifth, the judge must avoid imposing perpetual penalties through an extrajudicial penal process (Can. 1342 §2). He cannot validly impose a censure (medicinal penalties, namely, excommunication, interdict and suspension) “unless the offender has beforehand received at least one warning to purge the contempt, and has been allowed suitable time to do so” (Can. 1347 §1).
The spirituality of canon law is very visible regarding vindicating and defending rights because it emphasises the two dimensions of the spirituality of canon law: making and interpreting the law and obedience to the law.
The first manifestation of this spirituality is that the accused is a soul that needs salvation.
As noted in the past, since divine mercy (Chi di ebere) remains at the heart of canon law, law and mercy are not opposites but are deeply connected. This is why the purpose of inflicting penalties is to restore justice, reform the offender and repair scandal (Can. 1311 §2). Hence, the Ordinary, superior or other judge should impose penalties that will help to reform the offender to improve one’s journey of holiness.
The second dimension of obedience to the law is instructive for Ordinaries, superiors, and other judges, who should follow their consciences while exercising their offices. In most cases, the accused do not know their rights. Sadly, too, even in some cases where the accused knows their rights, the Ordinary or superior blatantly ignores canonical provisions and violates the right of the accused in order to get an intended conclusion for a heavy penalty. This happens because the Ordinary or superior is vicious and vindictive.
The spirituality of canon law reminds Ordinaries, superiors and judges that they are also involved in the journey of holiness, and need to save their own souls too. While no one may check how they interpret and apply the law, they are answerable to God on the last day on how they ignored the canonical provisions, violated the ecclesial rights of an accused, and allowed hatred to becloud their judgement.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
