The last three weeks examined restorative justice as part of the virtue of justice in the third principle that influenced the 1983 Code. Today’s post focuses on procedural justice. As in every legal system, procedural justice is integral in canon law. Hence, it is not particularly new to the 1983 Code. This post merely reiterates how it plays out in the context of the spirituality of canon law.
Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the processes and procedures employed in making decisions, resolving disputes, and administering justice. The emphasis is that everyone should be treated and judged fairly in line with the provisions of the law.
Procedural justice is part of every legal system. One recalls the statement of Nicodemus when the chief priests and Pharisees plotted to arrest Christ. He said: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:51).
Both the 1917 and 1983 state that the objects of a trial are “(a) to pursue and vindicate the rights of physical or juridical persons or to declare juridical facts (b) to impose or to declare penalties in regard to offences” (Can. 1400 §1 CIC 83; Can. 1552 §2 CIC 17). Procedural justice here entails that trials follow due process, ensuring that one is given a fair hearing according to the provisions of the law.
However, unlike the 1917 Code, the 1983 Code integrates procedural justice into the obligations and rights of Christ’s faithful. Canon 221 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 introduction is significant to the spirituality of canon law because procedural justice is no longer a requirement but a right, which necessitates an obligation on the part of the competent authority. In other words, since one has an obligation to holiness, one has the right to a fair hearing and to be judged according to the law, which facilitates the pursuit of holiness.
Subsequently, since one has a right to a fair hearing and to be judged according to the law, it obliges the competent authority to safeguard and apply this right to promote the holiness journey of the faithful on trial. Hence, 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).
The law attempts to help the situation by attaching nullity to certain actions that undermine procedural justice. Canon 1620 provides that a judgment is irremediably null when “1° it was given by a judge who was absolutely non-competent; 2° it was given by a person who has no power to judge in the tribunal in which the case was decided; 3° the judge was compelled by force or grave fear to deliver judgement; 4° the trial took place without the judicial plea mentioned in can. 1501, or was not brought against some party as respondent; 5° it was given between parties of whom at least one has no right to stand before the court; 6° someone acted in another’s name without a lawful mandate; 7° the right of defence was denied to one or other party; 8° the controversy has not been even partially decided.”
On the other hand, a null judgement can be remedied if “1° it was not given by the lawful number of judges; 2° it does not contain the motives or reasons for the decision; 3° it lacks the signatures prescribed by the law; 4° it does not contain an indication of the year, month, day and place it was given; 5° it is founded on a judicial act which is null; 6° it was given against a party who was lawfully absent” (Can. 1622).
Canon 1347 §1 states that “§1 A censure cannot validly be imposed unless the offender has beforehand received at least one warning to purge the contempt, and has been allowed suitable time to do so. §2 The offender is said to have purged the contempt if he or she has truly repented of the offence and has made suitable reparation for the scandal and harm, or at least seriously promised to make it.”
However, since the provisions of the law do not largely prevent procedural injustice due to the possibility of disregard for the rule of law, the spirituality of canon law remains indispensable to procedural justice, especially concerning competent authorities responsible for applying the legal provisions regarding trials.
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 as well. Hence, they should follow their consciences while exercising their offices and not blatantly disregard canonical provisions or violate the accused’s rights in order to achieve a predetermined outcome, especially a severe penalty. Doing so allows resentment to lead us into the sin of perverting the course of justice. St. Paul advises: “Do not let resentment lead you into sin; the sunset must not find you still angry. Do not give the devil his opportunity” (Eph 4: 26-27).
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
