Last week’s post began discussing the virtue of justice as part of the third principle that guided the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There are various forms of justice, but one states from the outset that justice in canon law is not restricted to any but comprises all the various forms. Today’s post examines commutative justice in light of the spirituality of canon law.
Commutative justice is the virtue that inclines one to give another what is the person’s due. It concerns the exchange of goods and services based on strict equality of values, except one freely renounces one’s right to full compensation. Hence, commutative justice is based on equivalence, that is, the condition of being equivalent or essentially equal. Commutative justice is based on existing rights acquired through contracts that one freely enters into. Hence, it is sometimes called contractual justice. An example of commutative injustice is not paying employees their due or not paying one entirely after having agreed on a service. Another instance is using a paid service without actually paying for it and not having obtained a concession to use it for free.
Commutative justice also applies to the spirituality of canon law because it requires one to give others their due and follow due process to help their collective journey of holiness. One must note from the outset that the ‘person’ involved in the contract could be a physical person or a juridical person. A physical person is a single individual, while a juridical person is an aggregate of persons and things, such as a parish, school, hospital, religious congregation, other associations in the Church, and the diocese. Canon law focuses more on juridical persons in light of commutative justice.
The fundamental principle is the canonisation of civil law. Canon 22 states: “When the law of the Church remits some issue to the civil law, the latter is to be observed with the same effects in canon law, insofar as it is not contrary to divine law, and provided it is not otherwise stipulated in canon law.” This implies that canon law recognises civil law in Nigeria. Nigeria practices legal pluralism, that is, the simultaneous co-existence of more than one legal system: statutory law, customary law, and Islamic law. Hence, as long as it is not contrary to divine law or canon law has provided otherwise, the Church remits some issues to statutory law and customary law.
An example is marriage. While not marrying customarily is not a canonical impediment, the Church discourages Church marriage where the parties have not yet married customarily. One must note that in Igbo customary marriage, marriage takes place when the bride price (marriage consent) is paid, and the bride’s family receives the offering; the traditional wedding ceremony is just a ceremonial manifestation of an already existing marriage.
Another example is contracts. Canon 1286, 1° stipulates that administrators must accurately observe the Church’s principles and civil laws concerning labour and social life when making employment contracts. Canon 1290 specifies that civil law decides issues about establishing and voiding contracts regarding ecclesiastical goods provided that the civil law does not contradict divine law and canon law does not provide otherwise. The provisions of canon 1290 appeared in canon 1529 of the 1917 Code.
The Church rarely concerns itself with contracts entered into by a physical person, except that the person enters such without permission or consultation in matters concerning a juridical person or the effect of that contract undermines the Church’s mission and the salvation of souls. A religous who enters into a contract without the superior’s permission is responsible for the contractual obligations, not the religious institute (Can. 639 §3). However, an action can be brought against the religious who has profited from the contract entered into (Can. 639 §4).
Regarding juridical persons, the Church purposefully ensures commutative justice in that all ecclesiastical entities fulfil their contractual obligations for the exchange of goods and services. The remuneration of clerics and other workers in the Church is the first instance of this justice.
Just wages are based on distributive justice. However, paying the agreed wage is commutative justice.
Another instance is a juridical person buying goods or services, or leasing or renting an apartment, parking space, or equipment. The juridical person is obliged to pay for the services or goods received as stipulated in the contract. Administrators who fail to pay the agreed wages or amount for goods and services received as due are guilty of abuse of ecclesiastical power (cf. Can. 1378 §1). The delict is absent if the administrator negotiates and lawfully obtains a time extension for payment.
It is important to consider offerings for the celebration of the sacraments, which one might consider payment for ‘services’ received. The sacraments are not services requiring payments.
Stole fees, mass offerings, and stipends are not charges paid to be admitted to a sacrament or payment for celebrating a sacrament.
One can be admitted to the sacraments without paying anything, just as a priest can celebrate a sacrament without receiving anything specifically for that celebration. Moreover, canon 945 §2 admonishes priests to celebrate the mass for the intention of Christ’s faithful, especially the needy, “even if they have not received an offering.”
An interesting part of commutative justice is commutative injustice that could arise when, for a fee, an ecclesiastical officeholder agrees to a contract to act unlawfully or to fail to act. This is bribery of one who exercises an office, function or ministry, discussed in Post 176 on 18 November 2024. The injustice that could arise is that the one who bribed argues that the office holder did not fulfil the contractual agreements as clearly stipulated. This is a breach of contract. However, the question is: Should the officeholder have entered into such a contract?
Therefore, to avoid commutative injustice concerning spiritual goods, which ought to be free, the Church established a delict. Can. 1377 §1 states: “A person who gives or promises something so that someone who exercises an office or function in the Church would unlawfully act or fail to act is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§2-4; likewise, the person who accepts such gifts or promises is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding by deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.” If the contract concerns the sacraments, simony, that is, the “deliberate act of buying or selling a spiritual good” (cf. Can. 1380), comes into play.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
