Last week’s post examined distributive justice as part of the virtue of justice in the third principle that influenced the 1983 Code. Today’s post focuses on legal and moral justice.
Legal justice concerns the making of laws, the interpretation and application of laws, the observance of the law on the part of the subjects of the law, and the enactment of just laws by those in authority. Legal justice pertains to the fair application of laws and administration of the legal system, ensuring that everyone is treated equally under the law. In other words, legal justice entails conformity to legal provisions.
On the other hand, legal justice obliges community members to observe the law for the common good. Hence, it is also called contributive justice, as citizens comply with the just demands of the law, such as paying taxes. While distributive justice is concerned with justice for the individual members of the community, contributive justice is interested in justice regarding the general good of the community. Hence, it is also called general justice.
Legal justice tends to reduce what is just to only what is legal. This is insufficient for the spirituality of canon law. Hence, legal justice needs to be accompanied by moral justice—the concept of fairness based on inherent principles of right and wrong. Moral justice emphasises the moral desire to always do good, particularly in fairness in behaviour and actions, rather than due to legal obligation. In the Church, moral justice is based on the inherent dignity of all humans rooted in the creation of humans in God’s image and likeness (Gen 1:27), the fundamental equality of all Christ’s faithful based on baptism (Lumen Gentium, 32; Can. 208), and the golden rule of doing to others what one would want them to do to one—the summary of the law and prophets (Matt 7:12).
A law comes into being when it is promulgated (Can. 7). Julio García Martín describes an ecclesiastical law as an obligatory (Can. 8 §1), rational (Can. 24 §2), communal and stable provision given by the competent ecclesiastical legislator (Cann. 23, 26) to a community capable of receiving a law for the common good formulated with clarity and promulgated according to law (Can. 29). While legal justice entails how a law fulfils requirements necessary for a law to be legitimately promulgated, moral justice focuses on fairness in the right and wrong principles that influence the decision to make that law. Since the argument is in light of the spirituality of canon law, moral justice focuses on how the law to be enacted contributes to the journey of the holiness of the legislator and the subjects of the law.
One interpreting and applying laws must consider the text and context of the words (Can. 17), recourse to parallel places and the mind of the legislator when in doubt (Can. 17), and canonical equity bearing in mind the salvation of souls (Can. 1752). Laws must be interpreted strictly when they prescribe a penalty, restrict the exercise of rights or contain an exception (Can. 18)
While legal justice focuses on the interpretation and application of law according to the above legal principles, moral justice pertains to how being fair in interpreting and applying the law helps the authority and subjects of the law in their journey of holiness. In other words, the emphasis is not on “the law says this” but on how morally right one interprets and applies the law in promoting the journey of holiness and salvation of souls. This is particularly present in penal canonical law.
On the one hand, superiors cite the law, using it to punish arbitrarily without considering the peculiarities of the accused. On the other hand, some argue that superiors are unjust because they do not punish certain persons as severely as others.
The purpose of canonical punishment is to restore justice, reform the offender and repair scandal, and penalties are to be applied with canonical equity, bearing in mind the salvation of souls (Can. 1311 §2). Pope Paul VI defines canonical equity using the words of the great medieval canonist Hostiensis as “justice tempered with the sweetness of mercy”. Reforming the offender means that penalties are imposed or declared, bearing in mind the holiness journey and salvation of the offender’s soul. Moreover, the type of penalty given, the extent of the penalties, and how and when the authority imposes the penalties on an accused also affect the holiness journey and salvation of the soul of the authority. Hence, the canon law regulates the application of penalties.
Some canons are relevant to the discussion. First, canon 1341 provides that the Ordinary must start a penal judicial or an administrative procedure when “he perceives that neither by the 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.” This means that penalties are the last option to use when an offence occurs.
Second, perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by means of a decree (Can. 1342 §1). Perpetual penalties are those that last for life. The law provides that they can only be imposed after a full judicial trial. Third, canon 1347 §1 states: “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.” This means the authority must first warn the accused to desist from an act before validly imposing censures—excommunication, interdict, and suspension.
Fourth, the law provides that excusing, attenuating or aggravating circumstances could affect the penalty imposed (Can. 1327). Excusing circumstances mean that while the accused has committed an offence, the accused is not punished (exempted) because of age (less than 16 years), state of mind, or inadvertence, among others (Can. 1323). Attenuating circumstances mean that while an offence has been committed, the penalty imposed is reduced because of imperfect use of reason, age (a minor over 16 years), state of mind, and action without full imputability, among others (Can. 1324). Aggravating circumstances mean that while the law stipulates a particular penalty, the authority can inflict a more serious punishment because of contumacy, office or dignity enjoyed, and intentional intoxication to commit the offence, among others (Can. 1326).
These canons show that superiors who merely cite the law and punish arbitrarily without considering the circumstances may not be morally just in their punishments. On the other hand, since warnings and corrections are sometimes done privately, people conclude that the authority is unjust because they are unaware that a process has already taken place privately.
Therefore, legal and moral justice do not depend on what people say but on how the authority’s actions and behaviours correspond to the will of God and promote the holiness journey and salvation of all souls.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
