by Gregory Caridi.
A Journal of the McGrath Institute for Church Life.
June 03, 2021.

“… The issue of improper correction of prelates has existed since the Church’s inception, and it is not likely to be resolved any time soon, particularly in a world that has become especially protective of the right to public speech, public criticism, and public protest. While there are clear canonical principles by which to address the issue, they do not appear to be well known, either by the laity or the hierarchy.

What follows is an explanation of what that canonical reality is today, especially following the Code’s recent update to Book VI (penal sanctions), with particular emphasis on the philosophical and theological reason for its structure. This does not represent a full historical account of public speech in the Church or what might be called speech delicts, but merely attempts to describe the framework for approaching these questions today. We will also consider the changes to the penal canons from the June 1, 2021 modification of Book VI of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Fundamental Principles

Before delving into the particulars of the law, a brief explanation of the underlying philosophical and theological principles should be helpful. St. Thomas provides a guideline for addressing correction of prelates, separating what he calls correction as an act of charity and correction as an act of justice (ST, II-II, q. 33, a. 3):

I answer that, as stated above, correction is twofold. One is an act of charity, which seeks in a special way the recovery of an erring brother by means of a simple warning: such like correction belongs to anyone who has charity, be he subject or prelate.

But there is another correction which is an act of justice purposing the common good, which is procured not only by warning one’s brother, but also, sometimes, by punishing him, that others may, through fear, desist from sin. Such a correction belongs only to prelates, whose business it is not only to admonish, but also to correct by means of punishments.

Following this, he concludes (ST, II-II, q. 33, a. 4):

I answer that, a subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect.

St. Thomas holds that correction of prelates is not absolutely forbidden, but merely that it can only be done as an act of charity and not as an act of justice.

Note that justice is not being directly juxtaposed with charity here, in the sense that justice is uncharitable, or that the real issue with correction of prelates as it is done today is that it not kind. What is actually problematic in the case of correction common today is that it attempts correction through the coercive nature of punishment; that is, as an act of justice and not of charity. While the laity or other clerics obviously have no competency to bring canonical punishment against someone they deem to be a bad prelate, they do, in a society that has open and unrestricted speech, have the power of public coercion through humiliation, threats, mass protest or campaigns to punish prelates by withholding giving.

This sort of action, according to St. Thomas, is improper in the fundamental sense, as it places one without competence over one with competence, like a child punishing his own father. It is in this way a kind of perversion of the natural and supernatural order of the Church. Or as St. Thomas puts it: “It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God’s condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark” (ST, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad. 1). Instead of threats or protests, according to St. Thomas, the laity should instead charitably warn or advise prelates on dangers or wrongs so that the prelate can avoid real harm to the Church and the faithful.

… Continue

Note: if at this website I have ever been personally incautious in all of this, I will redouble efforts to avoid so being from now on. SH.

+