Very Rev. Fr. Dr. Don Nnagha – The Church being a community in the human society despite her eschatological finality (theandric dimensions) is prone to dissenting views, contentious cases and even strife and oppositions; and thus needs to update herself with instruments of justice and peace and conflicts resolutions. Traditionally and canonically, contentions and claims in the Church have been principally handled either by administrative means or judicial process. This is after mediations, conciliations and arbitrations have been previously employed. The new Code of Canon Law fully enshrines the inalienable right of Christ’s faithful to pursue, vindicate and redress their rights in the Church in accordance with the law (cf. Can. 221). This right is located within the fulcrum of the popular bill of rights for all Christ’s faithful despite their juridical status ( cann. 208-223). Following the people of God ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the 1971 Synod of Bishops with the theme: “Justice in the World” (Iustitia in Mundo) states unequivocally the necessity of justice within the Church. Earlier Conciliar and Papal teachings were mainly focused on justice in the civil society and the wider world but the Fathers of Synod of 1971 concentrated on appraising the apparatus of justice and the protection of rights within the Church covering the basic human rights of priests, religious and lay-people especially those who work inside the Church. It comes up with the defence of rights to just wage and family remuneration for those who are employed in the Church except they are already on pension or not in full time employment (Cf. Can.231 par.1).

The focus of the Papal document of Pope Paul VI “Pacem in Terris” which was adjudged the pivotal official social teachings of the Church on justice and peace akin to the United Nations Declaration (1948) had proposed perennial principles valid for both secular and ecclesial life. Ever since the events and teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the Church has continued to evolve dynamic principles and teachings on the theme of justice and peace. In the same way, the 1973 Synod of Bishops which dwelt on temporal issues (Ultimis Temporalibus) defended the inalienable rights of priests to fitting sustenance that will not only cover their personal daily contingencies and exigencies but also those of their dependents. The rising need of the Church to perfect her instruments of redressing rights in the Church and entrenching justice and peace within the rank and file of the members of Christ’s faithful, the Commission for the review of the 1917 Code had proposed in their various schemata the provision of administrative process in the Church. That was to be included in the 1983 Code of Canon Law until it became abolished in the 1982 schemata and subsequently disappeared in the ratified and promulgated code in 1983. That undertaking left contentious issues in the Church to be sorted either through judicial process (Tribunal) or administrative process through a hierarchical recourse to competent ecclesiastical authorities. However, the problem of hierarchical recourse is the problem of making recourse to the same authority that you are having contention with or at most to his hierarchical superior. The Church has over the years developed the judicial process of resolving contentions in the Church by the erection of various grades of tribunals like the diocesan and inter-diocesan tribunals at the levels of particular Churches, second and third instance tribunals at the appellate levels and the Supreme tribunals of the Roman See including the Roman Rota which is the ordinary appeal tribunal for all matrimonial cases for the whole Church (cf. Can. 1443); the Apostolic Signatura which adjudicates on inter-dicasterial clash of competences and controversies from acts of administrative power and appeals against Rotal judgments (cf. Can. 1445) and the Apostolic Penitentiary which is the domain of internal forum cases and penal cases. However, it must be observed that in many places especially at the diocesan level, most tribunals have not been upgraded to handle cases beyond the usual matrimonial nullity cases. Tribunals should be able to handle penal cases; special processes like nullity of sacred ordination and process of laicization (secularization); beatification and canonization as well as labour law / administrative (employment) contentions.  In most cases, the use of administrative processes has dominated in the dispensation of justice in the Church except in cases where the law explicitly prohibits the use of administrative process but rather prescribes ordinary judicial process. In other cases, the use of disciplinary committees which in some cases are vindictive and punitive have been greatly utilized without in some cases respecting the right of fair hearing and self- defence contrary to can. 221, par. 2 (principle of legality) and the principle of canonical equity (cf. Can. 221 par. 3). In ecclesiastical law and jurisprudence, the ordinary means of vindicating rights and resolving contentions and disputes among the rank and file of Christ’s faithful is the tribunal especially for ferendae sententiae cases like in canonical censures of excommunication, interdict and suspension or the administrative means by competent ecclesiastical authority with executive authority, but the 1983 Code of Canon Law states: “All Christ’s faithful, and especially Bishops, are 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” (cf. Can. 1446). This law is the foundation and centrifugal force of the utilization of “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) in the Church. Contentions and controversies have been part and parcel of the history of Christianity and indeed any human institution. The early Church faced the complaint and dissension from the Hellenist Jews over the neglect of their widows in the daily distribution of food and relief materials (Acts.6:1-4) and the issue of circumcision of Jewish converts to Christianity which led to the epoch making Council of Jerusalem (Acts. 15).

The over two thousand years of the existence of Christianity is replete with controversies and dissensions whether the source or the reason be doctrinal, administrative or pastoral. Each of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church right from the Council of Nicaea in 323 AD through the Council of Trent in the 16th century and down to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) was as a result of eruption of peace and order in the Church brought about by various controversies. The disciplinary canons and decrees from such Councils have always been a response to the currents of dissension and controversy at the time. In some cases especially at the era of anathema and inquisition, the various modern means of mediations and arbitrations may not have been amply utilized due to the danger of causing more confusion and scandal to the faithful. As such, repression, suppression and use of force and authority were more utilized in keeping with the idea of saving the souls of the defiant and recalcitrant people. Those models may have served their desired purpose then but now with the new awareness of the dignity of the human person and the inalienability of human rights and the air of religious freedom and the right to defence, the principle of legality and the autonomy of the will demand a holistic approach to the issues of dissensions and oppositions even in a traditional institution like the Church.

To be contd.

Comments

comments