When a person is called to respond before ecclesiastical authority for a possible violation of canon law, they are not merely faced with an “internal” question within the Church, nor with a proceeding devoid of rules. There exists a true legal framework, with substantive and procedural norms, competencies, guarantees, evidence, rights, and responsibilities. It is precisely on this ground that the recent juridical magisterium of Pope Leo XIV takes on particular significance. In his address to the Prelates of the Roman Rota on January 26, 2026, the Pontiff placed at the center of ecclesiastical justice the relationship between truth and charity, emphasizing that the pursuit of truth cannot be sacrificed to a misunderstood pastoral need and that, at the same time, the ascertainment of truth must be accompanied by respect for the person. This principle holds extraordinary importance even in canonical criminal law: anyone undergoing a procedure cannot be considered guilty until responsibility has been legally established. Leo XIV expressly recalled the presumption of innocence of the accused until proven otherwise and indicated the adversarial nature as an indispensable tool for discovering the truth. (Vatican) The perspective is particularly significant because contemporary canonical criminal law, following the reform of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Francis with the Apostolic Constitution Pascite gregem Dei, has adopted a configuration that is more attentive to the concrete application of criminal discipline in the life of the Church. Canonical penalties are not merely repressive measures; the legal system considers them in light of restoring justice, the amendment of the offender, and the reparation of scandal. However, this application requires legal rigor. There is no authentic ecclesiastical justice without a serious ascertainment of the facts. There is no protection of the community without respect for guarantees. There is no genuine charity when the pursuit of truth is sacrificed. The issue concretely involves priests, religious, members of ecclesial associations, leaders of canonical entities, and faithful who may find themselves involved, in varying capacities, in proceedings before ecclesiastical authority. In such situations, one of the primary needs is to understand the nature of the procedure, which authority is competent, what legal provision is contested, what evidence has been gathered, and what defense tools are practically available. The legal qualification of conduct is indeed essential; in canon law, as in every legal system, it is not enough to assert that a behavior is “serious” or “scandalous”; it must be verified whether it actually constitutes an offense provided for by criminal law, whether the elements required by the norm exist, and whether the necessary conditions for imputability and responsibility are met. This is the transition from perception to justice, from voice to proof, from accusation to ascertainment. Leo XIV’s reference to the technical competence of legal operators thus acquires particular significance. The Pontiff emphasized that all those participating in processes must operate with rigorous intellectual honesty, technical expertise, and upright conscience, also recalling the importance of the ethics of lawyers called to assist the faithful in protecting their rights. (Vatican) Therefore, canonical defense should not be conceived as a confrontation with the authority of the Church. On the contrary, when exercised correctly, it constitutes a component of the administration of justice itself. Defending a person means allowing that the facts are examined, the evidence evaluated, the norms correctly interpreted, and the final decision made based on the law. In this perspective, even the professional assisting a party assumes an ecclesial responsibility beyond just technical; it is to protect the interests of their client without distorting the truth of the facts and without turning the process into a tool for personal conflict. Ecclesiastical justice, in the vision proposed by Leo XIV, indeed requires a particularly high balance: rigor without rigidity, charity without omission, protection of the person without relativizing the truth. (Vatican) This is precisely one of the major themes that contemporary canon law is called to measure itself against. The Church is not foreign to law; it is an ordered community also in legal terms. Ecclesiastical authority, when intervening in criminal matters, must be exercised according to the law and for the good of the ecclesial community. For those receiving a summons, a reprimand, a contested charge, or being involved in a canonical procedure, the timeliness of assistance can thus be decisive. Before making statements, submitting documentation, or taking initiatives, it is advisable to understand exactly what procedure has been initiated, before which authority, for what conduct, and based on which canonical provisions. Canon law requires specialized competence precisely because the pastoral and legal dimensions are not alternatives; they must operate together. In the new ecclesial horizon inaugurated by Leo XIV, the Church’s justice thus appears increasingly called to recover its true nature as an authentic service to truth. And this truth, in order to be truly ecclesial, cannot disregard the dignity of the person, respect for guarantees, and the correct application of the law. For this reason, when a person is involved in a disciplinary or canonical criminal matter, the question should not simply be “who is right?”, but first and foremost: what norm applies, what facts are proven, which authority is competent, and what rights must be guaranteed? It is from these questions that a true canonical defense begins.
Cav.Prof.MitidieriSorice
Leave a Reply