Impegno politico, facoltà di critica e tutela dei diritti nell'ordinamento canonico (Traendo spunto dalla rimozione di un parroco)

Abstract

Vatican II and the Codex of 1983 have had a notable influence on the juridical status of the members of ecclesial society, recognising the existence of subjective juridical situations of which every baptised person is a possessor, different from inviolability. Thus, a juridical sphere has arisen suitable for constituting a limit not only to the actions of «private» subjects but also to the very power of the Hierarchy. Such an individuation does not imply however, according to authorised doctrine, that a contradiction can exist between utilitas publica and utilitas privata, given that every right belonging to the faithful, be it acquired by reason of being a human being or by reason of being baptised, must be exercised pro bono totius Ecclesiae. The duty to always maintain the relationship of communion cum Ecclesia et Deo therefore assumes a central relevance; when this duty is put into practice it cannot not impinge as it restricts the sphere of operation of some rights, prominent among which would be the right to criticise and dissent. This does not normally mean that the fidelis is in a position of total passivity and subordination when faced with decisions taken by the Hierarchy. He has the possibility of dissenting from them, of criticising them and of manifesting to other faithful his own thoughts on the matter, except when by doing so he injures the depositum Fidei. Spreading opinions contrary to the dogmatic inheritance proper to Catholicism implies in fact breaking off the relationship of communion. The obligation of preserving the integrity of communio takes on a special relevance for clerici and especially for parish priests who are, as we know, the principal collaborators of the Ordinary. Freedom of thought and opinion can also be exercised by the parochus, unless it wounds the link of communion-subordination which unites him to legitimate authority. Therefore, nothing can be permitted which expresses a radical and generalised criticism of the institutional Church, the Hierarchy or the Magisterium. It is supposed that any such action is substantially incongruous with the other duties connected to the office of parish priest. In this case, the ministry exercised by the clericus may end up objectively unsuitable for achieving the object for which parish ministry has been bestowed on him and, consequently, unsuitable for the spiritual good of the faithful. It is therefore legitimate for ecclesiastical authority to adopt whatever measures may be necessary, measures which -as we know- can go as far as removal from the office of parish priest. Amotio, far from functioning as a sanction, constitutes the means whereby the dissent manifested by the parrochus is prevented from damaging the salus animarum, which is, as c.1752, the concluding norm of the current Codex, expresses «in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet».