How often are such extrajudicial processes utilized? I've heard conflicting info on this, from its seldom if ever used, to a large minority of cases are used this way. (Which would seem to call into question the overall legal process if true.) Yet I've seen nobody actually show their work on that.
Well, the vast majority of American criminal cases are resolved by the parallel proceeding - the plea agreement. Actual trials are now rare. The same for civil cases: lawyers say that the federal civil trial with a jury is virtually extinct.
Not mentioned in this explainer is how an extrajudicial process can cause injury to justice by hiding relevant information from the public. This doesn't really apply to Bp. Vigano IMO, but it definitely did with McCarrick. By preventing witness testimony and cross examination, the truth of HOW he was able to commit his crimes and WHO help him for so long was hidden.
Yes McCarrick was found guilty. However, the process used had at least the appearance of preventing the complete truth from coming to light. The appearance of a coverup was/is impossible to ignore. Thus the McCarrick affair remains to this day a deep dark stain on the American Church, and it's tentacles back to Rome.
There's almost no public record of any canonical proceedings, even though in many cases third parties such as children and parishioners are directly affected and therefore should be able to review the transcript and all exhibits. Justice should not be dispensed behind a veil.
True but without the cross-examination of witnesses and evidence there's limited possibility for the truth to surface at all - even behind closed doors. In my opinion this was very intentional
Any proceeding where the defendant is not attending in person lacks fundamental due process. In the US it's an absolute requirement for criminal procedure and embedded in the Bill of Rights. While the US constitution obviously doesn't apply here, the fact that a defendant can receive less protection in a church process than in a secular court prevents us from claiming in good faith that this comports with the highest standards of due process.
And even in civil (non-criminal) courts these statements would be subject to hearsay objections and, as with all internet statements, a strenuous authentication requirement that this extrajudicial process seems to lack.
For a millennium canon law was THE leading source of due process development and the rights of the defendant. It's sad to see how far we fall short. Even though the Archbishop definitely seems to be off his rocker.
The legal systems are not an exact parallel. A a civil criminal trial can "coerce" a defendant to appear; the person is either in jail or out on bond. No such power de facto exists in a canonical trial.
I doubt that things said publically, in the media, to any and all who will listen, by the actor himself, could count as "hearsay."
Exactly what does "properly summoned" mean? Archbishop Viganò said that he received the summons via a "simple email." This would certainly not suffice for serving a summons in the US, where personal service is generally required. If the DDF does not know where Archbishop Viganò is, that is their problem. They cannot proceed with their process unless they can show that the defendant has been properly summoned.
There is a tendency to compare this to a secular civil matter. One might also (or, even better) compare it to an employer/employee matter. This certainly has more due process than a grievant is allowed to in a Step 3 Grievance. It might compare to binding arbitration.
Wow! I have yet to read any indication of Archbishop Vigano’s mental state being considered. As an older person I become more aware of friends in mental decline. It always amazes me how our church,always goes first to the law when our FOUNDER always went to love. This is a sad case and prayer is needed for all concerned. Err on the side of mercy and love,please.
You raise an interesting question. On a much smaller scale - what does a family do when an elderly member starts becoming increasingly angry and divisive at family gatherings telling all and sundry, including children, that others are liars or cheats? For how long can it be ignored and not harm the family? How and when do other adults take action? How true that our families are domestic churches - subject to similar problems on a much smaller scale but often more personally painful.
Excellent explainer and very interesting commentary - my thanks to all. I will be forwarding this to a number of people (some Catholics and some not) who are confused or potentially misled by the inflammatory headline style communications and commentary in the general news outlets. As in all these situations, we Catholics are challenged to remember that even the hierarchy of the Vatican is not simply a human governing institution. Thus the legal system of the church is more than just a parallel version of secular systems. Not only is there a need to understand the nuts and bolts of the process (such as presented in this explainer) but to recognize that the “crime” is against the Church as a spiritual entity as much or more so than a human organization; and that means a crime against all the faithful. The ultimate purpose of a judicial investigation and “trial” must be consistent with the mission of the church - to reconcile all souls to God - not for punishment or revenge. This means correcting those who are in error (potentially Vigano in this case), pursuing and presenting truth, and preventing the faithful from being driven to leave the church through scandal. The concern regarding limited access to information by the faithful to understanding exactly what that truth is will always be a concern - not just for the church but for absolutely every human organization. We should hold the church to a higher standard justifiably so but the solution is not to turn to secular legal systems as the better way as they are completely rife with corruption. Rather, let’s continue to support The Pillar and similar efforts to dig out and report the truth without bias or fear. And let us remain strong in our faith that the truth will ultimately come out and pray that it is sooner rather than later, and we are ready to respond to it as Jesus desires.
I think the more interesting question is:
How often are such extrajudicial processes utilized? I've heard conflicting info on this, from its seldom if ever used, to a large minority of cases are used this way. (Which would seem to call into question the overall legal process if true.) Yet I've seen nobody actually show their work on that.
Is this knowable?
Well, the vast majority of American criminal cases are resolved by the parallel proceeding - the plea agreement. Actual trials are now rare. The same for civil cases: lawyers say that the federal civil trial with a jury is virtually extinct.
My understanding is that 90% of the cases are done as extrajudicial.
I've heard that, but I've never seen anything substantiating that. And that might make me a bit uneasy!
Not mentioned in this explainer is how an extrajudicial process can cause injury to justice by hiding relevant information from the public. This doesn't really apply to Bp. Vigano IMO, but it definitely did with McCarrick. By preventing witness testimony and cross examination, the truth of HOW he was able to commit his crimes and WHO help him for so long was hidden.
Yes McCarrick was found guilty. However, the process used had at least the appearance of preventing the complete truth from coming to light. The appearance of a coverup was/is impossible to ignore. Thus the McCarrick affair remains to this day a deep dark stain on the American Church, and it's tentacles back to Rome.
There's almost no public record of any canonical proceedings, even though in many cases third parties such as children and parishioners are directly affected and therefore should be able to review the transcript and all exhibits. Justice should not be dispensed behind a veil.
True but without the cross-examination of witnesses and evidence there's limited possibility for the truth to surface at all - even behind closed doors. In my opinion this was very intentional
Any proceeding where the defendant is not attending in person lacks fundamental due process. In the US it's an absolute requirement for criminal procedure and embedded in the Bill of Rights. While the US constitution obviously doesn't apply here, the fact that a defendant can receive less protection in a church process than in a secular court prevents us from claiming in good faith that this comports with the highest standards of due process.
And even in civil (non-criminal) courts these statements would be subject to hearsay objections and, as with all internet statements, a strenuous authentication requirement that this extrajudicial process seems to lack.
For a millennium canon law was THE leading source of due process development and the rights of the defendant. It's sad to see how far we fall short. Even though the Archbishop definitely seems to be off his rocker.
The legal systems are not an exact parallel. A a civil criminal trial can "coerce" a defendant to appear; the person is either in jail or out on bond. No such power de facto exists in a canonical trial.
I doubt that things said publically, in the media, to any and all who will listen, by the actor himself, could count as "hearsay."
Exactly what does "properly summoned" mean? Archbishop Viganò said that he received the summons via a "simple email." This would certainly not suffice for serving a summons in the US, where personal service is generally required. If the DDF does not know where Archbishop Viganò is, that is their problem. They cannot proceed with their process unless they can show that the defendant has been properly summoned.
There is a tendency to compare this to a secular civil matter. One might also (or, even better) compare it to an employer/employee matter. This certainly has more due process than a grievant is allowed to in a Step 3 Grievance. It might compare to binding arbitration.
Wow! I have yet to read any indication of Archbishop Vigano’s mental state being considered. As an older person I become more aware of friends in mental decline. It always amazes me how our church,always goes first to the law when our FOUNDER always went to love. This is a sad case and prayer is needed for all concerned. Err on the side of mercy and love,please.
You raise an interesting question. On a much smaller scale - what does a family do when an elderly member starts becoming increasingly angry and divisive at family gatherings telling all and sundry, including children, that others are liars or cheats? For how long can it be ignored and not harm the family? How and when do other adults take action? How true that our families are domestic churches - subject to similar problems on a much smaller scale but often more personally painful.
Excellent explainer and very interesting commentary - my thanks to all. I will be forwarding this to a number of people (some Catholics and some not) who are confused or potentially misled by the inflammatory headline style communications and commentary in the general news outlets. As in all these situations, we Catholics are challenged to remember that even the hierarchy of the Vatican is not simply a human governing institution. Thus the legal system of the church is more than just a parallel version of secular systems. Not only is there a need to understand the nuts and bolts of the process (such as presented in this explainer) but to recognize that the “crime” is against the Church as a spiritual entity as much or more so than a human organization; and that means a crime against all the faithful. The ultimate purpose of a judicial investigation and “trial” must be consistent with the mission of the church - to reconcile all souls to God - not for punishment or revenge. This means correcting those who are in error (potentially Vigano in this case), pursuing and presenting truth, and preventing the faithful from being driven to leave the church through scandal. The concern regarding limited access to information by the faithful to understanding exactly what that truth is will always be a concern - not just for the church but for absolutely every human organization. We should hold the church to a higher standard justifiably so but the solution is not to turn to secular legal systems as the better way as they are completely rife with corruption. Rather, let’s continue to support The Pillar and similar efforts to dig out and report the truth without bias or fear. And let us remain strong in our faith that the truth will ultimately come out and pray that it is sooner rather than later, and we are ready to respond to it as Jesus desires.
// While it can often appear that there is no clear criteria //
"Criteria" is plural.