The Vatican asks that accusations that could damage a person's reputation not be spread, especially if there is no sentence declaring that person guilty in a civil or ecclesiastical process. And, even more so, if the person concerned has died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is the response given by the Dicastery for Legislative Texts to a letter received in July, in which an anonymous person asked how the concept of the good reputation of the deceased is regulated in canon law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Signed by the prefect, Archbishop Filippo Iannone, and the secretary, Monsignor Juan Ignacio Arrieta, it highlights that, in the event of death, such a person cannot defend himself. In addition, they recall two key points of the legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the one hand, the presumption of innocence until there is a final sentence; on the other, the principle of non-retroactivity, that is, that an action cannot be judged that was not classified as a crime when it was committed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both members of the Dicastery, therefore, point out that these two rules cannot be overridden just to publish a news item, and even more so if a person's reputation is harmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is especially relevant regarding cases of abuse. In fact, in the letter, they refer to one of the Pope's conclusions at the anti-abuse summit, held in 2019 in the Vatican.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pope Francis had already said at the time that the publication of lists of those accused should be avoided, even by dioceses, before a prior investigation and a definitive sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, the Dicastery reiterates that hidden information cannot be disclosed about any person, and even more so if it is a deceased person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CA
TR: GS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Vatican asks that accusations that could damage a person's reputation not be spread, especially if there is no sentence declaring that person guilty in a civil or ecclesiastical process. And, even more so, if the person has died.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":758,"featured_media":75515,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"acf":{"video":"https:\/\/youtu.be\/TMcCijDqT4w","video_descarga":"https:\/\/attuale.romereports.com\/news\/bletteratestilegislativieng.mp4","international_url":"https:\/\/attuale.romereports.com\/news\/bletteratestilegislativiint.mp4","type":"bn","newsletter":"si"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75512"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/758"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75512"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75518,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75512\/revisions\/75518"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.romereports.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}