My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

My topic today concerns complaints. Not mine, but those that I receive. My mail is often filled with complaints. I try with the help of my staff to address them as best as possible. These efforts are frustrated, however, when the complaints come in the form of anonymous letters. Most of these wind up in the shredder without taking any further action. Let me explain why.

It is a basic principle of fairness and justice that people have an opportunity to confront their accusers. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets out many rights for defendants during a criminal prosecution, including the right of the accused to confront their accusers. The relevant text of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reads as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

 This is not just a legal principle, but can be found in the Bible. In the Acts of the Apostles, when the elders of the Jews brought charges against St. Paul and demanded his condemnation, the procurator told them that “it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge” (Acts 25:13b-21).

Anonymous letters violate this principle of fairness and justice. While making an untrue statement in order to damage someone’s reputation is the sin of calumny, even a true statement may constitute the sin of detraction. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 2477) says that respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. A person becomes guilty of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them. Similarly, a person is guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.

To avoid rash judgment, St. Ignatius of Loyola, in his Spiritual Exercises (no. 22), suggested, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.”

Jesus actually instructed his disciples to follow some very precise steps and clear procedures in the process of fraternal correction. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, Jesus says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church” (Matthew 18:15-17).

Too many people skip the first two steps and come straight to the church with their complaints instead of first talking directly with the person or seeking the mediation of others if the person won’t listen. So even when letters are signed, my response will often be to ask if they have spoken with the person about whom they are complaining or have sought the help of a mutual friend to resolve the matter. If the answer is no, then I direct that person to take the first two steps as Jesus instructed before bringing the matter to me.

There is also the principle of subsidiarity, which involves addressing the issue at the most appropriate level, usually by taking a step at a time up the hierarchical ladder. People are familiar with this in the corporate setting, where an issue is taken to an employee’s immediate supervisor rather than going straight to the CEO. In the diocese, this hierarchic recourse applies as well. In a parochial school, for example, a complaint involving a teacher should be brought first to the principal, then, if not resolved, to the pastor, then to the local dean, then to the superintendent of schools, then to the vicar general/moderator of the Curia, then to the bishop, and then, if necessary and warranted by the seriousness of the matter, to the pope through his apostolic nuncio (papal representative) and the pertinent department of the Roman Curia.

If we follow the instructions of our Lord concerning fraternal correction, we will properly address the problems that give rise to justifiable complaints and work to resolve them in accord with the principles of justice and equity.

May God give us this grace. Amen.