Content area
In dioceses of the United States, curial officials address more administrative acts and responsibilities than perhaps ever before, and the sheer volume of administrative activity can be perceived as overwhelming. This quantity of administration, at times, can obscure the significant quality of administrative acts—namely, their potential to significantly affect the lives of the People of God. The pressure of decision overload has the potential of overwhelming an ordinary’s commitment to procedural fairness and well-discerned decision-making processes. These stressors, while understandable, can challenge a curia’s commitment to the art of good governance.1 In these instances, procedural fairness can be overlooked in the preparation of administrative acts. In some cases, affected parties draw attention to procedural fairness at the end of processes by requests for reconsideration and hierarchical recourse.
This thesis intends to explore one element of procedural fairness—namely the right to be heard in select administrative procedures. Specifically, it will focus on elements of hearing prior to administrative decisions, which can assist the decision-maker in his or her preparation of administrative acts. It will do so by first considering administrative power and the right to be heard broadly, considering both the historical roots of these concepts and their recent development in canonical discussions leading ultimately to the 1983 Code of Canon Law (chapter 1). From there, it will consider the generic right to be heard in administrative acts in the ius vigens, which is manifest in both intervention and consultation (chapter 2). Finally, three select administrative procedures will be considered, both in the ius vigens and in the available jurisprudence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. This specific exploration will help articulate a broader vision of the right to be heard and offer helpful best practices which diocesan officials are free to incorporate whenever they are confronted with acts of greater importance or sensitivity.
This thesis is meant to make an argument for the enhancement of the prior hearing of parties in the preparation of administrative acts and to illustrate various features of such a hearing. It is my hope that a more robust hearing of individuals in administration can enrich the quality of administrative decisions and their justice, both in fact and perception.
A legitimate concern related to this proposal is the addition of new procedural steps to what can already be described as overwhelming responsibilities. If diocesan officials are already overburdened, how can additional procedural steps be realistically proposed? As an alternative viewpoint, the conclusion will argue that these additions can simplify administration by leading to more prudent decisions, preventing future controversies, and ensuring broad participation in the life of the Church.