ANONYMOUS LETTERS. — These are letters that bear no signature and whose writer is unknown. Sending someone an anonymous letter is in itself a morally indifferent act. The writer’s purpose and the content of the letter will therefore give a moral coloration to the act itself, which in itself may also be licit when there are serious reasons for not signing.
If the content of the letter consists of insults, offenses, or calumnies, the anonymous letter will be an act against the virtue of justice, specifically in the lesser form of injury to reputation, honor, etc., besides being a vile and detestable act. If it contains blackmail or threats, it will be an attempt against another’s personal liberty. If it contains obscenities, it will be a sin against chastity, provoking scandal. The use of anonymity is an aggravating circumstance that makes the act more ignominious, because it is marked by cowardice. The same must be said of an anonymous letter when, in addition to the sin, the elements of a crime are present. The legal relevance of anonymous letters in civil law is minimal. They cannot be regarded as documents: the person who writes them lacks the will to assume an obligation or to testify; they have only evidentiary value against the person who is their subject. They may serve the police as information about another’s actions in the course of its investigations, but not the judicial authority (Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 8, 141).
Canon law speaks expressly of such letters only in can. 1645 § 4 and 1942 § 2.
Can. 1645 § 4 prescribes that: “anonymous letters that contribute nothing to the merits of the case ... are to be destroyed.” These words may have a twofold meaning: 1) all anonymous letters have no probative force and are therefore to be destroyed; 2) if the words “that contribute nothing to the merits of the case” are not taken in an appositional but in a predicative sense, then this means that only those letters are to be destroyed which can contribute nothing to the merits of the case. The first explanation is the more accurate and is confirmed by art. 165 of the Instruction of the S. Congregation of the Sacraments (15 Aug. 1936; AAS, 28 [1936], p. 345). From can. 1942, which speaks of criminal denunciations, it follows that anonymous letters, considered in themselves, cannot have legal effect (S. Congregation of the Holy Office, 20 Feb. 1866; P. Gasparri, Fontes, IV, 990, 6, 10); if, however, they relate the crime, specifying the time, place, circumstances, documents, names, domicile, and qualifications of the witnesses, they should not in principle be rejected, but may serve to initiate a special investigation, especially if such indications are accompanied by considerable dissemination of the fact. The favorable judgment is left to the discretion of the judge (S. C. EE. and RR., 1 Dec. 1579; P. Gasparri, Fontes, IV, 1364). This rule does not apply to a false denunciation of the crime of solicitation in confession (can. 2363). In this regard, it should be recalled that the crime of falsely denouncing a confessor as soliciting exists even if the denunciation was anonymous, and therefore the sin becomes reserved ratione sui and ratione censurae. The Church has often severely condemned the authors of anonymous letters: in 1943, in the dioceses of Milano and Genova, lattae sententiae excommunication was established against anyone who, by means of an anonymous letter, calumniously accused a person before any authority (cf. Il monitore ecclesiastico, 66 [1943], pp. 159–160).