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. It will therefore be the writer's purpose and the content of the letter that give a moral coloring to the act itself, which in itself can even be lawful, when there are serious reasons for not signing.
If the content of the letter consists of insults, offenses, calumnies, the anonymous letter will be an act against the virtue of justice in its lowest species, that 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 freedom. If it contains obscenities, it will be a sin against chastity with provocation of scandal. The use of anonymity is an aggravating circumstance, which makes the act more ignominious, because it is marked by cowardice. The same must be repeated for the anonymous letter when, besides the sin, the elements of a crime are also present. The juridical relevance of anonymous letters in civil law is minimal. They cannot be considered as documents: the writer lacks the will to bind himself, to testify: they have only an indicative value against the person who is their subject. They can serve as information about another's conduct for the police in its investigations, but not for the judicial authority (Cod. di proc. pen. it., arts. 8, 141).
Canon law speaks expressly of such letters only in cann. 1645 § 4 and 1942 § 2.
In cann. 1645 § 4 it is prescribed that: «anonymous letters that contribute nothing to the merit of the case... are to be destroyed». These words can have a twofold meaning: 1) all anonymous letters have no probative force and therefore are to be destroyed; 2) if the words «that contribute nothing to the merit of the case» are not taken in an appositive sense, but in a predicative one, then it is understood that only those letters are to be destroyed which can contribute nothing to the merit of the case. The first explanation is the more exact and is confirmed by art. 165 of the Instruction of the S. Congr. of the Sacraments (15 Aug. 1936; AAS, 28 [1936], p. 345). From cann. 1942, which speaks of criminal denunciations, it is deduced that anonymous letters, considered in themselves, cannot have juridical effect (S. Congr. of the S. Office 20 Febr. 1866; P. Gasparri, Fontes, IV, 990, 6, 10); if, however, they narrate the crime specifying the time, the place, the circumstances, the documents, the name, the domicile and the qualities of the witnesses, they must not in principle be rejected, but can serve to institute a special inquiry, especially if such indications are accompanied by a notable divulgence 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 norm does not apply to the false denunciation of the crime of solicitation in confession (cann. 2363). In this regard it must be remembered that the crime of falsely denouncing a confessor as a solicitor exists even if the denunciation was anonymous, and therefore the sin becomes reserved ratione sui and ratione censurae. Many times the Church has severely condemned the authors of anonymous letters: in 1943 in the dioceses of Milan and Genoa excommunication lattae sententiae was established against anyone who had with an anonymous letter calumniously accused a person before any authority (cf. Il monitore ecclesiastico, 66 [1943], pp. 159-160).
Bibliography3 works
Giuseppe Damizia