ANONYMOUS LETTERS. — Anonymous letters are those that do not bear a signature and whose author is unknown. Sending an anonymous letter to someone is in itself a morally indifferent act. It is therefore the intent of the writer and the content of the letter that give moral coloring to the act itself, which may in itself be lawful when there are serious reasons for not signing.
If the content of the letter is based on insults, offenses, or calumnies, the anonymous letter will be an act against the virtue of justice in its most base form of injury to reputation, honor, etc., as well as being a cowardly 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 the provocation of scandal. The use of anonymity is an aggravating circumstance that renders the act more ignominious because it is marked by cowardice. The same must be said of anonymous letters when, in addition to sin, the elements of a crime are present. The legal relevance of anonymous letters in civil law is minimal. They cannot be considered as documents: the writer lacks the intention to bind himself or to testify; they have only an indicatory value against the person who is their subject. They may serve as information about another’s conduct for the police in their investigations, but not for judicial authorities (Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 8, 141).
Canon law expressly mentions such letters only briefly. C. 1645 § 4 and c. 1942 § 2.
In c. 1645 § 4 it is prescribed that: “anonymous letters that contribute nothing to the merits of the case... shall be destroyed.” These words can have a twofold meaning: 1) all anonymous letters have no probative force and therefore must be destroyed; 2) if the words “that contribute nothing to the merits of the case” are not taken in an appositive sense but as a predicate, then it is understood that only those letters must be destroyed which can contribute nothing to the merits of the case. The first explanation is the more accurate and is corroborated by art. 165 of the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments (15 Aug. 1936; AAS, 28 [1936], p. 345). From c. 1942, which deals with criminal denunciations, it is deduced that anonymous letters, in themselves considered, cannot have legal effect (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 20 Feb. 1866; P. Gasparri, Fontes, IV, 990, 6, 10); if, however, they narrate the crime by specifying the time, place, circumstances, documents, name, domicile, and qualities of witnesses, they should not, in principle, be rejected but may serve to instruct a special inquiry, especially if such indications are accompanied by notable public dissemination of the fact. The favorable judgment is left to the discretion of the judge (S. C. EE. e RR., 10 Dec. 1579; P. Gasparri, Fontes, IV, 1364). This norm does not apply to the false denunciation of the crime of solicitation in confession (c. 2363). In this regard, it should be noted that the crime of false denunciation of a confessor as a solicitor exists even if the denunciation was anonymous, and thus 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 (*at least sententiae*) was established against anyone who had calumniously accused a person through anonymous letters before any authority (cf. *Il monitore ecclesiastico*, 66 [1943], pp. 159–160).