Dismissal of a Religious

Dismissal is a juridic act, taken by a competent authority, to separate a professed member permanently from the religious institute. There are basically three types of dismissal: i) ipso facto (automatic) dismissal, ii) mandatory dismissal, and iii) discretionary/facultative dismissal.

However, in the automatic dismissal as prescribed in canon 694, there is a significant change introduced by Pope Francis through the Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Communis vita, which tries to include someone who violates the obligation of community life.

The revised canon 694 prescribes:

§1 A member is to be considered automatically dismissed if he or she:

1° has notoriously defected from the catholic faith;

2° has contracted a marriage or attempted to do so, even civilly;

3° has been illegitimately absent from the religious house, pursuant to can. 665 §2, for 12 consecutive months, taking into account that the location of the religious himself or herself may be unknown.

§2 In these cases, the major Superior with his or her council must, after collecting the proofs, without delay, make a declaration of the fact, so that the dismissal is juridically established.

§3 In the case envisaged by §1, n. 3, in order to be juridically constituted, this statement must be confirmed by the Holy See; for institutes of diocesan right, the confirmation rests with the Bishop of the principal See.

The provisions highlighted in bold are the new canonical provisions on automatic dismissal.

Three Reasons for Automatic Dismissal

This is treated in can. 694 of CIC 1983. As the term indicates, it is the occurrence of the fact itself that effects the dismissal, not the initiative of an authority, because an act has been committed that the law itself declares incompatible with membership in the institute and therefore considered automatically dismissed. Nevertheless, for juridical effect, superiors must issue a formal declaration, observing the norms laid down in the canon.

Old canon 694 §1 of CIC 1983 delineated two situations that entail automatic (ipso facto) dismissal: i) Notorious defection from the Catholic faith; ii) Contracting marriage or attempting it, even civilly.

But the revised canon 694 added new canonical provisions for automatic dismissal: Prolonged illegitimate absence from the religious community, lasting at least 12 consecutive months, when the member has become untraceable. This was introduced by Pope Francis on 19 March 2019. Further details and explanatory notes can be found in the Circular Letter of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, dated 8 September 2019. Both Motu proprio and circular letter can be found at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.vitaconsacrata.va/content/dam/vitaconsacrata/LibriPPDF/Inglese/19_1853_Testo---ING-1.pdf

The experience of recent years has, however, demonstrated that situations occur that are related to illegitimate absences from the religious house, during which religious distance themselves from the jurisdiction of the legitimate Superior and, at times, in such a way that they cannot be located. Therefore, in order to curb such situations, Pope Francis envisaged a canonical provision by way of this Motu proprio Communis vita. Community life is essential to the religious institutes, and the illegal absence of a religious from community life can lead to indiscipline in the religious life. Community life can be called the “fourth vow” one professes, like the vows of chastity, obedience and poverty.

What is New in the Automatic Dismissal?

This newly introduced provision in canon law addresses the issue of illegitimate absence from the community, which must last for at least 12 consecutive months, during which the individual remains untraceable. Each element of this provision is crucial to its application:

i. Illegitimate means the absence is without the permission of the superior. This refers to the lack of permission from the superior for the absence; ii. Twelve consecutive months means the period must be continuous and unbroken; separate or broken absences cannot be aggregated; iii. Untraceable: This implies that despite a diligent, serious, and fraternal effort to locate/search the individual, guided by a genuine concern for their reintegration into the community, they remain unreachable.

It is essential that this search is thoroughly documented. The 12-month period will only commence once there is a formal declaration from the superior stating that the member cannot be located. This period does not begin automatically from the date the member first became absent, regardless of how long ago that may have been. It is important that the calculation is precise and unequivocal; the starting point must be clearly established in accordance with canon 203 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.

In practice, many superiors, often due to imprecise interpretations or hearsay, assume that this norm can be applied with ease, only to encounter cases that are subsequently rejected or delayed. Paying careful attention to the canonical process can help avoid these challenges. After a period of 12 months, if the circumstances remain unchanged, the major Superior, upon consulting with the council, has the authority to issue a declaration of fact.

For this declaration to be considered valid, it requires confirmation: by the Holy See if the institute is of pontifical right, or by the diocesan Bishop of the principal seat (generalate) if it is of diocesan right. This confirmation requirement by the competent higher authority serves as a crucial check and balance, ensuring that dismissals are neither indiscriminate nor invalid. Experience has demonstrated that a member may be in a vulnerable position or may struggle to defend themselves. It is important to note that this newly introduced canonical provision applies exclusively to cases occurring after April 10, 2019, and is not retroactive.

This norm also extends with appropriate adaptations as necessary to members of societies of apostolic life (see can. 746 of CIC 1983). However, because members of secular institutes are not bound by communal living, this new canonical provision does not apply to them.

Canon 665 §2 of CIC 1983 requires the Superior to seek out the illegitimately absent religious in order to help him or her to return and persevere in his or her vocation. Quite often, however, the Superior may be unable to locate the absent religious. According to canon 696, after at least six months of illegitimate absence, it is possible to begin the process of discretionary/facultative dismissal by the institute, according to the established procedure in canon 697. However, when the religious’ place of residence is unknown, it becomes challenging to accord juridical certainty to the de facto situation. Therefore, Pope Francis has decided to add to canon 694 §1, among the reasons for automatic dismissal (ipso facto) from the institute, also a prolonged illegitimate absence from the religious house lasting at least 12 consecutive months, with the same procedure described in can. 694 §2. Community life is essential to the religious institutes, and the illegal absence of a religious from community life can lead to indiscipline in the religious life. 

Motu proprio Communis vita describes some situations in this regard of Unlawful Absence:

         1) Members of a religious institute, male and female, should have left the religious house without permission from their superiors, or, legitimately, with the intention of avoiding the power of superiors (cf. canon 665 §2);

         2) Religious who, having obtained the permission of legitimate absence (cf. can. 665 §1), or indult of exclaustration (cf. canon 686 §1), did not return to the community at the expiry of the term;

         3) Religious who, having left illegitimately, have become unable to be contacted, or have not communicated to the Superior his/her address or place of residence, or at least some indications of how he/she may be contacted;

         4) Therefore, this new number 3 in canon does not apply to a religious who is legitimately absent but cannot be found and/or a religious who is illegitimately absent but able to be contacted. Therefore, all three conditions must be fulfilled: i. illegitimate; ii. 12 months; iii. cannot be contacted;

         5) A person is to be considered unable to be contacted if one knows only: a telephone number, an email address, a profile on social networks, or a fictitious address.

For the two offences mentioned in numbers 1 and 2 of canon 694 on automatic dismissal (cases of defecting from the faith and marriage), the responsibility rests with the Major Superior with his or her council after collecting the proofs to declare the fact in writing so that the dismissal is juridically established. It is important to note that the dismissal does not depend on this declaration; even if the declaration is not made, the religious is and remains dismissed from the institute. Whereas, in the case envisaged by new number 3, in order to be juridically constituted, this statement must be confirmed by the Holy See; for institutes of diocesan right, the confirmation rests with the Bishop of the principal See.

(The writer, who belongs to the Diocese of Kottar, is Professor of Canon Law and Latin at St Peter’s Pontifical Institute, Bangalore and Executive Secretary of the Commission for Canon Law in the CCBI. He is the Asian representative of the International Scientific Committee of the Pontifical Urban University, Rome, for its journal Ius Missionale.)

Blurbs

A religious is to be considered automatically dismissed if he/she has been illegitimately absent from the religious house, pursuant to can. 665 §2, for 12 consecutive months, provided the location of the religious is unknown.

Community life is essential to the religious institutes, and the illegal absence of a religious from community life can lead to indiscipline in the religious life. 

Just as they profess the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, members also commit to community life, which can be called the “fourth vow”.