Sr Sherly, a forty-five-year-old finally professed member of a religious congregation, attended the “liturgical” services of a Pentecostal Church regularly. Even after repeated requests by the authorities not to do so, she continued her practice. Eventually her Superior General dismissed her. Can the Superior General dismiss a perpetually professed member for such offences?
In order to answer this query, let us examine what is meant by dismissal of a religious and the categories of dismissals. Dismissal is a canonical procedure initiated by a religious institute to terminate membership of a temporarily/perpetually professed member. A religious can be dismissed only for the gravest causes provided by the law. There are three categories of dismissal: (i) ipso facto, (ii) obligatory and (iii) facultative or discretionary.
Ipso facto dismissal means that a religious is automatically dismissed for certain offences by law itself. The Latin Code of Canon Law (CIC c. 694§2, 1º, 2º) and the Oriental Code (CCEO c. 497§2, 1º, 2º) deal with offences leading to automatic dismissal of a religious. There are only two such offences: (i) Public rejection of Catholic faith manifested in cases of apostasy, heresy or schism; (ii) celebrating marriage or attempting to do so, even civilly. Apostasy is the total rejection of the Christian faith received in baptism. Heresy is the conscious and wilful denial or doubt of a truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. Schism is withdrawal of submission to the Pope or with the communion of members of the Church subject to him (CIC c.751).
In this case, the superiors do not have to follow the ordinary process of dismissal. The major superior, in consultation with the council, has to gather evidences for the offence, and without delay make a straight forward declaration that so and so is dismissed. Even without the declaration, the religious is and remains dismissed from the institute (CIC c. 694§2; CCEO c. 497§2).
Obligatory dismissal means the law obliges the institute to dismiss any member found guilty of offences against human life and liberty, viz., homicide, kidnapping, mutilation, serious wounding of another person, abortion, concubinage or other sins against the sixth commandment inferior to attempted marriage (CIC cc. 695§1, 1397, 1398, 1395; CCEO cc. 553, 500-503, 1450, 1451). Before the dismissal, it has to be proved that the offence did occur and that it was juridically imputable.
With regard to concubinage and offences against sixth commandment, the superior may, in particular case, decide otherwise; it cannot, however, be made arbitrarily. The superior must ensure that effective arrangements have been made to provide for the correction and amendment of the offender, taking into account the nature of the offence and the damage caused to another person.
Facultative/Discretionary Dismissal means the major superior uses discretionary powers to decide whether to initiate the process or not for the following offences which are grave, external/public, imputable and juridically proven: (i) Habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; (ii) repeated violation of the vows/sacred bonds; (iii) stubborn disobedience to the lawful orders of superiors in grave matters; (iv) grave scandal arising from the culpable behaviour of the member; (v) obstinate attachment to or diffusion of teachings condemned by the Church; (vi) public adherence to materialistic or atheistic ideologies; (vii) unlawful absence from the house that exceeds six months; and (viii) other reasons of similar gravity defined in the Constitutions (CIC c. 696§1; CCEO c. 500§2, 1º, 552§2, 1º, 2º).
A religious in temporary vows can be dismissed even for less grave reasons defined in the Constitutions (CIC c. 696§2; CCEO c. 552§1). Unless it is a matter of grave scandal, the general practise is that the superior, at the expiry of vows, refuses to admit the temporary professed to further profession.
It is obvious from what we have presented so far that the Superior General has used discretionary powers to dismiss Sr. Sherly because of her stubborn disobedience to the lawful orders of the superiors even after repeated reminders. Besides, participating in such gatherings publicly, she might have caused scandal to others. She is also culpable because of her obstinate attachment to or diffusion of teachings condemned by the Church.
To read the entire article, click Subscribe
