Expulsion

ON THE PROCESS OF
EXPULSION
FROM THE OCDS

The question has come up in various forms recently about “expulsion” from the Secular Order as a punishment. Can an OCDS member in definitive promises be expelled from the Order? Yes, BUT only under certain conditions and only if all the requisites of the law (Canon Law) have been followed. What is written here applies to those persons in definitive promises. Persons in formation are members under certain “conditions”, namely the process of formation.

In the Constitutions for the Secular Order, article 46 talks about the highest responsibility of the Council:

The Council, composed of the President and three Councilors and the Director of Formation, constitutes the immediate authority of the community. The primary responsibility of the Council is the formation and Christian and Carmelite maturing of the members of the community.

Article 47 then lists some things which the Council has the authority to do, among them: e) to dismiss a member of the community, should this be necessary, after consulting the Provincial.

Letter “e” has a footnote attached to it, and a reminder, footnotes in documents that are legally approved documents are not incidental much less decorative. The footnote justifies and explains the authority given in the text.

What does the footnote say: The foot note makes reference to canons 308 and 316 of the Code of Canon Law, which read:

308 No one legitimately enrolled is to be dismissed from an association except for a just cause according to the norm of law and the statutes.

316 §1. A person who has publicly rejected the Catholic faith, has defected from ecclesiastical communion, or has been punished by an imposed or declared excommunication cannot be received validly into public associations.

§2. Those enrolled legitimately who fall into the situation mentioned in §1, after being warned, are to be dismissed from the association, with due regard for its statutes and without prejudice to the right of recourse to the ecclesiastical authority mentioned in canon 312, §1.

In the Constitutions themselves, and as far as I have seen, in no Provincial Statutes thus far submitted has any other condition for expulsion from the Order been mentioned or approved. For example:

A member of the OCDS publically rejects that doctrine of the real presence in the celebration of the Eucharist, then the Council has the authority to expel the person from the community after consulting with the Provincial.

Second example… a doctor member of the OCDS opens an abortion clinic and performs abortions. He is excommunicated from the Church, obviously he must be expelled from the OCDS Community. Who’s responsibility is it to do so? General? No. the local Bishop? No. The Provincial? No. It is the Council’s responsibility.

Canon 308 is essentially important in order to avoid a Wild-west mentality. A member of the OCDS may only be expelled from the Order if that person is guilty of the conditions found in canon 316 both 1 and 2. The “statutes” about which canon 308 speak are the OCDS Constitutions and there are no other justifications for the expulsion of members listed in the Constitutions.

Expulsion is not a way to deal with disagreeable personalities or clashes of personalities. Imagine if at each election of the community, the new Council could expel the people who did not vote for them or expel those who criticized them. This reaction to expel people if they do not agree or go along must be very attached to the “culture of death” that justifies the death penalty, because expulsion is the death penalty in religious communities.

Neither is expulsion a way to correct faults of members. The law of the Church must always be followed in exercising any punishment. If the law is not followed then the highest authority in the Church will not support the decisions made or the penalties handed down.

You cannot expel someone unless the Church supports you. Do not expel anyone and then expect the Church (or the Order) to back you up unless the reasons are grave, undeniably proven and if you have not done everything according to the process expressed in the law.

Some Auxiliary Notes

On the Question of
those in Formation

With regard to those in the process of formation who, by definition are not permanent members of the community, the process is different. The council has the responsibility to discern the aptitude of the candidate for living our life. The council, as is stated in the Constitutions, para. 36 has the responsibility for allowing persons to continue in the program of formation. When a community elects a council, the community delegates to the council this responsibility. The council is obliged to protect the names or all the members of the community, but above all those in formation. The reasons for not allowing a person to continue in formation may require much discretion on the part of the council or of even one councilor. Never does the entire community, or any one who is a member of a community who is not on the council have the right to know the reasons for the exclusion of someone from the process of formation. The person who is told that they cannot continue must be told the reason. That person, of course is not obliged to tell anyone else in the community the reason. But in this case, this is not an expulsion from the community since the person has not yet fully been admitted to final promises.

Absenteeism

What about absenteeism? This is an area where I personally have been misquoted frequently. My original responses to this point were in regards to people who had not attended meetings for years (the first examples given to me were 15 years). My response was, after finding out if the persons were still alive, to write them a letter signed by the Council and sent by certified mail. In the letter the Council expresses its concern for the absence and asks for a response to any of the Councilors within 6 weeks to help understand the absence. If there was no response to that letter, then write a second letter by certified mail expressing the same concern and inviting the person home to the community meeting. But this time tell them that if there is no response within 6 weeks (we are now at 3 months) a third letter would be written advising them that they will be dropped from the roles of the community. That is not the same as expulsion. I have also talked about when someone who has been away for a long period returns to the community and a process for reentry.

From that original discussion which took place in the Philippines, many seem to have begun to use “expulsion” as a threat against people who might have various reasons, good or bad, for missing meetings. Make the meetings worthwhile and fruitful, and perhaps that might help more than threatening.

But no one can be expelled for not attending… dropped from the roles, yes… deprived from the right to vote, yes, but not expulsion.

(to be continued…)

--Aloysius Deeney ocd, genrl. delg. 25-Dec-06