Expulsions, part 2

ON THE PROCESS OF EXPULSION

FROM THE OCDS - PART II

by: Fr. Aloysius Deeney, OCD

Now that I have your attention!

I wrote the initial article on expulsions in the manner in which I did specifically to get the attention of a number of persons, the majority of whom are members of Councils, who have read too much into the competence of the Council to dismiss members. There were a number of people who had written to the General House because they were threatened with expulsion. Sometimes the threat was for no more than disagreeing with a council decision! These incidences have been in the English speaking world. 80 percent have been in the United States. There are some provinces that have put some stipulations in the Statutes about dismissal, but we all need to pause, rethink and understand better the purpose of this clause in the Constitutions so that we might faithfully serve our members and the Church.

First point: Is dismissal always and everywhere the same as expulsion? The answer to this question depends on the answer to another question. That other question is: Is it possible to be a member of the Secular Order of Discalced Carmelites without being a member of a community? The answer to that question is complicated. We had for a number of years the institution of "isolated members" who were members of the Secular Order but not members of a community. These members were directly under the jurisdiction of the Provincial, nearly always under the care of the Provincial Delegate. They were few in number, mostly justified by geographical difficulty. However, there were other circumstances for which a person might have been given the status of isolate membership. These circumstances were personal.

The Constitutions do not recognize anyone as an isolate member, rather all members, even those who cannot attend meetings because of geographical difficulties, must be attached to some community. There is no such thing as a free-floating unattached member of the Secular Order. Every member of the Order is accountable to some other member of the Order. That is true of the friars, of the nuns and of the seculars. Provincial statutes determine the ways in which members who cannot attend meetings are to be integrated into the Order. So, if a person is not a member of a community it is up to the Provincial statutes to establish how that person is a member of the Order, but no one is a member on his/her own. If a person is dismissed from a community, the person is expelled from the Order unless the Provincial/Provincial statutes provide another way. A person who does not participate in a community must contact the Provincial to regulate his/her status in the Order.

Second point: According to the Constitutions, who may dismiss? The answer is the Council, of course. The reason I mention this is that I one time heard a friar say to a member who disagreed with the formation program that was being implemented "If you do not go along with this I can dismiss you from the Order!" I had to tell him that it was not true. The friars or a friar cannot dismiss a member. Even if one might be able to say that the spiritual assistant or a friar exerted [13-14] influence on the council, it is the council that dismisses. The Provincial must be consulted in the process as the Constitutions stipulate, but it is the council that dismisses.

Third point: Are the cases mentioned in canons 308 and 316 of the Code of Canon Law the only cases which justify expulsion? The answer to that question is "no". BUT, we all must be certain of what might or might not constitute reasons for expulsion. To lay the foundations for this understanding I would like to cite the law of the Church with regards to members of religious congregations and dismissal. Although it specifically applies to the members of religious congregations, its principles apply to members of the Secular Orders of religious families. Quite a bit of canon law language follows, so I ask you to read it slowly and to reread it a few times to understand it. I will put in bold certain words or ideas.

"Canon 696, §1. A member can also be dismissed for other causes provided that they are grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven such as: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism; the illegitimate absence mentioned in canon 665, §2, lasting six months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.

§2. For the dismissal of a member in temporary vows, even causes of lesser gravity established in proper law are sufficient.

Can. 697 In the cases mentioned in can. 696, if the major superior, after having heard the council, has decided that a process of dismissal must be begun:

1/ the major superior is to collect or complete the proofs;

2/ the major superior is to warn the member in writing or before two witnesses with an explicit threat of subsequent dismissal unless the member reforms, with the cause for dismissal clearly indicated and full opportunity for self-defense given to the member; if the warning occurs in vain, however, the superior is to proceed to another warning after an intervening space of at least fifteen days;

3/ if this warning also occurs in vain and the major superior with the council decides that incorrigibility is sufficiently evident and that the defenses of the member are insufficient, after fifteen days have elapsed from the last warning without effect, the major superior is to transmit to the supreme moderator all the acts, signed personally and by a notary, along with the signed responses of the member.

Can. 698 In all the cases mentioned in canons 695 and 696, the right of the member to communicate with and to offer defenses directly to the supreme moderator always remains intact."

So, the grounds for the dismissal of a member must be grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven. You cannot dismiss a member for a suspicion, for a personality conflict, for not voting for [14-15] the president. If the grounds are grave you must be able to prove it! Even if you believe with all your heart and soul that it is true you must be able to prove it, not just accuse it!

When you are threatening a person with dismissal, you must present the reasons in writing and give the opportunity for defense. The opportunity given must be reasonable. And you cannot just say "the Council would like to meet with you" and have them find out at the "talk" that they are being expelled. Notice the phrase in canon 697, article 2 "unless the member reforms." That is an important phrase which expresses the whole purpose of having a process of expulsion. The purpose of this process is to get people to stay in the Order. If they will not stay, then they have to go, but we are using this process to get reform.

It is also important to realize that, as is indicated in Canon 698, any person who suffers dismissal has the right to appeal directly to the Provincial and then to the General. The word of the Council is not the final word.

Certainly there are other cases, which might only be handled by dismissal. And certainly there are persons who must be dismissed from the Secular Order: persons who are so disruptive to meetings as to cause the other members to stay away; persons who cause grave emotional or spiritual harm to other members, etc. My caution is that anyone who exercises authority must be faithful to all the prescriptions of the law when using the law. Remember that the law is salutary and then use it well. And remember that the last resort is dismissal, which means that the last resort must be preceded by other resorts!

--Aloysius Deeney OCD, genrl. delg.