F.A.Q.

Q. When we pray the Office of the Dead for a deceased member, do we pray it in place of the Office of the day or in addition to it? [Sharon Schulte of St Louis]

A. Dear Sharon, Thanks for your question. It’s a good question and one easily answered. We pray the monthly Office for our Deceased in place of the Office of the day. The way you have been doing this is the correct way to pray our monthly Office of the Dead. You choose a day of the month that is liturgically free: either a ferial day with no saint to be commemorated or at least an optional memorial. If the day is an obligatory Memorial, then the office of that saint must be said. And of course the same applies to all feasts and solemnities whose proper offices must be prayed on that day.

I want to also note that Advent, Lent and Easter are privileged seasons: the proper office of the day should be said during these times, even if it means not saying the Office for the Deceased that month. I’m sure you must have noticed in our Carmelite monasteries that our traditonal Saturday Mass & Office of Our Lady, is not said during these privileged seasons either.

The only time I can think of when you might pray the Office of the Dead in addition to the office of the day, would be if you wanted to pray that office for some friend or family member on their anniversary which falls each year on a feast or obligatory Memorial.

--Fr. John Michael Payne OCD, prov. delg.

Promise Expiration

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Dear Father, we are in the process of receiving a transfer from another community, and the time of her First Promise is about to expire. How do we handle this situation?

A: Thank you for asking about this. Most of us, including myself, have not been aware until recently of the gravity of the wording of our First Promise, that it is made “for three years.” Technically, on the day of the third anniversary of this promise, that Promise expires, and the member of our order is no longer bound to the Promise. I say “technically” because “for three years” is normally interpreted to mean “until that time, three years from now, when I will be evaluated for the Definitive Promise.” So we remain a professed member of the order until we are either dismissed or the date is set for our Definitive Promise to be made. And we will not quibble about a few weeks that might extend our temporary promise beyond the 3 times 365 days that may lapse between one ceremony and the other.

But other circumstances outside the normal formation period need to be considered, and you have mentioned the most common, which is someone moving during his or her 3 year formation period between promises, and finding the expiration date approaching in the middle of the move or shortly thereafter. The new community needs time to evaluate the incoming member; so if you are moving at this critical time, you should make arrangements with your original community BEFORE YOU MOVE to extend your formation to allow proper evaluation from the new community who will need time to get to know you and see how you fit into their community before they can properly evaluate you to take the Definitive Promise. All extensions require you to repeat your First Promise (before an Assistant or authorized cleric) for the extended length of extension granted. If you do not do this, your original Promise expires, and you will be left in Carmelite limbo until some authority decides what to do with you.

Note to our local canonical councils: Read our provincial Statute I. 6) about how you can “authorize” a priest to accept a Promise if your Asssistant is unavailable.

So finally the answer to your question: Grant the transfer an extension, and have your Assistant accept her Promise for the length of the extension. Your community needs at least six months to get to know the new arrival. Fr. Aloysius has allowed us to extend a two year novitiate period for up to another year and the three year formation period for up to a year and a half. The extension, he said, should not however extend for more than half the normal period.

--Fr. John Michael OCD, prov. delg.

Elections Q&A

Q: If someone has been a councilor for one term and is now president of the community, can that person serve another term as president?

A: Sec. 2.d of our Provincial Statutes says: "In order that leadership qualities be developed in our communities, all council members (President, Councilors and Director of Formation) shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. Since it is not possible to be elected to a third consecutive term, in order to hold a third consecutive term, a postulation is required from the Provincial Council." This means that the person in question could not serve as president, as formation director, nor as a councilor during the next triennium unless the community seeks postulation from the Provincial Council. The term limit applies regardless of which specific role a person has served on the council.

Q: What is postulation and how do we get it?

A: Postulation is when you ask for an exemption from the legislation of the Order. If a community wishes to seek postulation for a council member, then they must vote on whether to request postulation. This vote must be well in ADVANCE of the regular council elections. Once the ballots are counted by the Local Council, the Spiritual Assistant should contact the Provincial Council with the results of the postulation vote and provide his own recommendation as well. The Provincial Council will then decide whether to approve the postulation or not.

The request to the Provincial Council should include an explanation for why the community is seeking an exemption for this person. The Provincial Council will want to know such things as:

• How is your community actively forming members to assume leadership roles?
• The tradition in Carmelite leadership is that sometimes you are a leader and sometimes, you are not. How does your community prepare everyone for the application of that principle?
• Were there enough candidates on the ballot to choose a council without this person? If not, why not?

If the Provincial Council approves the postulation, then the community holds regular elections for the remaining council positions. For example, if the postulation was for Jane Doe to serve an additional term as President, then the community election would only be for the open councilor positions. No election for President would be held.

Q: How do we choose a Formation Director?

A: According to Art. 53, the Formation Director is ELECTED by the council. According to Fr. John Michael: "All elections of personnel need to be done by secret ballot. I think most communities settle these matters by consensus agreement, but the problem in this is that a consensus is usually declared to be achieved by the strongest person in the group, and there is pressure on anyone who opposes that consensus to go along. Because of considerations such as these, the general principle was developed that all elections involving personnel be done by secret ballot and votes tabulated and recorded by the secretary. This would not apply to minor matters such as appointments of secretaries, treasurers, infirmarians, phone committee members, etc., but would apply to serious matters such as ones admittance to clothing or profession or continuance in formation."

Naturally, the council will want to choose someone with the gifts of a good formation director. At the same time, it is important to remember that the FULL council is responsible for "the formation and Christian and Carmelite maturing of the members of the community." (Art. 46) Also, in many of our communities, the Formation Director oversees a formation team (so all the work does not fall on just the Formation Director). Thus a Formation Director needs to also be someone who can delegate tasks.

Q: But we already know who the Formation Director will be. We've already decided.

A: Sec. III.l states: "To preserve freedom of the newly elected Local Council, all other offices (Secretary, Treasurer, Formation Director, etc.) shall be vacated at the end of the same meeting." Only the newly elected Local Council may determine who the Formation Director should be. The previous council does not choose. Even the larger, full community does not choose. The Formation Director from the prior triennium does not automatically continue in that position. We know that sometimes there is discussion prior to election among members about who should be the Formation Director. Sometimes a person is kept off the council ballot because everyone thinks that person should be the Formation Director. This would be wrong. Sec. III.4.C covers what to do if the newly elected Local Council wishes to elect one of their own to serve as Formation Director.

Q: What happens if we only have one candidate for President?

A: The answer to this depends upon which set of parliamentary procedures the community has decided to follow for the election process. (see Sec. III.l) Most people have some passing familiarity with Robert's Rules of Order. For instance, in Robert's Rules of Order, if there is only one candidate standing for election to a particular position, then a ballot vote must still be taken for that one person (provided there are no nominations from the floor at the time of the vote). If someone does not wish to vote for the one nominee, they either vote for the unopposed candidate, write in someone else's name, or abstain.

Q: Who gets to vote?

A: Voting is a privilege granted upon membership in the Order. According to Art. 12, a person becomes a full member of the Order upon making the First Promise. Visitors, aspirants, novices, those whose First Promise has expired, and Spiritual Assistants (unless they are also professed in the OCDS) are not eligible to vote. In certain rare circumstances, a professed member of the Order might have their voting rights suspended and so are not allowed to participate in the elections either. Note also that the Provincial Statutes require a member to be physically present at the time of the vote.

Q: Do those who do not have a right to vote stay in the room or do they have to leave during the voting?

A: There is no legislative requirement that non-voting members leave the room at the time of elections. However, care should be taken that ballots are only given to those with voting rights.

Q: The statutes say that the incumbent councilors count the ballots but what if they are on the ballot? Isn't this a conflict of interest?

A: If all three councilors are on the ballot for re-election, then it would be appropriate to have a neutral party (someone who is not on the ballot) also present to help with counting of the ballots. If at least one councilor is not up for re-election then that person is the neutral party and so there's no need for someone else to help with the count.

Who receives Promises

Q. Dear Father John Michael, may our retreat master receive the First Promises of our novices at our annual retreat this fall? He is a Discalced Carmelite from another province. Will you need to authorize him?

A. The short answer to your question is, yes he may, and he doesn’t even have to be a Carmelite priest. No, I do not need to authorize him. Read our Oklahoma Provincial Statute I.6): “When the Spiritual Assistant is unable to preside, no special delegation is needed for the Local Council to ask another priest or deacon to clothe candidates and receive Promises and vows.”

The long answer is a bit more complicated. This question involves our OCDS Constitution, articles 11 & 12: “the Promise is made to the community in the presence of the Superior of the Order or his delegate.” It also pertains to introductory notes in our Carmelite ritual which state: ”The local Assistant of the Community, or another authorized priest, presides.” [13 for Clothing, 31, 51 & 67 for Professions]

The important thing to remember at a Profession ceremony is what may affect the validity of the Promise. Who is it who authorizes the candidate to make the Promise and thus be professed in our Order? That authorization comes from the local council of a canonical community, or in the special cases of our Study Groups, the authorization comes from the Provincial Council. If a council vote has been taken with the result that the candidate has been approved (before the ceremony), fine. But if not, then the candidate’s profession would be invalid even if the pope himself were to receive the Promise (at the ceremony).

During my tenure as provincial delegate there have been a number of cases where the validity of a novice’s profession was questioned because the President or Formation Director decided that the novice had completed our two year formation program, the time had come for profession, and an esteemed priest of the order or family friend of the candidate was suddenly available to do the ceremony, so it was all arranged at the last minute, usually at the annual community retreat. First or Definitive Promise was thus celebrated with no authorization from anyone except the priest presider or retreat master who had no authority to approve the candidate for the Promise. In most cases, the priest just presumed the candidate presented to him was duly approved to be professed, because he had not asked to see her papers showing that a council had approved her. If the priest was not an Assistant of our Order, he simply presumed either that the Director of Formation could make that approval on her own, or that simply completing the two year formation program entitled the candidate to be professed. These are examples of invalid professions.

Now the specific point of your question involves an authorization. Authorization is given to your Spiritual Assistant to receive clothings and Promises as a delegate of the Superior of the Order. This fulfills the requirement quoted above in our Constitutions, since Our Father Provincial is unable to attend all our OCDS profession ceremonies. If your Spiritual Assistant is not available for the rite, your local council may ask another priest or deacon to receive the Promises or vows, with special permission from the General Definitory who approved our Provincial Statutes.

Thanks for asking. Your question gave me a chance to research some aspects of the law involving who does what with whom and who can delegate (the Father Provincial), sub-delegate (his Provincial delegate), but not sub-sub-delegate (the local Assistant, if appointed by the Provincial delegate). Don’t even ask about that.

Your brother in Carmel,

John Michael Payne OCD, prov. delg.

F.A.Q.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Dear Fr. John Michael, After returning home and having an opportunity to assimilate the information from the Congress, I had a few questions regarding the changes occurring in the OCDS. I know I am not a member of your Province. I hope you don't mind me addressing these questions to you.

Conversations and comments I heard at the Congress from secular members and a review of the Statutes approved for the Oklahoma Province indicate to me a general trend in the OCDS toward self-governing and independence from the Friars... Can you tell me whether the origin of this trend is from secular members, from the Provincial Delegates, or from higher up in the Order? What is the final goal of this trend? Is the purpose to relieve the Friars of unnecessary burdens in management of communities, while still retaining authority? Or, is it a movement toward total autonomy? Will the OCDS remain juridically dependent on the Friars?

Julie Payne, pres., Flint MI

A: Dear Julie, There is absolutely no movement whatsoever toward making the OCDS independent from the Friars. As number 41 of our Constitutions states quite emphatically: “The Secular Order is juridically dependent on the Discalced Carmelite Friars.” The footnote to that comes from the code of canon law. If there has been any movement at all from the old OCDS Rule of Life to the new Constitutions, it is precisely in the opposite direction. The new constitutions put into law what was only presumed in the old Rule of Life. That the OCDS was under the friars. This number was put into the constitutions precisely because many of our Secular Carmelites had drifted away from the friars in areas of the world where none of the friars were available to minister to them. Also many were taking direction from our nuns, who with the best of intentions, were not always careful to keep the friars informed. Now to the other half of your area of concern.

The question of self-government should not be seen as synonymous with independence from the Friars. It should rather be viewed as part and parcel of the same package. Seculars should govern themselves within the framework of the Constitutions approved by the Holy See and provincial Statutes approved by the Friars. This is nothing new. The trend toward self government began when the old OCDS Rule of Life was approved back in 1979 where the Spiritual “Director’s” role was changed to that of an “Assistant.” He was “normally a priest of the Order”, but had no right to vote in the local council. [article 21] That article went on to state that the Assistant was “the Order’s representative” to the local community.

Now the trend toward self-government increased in the 2003 Constitutions, where the Assistant’s powers and authority over the local canonical community were further reduced. Not only was he not expected to preside over the council meeting as was not expected in the old rule either, but now the council did not even need to invite him to attend their meetings. As number 44 states: “He may attend without right to vote,” and “the council may consult him.” But the local council made up exclusively of Seculars has ultimate authority under the general law to govern its own members. This was recognized in the old rule, but further strengthened in the new Constitutions. A most notable statement left out of the new Constitutions was the statement that the Assistant was the order’s representative to the secular order. The reason this was omitted from the new law was a statement of identity: “The Secular Order... is... an integral part of the Discalced Carmelite Order. It is essentially lay in character.” [Constitutions # 37] If our OCDS members are full members of the order, they don’t need anyone to be their representative to the order. And if they are essentially lay in character, it stands to reason that they should be governed by members of the laity, not members of the clergy or from religious life.

The province of Mexico seems to have set the pace by incorporating into their provincial statutes that Seculars could make visitations of local communities. When our provincial council was formed, they read the statutes of Mexico and other provinces who had written statutes to see what they had done, so we didn’t have to re-invent the wheel. We decided to follow Mexico’s lead and Rome approved. Five times as many visitations are being made today in our province than was possible before when only the Provincial or his delegate was making visitations of our secular communities. Many do not like the idea of being visited by their own. I suspect it is because one of their own knows them better than a religious priest. Ignorance is often bliss. You can get away with a lot more, the less the visitator knows you.

What the future holds, we cannot foresee. All Rome is telling us now is that the friars are here to assist you in governing yourself. The friars are handing over authority to you. We only take on our authoritative role granted by that juridical dependence I quoted at the beginning, when local order breaks down or has yet to develop. Our Statutes give the Provincial Council and Provincial Delgate authority to step in when the local community is developing. In the case of our groups who are just starting out and haven’t enough personnel to achieve canonical status, that is to say they can’t yet enjoy all rights given by the Constitutions, then either the PC or the PD appoints local officers that a canonical community would normally elect. The same applies to canonical communities who have lost so many functioning members that they are no longer able to self-govern themselves. Again the higher authority steps in to assist. But I assure you, we do you no favors by playing our authoritative trump card when you are capable of governing your own life.

Q: Dear Fr. Aloysius, If you have time would you please check out my response to this lady to see if anything in it needs corrected before I publish it as a frequently asked question in our newsletter.

Fr. John Michael

A: Dear Father, your response to the question about the dependence of the OCDS on the OCDs is right on target. I am myself preparing something for the blog [www.ocd4ocds.blogspot.com] on that phrase "juridically dependent on the Carmelite friars" because of a number of questions and observations I have been getting in emails and in person. Your answer is right in line. I am happy that you are going to publish it.

Aloysius Deeney, Rome