Pope orders new rules on relations between bishops, religious orders

[Aramis]

Wait, does that mean that the Dominicans who pastor the university parish I used to go to in undergrad will leave? Or that the Franciscans will withdraw from working at Steubenville?

I wouldn’t worry about it - the Dominicans’ charism encompases parish assigmnents nicely, and provides the Order a way to have friars in place to perform one of their founder’s goals: teaching and enriching local clergy.

They have always had a high rate of clergy for a friary order, because litrugical preaching is part of their charism. I would expect to see him accompanied by more friars in the future, tho’, if he isn’t already.

 

[JReducation]

I wouldn’t worry about it - the Dominicans’ charism encompases parish assigmnents nicely, and provides the Order a way to have friars in place to perform one of their founder’s goals: teaching and enriching local clergy.

They have always had a high rate of clergy for a friary order, because litrugical preaching is part of their charism. I would expect to see him accompanied by more friars in the future, tho’, if he isn’t already.

OK, this is nice post and certain possible. Is it probable? I have no idea.

I invite you to think like a major superior of an order in solemn vows.

As the canonical successor to the founder, it is your moral duty to protect, preserve and promote his vision, the mission that he gave to the order using the means that he elected. You have no authority to add anything or to delete. Only the pope can do that.

Let’s for the sake of this discussion stop and think. There are many orders, not just Dominicans, that have had friars, monks and clerks in parishes. They have managed very well. They run good parishes.

However, now the Church says, "Look at your present situation and look at the founder.

This is where the future gets interesting. I’m going to use St. Dominic, but remember, I’M NOT AN EXPERT ON ST DOMINIC.

If you are the Master General of the Dominican Order and you realize that Dominic bypassed the opportunity to place friars in parishes. Friars were placed in parishes by later superiors.

Now you have to stop and ask, why did Dominic bypass parishes? Why did later superiors take on parishes? If Dominic’s reason for bypassing parishes is deliberate, not accidental, then you’re stuck. Now you have to be today’s Dominic. But the theology of religious life does not allow you to change a single letter of what Dominic legislated.

Remember, I said that I’m not a expert on Dominican governance. Since you mentioned the Dominicans, I just thought we could play along using them.

On the other hand, if Dominic simply failed to put men in parishes because the opportunity was not there, that’s a different story. That leave you some room for prudential judgment.

Having said all of this, there is an important reality concerning Dominicans. Dominicans are not governed by Dominic, but by Augustine. They vow obedience to the Rule of St. Augustine. You have to look at Dominic’s understanding of Augustine.

We can’t simply say that parish work, hospital work or soup kitchens, etc, fit nicely into the work of a community. It can be made to fit nicely, but if it’s not what the founder had in mind, there has to be a change. You have to pull out or ask the Holy See to approve your changes. You as superior cannot make changes like this, neither can a general chapter. Superiors and general chapters can only make changes approved by the Church. When the Church says that you have to stick close to the founder, your wiggle room has just been narrowed.

 

[O_Sapientia]

The Dominicans do not emphasise the holy priesthood because of a charism of liturgical preaching. In fact historically the monastic character of the Order of Preachers would not have allowed for much liturgical preaching. The missions given by the friars would have occurred outside of the Holy Sacrifice. Catholics once would have attended a mission given by a Dominican or a Passionist for the sake of the mission.

Rather the Dominicans are essentially a sacerdotal order because they are Canons Regular who live by the Rule of Saint Augustine. Dominican priests are the norm and standard and are not a deviation.

Dominicans are at heart an extraordinarily flexible order and this was laid down by the Holy Father Dominic himself. Of course the friars and sisters have developed and grown over the centuries, but the foundation of flexibility along with Saint Dominic’s confirmed blessing of granting dispensations so that work can be undertaken, has allowed the order to flourish in all manner of ways. Hospitals, schools, foreign missions, the Holy Inquisition and even parochial work. In fact one of the major distinctions between Dominicans in Europe and their brothers in America is that the American Dominicans have a much more parochial culture and mission compared to the Dominicans of Europe who maintain a strong monastic atmosphere. Although one can certainly allow their personal tastes to dictate where they themselves would be more comfortable, the parochial work undertaken by the order in the States is wholly in accord with Saint Dominic’s founding principles.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[ringil]

(I’m one of those people who between a smaller more faithful church and a larger less faithful one, roots for the former.)

I am for a larger and faithful Church.

The idea of a small, more, faithful church is a more Orthodox notion than a Catholic one.

The Church always wants more adherents.

I also support what the Pope states in this document as I would support any document issued by this or any Pope.

 

[ringil]

Traditionalists are going to like it, because the doctrines of Trent regarding religious life will be “resurrected”. They’re not dead, because they’re doctrinal points. They can’t die.
.

That’s very optimistic Brother. I like that. I don’t know that this will be the case but staying positive is the way to go.

 

[OraLabora]

I am for a larger and faithful Church.

The idea of a small, more, faithful church is a more Orthodox notion than a Catholic one.

The Church always wants more adherents.

I also support what the Pope states in this document as I would support any document issued by this or any Pope.

I agree.

Moreover I believe one has a faith walk, and undergoes a transformation through that walk. At the beginning of that walk, one may seem to be week in faith, unorthodox in opinion, and disobedient in practice.

At the end of that walk, some may even approach sainthood. If you read the Rule of St. Benedict and the 12 degrees of humility, it becomes very clear faith is a journey, and barring entry to that journey to a few who appear to embody the Truth, defeats the whole purpose of the Church and makes a mockery of Christ’s redemptive gift to us.

Moreover many of us can appear to embody the Truth on the surface, but it only ends up masking deeper problems inside. I say this not to point the finger at anyone, but because it was my own situation until a few years ago. Now I recognize the broken wretch that I am and how far I am from holiness. I need the Church and its sacraments to give me hope…

The Holy Father said that the Eucharist isn’t a prize for the perfect, it is holy medicine for the sick soul. I think you can extend that to meaning that the Church too, is not a resort for the righteous, but a hospital for sick souls.

 

[JReducation]

I am for a larger and faithful Church.

The idea of a small, more, faithful church is a more Orthodox notion than a Catholic one.

The Church always wants more adherents.

I also support what the Pope states in this document as I would support any document issued by this or any Pope.

This document has nothing to do with the size of the Church. In fact, it has very little to do with the laity and the secular clergy. It’s about the place of religious and our relations with bishops.

That’s very optimistic Brother. I like that. I don’t know that this will be the case but staying positive is the way to go.

In order to address our relations with bishops, one has to go back to Trent. There were some point that Trent made absolutely clear. One of them was concerning the vow of chastity vs the promise of celibacy made by diocesan clergy. Trent said that the former was the highest state in life and that anyone who doubted it should be anathema. While both a religious and a diocesan priest are celibate, both are not vowed to chastity. The vow of chastity goes beyond celibacy.

This is just one example of something that has to be brought back. Often, bishops don’t understand the vow of chastity. Because they don’t understand it, they don’t understand the demands of community life. They look at the demands of community life as rules and schedules that can be adapted around the work of the parish, the Catholic school or the hospital. That’s not true at all. The work is what a person does. The life in community is part of being a chaste person, just as intimacy between husband and wife is part of chastity in that context.

Like this, there is much that Trent said that religious and bishops have to relearn, if they are going to work together without stepping all over each other.

I agree.

Moreover I believe one has a faith walk, and undergoes a transformation through that walk. At the beginning of that walk, one may seem to be week in faith, unorthodox in opinion, and disobedient in practice.

At the end of that walk, some may even approach sainthood. If you read the Rule of St. Benedict and the 12 degrees of humility, it becomes very clear faith is a journey, and barring entry to that journey to a few who appear to embody the Truth, defeats the whole purpose of the Church and makes a mockery of Christ’s redemptive gift to us.

Moreover many of us can appear to embody the Truth on the surface, but it only ends up masking deeper problems inside. I say this not to point the finger at anyone, but because it was my own situation until a few years ago. Now I recognize the broken wretch that I am and how far I am from holiness. I need the Church and its sacraments to give me hope…

The Holy Father said that the Eucharist isn’t a prize for the perfect, it is holy medicine for the sick soul. I think you can extend that to meaning that the Church too, is not a resort for the righteous, but a hospital for sick souls.

How does this related to bishops and religious or to saving the religious brother? This is what Pope Francis wants to focus on.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

While both a religious and a diocesan priest are celibate, both are not vowed to chastity. The vow of chastity goes beyond celibacy.

The life in community is part of being a chaste person, just as intimacy between husband and wife is part of chastity in that context.

Fratello,
May I ask for a small clarification? The secular priest takes vows of celibacy. The religious celibacy and chastity. Right? Not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the definitions of the two. Can you give us a couple of lines? The first explaining the practical difference between the two. The second explaining why religious add the second; put another way: why diocesan priests do not? Grazie!

 

[O_Sapientia]

Fratello,
May I ask for a small clarification? The secular priest takes vows of celibacy. The religious celibacy and chastity. Right? Not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the definitions of the two. Can you give us a couple of lines? The first explaining the practical difference between the two. The second explaining why religious add the second; put another way: why diocesan priests do not? Grazie!

A priest makes a promise to celibacy and a religious makes three vows to chastity, poverty and obedience (and some communities have a fourth vow such as renouncing one’s own liberty to ransom captives). The Benedictines vow stability, obedience and conversion of manners rather than the three evangelical counsels.

There is no practical difference between the vows of chastity with the Religious and the promise of celibacy by secular clergy. But perhaps Brother will explain in more depth the different spiritual meanings and implications.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

A priest makes a promise to celibacy and a religious makes three vows to chastity, poverty and obedience (and some communities have a fourth vow such as renouncing one’s own liberty to ransom captives). The Benedictines vow stability, obedience and conversion of manners rather than the three evangelical counsels.

There is no practical difference between the vows of chastity with the Religious and the promise of celibacy by secular clergy. But perhaps Brother will explain in more depth the different spiritual meanings and implications.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

Knew about that one.

I truly appreciate the response. Makes sense now. Thank you!

 

[JReducation]

Actually, no religious promises celibacy. This may sound rather strange, but it’s true. We are celibate, because the consecrated life requires us to be celibate. Our celibacy flows out of our way of life.

Most communities expressly vow chastity, but not all. For example, the Benedictines do not. However, chastity is mandated by the Rule of St. Benedict to which they are bound by the vow of obedience.

Chastity, simply put is purity.

All people are morally bound to live pure lives. What makes us different from a layman is quite simple. A layman who sins against purity commits a sin of impurity. Simple enough, right?

If I sin against purity, I commit a sin of impurity AND I also sin against a vow that I made never to commit such a sin. It’s a double whammy.

The religious is called to persevere in purity through the common life. Community life is essential, because it meets his or her needs for a family and for the intimacy that is natural to family life. Also, in community he or she grows as a member of the Church, because the community is a microcosm of the universal Church. You live with people who are different from you.

A diocesan priest makes a promise, not a vow, to remain celibate. Meaning that he promises the he will remain unwed. If he’s already married, he will remain unwed when he is widowed. If he is not married, he will never marry. He does not vow never to sin against purity. He’s not supposed to do so. But if he does so, it’s not the same double whammy as the religious brother or sister, because the vow is not there.

Traditionally, secular priests joined their home diocese. This allowed them to continue to live among their relatives and friends or at least not too far. Thus, they satisfied the natural need for family life. Today, more and more men are joining dioceses clear across the country and some on the other side of the world. However, since they do not have the religious community that we have, they create community for themselves through wholesome relationships with other priests and close friends.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Actually, no religious promises celibacy. This may sound rather strange, but it’s true. We are celibate, because the consecrated life requires us to be celibate. Our celibacy flows out of our way of life.

Most communities expressly vow chastity, but not all. For example, the Benedictines do not. However, chastity is mandated by the Rule of St. Benedict to which they are bound by the vow of obedience.

Chastity, simply put is purity.

All people are morally bound to live pure lives. What makes us different from a layman is quite simple. A layman who sins against purity commits a sin of impurity. Simple enough, right?

If I sin against purity, I commit a sin of impurity AND I also sin against a vow that I made never to commit such a sin. It’s a double whammy.

The religious is called to persevere in purity through the common life. Community life is essential, because it meets his or her needs for a family and for the intimacy that is natural to family life. Also, in community he or she grows as a member of the Church, because the community is a microcosm of the universal Church. You live with people who are different from you.

A diocesan priest makes a promise, not a vow, to remain celibate. Meaning that he promises the he will remain unwed. If he’s already married, he will remain unwed when he is widowed. If he is not married, he will never marry. He does not vow never to sin against purity. He’s not supposed to do so. But if he does so, it’s not the same double whammy as the religious brother or sister, because the vow is not there.

Traditionally, secular priests joined their home diocese. This allowed them to continue to live among their relatives and friends or at least not too far. Thus, they satisfied the natural need for family life. Today, more and more men are joining dioceses clear across the country and some on the other side of the world. However, since they do not have the religious community that we have, they create community for themselves through wholesome relationships with other priests and close friends.

Brother, I want to ask you: do religious orders in America have safe environment training? Because if you guys do have safe environment training, the thing is, I’m a minor, and I wonder if that means I’m not allowed to PM you.

 

[ringil]

This document has nothing to do with the size of the Church. In fact, it has very little to do with the laity and the secular clergy. It’s about the place of religious and our relations with bishops.

In order to address our relations with bishops, one has to go back to Trent. There were some point that Trent made absolutely clear. One of them was concerning the vow of chastity vs the promise of celibacy made by diocesan clergy. Trent said that the former was the highest state in life and that anyone who doubted it should be anathema. While both a religious and a diocesan priest are celibate, both are not vowed to chastity. The vow of chastity goes beyond celibacy.

This is just one example of something that has to be brought back. Often, bishops don’t understand the vow of chastity. Because they don’t understand it, they don’t understand the demands of community life. They look at the demands of community life as rules and schedules that can be adapted around the work of the parish, the Catholic school or the hospital. That’s not true at all. The work is what a person does. The life in community is part of being a chaste person, just as intimacy between husband and wife is part of chastity in that context.

Like this, there is much that Trent said that religious and bishops have to relearn, if they are going to work together without stepping all over each other.

How does this related to bishops and religious or to saving the religious brother? This is what Pope Francis wants to focus on.

Jeez Brother, I was just responding to an earlier post. Sorry to derail the topic.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I want to ask you: do religious orders in America have safe environment training? Because if you guys do have safe environment training, the thing is, I’m a minor, and I wonder if that means I’m not allowed to PM you.

Yes, we do have safe environment requirements. The religious communities comply with the requirements of the diocese in which they work. The requirements are almost identical with some minor differences.

Franciscans of Life do not engage in private contact with minors over the Internet. It is unfortunate that we live in a day and age when such measures are necessary and we must pray that the day will come when every human being will be safe and respected as a child of God.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Yes, we do have safe environment requirements. The religious communities comply with the requirements of the diocese in which they work. The requirements are almost identical with some minor differences.

Franciscans of Life do not engage in private contact with minors over the Internet. It is unfortunate that we live in a day and age when such measures are necessary and we must pray that the day will come when every human being will be safe and respected as a child of God.

So basically, if I want to talk to you, then I would have to use the public forum and not PM you, correct? And if I wanted to speak to you privately, then I would have to use one of your public e-mails, correct?

 

[JReducation]

Somewhere on CAF, don’t ask me where, someone was sounding off that religious who run colleges and universities should be accountable to the local bishop as are religious who run parishes, because those souls at these universities are under the jurisdiction of the local bishop not the religious. The person went on and on about how to limit the power and freedom of religious for the sake of souls and so forth. I’d like to comment on this, because there was a lot of misconception there.

First of all, students at a university remain incardinated in their home dioceses, unless they establish permanent residency in the local diocese. As long as they are transient, they are not subject to the local bishop. A student, military person, business person or anyone who is not a permanent resident is not part of the local diocese.

Secondly, if the university is chartered by the Church, not by the diocese, it is outside of the jurisdiction of the diocese. Most analogies are weak and this one is no exception, but it’s the best that I can come up with on short notice. Let’s take Franciscan University. It is chartered by the Church, not by the diocese. Once you step on its property, it’s like stepping onto the property of an embassy. The local authorities have no jurisdiction. The Church is bigger than the diocese. The Franciscan Friars of Penance (TOR) are bigger than the diocese and the USCCB put together. You can’t put the ocean into a jar. Authority has to come from the greater to the lesser or the bigger to the smaller.

Now let’s talk about a parish. There are two misconceptions out there.

First misconception: The bishop has unchallenged authority over every parish in his jurisdiction.

The bishop has authority over what is legally his. This includes the property. Regardless of whose name is on the deed, if it’s a parish, it belongs to him. He can do with it what he pleases, the only appeal is to Rome.

The bishop has authority over those members of the laity who have permanent residence in his diocese, not over those who are transient.

The bishop has authority over those seminarians, deacons, priests and auxiliary bishops that are incardinated in his diocese.

The bishop has limited authority, but some, over a religious community of diocesan right. Canon Law determines how much authority he has. This changes every week.

The bishop has the duty to protect those over whom he has authority, as long as the method that he uses to protect does not violate the rights of an equal authority, which is a male major superior. A male major superior is an authority of equal right to a bishop. The male major superior has authority and jurisdiction over those religious who are postulants, novices, juniors and perpetually professed in his institute, be they priests or not. No one else has authority over them. The major superior has the same duty as the bishop. He has to protect those over whom he has authority.

If there is a religious in a parish who preaches heresy or violates another Church law, the normal recourse is for the bishop to suspend that person from exercising the ministry within his diocese. He must immediately contact the major superior. From that point forward, the major superior is in charge.

The bishop cannot transfer, discipline, threaten or limit the movements of the religious in question. Nor can the bishop ask the major superior to remove the person from his diocese or to take his entire community from his diocese. The bishop can reclaim his parish. It’s his material property. The religious can remain in the diocese and can continue to exercise their ministry freely as long as they do not work for the bishop. THIS RARELY HAPPENS.

The issue here is suppression. To ask a religious community to leave your diocese is the same as suppressing that religious community in your diocese. You’re denying it the right to exist in your diocese. A religious community has a God given right to exist, said the Council of Trent. It has the God-given right to grow. Suppression interferes with its growth and existence. Only the pope can say that said community should cease to grow in its entirety or partially.

Hopefully, this document will help clarify these rules of engagement between bishops and major superiors of men. It will create rules for new situations that did not exist the last time the present rules were created way back in the late 70s and early 80s.

I’m hoping that it will also give more authority to superiors of women religious and that they will be treated the same as male superiors. Right now only the superiors of certain communities of women have the same rights as male superiors. We can no longer subscribe to the idea that a weaker physical body equates to a weaker mind.

Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Calcutta, Louise de Marillac, Gianna Molla, Bridget, Clare of Assisi, Elizabeth of Hungary, and a few others have proven that those who have been considered to be the weaker sex have often made more courageous choices, faced greater challenges, given more to society, and saved the Church from herself. I for one would like to see women sitting across from me at a conference of major superiors. So many of them are very holy and brilliant people. Some of us guys are quacks.

 

[Santi2]

Now let’s talk about a parish. There are two misconceptions out there.

First misconception: The bishop has unchallenged authority over every parish in his jurisdiction.

The bishop has authority over what is legally his. This includes the property. Regardless of whose name is on the deed, if it’s a parish, it belongs to him. He can do with it what he pleases, the only appeal is to Rome.

The bishop has authority over those members of the laity who have permanent residence in his diocese, not over those who are transient.

The bishop has authority over those seminarians, deacons, priests and auxiliary bishops that are incardinated in his diocese.

The bishop has limited authority, but some, over a religious community of diocesan right. Canon Law determines how much authority he has. This changes every week.

The bishop has the duty to protect those over whom he has authority, as long as the method that he uses to protect does not violate the rights of an equal authority, which is a male major superior. A male major superior is an authority of equal right to a bishop. The male major superior has authority and jurisdiction over those religious who are postulants, novices, juniors and perpetually professed in his institute, be they priests or not. No one else has authority over them. The major superior has the same duty as the bishop. He has to protect those over whom he has authority.

If there is a religious in a parish who preaches heresy or violates another Church law, the normal recourse is for the bishop to suspend that person from exercising the ministry within his diocese. He must immediately contact the major superior. From that point forward, the major superior is in charge.

The bishop cannot transfer, discipline, threaten or limit the movements of the religious in question. Nor can the bishop ask the major superior to remove the person from his diocese or to take his entire community from his diocese. The bishop can reclaim his parish. It’s his material property. The religious can remain in the diocese and can continue to exercise their ministry freely as long as they do not work for the bishop. THIS RARELY HAPPENS.

The issue here is suppression. To ask a religious community to leave your diocese is the same as suppressing that religious community in your diocese. You’re denying it the right to exist in your diocese. A religious community has a God given right to exist, said the Council of Trent. It has the God-given right to grow. Suppression interferes with its growth and existence. Only the pope can say that said community should cease to grow in its entirety or partially.

Hopefully, this document will help clarify these rules of engagement between bishops and major superiors of men. It will create rules for new situations that did not exist the last time the present rules were created way back in the late 70s and early 80s.

Br JR, could you please clarify the Bishop’s position as highlighted above? If the Bishop can suspend a religious from ministry, doesn’t it follow that the good Bishop can discipline, threaten or limit the movements of the religious in question?

 

[O_Sapientia]

The issue here is suppression. To ask a religious community to leave your diocese is the same as suppressing that religious community in your diocese. You’re denying it the right to exist in your diocese. A religious community has a God given right to exist, said the Council of Trent. It has the God-given right to grow. Suppression interferes with its growth and existence. Only the pope can say that said community should cease to grow in its entirety or partially.

Can. 616 §1 After consultation with the diocesan Bishop, a supreme Moderator can suppress a lawfully established religious house, in accordance with the constitutions. The institute’s own law is to make provision for the disposal of the goods of the suppressed house, with due regard for the wishes of founders or benefactors and for lawfully acquired rights.

§2 The Holy See alone can suppress the sole house of an institute, in which case it is also reserved to the Holy See to prescribe concerning the property of the house.

§3 Unless the constitutions enact otherwise, the suppression of the autonomous houses mentioned in can. 613 belongs to the general chapter.

§4 The suppression of an autonomous monastery of cloistered nuns pertains to the Apostolic See; the provisions of the constitutions are to be observed concerning the property of the monastery.

This would appear to say that it is not always necessary for the Holy Father to enact any and all suppression Custode.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[Aramis]

Somewhere on CAF, don’t ask me where, someone was sounding off that religious who run colleges and universities should be accountable to the local bishop as are religious who run parishes, because those souls at these universities are under the jurisdiction of the local bishop not the religious. The person went on and on about how to limit the power and freedom of religious for the sake of souls and so forth. I’d like to comment on this, because there was a lot of misconception there.

First of all, students at a university remain incardinated in their home dioceses, unless they establish permanent residency in the local diocese. As long as they are transient, they are not subject to the local bishop. A student, military person, business person or anyone who is not a permanent resident is not part of the local diocese.

Canons 100 and 102 define transient, domicile, and quasi-domicile; almost all college students have quasi-domicile at the university, for that require either 3 or more months presence, or intent to remain at least three months.
canon 100
Can. 100 A person is said to be: a resident (incola) in the place where the person has a domicile; a temporary resident (advena) in the place where the person has a quasi-domicile; a traveler (peregrinus) if the person is outside the place of a domicile or quasi-domicile which is still retained; a transient (vagus) if the person does not have a domicile or quasi-domicile anywhere.

Can. 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by that residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called away or has been protracted for five complete years.
§2. Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there for at least three months unless called away or has in fact been protracted for three months.
§3. A domicile or quasi-domicile within the territory of a parish is called parochial; within the territory of a diocese, even though not within a parish, diocesan.
Can 107 sets who one’s proper pastor and ordinary are…
Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.
§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.
§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.

It would thus appear that college students fall under the local ordinary of the college, at least by the end of 2nd quarter.

quored canons from vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PC.HTM

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, could you please clarify the Bishop’s position as highlighted above? If the Bishop can suspend a religious from ministry, doesn’t it follow that the good Bishop can discipline, threaten or limit the movements of the religious in question?

No, it does not follow. When a bishops suspends this has very specific meaning in law. If the religious is a priest, his faculties to hear confessions and celebrate other sacraments in any diocesan facility are suspended. He can continue to hear confessions and celebrate sacraments in a facility of his own order. His superior can grant him faculties. The major superior has the same authority as a bishop. The only thing that a major superior cannot grant is permission to baptize or witness a marriage in a community chapel or oratory. Canon Law is very clear that these sacraments must take place in the parish. Permission is need to celebrate them outside of a parish.

The superior alone decides where the religious will live and what work he will do. The bishop may not want him working in a diocesan apostolate, but he cannot ban him from working in another apostolate, such as an apostolate of his religious community, nor can the bishop dictate to the superior where he assigns the religious as long as he does not assign him to work for the bishop.

This would appear to say that it is not always necessary for the Holy Father to enact any and all suppression Custode.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

There are three parts in this law.

616.1 Says that the Supreme Moderator can suppress any house. The supreme moderator is the superior general. He does not need to go to the Holy Father. He can simply suppress a house. He need to inform the bishop of the diocese… If there are financial issues to be settled, he settles them with the local bishop.

616.2 Says that I had said before. Only the Holy See can suppress a house, other than the superior general. If the Holy See initiates the suppression, the Holy See also gets to decide who gets what.

616.3 Refers to houses that are autonomous, such as motherhouse.

616.4 Simply says that only the pope can suppress a monastery of cloistered nuns.

Canons 100 and 102 define transient, domicile, and quasi-domicile; almost all college students have quasi-domicile at the university, for that require either 3 or more months presence, or intent to remain at least three months.
canon 100
Can. 100 A person is said to be: a resident (incola) in the place where the person has a domicile; a temporary resident (advena) in the place where the person has a quasi-domicile; a traveler (peregrinus) if the person is outside the place of a domicile or quasi-domicile which is still retained; a transient (vagus) if the person does not have a domicile or quasi-domicile anywhere.

This does not apply to students.who live on the campus, because the university is not part of the diocese. It exists outside of the diocese.

Can. 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by that residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called away or has been protracted for five complete years.
§2. Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there for at least three months unless called away or has in fact been protracted for three months.
§3. A domicile or quasi-domicile within the territory of a parish is called parochial; within the territory of a diocese, even though not within a parish, diocesan.
Can 107 sets who one’s proper pastor and ordinary are…
Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.
§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.
§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.

It would thus appear that college students fall under the local ordinary of the college, at least by the end of 2nd quarter.

Again, this only applies to those students living in the territorial diocese. A student who lives on campus at Franciscan University, Notre Dame, Boston, CUA is not in the diocese.

You’re trying to impose a law on people who are outside of the physical reach of the diocese. Why? What do you gain? If a student has an residence off campus, then he or she is in the diocese.

You can’t just quote canons. I thought that the pope made this very clear recently. We can’t quote doctrines and laws without context. You need to reach university charters, documents by the appropriate congregations for Christian Education, the rights of religious orders, and the commentaries to Canon Law. I suggest that you use the commentary that the Holy See uses, which the commentary put out by the University of Navarra, which is considered the best Canon Law School in the world. The commentary exists in English. You can Google it.