October 1999
Dan Ward's Column
We say that marriage should be "for better or for worse." However, as we know, marriages do not always last. The relationship between the spouses changes for a variety of reasons until one or both of the spouses can no longer endure the marital relationship.
Monastic life also should be "for better or for worse." However, like marriages, covenants of monastic profession do not always last. Most often it is the individual monastic who decides that he/she no longer can live the monastic covenant within the community. There are a variety of reasons why this happens. In such a case, the monastic seeks an indult of departure or sometimes just leaves and later may be dismissed lawfully.
Yet there are times when it is the monastic community which can no longer live the monastic covenant with a particular individual. In most instances this happens because the monastic no longer "fits into" the community. No one wishes to live with the particular person. The person is disruptive of community life, usually both on a daily basis and during formal meetings of the community. The abbot or the prioress feels helpless in dealing with the individual.
In such a case, what can be done? Does the community have any rights or avenues of redress to deal with the situation? The answer is "yes." First, the abbot or the prioresses could work with the individual and let the person live and work apart from the common life. The person still would be accountable to the abbot or the prioress, but the person would not be living within a community context. This could be done by the permission of the abbot or the prioress. It also could be formalized by using a "leave of absence" as provided in canon 665.1. However, the North American practice generally has been to give permission rather than to use the formality of a "leave of absence."
In some cases, this first solution may not work. The individual does not want to live alone or does not want to leave community. The individual may still want to come back to community meetings. Perhaps the community does not allow persons to live alone or does not want to take the responsibility for the person living alone. There may be a number of other reasons why giving the person permission to live on one's own would not work. So what option does the community have?
Canon 686.3 provides for an enforced exclaustration which is imposed by the Apostolic See on the monastic at the request of the abbot or the prioress. The person must then live outside of community and loses the rights and obligations of belonging to the community. However the person remains a monastic. The monastery must provide, if necessary, for the livelihood of the individual.
This option has seldom been considered by monastic communities. However, in recent years the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has been granting such exclaustrations in situations where an individual should not live within community but does not want to leave and there are no grounds for dismissal of the person.
The grounds for enforced exclaustration are behaviors which are consistently and seriously disruptive of community life, but which are not grave matter which could result in canonical dismissal. Usually such behavior arises from some personality disorder, substance abuse or childhood physical or sexual abuse. The reason for the dismissal is the behavior and not a refusal to undergo treatment. In other words, the behavior is such that the person cannot live within community.
The Congregation will now issue decrees of enforced exclaustration if the abbot or the prioress has already tried a pastoral approach to help the individual. If the individual accepts treatment, the receiving community should be given help on how to receive the person back into community and how to handle the situation. However, if the individual refuses treatment or treatment does not result in a change of behavior, then the abbot or the prioress may proceed to the process of enforced exclaustration.
The abbot or the prioress issues one formal warning to the individual. The warning details the behavioral changes which the individual must do. The warning must also include a statement that if the individual does not make the corrective behavioral changes, the abbot or prioress will petition for enforced exclaustration. The monastic must be informed of the right reasons for the warning and of the right of self-defense. This must be given in person before two witnesses or in writing.
There is no need for a second warning as required in a dismissal case. In the instant case the individual may "reform" for a short period of time, but then the behavioral pattern reoccurs. If this is the case, there is no requirement to begin the process over again. The first warning was sufficient.
The abbot or the pioress forwards to the president of the congregation/federation the acts of the case. The acts should include a curriculum vitae, the reasons for the petition, the efforts to assist the monastic including offers of treatment, warnings to the individual, and efforts of the monastic to change behavior. The acts must include the warning and response, if any. The abbot or the prioress must also include how the individual will be able to support him/herself and the support, if necessary, the monastery will provide.
The petition by the president of the congregation/federation should include the acts as submitted by the abbot or the prioress and the minutes of the meeting of the president's council giving the consent to forward the petition to the Congregation. This is not a collegial act of the president's council as is the case in a dismissal, but an act of consent.
The rescript from the Congregation may be for an indefinite period of time or it may have built into a time frame with a review. Thus it is important for the abbot or the prioress to indicate whether there is any possibility of the person changing and being able to return to community. If there seems to be little or no possibility, at least for a number of years, the abbot or the prioress should specifically request an indefinite enforced exclaustration.
While it is unfortunate that situations occur where a monastic can no longer fit into community, it is a reality of life. Monasteries generally have been very tolerant of such individuals and abbots and pioresses have tried to accommodate the situation. However, at times this is no longer possible. The person is detracting not only from the community life but also from the abbot's or prioress' ability to provide leadership for the entire community. It is good then that everyone, not only the abbot or prioress but the whole community, knows that there is an option which provides for everyone to move on with life.
Daniel J. Ward, OSB
Saint Augustine's Monastery
Nassau, Bahamas