How Are Religious Institutes Obliged to Support Members Who Leave?

Q: My work includes much interaction with women religious. Is there any guidance in canon law that provides for a religious who professed vows with their institute and then had to leave?  I thought that canon law required a certain amount of care to be given to help the religious who were either dismissed or had to leave for other reasons (e.g. Abuse) but am unable to find such a directive in my own search. –Joyce

A: The scenario that Joyce describes is far more common than most Catholics probably realize.  Sisters and brothers, as well as those priests who are members of religious institutes (see “The Priesthood and the Vow of Poverty” for a discussion of the distinction between diocesan and religious priests) sometimes want to—or have to—leave their institutes and return to life in the world.  (We’ll get into some of the reasons why they might leave in a moment, because that issue can directly affect the answer to Joyce’s question.)

If those leaving are religious who have been members for many years, this obviously constitutes a tremendous upheaval in their lives!  For one thing, religious are used to obeying their superiors, as opposed to making major decisions about their lives themselves—so they may genuinely have no idea how to live on their own, or how to advocate for their rights when necessary.  For another, as a general rule, most religious understandably have little understanding about earning, spending, and saving money, since their vows of poverty (see c. 573.2) made them financially dependent on their institutes for their support.  Finally, unless they are returning home to live with affluent families, or have just won the lottery, religious who leave usually must figure out what type of work they can do that will earn them enough income to live financially independent lives.  Normally, none of this is going to be easy.  It sounds like Joyce’s own work, whatever it is, has brought her face-to-face with sisters who are facing these sorts of serious challenges.

Joyce couldn’t find it, but there is a canon that provides a general norm in these cases.  Canon 702.1 tells us that those who depart from a religious institute legitimately, or have been dismissed from it legitimately, can request nothing from the institute for any work done in it.  The next paragraph, however, immediately qualifies that statement by adding that nevertheless, the institute is to observe equity and the charity of the gospel toward a member who is separated from it (c. 702.2).

The vast world of Catholic religious institutes is so varied that it’s extremely difficult to make general statements about any aspect of this world that apply to all of them.  A sister who is a nurse or medical doctor in an institute running large hospitals (for example) may be in a radically different situation from an uneducated sister who keeps house for the local parish priest.  A young-ish nun cloistered in a rural monastery (see “What’s the Difference Between Sisters and Nuns?” for more on this terminology) may externally have almost nothing in common with an older sister who’s a full professor at a university in a major city.  Thus when a sister or any other religious wants/has to leave his/her institute, we can be sure that canon 702 will apply; but how it applies can vary dramatically.

Thus some of the varying is going to depend on the individual, but there’s more to it.  Complicating the equation even further are two additional factors: (1) the type of vows the religious had taken, and (2) the reason why he/she is leaving—i.e., is the religious freely departing by choice, or forcibly being dismissed as a penalty?  Both of these issues can affect the manner and degree to which a religious is assisted when making a transition to secular life.  Let’s first take a look at what canon law tells us in general about these two sets of distinctions, and then see what conclusions can be drawn about the sisters with whom Joyce interacts.

First of all, we are talking here about religious who have actually taken vows.  Postulants and novices are not full members of their institutes, and thus can leave (or be sent away) without seeking/receiving formal separation from their institutes.  You can’t get what’s called an indult of departure from your institute, if you’re not a member in the first place!  Thus if a young man or woman is accepted by a religious institute for the ordinary trial period, and subsequently either the novice or the institute’s superiors decide that it’s not a good fit, the individual can simply leave and that’s the end of it.  There are ordinarily no canonical issues with this.

Religious who have already made vows fall into two basic categories: those with temporary vows, and those with perpetual vows.  Once again, since there are so many, many Catholic religious institutes out there, each with its own proper law approved by Rome, it can be hard to make general statements that are applicable to them all; but as a rule, religious first make vows for a set period of time.  These temporary vows are referenced in canon 655, which tells us that the length of these temporary vows is determined by each institute’s own proper law, but it is not to be less than three years, nor more than six years.  And when the period of temporary vows is up, canon 657.1 declares that if both the religious and his/her superiors agree, the religious can then make his or her perpetual vows.  These vows, as their name implies, are for life.

If a religious who is in temporary vows wants to leave the institute, he/she can simply leave when the time of profession has been completed (c. 688.1).  “Temporary” means precisely that!  If the religious concludes that this manner of life is not for him/her, departure is pretty straightforward, as there are no canonical hurdles to leap before walking away from the institute.  Speaking broadly, at that point the religious has presumably not been living in the institute for too long, and so it should be relatively easy to return to life in the world.  Sure, this might require the religious to find another job, maybe returning to the family home during the search; but if (let’s say) the religious has only been away for four or five years, he/she hasn’t completely forgotten what it’s like to live a “normal” life.  In this sort of situation, it might be entirely reasonable for the religious institute to decline to provide any financial assistance at all.

Very different, however, is the case of a religious who has made perpetual vows, with the clear intent of spending the rest of his/her life doing the work of the institute, and has spent decades doing just that.  A perpetually professed religious can’t voluntarily walk away from the institute, if he/she wants to remain in the Church in good standing; it’s necessary to request an indult of departure from the supreme moderator (i.e., the leader of the institute, whose title might be “Major Superior” or “Major General” or suchlike).  The supreme moderator, in turn, must send the request to the competent ecclesiastical authority (c. 691.1), which in practice is usually the Pope, but sometimes may be the diocesan bishop (see c. 691.2).  An indult of departure, if granted, is essentially saying, “You made you vows for life; but we understand that things have changed.  Thus we are dispensing you from your vows, and authorizing you to cease to live as a religious in your institute.”

(For the record, note that this is a far more complicated process for a religious who is also a priest (c. 693), since ceasing to be a religious is not synonymous with ceasing to be a priest—see “Can a Priest Ever Return to the Lay State?” for more on this whole issue.  There are some legal hurdles to jump if a religious priest wants to become a diocesan priest instead; and a different, more demanding set of hurdles if he wants to leave both his institute and the priesthood.)

If (let’s say) you’ve been living in a monastery for the past 27 years, and now you will abruptly be all on your own, it goes without saying that this is going to be a tricky transition for you, no matter how anxious you might be to make it!  Should your institute help you out financially?

As mentioned earlier, individual situations vary widely, so it’s impossible for the Church to make general stipulations that apply to everyone.  Imagine, for example, a brother who was sent to graduate school by his institute, and obtained a doctoral degree so that he could teach at a university.  The institute may have invested a lot of money in his education; the brother, in turn, may have earned a lot of money for his institute (since his salary is paid directly to the institute, not to him).  If he leaves his religious life behind, he may be able to continue in his present job as a professor, and his salary will now be paid to him directly.  In this type of scenario, the institute might reasonably conclude that if the brother wants to leave, it doesn’t owe him a cent—and if the soon-to-be-ex brother is equally reasonable, he will probably agree.

Another scenario, which is more common than readers might think, is that of the young religious who receives an expensive education thanks to his/her institute … and then wants to walk out the door soon after graduation.  Unlike the situation just mentioned, this religious has taken from the institute but given next to nothing in return!  Under these circumstances, the institute and the religious could come to an agreement, whereby the religious will repay the cost of his/her education over the next several years.  In other words, the institute is not providing financial assistance for the departing religious; instead, the departing religious is going to support the institute.  Think about it: the abovementioned canon 702 states that “the institute is to observe equity and the charity of the gospel toward a member who is separated from it,” yet sometimes that equity and charity ought logically to flow in the opposite direction.  After all, charity is not a one-way street.

Far different would be the situation of, say, a sister with a high-school education, who has been “just” cooking and cleaning for decades.  Let’s say she has developed complicated health issues, and feels that her penny-pinching institute is grievously failing to provide for her medical care.  The sister doesn’t want to be crippled (or even die!) prematurely if a cure is available; and after much back-and-forth with her superiors, she finally concludes that she has to get out of there and take the initiative to find medical treatment that will actually help her.  Well, the sister has few job skills and may have difficulty supporting herself, although perhaps (?) she can arrange to live with family members … and on top of it all, if she’s been having an ongoing argument with her superiors about her health care, they are probably not going to be eager to provide her with a lot of money when she departs.  In this kind of case, religious can be caught in a real bind: they sincerely feel that they must leave their institute, yet they are walking out into the world with virtually nothing.  This is where the abovementioned canon 702 is supposed to come into effect—and in some cases, the religious might have to petition Rome to order his/her superiors to provide some assistance.

By now it should be clear that the circumstances of every religious who wishes to leave his/her institute are going to be different.  The decision of superiors to help financially, and how much to help, may be clear-cut in some cases, but it’s far more subjective and nuanced in others.

So far we have been looking at the laws pertaining to religious who want to leave their institutes.  But what happens if their conduct is such that their superiors wish to dismiss them, as a penalty?  Sometimes perpetually vowed religious publicly fall into heresy, or violate their vows in some other scandalous way(s), or even commit crimes.  If you’re interested, canons 694-696 lay out the basic reasons why a member of a religious institute can be dismissed from that institute against his/her will.  There is a legal process, of course, which must be followed in such situations, to prove the veracity of the accusations against the religious, and guarantee his/her right to self-defense (see cc. 697 ff.).

Under these circumstances, the “equity and the charity of the gospel toward a member who is separated from it,” mandated by canon 702, ought logically to be more generous.  After all, this religious had no intention of departing; his/her superiors are demanding it!  The religious will thus be forced to find a means of supporting him/herself in the world; and as we’ve seen in the examples given above, the financial prospects of some religious may be grim indeed.

On the other hand, though, it’s worth bearing in mind that when a religious is dismissed from his/her institute because of the commission of a delict (a.k.a. crime), it might have involved gambling away every last penny that the institute had in the bank; or far worse, abusing children entrusted to the care of the institute, resulting in massive lawsuits that might bankrupt the institute completely.  Understandably, religious superiors aren’t going to feel terribly generous if the religious has practically wiped out the finances of the entire institute!  Nevertheless, that “equity and charity of the gospel” mentioned in canon 702 still apply—and care will have to be taken that an offending religious, dismissed as a punishment for his/her actions, is not unceremoniously dumped in the street and left there with nothing.

So what should be the takeaway from all this?  For one thing, at some points in their religious life members are free to walk away from their institutes, while at other points their petition to depart will likely have to be sent all the way to Rome for approval (or not).  For another, sometimes perpetually professed religious want to leave voluntarily, while in other cases they are sent away as a penalty, because of their actions.  Another huge factor is that individual circumstances, and the prospects of financial support after their departure, can vary dramatically from one religious to another.  In short, it’s complicated, because everyone is different!  The one, undeniable consistency is canon 702, and the “equity and charity of the gospel” that must be maintained when a religious leaves his/her institute.  True, there are many cases where those involved may reasonably disagree about what’s equitable, in which case Rome may have to make the final call; but maintaining charity is a sine qua non.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.