Interesting canon law news

[Sponsa-Christi]

I thought this was interesting, especially since the topic of brand-new communities comes up fairly often around here: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=28352

 

[NadaTeTurbe]

That's a very good news, more control on new communities. Thanks Sponsa ! 

 

[Feankie]

Very, very interesting.  I wonder if/what precipitated this action.

[Sponsa-Christi]

57 minutes ago, Francis Clare said:

Very, very interesting.  I wonder if/what precipitated this action.

Me too! Just speculating, though, I think this may have been prompted more as a response to a trend rather than a reaction to any specific incident. 

I've often noticed---and I'm guessing the Holy See has noticed, too---that a lot of the very newest communities have very similar charisms. E.g., how many new communities have we seen that were founded "for the New Evangelization" (even while there are already some established communities that were specifically dedicated to the New Evangelization decades before the term was coined, such as the Missionary Servants of the Blessed Trinity or the Parish Visitors of Mary Immaculate)? Of course, "similar" isn't the same "identical" or "redundant," so I'm not saying any community shouldn't have been founded. But in general, the Church does want to avoid re-inventing the wheel when it comes to discerning the inspiration behind new communities. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

I agree with you, SPonsa.

However, I think a serie of incident may have prompted this new decision. In France, for exemple, over the last 15 years, nearly all of the communities founded between 1970 and 1990 needed an apostolic visitation, had many scandals (financial, sexual), have been (rightly) called cult. Right now, I can only think of 5 communities (on, let say, a dozen), that did not need a visitation. In one particular community, it was discovered that some part of the Constitution were in complete contradiction with Canon Law ( a lay people could be the superior of the priest community, I think, or something like that. In another community, noviciate could last "as many years as necessary"). I'm not saying that our scandals have prompted this change, but it may have play a part. 

[Gabriela]

7 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

I agree with you, SPonsa.

However, I think a serie of incident may have prompted this new decision. In France, for exemple, over the last 15 years, nearly all of the communities founded between 1970 and 1990 needed an apostolic visitation, had many scandals (financial, sexual), have been (rightly) called cult. Right now, I can only think of 5 communities (on, let say, a dozen), that did not need a visitation. In one particular community, it was discovered that some part of the Constitution were in complete contradiction with Canon Law ( a lay people could be the superior of the priest community, I think, or something like that. In another community, noviciate could last "as many years as necessary"). I'm not saying that our scandals have prompted this change, but it may have play a part. 

That's exactly what I was thinking. We've also seen too many communities that attempt to blend spiritualities in a totally incoherent and cluttered way (the sign of a cult, according to that list we keep).

@Sponsa-Christi: Were institutes by diocesan right not allowed prior to the 1983 code?

Edited May 21, 2016 by Gabriela

[Sponsa-Christi]

23 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Were institutes by diocesan right not allowed prior to the 1983 code?

Yes, they were allowed prior to the current Code. Incidentally, the book Come, Be My Light gives a pretty good step-by-step narrative of how the Missionaries of Charity were first founded as a diocesan institute in a time prior to Vatican II.

Also, this latest development doesn't put too much of an additional restriction upon bishops looking to establish/approve diocesan religious communities. A bishop is only required to consult with the Holy See about the new institute---he doesn't actually have to take their advice! A bishop was still required to consult with the Holy See even before this directive. The only difference is that now, he has to consult the Holy See under pain of invalidity. I.e., before this, a bishop who founded an institute without consulting Rome would have been acting against the law, but now there is a clearly-defined consequence.

23 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

We've also seen too many communities that attempt to blend spiritualities in a totally incoherent and cluttered way (the sign of a cult, according to that list we keep).

I'm not sure this is always necessarily a sign of a cult (though I think it does have a rightful place on our "red flags for cults" list!) But a scattered and random spirituality is probably a good sign that a certain religious community isn't actually inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is an important thing for the Church to discern. 

Edited May 21, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi