The incardination status of the cleric dismissed from a Religious Institute

• Published in: Studia canonica Vol. 37; no. 1; pp. 99 - 124
• Main Author: KASLYN, Robert J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ottawa, ON Université Saint-Paul, Faculté de droit canonique 2003; Studia Canonica
• Subjects: Canon law; Christianity; Clergy; Contemporary period; General subjects; History and sciences of religions; Kaslyn, Robert J; Law; Legal aspects
• ISSN: 0039-310X

Canon 693 expresses another requirement for a religious cleric: he must find a bishop willing to incardinate him in his diocese either immediately or experimentally before the indult of departure is granted. If the bishop chooses to incardinate the individual immediately, then through two documents -- the indult of departure and the decree of incardination -- the cleric is excardinated from the institute and incardinated into the diocese (see also c. 268). If the bishop chooses to receive the cleric experimentally, then the cleric remains incardinated in the religious institute.(35) During the five-year period, the bishop may incardinate the individual; if he chooses not to do so, the bishop must explicitly state that he has no intention of incardinating the individual either through a decree of formal incardination or through the process specified in the law (i.e., the tacit [or automatic or ipso iure] process which requires five-year residency and an intention to incardinate expressed in writing both to the bishop and to the major superior). If incardination does not result, then the cleric must return to the institute. Clearly, in specific cases of this type, the cleric remains incardinated into his institute until such time as the bishop agrees to incardinate him; excardination from the institute only occurs with the granting of incardination by the bishop. Dismissal brings with it the cessation of vows, rights and obligations, both for the individual and for the institute. The question, however, remains about incardination: into what canonical entity is a dismissed cleric incardinated? According to Sharon Holland, "Such a clerical dismissal clearly results in the anomaly of a cleric without incardination. Unlike a cleric with an indult granted to cover a period ad experimentum with a view to diocesan incardination, the dismissed cleric is no longer a member of his institute."(39) A diocesan bishop could conceivably allow such a cleric to exercise sacred ministry in his diocese but he must determine in writing if he intends to incardinate the individual; otherwise, the provision of c. 268, [Symbol Not Transcribed] [section]1 could apply. Unless the bishop explicitly denied incardination, the priest would be incardinated by the law itself after the canonical requirements have been met.(40) (5) On this issue, see, for example, James PROVOST, "Effects of Incardination," in Clergy Procedural Handbook, R. CALVO and N. KLINGER, eds., Washington, DC, Canon Law Society of America, 1992, p. 44, footnote 10. Primarily concerned with the effects of incardination, PROVOST distinguishes here between incorporation into the institute and incardination: "Although already attached by final vows, religious are also incardinated in the institute by ordination to the diaconate." See also in the same text, " Process of Incardination," p. 74, where PROVOST states, "If a cleric is dismissed against his will from an institute or society, the dismissal does not depend on whether he finds a bishop willing to receive him. Once dismissed, he is considered excardinated from the institute or society. [...] This could be an anomaly in the law, for technically this cleric does not seem to be incardinated anywhere. However, it could also be argued that he remains incardinated in his former institute or society, even though no longer a member, since excardination does not take effect until there is also a new incardination elsewhere (c. 265)."