Case 3. Dismissed from His Order

Caius, a priest formerly a regular, approaches Julius, a confessor of the same Order, to whom he lays open the scruples and anxieties of his conscience. For he said that he was troubled about the manner in which he had obtained dismissal from the Order. For, on account of various difficulties which he experienced, he lost love of his vocation and urgently sought dismissal; at first, however, the superiors exhorted him to persevere, but after repeated petitions they finally granted him dismissal. For some time he applied himself to the duties of a secular priest, and then, when he thought himself not safe in conscience, he hastened to Julius, formerly his confrère. Hence it is asked:

1. What kind of obligation arises from perpetual vows of religion?

2. Who can dispense from religious vows, and is a cause required?

3. If a fictitious cause is alleged, is the dispensation valid?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of obligation arises from the perpetual vows of religion?

By his vows a Religious binds himself to observe poverty, chastity, and obedience, and moreover to persevere to the end in the observances of religious life according to the rule of his order. These obligations are grave of their own nature, but sins against the vows may be venial from lightness of matter or imperfection of the act.

2. Who can dispense in the vows of religion, and is a cause required for dispensation ?

The substantial vows of religion taken in an order approved by the Holy See are reserved to the Holy See, and can only be dispensed by the Pope or by his authority, and for grave and just cause. Such cause is the good of Church or State, or the notable good of the Religious himself.

3. If a fictitious cause is alleged for a dispensation, is this valid ?

No; the Pope acts in the name of God to whom the vows are made, and he can not dispense them unless for a sufficient cause. Hence if a false cause is assigned as a reason for dispensation, the dispensation is void.

4. The case. Caius, a regular and a priest, on account of the difficulties he met with in his order, asked for his dismissal. At first his superiors refused his request and urged him to persevere. At last, however, by repeatedly making his request he obtained his dismissal, but after some time he became so uneasy in conscience about the way he had obtained it, that he went to Julius, a confessor of the order which he had left, and consulted him on the matter. Julius will tell Caius that there may have been fault in the determined obstinacy with which he demanded his dismissal. But we must presume that Caius acted in good faith, and did not give fictitious reasons for obtaining his dismissal. On that hypothesis he should be sorry for any fault there may have been on his part, but there is no reason why he should be uneasy about the validity of his dispensation. The difficulties which he experienced, the dissatisfaction which he felt in his state of life, and his great desire to change it, were sufficient reasons to justify his superiors in granting the dispensation, though perhaps Caius should not have asked for it.