FIRST PART:

Positive data that must be kept in mind.

1.-  Some general premises:  Before entering into the more analytical information that are offered us

by canon law, it seems necessary to say a word regarding some questions, in general, especially the one about the relationship between universal law and the particular law of each Congregation, naturally not abstractly, but always in reference to our issue of the Superior and his/her Council.

We must remember that the government structure of an Institute of Consecrated Life – and our question certainly is connected to whatever refers to government structure – reflects the founding charism of each Institute. Therefore, to touch and change the government structure can turn out to be very dangerous, because the very charism of the Institute can be harmed. This leads us to understand how difficult and delicate it is on the part of the Church to legislate around this subject and why she refers as much as possible to particular law.  If on the one hand she must have basic discernment criteria for approving or defending the foundational charism of each Institute; on the other hand, an excessively rigid and restricted legislation is not thinkable. It could either cripple an Institute’s charism and, consequently, the spiritual development of its members or whomever God calls to live that specific gift, or it could induce transgression or less respect for the legislation of the Church, which would push increasingly toward “charismatism” or “subjectivism” not only on a personal but also a corporate level. Therefore, we must consider seriously the canonical prescriptions, but neither should we look pejoratively upon exceptions that the Church admits as “privileges”. These so-called privileges are rather a question of respect regarding a duly recognized charism. [If then, the Church authorities grant that the letter of the law may be disregarded for other reasons that have nothing to do with a duly conducted spiritual discernment, that’s their business!!!]. This is necessary to keep in mind, as far as our subject is concerned, to justify differences and diversities of the particular law in respect to determinations of the universal law: it can receive specific approval by the Holy See in consideration of the special government structure of the Institute required by its charism (cfr. G. GHIRLANDA, “Atto giuridico e corresponsabilità ecclesiale [Can.127]” in Periodica 90 [2001],  241-242). Naturally, addressing members of such diverse Congregations and obviously not being able to know all the charisms represented and each one’s Constitutions, it can very well be that what I will say might seem like a suit that’s a little tight-fitting. There can be various reasons for this: it can depend on my not being clear, or an inability to make myself understood; or on the particular government structure, and therefore, on the charism of one’s Institute; or it could depend on the need for a certain conversion that might not always be appreciated. So, it will be important the we reserve a good space for discussion and needed clarifications.

The canons to which I will refer are those that were given to you in Appendix 1, that is, Can. 127, 627 and 633.  The first, Can 127,  regards more in general the need of a Superior (to be understood in a broader sense than the superior in a religious institute, but more generically as person who exercises an authority or a role of direction or administration in the Church) to have recourse to the consent or to the counsel of a “collegium vel personarium coetus” (which is something broader than the Council that we speak of regarding Institutes of Consecrated Life) in view of the decision-making process and the validity of the effecting of juridical acts. The other two, Canons 627 and 633, deal more closely with our question and the Council in Institutes of Consecrated Life.