Leo amends Francis amendment to monastery dismissal process

A rescript from Pope Leo addresses a gap in canon law

Pope Leo this week issued his first major change to Church’s canon law, with an amendment to the law governing religious institutes.

The former Carmelite monastery of the Most Holy Trinity, Arlington, Texas. Courtesy photo.

Curiously, Pope Leo’s amendment amends an amendment to canon law promulgated by Pope Francis just four years ago, in 2022.

And according to the Vatican, the amendment to Francis’ amendment was a move that began with Pope Francis, and was already well in the works by the time of Leo’s 2025 election to the papacy.

So what did Pope Leo change, and why? The Pillar explains.

What changed?

The Apostolic See announced on Thursday that Pope Leo had effectively made a change to canon 699 of the Code of Canon Law.

The change clarifies that the Vatican can give permission — in specific cases — for a diocean bishop to dismiss the major superior of an autonomous monastery, if the monk or nun in question has committed some serious offense, including “habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism,” illegitimate absence, or some other grave cause, spelled out in the group’s particular law.

The dismissal must come after a process, by which proofs are collected, a warning is issued, and the superior in question is given the opportunity to defend themself.

Dismissal is a serious matter in religious life, it means that the person is no longer a religious, and the obligation and and rights of religious life are no longer theirs.

The decision can be appealed to the Vatican.

And just so we’re clear, what’s an “autonomous monastery?”

Some monasteries of monks or nuns are called “autonomous monasteries,” which means they are internally governed, rather than part of a religious order with a major superior in authority over numerous monasteries.

Such monasteries — most of which are monasteries of nuns — can only be erected with the consent of the Apstolic See, and most are subject, for the most part, to the direct authority of the pope and his curia.

So what was the policy before the change?

Well, when the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, the law gave the diocesan bishop the right to dismiss any member of an autonomous monastery accused of the grave matters mentioned above, presuming a proper process toward dismissal was followed, and with the final decree of dismissal confirmed by the Apostolic See.

But in 2022, Pope Francis made a change to this, as part of a raft of changes on religious law. The pope’s change allowed for the major superior to dismiss a malfeasant member, rather than the diocesan bishop, in a move widely taken as an effort to reinforce the autonomy of the religious monastery, and the authority of its religious superior.

Leo’s rescript this week doesn’t revoke that authority; it allows for the prospect of the diocesan bishop stepping in, with Vatican permission, if the superior is the religious who is a problem.

I read on twitter.com that this is a “revolutionary” change? Is that true?

Not really. Leo’s rescript still means that the diocesan bishop has actually less default authority to intervene in the monastery than he did before Francis’ 2022 changes. It’s really just an effort to solve a rare and acute problem: What happens when the superior of an autonomous monastery goes rogue, denies the faith, or rejects publicly the Church’s doctrine?

Ok, but why did Leo address this situation? Of all the problems in the Church, this one doesn’t seem that common!

Thursday’s rescript indicated that the solution Leo offered was already in the works in the Francis pontificate, and had already received a “favourable opinion” from the previous pope.

And sources close to the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life told The Pillar that the reason any of this came up for discussion is a case already familiar to Pillar readers: That of a former Texas Carmelite, formerly Mother Teresa Agnes of Jesus Crucified Gerlach, who led a Carmelite monastery in the Diocese of Fort Worth, and was accused of drug abuse, personal misconduct, and — eventually — of rejecting the authority of the Apostolic See.

While Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson was deputized by the Apostolic See to address the situation — including the prospect of dismissing Gerlach — canonical experts questioned the source of that authority, given Pope Francis’ changes to canon law on dismissal, and the nuns themselves pushed back on Olson’s efforts to intervene in the matter, saying they rejected his authority.

While the Holy See was clear in its support for Olson’s authority, the situation revealed a lacuna, or gap, in the letter of the law — Pope Francis’ 2022 changes did not anticipate the prospect that a monastery’s superior might have potential for dismissal, and would not be the appropriate leadership figure to dismiss themselves — at least without a conflict of interest.

The rescript was meant effectively to close that legal gap with a plan for what could happen if an autonomous monastery’s superior were accused of grave misconduct in future.

For its part, the monastery was eventually suppressed, and the woman living on its property have been dismissed from religious life. The former nuns have claimed to associate themselves with the Society of St. Pius X, a de facto traditionalist association of priests at odds with the Holy See, and claim that Gerlach remains their superior. And the monastery’s property was transferred to a civil corporation — in a move widely regarded as canonically invalid — without the permission of the Holy See.

So what happens now?

In Texas, nothing. The situation of the Texas Carmel has reached its conclusion. But in the event of a similar situation elsewhere in the world, the authority of the Vatican’s religious life office — and of the local diocesan bishop — will likely be much more clearly understood, in light of Pope Leo’s rescript.