4. These petitions for the reinstatement of the two above- mentioned decrees were not, however,
accepted by the superior authority, and that in order to respect the responsibilities and inherent
rights of the bishops on the one hand and on the other to avoid departing in this point from the
canonical norm which had only recently been put into force. It was for this reason, therefore, that
the Holy See, with the intention of putting a stop to the existing abuses, preferred to emphasize the
relevant duties by means of a stronger and more explicit formulation of them in the ratio
fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis and the national rationes.
Thus, in the new edition of the ratio fundamentalis, published March 19, 1985, the bishops' "serious
duty" of investigating the causes of the dismissal of the said candidates was underlined (cf. No.
39.3), while, with the circular addressed to the apostolic nunciatures on Oct. 9, 1986, the episcopal
conferences were asked to establish in this material "more detailed norms and procedures adapted to
local circumstances, inserting them into the chapter concerning candidates of the respective national
rationes." At that time it was also noted that the problem concerns not only expelled seminarians,
but also those who withdrew voluntarily, given that such a withdrawal at times happens in order to
avoid a formal expulsion.
5. Now, 10 years after the publication of the said circular, it must be noted that its aims have not
been accomplished. Even if some of the national rationes which have been submitted in recent
years for our approval contain more explicit specifications as regards the problem, nevertheless the
impression is that the overall situation has not changed substantially. Now, just as before, violations
of Canon 241.3 are occurring, with consequent serious harm for the priestly state and for the
faithful.
6. These, then, were the circumstances which in 1992 led the Congregation for Catholic Education,
with the explicit mandate of the supreme pontiff John Paul II, to once again take up the discussion
of this subject and confront it in the plenary assembly, with the contribution of the experience of
members from different nations. In their opinion, the observance of the canonical discipline on this
point truly leaves much to be desired and in certain cases had deteriorated. Its desired restoration
requires, therefore, a more lively sense of responsibility and a true commitment on the part of all
those charged with priestly formation, beginning with the bishops and the episcopal conferences.
Given that on a world scale the relevant problems present particular and diverse aspects according
to the diversity of nations and sociocultural zones, the conviction remained that they can only be
confronted with the competent and responsible help of the local ecclesiastical authorities.
II. Proposed Solutions
Valuing highly the guidelines which emerged on this problem from the plenary assembly, this
congregation considers it its duty to draw up the following indications in this regard:
1. What was communicated to the episcopal conferences concerning the necessity of inserting into
the respective rationes institutionis sacerdotalis a paragraph containing detailed provision for a
faithful application of Canon 241.3 remains valid. For those cases where such norms had already
been drawn up and tested, their timely revision in the light of the experiences undergone and in
conformity with the possible new demands of the present moment is recommended. Other
episcopates who are still late in this regard must consider this task in the new revised edition of their
rationes, so that the relative specifications might constitute an effective stimulus and reminder for
all those responsible.
