Elisa Lisiero: “The spiritual companion must have a fair understanding of their role as mediator.”

Elisa Lisiero is an official of the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life and a research professor at the University of the Holy Cross in Rome. She is primarily involved in the study of ecclesial movements and new communities, with a special focus on the legal status of the faithful within these aggregative realities.

A few days ago, he participated in a conference on Freedom as a legal right in the Church, at the Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Navarra. Canon law may seem complex, but it is the structure that allows the Church to develop in a healthy way. 

What did you want to emphasize in your lecture on freedom within associations and movements?

I wanted to emphasize a fundamental idea: that the freedom that a faithful member has within any association or movement is not absolute. It is a freedom that must always be exercised within very precise coordinates: within the framework of associative law, within the context of canonical norms, and, of course, within the organizational structure and statutes of each community.

However, the crucial point is that this freedom refers first and foremost to the fundamental rights of the faithful. This presupposes the recognition of the absolute priority of their status as members of the Church. 

Tensions or problems regarding freedom arise precisely when this fundamental dimension—which belongs to the constitutional dimension of “being faithful”—is not sufficiently considered. This may be due to various factors, such as a mistaken view of charism, deviations that lead to abuse of authority or failure to adequately recognize each person's state of life, or a mistaken conception of obedience, especially in those associations where there are sections of members living in common. 

In recent years, have many Church institutions changed part of their statutes to bring them into line with the new regulations of the Holy See? 

The most frequent changes have been made to comply with the “General Decree of the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life on Associations of the Faithful,» published in 2021. This text regulates the exercise of governance in international associations of the faithful, in particular the maximum duration of terms of office in the central governing body (cf. Arts. 1 and 2 General Decree 2021) and representativeness, which refers to the fact that all members pleno iure be represented in the election of the central body, that is, have an active voice, directly or indirectly, in the constitution of the body that elects the central governing body at the international level (cf. Art. 3 General Decree 2021).

As part of a regular process, some institutions have also made changes to their statutes because an update was necessary after several years had passed since their founding or since the last revision. In some cases, changes were necessary because problematic issues arose regarding the living conditions of members or the style of governance. 

What specific rights of the faithful has the Church been trying to protect in recent years in the area of spiritual guidance?

One right that is normally claimed is the right to privacy, established in canon 220 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that “no one is permitted to violate the right of each person to protect his or her own privacy.” In accordance with this right, the faithful must be recognized as having the freedom to choose the person to whom they wish to express their conscience, whether it be a confessor or a spiritual companion. It should be remembered that, in the case of confession, there is an explicit right to choose one's confessor (cf. c. 991), and that, for religious, it is established that superiors must recognize the proper freedom regarding the sacrament of penance and spiritual direction (cf. c. 630 § 1).

What mechanisms exist or should be strengthened to ensure that accompaniment does not become a form of spiritual control or coercion? 

The first aspect is that there should be freedom in the choice of spiritual companion or director, as I have already said. Another fundamental aspect is the preparation of those who exercise these functions, beginning with adequate theological training and continuing with the need for them to attain a certain degree of human, Christian, and spiritual maturity. 

The companion must also have a fair understanding of their role as a mediator in the search for God's will, without in any way replacing the person and their conscience. In reality, spiritual and conscience abuses sometimes originate from this: when the person is replaced in their search for God's will.

Finally, it is also necessary to avoid any confusion between the internal forum and the external forum, which can occur, especially when the spiritual companion also holds positions of authority in the association and uses the information received in the context of accompaniment to govern.  

The person being accompanied needs a certain degree of freedom to seek spiritual guidance. They should seek advice, but they should not seek to have others choose or decide for them. 

It is very important that the faithful know their rights at the ecclesial level, because I believe that many of the deviations occur because there is a lack of knowledge of one's own rights and of the legal rights that are compromised.

Is there any specific mechanism that is being considered for inclusion in the Code of Canon Law to prevent, in general, abuses of power and spiritual abuse?

There is currently much reflection on these issues at the doctrinal level. It should be noted that, in the current canon law, there is a criminal law on the abuse of power, office, or position (c. 1378). Some cases of abuse of power could be referred to this criminal provision. Regarding spiritual abuse, there are no universally recognized definitions, nor is there criminal protection, although progress is being made in this area.

At the suggestion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on November 22, 2024, Pope Francis approved the establishment of a working group, chaired by the Prefect of the Congregation for Legislative Texts, to examine the possibility of classifying the crime of “spiritual abuse” and to present concrete proposals in this regard.