Has the Institute been lying to you?

We've beat around this bush before, but in this post we want to just come out and say it:  The IVE doesn't just practice "discretion", they out and out lie to you, and when those falsehoods are exposed they do whatever they can to cover it up.   

Three Levels of Lying

There are three levels to lying.  The first starts with not telling the whole truth.  The second is out and out lying.  The third is when you get caught doing the first or second and you attempt to cover it up.  

Not Telling the Whole Truth

In some cases this is just discretion: holding back information unless one really needs to know.  In other situations not telling the whole truth is just as bad as outright lying:  purposely withholding information even though a person has a right or need to know.   While the IVE certainly doesn't take an open-kimono approach to their recruitment, the question is whether their actions simply constitute discretion or whether they are actually being deceitful.  

Maybe you can explain away things like their formerly-airbrushed Wikipedia page (this link compares their old Wikipedia page here to the new, more objective one here) as the result of discretion or, at worst, an overzealous seminarian proud of his congregation (although when a Legionairre is criticizing you for lack of transparency, you really have to wonder.)   The same goes for their web-page, although as we have touched on briefly and will outline further in the future, their websites have lots of problems with the truth.

Maybe not everyone who stumbles onto their webpage needs to know everything, but how about someone that is thinking about joining them?  Should they be told the founder has had to resign twice and that the superior general in between those resignations has entirely left the congregation?  Should they be told that a tremendous number of the IVE priests have left as well?  Certainly this might give discerners reason to pause when considering the IVE, but isn't this information they still deserve to know?  

Those are rhetorical questions, of course.  Absolutely a discerner has a right to know these things, but the IVE would never volunteer this information in the past.  In fact, before we started this website the IVE (at least in the USA) never even had to lie about these things because no one would ever even think to ask these questions.  After all, these are the last things you would expect from such a "young and joyful order" as the IVE, right?

Do you think this kind of information is relevant to discerners?  Do you think the IVE was lying by hiding its past in order to help it's recruiting and fundraising?  From this perspective, a cleverly white-washed wikipedia page and the general reticence about their past seem more than a little self-serving.  

Discerners Need to Know

If you are discerning with the IVE then obviously you have a right to know this information.  The IVE's policy in the past has been never to disclose their less savory elements, ensuring they were never brought up - their own twist on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "Don't tell and you don't know to ask."  

While we can and should question the morality of the IVE hiding this information in the past, more pressing is how they will answer these questions now that you know to ask them:    

• If I am unsure about my vocation and you say you will help me discern, what is the discernment process I will follow after I enter?
• Will I have financial obligations after entering?  Who will pay for my trips home to see my family? 
• If I give money to the Institute and later decide to leave, will the institute give me any of it back?
• If I decide to leave, will the Institute provide me with money for transportation and food to get home?
• Why would no Bishops ordain even your transitionary deacons for the three years before you moved from Argentina to Italy? 
• Why do so many of your priests leave?  Can you put me in touch with some ex-IVE priests so I can get their perspective as well?
• Will you be running background checks and psychological exams before anyone enters the novitiate house or seminary so we can feel safe?
• Do you have a syllabus of the classes you give?  Do you have a list of the professors who taught at your seminary this year?  
• Why do priests eat different food than the seminarians and novices?  Why don't the priests ever serve themselves?
• Why does the Rector (and the rest of the seminary staff) hear the novices' confessions?  Is that blurring the lines between internal and external forum (and violating Canon Law)?
• Will I have access to outside (ie. non-IVE) spiritual directors and confessors as is my right by Canon Law?

These might seem like tough questions, but when you consider that the IVE is asking for your blind obedience for the rest of your life, these questions are actually very reasonable.  And you better ask these questions before you enter, because you aren't going to get any answers from them after you've joined.

Should you even trust their answers

Let's be honest, if you are reading this we doubt you'll actually ask the IVE these questions.  More than likely you'll wash your hands from them and move on to a group with less baggage.  If, however, you do want to continue with the IVE then you are obligated by the virtue of prudence to ask these questions and, when you do, please let us know what they have to say.  We'll be very upfront that we don't expect them to tell you the truth.

After all, especially according to their own constitution, superiors deserve not only the truth, but obedience as well.  Yet they stonewalled, lied to, and disobeyed Pope Francis in Argentina.  They stonewalled and lied to a Bishop in Ireland and got kicked out of that diocese as a result - it was their only parish in Ireland and is interestingly still on their website, certainly just an oversight on their part.

If they won't even tell their superiors the truth, it's worth asking why they'd bother to share the truth with you or why you should even trust any of the answers they give.  

Even if they wanted to tell you the truth, its fair to wonder if they are qualified or even have access to the truth themselves since they can't even get basic information about their own formation right (more examples of "oversights" like these to come in the future.)

There is no excuse for covering up the Truth

If it's not clear to you yet that the Institute has a problem with the truth, we don't need to look any further than the IVE's reaction to our recent post.  

We showed, using information and videos publicly posted by some of their priests, how the Argentine IVE priests were taking expensive "Pasquetta" vacations to exclusive resort hot-spots like the Dominican Republic and Vail, Colorado.  You should read the post to see the many ways these trips were both problematic and hypocritical. 

What was the Institute's reaction when they saw that post? (Yes they read this site.)   If they had done nothing wrong, they would have left their videos and accounts up.  Instead, they took the videos down and deleted their account. 

They knew they were doing something wrong.  They know they lie to you about their vow of poverty and they lie about their finances when they ask you to contribute.  Rather than come clean, they not only continue to lie, but they took steps to hide their behavior from you.  

Where Are Virtue and Holiness?

This kind of behavior would be scandalous even if it were a political party we were talking about, but this is supposed to be a religious group!  A religious group that proudly sends its sisters and seminarians out to beg, then feeds them rotting food, all while its priests vacation at posh resorts.  Where is any virtue in this behavior?  Where is there any holiness?  Not even "pagans" would see this as ok, yet this behavior and obfuscation is standard for the Institute.

To close, lets reflect on some thoughts on the Eighth commandment from the CCC:

2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant. 

2469 "Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another."  The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion. In justice, "as a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth." 

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

Through their reticence and concealing of their behavior do the IVE look out for the common good, the good of those in their care, or only for the "good" of the superiors by bringing in more people to serve them and pay for expensive trips?

Where do You and Your Money Go When You Join?

Seven IVE Priests and one seminarian - World Youth Day Trip 2011

We'd like to re-iterate here that the reason we've published this site is to give those considering the IVE fair warning on exactly what they are getting into.  If the IVE were were more transparent or normal this wouldn't be necessary, but until things change we'll keep posting so you can have access an additional point of view.  You can read more here to see that we are not alone in having concern for how the IVE handle finances. 

You Cost the Institute Money

In this post we'd like to cover the very murky, yet important topic of money.  You might not think that quitting school or your job and taking a vow of poverty to study for the priesthood came with a bill attached, but with the IVE it unfortunately does.  In this post we'd like to go back to a previous letter we received regarding practices at the IVE seminary in Italy and highlight our own experience with this  particular issue:

"In the seminary the superiors would publish on the notice board what each individual seminarian was costing the Institute, putting pressure on seminarians to ask friends and family to donate money to the Institute."

"In Rome we were expected to find the money for our own cassock and also for flights home.  The superior frequently gave talks on the need for novices and seminarians to come up with money for the Institute - that's a lot of pressure for some who just don't have access to the kind of money the Institue was looking for."

It was sad, but not surprising to learn that the the Institute pressured its seminarians in Italy for money. After some digging we found a very similar account regarding the seminary in Argentina (from the original Spanish and recounted in English here:)

 "At the Institute they give religious instruction, food (Editor: free donated food, by the way), and a place to live, but they ask financial aid, Daniel said.  That amount is not fixed, but you have to get it somehow. The lifestyle inside is very martial.... 

Daniel told that each seminarian has the possibility of going out twice a year to 'get money' to keep their place."

We know from our own experience that seminarians in the USA Seminary are subjected to similar, sometimes worse treatment.

At first we were very surprised to find that seminarians in the US were made themselves or through contributions from friends and family to pay for things like cassocks, flights home over summer/Christmas breaks, trips to pilgrimages like World Youth Day, and even for living expenses.  We are still unaware of any established orders that ask those in formation to fundraise, let alone directly ask seminarians for money.

This practice seems to be a clear violation of both the group's fiduciary duty to care for those who have sacrificed their means to support themselves and its own constitution which says it must "provide its members with all the necessary means."  One isn't exactly living a vow of poverty if he or his family is constantly dipping into their accounts to pay for things around the seminary.  Unfortunately, within the IVE this appears to be common-place worldwide.  

Cassocks Aren't Cheap

This begins only weeks after arriving to the novitiate when novices are hit up for money to pay for the custom fit cassocks they will receive (and the cassocks aren't cheap.)  The institute will first ask you to contact your "benefactors" for the money.  This request will be general to the group at first, but many, especially the hispanics, will pressured one on one or in small groups by the novice master priest and bedels (seminarians who to stay at the novitiate house to spy on the novices) to come up with the money themselves or contact their family and friends to pay.  

"Welcome to the Novitiate, Now Give Away All Your Money - Preferably to Us"

A few weeks after being asked for cassock money the novices will be told it is time to get rid of all their money.  It starts as "give it away to friends, family, or the institute, but you can't have money anymore."  Americans know better, so this is usually communicated in Spanish to the hispanics.  

For these poor individuals (ie. the illegal aliens) they are told they will be ordained and the institute will take care of them.  They are told of how the institute has to pay rent and it would be immoral for them to keep money (the institute has a number of folk tales to illustrate the negative consequences of these actions.)  They will be told how they need to look for benefactors to help pay their expenses - all before they even take vows (and let's be clear that the pressure only increases after vows.)

The result is that illegal aliens who worked on landscaping crews or in restaurant kitchens only a few months before are now giving over their meager savings and contacting their fellow working-class family members for help.  American's will be dealt with on a case by case basis, allowing them to keep any savings for the time being - however, that doesn't mean the institute won't ask them to use that savings in the meantime.  (For reference, in normal religious orders members aren't supposed to give up any money or property until final vows, in which case they don't have to give it to the group they are joining.  In fact, in some groups they aren't allowed to take the money due to the conflict of interest it would involve.)

You Have To Pay to Play

At the Seminary trips such as World Youth Day are mandatory for seminarians who can travel (ie. the ones that are in the country legally and can get travel documents.)  These seminarians are required to pay their own way to the event at the cost of almost $3000.  In some cases, if the Seminarians had savings, they can use this money to pay.  For others, especially since these seminarians enter at a young age and have very little contact outside of the IVE, they depend on their families to fund these mandatory trips.  This often leads to poorer families being unable to pay for their kids to visit home during Christmas/summer holidays - because they used all their spare funds to pay for the IVE required trip.  Those seminarians who can't afford to visit home are usually assigned some sort of work duty, (eg. sometimes they are sent to parishes over the holidays so they can do maintenance.)

This isn't how religious orders work.  If a seminarian is under a vow and is visiting home for vacation, the order is supposed to pay for it.  That's what the vow of poverty and living in community mean.  

Despite the conflict of interest involved, it's apparent that the Institute is very happy to accept donations from the family of those in formation.  Yet, if the institute is supposed to judge a candidate's fitness for a vocation (and at the IVE they constantly tell you that you don't need to worry about discernment, they will discern for you) and a candidate's family is regularly donating money, how can the institute be sure it's formators are being objective?  How can anyone be sure they aren't keeping people around because their parents now send monthly donations or are paying for expensive fixtures around the seminary and novitiate?

Likewise, if a candidate is discerning whether to stay with the IVE (to the extent that real discernment is possible within their formation process) and the seminarian's family has had to make a significant donation to pay for the cassock only weeks after arriving, how much pressure does that put on the candidate to stay rather than risk disappointing those who had donated?

We have certainly seen situations with both the seminarians and the sisters where individuals probably did not belong in a religious house (due to conditions psychological, medical, or otherwise) yet they stuck around much longer than was healthy.   We can't help but think it was because they or their families gave significant amounts in donations.  The same can be said for some of the older people senior citizens with savings who are encouraged to enter the seminary or SSVM in both the US and Europe:  is it the individual that has the vocation to the IVE or just their bank account?

More Clericalism

None of this should surprise anyone.  It's just another example of the clericalism we pointed out earlier, played out to its logical conclusion.

On one hand, US seminarians are told they have to come up with almost $3000 to pay their way to World Youth Day, where they can act as "the help" for the Argentine priests whose trips they are subsidizing.  Once there, the priests go off on their own, putting the seminarians in charge of the youth who have also paid to come on the trip and whose parents probably think are being supervised in this foreign country by priests, not by young seminarians.  (And let's also be clear that trips like WYD are big recruiting opportunities for the IVE and SSVM.  If they like you, you will get the hard sell during the trip.)

While seminarians have to pay their to visit family during holidays, the priests have the Institute pay for their trips back and forth to Argentina, Ski trips in Vail, and Pasquetta holiday outings to the Caribbean.  The  IVE leadership has even held its leadership meetings in exotic locales like Cancun, Mexico.

UPDATE:  Since we've posted the links to the IVE priests home videos of their Easter vacation trips to Vail and the Dominican Republic, the IVE have attempted to cover their tracks.  They first changed the account name and marked the videos private.  When that still left too much evidence, they hid/deleted the account altogether.  

And yes, the IVE leadership reads this site.  They apparently don't want you to see their favorite Argentine priests taking expensive vacations.  This profligacy looks especially bad since seminarians are stuck doing parish maintenance over holidays because their parents spent all their disposable income sending their kid on a $3000 IVE recruiting trip and now they can't afford to buy their son a ticket home for Christmas.

In the meantime we've added some screen shots of the youtube pages as they originally appeared and have added new links to the videos.   We want to be clear that this behavior is not limited to these two brothers.  After all, Buela had the entire IVE leadership conference at a posh Cancun hotel.  These two were simply the only IVE making their behavior so easily accessible online.   

We'll take the following two IVE priests as an example only because the information was already so readily available on the internet.  One is (was?) based at a very poor parish in the US, the other is a formator at the seminary in Argentina.

And here they are snowboarding in the Andes (this is the only link the IVE didn't break) last year with some expensive equipment:

At the Summit:

And here snowboarding in Vail (broken link, new link here) with 8 other priests (we hope they all weren't IVE, but they very likely were since this was probably the IVE's "Pasquetta" trip for 2013):

Multiple IVE priests frolicking in the Dominican Republic for their 2012 Pasquetta trip (broken link, new link here):

and many other adventures (broken link, we will update soon) - nice camera and underwater footage by the way, was that a GoPro?

Let's be clear that there is nothing wrong or immoral with this in and of itself - except we aren't sure how the Institute can afford or justify this when they say they can't pay for seminarians to visit their parents for Christmas.

We also aren't sure how to reconcile this with the Institute's own constitution which says in paragraph 67 that a member should "prefer for his own use and to choose, whenever possible, that of least value, the least pleasant and the most uncomfortable" and "accept with joy, for the love of God, privations even in necessary things for the sake of holy poverty."  

As we've mentioned before here, it seems like the rules of the IVE constitution - which the priests will repeat constantly to the seminarians during lectures, sermons, and retreats over the eight years of formation - don't apply after ordination - they only apply to seminarians.  

Who is Providing For Whom?

In summary, one enters the IVE with the idea that they are to entrust themselves spiritually, intellectually and financially to the IVE, and that the IVE is going to provide while forming them.  Then the IVE superiors turn around and start asking for money from those it is supposed to be providing for.  It is actually those in its care, especially those in the US, who are are used to finance and support the lives of the leadership.  The idea that, just weeks after quitting school or a job to pursue a vocation, you would get hit up for money by your superiors is something you might expect from Scientology, but certainly not from a Catholic group.

Those in formation are told to beg for money for trips that they are required to go on and beg for the food that they are to eat.  Others outside of the community, including third order members, are asked to provide food and money because the IVE lives such "radical poverty."  Yet they spare no expense when it comes to the desires of the superiors regarding food, drink, and vacations. There is no question they violate their constitutions.  The question is are they lying about not having any money or do they just misuse what little money they have?

Where are Your Donations Going?

Do you want to give to a group so a select few priests can go to Cancun or mountain climbing in the Andes?  How many of the laity who give to them are able to afford such lavish vacations?  Imagine begging for food, then vacationing in the Caribbean.  Imagine a superior requiring you to go on a trip, making you pay for both your and their tickets.  Then because of your family paying they can no longer afford to bring you home for Christmas.  As if this isn't bad enough the superior then goes to see his family and takes a vacation on the money you and other seminarians have raised.

You Can't Take It With You When You Leave

And unfortunately, it can and does get worse.  As we will go into later in an additional post, if one decides to leave, regardless of what they've given, they leave with nothing.  Whether you are told to leave or leave voluntarily, whether you have been there seven months or seven years, when you leave, you leave with nothing.  Those leaving have had to beg to those outside the institute for food, for a place to stay, and for money to get transportation home.

All this is in stark contrast to the old tradition of dowry's.  Dowry's were money required to enter a religious house.  Money that was to be left untouched until the person's death, so they would have something to fall back on in case they ever left.   Here we have people giving money, yet leaving with nothing.  

Yet Another Violation of the Constitution

In closing, ask yourself if this a violation of their own constitution or not: 

70 The members of the Institute with the vow of poverty retain the capacity of having patrimonial goods. However, before professing their temporal vows, the members must cede the administration of their own patrimonial goods and freely dispose of their usage and profit. 

We aspire to live poverty to the maximum degree. And because of this, before perpetual profession they will make a will which is valid in civil law, renouncing all goods, in accordance with Can. 668 §1: “...[a]t least before perpetual profession, they are to make a will which is valid also in civil law.” 

All that a brother gains with his own work or because of the Institute, as well as what he receives as pension, subsidy or insurance, he receives for the Institute.  Before perpetual profession, a brother totally renounces his goods. This renouncement is effective starting the day of profession and is also valid, if possible, in civil law. 

A license from the Provincial Superior is required to modify these norms with just cause.  The professed who has renounced all his goods loses the capacity to acquire and possess. Therefore, his acts against the vow of poverty are null. Whatever he acquires after the renouncement belongs to the Institute. 

71 The Institute must provide its members with all the necessary means according to the Constitutions, in order to reach the goal of his vocation.

On Vows, the Constitution (again), and Not Telling the Truth

As we've mentioned before, we created this site to give you the information we wish we had before joining the IVE.  We want to give you reasons to be skeptical and to get third party advice rather than take the institute at their word.  

One reason we feel you should be skeptical is that the congregation, intentionally or through ignorance, repeatedly misrepresents itself and misleads those considering a vocation.  Their recent profession of perpetual vows and the accompanying article on their homepage are unfortunate examples of this.  (Incidentally, it's also another example of how they don't even follow their own constitutions as we have previously mentioned here and here - but we will cover that further below.)  

The IVE Not Telling the Truth About Temporary Vows

In their own article they get wrong just about every fact related to their time under vows.  They even had someone professing perpetual vows with less than 4 years under temporary vows - in violation of their own constitution.  

In the IVE's own words:

 "(On May 8th, 2013) In a Mass at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., nine IVE brothers committed their lives to God – forever! -  by their profession of perpetual vows. This profession comes near the conclusion of an eight-year formation process, and as a result, most of the professed will also receive the order of Deacon later this month."   

This for the most part is correct. All have had at least 7 years of formation - though not all with the Institute - and will have an additional year of formation beginning next Fall, making 8 years. 

"For the nine brothers, this divine union with the Lord was preceded by a seven year engagement, as in the Institute of the Incarnate Word, each religious spends seven years under vows before making their final profession.  First vows occur the year after leaving novitiate, typically the first year of Philosophical studies, and are followed by three professions of temporal vows for one year apiece. One, three-year profession is made after this, corresponding to the first year of Theological studies, after which the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience are taken on forever."

This is where typical IVE strangeness begins to insert itself.  You only need to read the preceding paragraph with a critical eye to see the error:  From novitiate to ordination there are normally eight years of formation.  The first year, the novitiate, is not under vows.  The last year is under permanent vows.  This means that for eight years of formation one can be under temporary vows for no more than six years.   Given that first vows are taken in December of the second year and these final vows are in May of the seventh year, the actual calendar time under temporary vows would be five years and six months.  Yet  for some reason the article highlights twice that they have been under vows for seven years, which is just not the case.  

For reference:

Compounding the error, not all of them have even been under vows for the full 5.5 years.  We know that some in that group have been under temporary vows less than four years.  

A Pattern of Misrepresenting Themselves to The Public

So here we have in the IVE's own article (which they've put up on the front page of their multiple websites, posted to Facebook, and tweeted) two very pertinent facts that are incorrect and misrepresented.  

This isn't a small detail or a formality.  Profession of perpetual vows, as the IVE will tell you, is what makes one a religious - and violating those vows without dispensation comes at the pain of mortal sin.  As we said, it's not a detail or formality. 

Neither are these isolated incidents.  IVE publications are full of misrepresentations and incorrect assertions (we will give more examples in the future.)   This is another example in a pattern of misrepresenting information to the public (and potential vocations) in order to put the congregation in a more positive light - the corporate/political terms for this behavior would be "PR" and "Spin."  

Another Violation of Their Own Constitution

Giving them the benefit of the doubt - which they don't deserve, but for the sake of argument - let's say the article's errors are just an honest mistake.  A typo.  Is there still harm here?  Yes, there is, because their own constitution requires at least 5 years of temporary vows before being able to profess final vows.  Yet they had someone professing final vows with less than four years of temporary vows.  (Showing again that their constitution is just for show and that IVE leadership certainly doesn't feel bound by their own governing document.)

This is more of the Institute's "bait and switch" approach.  They tell people they operate one way, but once you are in, committed, and under vows, you learn they operate differently.  It was  illegitimate and a violation of their own constitutions and possibly Canon Law for them to ask a seminarian, who is under a temporary vow of obedience and may consider it sinful to reject their order, to enter perpetual vows when he had been under not only less than five years under temporary vows, but even less than the extreme exception of 4 years 9 months - and not only by a few days but by an entire year.   (More on this below.)

We also wonder what his expectations were.  Did he assume he'd get 5 years of temporary vows?  Did he expect another year or two to decide whether he'd give this group a perpetual vow of obedience?  How is violating expectations and constitutions acceptable if things like vocation and vows are supposed to be chosen and accepted with complete freedom?

Not Trustworthy Behavior

This is not a small matter.  This organization wants you to trust them with your discernment and vocation.  They want you to see them as spiritual fathers.  Yet they knowingly facilitate these kind of affronts to prudence, ethics, and even their own constitutions again and again.  

The best thing you can do for yourself, and for the IVE's good priests and seminarians is to stay away.  If you join not only will you fall victim to the same practices, but you will reinforce, encourage, and thereby be complicit with the leadership that keeps these practices in place.

Canon Law and the IVE Constitution on Temporary Vows

Canon Law says (emphasis ours): 

"Temporary profession is to be made for the period defined by the institute's own law. This period may not be less than three years nor longer than six years…  If it seems opportune, the period of temporary profession can be extended by the competent Superior in accordance with the institute's own law. The total time during which the member is bound by temporary vows may not, however, extend beyond nine years…. Perpetual profession can for a just reason be anticipated, but not by more than three months."

To summarize, the Institute should define the time for temporary vows.  It should be at least three, but not more than six years.  The time can be extended up to 9 years if it's prudent and consistent with the Institutes law, but can only be shortened by 3 months in special circumstances.  

So how does the Institute of the Incarnate Word define its time for temporary vows?  Paragraph 256 of it's own constitution says five years, with an extra year if needed (emphasis ours): 

256 After five years of temporary profession, the religious will make the perpetual profession with the admission of the Provincial Superior and the deliberative vote of his Council. If there are doubts about the suitability, or the candidate himself asks for it, there can be an additional waiting time of one year, with temporal vows, during which the final decision is definitively made. At the end of this one- year period, the candidate will be admitted to the perpetual profession or dismissed.

While this contradicts their web article, it is in line with the 5 years 6 months we calculated to be their normal time under vows, above.  

It's also something that the institute has stuck with in the past.  There were at times members who joined the IVE after time in formation elsewhere (for example, they may have studied all their philosophy and some theology at a different seminary.)  They then finished their formation with the IVE and were ready for ordination before they had five years under temporary vows.  In these cases, the IVE stuck by their five year rule and ordained them under temporary vows.  They then professed perpetual vows only after they finished their five years of temporary vows. 

Even if the institute had special circumstances to shorten the vow period by the three-months allowed by Canon Law this would only allow one to be admitted to perpetual vows at 4 years and nine months. They just had a seminarian profess with less 4 years under temporary vows, violating their own constitution yet again - and, although we aren't Canon Lawyers, they don't seem to be in line with Canon Law either.