PARIS, France— In a case that has sent ripples of concern through religious communities and civil liberties advocates across France, a French abbot has been convicted under a controversial new law targeting “psychological subjection.” The conviction of Father Bernard Domini, superior of the Missionary Family of Notre-Dame (FMND), under France’s new law has ignited a fierce debate about the boundaries of religious freedom and the state’s role in regulating spiritual life. Critics argue that this legislation, enacted in May 2024, is dangerously vague and, as applied in this case, sets a chilling precedent that could imperil any demanding spiritual community.
The Case: Monastic Discipline or Malicious Manipulation?
The trial against Father Bernard and the FMND, a Catholic community founded in 1946, concluded with a two-year suspended prison sentence for the abbot and a five-year ban on exercising his priesthood. The community itself faced a one-year closure. What makes this case particularly contentious is the absence of traditional abuse allegations—no sexual misconduct, no financial embezzlement, no physical violence. Instead, the prosecution’s focus was squarely on the demanding nature of monastic life within the FMND, which former members described as leading to “psychological subjection”.
The accusations, primarily from five former members, painted a picture of a community where life was excessively demanding, with little rest, limited intimacy, and restricted contact with the outside world. They cited continuous pressure from superiors, particularly through confession and strict rules, contributing to what they termed a “toxic climate”. However, the defense and supporters of the FMND argue that these elements are not abuses but rather intrinsic aspects of a freely chosen consecrated life. As one article noted, “Anyone who knows anything about the demands of religious life knows that it involves rules, a hierarchy, constraints, mandatory practices, and prohibitions. It’s demanding—sometimes too much so—and not everyone has the calling. And that’s just how it is!”.
Indeed, monastic life, across various religious traditions, is inherently rigorous. It often involves vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity, a structured daily routine, and a degree of separation from secular society. These practices, which some find fulfilling and spiritually enriching, were presented by the prosecution as evidence of psychological manipulation. Critics of the verdict highlight that the complainants were adults who had freely chosen to join the community and were equally free to leave, as several did. The absence of physical coercion or financial exploitation raises fundamental questions about the nature of the alleged “abuse.”
The Vague Contours of “Psychological Subjection”
At the heart of this controversy is France’s new law on “psychological subjection,” enacted as part of a broader effort to combat “sectarian (or cultic) deviances” (dérives sectaires). While the notion of “psychological subjection” was first introduced into French law in 2001 as a circumstance for the crime of “abuse of weakness,” the landscape significantly shifted with the new law enacted in May 2024. This recent legislation elevates “psychological subjection” to a standalone criminal offense, independent of an accompanying “abuse of weakness” . In the case of the FMND, it remains unclear whether the conviction was based on the 2001 framework or the expanded provisions of the 2024 law, adding a layer of legal ambiguity to an already complex situation. However, the law has been widely criticized for its lack of precise definition. Terms like “psychological subjection” and “emprise” (undue influence) are not scientifically or judicially well-defined, leaving them open to broad and potentially arbitrary interpretation.
More than 60 senators had reportedly raised concerns about the constitutionality of this new article (in fact, the Senate itself has voted to reject the the law, but has been overruled by the National Assembly), arguing that it could infringe upon fundamental freedoms. Human rights organizations and religious freedom advocates have echoed these concerns, pointing out that such vague legal concepts can easily be weaponized against any group whose practices deviate from societal norms or are perceived as overly demanding. The prosecutor in the FMND case, Céline Nainani, reportedly described the community as the “epicenter of abuses of sectarian symptoms,” yet acknowledged that “sectarian deviances” or “sectarian symptoms” have no legal definition. This reliance on ill-defined concepts in a criminal proceeding is a significant point of contention.
A Threat to Religious Freedom
This conviction represents a profound shift in the relationship between the state and religious institutions in France. Traditionally, the state has largely refrained from intervening in the internal spiritual practices of religious communities, provided they do not violate clear criminal laws related to physical harm, fraud, or sexual abuse. By criminalizing “psychological subjection” based on the demanding nature of monastic life, the state appears to be venturing into the realm of evaluating and judging spiritual commitments.
As one commentator observed, “If this reasoning is pushed to its logical conclusion, it becomes impossible to distinguish a demanding religion from a criminally suspect one. Many serious faiths engage the conscience, mobilize the fear of evil, the fear of sin, the hope of salvation. Any structured religious community proposes norms, prohibitions, constraining practices, and a spiritual hierarchy. If these elements become, in themselves, evidence of undue influence, then religious freedom is nothing more than a conditional freedom, granted only to beliefs deemed ‘reasonable’ or ‘moderate’ by civil authorities”.
The implications extend far beyond the FMND. Many religious traditions, including various forms of Catholicism, Buddhism, and other spiritual paths, involve rigorous discipline, obedience to spiritual leaders, and a degree of detachment from the material world. If these practices can be reinterpreted as criminal “psychological subjection,” then any spiritual leader who inspires deep commitment and adherence to a demanding way of life could potentially face similar charges. This creates an environment where religious communities may feel compelled to dilute their core tenets or practices to avoid legal repercussions, thereby undermining the very essence of religious pluralism and freedom of conscience.
The Slippery Slope of Subjectivity
The danger lies in the highly subjective nature of “psychological subjection.” What one individual perceives as a freely chosen, transformative spiritual journey, another might retrospectively view as manipulative or coercive, especially if they later experience disillusionment or regret. The law, in this context, risks becoming a tool for disgruntled former members to criminalize experiences that, while perhaps difficult or ultimately unsuited to them, were initially entered into voluntarily.
Moreover, the concept of “brainwashing,” often invoked in discussions of “sectarian deviances,” has been widely discredited in scientific and legal circles as a pseudo-scientific theory. Its application in a court of law raises serious concerns about due process and the reliance on subjective psychological interpretations rather than objective evidence of criminal intent or harm. The trial of Father Bernard, therefore, is not merely about the fate of one abbot or one religious community; it is a test case for the future of religious freedom in France and a warning to other nations considering similar legislation.
What future for religious freedom in France?
The conviction of Father Bernard Domini under France’s new “psychological subjection” law marks a perilous moment for religious freedom. While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from genuine abuse, this law, as applied in the FMND case, blurs the lines between spiritual guidance and criminal manipulation. It risks criminalizing deeply held religious beliefs and practices that require significant commitment and obedience, effectively imposing a state-sanctioned definition of what constitutes an acceptable level of religious devotion.
This decision could pave the way for further judicial interventions into the internal affairs of religious communities, eroding the autonomy that is essential for the free exercise of religion. It sends a chilling message: in France, the demanding nature of monastic life, once a testament to profound spiritual conviction, can now be construed as a criminal offense. The world watches as France grapples with the delicate balance between protecting its citizens and safeguarding the fundamental right to religious freedom.
