[[ Dear Sister, I appreciate your answer to my question about a Bishop desiring a person to seek profession even if they felt it was wrong for them. At the end you said something interesting about if your profession had been based in the Archbishop's desire or yours it actually would have raised questions for you but that questions were quieted or resolved at profession. You offered to say more about this and I would really like to ask you to do that. What questions would have been raised for you? What ones "melted away" with profession and consecration?]]
I am glad you asked the question though, as I noted earlier, I had also answered it before. I hope the answer was helpful and that you looked under the labels mentioned to find the earlier post. For those who have not read the recent post, the passage you are referring to read: Finally I don't think he did something he did not desire to do in this, but at the same time, I don't usually think in terms of what Archbishop Vigneron desired or did not desire. This is important because if my eremitical life is a matter of discernment then many niggling questions and problems melt away with profession and consecration. If it had merely been something my Bishop (and I!) desired, then it actually raises questions, creates difficulties, and certainly it would heighten the niggling questions that would have remained on the day of profession. Let me know if you want me to say more about this.
The questions that were based in desire rather than genuine discernment would include questions about whether or not I was really called to this, whether I was fooling myself and allowing ego to get in the way of the will of God (such an easy thing to do!), whether my gifts for things like theology, music, writing, teaching, etc were really going to be wasted here and wouldn't that be like burying my talents, whether my tendency to sometimes withdraw for negative reasons rather than for the challenge of prayer and God's summons to wholeness and holiness was the defining motive in all of this. It included questions like whether or not I could persevere in this life, whether the difficulties that would naturally occur were signs I had missed my vocation, whether one day I would need to ask to be dispensed as I sought my true vocation (that is, what God had really willed for me!), etc. For all of these questions and more to drop away one has to be certain that the Church and they themselves carried out a sound discernment process; one has to know that as far as everyone involved can tell (conclusions based in thought, prayer, conversations, recommendations, evaluations, etc), God is truly calling one to this. Personal preferences will not be sufficient in such a situation.
Further, my Bishop said during his homily that I would be exploring what it meant to be a hermit in the 21C. Exploration requires one break away from stereotypes and templates and be oneself in a given situation. Among other things it requires integrity and courage and a strong sense of confidence that you and God are in this together --- not something that is particularly likely if you have the sense you are in this vocation not because of discernment but because of mere desire. When that desire is someone else's and your own heart is really not in this calling (or is actually "sickened" by it) chances are almost 100% that you will fail in this commission. In any case it is hard to believe the witness one gives to others in such circumstances will be suffused with a joy no one can miss or mistake! Today when I am asked or have the desire, for instance, to do some active ministry or consider taking on another spiritual direction client, to go back to school for another degree or some certification or updating that would be helpful in some way, take a teaching job, or even something which otherwise would be relatively trivial like choosing to just watch a little TV some evenings and wake a little later in the morning, it is important that I know why I am doing what I am doing and that at bottom this life of the silence of solitude is God's will not only for me but as a gift to the Church and world!
There is simply no way I could continue in this vocation if I was not certain in my heart of hearts that this was my call. It would be selfish and irresponsible to do so. This kind of certainty required the Church not only to say she believed this to be the case, but also to mediate this call to me in a public liturgical and juridical act. After all, there are many ways to pray, many ways to serve God and God's People, and we each have many talents and resources which would allow us to do that in numerous ways. It is not merely that there may be easier ways but much more importantly, that God, in fact, might well will it for the sake of the Kingdom! In all of this personal desire or attraction are important but they are insufficient and require one engage in serious discernment with others who are also discerning the case.
While there is no way to be absolutely certain one has gotten this vocation stuff exactly right, one really has to listen to God and look carefully for the wisdom and fruitfulness of one's discernment (and one's life!) in all ways possible. In ecclesial vocations that means listening to the mutual discernment of Vicars, Bishops, and Vocation directors, as well as spiritual directors, psychologists, physicians, et. al., when these latter persons' input seems particularly pertinent. Otherwise one will be plagued by a sense that, with every difficulty or competing desire, one has substituted one's own ego for the will of God.
21 October 2014
[[ Dear Sister, I appreciate your answer to my question about a Bishop desiring a person to seek profession even if they felt it was wrong for them. At the end you said something interesting about if your profession had been based in the Archbishop's desire or yours it actually would have raised questions for you but that questions were quieted or resolved at profession. You offered to say more about this and I would really like to ask you to do that. What questions would have been raised for you? What ones "melted away" with profession and consecration?]]
20 October 2014
[[Hi Sister Laurel, in your next to last post you referred to LOH along with liturgy of the Word with Communion. What is LOH? Do only hermits do it?]]
Oops, my bad! I should have written it out! LOH is an abbreviation for Liturgy of the Hours. This is also called Divine Office, Office, the Hours, and the Work of God in the Benedictine tradition. The Office is a series of 7 "hours" (referring to the hours of the day the prayer is done, not to the length of the Office) where psalms, readings, canticles, etc are prayed to sanctify the entire day. The LOH (Liturgy of the Hours) is actually the official prayer of the Church and the Church encourages everyone whether priest, religious, or lay person to pray the Office each day as a means of praying WITH the whole Church. After all, the Church is meant always to be the Church at prayer and one symbol of the Church is the person with upraised arms.
Monastics tend to pray at least five of the hours each day and many do all seven. I tend to do 3 or 4 of the hours during the Spring and Summer months and 5 during the Winter months when I am inside even more. (I also do more of the hours when I am ill, for instance because I do less of other forms of prayer or lectio, etc.) Otherwise, I find praying more of the Office fragments my day more than it assists it to be prayer. My personal favorite hour is Compline (which comes from the Latin for "complete" or completion). If someone is just starting to pray Office I tend to suggest they start with Morning Prayer (Lauds) and end their day with Compline. As one gets used to doing this one can add other prayer periods. This enables one to get used to really praying an hour before jumping into more of them and also to accommodate the other parts of one's schedule that are still quite demanding.
15 October 2014
I just wanted to remind folks that questions, suggestions, (polite!) criticisms, and so forth are more than welcome here. Oftentimes the questions I get help me to consider aspects of my own life and this vocation more deeply or to see things in a completely new light. I write about what is important to me, or what strikes me in something I have read, etc, and while I didn't originally envision this as a question-answer format blog, more often it is the questions I receive which shape the posts I put up here.
One caveat: I do not always answer some questions immediately (though I will email you a quick reply nonetheless), Sometimes I will hold them with others of the same tenor and post them all together in a single composite "question." If you need an immediate answer please indicate that, and of course, if the question you ask is a confidential one which is not meant for this blog please indicate that. (You may find your own question here at another time in another form. Please understand that that is because it related generally to the subject at hand and was asked by others as well as yourself!)
One of the beauties of having a blog is, as I have written before here, it is very like the anchorite's window-on-the-world which allowed folks to approach her and talk. For the most part I, like most anchorites, keep the curtain drawn on my life here in Stillsong only opening it at certain times to reveal what is pertinent to the questions or topic at hand, but like the anchorite who lived in the midst of her town my choice of having a public blog means that folks have a right to approach me; that is, you are able to read me, question me, object to what I say and hear my response, and so forth. I sincerely hope readers will continue to do this; your questions, comments, etc are of immense value to me and I have grown in my understanding and appreciation of canon 603 and this vocation as a result of them.
While I have disabled comments on the blog itself (it makes the boundaries between things too porous and would intrude on my solitude) anything you would like to say or ask me about should be emailed to SRLAUREL@aol.com. Thanks again.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 5:59 AM
12 October 2014
In On Community and the Hermit I began an answer to a questioner asking about friendships and the shape of community in the hermit's life. In one way and another I have been dealing with that question for the past several weeks --- even prior to receiving the question. It may have been that fact that prompted the reader's question in the first place! In any case, the first part of my explicit answer I focused on those friendships and relationships which were essential to the well-being of my vocation because they fulfilled my own needs. In this second part I want to say something about the shape of community in my life because of the diocesan hermit's responsibility that her solitude be a fruitful reality and a gift to the Church and world.
Diocese and Parish as Ordinary Community of the Solitary Hermit
For any diocesan (c 603) hermit the diocese and parish within which they finds themselves, and from which they have actually been called to live the silence of solitude is ordinarily their primary faith community. It is usually here they celebrate or receive the Sacraments, here they are nourished on the proclaimed Word of God, here they meet the people they are praying for and with, and here they come to understand the complex challenges which are currently facing those living life outside the rarefied environment of the hermitage. I meet truly holy persons here whenever I come for liturgy. It is also here though, that the hermit witnesses to the contemplative and eremitical life and the gift (charism) of the silence of solitude lived in their midst! Personally I find it a significant, if complex, relationship and presence in my life. I am sure that my presence and involvement in the parish is both somewhat other than straightforward and yet fruitful as well!
You see, I cannot take on the responsibilities or ministry that a ministerial Sister can and does ordinarily take on. While I am actually part of the parish staff (pastoral assistant) I do not generally attend Staff meetings nor retreats, nor do they look to me to fill staff roles at parish events. They know I cannot do that and that my real ministry is contemplative life and prayer in solitude. I do minister otherwise in a limited way when I attend Mass (I rotate in as Sacristan, cantor, lector, EEM, etc), and I lead Communion services when we have no priest. Occasionally too I will write a reflection on the day's readings, do a presentation for Lent or Advent or for the school kids (on prayer and being a hermit).
So, I am present and active and certainly personally integral to the parish. People actually miss and pray for me when I am spending more time in solitude and cannot be at daily or Sunday Mass, but at the same time this means there are very real limitations which my parish generally understands (or tries to understand!) and respects! (One small but telling way they show me they understand and regard my vocation, for instance, occurs when they quietly slip a small note with a particular prayer request into my hand because somehow they know it will go into a handmade bowl near the Tabernacle in my hermitage where it will be held in prayer. That the story of the "prayer bowl" has gotten around the parish and to members I don't really know yet suggests, I think, that my presence is discussed and valued.) When I speak of a diocesan hermit belonging to a parish it is this integral yet "eremitically" limited relationship I am speaking of.
On Being a Bit of a Mystery
I suppose for many in my parish I am a bit of a mystery and of course, that is okay! If my presence sparks questions or real curiosity then that is well and good! If people admit they don't understand what a hermit is or how there can be such a thing as a hermit in the 21C. much less right here in this relatively well-to-do suburban parish, then also well and good. (If they ask me about these things directly and we have an opportunity to get to know one another a little and (among other things) dispel a few stereotypes or misperceptions, then even better!) If our school kids hear me cantor or lector and wonder about me singing and reading Scripture even at home, if they have questions about my habit or cowl, if they ask their teachers what the heck it means to be a contemplative or pray all day, if they ask me to come to talk to them about all that occasionally or sometimes also slip me notes with their most urgent prayers on them, and if they can see that I am a pretty joyful person who likes to laugh even while I am also pretty serious (humor can be serious business!), then I think my presence is an effective one and over time will bear real fruit in addition to that which already comes from prayer itself.
Am I "like" these folks? Well, no, in many, many ways I am not; but in some much more fundamental ways I am VERY like them; my sense of that fundamental sameness is a grace that I thank God for almost every day! The bottom line here though is that I belong to this community because we are a Christian faith Community. (cf Belonging vs Fitting In) Different as most of our lives are, I truly love them and they love me as well. We make it work because that's what Catholics living in and for Christ do; love transcends differences and builds community! It is significant, I think, that our parish motto is "All are welcome." So long as I allow it to be so, that is true even (and, I think, especially) for a hermit!
A Slight Detour and Return
I remember when I was in Graduate School in Theology. The Catholic students and faculty (which meant a LOT of religious, priests, theologians, liturgists, and ministers from all over the Diocese were converging on "Holy Hill" on Sunday mornings and celebrating some of the most fantastic liturgies I have ever attended. The St Louis Jesuits were "in residence" at that time (they were also students, but attending JSTB) and every Catholic theological school had some group that sang during the week for their school's Mass and came together as part of this more general Mass on Sundays. The assembly naturally participated fully, were knowledgeable and were inspired by this Sunday liturgy. But there was also something wrong with this picture! It was elitist in a certain way but more to the point, it deprived all the parishes in the Diocese of Oakland of the liturgists, theologians, homilists, musicians, religious, and priests those parishes could have used as resources so their own liturgies and the music, homilies, and other aspects there were equally participative and perhaps more genuinely inspiring. So, Bishop John Cummins decided to let us all know that he wanted us in those parishes so that the liturgical and faith life everywhere might be enhanced and he closed the Sunday morning GTU Mass down!
Originally I was disappointed by this action but over time it is the wisdom of what John Cummins did that has stayed with me. Vatican II renewed the importance of the local community, first diocese and then parish! Every Catholic is related to the local Church in some way and that means that every hermit is as well. As has been said many times in the history of eremitical life, Catholic hermits live our lives of solitude in the heart of the Church; each hermit is an "ecclesiola" --- but not in some form of independent solitary splendor. In other words, we live eremitical solitude in real, concrete circumstances within the heart of real, concrete faith communities. We may be seen but rarely; our lives may not be understood, nor may we even "fit in" (or seem to "fit in") all that well in some things, but I, for instance, know without question that the profound questions that drive my life and quest for union with God are the very same questions the rest of the people in my diocese/parish pose with their lives and this means to the extent we hermits are in touch with these and the God who grounds us all, we are more the same than we are different! That too is an important witness the hermit can give to those who focus more on differences than on what unites us or what we hold in common.
In conscience, but also theologically and spiritually I believe it is both right and necessary for the hermit whose vocation is ecclesial to find ways to be a gift to her parish --- even and especially if a large part of that gift is the silence of solitude so many seem to fear and resist (but which we all need to learn to embrace as we age and come up against other liminal experiences in our lives)! The paradox is that to do so we have to belong! (cf Belonging vs Fitting In) In any case, in my own eremitical life, I have to belong in this way, limited though it is, or I cut myself off not only from one of the main ways my life of solitude bears fruit, but from one of the main sources of Divine presence and spurs to personal growth in holiness and authentic solitude in my life. All the diocesan hermits I know or know of live in eremitical solitude and "stricter separation" but that means they do so in relation to (and relationship with!) a parish or monastery or other religious community. Eremitical solitude, once again, is not isolation. As I noted in earlier posts from last week, even actual reclusion requires we be profoundly and mutually related to a faith community of some sort. Thus it is with ecclesial vocations!
Recently I was asked by a regular reader here how she might assist the Iraqi Dominican Sisters both in their lives and in their ministries. I inquired of a number of Sisters on a listserve I belong to and got responses from three members of different Dominican congregations. If you are looking to help the Dominican Sisters of Catherine of Siena financially or otherwise (suggestions are included below) here is how you do it!
1) On the Dominican Sisters Conference [DSC] webpage - there is a link where you can download a document with several options. It is on the RESOURCE page http://dominicansistersconference.org/DSCresources.html click on the last icon on the very top.
2) There are three ways you can get funds directly to our Dominican sisters in Iraq to start saving lives and reliving suffering right now:
10 October 2014
There's a sort of strange phenomenon that happens sometimes when one is riding a bike. If one is riding on a bike path, for instance, and comes to the place where the path crosses a road there will be posts which signal to the biker that they need to be wary. In the paths around my hermitage anyway, it takes real skill and more importantly, a particular perspective, to ride a bike through these posts without crashing into them! (They are more narrowly spaced than in the above picture.)
You see, the interesting phenomenon is that if one focuses one's attention on the posts themselves and tries to avoid them in this way, if, that is, one looks from right to left and back again and again while thinking something like, "I must steer away from that post, and I must do the same here on the right," one merely ensures one will crash into them! But if the biker keeps focused on the place where the wheel meets the path, one will move forward smoothly and sail right through the posts. We heard the Biblical version of this dynamic last Wednesday when the Gospel from Luke had Jesus admonishing folks that, "One who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is unfit for the Kingdom." Jesus' point was also about perspective. To plow a straight furrow, to make a field fit for a huge harvest, one has to keep one's eyes on a distant point; otherwise the furrows one plows will veer off and leave the field unready and fallow. So much of the spiritual life is about maintaining a truly human (and divine!) perspective!
In today's Mass readings ** this whole problem shows itself again. In Paul's letter to the Galatians the Apostle is telling the story of the making of Israel into a People of faith and a blessing to the nations. Abraham is the Father of faith and for him and for the rest of the OT and the NT as well we come to understand that real faith is about allowing God to be God and keeping a longer perspective; in that way of seeing things we trust that if we keep our focus on God while we remain open to his living presence within us God will then draw us beyond any obstacles and make of us a People who are a blessing (that is, who mediate God's presence and power) to all of the world! A piece of Paul's story is about keeping our eyes (and our hearts) focused on or centered in God. This is a lesson we ought to hear very clearly, especially if we seek to be people of prayer! For in the main, prayer is not something we do; it is something God does in us and something he MAKES of us! Often our only job in prayer is to sit down, shut up, fold our hands quietly (some of us fold them into our cowls to make the point more acute!), and allow God the time and space to do whatever it is God desires to do with and in us.
This attitude of prayer is really the heart of the Covenant. Remember its term and essential dynamic: "You shall be my people and I shall be your God!" This does not refer merely or perhaps even primarily to an external contract between God and Israel (though this, of course, is involved) but rather to the God-Events they will become if they allow God to really BE GOD within them. In other words, let me be the fire that moves and empowers you, let me be the love that makes you whole and impassions your love for others, let me make you missionaries of MY presence and we will transform the world with my touch! The symbol of this covenant is the Law and it truly does indicate what such human beings look like: they love God above all else, they are other-centered and do not covet or steal or commit adultery or bear false witness or do murder, and so forth. In a sense the tablets of the Law are a bit like the posts on the bike path. They signal caution and mark when we have gone off course, but they are not supposed to draw our entire attention or become the focus of our spiritual perspective and efforts. That way lies disaster, just as it does on the bike path --- or in the field we are trying to plow!
And this is what Paul is describing in today's reading from Galatians. The Jewish leadership and through them much of the People of Israel have lost their perspective. They are not focused on simply allowing God to work in them or trusting that he will make of them a blessing to the nations. Their gaze has been drawn from God's presence to the Law he gave as a gift and like the biker who becomes focused on AVOIDING the posts and so inevitably crashes into them, they do the same with the Law. They are so focused on avoiding sin that they are drawn straight into it because they cease to trust sufficiently in the power of God and the perspective this faith gives them to move forward in their journey. In fact, so blinded have they become in all of this, so narrow and constricted their perspective, so concerned with the strictures of the law and the achievement and protection of an isolating personal holiness rather than the vision of life the Law celebrates, that when the very fulfillment of the Law, the living Covenant-with-God comes up to them from their midst, they condemn him for blasphemy and murder him in the name of the Law!
** Galatians 3:7-14, Luke 11:15-26
09 October 2014
In the following article from Bishop Robert Lynch's blog his excellency uses the Synod on the Family as a lens and outlines the situation as it stands between the CDF and the LCWR; Lynch characterizes the situation as an "internecine war" this Church family does not need. He proposes what, for me anyway, is a new solution, a solution which would allow Pope Francis to act without trespassing against his collegial perspective and way of doing business, and which would allow Abp Peter Sartain and the LCWR the freedom to truly forge a creative and appropriate solution in this matter. I think this is a great article; the pertinent section begins especially with paragraph three!
[[A “FAMILY” FEUD
I write this from a Delta jet flying at 34,000 feet just west of the French coastline headed for Atlanta where I will surely miss my connection to St. Petersburg and an uncertain future on a Sunday night. This morning I awakened in Rome having spent a week there for the ordination to the diaconate of our Ryan Boyle, a resident of the North American College and a student this year at the Angelicum (last year he graduated from the first cycle of theology at the Gregorian University). My next blog, coming very soon, if not tomorrow, will give more details about my visits in the last ten days to three of the four seminaries where our men study. Even as Ryan’s ordination in St. Peter’s Basilica along with forty-two of his fellow classmates was a major moment, for him and for them, the major happening in Rome began last night with tens of thousands again gathering in St. Peter’s Square with St. Peter’s successor to pray for the Extraordinary Synod which began this morning, just as I was leaving.
In those reflective moments, I thought about what I might say, had I the opportunity to speak to the Holy Father and those gathered around him for the next two weeks. Slowly this thought came to me and I could not put it away. Our beloved Church is itself a family – a family of faith, of practice, of divine creation. And like most modern families, we have our share of disfunctionality (sic) at times, disagreements at other times, digression at times, and differences of opinion at times. The synod fathers are going to be talking about real challenges to marriage and family life in our time and culture. I would love to see at least an hour devoted to a dispute, which has taken far too much energy in our Church in this country than I think it deserves. While praying during the ordination of the 43 men in St. Peter’s last Thursday, I asked what Peter would have done and what Peter now might do with the current disagreement between certain Roman offices of our Church and the religious sisters of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (hereafter “LCWR”). The thought occurred to me that if Pope Francis could coax the leaders of Hamas and Israel to meet for prayer in the Vatican Gardens during which each side spoke respectfully of each other, could not the family of the Church try a little harder to settle something of a “border dispute” between the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (hereafter “CDF”) and the major branch of religious women in the US?
Much of this extraordinary synod’s time is going to be devoted to best practices in keeping people within the family circle. How then about the good sisters who worked for decades at less than subsistence wages, taught us about God, bound up our hospital wounds, ran free clinics for the poor and homes for the aged. Let’s love them to death, not beat them to death. Please, Fathers of the Synod and Holy Father, take this contretemps for yourself and solve it for all. The Church as family would rejoice. +RNL]]
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 4:31 PM
[[Dear Sister, am I right in saying you are in charge of determining how much solitude is healthy for you, or how much is allowed while maintaining other ecclesial obligations? What if you wanted to spend three months or more in absolute reclusion? Could you do that? How does that work? Your own life is governed by a Rule which you wrote. Could a lay hermit (I mean a hermit who is not a canonical hermit) write a Rule which allowed her to be completely reclusive and not go to Mass regularly? Would this be an example of the competing obligations you spoke of earlier today? My guess is this wouldn't work even though she is doing it to be a hermit --- a good thing and pleasing to God as the Catholicam blogger wrote! I say that because it seems kind of elitist to me.]]
Really great questions and points, especially because they tie into yesterday's posts and the discussion begun on two other blogs and continued here.
Yes, I am largely the one responsible for discerning how much solitude and what kind God is calling me to, what I need for a healthy eremitical life as well as what degree and kind of solitude honors other (sometimes competing) ecclesial and personal obligations. However, neither do I do this alone --- nor could I. I couldn't even say that God alone and I determine this without need for others because it is so easy to delude oneself about what is of God, what God is saying, etc. That was one of the reasons people like Peter Damian and Paul Giustiniani had a healthy caution when it came to the solitary eremitical life which they both esteemed; they saw this life as fraught with peril. One really does need to discuss things, consider what others see and hear (especially what they observe in terms of growth in the hermit's own life and the fruitfulness of her solitude), weigh the consequences, engage in mutual prayer, and so forth. The stable relationships canonical standing creates are necessary for truly discerning what God is calling one to. When a large change like that of reclusion is being considered (and even for a diocesan hermit already living substantial physical solitude reclusion is still a significant change and commitment, and not just for the hermit herself --- more about that below).
You see, complete reclusion is difficult for a diocesan hermit because she really is responsible for her own upkeep, shopping, errands, and sometimes a limited degree of ministry. For me that means I do regular spiritual direction and assist at the parish for a brief time about one morning a week. However, if I were to determine that I really needed to do something like what you suggest, what I would be likely to do to begin anyway, is to 1) take one or two days a month to see clients during the three month period (I cannot responsibly stop working with people while I am discerning this matter), 2) ask for others in the parish to take on what I am doing there while I continued doing maybe one morning a month for that three month period (if someone can take over that day as well, then that would be fine), and 3) request parishioners to help me by shopping for me, bringing me Communion for the week (there are some alternatives to this but something needs to be worked out), etc. I would probably also elect to meet with my own director at least once or twice during this time. This would not be complete reclusion but it would be the closest to which I could responsibly come right now; if after this kind of period of discernment I determined I was being called to even greater solitude for a longer time then I would need to find ways to achieve that. But, again, all this needs to be discerned.
I have written here before that one of the things a diocesan hermit must be open to is the possibility that God is calling her to reclusion and I am quite serious about that. If I were to discern a call to reclusion, then my Bishop would need to agree and an arrangement with my parish and pastor made to ensure regular reception of the Sacraments, occasional Mass here in the hermitage, and some way to get provisions and have errands run. My expectation would be the diocese would assist with some of this but, as you can see, a lot would need to be worked out and other people would need to make commitments to enable my reclusion. A hermit can never forget the love and faith of those who allow and often help support and empower her to live solitude in their midst; the situation with reclusion is, again, even more dependent on others as she is given the freedom to explore (comm)union with God. Remember that when and to whatever extent we are in union with God we will be called and empowered to regard and treat our brothers and sisters with greater love and solicitude, not with less, and certainly not with a mere abstraction of the word love ("I love humanity; it's people I despise!" "I love souls, but embodied historical persons are not my concern!") as we spend our time navel-gazing in the "contemplation" of our own existences! Communion with God fires our hearts and focuses us outward even as it draws us in and requires a real and creative introspection. In my experience, that introspection is meant to be at the service of a greater outward focus toward real people.
Private vs Public Commitments, Rights and Obligations
I am sorry if I was not clear regarding what happens when a lay hermit takes on private obligations (as opposed to the public obligations assumed in public profession); let me repeat some and try to clarify as I go. Since a lay hermit is a baptized Catholic she will have assumed and been charged with the public rights and obligations associated with that commitment. The obligation to attend Mass (Sunday obligation) is part of this. These rights and obligations are legitimate ones meaning the person is bound in law to make them a true priority in her life. If a person makes a private dedication as a hermit she or he remains in his/her current state of life (whether lay or clerical) and assumes no additional (or potentially modifying) rights and obligations. Additional rights and obligations are extended to a person by the Church and assumed by that person in public professions and consecrations as well as in ordinations and marriages (!). In Public (canonical) vows the Church mediates God's call and the person's response in a way which binds both the person and the Church in a public act and a new ecclesial relationship.
This means that if a non-canonical or lay hermit decides to write a Rule which demanded she miss Mass on Sundays, for instance, she would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public and ecclesial one she has already accepted as a life obligation. One could not do this apart from other really significant extenuating circumstances and remain a Catholic in good standing --- at least not without seriously deceiving oneself. In such a case, the extenuating circumstances would themselves need to be serious enough to permit the person to miss Mass; being a lay hermit who is privately dedicated to solitude simply wouldn't be sufficient in this way. In other words, public rights and obligations trump private rights and obligations and legitimate or canonical rights and obligations trumps non-canonical rights and obligations in this regard. Because of the differing weights or seriousness of the person's commitments (that is, some that are public and canonical or legitimate, and some which are entirely private) this would not be a good example of what I was speaking about when I mentioned competing obligations; in my usage about that I was referring to competing public and canonical or legitimate obligations all of which publicly bind the canonically professed hermit.
Public Commitments, A Matter of Relationships and Witness
The reason public vs private are "weighted" in this way is important because of the correlative relationships and witness which attach. Private commitments are, while not unimportant, of less social consequence. They are, after all, called private for a reason! Public commitments issue in public responsibilities to live one's ecclesial commitments in an edifying way and thus, with integrity and with an eye toward how one's actions affect others; this is true even of the hermit whose life is essentially hidden! They involve others, not least in the expectations they allow others to necessarily hold in the committed person's regard; further they are either a witness to others or they represent a betrayal of one's responsibility to witness appropriately to those others. If an avid soccer fan (and a Catholic) sincerely believes God is calling her to watch every game of the World Cup no matter her obligations to spouse, or children, or parish (Church) or God via these other relationships, and decides she is justified in this way, she is lying to herself in one way or another. Nor is the example she is giving particularly edifying.
To take a more serious example, if a wife decided she no longer wished to take part in marital relations, nor to care for her family because God was calling her to embrace celibacy and live as a hermit, once again she would be lying to herself and others and failing to witness to the sanctity of marriage and sexual love as she has PUBLICLY committed herself to do. The Church no longer effectively devalues the Sacramental and legal state of marriage nor profanes marital love in the name of religious life or celibacy as higher values. What then of someone who is legitimately allowed by the Church to call herself a Catholic Hermit and who, without the mutual discernment or approval of legitimate superiors, thereafter claims that God has blocked her way to participate in any significant way in normal ecclesial life (including Mass and the Sacraments) or who contends that the abstract (bloodless) "love of souls" takes the place of concrete love of others? Is this really the message of the Gospel entrusted to the Church? Does this constitute an edifying example of Christian witness? Does it even witness to the vocation of the Catholic Hermit and the way the Church understands that today?
You see, what is also true is that the public commitments in each of these situations is presumed to be an expression of God's will! This is especially so because, as ecclesial realities, they are sanctioned and blessed by the Church. That means there must be pretty significant indications when one proposes changing them for what one privately experiences as the will of God! It also means in some way these private experiences and determinations need to be corroborated or affirmed by others in the Church (meaning pastors, Bishops and their delegates, etc) as well. In the situation you referred to --- a privately dedicated hermit determines she is called by God to reclusion and to cutting herself off from the Sacramental and ecclesial life of the Church symbolized in the minimal obligation of Sunday Mass -- I was not struck so much by the elitism of the determination (though I certainly agree this person would never allow other Catholics to make the same determination in the name of private revelations and discernment) as I was struck by the extreme individualism, and even narcissism of the situation.
Canon 603 allows for the first time ever in universal law for individuals who are not part of religious communities and congregations to live and explore the depths of the vowed life within the realm of eremitical solitude (communion with God), that is, a life which says God alone is sufficient for us human beings. But it does this with ecclesial vetting, oversight, and support. Far from getting in the way of the individual's relationship with God the structures and relationships set up in canonical standing create a realm of freedom where the individual may truly live a life of assiduous prayer and penance without real concern that she ought to be about something else, some more active ministry, some money-making project for the sake of others, etc. But the paradox is that this solitary enterprise is taken on for the sake of others and as a specifically ecclesial reality. While other people do not occupy the hermitage with the hermit, their faith and support make this life possible; moreover they look to the hermit for a witness which illumines some dimensions of the Gospel in a particularly sharp or compelling way. The Church has given the faithful this right when it called, professed, and consecrated this hermit from their very midst and then established her hermitage there as well. The bottom line truth here is that the hermitage is a still point in an often chaotic world and this is not for the hermit's benefit alone! She is there at the service of God and others. Not all hermits' lives are good and pleasing to God. A misanthrope's (or other individualist's) isolated shack is not the same as the hermit's dwelling which is always situated in profound relationship to God and others in the heart of the Church.
07 October 2014
[[Sister Laurel, it was interesting to hear that the additional rights and obligations embraced by the c 603 hermit included the right to skip one's Sunday obligation sometimes in the name of the silence of solitude or stricter separation. [cf.,On Hermits and Sunday Obligation] What was even more interesting to me was the dynamic way the competing values of the solitary eremitical life and a baptized ecclesial life are worked out. There is a great deal of discernment and collaboration involved, isn't there? I have read what you have written about canonical standing and the creation of stable relationships but I don't think I really understood how important these would be in a hermit's life. They seemed a kind of legal formality to me before but now I see that they are critically important in living your life intelligently and faithfully. Thank you for clarifying this for me. ]]
|Bp Remi De Roo, Bishop|
Protector of c 603 forerunners
Camaldolese eremitical life for instance has, historically, been a significant way of meeting the challenge of those Fathers' evaluations and concerns by embodying the various competing values and obligations involved in ecclesial eremitical life. Built on the threefold good: solitude, community, and evangelization it provides a dynamic vision and polar "structure" for embracing and honoring these realities and the tensions between them. Both Peter Damian and Paul Giustiniani reformed eremitical life in light of the precepts of the Church and shifting theologies of the importance of ecclesial participation while maintaining the heart of the eremitical vocation to the silence of solitude.
The diocesan hermit today must do something similar in combining diocesan/parish life, eremitical solitude, and service or evangelization. Negotiating the tension between a call to union with God in solitude and stricter separation from the world and a healthy Sacramental and church life in a diocese and parish is a piece of this overall task. Because of these examples and others, because hermits take on the challenge of negotiating (prioritizing and living all) the "competing values" (or competing obligations) present in their lives, the eremitical life is alive and well in today's Church. But it will not stay that way or be particularly edifying to Christians if individuals choose to embrace and espouse isolation rather than true eremitical solitude lived in an ecclesial context, or otherwise shun the challenge of belonging integrally to a pilgrim people with an essential and vibrant sacramental life.
Also, I don't feel entirely comfortable speaking of the 'right' to skip my Sunday obligation as though that was one of the rights granted me in profession. It was not. What is more comfortable to me is speaking in terms of competing obligations and even competing legitimate obligations. I (as is the case for any diocesan hermit) am (canonically) obligated by profession, consecration, and Rule to live a life of the evangelical counsels, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world under the supervision of my bishop (and delegate); at the same time I am obligated in the ways my baptismal commitment binds every Christian. The challenge is to meet all of these legitimate obligations, some of which are competing, in the best way I can. The rights that came with canonical standing include the right to call myself a Catholic and/or Diocesan Hermit, the right to wear a habit and cowl (both right and obligation attached to perpetual profession), and the right to style myself as Sister. In other words, I was given and assumed the right to live this life and serve my brothers and sisters in this way in the name of the Church.
Again, thanks for your comments.
[[Sister, are you allowed to skip your Sunday obligation? A Catholic Hermit [link to this blog provided and omitted here] wrote that she is able to do this because it is God's will and (according to How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation?) apparently an historical right of hermits. I don't understand how this works. Have hermits always been able to skip the Sunday obligation?]]
In general I do not skip my Sunday obligation, no, though yes, in some circumstances I am allowed to. If I am required to miss Mass on Sunday for some good reason (usually illness but occasionally the requirements of the silence of solitude and stricter separation) I ordinarily participate some other time during the week if that is possible. It is possible for a hermit who is publicly professed and who has assumed the additional canonical obligations of the eremitical life in the consecrated state to miss Sunday Mass because extended solitude and the call to eremitical solitude itself necessitates this; but remember that in such a case the hermit will ordinarily participate in a Liturgy of the Word with Communion in her own hermitage. This does not equate to participating in Mass but it does have a distinctly communal sense to it in the same way Communion brought by EEMs has the sense of continuing a Eucharistic celebration.
Moreover, because this is a matter of legitimate rights and obligations, she will only do so if she is allowed according to her Rule and with the general permission of her Bishop (given mainly in his official declaration of approval of her Rule). It will, in such a case, not be enough to simply list "solitude" as a value in one's Rule without specifying how this is worked out or at least indicating it will be effectively and sensitively combined with other important values (like a hermit's necessary Sacramental life!). Further, in specific instances, especially of very prolonged solitude, she will discuss the matter with her director occasionally to be sure her praxis here is prudent and that her solitary ecclesial vocation is not suffering from isolation from the faith community (this also happens at the involvement end of things when she will meet with her director or delegate to be sure her involvement is not detracting from her vocation to the silence of solitude). In general, however, I have to say that even when I am living a more extended and intense physical solitude which involves seeing no one and not attending daily Mass at all, I will generally get to Sunday Mass at least once or twice a month --- not least because of the Eucharistic theology which sustains my life in the hermitage. While the obligations I assumed in profession and consecration may allow or even oblige me to live my physical solitude with an intensity and integrity which sometimes means missing Mass it does not EVER allow me to completely turn my back on my baptismal obligation or pretend the last 10 centuries never occurred.
In today's Church the Sunday obligation obliges every person unless there is a truly good reason or some exception made by a legitimate superior. The obligation is a priority in an authentic faith life and requires Catholics make it a priority unless they have a really good reason or the aforementioned exception is made. One cannot argue (as it seems to me the USC blogger argued) that missing Mass is fine so long as it was not the primarily intended end. (It might not be a sin in such a case but it is not really okay.) Neither then does this mean a lay hermit (meaning a hermit without PUBLIC vows or canonical initiation into the consecrated state with its commensurate rights and obligations) can simply decide on her own, "Oh, traditionally hermits never went to Mass because they were called to solitude, so neither do I need to attend Mass! or "I have chosen solitude first so missing Mass (the secondary consequence) is no problem," or even "I just don't "fit in" so God is calling me to something else and I am dispensed." A lay hermit (e.g., the person whose blog you first referred to) is bound by her baptismal obligations. These are legitimate obligations (binding in law) and without public profession no other canonical obligations have been assumed nor do they potentially modify these fundamental obligations. Once again the importance of standing in law becomes very important.
Every eremitical writer who has considered the relation of the hermit to the Church and the danger of the indepen-dent solitary hermit is clear that too often this way results in illusion and delusion. It results in isolation more often than it does in genuine solitude and it can lead a person away from active and integral participation in the Church. When Paul Giustiniani writes about the three kinds of hermits he says: [[To the first type of hermit belongs those who take no vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience, [here he means public vows under a legitimate superior] do not have an approved rule, and are not subject to any teaching or discipline. . . They do not follow any regular discipline [referring again to a rule and superior], but only their own feelings, and they are not directed by the teaching officer of any superior, but by their own opinion. And so, by these very things, they make it clearly understood they still keep faith with the world. . . .For Saint Benedict, who calls these [hermits] sarabaites if they reside in a definite place, or gyrovagues if instead they move often from one place to another, plainly defines them as having the most disgraceful and miserable style of life. These . . . are called acephalous, that is, headless. The sacred canons of the Church do not sanction this kind of life. Rather, they censure it.]] In any case if a lay hermit (even one with private vows!) wishes to remain a good Catholic she will keep those laws of the Church she embraced in accepting Baptism.
In many of the posts I have put up here I have written about the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation, the covenantal nature of genuine solitude, the distinction between isolation and solitude, the importance of canonical standing in order to create stable ecclesial relationships which allow one to live this vocation with integrity and not delude oneself, and finally, the importance of friendships and regular participation in a parish community. In somewhat different ways, the same is true of the lay eremitical life. The facile conclusion that God wills a solitary hermit who claims on their own the title "Catholic Hermit" to simply forego reception of the Sacraments, isolate herself entirely from a local faith community, live without adequate spiritual direction nor under the authority of any legitimate superior simply underscores the importance of all these points; it also underscores the danger Saints like Peter Damian and eremitical reformers like Paul Giustiniani (who profoundly loved and understood the call to eremitical solitude) wrote about. In Paul Giustiniani's time we have seen he concluded that solitary hermit life was no longer licit or viable; the significant solution and model he proposed was a laura of hermits. Today we also have canon 603 which, while governing solitary eremitical life, does so with mainly the same safeguards Paul Giustiniani outlined. The hermit's relationships with diocese and parish ordinarily serve the place of a laura. If what this lay hermit wrote does not make sense to you then that is understandable; it is in conflict with the Church's own understanding of the way the solitary eremitical vocation must (and must NOT) be lived today and it is in conflict with classic writers on the eremitical life since at least the 11th century.
While I have cited the Camaldolese Benedictine constitutions on requirements for recluses it is important to cite what Paul Giustiniani says about those living reclusive lives. After commenting on the importance of the laura (a colony of hermits) for providing the advantages and security of community and allowing solitude he says of the recluse, [[but he will never be released from the rule and constitutions of the hermits or from the authority of and obedience of the superior. So too he will never lack fraternal assistance on those occasions when, for the observance of ecclesiastical norms, the ministry of another is required.]] Meanwhile, in his "Instruments of the Eremitic Life" Giustiniani lists celebrating Mass with spiritual joy or hearing it with devotion (#20), receiving Holy Communion with great reverence (#28), maintaining appropriate observance of common life (#33). For C 603 hermits these prudent requirements translate into relationships with a parish community and active participation there --- even if that is largely limited to Mass attendance only. For lay hermits who are in no way relieved of their ordinary Catholic obligations by accepting and being charged with other legitimate ones, this is even more the case.
Solitude (that is, eremitical solitude which involves communion with God) is recognized in canon law as a very high value but this is only true when it is understood to truly exist in the heart of the Church. In my own life the "silence of solitude" (which is a goal as well as an environment) might well require that I miss Sunday Mass for a period of time but there are sufficient structures (Rule, superiors, canons), relationships (superiors, faith community, director, pastor, etc), prayer (including the LOH and liturgy of the Word with Communion), and oversight (delegate, Bishop, director) to assure this does not slip into isolation or become willful, personally eccentric, or simply illusory (or delusional). Maintaining one's balance between physical solitude and participation in the Church's concrete faith life allows some flexibility and creates some tensions but one must be able to say, no matter what, that one is living a genuinely ecclesial faith life. For the solitary (c 603) hermit or for the lay solitary, a regular Sacramental life celebrated with one's brothers and sisters in Christ is undoubtedly part of doing so.
(see also, Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality for a more general discussion of part of the way hermits resolve the issue of competing legitimate obligations in their life. This piece deals with developing a truly Eucharistic spirituality even when one cannot always get to Mass.)
05 October 2014
[[Hi Sister, I have a question that may seem odd, perhaps even funny, but I
ask it in all seriousness.
Should hermits have friends? I know there are lots of admonishments in monastic literature against having "particular friendships" etc. that could take away from community life, but a hermit has no community in that same sense. Scripture teachings that its not good for humans to be alone, so community of some sort is necessary for our emotional and spiritual well-being. What does community look like for a hermit? ]]
I count among this group my delegate and director (Sister of the Holy Family), a Dominican Sister, my pastor (Oblate of St Francis de Sales), a Franciscan Sister (whom I have seen in person a mere handful of times in the past two decades), and two friends from the parish. Additionally there is one diocesan hermit from another country; we don't speak or write often but when we do there is a lot of laughter and we pick up as though there was no gap in time. At present I don't have a regular confessor but even so, each of these persons understands my vocation and helps me to live it with integrity. Each adds to it in a number of ways, challenging me, filling me in on things I might otherwise be unaware of, instructing me, calling me to love and be loved. Generally they are folks I can talk with about the Church, prayer, theology, religious life and the vows, Scripture, spirituality more generally, as well as literature, music, etc. In the time between meetings they hold me in prayer and I do likewise with them. They are the sort of "inner circle" within the community I count on.
What is true and critical about this circle of friends is that they understand and value me and my vocation in a way others cannot. (Others I will also mention later value me and my vocation but in a different way.) Most (all but two) are religious and all but one of these do spiritual direction or pastoral counseling. Thus, most are vowed, all have significant prayer lives and appreciate the dynamics of physical solitude/concrete loving and contemplation/action as fundamental in their own lives. For each of these persons Christ stands at the center of their lives. We (mainly) speak the same language spiritually, theologically, professionally, and humanly. In my own life I would have to say that these friendships are critically necessary. I do not know if my eremitical life would be a healthy one without them --- though I personally suspect it would not. While in most cases we don't see each other often, we do tend to pick up where we left off even as we try to hear about where the other person has been in the intervening space of time. What I can say about this group of people is that they are a daily source of joy and richness for me as well as of challenge and inspiration. That is so even when it will be days, weeks, months, or even years before I see them again. (We do email and/or write regularly. We also phone or skype occasionally.)
I suppose it is clear that this group of people are a fairly select group. One of the reasons they are so important to me is because each of them understands and has made and routinely makes sacrifices for the sake of their commitment to Christ; they are neither dismayed nor surprised by my own. Instead they expect these and would be surprised if they did NOT exist. All both are and have good friends but all have significant limitations on how often they see these friends and each one makes sacrifices so their time together is quality time. We share the same vows and values which tends to mean we appreciate the same things, read the same books (or at least the same authors), are interested in the same Church-related topics and concerns, spend money (or try not to spend money!) in mainly the same ways, and so forth. More, we tend to laugh a lot when we are together and cry together when necessary. Prayer is a way of life for each of us and their presence in my life (and I hope mine in theirs) is humanizing and holy-making. Most of these people have community obligations and commitments --- people they love and serve as Sisters and Brothers --- as well as active ministry and prayer lives to keep up. Most are in or have been in leadership and formation in their own communities so you can imagine how full their lives are. My own commitment to the silence of solitude (and all that makes that what it is) as well as my own SD ministry and limited parish service takes the place of these in my own life so when we are able to get together it is a priority --- and a gift of God.
This is the first part of my answer to your questions. While this group is not all the community that exists in my life it is the most profound and intimate, the most challenging, and the most enriching in terms of my life as a religious and hermit. In the main these persons' dedication to Christ and his People (meaning the way they give their lives for love of these through a variety of spiritual traditions and ministries) inspire (and empower) me to live the same way --- though as a hermit who also stands in the Camaldolese tradition. And that, it seems to me, is the essence of community (or the most intimate friendship!) for anyone who seeks to follow Christ.
You may have more specific questions than I have answered here. If so be sure and clarify things for me and I will answer those in the second part. (It occurs to me that what I wrote about this year's retreat also gives a glimpse into the importance of friends and the nature of community for a hermit so take a look at that as well.)
04 October 2014
|Dominican Sisters in Better Times -- 2013|
Sister Laurel, Er Dio.