Personal Update: That which only I can do . . .

Just a brief thank you and update on the reasons for my recent silence! First of all, thanks to everyone for your prayers. The treatment used was extremely helpful, and the signs I had developed that suggested further problems resolved almost immediately upon dropping one med from my regimen --- a very good sign. There is still some testing to be done, and an alternate treatment to be decided on, but on the whole, I am feeling much better!!! Writing continues, and I have managed to begin work on this blog again, so again, many thanks for your prayer. It is always helpful, but has been especially so recently!! It reminds me of a quote I love and believe is especially true for eremitical life's dependence on radical community: [[That which only I can do, I cannot do alone!]]

Questions on the Constituent Elements of c 603 and Writing a Rule of Life

[[Hi Sister Laurel. I read an older post you wrote about the beauty and depth of Canon 603. I was surprised at the way you read the canon and treat what you call "the constituent elements" of the Canon and the vocation itself. When a hermit writes a personal Rule for life under c 603, do they really have to write about all of these "constituent elements"? What does it mean if they don't write about everything? Isn't it possible to be living something without including it in your Rule? How long does it take before one can write about all of the constituent elements of C 603? . . . my own diocese is not really helpful in this process of writing a Rule, and I am really struggling to write one. . . . I am afraid my diocese will think I am goofing off, or that I am not really serious about becoming a diocesan process. . . .  Do you think that dioceses understand the time it takes to really live all of these elements and write about them?]]

Thanks for your questions! They are great and important. Moreover, even though the post you are talking about was written a while ago, it is one I am just now looking at again as part of another writing project. So let me take a shot at your questions. First of all, as kind of a backstory, or underlying foundation, I should note that I understand c 603 as a template of a lived vocation, not just a canon under which a person is professed and consecrated. Instead, I think of the canon as a model of one's embodiment of this vocation, a summary of the values one incarnates as one journeys to union with God in the silence of solitude. I think I said as much in the earlier post you referenced. Thus, while c 603 does not say everything about an individual's eremitic life, it does outline the elements critical to organically shaping what it means, in the Church, to live a consecrated solitary hermit life. (As a reminder for readers, these "constitutive" elements are 1) assiduous prayer and penance, 2) the silence of solitude, 3) stricter separation from "the world", 4) the Evangelical counsels, 5) A self-written and liveable Rule, 6) all lived under the supervision of the diocesan bishop.)

What is most striking to me is that, while c 603 does not literally mention the hermit's journey to union with God, each element presupposes, participates in, and provides necessary dimensions of this specific journey. This means the elements must be there in the hermit's Rule. She must explain what she understands by these elements, something of their spiritual and personal importance, and how she lives them because they are part of the template of a c 603 vocation and shape her as a hermit. If they are not present, or the hermit or hermit candidate does not demonstrate how she lives them and why, it may well be a sign of her incomplete embodiment of this vocation. That said, a couple of caveats are needed here. I don't mean one must live each element perfectly, only that they are substantive dimensions of the particular vocation and its journey to union with God, and need to be present. If they are not, the diocesan team has a good reason to enquire about this, how the candidate is planning to address the lack, and whether the diocese can help in some way. Without this attention, the hermit's journey to union with God and her witness to the Church and world will be frustrated and fail.

 This also means that one lives all of the constitutive elements of c 603 only with practice, prayer, study, or effort. One grows in one's understanding and living out of these elements. One needs to see them lived by others, discuss their importance in the consecrated eremitical life, and experiment with how one can best live them out at this particular stage of one's vocation. One needs to see them in conjunction with the other constituent elements and the whole tapestry of one's eremitical life. And one needs to understand the many ways in the life of the Church, each element has been legitimately lived in the Church, and why. So, for instance, despite some similarities, religious (or evangelical) poverty looks different for Franciscans than it does for Benedictines, and it certainly looks different for solitary hermits who are self-supporting. Moreover, religious poverty has a variety of levels or dimensions, some more superficial than others. Exploring these invites growth. So, what one says about this element of the canon and vocation, for instance, will say something about one's experience of religious poverty, and the pathways (or potential pathways) towards growth in eremitism that religious poverty provides. 

Similarly, stricter separation from the world looks different for the recluse and anchorite than for other hermits, etc. When I wrote my first Rule, I didn't even include stricter separation from the world. I wasn't sure I understood the term and didn't know if I believed in it anyway. I thought it might be consummately selfish and conflict with both the Christian eremite's mission and witness. It took study, reflection, prayer, and consultation before I could be sure of what I was proposing to commit myself to and why! Each of the constituent elements of the canon will reflect dimensions of our own growing maturity in the eremitical life. There are good reasons to refrain from writing about them in one's Rule, but not from a Rule which is written in preparation for profession and/or consecration. One may still be coming to greater clarity on the nature, the importance, or, for instance, the shape one of these elements takes in one's own eremitic life. One may not have adequate time to truly reflect on the element at all. Alternatively, one may have lived the element in one form of life and may be just coming to understand (or even just perceive!) the differences between this and c 603 life. Whatever the reason, what we write or fail to write can be a guide to our need for growth in the vocation.

I would encourage you not to worry about your own difficulty in writing a liveable Rule of Life. Treat the process of writing as part of a process of growth and trust that God is directing your work. Keep notes on what is changing for you, and in what way (i.e., note experiences, questions that have been raised, reading, conversations, etc.), during different periods. When you meet with diocesan staff or communicate with them, provide an overview of what has been happening for you over the months. Because very few dioceses have much, if any, experience with adequately implementing c 603, you will be educating your diocese on the nature and importance of the very process of writing a Rule of Life, even as you strengthen your working relationship with them. I do believe this kind of education is particularly important concerning the organically determined time frames involved, the role of the diocese in accompanying the candidate, the difference between writing a Rule and writing a liveable Rule, and especially, the use of the process of writing as a key to mutual discernment and personal formation.

Feast of St Romuald and the Camaldolese Congregation (Reprise)

 From the Camaldolese newsletter regarding today's feast:

June 19th is an official feast for the Camaldolese congregation. It marks the feast of the founder of the Camaldolese Congregation, Saint Romuald of Ravenna.

Born in 951 AD, Father Romuald, lying on his bed, gave his life back to God on the 19th of June 1027- (Saint Peter Damian: The Life of Blessed Romuald). As a young man, Romuald did penance for 40 days at the monastery of Sant’Apollonare near his home region of Ravenna, which was then an administrative city for the destroyed western Roman Empire, simply for being a witness of a duel where there was a death. He then became a monk there, but shortly afterward came under the tutelage of a hermit monk in Venice named Marino, with whom, among other things, he prayed the 150 psalms every day. Venice was at that time considered Byzantine territory. It was common practice for hermit monks to pray constantly, especially to pray the entire psalter daily. This was a tradition shared with the Levite priests of Judaism praying the Tehillim, the same tradition for monks of the desert in the north of Africa and the Middle East, as well as among both the eastern and western monks of the Roman Empire. In 978 Romuald left Venice to travel with an abbot of Cluniac tradition, Abbot Gari, to one of his monasteries under his jurisdiction located in Cuxa (the Pyrenees). There Romuald lived for almost 10 years as a hermit, but also participated in the cenobitic life with other monks. There, he was also ordained a priest.

These two pivotal places, Venice and the Pyrenees, marked the formative moments in his monastic life, where he realized the importance of a balance of eremitism and cenobitism in the spiritual life. After Cuxa, Saint Romuald returned to Ravenna and immediately to Montecasino for a short period of time. Then, and for the rest of his life, he moved through different areas in central Italy, mainly within what was then the Papal states, and Istria, which was part of the republic of Venice and is now Croatia, founding hermitages, reforming monasteries, and mentoring other monks.

Saint Romuald lived in tumultuous times, where alliances, principalities, empires, duchies, provinces, and new marquisates were forming. Unfortunately, during this period in history, nepotism (the favoring of relatives or friends) existed in order to secure geographical territory. Monasteries and abbeys were appointed or granted to secure some favor in government, alliances, or power. Simony (the buying and selling of religious posts or pardons) was also common.

Within this environment, Saint Romuald was appointed to various abbacies and also twice threatened with death. He rejected the threats and avoided compromising situations with his religious fervor and piety, always responding to the call to serve and surrender to God’s call. He preferred times of prayer and seclusion above all; in his interactions with other monks, as is stated in both documents that narrate his life (Saint Peter Damian’s The Life of Blessed Romuald and Saint Bruno of Querfurt’s The Life of the Five Brothers), he always gave counsel to monks to return to their cells and pray. He attracted multiple candidates to monasticism, and his fame grew in the region of what is now Tuscany, Venice, Croatia, and Rome.

Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (partial reprise)

 Thanks to everyone who has contacted me this last week, because I have not been posting for several weeks! I really appreciate it!! I want to request prayers for the next two or three weeks. I have some new medical problems made even more complicated by the side effects of the necessary meds we've tried. So please, keep us (me, my docs, et al) in your prayers!!!!! Prayers, too (please), for the writing I have been doing. The project is both more demanding and more exciting than I had expected. Many thanks!!! (And for those awaiting responses, thanks for your patience; I am getting those out today.)

Meanwhile, (and I am aware of the irony of this feast), today we celebrate a feast that sometimes seems irrelevant to contemporary life. The Feast of the Sacred Heart developed in part as a response to pre-destinationist theologies, which diminished the universality of the gratuitous love of God and consigned many to perdition. But the Church's own theologies of grace and freedom point directly to the reality of the human heart -- that center of the human person where God freely speaks himself and human beings respond in ways which are salvific for them and for the rest of the world. It asks us to see all persons as constituted in this way and called to life in and of God. Today's Feast of the Sacred Heart, then, despite the shift in context, asks us to reflect again on the nature of the human heart, to the greatest danger to spiritual or authentically human life the Scriptures identify, and too, on what a contemporary devotion to the Sacred Heart might mean for us.

As I have written here before, the heart is the symbol of the center of the human person. It is a theological term that points first of all to God and to God's activity deep within us. It is not so much that we have a heart and then God comes to dwell there; it is that where God dwells within us and bears witness to himself, we have a heart. The human heart (not the cardiac muscle but the center of our personhood, which the Scriptures call heart) is a dialogical event where God speaks, calls, breathes, and sings us into existence and where, in one way or another, we respond to become the people we are called to be. It is therefore important that our hearts be open and flexible, that they be obedient to the Voice and love of God, and so that they be responsive in all the ways they are summoned to be.

Bearing this in mind, it is no surprise that the Scriptures speak in many places about the very worst thing that could befall a human being and her spiritual life. We hear it in the following line from Ezekiel: [[If today you hear [God's] voice, harden not your hearts.]] Many things contribute to such a reaction. We know that love is risky and that it always hurts. Sometimes this hurt is akin to the mystical experience of being pierced by God's love and is a wonderful but difficult experience. Other times, love wounds us in less fruitful ways: we are betrayed by friends or family, we reach out to another in love and are rejected, and, of course, a billion smaller losses wound us in ways from which we cannot seem to recover. In such cases, our hearts are not only wounded but become scarred, indurated, less sensitive to pain (or pleasure), stiff, and relatively inflexible. They, quite literally, become "hardened," and we may be fearful and unwilling or even unable to risk further injury. When the Scriptures speak of the "hardening" of our hearts, they use the very words medicine uses to speak of the result of serious and prolonged wounding: induration, sclerosis, callousedness. Such hardening is self-protective, but it also locks us into a world that makes us less capable of responding to love with all of its demands and riskiness. It makes us incapable of suffering well (patiently, fruitfully), or of real selflessness, generosity, or compassion.

It is here that the symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is instructive and where contemporary devotion to the Sacred Heart can assist us. The Sacred Heart is clearly the place where human and divine are united in a unique way. While we are not called to Daughterhood or to Sonship in the exact same sense of Jesus' (he is "begotten" Son, we are adopted Sons --- and I use only Sons because of the prophetic, countercultural sense that term had for women in the early Church), we are meant to be expressions of a similar unity and heritage; we are meant to have God as the well spring of life and love at the center of our existence. Like the Sacred Heart, our own hearts are meant to be "externalized" in a sense and transparent to others. They are meant to be wounded by love and deeply touched by the pain of others, but not scarred or indurated in that woundedness; they are meant to be compassionate hearts on fire with love and poured out for others --- hearts which are marked by the cross in all of its kenotic (self-emptying) dimensions and, therefore, too, by the joy of ever-new life. The truly human heart is a reparative heart that heals the woundedness of others and empowers them to love as well. Such hearts are hearts that love as God loves, and therefore, do justice in our world. I think that allowing our own hearts to be remade in this way represents an authentic devotion to Jesus' Sacred Heart. There is nothing lacking in relevance or contemporaneity in that!

Why are Hermits Known for Their Freedom? Part 1: Foundational Freedom

[[ Sister, why are hermits known for their freedom?  Is it because they can do whatever they like? I mean they can go off and leave their families and live alone and do whatever they love to do, right? Were you looking for freedom when you decided to become a hermit? What about the ones who were shut away in a cell next to a church? They weren't free in living that way were they? Are they also hermits who would be known for their freedom?]]

Thanks for your questions. Hermits are indeed known for their freedom, and this includes not only "freedom from" a lot of truly good stuff, but also "freedom for" in really significant ways. The most important and characteristically Christian form of freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be, and hermits are free in this way especially. Human beings are themselves free when and to whatever extent they are in a heart-level dialogue with God. This means allowing God to call us to wholeness, to humanness, and learning and being empowered to love ourselves and one another in light of that. It also means allowing God (Love-in-act) to reside at the center of our lives and letting all else fall into place in light of that theocentric way of relating to reality.  

For the hermit (and for every authentic Christian), everything is relativized in light of one's life with God, but this does not mean the hermit is free to forget or neglect "everything else" as one focuses on God. Instead, because life in dialogue with God (and here I mean the really deep dialogue that comes from posing the profound questions of being and meaning we each are and listening to or receiving the response that God is) represents freedom from the false self and the freedom of the true self, the hermit comes to know and love all of reality in God, in the truth. We reject enmeshment in the distorted reality c 603 calls "the world," with all that fosters the false self, and we embrace authentic engagement, that is, we love and revere the truth and beauty of all reality in God. 

This is genuine freedom. It is the way Christ perceived and loved God's creation, the way empowered by the Holy Spirit, the way that sees everything that is with a clarity and reverence we are made for, but are incapable of when we are enmeshed and unfree. This shift from false to true self, from the inability to see rightly to clarity of perception, and the inability to love as Christ loves to being one in whom Christ lives and loves ("I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me!" Gal 2:20) is the very essence of the freedom of the hermit. And yet, it is not always easy to love in the selfless way Christ loved and with the generosity of God. We must be reborn and remade for that. 

Hermits commit (dedicate) themselves to being remade (consecrated and sanctified) in and by God. They literally dedicate themselves to being loved into wholeness/holiness in the way only life with and in God can do. This means they commit themselves to becoming the very place where heaven and earth come together and interpenetrate one another. They dedicate themselves to God's project of being Emmanuel to his creation, and the corresponding human vocation of being Emmanuel in and through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural outflow of this dedication is an active love for all that God holds as precious. In Christ, our lives of prayer are not just a matter of praying for others, though of course we do that, but of becoming the intercessory "place" in our world where Human and Divine truly meet and come to abide in one another. We become symbols of what c 603 calls "the silence of solitude", symbols of genuine freedom to truly be ourselves for and in relation to others, signs of liberation from the noise and enmeshment of what c 603 calls "the world", and made prophetic with lives commissioned to challenge our Church and creation to truly become and be what God wills these realities to be.

This is not about just doing anything at all, or even about doing just what we truly like doing (though we are apt to really love doing what we do in this way, and being who we are in Christ). Again, it is about doing the will of God in our world. It is about being the persons God calls us to be, and doing so for the sake of God, God's Church, and the whole of God's creation. In embracing this kind of freedom and letting God grasp us, we sacrifice many of the discrete gifts God has given us in order to become the single overarching gift he makes us to be in His Son and Spirit. 

We trust that God knows how best to use us, and, when we look back over the whole scope of our lives, we will be amazed at the wondrousness of the tapestry he has woven with the woof of our sinfulness, illness, suffering, death, betrayals and infidelities, struggles, incapacities, ignorance, venality, etc, and the graced warp of our love of others, the passion and hard work of our own dedication to life and Love-in-Act, and the victory of Divine meaning over absurdity. Because this use of the material of our own lives by God is not manipulative, but transformative and transcendent, it sings of an otherworldly freedom. Most people will never perceive the truth of this -- at least not this side of death. Others will catch glimpses of it. A relative few will know it themselves, even if they are not hermits. This, by the way, is one reason the life of hermits and the anchorites you refer to is known as "hidden". Superficially, such lives look so limited and constrained that most people will miss their real depth and breadth.  That different way of seeing (or not seeing) is what your questions reflect --- the difficulty of seeing the profound freedom that constitutes a truly human life grasped by and grounded in God, especially when that person is a hermit or anchorite. 

We tend to mistake the nature of the lives of such persons in two main ways: first, we can see them as narrow, limited, or constrained in a way that seems to mean they are neither free nor particularly human, and second, we can see them as wholly disengaged from and uncaring of everything and everyone of real value, and so, empty and meaningless. (This latter mistake is one  that some who have called themselves "hermits" through the centuries have made, and currently still make!) The freedom of the hermit, however, is one of deep and broad engagement, pervasive and abiding love, not in the abstract, but concretely, really, humanly. Hermits reject enmeshment so that we might be engaged with reality as Christ was and is.  We do it so that he might be uniquely embodied in us in anticipation of the New Heaven and New Earth that Jesus' death and resurrection inaugurated. We reject enmeshment so we might love --- fully, freely, truly, and more profoundly in Christ than "the world" can even imagine. This is the foundational freedom of the hermit. Every other freedom flows from this and serves it.

Why is Star Trek Easier to Imagine than the Ascension? (Reprise)

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, in your post on the Ascension, you said that it was difficult for us to believe that Jesus was raised bodily into "heaven". You suggested it might be easier to imagine the Star Trek story as true instead. I wondered why you said that. Thank you.]]

I appreciate your question. Thanks. We humans, tend to draw distinct lines between the spiritual and the material, and often we rule out any idea that has the two interpenetrating the other or being related in paradoxical ways. We simplify things in other ways as well. For instance, do you remember when the Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin first orbited Earth and made a pronouncement that he had now been to space, had looked and looked for God, and did not find him? The notion that God's relation to the cosmos was other than as a visible (and material) being among other material beings present in "the heavens" was completely beyond this man's ideology or imagination. The idea of God as Being itself, being (not A being) that grounded and was the source of all existence while transcending it all was simply too big an idea for this Cosmonaut. Imagine what he would have done with the notion that everything that once existed, now exists, or is on its way to existing, does or will do so within the very life of God! (Gagarin is now said never to have affirmed this; instead, Soviet authorities did and used his flight to do so.)

Another example might be better. When I was young (grade school), I went to a Christian Scientist Church and Sunday School. There, every Sunday we recited what was called, "The Scientific Statement of Being". It was a bit of neo-Platonic "dogma" written by Mary Baker Eddy. It was the heart of the faith: [[There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-All. Spirit is immortal truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is his image and likeness. Therefore, man is not material; he is spiritual.]] By the time I was seven or eight I was questioning what it meant to say matter is unreal (or, more often, how could I be asked to deny the truth of matter's reality). Imagine what it was like to fall off your bike and tell yourself the blood and pain was "unreal" --- only Spirit is real. 

Donna Korba, IHM

The answers never satisfied, but I think you get the point. The human mind has always had difficulty not drawing a distinction between the material and the Spiritual, even to asserting the two things are antithetical --- even to the extent of denying either matter or spirit actually exists at all.  (Christian Science said matter was unreal, not just in the Platonic sense of being less real than the ideal, but in the sense of asserting that materiality is a delusion; on the other hand, contemporary science often says anything except matter is unreal.) An incarnate God, or a God who would make room within his very life for embodied existence like ours (in whatever form that embodiment occurs) would be anathema and literally inconceivable to either of these! So yes, we often suspend disbelief in reading science fiction or fantasy literature in order to enter deeply into the story. But what is also true is that we need to learn to suspend disbelief in intelligent ways in order to appreciate the Mystery of God and the cosmos; we need to do this in order to enter deeply into this great theodrama. Star Trek's stories may seem easier to believe than stories of the Ascension because the Mystery we call God is greater than anything we can create or even imagine ourselves.

One last point. Early on in my studies of theology (probably during my BA work), my major professor answered the question, "What do I do if I cannot believe in God?" His answer was, "I would encourage you to act as though it (God's existence) is true and see what happens." My own objection at the time was that that would be encouraging people to engage in pretense, not real faith, and John Dwyer responded further, " Perhaps it seems like that superficially, but what would really be happening is that one would be opening oneself [or remaining open] to allow those things that God alone can do." Another way of saying this is to affirm that one would thus be refusing to close oneself to the Holy Spirit. Once one allowed or embraced this openness, one would then compare the differences between one's life before and after such openness. I didn't find John Dwyer's initial answer much more convincing than I found the Christian Science answer re: matter's unreality when I was 8 or 9 yo, but I also mistakenly thought my faith was relatively strong and sufficient. 

I now know that learning to trust (and to be open to Mystery) in the way John described is both more difficult and more intelligent than any cynical skepticism scientific materialism offers us today. And one grows in faith (thanks be to God)! I have experienced things in my life which God alone could do, and I recognize the wisdom (and the humility!!) of John Dwyer's advice to students believing they were atheists or that faith was naive, namely, that they suspend their disbelief, open themselves to new ways of seeing, and see what happens. Of course, this specific form of suspension of disbelief would result in a vocation to commitment to a world itself called to be something ever greater than even the limitations of science can imagine. What is often difficult for us is understanding that this specific suspension of disbelief is more profoundly wise than science itself can know, or our often-earth-bound imaginations can create.

 Authentic faith (which, again, is not the same as naive credulity) is something different, and in some ways, both more challenging and compelling than the more superficial suspension of disbelief we adopt when we read science fiction or fantasy literature. The essential difference, I think, is that the first type of suspension of disbelief is a form of chosen naivete adopted temporarily for the sake of recreation and enjoyment; it allows us a vacation from reality, while exercising imagination in the service of creativity. This certainly enlivens us. The second type of suspension of disbelief, that of faith, while also exercising imagination in the same service, requires more than our imagination. It is neither naive nor credulous and requires the whole of ourselves in a more direct commitment to enlivening others; as a result, faith opens us to a more intense and extensive commitment to reality itself and is simply more difficult.

Reflections on Consecrated Celibacy, the Importance of Friendship, and the Relationship between Pope John Paul II and Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I have a question that may not be something you want to deal with. It's about Pope Saint John Paul II and the relationship he had with a Polish woman over about 32 years. I understand this was mainly a relationship via correspondence, and they never were involved physically or sexually with one another, but there was a very real intimacy. My question is, where does this put John Paul II in terms of his commitment to celibacy? Wouldn't this be a violation, or even an act of adultery?]]

Thanks for your questions. First, I think this topic is something I could respond to on the basis of my own life as a professed religious and my commitment to consecrated celibacy. Where I cannot respond is on the nature of the relationship between JPII and the woman correspondent. While I have read a couple of articles on these letters, I don't know what they actually contain, or the degree and kind of intimacy they involve. I believe only one side of the correspondence has been made public, or at least "known" in any case. Beyond that, I don't know enough about Anna-Teresa's life to speak about the propriety of these letters or the prudence of continuing the correspondence. She was married, but I don't know the quality or nature of her relationship with her husband, nor do I have any idea how her relationship with JPII affected this relationship or the ability of either husband or wife to live their vows. What I can speak to, however, is the propriety of intimate, loving friendships between religious who are vowed to chastity in celibacy and those of another gender.

Remember that vows of chastity in celibacy are not merely or even primarily about not participating in genital activity and not having sexual relations with others. They are about learning to love in the fullness of one's manliness or womanliness, though without genital expression or (strictly) sexual activity. God, of course, is primary in this kind of learning, but healthy, loving relationships with both men and women are important as well. Chastity in celibacy fosters a kind of availability to others, and provides a focused context in which one can grow in one's humanity, a humanity which is either uniquely manly or womanly; one really does need to be in some relationship with those of the opposite sex for such growth. Yes, these need to be truly chaste relationships (as is true for anyone, no matter their state of life), but they, and everything about them, will always be touched by the participants' fundamental womanliness or manliness. Sexuality is that profound and pervasive a reality. Whatever we do in the spirit of this human reality will be an expression and reflection of our fundamental womanliness or manliness. That includes living a chaste and celibate life.

The possibility of genuinely manly and womanly lives that are capable of loving one another profoundly without falling into lust or moving to genital activity is something Christianity recognizes throughout its history. We have many examples of religious men and women in relationships of intimate friendship. Two of the most famous are St Francis de Sales and St Jane de Chantal, and St Francis of Assisi and St Clare. St Aelred of Rievaulx wrote once about the nature of such profound relationships when he said, "You and I are here, and I hope that Christ is between us as a third." That pretty well captures the nature of relationships known as "anamcara" (soul friends) with roots in both Celtic and Desert Abba and Amma traditions. The New Testament speaks of friendship with God, or of the beloved disciple who rests his head upon Christ's breast, and the fact that that disciple is unnamed allows and even calls each of us to imagine ourselves in precisely that kind of profound friendship. (The Gospel of the day is about this call to profound friendship!) It is intimate, and sexual (manly or womanly) without being genital or necessarily leading there. Meanwhile, Jesus' most loving friends and followers included women who bathed his feet in their tears out of love and grief, or sat at his feet just listening when that position was traditionally appropriate for male disciples only. We are happy to "spiritualize" these relationships (where "spiritualize" really seems to mean to be made physically and emotionally risk-free), but look again at how they truly reveal a profoundly embodied love and deep friendship! Both spirituality and sexuality imply embodiedness.

As human beings, we are created by the choices we make. Even more, we are made truly human by the choices we make to love one another intimately, authentically, and in Christ -- or, by those choices we make refusing to love in this way. Every one of us is morally bound to love chastely, whether we are married, single, consecrated, or ordained. But the emphasis in that sentence is LOVE, not chastely, because all authentic love will be chaste. Some of us embrace chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God, and that Kingdom is where God is sovereign and authentic love is modelled in this state by those given first of all to God. Our consecrated celibacy is embraced to allow both profound love of God and our brothers and sisters in this world; it is embraced to make that love more widely accessible in our world through its public nature and ministry. Nothing in any of this suggests that celibate love, rooted in God and the deep womanliness or manliness of those professed in this way, cannot exist between males and females like Pope Saint John Paul II and Anna Teresa Tiemieniecka.  Just the opposite, in fact. Such relationships can lead those sharing in them to an ever-deepening relationship with God and greater compassion for others. Hence, Rievaulx's famous quotation above from his work, Spiritual Friendship.

There is no circumstance related to a commitment to celibacy per se that makes such a relationship necessarily a transgression of one's vows or commitments. In fact, those of us bound by such public vows often have known profound heterosexual and non-genital relationships with other religious, priests, and non-religious. Sometimes these are some of the most fruitful and growth-producing relationships we have known. I am able to say that some of my best friendships have been with religious Brothers or priests, and some of the deepest sharing has occurred in those relationships. When two people share intellectual and spiritual gifts and interests, as well as values, ministerial or pastoral interests, concerns, and so forth, the relationship can be quite profound and actually lead each other to God in privileged ways. It seems to me that John Paul II and Anna Teresa might well have had just such a relationship.

Yes, there is risk in such relationships; vows might be transgressed, and vocations to truly love might be betrayed. But this is not necessarily so because again, the renewed commitment to chastity in celibacy that occurs choice-by-choice and decision-by-decision can also model really profound and compelling instances of authentic friendship that lead the participants to God in a world that needs examples of deep and intimate friendship that not only can and do remain non-genital, but speak compellingly of the love of God, which is their ground. As is well known, friendship today is trivialized, and the sexual (not genital!!) nature of every person and relationship is neglected or denied so that any deep relationship between man and woman (and often, similar relationships between those of the same sex) becomes suspect. (We also treat genital activity as being as imperative as breathing when that is simply not the case.) I would argue that this specific witness is an especially important reason religious men and women are called to make vows of chastity in celibacy in today's world, and one of the really critical reasons the Church has renewed the vocation of Consecrated Virgins living in the world.

Over time, as (hopefully) more of these letters are made available for reflection and analysis, it will be somewhat easier to say whether the relationship was ill-advised or another of those relationships mentioned above that will one day stand as a model of the relationship between authentic Anamcara (alternate spellings, Anam Chara or Anam Cara). Currently, there have been several reassurances that JPII did not transgress his commitment to celibacy, the primacy of his relationship with God, or his responsibility to the Church, and there are quotes from Anna-Teresa that seem to indicate the same, despite a real personal struggle with the emotional dimensions of the relationship.  As already noted, I have read no comments on the nature of Tymieniecka's marriage over the years, and it seems to me that this is where the greatest risk actually existed.  To truly understand the prudence or imprudence of the (continuing) relationship with JPII, it would be important to consider any information about how the JPII-ATT relationship affected Anna-Teresa's husband and their marriage. However, because the relationship with JPII was not hidden, and Anna-Teresa's marriage was sustained in any case, perhaps she was able to love her husband as fully as her vows called for. In that case, both he and she are remarkable people, as was Pope John Paul II.

For this reason as well, I cannot and so, will not, suggest adultery occurred. I cannot suggest, much less know, that lust was a problem for either party. (Physical attraction and intense emotionality need not become a matter of lust or adultery in one's heart, though of course they may do so. My hope is that the above picture of  SS. Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II demonstrate this in what seems to me to be a very natural and chaste expression of both masculine protectiveness and affection on JPII's part, and joyful receptivity, feminine affection, and even deeper love on Mother Teresa's. Had the picture been of JPII and Anna-Teresa instead, it likely would have been used by the public to condemn either or both of them. My point is there is no necessary reason for this conclusion from what we actually know.) In any case, I will continue reading about the situation and post updates as there is reason to do so. Thanks again for your questions.

We Are Pioneers! The Goal and Witness of Eremitic Life (Reprise)

I have always been a fan of Star Trek and its spin-off series. Some I have liked more than others, but all of them have engaged me on some level. I am finding Strange New Worlds especially wonderful, not only because of the exploration being done in each episode, but because of the rich characterizations, the struggle each player has to be their best selves, and the ethics of equality and compassion that permeate the show. In all of these aspects, Star Trek generally, and in Strange New Worlds specifically, I am reminded of a world we have the potential to be as part of a universe we can hardly imagine yet.

As a hermit, I don't imagine I will ever explore outer space! But I, and other diocesan hermits, are excited by the prospect of exploring inner space, the realm of life with God, and of life lived on the frontiers of eremitism with our canonical rights, obligations, and commitments. More, we do this as part of our ministry to and within the Church, precisely so the Church can be alive in the way she is called to be. This is also essential to the health and well-being of the world around us, and integral to God's own will for the whole of his creation. We are pioneers of sorts, and we struggle in the ways all pioneers struggle, first to live our lives with an integrity that is true to the solitary eremitical tradition we represent, and secondly, to be open to whatever new the Holy Spirit wills to do in and with our lives. That makes our lives a strange mixture of old and new, inner and externalized, traditional and novel, profoundly personal and expansively cosmic, all at the same time. Like many who have gone before me, and numbers of others journeying in the same way today, I think this is what it means to be a contemplative and to live as a hermit in the present moment!! 

It is also what it means (for anyone) to live in and from the Risen Christ, who abides at once in heaven and on earth. He is the one in whom the interpenetration of these realities is made real. In all of the Scripture I have done in the past years, two themes are newly important for my understanding of the nature of eremitical life and the journey I have been called to make. The first is the affirmation that God is the One who, from the beginning, has willed to be Emmanuel, an image of God that affirms his desire to be with me (and the whole of his creation) in every moment and mood of my life. Emmanuel is the name in which heaven and earth are drawn together to make the whole of God's dwelling place. The second theme that affirms this same will of God is that Jesus is the new Temple. A temple is not merely a holy place set apart for God or for worship of God. It is the place in which heaven (God's realm) and earth (creation's realm) are quite literally drawn together. Jesus as the new Temple becomes the One in whom heaven and earth interpenetrate one another, and the renewed world becomes God's own once again. 

Into this incredibly weighty story I have been born and born anew, and what I also know myself, now for the very first time, is that both I and this solitary eremitical vocation were made for times like these. (E E Cummings would shout with delight: "and books are shuter than books can be")! It is something of a truism to say that eremitic life tends to reappear or flourish during difficult times. But here we are, and here I am -- just 42 years into the life of the canon 603 vocation -- and our world faces crises on every front. The US is facing a Constitutional crisis and the endangering of our democratic society on numerous fronts; our people need to be able to hold onto hope, and religious freedom needs to be protected, especially from "Christian Nationalism" and the assault on religious freedom that ideology represents.  At the same time, the Catholic Church has just lost Pope Francis, one of our strongest voices for human rights, social justice, the threat to our environment, as well as to the place of a synodal Church in establishing and maintaining a just and compassionate Church and world. We look to the election of a new Pope and the renewal of the Church's mission, especially in the face of growing fascism, oligarchies, "Christian" Nationalism, and factionalization throughout the Church and the World.

I have written on this blog for almost twenty years about the task to become the person God calls each of us to be. A vocational path is the means by which we achieve this task and goal. An ecclesial vocation also means being part of those directly responsible for assisting the Church to be the Church God calls her to be. As a part of this task and goal, I have worked with a highly skilled spiritual director during this entire time, and together we have explored the ins and outs of my own journey to growth, healing, and union with God. It has been surprising, at times gratifying, at others exhilarating, and at other times (though especially the past nine years with this particular inner work) extremely difficult. In the main, just as it is for every hermit, it has been a journey of love --- loving, being loved, learning to be loved, and learning to trust and love more fully in return. This has meant exploring the depths of myself, learning what it means to be true and, through the love and mercy of God and others, to be made true and whole.  

In all of this, our relationship with the creator God is so central to our lives, so constitutive of who we are, that we can say we ARE this relationship, and like any relationship, it is both demanding and fulfilling. This is the inner world the hermit explores, commits to allowing being enlarged and deepened even to the limits of her human weakness and the darkness of personal alienation and fragmentation. The desert Abbas and Ammas spoke of doing battle with demons, and the vivid pictures they sometimes painted reflected the awesomeness of this same inner world. It was sometimes terrifying, always challenging, and, so long as one persevered, inevitably exhilarating in the victory of love over personal woundedness and brokenness. This is true of contemporary hermits as well. This victory culminates in union with God and the certain sense that one's life is given to God so that He may be the Emmanuel He wills to be, even as he makes of us those we are called to be, too. 

No, this isn't the final frontier of a Star Trek program. But it is every bit as exciting an adventure, and of much greater moment! At a time when truth is generally neglected and routinely betrayed, when personal truth is sacrificed for the sake of inhuman disvalues like greed and power, when Christianity itself is betrayed by a "prosperity gospel" with no room for the Cross or the authentic grace of God, when individualism replaces the commonality of brothers and sisters in Christ, hermits explore and witness to this deepest of truths, namely, to the extent we are truly human and live this with integrity, we ARE a relationship with God in which we both fulfill the telos of our lives, and participate in the fulfillment of the whole of God's creation. This is the source of all hope in our world, and it is the fundamental thing hermits are called to witness to with their lives. As Strange New Worlds might describe this vocation, Ad astra per aspera: Through difficulties to the stars!!

Recovering Genuine Humility and Rejecting the Idea that we are Nothing to God's All

[[Hi Sister! I listened to a video that argued about the importance of Canon 603, I think [it was intended] to say that [the canon] was not needed. The point being made was that if the canon was not being used by dioceses to correct problems with the vocation, then why even have it? An additional point seemed to be countering some of what you have written on this blog. The video asserted that "hermits don't need to be recognized, and don't need to be respected, and they don't [need] to have a place of honor in the Church". This would [supposedly] be contrary to the very nature of the hermit call. I don't recall your ever having asserted that c 603 was published to "force" the Church to recognize and respect hermits and their vocations! Besides, does real humility imply that the Church should not recognize or respect the person or the vocation? That's not what I have been catechized to believe!!]]

Thanks for writing about this. I think some of it is a bit dated, and I may have responded to similar questions a couple of years ago. At the same time, the real reason c 603 was created, and the nature of genuine humility, are timely issues because misunderstandings still abound. 

First, then, the reason for the canon. As I have explained recently, eremitical life, though a vital and essential vocation within the Church (and always inadequately appreciated by the Western Church from the time of the Desert Abbas and Ammas), had largely died out in the Western Church by modern times. There are several reasons for this. It remained present and vital in the Eastern Church, but it was also linked to monastic life therein. The challenge Bp Remi de Roo set the Church was the recovery of the solitary eremitical vocation (community forms of eremitical life continued in the Church) and its establishment as a "state of perfection" (the term once used for the religious or consecrated state). The reasons he gave were entirely positive and had to do with the witness value of the vocation and the need of both Church and world for these vocations. 

The canon that eventually grew out of Bp Remi de Roo's Vatican II intervention has nothing to do with correcting problems in the eremitical life as lived at the time. It makes a single reference to being under the supervision of the local bishop, but does not speak of problems, difficulties, etc. in living the life, nor does it refer to detailed ways of living its essential elements. Instead, it codifies a flexible approach to the vocation that depends on the hermit's own Rule of life, her own understanding and experience of things like "stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance", and "the silence of solitude", and a local bishop's "supervision" --- though without detailing what constitutes adequate supervision. None of this sounds like something mainly written to deal with problems.

As I have already pointed out, in any case, one does not take those with problems in living a vocation and initiate them into a new state of life with additional rights and obligations, in order to deal with what may seem to be a problematic way of life. Instead, either one corrects the person in ways already open to one, or one simply lets the way of life die out, as was occurring in the Western Church. Real problems with various lay vocations could be dealt with legitimately through one's pastor or bishop, as truly needed. Ways of correcting and censuring lay hermits existed apart from c 603, which was not meant for this in any case. Remember that to call something canonical means it is normative, while non-canonical refers to ways of living, etc., that are not normative. This also means, then, that those living non-normative (non-canonical) ways of living cannot be culpable for violating norms appropriate to canonical vocations they neither have nor have ever committed themselves to!!

On Forcing the Church

Regarding what I am supposed to have said about "forcing the Church" to esteem hermits or their vocation, let me affirm that I believe every vocation and every Christian from every vocation and state of life should be respected, esteemed, and recognized as possessing a dignity rooted in God and a value sealed by the Holy Spirit. I have never used the term forced in this regard, nor would I. Even so, I do believe that the Western Church did fail to appropriately regard the eremitical vocation from the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas onwards. Local Churches (dioceses) created statutes and a variety of liturgical rites for hermits and anchorites in the Middle Ages (ca 1200-1500), but, as I understand it, these vocations were not recognized in law by the Universal Church. It was Bishop Remi de Roo's Vatican II intervention regarding making eremitism a state of perfection because of the various positive points he outlined that allowed the Church to look at this matter with fresh eyes.

I have written about this for some time now because, like you, I was taught that humility was not about self-deprecation, but about honesty, and loving honesty at that! Today, as I explore the nature and significance of ecclesiality in regard to vocations to the consecrated state, I am freshly struck not only by the truth of the human person as imago dei growing into imago Christi, but also by ecclesial vocations that suggest persons serve as imago ecclesiae. The bridal imagery we have used through the centuries has been applied to religious, both male and female, and now to consecrated virgins living in the world in a recovery of a truly ancient vocation. This has been done, not to aggrandize the individuals called in this way, but to remind them that they are icons of the Church  --- and to remind the Church that the last and least among her serve to remind her of her truest nature and dignity. 

Recovering Real Humility and Rejecting the Idea that We are Nothing to God's all:

For a very long time, I thought that the comparison about being nothing to God's all made sense. I thought that without God I was a "walking zero," and tried to outline the truth of the order of grace in this way. And now, (with apologies to Catherine of Siena!) I look back at that and realize that there has never been a time when this comparison applied to my life or my being. From the moment of my conception, God knew me as precious and as someone he yearned to love as fully as possible. God knew me as capable of being fulfilled by this love because God created me to be capable of this, and dwelt within me. The human person is never made to stand as nothing to God's all. Instead, they stand in and with God as the awesome capacity for Love-in-Act, and that is not ever nothing!! Yes, it grows and develops in response to love, but it is still never "nothing". To be this "capacity" is what it means to be made by God at every instant of our lives; it is what it means to be the handiwork of Love-in-act in search of a counterpart, and it is what it means to be an intimate relatedness to God. I think here we are dealing with another paradox that Christian theology is so full of. We are not the everything or the pleroma that God is, nor are we the source and ground of our own lives, but we are the constellations of every yearning and hunger that call out for, and exist in response to the living God so that in Christ, God's will might be embodied in our world, and we might come to fulfillment at the same time.

No matter how I have tried to think about and say this in the past, I have to say this now: we are not empty containers God fills with Godself. That is the image of the human person that the "human as nothing to God's all" equation implies. Instead, we are the (fullness of) capacity or potential for God, for light and love and being and meaning, and we reveal the nature of God even when we think of ourselves as this capacity and nothing more. (I am wondering if perhaps the word "potentiality" is the better word here because it means more than "mere" capacity. Potential and potentiality have a more interactive dynamism and intimacy about them than the word "capacity," I think. Even as sinners, we are the "living impress" or imago of the infinite Mystery that is the source and ground of everything that does and could exist, and while I cannot adequately express what this truth actually means, I know that humility means the recognition that I am the graced and embodied potential for union with the living God, and my vocation means I have been made to be imago ecclesiae. Neither of these forms of imago is about being nothing to God's all. That older comparison seems to me to be entirely too worldly, too static, and too lacking in intimacy and vitality to capture the awesome truth of human being-toward-God. It may also be too-colored by psychological inadequacies or woundedness. (Again, my apologies to Catherine of Siena, who once claimed a private revelation of this notion, and whose Feast Day is today!!)

By the way, human beings (and hermits among them!!) do, quite literally, call for and even need respect, recognition, and a place (of honor) in the Church.  We cannot live fully or with appropriate dignity without them. People die without these. Psychologists speak of a phenomenon called "soul death" concerning the lack of these and similar fundamental needs of the human person. Jesus reminds us that we do not live from bread alone, but from every Word that comes forth from the mouth of God. Those words are words of recognition, respect, and honor. They are words of Love-in-Act. No one should be made to feel apologetic about these foundational needs. They are precisely part of the revelation of the very great dignity of the human person and the great generosity of our God.

By the way, I need to thank you again for your questions. With repetitive questions (and I get these all the time), I often think I shouldn't respond here yet again, but in doing so today, my writing brought me to a very new and unexpected place in this last consideration of the nature and value of the human being vis-à-vis God. I don't know if that would have happened without your questions, so again, thank you very much!!

On Unity and Diversity in the Church's Approach to Eremitic Life

[[Sister Laurel, I heard something about needing to be concerned with unity in the Church in terms of c 603. I am a lay hermit and up 'til now I haven't really felt any urgency to petition my diocese for admission to profession and consecration under c 603. (Frankly, the whole process kind of scares me and I need to screw up my own courage about this, I guess.) Should I be concerned to be sure I am in unity with c 603 since it is now the way to be a hermit in the Catholic Church? Am I somehow dissenting because I am a lay hermit? I sure don't mean to do that or be out of sync with the Church.]]

Thanks for writing. I am not sure where the idea of being dissenting in some way, or not being in sync with the Church because you are not professed under c 603 comes from. Unity in the Church is always a unity in great diversity, and eremitical life is an example of this. There is no single way to live eremitical life in the Church today. There are three or four basic ways: 1) solitary canonical eremitical life, 2) coenobitical life allowing hermits within the community according to particular law, 3) semi-eremitical life (hermit life with other hermits within a canonical community),  and 4) hermit life lived in light of one's baptismal consecration alone. (This is what I would call lay or non-canonical eremitical life. The first three forms are canonical, meaning they are governed and bound by canons beyond those that apply by virtue of baptism alone.)

Within these four basic ways of living eremitical life, individual hermits will evince differences as well. So, as I have written here a number of times, my own eremitic life looks quite different from that of others professed under c 603, even though we each live the fundamental elements of c 603!!! Unity is not uniformity!!! This is a critical lesson in the Catholic Church, and it is similarly true of eremitical life. At the same time, c 603.1 outlines the central essential elements that are normative of the hermit life in the Church. I tend to believe that every hermit, whether non-canonical or canonical, needs to be living these essential elements. What they do not need to be living are the elements associated with legal (canonical) standing in the Church. (Some of these elements can be helpful, of course. Writing a liveable Rule of life can be incredibly formative, and working with a spiritual director regularly is almost essential to living an eremitic life well.

Please don't worry about contacting your diocese. Pray about this, of course. See if you feel called in this direction, and if you do feel this, talk it over with your director and then act on what you sense to be the truth. The process is not scary, though it can take some time, especially if your diocese has never professed or consecrated a c 603 hermit, or has not done so in some time. You merely have to be yourself, be able to speak about what you live and why, and listen carefully to diocesan concerns and questions. If your diocese says they are unwilling to profess you at this point in time, make sure to ask if you can petition again after some years of experience. Often, a person's petition is merely premature, either in terms of her own formation or in terms of the local church's readiness to have diocesan hermits. If the diocese is not ready, see if there is someone in the chancery you may continue to check in with each year, for instance. (The same might be helpful if the diocese finds that you are not yet ready for admission to profession.)

If your diocese simply says no to everything at this time, you are still entirely free to live eremitic life as a baptized Catholic. This vocation is also important to the life of the Church, and in some ways, may speak more vividly to other lay persons looking to live lives of prayer and putting the Gospel at the heart of their lives. Good luck to you. Please don't worry about c 603 or being a "dissenter". Based on what you have said, that doesn't seem to be true at all.

Does God Withhold Consecration in Cases of Insufficient "Purity"?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, have you ever heard the idea that canonical hermits are not necessarily consecrated because God only consecrates one as they becomes more sanctified and purified? I think the person I heard say this is suggesting that some canonical hermits are not consecrated by God despite being consecrated during the liturgy of perpetual profession and consecration.]]

Hmmm, nope, I don't think I have heard that before. Any Catholic knows that God acts through his ministers, and in some instances, through his entire People to consecrate. That includes the consecration of baptism, but also it involves the transubstantiation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. God does the consecrating in these cases, and in cases of Religious consecration as well. However,  this occurs in the latter instances, in the hands of legitimate superiors, and, in the case of diocesan hermits, through the ministry of the local Bishop. In all of these cases, the Church makes as sure as possible, that the person is ready to receive the consecration involved. Yes, of course, the person will be in the state of grace. Still, I have never heard of personal holiness or some kind of "purification" used as a criterion of whether God actually works through the Church's consecration, or whether God withholds himself because someone is not "pure enough".

Consider the problems this could cause if some sort of "lack of purification" made God withhold himself when the Church -- God's Church, the Church God promised that what she held would be held by God and what she loosed, would be loosed by God -- that Church --- consecrated someone prepared for this. Admission to consecration doesn't ordinarily happen carelessly, and so long as the candidate is honest in all of their preparation for this moment, and opens themselves to God's action, God will, of course, act to consecrate the person. And think what this position means when the hermit reaches those times and places in her inner journey that cause her to wonder if she discerned this vocation rightly or was ever consecrated at all!! How does the Church deal with such circumstances if it is true God might withhold himself as described? Remembering that consecration is a source of graces, I think we have to agree that whenever someone submits themselves to God's consecration in good faith, and a licit Rite of profession and consecration is carried out by the Church, God acts effectively to consecrate the person.

Hermits and Anchorites of Britain: A Living Tradition

Father Paul Lester takes on several dimensions of the hermit life, especially regarding the distinction between hermits and anchorites, and the way hermits are called to what every person is called to, but more radically and, perhaps, more vividly. I love the way he points out that hermits live their vocations in the heart of the Church, and often live in the center of  Christian communities. I also love his reference to the paradox of eremitical life's solitude. Father is clear that hermits are not special, though their vocations are rare ones and significant in the life of the Church. He also points out that hermits are signposts for every person who is a seeker. (Thomas Merton would very much agree, I think!) 

I very much appreciate Father's tendencies to speak on the same points I have made here over the years, particularly recent material on the ecclesial nature of the eremitic (or anchoritic) vocations. I suspect that means we have heard similar questions and share similar sensibilities re the eremitic vocation. I can also recommend the books he mentions. Rotha Mary Clay's is very fine and is considered a classic. E.A. Jones' work, Hermits and Anchorites in England 1200-1550, is also excellent and contains some particularly interesting information on hermits that sometimes mirrors how dioceses do things today (not least re the place of the local bishop in the hermit's life); he also has a great chapter on "Renegades, Charismatics, and Charlatans," which suggests this has been a problem throughout the centuries! What is more striking about both of these works is the huge number of hermits referenced and therefore, recorded in Church registers and archives.

Communities using Canon 603 with Local Professions?

[[Sister Laurel, do you know of a community located in a particular place that allows people from other locations to join and become hermits in their own locale? My understanding is that at some point in their formation, those joining this congregation would write their bishops to consecrate them as hermits, presumably under c 603. Is that the way c 603 works? ]]

Hi there. I don't know of any communities matching the characteristics you have outlined, especially when you specify the local "hermit" will then go to their own bishop and seek to be professed and consecrated. No, this is not the way the canon actually works. If a community, or rather, a laura (a gathering or colony of hermits which does not rise to the level of a juridical community) is to be established, it needs to be with those who are already publicly professed. Lauras are established for the support of those who have already been granted canonical standing. Neither are they to be established as houses of formation. (Hermits belonging to the laura may, if capable, serve to mentor persons seeking to be professed and consecrated, but the laura itself is not established as a house of formation.) I am not going to go into the problems of jurisdiction here except to say that it seems to me that this would be complicated if one belongs to a community with superior and statutes in one place, and has one's vow of obedience, etc., in the hands of one's local ordinary.

About twenty years ago, I heard of two such communities that attempted to use c 603 in this way. Those in the first one who signed up went running around in Carthusian habits and sought (or were told to seek) to be professed by their own bishops, so it must have been under c 603, since there is no other canon that might even be considered for such use. I don't know if this specific group still exists, but I believe it might have been a forerunner of the International Federation of Saint Bruno (St Bruno Lay Contemplatives) --- not sure of that, though. I do know that the Carthusians are very protective of those who can wear a Carthusian habit or use the Carthusian name, so if someone was doing those kinds of things with the habit, name, etc, the Carthusians themselves might have come down on the group. Bishops in individual dioceses who understand the history and nature of c 603 are very unlikely to be open to professing such persons under this canon. The second was a group of Camaldolese Oblates who argued to their bishop that it was customary to use c 603 to accomplish final oblature. This was not accurate.

Exploring Some Implications of the Ecclesiality of the Eremitic Vocation

 [[Sister Laurel, I was pondering something you have been writing about. What does it mean to speak of an ecclesial vocation? I understand that every vocation reflects on the Church in some important way, and I bet some do that more clearly than others. But I get the sense you are saying more than that when you use the term "ecclesial". Can you explain it to me? I remember that with your own vocation, you once said that the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit, and that is part of the answer, but why would it be important for a hermit to understand they are committing their lives to an ecclesial vocation? . . .Thank you for persevering in this blog. Do you get a lot of readers? I don't get here very often, and this is the first time I have asked a question, but I always go away thinking about what you write and how little I knew about being a hermit before reading your blog]]

Well, thanks for asking your first series of questions, then!! They are really very good ones and mainly about a dimension of this vocation (as you note), I am exploring currently. What I am mainly discovering, and have been looking at over the past couple of years, is what it means to say this vocation is an ecclesial one, so I may not have a complete answer for you at this point, but I will give it a shot! As you note (see the second half of your questions below), it might be very helpful to look at the way that contrasts with a vocation that is not an ecclesial one. I find that question very intriguing, but also a little tricky to answer without appearing to demean the non-ecclesial vocations -- something I definitely don't want to do. The first part of this answer explains ecclesiality itself. The second part (beginning below with the remainder of your questions) begins to look at the way the ecclesiality of the vocation shapes my life.

A Brief Summary of the Ecclesiality of the Hermit Vocation

 So, what do I mean by calling a vocation ecclesial? Most fundamentally, I mean that such a vocation belongs intimately and integrally to the Church because it reflects something critical and essential about her life in this world. In other words, this vocation reveals something central about the Church without which she would not be Christ's own Church. Ecclesial vocations may share these dimensions with one another, and at the same time, some may reveal one or more of these dimensions with greater clarity or vividness than do other ecclesial vocations. I believe that what congregations identify as their own charisms are these various ecclesial dimensions possessed of a significant vividness, personality, or unique application.** For the hermit, I believe the unique charism of his/her vocation is what c 603 identifies as "the silence of solitude", and which I recognize as context, goal, and gift of the eremitical life.

The canonical hermit, whether a solitary (diocesan) hermit, or a member of a congregation of hermits (some Carmelites, some Camaldolese, and Carthusians, for instance), lives certain elements of a consecrated life with particular vividness. So, for instance, every consecrated person prays, is committed to conversion of life, lives degrees of silence and solitude as well as some separation from that which is resistant to Christ so that encounter with Christ may have priority in their lives, but the hermit, and especially the solitary hermit, will live these elements with a radicality and vividness that is revelatory in calling attention to the hidden core or heart of their lives, namely, the redemptive journey to union with God in and with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. None of the constitutive elements of the eremitical life makes real sense apart from this hidden core or heart. At the heart of eremitical life, then, is a pilgrimage to and with Love-in-Act that is essentially freeing. This hidden journey, driven by and towards encounter with God in Christ, allows the hermit's call to authentic humanity to be realized in space and time. At the same time, it allows God to be Emmanuel, the One God wills to be with us, and has willed to be from before creation. 

The Journey of the Canonical Hermit

The journey the canonical hermit makes into the depths of self, and of Mystery we know as God, is one that the Church commissions her to make in its name. It is meant to allow her to know firsthand and to witness how faithful God is and how unconditional God's love. It goes right to the deepest, darkest depths of her own humanity. On the way, and especially as she moves to and through the apparent limits of her own life into the arms of God in Christ, she will also encounter her own brokenness and fragility, her own hungers, her most profound needs, the desire for being and meaning that colors everything else in her life, and especially, she will journey to the depths of her ultimate need to love and be loved. This most radical cry of her heart (cri-de-coeur) is the ground and reflection of all of these hungers, needs, etc., and drives her pilgrimage to encounter God in the present, God who is both its source and answer or fulfillment. 

In other words, as far as possible, the hermit sets aside everything except the ongoing dialogue with God she is most essentially and profoundly and is called to become exhaustively. In the process of an existential journey, even into the darkest depths of her own humanity, the hermit meets God and a self rooted in and made to image God that, in Him, lives beyond death, beyond despair, beyond all the brokenness, limits, and even the various forms of godlessness that have been part of her life. In short, she meets God as Love-in-Act who has desired her from before creation, welcomes her into his own life, and thus assures her of the truth of the Gospel and the offer of fullness of life that is hers in God. She lives from and for this truth and the God that is its source, ground, and guarantor.

Becoming a Microcosm of the Church and its Gospel

Where this occurs, where one becomes fully oneself in Christ, and where God becomes fully Emmanuel, there is revealed (both made known and made real in space and time) the Self as "intercessory place" where the reconciliation of heaven and earth is achieved. While this happens in a hermit's own life, indeed, in her own heart, what is revealed here is the very nature and goal of the Church itself. The Church points to and participates proleptically in the Kingdom of God. It is NOT the Kingdom of God, but it participates in God's reign, and can reveal it to the World. The hermit's life mirrors this Kingdom and the truth of the Gospel that God will allow nothing whatsoever to separate us from him. (This is, of course, the Good News of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as Paul reflected it in Romans 8, and the Church is called to proclaim in season and out.) In this way, the hermit's life serves the Church and calls it to be the Church it is made to be.

Every Christian's life is meant to reflect this message and become an embodiment of its truth. Each Christian is part of the Body of Christ and called to carry on the Church's mission to proclaim Christ's liberating message of God's sovereignty. Each of us is called to be a microcosm of such a life-giving dynamic realized in space and time in our work, our families, the Church, and so forth.  Hermits and other members of the consecrated state, however, embrace (and are entrusted with) this vocation for the sake of God, God's Church (God's People), and the well-being of the entire cosmos. They will give up families, renounce marriage and children, give up certain kinds of careers, relinquish the use of many discrete talents and gifts, and undertake studies and training that serve this calling, for the sake of the Church's being Christ's own body, or again, his Bride. This, then, is not merely a vocation lived in the Church, but a vocation that is dedicated and essential to the Church being God's very own community of precious "called ones". 

[[Does it [the ecclesiality of your vocation] change the way you approach your daily life? I think I also want to know what it would look like if you were living a vocation that was NOT an ecclesial one. What would that mean? Would it mean you approach living as a hermit differently than you do now?]]

Yes, absolutely. I think it doesn't so much change what I do as why I do it! When I think about the eremitic vocation, I wonder about its importance and why it exists. What is such a life supposed to embody? What message does it give to others and call for from them? What does it matter if I don't live this life with integrity? After all, it doesn't do or produce much, and its actual heart is hidden from others! In answering these questions and a number of others, I recognize that the answers can cut in very different, even antithetical ways. One set of answers leads in the direction of personal failure, isolation, and emptiness; the other leads in the direction of Christian responsibility, abundant life, mission, and meaningfulness. Without a sense that this is an ecclesial vocation***, the answers one gives to the questions noted above can tend to cohere with answers that reflect on a human being's failure to truly be human. But, as an ecclesial vocation, each question is a challenge to both the hermit and those she encounters, to uncover (and even explore) the positive, God-centered, communal, redemptive, and lifegiving answers, rather than the ones that point to brokenness, meaninglessness, lostness, emptiness, and likely signal human failure.

One of the things that changes without the sense that my vocation is an ecclesial one, then, is my ability to pursue eremitical life with the same dedication. Does even God really need me to be a hermit? Why in the world would God need or will that? Can I ever put these questions to rest and journey as deeply into this vocation as I am really called? Unless the Church answers these questions positively, these questions perdure. Unless she recognizes the eremitic life and calls some to ecclesial eremitic vocations, what we meet head-on is not only the possible validation of personal failure, but the increased tendency of a would-be hermit to slide into individualism and selfishness. While hermits do pursue personal holiness in the power of the Holy Spirit, eremitical life in the Church is not primarily about this. This is because personal holiness serves as a witness to something more fundamental. Instead, eremitical life is about God's will to be Emmanuel, growth in compassion, and the desire to be the place where heaven and earth come together for the sake of others --- for the Church, the world, and all that is precious to God. As noted above, eremitical life, above all, models the foundation of what it means to be truly human, namely, to be not just in dialogue with God, but to be a dialogue with God that allows God's will to be sovereign. Without this larger perspective, it becomes very easy to justify whatever one thinks and does in the name of "eremitical" (read individualistic) weirdness. (This is especially evident with regard to solitude in the next point.) Unless one appreciates this larger perspective, one will especially "miss the mark" of achieving genuine holiness, because holiness is about these things.

A third and related thing that changes without the sense of eremitism as an ecclesial vocation is the tendency to struggle with culpability for the disregard and wastefulness of gifts and talents. I am dedicated to this life because it makes sense of all dimensions of my own existence. Not only my talents, but also my limitations and brokenness actually contribute to this vocation and make sense within it. Chronic illness does not take away from my ability to live a life of prayer, nor do the diverse forms of isolation it causes. Instead, this physical isolation becomes a means to explore eremitical solitude and to learn just how radically different it is from personal isolation and unhealthy withdrawal. It allows me to find a deeper relatedness to others in my life, a relatedness that illness cannot affect, except, perhaps, to make me keener in my commitment to it. When a person begins to discover this dimension of their physical solitude, they have begun to truly be a hermit. They have begun to savor the communal nature of eremitical solitude.

At the same time, in this vocation, I let go of certain discrete gifts and talents and discover that in doing so, what that makes clearer is the gift God makes of me for others (or, potentially, any other person). This is a profoundly counterintuitive way of approaching one's own giftedness, and would ordinarily seem wasteful and disparaging of oneself and of God, who is the giver of such gifts. Again, the perspective here is deeper, broader, and, to be truly appreciated in the way I believe God wants, requires one to believe in the significance of eremitic vocations in the life of the Church and world. Especially, it uncovers the truth that the person, per se, is the creation and invaluable gift of God to whom God wishes to entrust Godself, even when the person is marginalized and without apparent outstanding talents and gifts. 

I both reflect on and write about the ecclesial nature of the eremitic vocation, not because it is simply another element of the life I have discovered over time, but because it is a foundational dimension of the vocation that allows me to live it faithfully, fruitfully, and generously, even when it means letting go of every gift but the gift God alone makes of me. In turn, this will mean assisting the Church to be the Church God calls it to be, and especially, I believe, it will help individuals marginalized by chronic illness and innumerable other things to see themselves as the precious gifts of God they are made to be in our Church and world.

____________________________________________________

** For instance, the Sisters of the Holy Family in Fremont have an emphasis on ministering to and for the lost and least. They do and have done parish ministry, catechetics,  social justice, accompanying children and families who search for ways of living more fully, etc, etc., but who they are in every form of ministry are "gleaners" and specifically, gleaners for the Kingdom of God. Other congregations do the same ministries, but the charism of SHF is their focus on the lost and least, the forgotten, and undervalued. This congregational "gift quality" or "charism" reveals something intrinsic to Jesus' life and ministry, and so too, to the life of the Church itself. Not only is the Church revealed to itself and to others in the lives of SHF, but it is challenged to be ever truer to this call. The SHF, no matter the kind of ministry each Sister undertakes, has embraced (and been entrusted with) ecclesial vocations that make the Church what it is called to be.

*** While I am mainly writing about canonical eremitical life in this piece, it is important to remember that the significance of eremitic vocations of all forms is established and witnessed to by the ecclesiality of consecrated vocations to the eremitic life. While non-canonical eremitic vocations are not ecclesial vocations per se, the fact that the Church recognizes eremitical life in law and consecrates ecclesial vocations to eremitic life underscores the value of ALL eremitical vocations, whether canonical or non-canonical. This is another example of the ecclesiality of the vocation. It indicates another way the existence of c 603 vocations serves the Church, especially since the majority of hermits throughout history and even today are non-canonical.