On the Performative Nature of Profession and The Prayer of Solemn Consecration

[[Dear Sister, I've read your last couple of pieces on the profession and consecration of hermits. You are saying these things are more than some kind of official recognition by the Church, aren't you? Would this be like ordination is more than a kind of official recognition of a priestly vocation or of a person? Is this why you use the word performative or speak of a "making real" quality? If a bishop said that profession and consecration was just a form of official recognition he would be incorrect wouldn't he? Because you write that neither the canonical nor the non-canonical hermit vocation is better than the other why is it a problem if someone contends they are canonical when they are not?]]

Yes, you've gotten it. The term performative is used about language events and means that something comes to be or is "realized" in the very act of speaking. We all have a slight sense of this from when we finally put obscure feelings into words and sense they are suddenly more real. But consider, when a judge pronounces a jury's finding of "guilty" the person is guilty under the law and convicted --- even if they did not commit the crime. When the pronounced judgment is "not guilty" the person IS acquitted even if they committed the crime. When an umpire calls a person "safe" they ARE safe; they become so at the moment of the call. On a more significant level, vows work this way as well. They are performative: in the pronouncing of one's vows one becomes bound by them and committed in a way one was not prior to making such vows.  Marriage vows are exchanged and in the process of this exchange a couple marries one another; something comes to be that was not a reality before this and the bonds are unbreakable. If one is admitted to religious profession with public vows, what comes to be is a complex set of relationships, rights, and obligations that did not exist before this, because these vows have implications for more than the person making them. Meanwhile, the prayer of solemn consecration prayed over the person by the bishop mediates God's own consecration where someone is actually set apart in the consecrated state.

Yes, though the two are not identical, there is some similarity between consecration and ordination in the sense that something comes to be that was not before.  Some write that in consecration a person is set apart as a "sacred person". Whether we speak of it this way or not (I tend not to do so) this consecration cannot be undone. While one can be removed from the consecrated state of life (meaning one can be deprived of the rights and obligations associated with this state) consecration itself is an act of God and cannot be undone.  With ordination one is admitted to a Sacrament which also changes one in a lasting way. Those who are ordained are ordained forever (their souls are marked and they are made capable of or ordered to ordained ministry) though they too may be deprived of the rights and obligations associated with their priestly state and returned to the lay state. What is important in all of this is hearing why it is the Church is as careful as she can be in admitting to ordination or, for that matter, to consecration. There are elements of both that, once done, cannot be undone and this makes both very significant acts. Again, there is something involved in each which is God's own doing and is far more than official recognition. Even in terms of the Church herself there is more involved than official recognition including supervision, governance, and mediation.

No Roman Catholic bishop would ever say profession and consecration are merely forms of official recognition because he would have to be ignorant of (or actually denying) the Church's own theology of profession and consecration to do so. Thus, you are correct: were a bishop to say this seriously he would be incorrect. At the same time, if he is trying to assist someone come to terms with the fact that they are not called to a vocation to the consecrated state, but wishes to encourage them to continue to live as a hermit in their baptized state if they feel so called, I can understand him adverting from what public vows and consecration signify within the church. This cannot mean using an actual untruth, however. I tend to think it is important to state the whole truth and to point out that while different from one another neither being a hermit in the lay state nor being one in the consecrated state is better than the other. They have different rights and obligations yes, and they speak to different people in different ways, but neither is "better" than the other, neither is a "higher" vocation than the other.

Even so, the fact that neither is better than the other or higher than the other does not mean they are identical either. Again, the rights and obligations associated with each differs. For instance, diocesan hermits live eremitical life for the sake of others in the name (authority) of the Church and they take on the rights and obligations of someone specifically called to and made responsible for that. They are Catholic hermits because they are explicitly authorized by the church to live this life and because these vocations are specifically governed and supervised under canon law by the local ordinary who is also doing this in the name of the church. Hermits in general may not need such governance and supervision, but those who call themselves Catholic Hermits, who claim to be consecrated, who wear habits to signal this, who reserve Eucharist in their hermitages, and who, on behalf of others they serve, assume other titles like Sister or Brother, DO require canonical standing and episcopal/diocesan supervision. At bottom this is about truth. It is about being the person one says one is -- and being the person God has called one to be. It is about not participating in pretense but instead treating others with charity by telling them the truth.

By the way, a variant of this is the purported assertion of a bishop that canon law (c 603) "does not speak to the validity of a vocation." This was recently posted in the blog Catholic Hermit and I cannot verify either the context or the text of the exact assertion; for this reason the meaning is entirely unclear as well. Even so, the given statement is true if the vocation being spoken of by the bishop is a non-canonical vocation lived in the lay state. After all, there is nothing about canon 603 that says a non-canonical eremitical vocation lacks validity, nor does anyone I know contend this.  On the other hand, does canon 603 "validate" or "speak to the validity"  of consecrated solitary eremitical lives? Yes, of course. The canon establishes in law and in fact allows for solitary eremitical life to be validly lived as an instance of consecrated life for the first time in the universal Church. It serves to establish, measure, and govern vocations precisely as valid vocations. Does this mean such vocations will be lived well? No, c 603 cannot do this, but it does say to the extent everyone involved is acting in good faith the vocation is a divine one recognized as valid (well-founded and legally established with corresponding rights and obligations) in and by the church.