[[Dear Sister, a while ago you wrote a blog article on "canonical obedience" in response to the first part of the following quotation. [The person upset by my professed eremitic vows' inclusion of canonical obedience did not fully understand; perhaps the meaning and intent was confused with canonical approval of hermits by one's specific diocese bishop re. Canon Law 603. I, of course, was not singling out that particular canon law. (At the time, neither I nor my spiritual director were even aware of this relatively recent Catholic "law".) I tend to think, live, perceive and write more expansively and inclusively. My profession of vows includes obedience to all canon laws to the best of my ability. I strive to obey them as I strive to obey civil laws. But most of all, I need to focus on the Law of God which the Living Word specifies is love!] I think you should have considered the person's position beginning with, "I, of course, was not singling out that particular canon law. . ." which you seem not to have quoted. The person you criticized was not writing about canon 603 but her own vow of obedience to all canon law and even more importantly to the law of God. I think you should retract what you wrote and apologize for quoting her out of context!]]
You are correct that in January of 2017, I wrote a post about the incoherence of a private vow of what the poster called, "canonical obedience": The Incoherence of Vowing Canonical Obedience. I also wrote a follow-up post in February 2017: Another Look. In both of those posts I wrote about why it is that calling private vows of obedience "canonical obedience" makes no sense. The general gist of these pieces is this:
- Only in public vows does one makes a canonical vow of obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior (that is, only in this way does one make a public vow binding in law). This means the vow is received by the Church by someone acting in her name. Yes, one becomes canonically responsible for living the canons which affect her new state in life, especially via the public vow of obedience, but the term canonical obedience does not primarily mean "being obedient to canons." It refers to a new state in life which includes new canonical responsibilities to which one will be open, attentive, and responsive to God according to a vow of obedience and one's Rule of Life (or Constitutions and Statutes);
- private vows, which are considered "non-canonical" vows, do not involve either a change in state of life or the related conveying and embracing of additional canonical rights and obligations beyond those of any baptized person; this is because a private vow is an entirely private act. The obedience owed to God, the Church, and her code of Canon law in a private vow is the same as that which obtains for any baptized person. No more, no less. There is no legitimate superior, for instance, in such a case, nor is there a Rule, Constitutions, or Statutes to which one is canonically bound in obedience. Again, a private vow of obedience obliges to the same obedience any baptized person owes to God and the Church by virtue of their baptism. While psychologically and spiritually helpful, perhaps, they are an important making explicit of one's baptismal responsibilities. Nothing new in terms of canonical responsibility is added, however.
The bottom line in all of this is that the term "canonical obedience" (to the extent we can use this term at all) implies a public vow of obedience made by someone entering or already in a canonical (public) state of life (religious, consecrated, ordained) and so, a vow that is received by the Church, and which therefore binds canonically via legitimate superiors. It does not mean a private vow made to "keep canons," whether one or many. It seemed to me the original poster was trying to give her private vows a different weight or character by misusing the term "canonical obedience." In any case, the use of the term "canonical' with regard to a private vow of obedience is incoherent. It substitutes an idiosyncratic usage for that of the Church in order to indicate or imply something untrue about a person's private vows. It does not hang or hold together properly -- the very meaning of the term incoherent.
There is nothing in any of that that requires or calls for a retraction. As for quoting this poster out of context, I don't believe I have done that, but if you can demonstrate how I did so I am happy to respond with an apology. While I did not literally quote as much as you did, my responses referenced the author's entire post and responded directly to the sentence you believe I did not consider. As far as I can see, nothing was taken out of context. So, please let me thank you for your concern; I hope you will understand why, at this point, I cannot accommodate your request.
Posts
