Follow up on Vaccinations as a Moral Imperative

[[Dear Sister, do you mean to call those who do not get vaccinated for Covid-19 sinners or say that they are guilty of sin? I read a piece referring to you I think that blasted you for doing this. That's my guess anyway.]]

Thanks for your question. I'm sorry it took me so long but about 3/4 of my answer was lost as I typed and I am only just now up to starting again! To answer your question, No. I would never suggest a person who has not gotten vaccinated for Covid-19 is guilty of sin. That is something only they and God can say. I have said that to refrain from getting vaccinated is irresponsible and I have affirmed that unless one has a legitimate medical excuse or religious exemption (one is a Christian Scientist, for instance), getting vaccinated is a moral imperative. I did not mention sin, nor could I know whether in any given case sin is involved without more very specific and individualized information from the person themselves. I do believe that refusing to be vaccinated, especially given the once-again-surging numbers of infections and the more virulent nature of the Delta variant, is wrong and wrong-headed, but whether another person commits sin in their refusal is not a judgment any one of us can make.

But of course, determining whether something is "sinful" or not is not the way those with well-formed and informed consciences make decisions. Instead, we discern the values and disvalues present in the situation, preference those values and disvalues and act accordingly. Some things are worthy of being chosen, some are not. The values I discerned in choosing to be vaccinated included 1) my own health and the danger of death should I become infected, 2) my own capacity to infect others with this virus (i.e., others' health and wellbeing), 3) my limited but real need to get out and about (i.e., the well being of my vocation, my life and that of others), 4) my ministry in the parish, 5) preventing the virus from mutating further i.e., preventing a greater evil), 6) providing a good example to those who were squeamish about getting vaccinated, and 7) being able to preach only what I truly practiced (i.e., charity, truth, consistency, integrity). 

I also discerned certain disvalues : 1) the possibility of an anaphylactic reaction (i.e., serious illness and possible death), 2) the possibility the vaccine would not work as well as the percentages indicating it could/would, 3) the chance of other unknown or unexpected side effects, 4) the issue of the remote use of fetal stem cells in some vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna are not implicated here, by the way), and 5) the danger that  I would fall prey to a complacency regarding my own absolute safety and that of others (vaccinations don't ever give absolute immunity). So long as I was mindful, it seemed like a fairly easy choice to make; the benefits of vaccination far outweighed the risks. In short, I chose life for myself and others.

Sin might well have entered into the equation if I had looked at the first set of conditions or values, apprised them of being worthy of being chosen, and then simply rejected them out of hand. If I had deemed these goods worthy of choice for myself and others and then just not followed through on getting vaccinated, that would have been a sin -- conceivably a serious one. If I had failed to think through my choice on serious grounds it might have risen to the level of sin; if I had listened to websites or news reports giving bad information and failed to check the facts for myself, sin might have entered the picture. 

Still, the judgment of sinful or not sinful is not one you could make in my regard, nor I in yours. I personally believe getting vaccinated is a moral imperative, as I wrote in the original piece. I believe that those who refuse to get vaccinated except on legitimate medical or religious grounds (being  a Christian Science Church member is the only one I can think of here) are acting immorally. I can understand some being truly fearful to be vaccinated but I believe they need to find assistance with their fear and take the jabs, otherwise they may be guilty of sin. Again, however, I cannot know that and would never call someone who refused to get the vaccine a "sinner" because of their failure in this regard. I am sure I said nothing different in the first article I wrote.

Can One be a Consecrated Virgin and a Consecrated Hermit at the same time?

[[ Dear Sister, I am in my mid thirties with some brief experience of religious life. After I left my community I began to feel a longing for solitude and I also had a sense that perhaps I was being called to consecrated virginity. Is it possible to become a consecrated virgin and a hermit at the same time? Also, I have a strong yearning for solitude so I am thinking about becoming a hermit]]

Thanks for your questions. First, can one be consecrated under canon 604 (consecrated virgin living in the world) as well as under c 603 (without making a choice or clear discernment for one or the other)? Once upon a time, in the earliest history of both canons, the answer to that question was yes, but no longer. C 604 outlines a vocation marked by secularity --- a unique and compellingly sacred or eschatological secularity, to be sure, but still, a form of secularity. Consecrated virgins under c 604 are called upon to live this vocation “in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world.” This is a distinctive vocation with its own characteristics and dignity. It is discerned separately from any other vocation and entered into only when one has truly discerned such a vocation. In general, dioceses require that a person come to clarity regarding which vocation they are asking to be consecrated in.

That said, I should also point out that it is conceivable that one makes a mistake in their discernment and after some time (i.e.,  some years) comes to determine they have a different call. One might also grow into a calling and the eremitical vocation, since it is a second half of life vocation, might be one that one grows into. In such cases one might add profession under c 603 to consecration under c 604, but one would identify as a diocesan hermit and live in that way. If the discernment went the other direction (from hermit to CV), then, after securing one’s bishop’s approval to be consecrated under c 604, one would seek dispensation of one’s vows as a hermit and be consecrated as a CV. It is the case that some have seen that the two vocations can co-exist. I personally do not agree, but given the existence of a handful of such dual vocations now extant, the basic truth in such a case remains: at this point in the canons' history, one must discern which vocation is primary and be consecrated in that specific way. 

Moreover, my own impression is that if the two vocations can coexist, it can only occur when one privileges the eremitical over the consecrated virgin calling; that is, they can co-exist only when the eremitical is primary and consecrated virginity adds specific and necessary dimensions to the eremitical life it might not otherwise have. I haven't read or heard anything in discussions of the question, however, that convinces me c 604 has something needed by hermits living under c 603 which their own consecration does not provide. Hermits today recognize the spousal nature of their vocations and often have a profoundly maternal heart which informs and can inspire everything they do. They have these things by virtue of their own personal formation and their consecration by God in eremitical life. The sticking point for me on having such dual vocations is the secularity of c 604 --- significantly eschatological as that may be. Canon 603 call for stricter separation from the world [than other consecrated persons] and that seems to me to conflict with the CV's calling not only to be in the world but not of it as is true for all Christians, but also with the CV's call to act or minister "in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world". 

Secondly, you ask if a desire for solitude indicates an eremitical vocation? My answer has to be, perhaps, but not necessarily and not of itself. Your Sisters in the community you left, have a desire for solitude. So do forest rangers, many librarians, and others with quiet and solitary vocations --- all without being called to eremitical life. Unfortunately, for example, so do misanthropes, those with serious clinical depressions, and those with agoraphobia! As I have noted before here, the Unabomber had a strong desire for solitude, but this did not translate into an eremitical call the Church would have recognized or embraced and validated. You get the point, I think. There are many different kinds of solitude and a number of varying reasons for desiring it. Some are healthy and even noble, some are decidedly not healthy and may be downright ignoble. Very few are part of a call to eremitical solitude. When a desire for solitude matures into part of a call to eremitical life, it will also do so beyond the healthy desires for solitude associated with coenobitical life, or normal everyday life and it will do so along with other characteristics which help define it in terms of eremitical life. 

I sincerely hope this is helpful! Let me know if it raises more questions or concerns for you.

Purposes of Stricter Separation from the World (Reprise)

[Dear Sister, What is the purpose of "stricter separation from the world" in your life? You have mentioned it as an element of hermit life, but I really don't get it. The Sisters I know are deeply involved in this world and it seems to me it is what Christ was all about. Can you help me understand?]]

Great question! I have written a little about stricter separation from the world, especially what it does and doesn't mean, so I would invite you to check out labels leading to those articles for additional thoughts. But you are correct, I have not really written about the purpose of stricter separation, nor have I spoken explicitly about the validity of this approach in spirituality --- which does indeed seem rather different from Jesus' usual way of doing things. In fact, "stricter separation from the world" was not something I would have chosen myself without circumstances which led me to understand it differently than I did as a young Sister. As your own comment suggests, it hardly seems to comport with a Christian perspective which honors the incarnation and the sanctity of all creation in Christ. For me it always sounded selfish and lacking in charity --- not to mention in generosity!

It is important to remember that separation from the world means first of all separation from that which is resistant or uncongenial to Christ, and that it involves detachment from that which promises fulfillment, meaning, and hope apart from him and the God he mediates. This sense of the term "world" refers to anything which is untrue, distorted, resistant to life, to love, and to all the rest of the values which constitute life in God. But it is not God's good creation, therefore, from which we mainly separate ourselves. It is "the world" of falsehood, chaos, and meaninglessness, and this means that it is not something distinct existing merely outside of ourselves, but instead a reality which is intimately related to the darkness, woundedness, distortions, and sclerosis (hardness) of our own hearts.

Keeping this in mind, there are several reasons then for embracing stricter separation from the world. The first is that such separation distances us from the constant reinforcement of values, behaviors, expectations, and so forth which bombard us otherwise. Consider all the things we each see every day that tell us who we are and must be --- despite the fact that almost none of them are consistent with the values of the Kingdom of God! The second reason, however, has to do with allowing ourselves the space and time --- and the silence and solitude --- to meet ourselves without all the supports, props, and distractions of "the world." It is hard to see ourselves for who we really are otherwise. Once the props are down or removed we come to experience our own poverty. When we are not measuring (and in fact CANNOT measure) success, integrity, fruitfulness, etc., according to the terms constituting, "the world" we come face to face with what we are really all about. So the first part of stricter separation is all about reality checks. Conversion, after all, requires confrontation with truth.

The third and most fundamental reason for stricter separation from the world is to allow the space and time needed for a meeting with God. If our hearts (and so, our very selves) are, in part, darkened, distorted, sclerosed and untrue, they are also the place where God bears witness to himself and the truth of who we are. All the elements of the eremitical life, including stricter separation, are geared towards the meeting (and eventually, union) with God which verifies (makes true), heals, and brings to fullness of life. It is in this meeting that we learn how precious we are despite our very real human poverty, here that we learn how constant and secure God's love, here that we begin to have a sense of what we are really capable of and meant for. It is in this meeting with God that we come to know genuine freedom, come to experience an imperishable hope, and are commissioned to go out to others to summon them to something similar.

There is a fourth reason for stricter separation from the world then. We must step away from the distorted perspectives and values which constitute "the world" in order to affirm the deeper truth and beauty of the world around us. We come to know everything in God and that leads us to see with God's eyes. Hermits assume a marginal place so that they may also serve a prophetic function by speaking the truth into a situation in a way which affirms its deepest and truest reality. It will also summon to conversion. Stricter separation from "the world" allows us to love God's world into wholeness. It is a servant of true engagement and commitment. Stricter separation from "the world" is a tool for loving the whole of God's creation; it is neither escapist nor selfish and cannot be allowed to devolve into these.

Now, I suspect that your only objection to any of this would be, "But why a LIFE of stricter separation from the world?" Hermits witness to this basic dynamic and the need for the freedom that results from being the person God makes us to be. The hermit reminds us again and again then of the foundational relationship that grounds our being, and of the task of individuation it summons us to achieve. We are made for life with God. Separation from the world contributes to this in the life of every person at the same time it rejects enmeshment, and hermits say this particularly clearly with their lives.

I hope this helps. It doesn't answer every aspect but it is a beginning. Thanks again for a really great and challenging question. I enjoyed working on it!