Central Theological Insights Around Which my Life Spirals Ever Deeper (pt 1: Reprise, with tweaks, from 2015)

Sister Mary Southard, CSJ

In the last few years, I've acquired more of or nuanced the central theological insights I posted about in 2015. In other words, I have thought more about this vocation and grown in it as well. I thought I would add another post as a follow-up, hence this reprise as preparation for that. 

[[Dear Sister Laurel, since you have studied Theology I wondered what are the most important lessons you have learned over the years. It may be these are theological or spiritual but are there certain lessons you keep coming back to, you know, points around which you circle and go ever deeper? Are any of these specific to your life as a hermit?]]

 What a terrific set of questions! I especially like the image of circling and going deeper because both my director and other friends and I sometimes speak of the spiral pattern to growth. We return to the same pieces of growth, the same insights, the same bits of clarity but each time from a different and deeper perspective. Each time the center is closer or I exist closer to the center. That happened once recently as I wrote about the gift of emptiness and the linkage between the hiddenness of the eremitical vocation and the work of God within us. At the time I noted that all the pieces had been there and I had written and spoken of each of them before --- often many times --- but I had never placed these two together in exactly this way before. They glowed for me with a kind of new incandescence  -- as though a blue piece of the theological puzzle and a red piece, once joined together, glowed with a purple light. A handful of the more significant lessons I have learned --- usually both theologically and spiritually --- are as follows:

The human heart is a theological reality:

One of the most personally and professionally important pieces I can point to is the notion that the term "heart" is a theological term, and the human heart is, by definition, the place where God bears witness to Godself. The corollary is also important, namely, it is not so much that we have a heart and God comes to dwell there but that where God dwells we have a (human) heart! It was from this bit of theology taken from a footnote in an article on kardia (Kαρδία) in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament that a number of other emphases in my life and writing come. The notion that human beings ARE a covenant reality, a dialogue with God, a language event called to be Divine Word incarnate, comes from this insight (though they are related to other things as well). When coupled with the notion that God is ever new because God is eternal and eternal because God is ever new, this all led me to a notion of my own life which never allowed the sense that I was wounded beyond the capacity for new life, or the sense that there was nothing more to hope for.

The notion of the human heart as the place where God bears witness to Godself allowed me to see myself as having a deep place or reality within me where not even human woundedness and sinfulness can touch. There are darknesses in me, of course, but deeper than those is the light of God. There are distortions and untruths, but deeper than these is the God who is truth and who continually summons to truth, the One who creates New life with this Word and redeems the whole of reality. That God, whether I speak of him as Ground and Source of Being (cf. below) or as the center and depth dimension of my own heart, is the One who brings life out of death and makes hope rather than despair the pedal tone of my life.

God is Verb More than God is Noun:

As part of this theology is the notion that God is verb as much or more than God is noun. The dynamism of this idea, that God is not just Love but even more is Love-in-Act has been central for me. In thinking of the human being as a covenant or dialogical reality with Love-in-Act dwelling in the core of her being I also saw clearly that there was a dynamic and inalienable part of me that was constantly moving (or summoning) the whole of me towards abundant life and holiness. Speaking of God as a living God, thinking of the human soul as the constantly renewed breath of God, realizing that God was never summoned into action but was already moving, acting, healing, touching, etc, was important in the same way the idea that the word heart is a fundamentally theological term was important. Among other things, I realized I could never think of myself as wounded beyond the capacity to respond or beyond hope. There was always an unquenchable source of life living in my heart transcending the capacity of sin or death (in all its forms and variations) to stop or paralyze it. Moreover, this way of conceiving of God is both profoundly Scriptural while at the same time comporting with the "event nature" of the "true self" and the whole of reality we are dealing with more and more because of contemporary physics. It invites further theological reflection while taking quantum mechanics, etc, seriously. The same is true of the next bit of theology.

God is Ground and Source of Being; God is not A Being:

It is hardly possible to say all the ways this bit of theology has been crucial for me. Recently in explaining about the fact that miracles are not the result of a God who intervenes in and contravenes the laws of nature but is rather the revelation of the deepest "law" of reality I had occasion to refer to this famous bit of Paul Tillich's systematic theology. My understanding of and insistence that the whole of reality is at least potentially sacramental is also rooted in this piece of theology. My work and reading regarding the relationship of science and faith --- the fact that these two are different ways of knowing the same reality, both with their own strengths and deficiencies, is built on this notion of God as Transcendent ground and source of being and meaning. The notion that God is the ground and source of all that is truly personal is another side of this foundational theological datum. Above all, perhaps, my sense that God is omnipresent but also summoning us each to enflesh "him" and bring him to a unique articulation in the ways only human beings seem able to do that is related to the notion of God as Ground and Source.

With regard to eremitical life it is the fact that union with God implies and in fact establishes our communion with others that is the primary key to my understanding eremitical solitude in terms not of aloneness so much as in terms of communion with God and all that is precious to God. Worldly solitude (and external or physical solitude) have more to do with being isolated from others than with communion and relatedness, but in Christian eremitical life solitude moves from and through this external solitude to a deep relatedness with God and others. Anyone can leave people behind and embrace a self-centered 'spirituality' marked by a selfish piety --- at least for a time --- but the paradox of authentic eremitical solitude is that when one embraces external or physical solitude in order to pray and be made God's own prayer, one also becomes more compassionate and more profoundly related to others as well.

This is why canon 603 specifies a life "lived for others" --- not first of all because one's life is that of an intercessor (though one will surely pray for others) but because external solitude is the means to a literal compassion, a literal feeling with and for others involving the desire to alleviate suffering and mediate God and the hope God brings the isolated and marginalized to others. All of this is rooted in the fact that God is the ground of being and meaning of all that exists; to move more deeply into union with God means to become more truly related to all else that is similarly related to and grounded in God.

Divine Sovereignty is the Counterpart of Human Freedom:

So often we pose our own freedom as something in conflict with the sovereignty of another but with God the opposite is true. The last three pieces of theology combine to reveal that human beings are truly themselves when God is allowed to truly be God. Because God is not A Being he never comes into competition with human beings --- as would inevitably and invariably happen if God were a being among other beings --- maybe especially as A (or THE) supreme being. Instead, though, God is the power underlying and within reality, the power driving and summoning to abundant life, to authenticity and to the reality of future and completion. This means (especially if the other insights are true) that if freedom is really the power to be the ones we are called to be, it must be seen as the counterpart to the sovereignty of God and God's call to be. So often it has been critically important that I understand that the will of God is the deepest law of my own true Self. Discerning the will of God means discerning where I am truly free, giving myself over to that will means giving myself over to my own deepest truth, giving myself over to the One who grounds my being and dwells as the core of my Self.  I am free when God is Lord. God is Lord to the extent I am truly free to be myself. So too for each and all of us.

Gospel Truth is ALWAYS Paradoxical:

When I began studying Theology my major professor gave a lecture on two ways of thinking, the Greek way and the Biblical way, the way of compromise (thesis + antithesis ---> (leads to or requires) synthesis) and the way of radical relatedness where two apparently opposing realities are held together in tension and identity (thesis + antithesis) does not equal conflict but = paradox). The most radical formulation of paradox living at the heart of Christianity is the Incarnation where Jesus is the exhaustive revelation of God to, and only to the extent he is exhaustively human, and where he is exhaustively human to and only to the extent he reveals God. Jesus is strongest where he is weak, fullest where he is empty, richest where he has nothing at all to recommend him in worldly terms. The Trinity is also paradoxical rather than being some weird kind of new (or very ancient) math: where God is One, God is a Trinitarian Community of Love and where God is a Trinitarian community of Love, God is truly One. Christianity is rooted in paradox and is always expressed in paradox: we have ourselves only to the extent we give ourselves away, insofar as we are mourners we will also know a deeper and more extensive joy, where we are rich in worldly terms we are poor in divine terms, etc, etc.

I always look for the paradox involved when I am doing theology --- so much so that I know if there is no paradox, I have very likely transgressed into some form of heresy or other. Docetism, for instance, which takes its name from the Greek verb δοκεῖν (dokein) "to seem," takes the divinity of Jesus seriously at the expense of his humanity (he only seems human). Arianism, for instance, takes his humanity seriously at the expense of his divinity. The Christological task which confronts the systematic theologian, but also the ordinary believer in faith, is to hold the two things together in both tension and identity --- so that where Jesus is exhaustively human, there he is also the exhaustive revelation of God (despite the fact that humanity and divinity are not the same things).

Henri de Lubac once noted that one does not resolve or answer a paradox (to do so would compromise one or, more likely, both of the truths involved); rather, the only appropriate approach to paradox is contemplation. Pope Francis recently reminded us of the same thing. It is paradox which eventually allowed me to think of chronic illness as divine vocation (though I don't believe God wills illness), or to understand that in eremitical life the inability to minister to or love others in all the usual ways was, when lived with integrity, itself  a doorway to the ultimate ministry and love of others --- not in some bloodless and abstract way (not that that would be love anyway) but in the sense of living the deepest truth of human existence for the sake of others --- especially those who are without hope and those who, on the other end of the spectrum, believe they are their own best hope!

In my Uniqueness, I am the Same as Everyone Else (Please note the paradox!!):

There were (and I guess still are) many things in my life which made (and make) me different from the people around me: family, interests, gifts, illness, desires and dreams and eventually even vocation. Though I always got on well with others, was well-liked, and did well in school, in athletics, music, work, etc, so I also stood out or apart. When I developed a seizure disorder it turned out not to be a kind of run-of-the-mill epilepsy (sorry, but some epilepsies really are kind of "run-of-the-mill" to my mind) but a medically and surgically intractable epilepsy whose seizures were rare and often initially unrecognized. Everything in my life seemed to point to my "difference". But at one point, perhaps 35 or so years ago I came to see myself clearly as the same as everyone else --- even in my differences most fundamentally I was the same.

As a result, I came to experience a profound empathy with others and a sense that the things which seemed to set me apart were, in one way and another, little different from the things which seemed to set others apart. I discovered paradox here too!! Precisely in my uniqueness, I am the same as everyone else! I suspect when people write of Thomas Merton's experience on that street corner in Louisville, they are describing something similar to what happened to me. I can't point to a single event   as the focus of this shift, nor can I say I realized I loved everyone at that moment as happened to Merton, but the compassion and empathy Merton experienced sounds similar to what I experienced. Moreover, I believe Merton, especially as monk and (potential) hermit schooled in a "fuga mundi" way of approaching the world outside the monastery and wounded by his Mother's death and other circumstances from childhood and young adulthood, was coming from a place where he felt profoundly alien or different in many of the ways I had myself done. (N.B. Some Cistercians eschew the fuga mundi approach to monastic life on the basis of Trappist and Trappistine authors; Merton too seemed to eschew this approach when he wrote about "the problem" of the World, but my sense is he was still schooled in it in his early years at Gethsemani.)

In any case, the source of my worst suffering --- not least because it is self-reinforcing and self-isolating --- turned out to be seeing myself as different from everyone else, and the source of greatest joy came to be seeing myself in terms of my commonality with others. This is not an abstract truth (that would never have touched me) but is at least partly due to being profoundly understood by others who did not share the same differences (though no doubt they had their own). In any case, as a result (and to the extent I truly know this), I am not threatened by others' gifts, frightened by their differences, nor driven to despair by my own differences and deficiencies. Neither do I have a need to use my own gifts as weapons to humiliate others or prove my own superiority (or even my own competence). All of these are are part of our more profound "sameness" or commonality. This was a central piece of coming to truly love myself and others as myself.  It is the sine qua non without which no one can truly minister to others. Again, I am not entirely certain how I came by it, but I recognize it as a great gift and something that makes living Christianity and religious (and especially eremitical) life really possible.

Our God Reveals Godself in the Unexpected and Unacceptable Place:

I won't write a lot about this here except to say please check out posts on the theology of the Cross. There is no part of my life that is untouched by Paul's Theology of the Cross. Every part of my own theology is informed by the Cross. Recently I wrote about kenosis and the possibilities which still exist when one has been entirely emptied of every discrete gift and potential for ministry --- if only one can remain open to God. It is from such a position of emptiness, incapacity, and even certain kinds of failure, that Jesus' obedience (openness and responsiveness) to God opens our broken and sinful World most fully to God's redemption.

It is Mark's similar theology that gives me a sense that when all the props are kicked out God's faithfulness is the single thing we can count on, the thing that brings life out of death, communion with God out of godlessness, meaning out of absurdity and so forth. The notion that God becomes incarnate, that God does not hesitate to do what no other merely putative god would do, that the God of Jesus Christ accepts dishonor and shows a power which is truly perfected in weakness --- and that this God can be found in the unexpected and entirely "unacceptable" place --- is the source of all my hope and strength. It is an immeasurable mystery I am happy to reflect on, walk into and explore for the whole of my life. Such a God is paradoxical and so is such a gospel. In truth it is this theology of the cross and the paradoxical God it reveals that is the real source and ground of all of the other things I have already spoken about here.

There are probably a few other pieces of theology that are pivotal in my own life. One I haven't mentioned here is the notion that humility is a name we give the dignity we possess as those accepting the God of Jesus Christ and ourselves in light of that God; humility is something God raises us to and the appropriate verb is to humble, not to humiliate. The second truth I have always clung to is that anyone seeking to do serious theology must come to terms with the Holocaust. It is here that the Theologies of the Cross of Paul and Mark and so many of the other pieces or insights I have mentioned find their ultimate test of theological validity --- far more, of course than they do in the much smaller struggles of my own life. In any case, I will leave this here for now and come back to finish later --- I need to think about which of these are specific to eremitical life. In the meantime, I hope what I have written so far is helpful.

I Trust You Video

 

I put this up a few years ago and wanted to repeat it. I found it profoundly moving, but also interesting to watch in terms of the various responses: hesitancy to respond, eagerness to respond, uncertainty and inability or unwillingness to believe the statement on the poster, peer pressure both for and against, partialness of response, wholehearted responses, shared pain and tears, laughter, etc. Today, when divisions are even more exaggerated than ever, we need the reminder that we all have more in common than we have differences, and for Christians, the task of making neighbors of aliens" (that is, "the other") is enjoined on us by virtue of the Christ in whose death and life we are baptized. 

Part of accomplishing this is with the kind of vulnerability to the "other" shown by Karim Sulayman as he stands blind to appearances and open to approach. One of the most Christlike characteristics we find in the Scriptures is Jesus' vulnerability (and that of the Abba he reveals)!! If we can adopt the same attitude and way of being present in our world, we assist our God to truly be Emmanuel, God-with-us, and make of our world the place God wills it to be. We help fulfill our vocation to be truly and authentically human. 

Karim Sulayman - I trust you (Lyrics In This Heart by Sinead O'Connor) from Meredith Kaufman Younger on Vimeo. (And, yes, as noted above, Karim Sulayman, a gifted Lebanese-American tenor, is singing the lyrics for this video! I wonder how many people saw him as even so potentially gifted as they looked at him, read his poster, and tried to decide whether to approach him or not.)

Feast of Saint Romuald (Reprise)

Romuald Receives the Gift of Tears,
Br Emmaus O'Herlihy, OSB (Glenstal)

Congratulations to all Camaldolese and Prayers for you and yours! June 19th is the feast day of the founder of the Camaldolese Congregations! We remember the anniversary of the solemn professions of a number of Camaldolese as well as the birthday of the Prior of New Camaldoli, Dom Cyprian Consiglio.

Ego Vobis, Vos Mihi,: "I am yours, you are mine"

Saint Romuald has a special place in my heart for two reasons. First, he went around Italy bringing isolated hermits together or at least under the Rule of Benedict --- something I found personally to resonate with my own need to seek canonical standing and to subsume my personal Rule of Life under a larger, more profound, and living tradition or Rule; secondly, he gave us a form of eremitical life which is uniquely suited to the diocesan hermit. St Romuald's unique gift (charism) to the church involved what is called a "threefold good", that is, the blending of the solitary and communal forms of monastic life (the eremitical and the cenobitical), along with the third good of evangelization or witness -- which literally meant (and means) spending one's life for others in the power and proclamation of the Gospel.

Stillsong Hermitage

So often people (mis)understand the eremitical life as antithetical to communal life, to community itself, and opposed as well to witness or evangelization. As I have noted many times here they mistake individualism and isolation for eremitical solitude. Romuald modeled an eremitism that balances the eremitical call to physical solitude and a commitment to God alone with community and outreach to the world to proclaim the Gospel. I think this is part of truly understanding the communal and ecclesial dimensions which are always present in true solitude. The Camaldolese vocation is essentially eremitic, but because the solitary dimension or vocation is so clearly rooted in what the Camaldolese call "The Privilege of Love" it therefore naturally has a profound and pervasive communal dimension which inevitably spills out in witness. Michael Downey describes it this way in the introduction to The Privilege of Love:

Theirs is a rich heritage, unique in the Church. This particular form of life makes provision for the deep human need for solitude as well as for the life shared alongside others in pursuit of a noble purpose. But because their life is ordered to a threefold good, the discipline of solitude and the rigors of community living are in no sense isolationist or self-serving. Rather both of these goods are intended to widen the heart in service of the third good: The Camaldolese bears witness to the superabundance of God's love as the self, others, and every living creature are brought into fuller communion in the one love.

Monte Corona Camaldolese

The Benedictine Camaldolese live this by having both cenobitical and eremitical expressions wherein there is a strong component of hospitality. The Monte Corona Camaldolese which are more associated with the reform of Paul Giustiniani have only the eremitical expression which they live in lauras --- much as the Benedictine Camaldolese live the eremitical expression.

In any case, the Benedictine Camaldolese charism and way of life seem to me to be particularly well-suited to the vocation of the diocesan hermit since she is called to live for God alone, but in a way that ALSO specifically calls her to give her life in love and generous service to others, particularly her parish and diocese. While this service and gift of self ordinarily takes the form of solitary prayer which witnesses to the foundational relationship with God we each and all of us share, it may also involve other, though limited, ministry within the parish including limited hospitality --- or even the outreach of a hermit from her hermitage through the vehicle of a blog!

In my experience, the Camaldolese accent in my life supports and encourages the fact that even as a hermit (or maybe especially as a hermit!) a diocesan hermit is an integral part of her parish community and is loved and nourished by them just as she loves and nourishes them! As Prior General Bernardino Cozarini, OSB Cam, once described the Holy Hermitage in Tuscany (the house from which all Camaldolese originate in one way and another), "It is a small place. But it opens up to a universal space." Certainly, this is true of all Camaldolese houses and it is true of Stillsong Hermitage as a diocesan hermitage as well.

The Privilege of Love

For those wishing to read about the Camaldolese, there is a really fine collection of essays on Camaldolese Benedictine Spirituality which was noted above. It is written by OSB Camaldolese monks, nuns, and oblates. It is entitled aptly enough, The Privilege of Love and includes topics such as, "Koinonia: The Privilege of Love", "Golden Solitude," "Psychological Investigations and Implications for Living Alone Together," "An Image of the Praying Church: Camaldolese Liturgical Spirituality," "A Wild Bird with God in the Center: The Hermit in Community," and a number of others. It also includes a fine bibliography "for the study of Camaldolese history and spirituality."

Romuald's Brief Rule:

And for those who are not really familiar with Romuald, here is the brief Rule he formulated for monks, nuns, and oblates. It is the only thing we actually have from his own hand and is appropriate for any person seeking an approach to some degree of solitude in their lives or to prayer more generally. ("Psalms" may be translated as "Scripture".)

Sit in your cell as in paradise. Put the whole world behind you and forget it. Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish. The path you must follow is in the Psalms — never leave it. If you have just come to the monastery, and in spite of your good will you cannot accomplish what you want, take every opportunity you can to sing the Psalms in your heart and to understand them with your mind. And if your mind wanders as you read, do not give up; hurry back and apply your mind to the words once more. Realize above all that you are in God's presence, and stand there with the attitude of one who stands before the emperor. Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes and eats nothing but what his mother brings him.

On Bishops Writing a Hermit's Rule and the Requirement that a C 603 Hermit Write Her Own Rule

[[Dear Sister, must a Canon 603 hermit write his own Rule or "Program of living"? Couldn't his bishop write the Rule for others in the diocese and allow the new hermit to use that Rule? I can't see where the canon requires a hermit to write his own Rule either. Thanks.]]

Thanks for the question! I think some of it is new here. Let me point to the one place in the canon you may have missed. The second paragraph of canon 603 reads: [[ §2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper "program of living" (Rule of Life) under his direction.]] 

Note the word "proper" above. It is not a "Britishism"  like, [[Though he was from the US, John still knew how to brew a proper cuppa (tea)!!]] In the Church, we have Canon, or universal law, and Proper, or particular, law. A canonical (established and normative) religious congregation, for example, is bound by canon law; all such institutes are thus bound. At the same time, each institute has a separate document or documents representing its own proper law (constitutions, and statutes) which allows members to govern themselves according to their own unique qualities, mission, and charism. While an institute's constitutions are ultimately canonically approved by Rome or their diocese, for instance, they are specific to the institute and composed by the professed members. After all, they are the ones who have been called by God to embrace and live the universal elements in ways members of other congregations have not been.

Thus, in an analogous way, the hermit's Rule of Life represents her own "proper law"; it complements and specifies (applies in specific and proper ways) canon law in a solitary eremitical life. The canonical elements every hermit lives are listed prior to the term "program of life" These include the elements of paragraph #1 (stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, a life lived for the salvation of the world, etc.), and commitment to the evangelical counsels, a Rule of Life lived under the bishop's supervision in paragraph #2. The "program of life" or "Rule" specifies the ways in which this hermit lives these elements in order to respond to God's uniquely personal and ecclesial call, and honors both the unity and the diversity of that vocation. Thus, canon 603 itself calls for a combination of universal and proper law allowing the hermit to tailor the terms of the canon in order to achieve the flexibility necessary to serve faithfulness to the vocation. This tailoring will not represent a mitigation of the terms of the canon, but rather, an exploration of their depths over time.

Bearing this in mind, we have the answer to both of your questions. First, the c 603 hermit writes her own Rule, she does not merely adopt a Rule written by someone else, because the Rule grows out of the values and praxis of eremitical life generally, but also out of her own relationship with God through her life and especially her life in the silence of solitude. The Rule must do justice to both of these dimensions! And second, a bishop supplying a ready-made Rule for hermits in his diocese actually has failed to take not only the terms of Canon 603 seriously enough, but the very vocation it codifies as well. (I wonder that a non-hermit bishop would even believe he could do such a thing.) By the way, this observation would also apply to a so-called Laura of hermits whose members fail to write their own Rules. Canon 603 is written for solitary hermits and requires that each one of us write our own.

All of this is the foundation for my comment in other articles that I thought the authors of Canon 603 had written well, perhaps better than they knew (though now I think they really knew exactly what they were doing!). All of this is also at the heart of why I find Canon 603 to be truly beautiful in the way it combines the constraints of law and the freedom of eremitical life. Finally, this combination of universal and proper law allows for an approach to the discernment and formation of such a vocation that relies on the gradual composition of a livable Rule rooted in the individual's lived experience and undertaken in collaboration with diocesan personnel and, if possible, the accompaniment of an experienced diocesan hermit. It takes time to "penetrate" the terms of the Canon and come to understand and live them deeply enough to see they are doors to the Mystery which is God and the hermit's relationship with God, not terms with a single fixed and infinitely more superficial meaning. Writing one's Rule is part of this process of "penetration" and a way one learns to be ever attentive to ongoing formation as well.

Solemnity of the Sacred Heart (Reprise with Additional Announcement)

Today we celebrate a feast that may seem at first glance to be 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 theology of grace and freedom points 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 that 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 which 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 [and to the extent] 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 the Scriptures call heart) is a dialogical event where God speaks, calls, breathes, and sings us into existence and where, in one way and degree or another, we respond to become the people we are [and 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 which 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. Sometimes it is the pain of compassion or empathy or grief. These are often bittersweet experiences, but they are also life-giving. 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 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, becoming calloused. 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 only "begotten" Son, we are adopted Sons --- and I use only Sons here because of the prophetic, countercultural sense that term had for women in the early Church along with its derivative nature --- whether male or female we are sharers in Jesus' own Sonship --- 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 (made) 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 which do justice. 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!

                                    ****************************************

Saint Marie's Cathedral, Sheffield UK

It is with real joy that I make the following announcement: Today in the Diocese of Hallam (Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK) Sister Mary Esther Chiboke, a former Little Sister of the Poor, made first vows as a Diocesan Hermit in the hands of Bp Ralph Heskett, CSsR. She is the first C 603 hermit professed in the diocese (those who know Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio, may know that she transferred to the Diocese of Hallam (Lincolnshire) in 2018). I have worked with Sister M Esther on behalf of her diocese for the past year and with Bp Heskett's approval, will continue accompanying her for the next three years as she moves toward perpetual profession. 

Sister chose today's solemnity as the day she wanted to make her profession and the love by which God makes her capable of ever greater love and joy -- the Sacred Heart by which God daily transforms and enlarges Esther's own heart --- is central to her sensibilities, spirituality, and work/ministry. She could not have chosen a more appropriate day for this initial eremitic commitment. Please keep her in your thoughts and prayers as she begins this stage of her eremitical journey.

We Do Not First Discern a call to Public Vows: Clarification

[[Sister, what did you mean when you said there's no such thing as a vocation to public vows. Don't you have a vocation to public vows?]]

Thanks for the question. I could definitely have been clearer, but I was trying to limit my description of the situation. Using myself as an example then, I can say I have an eremitical vocation. I needed to discern that first and only after that whether or not I was called to public profession, and even further in what eremitical context? For instance, I lived under private vows for a number of years and then discerned I was called not just to eremitical life, but to solitary eremitical life as an ecclesial vocation and therefore to canonical profession and consecration under c 603. The Church agreed with my own discernment and (eventually) Bishop Vigneron (a new bishop after the retirement of his predecessor) was clear he would not require me to jump through hoops I had already jumped through. After a wait of about a year and couple of months from our initial appointment, Bp Vigneron perpetually professed and consecrated me on 02.Sept. 2007. At that point, I had lived as a hermit for 23 years and was very sure of my vocation, first as a hermit and then, as someone called to live it as a public ecclesial vocation.

So, you see, my vocation includes (public) profession but it is not to (public) profession per se. My vocation is to solitary eremitical life and though in time I chose to seek admission to public vows/profession, I might have discerned it was meant for me to live this calling alone under private vows, or in a laura with significant solitude but supported by other hermits -- with either private or public vows. I might also have discerned a call to semi-eremitical life under public vows. What is clear is the fact that the vocation comes first and the mode of commitment is discerned second. In the situation I was describing the person seeking profession got the cart before the horse. S/he "discerned" s/he was called to make public vows and then looked for a context (including a new diocese) that would accept her where s/he might live those out.  

But of course, that is not the way one reaches the point of making vows. One needs a sense of being called to a specific vocation with a specific charism, and mission, before petitioning for admittance to even temporary profession. One must know oneself as suited and called by God to these before public vows even make sense. Again, with eremitical life one comes to know one's call in at least a general way, and only after (or alongside) this does one consider and prepare for the vows one will need in order to embrace this vocation fully and appropriately. The vows support and shape the vocation; in any case, they are not the vocation itself.

Thus, my complaint was twofold: 1) the person described had not discerned an eremitical call in any context (non-canonical, solitary, laura-based, semi-eremitical in a community of hermits, etc.) --- something which ordinarily takes years, and 2) s/he claimed a vocation to public vows, something that in and of itself, does not actually exist. There is clearly more to this complex story. Even so, the grounds enunciated above are the ones you asked me to explain about so I hope that part of the situation is clearer.

Questions re: Intervening in Cases of Fraudulent or Dishonest Profession

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, since you write about your concern with fraudulent hermits and associated issues, I wondered if you would interfere in an eremitical profession you thought was dishonest or fraudulent. Do you have that right? Have you ever done this?]]

Thanks, you have provided a difficult constellation of questions and also something of a leap from my admitted concern with such things. I will drop the term "interfere" from your first question and replace it with "connect with those responsible" or perhaps, "intervene in some appropriate way" in order to share one's concerns. 

That done, I need to say that any person with genuine knowledge directly impacting the nature and quality (and this can include even the validity) of a public profession has not just the right but the obligation to share that knowledge in an appropriate way. Moreover, bishops and others involved in overseeing such vocations have the obligation to hear and seriously consider these concerns. Public professions involve ecclesial vocations which affect the entire Church. They are also public acts of worship and if there is actual deception or fraud at their heart, such an act of worship can become a serious scandal and that can rise to the level of sacrilege. It can also invalidate the profession being made -- one source of the scandal involved. When we are dealing with Canon 603 professions where the total number of solitary canonical hermits are, relatively speaking, so very few and the vocation is both rare and even more rarely understood --- and also because dioceses are cautious in dealing with the implementation of C 603 anyway --- serious scandal can affect the credibility of the entire vocation. When this happens, genuine vocations to C 603 life are likely to be further prevented from being professed by the Church --- a kind of functional suppression of the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation.

What Steps does one take?

Depending upon the seriousness of the problem and one's own degree or kind of involvement and expertise, one may take a number of steps. The first will be prayer, and prayer will accompany any other steps one takes. If one has a relationship with the one being professed, one will generally contact them first to state one's concerns and allow a clarifying response. One will certainly confer confidentially with those in one's life who understand such concerns and can give feedback on how they would proceed (pastors, spiritual directors, religious in roles of formation or leadership, et al). In very serious cases, especially if any responses one has gotten from the persons involved are unsatisfactory, one might seek the advice of a canon lawyer to be sure one's assessment of seriousness is correct and to see what other steps one may need to consider taking.

Beyond this, one may decide one needs to write the bishop of the diocese in which the profession has taken or is to take place to inform him of one's concerns. Generally speaking, I think this is usually as far as one would take the situation because one trusts that the bishop knows more about the situation than one does oneself. However, sometimes writing the bishop, though usually essential, is insufficient; occasionally one's own knowledge may be greater than the bishop's or the situation is greater than this specific profession per se seems. In such cases, one may also be advised to contact the bishop's Metropolitan and even the US Nuncio as the direct US representative to/of the Vatican.

Being sure of Serious and even Grave Matters:

None of this should ever be done lightly, of course, and one needs to be really sure one understands the situation fully and has a good sense of the nature of the vocation one is concerned about. With c 603 there is a tendency already for some bishops and chanceries to say something like, [[Whom will it hurt?]] when deciding to profess non-hermits under c 603 because they tend not to understand eremitical life more generally, nor the significance of c 603 and what it witnesses to, more specifically. But because such professions do cause harm, including to the person seeking to be professed and assuming public responsibility for this vocation in law despite their not being called in this way by God, it may take someone living the vocation to clarify why such a profession is a mistake. I am not saying that such a profession is necessarily a mistake that rises to the level of scandal and beyond (ordinarily it may be rooted in simple ignorance), but this "whom does it harm?" approach does reflect a somewhat careless attitude about c 603 vocations which can allow for the stopgap use of the canon in much more seriously abusive situations as well.

It is in these more serious situations that I personally would probably contact the folks in authority with my concerns and knowledge. I not only believe I can do this, for several different reasons, but also that I am obligated to do this. The question in such an instance is how do I do this in a way which is most charitable and most educative re: the c 603 vocation --- and that is where the majority of the prayer accompanying the entire discernment process in such a matter comes in. I think one must accept that if one's intervention (letters, consultations, conversations, etc) prevent a profession under c 603 there will be significant pain for the person so affected and too, there will likely be personal pain and anguish for oneself as well. However, there is something larger than the individual proposing to make public vows involved here, namely the well-being of the vocation itself which is a Divine gift and the faith of the assembly/church, and one must accept that as well.

Once Again, "Whom does it Hurt?" 

At the same time, it must be made vividly clear that allowing someone to take on public responsibilities for a vocation they do not have is hardly charitable to them either. Doing so invites the person to live with the senses of failure, mediocrity, and hypocrisy all their days, something which is surely a cause of constant pain and doubt pervading everything they are and do. Eremitical life is not about relaxing day in and day out in some form of extended vacation; it is not entered into so that one may do one's painting or writing or pottery, or even research and scholarship, etc. Eremitical life is about the hard (but also painful and joyful) work of seeking God, being grasped by God, and allowing oneself to be remade in and by God in every moment and mood of one's life --- and doing so in the silence of solitude. Absolutely there will be some space and time for activities like those mentioned as well as some limited ministry in one's parish if one truly feels called to these, but these will, first of all, serve one's vocation to "the silence of solitude", not substitute for it. 

In fact, such activities will have to be relinquished or modified to some extent the moment they distract or detract from one's eremitical vocation of living "with God alone". In other words, even what one might perceive as meaningful and fruitful work contributing to the good of mankind would need to be relinquished if it conflicted with one's call to live with and for "God alone" in eremitical solitude!! Also, because we are all social creatures, most folks are called to personal wholeness and holiness in community, not in the silence of solitude. Very few are called to this (or will even understand it), and for that reason, for most people, such a calling would be dangerous to and destructive of their very personhood, their very selves. It is critical that all discernment of authentic solitary eremitical vocations recognizes this or the result of our professions will be fraudulent, inauthentic, mediocre, unhappy, possibly psychologically unbalanced, and disedifying "hermits" created by their professions to live the terms of c 603. Again, how could this be considered charitable or a truly pastoral decision on the part of a diocesan bishop?

Finally, let me say that someone attempting to be professed for a vocation they do not, in their heart of hearts, truly believe they have from God --- and here I mean the vocation itself, not the profession it allows or requires, the time and space it provides for various activities, as a means to some other end, and so forth, but the vocation itself --- says with their whole lives how little they esteem this vocation, those who truly do have it and frankly, the God who calls people in this way! I have been in contact with several people over the years who sought or considered seeking admission to

profession under c 603 as a means to some other end despite being very clear they did NOT believe God had called them to this. One, who thought s/he was called to "public vows" (there is no such vocation!) was willing to make profession and then live as a hermit "to see if it worked out." If not, s/he claimed s/he would walk away from it and try something else. 

But of course, this demeans the entire idea and nature of profession and certainly, all of the genuine discernment people do before ever being admitted to profession. It was offensive to anyone with a vocation to consecrated life. It was offensive to anyone charged with the ministries of discernment and formation. Moreover, it was offensive to the whole church which believes that God calls people --- recognizably and for God's own purposes --- to true vocations and that the church (hierarchy, representatives, and other leadership) must attend to these calls as seriously as God means them to. We have come a long way from the early days of Canon 603 and reflection on the vocation leaves us with no reason to treat it as a relatively insignificant or otherwise meaningless catch-all. We recognize the vocation is relatively rare, but perhaps too, that it is more meaningful for that very reason. In particular, this means that those in authority must not encourage, much less yield to the temptation to use C 603 as a stopgap means to profession simply because other vocational avenues are not open to a candidate.

A Contemplative Moment: On Behalf of the Renewal

"On Behalf of the Renewal"

from The Eremitic Life

by Cornelius Wencel, Er  Cam

If we want to live the eremitic life maturely and responsibly, so rich in the forms as it can be, we cannot aim at cultivating our own individual conceptions, projects, or ideas, nor at fulfilling our individual needs or tasks. Not in order to achieve his own perfection does the hermit set out on his solitary voyage. On the contrary, he considers his way and mission to be part of a great common effort to change and renew the cultural and spiritual life of humanity. Therefore, the eremitic life seems to be one of those underlying factors that really influence the social structures so that people can fruitfully work and multiply the common material and spiritual good. The hermit does not want -- and in fact is not even able --- to separate himself from the concrete experiences of modern people: from touching the toil, conflicts, and struggles they face. He takes part in all those experiences just because, through his existential meeting with Christ, he gains a new perspective and a new sensibility, and so he becomes more open to the problems of the modern world.

So, we can hardly take the hermit for a person who limits his entire mission to a few prayers he recites and to some daily routines necessary in everyday life. The hermit has to take into account all the difficult problems endangering the world today. But the hazards the modern world faces, which cause fear and can bring about a catastrophe of culture and civilization or even the total annihilation of mankind, do not paralyze his activity to improve the world. It is just the opposite: realizing how deeply he is rooted in the life of society and how greatly responsible he should be for the world and its future, the hermit wants to take part in coping with the difficulties and anxieties of today.

Of course, the hermit is much more a person of prayer than a person of activity, but he is far from neglecting any creative action toward changing the world for the better. When he undertakes a task, he does not aim at performing a great many actions for an immediate and striking effect. He is not an activist who lives on organizing neurotically different actions and events that are in fact inspired by his inner chaos and anxiety. The hermit strongly opposes misdirected work, which aspires only to achieve success, domination, prestige, and fame, and which can easily destroy other people's good.

There is nothing more foreign to the hermit than the clownery of a glittering career, success, and all those vulgar illusions that tempt the modern world. For the hermit, his work is one of elementary and daily activities, necessary for his own sanctification as well as sanctification of the world. . . .it is . . . a way of realizing his life's calling and approaching his life's fulfillment. Thus the hermit becomes a sign of protest against all the vulgar tendencies of modern civilization, which view work only in terms of productivity and money. Such a way of thinking, and consequently of acting, testifies to how much worldly affairs have degenerated and have gone far astray from what would be a humanitarian and harmonious course of events.