On God Loving and Hating

[[Sister Laurel, I was thinking what you said about God never speaking with a denigrating or sneering attitude. God judges evil and sin though. He clearly doesn't like these, so what is the difference? How about God hating sinners?]]

Good question, so thanks for that! My sense of the difference between the two is that saying no to sin and evil, and disliking or even hating these (meaning disliking completely with one's whole self), does not disparage or denigrate the person involved in the sin or evil. God does whatever God does with love and that means with respect.  So, while God may hate sin and evil, he loves his creation, especially including those who do and are therefore diminished by the sin. When we imagine God sneering at someone or something, it seems to me that we are coloring the images with our own emotions and feelings. Let me say that that, of course, is not unusual, but part of discernment (or preparing for discernment) is working with and through the feelings and emotions that color the way we perceive things so we can appreciate the situation in a more objective (and perhaps more Godlike) way. Feelings can cause us to react to things rather than respond to them. But God, who possesses himself perfectly and without distortion or diminution, for that reason responds with, and as, perfect self-gift. That means the One who is Love-in-act never simply reacts, and so too, never sneers nor denigrates even as (he) pronounces awesome judgments.

When we speak about having our responses touched with sin or evil (and this can certainly include various attitudes!), for instance, we are speaking about one being in some sense or another, in bondage to, tied to, or hampered by something that prevents us from truly being the person God has called us to be. It may be anger, fear, resentment, grief, or any number of things caused by woundedness, trauma, etc., that bind us, but these bonds will distort our responses to make them more reactive than they (or we) are meant to be. When that happens, our "no" to something we may (perhaps rightly) not approve of, becomes tinged with the colors of our own wounds and personal distortions. A simple "no" may become personal denigration, and a simple statement of disagreement morphs into a sneer.  I hope you see what I mean.

Does God hate sinners? Well, certainly the way our Bible translations go, some have them saying that God hates sinners. (cf Ps 5:5) But what is being said really? First, it is important to recognize that in Scripture often "hate" is used as a semitism, that is, a Semitic idiosyncratic form of speech that may not translate so directly into our own language. Thus, when we are told that in "coming to Jesus we must hate our father and mother, brother and sister. . ." (Luke 14:26), hatred really means to love less or, better, to love them in a secondary place. Secondly, there is a paradox involved in this as well, namely, that those who love God more than they love others (i.e., those who put love of God first!!) will discover they are empowered to know and love those others even better than they had before putting God first. 

So, when we speak about God hating a sinner we must see things similarly. First, because we are sinners capable of becoming righteous, we each have a true and false self. The true self is the "righteous" self, the one who is as God created them to be, the self that is full of God-given potential and possibility and is a true response to God's love and call. The false self is the self that falls short of all of that, the one that wants to create themselves rather than receiving personhood as a gift of God, that self that is in bondage to false gods and disvalues that are unworthy of being chosen, those less than truly real selves who are distorted in all of the ways the true self can become distorted. In terms of the Semitism explained above, God loves the false self less than the true self. That is, God always puts the true self first and loves it into existence. God empowers the true self and allows that true Self whom he loves with all his heart to replace the false and distorted self. I think it is important to remember that God loves things into existence so they can replace the untrue and less real. In this way, God's "hatred" really is about loving something better and wanting more for the partial and/or distorted reality to be replaced.

At every point, when we speak of God responding to reality we are speaking about God being true to it and to himself. We are speaking about God's love, about God always being Love-in-Act. We are also speaking, then, about God respecting the truth he sees so clearly even amid great distortions and partial reality. When I wrote that God NEVER denigrates or sneers at anything or anyone it was as a piece of this larger theology of God as creator and redeemer through unconditional, eternal, and (I believe) inescapable love. Love is the way God both creates AND destroys in a single act,. Meanwhile, to love in the way God does, also means seeing as God does, looking and seeing the deep potential for life and love that resides deep within everything that exists. The fact is, seeing in this way simply does not allow for approaching reality in a way that leads to denigration or sneering. 

We might also answer the question of whether God hates the sinner by asking someone to look at the crucifix and then see what they say. Paul's answer was simple: Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. (Rom 5:6) This is a love that creates even as it destroys (and no, I am not speaking about the destruction of Jesus, but of sin and death as God begins to create a new heaven and new earth with Jesus' resurrection). It is a love that does not sneer at or denigrate those who crucified Jesus but instead takes both sinful and true humanity with the utmost respect and seriousness. I think that sometimes when the word hate is used in our Scriptures, it indicates respect (which is absolutely not necessarily the same as approval), as well as indicating utmost seriousness. In any case, whether we perceive this in terms of creation or destruction, God's judgment is always all about God's unfathomable love for the true and really real.

More on Ecclesiality and My Rule of Life

[[Hi Sister, were you aware of the ecclesial nature of your vocation when you were professed and consecrated? Would this be something a diocesan hermit would include in his/her Rule of Life? Is it possible for hermits to grow in awareness of this "foundational dimension" (your term)? If I were to want to put this in the Rule I am working on where would I put this?]]

Wow! New question! Thank you. I was well aware of the ecclesial dimension of my consecration and I still had growing to do in that awareness!! Still do, of course, because my theology of Church is evolving and that will change the way I see the ecclesial dimension of my consecration.  I remember in my first conversation with Abp Vigneron, talking about how surprised I was that the ecclesiality of the vocation was not discussed much -- though it was a central element protecting the vocation from individualism and charges of selfishness and self-centeredness. Yes, I wrote this dimension into my Rule in a number of places, not with specific references to the ecclesiality of the consecrated vocation, but with references to serving the Church itself, that is, serving the People of God, in various ways so that they might truly be the People God calls them to be. The most focused sense of the ecclesiality of my own vocation, I think, was my vow of obedience. It reads as follows:

[[I acknowledge and accept that God is the author of my life and that through his Word, spoken in Jesus Christ, I have been called by name to be. I affirm that in this Word, a singular identity has been conferred upon me, a specifically ecclesial identity which I accept and for which I am forever accountable. Under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, I vow to be obedient: to be attentive and responsible to Him who is the foundation of my being, to his solitary Word of whom I am called to be an expression, and to the whole of His People to whom it is my privilege to belong and serve.]]

I hope you can see a vow of obedience to God, which is about attentive and responsive listening that involves the whole self, given in service to God and God's entire People. It is this specific commitment to attentiveness and service of the whole Church that is the clearest statement of my sense of the ecclesial nature of the c 603 call. Insofar as where you might locate this in your own Rule, I'm afraid I can't help you with that. What I would encourage you to do is reflect on what it means to have an ecclesial vocation in the strict sense consecrated life represents and then spend some time seeing how this awareness colors the commitment you plan to make. Once you have done some of that, you could come back with other questions, or you might find someone knowledgeable on the diocesan formation team with whom you could talk about what you have learned from your own experience.  

However, were I to rewrite portions of my Rule today (and I do rewrite parts of it every five years or so when needed due to growth or significant changes in my life), I believe one of the things I might do is add a specific section on the ecclesial nature of the vocation and cite a portion of Vita Consecrata as a key to the section What I would also describe therein would be the various ways I recognize the ecclesiality of consecrated solitary eremitical life. For instance, I would note its importance in my vow of obedience and in other significant sections of the life and Rule. You see, more than a list of do's and don'ts, my Rule is primarily a vision of this life that helps inspire me to live it faithfully. To have a vision of the life along with its personal, historical, and ecclesial significance, allows me to look at everything I am and do (or consider doing!) from this perspective and then evaluate it for the way it fits or fails to fit this vision. The do's and don'ts follow directly on this vision built on the terms of the canon and the way God is at work in my life for the sake of others.

On God's Mediated Presence and Whether God Sneers

[[ Hi Sister, I wondered if you could tell me what it means to "have God directly"? Do some hermits have God directly and others do not? Does the fact that you are canonical mean you do not have God directly? You have probably heard this but there's an online hermit who says c 603 hermits have God via a canon law or something like that. (I am sorry, but I don't quite understand what she means by this. I hope you do!) She tells a story about a dream she had where God showed her a young hermit kneeling in front of a large crucifix with a bishop and large volumes of canon law rising up to his waist. Then God says, "Why would you want THAT when you can have me directly?" The way she says THAT was denigrating [to] canon law hermits. I have problems with this story for different reasons. I know she has talked smack about you in the past, so I wondered if you have heard this and know what she is referring to.]]

Thanks for the questions. They are good ones, and important as well. As a matter of openness and clarity, let me say that you are apparently referring to Joyful Hermit Speaks or Joyful Christian Hermit Speaks on You Tube and not to any other online hermit. Yes, I have seen at least 2 videos that retell this same story. I believe the roots of this dream stem from the fact that God consecrated me and others as c 603 hermits and consecrates all members of the consecrated state in the Roman Catholic Church in mediated acts defined and governed by canon law. In the case of c 603 hermits, it is the bishop that acts to mediate God's consecration, just as priests act as mediators of God's consecration of bread and wine during Eucharist, or God's forgiveness during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, for example. The Church is a Sacramental Church and that means she uses Sacraments and sacramentals to mediate God's grace and blessings (both involve God's presence) in many ways.

There are certain things about the story that trouble me as well. The main thing is the way the dream has God speaking in what Joyful has stressed and mimicked explicitly is a denigrating tone about a central way everything in the Church works, namely through God's mediated presence. First of all, let me point out that God's presence is no less real because it is mediated through the hands of a "sacred minister". While I have no idea of whether or not Joyful was consecrated in any sense at all, it was supposed to have happened through a liturgical rite where the priest blessed and incensed her. I would hope she recognizes all of that depends upon some sort of mediation. I also therefore hope she understands that c 603 hermits pray in the same way as any other person prays and God comes to us directly as well as in and through the hands and hearts of those who work with us or with whom we work, as well as in and through any person who loves God and can thus reveal God's presence to us.

The description of God essentially disdaining a valued vocation in the Roman Catholic Church God calls people to from all over the world because of its mediated nature, boggles the mind. To suggest that God disapproves of a particular canon law that finally establishes as a state of perfection, a vocation God has been calling people to for centuries without sufficient regard by the Church, is even more mind-boggling. ALL vocations in the Church (priesthood, religious life, consecrated virginity, laity, etc. are established in law (that is they are defined by law to protect and govern what is recognized as a gift of God to the Church), no matter the state of life of the one with that vocation. 

Likewise, all of them are mediated to us in and through the hands of a legitimate superior or minister. Do we suggest that men ordained by the laying on of hands by the Bishop are not truly ordained by God? How about the consecration of Bishops? If someone is, let's suppose, refused admission to ordination and they have a similar dream of God essentially sneering at and denigrating the rite of ordination because it is a mediated (Sacramental) reality, are we to believe that this is truly God speaking?? Dreams are capable of mediating profound truth, and I think this one is certainly no different, but they must be properly interpreted. Whatever God's place or role in this dream, one thing I know about God is that God NEVER speaks with a denigrating or sneering attitude. 

In any case, I believe that is what Joyful was talking about in the 2 videos I saw. To "have God directly" apparently means to experience God without mediating persons, sacraments, or sacramentals. As I think about it, it is important to say that even Sacred Scripture as interpreted and proclaimed, mediates the presence of the Living God to us. Surely, we cannot disparage these ways in which God in Christ daily comes to so many of his beloved.

On the Importance and Relative Flexibility of Norms

[[Dear Sister Laurel, You wrote that without a norm that defines the nature of hermit life there is no way to determine what are abuses. You also wrote something about healthy eremitical life. Doesn't everyone just using common sense know what hermit life is like and about?  If you want to argue a life is not healthy for someone, then wouldn't that indicate the person does not have a true vocation? Does a diocese define how the various elements of the canon are to be defined or does Rome define those?]]

Thanks for your questions! I am afraid I am not very positive about what often goes by the name of "common sense"! I think that more often than not, I would call it common nonsense! I remember when I was inviting people to my consecration, I met one of the residents in the complex (a Catholic) in the hallway and told her what would be happening at the parish church. She looked a little puzzled so I thought I would start at the beginning and asked her if she knew what a hermit was. She responded, "Sure, it's someone who wants to escape. . ." and at that point her voice trailed off. Another time I was introduced to someone as a hermit. Her immediate response was, "Why aren't you home in your cave?" and then she realized what she had said and flushed with embarrassment.

In more serious examples, I have often written over the years that eremitical life, contrary to popular opinion, not individualistic or isolationist, and that solitude, precisely because it is a matter of being alone with God through Christ in the power of the Spirit, is very much a communal reality that includes all grounded in God. There is nothing "common sense" about that. Most people I have spoken to are surprised when they hear this, or when they hear that the life is not a selfish one given over to self-centered pursuits and concerns, or when they learn that one is withdrawing from things in order to be more closely and truly related to them. You can hear the paradoxical nature of so much of this, and that is definitely not what most folks call "common sense"!

I agree that generally speaking if a life seems to be unhealthy for someone, that means this is not their vocation. However, it is possible for someone to try to live something they have understood in an ill-defined way or are living in unhealthy ways which, if changed might make the life far more lifegiving and healthful for the person. In such an instance, the person might discover a true vocation. Consider what happens if hermit wannabes lived penance in the ways some have conceived it in past centuries with tons of fasting and corporal mortification. Let's say the person has diabetes or some sort of GI problem; what would happen to their health under such a penitential regimen? Some of us recognize that a regular medication regimen and a careful eating plan could well constitute a piece of sound penitential practice, but you can imagine what some who are truly unschooled or literalistic in their approach to this might replace the healthy praxis with!

Moreover, some approaches to penance treat it as synonymous with punishment and link it to shame and guilt as well. This is a serious misunderstanding or constellation of misunderstandings and with such an approach to penances (or ascesis), one's understanding of God can be completed skewed and with that, any possibility of getting eremitical life right or having it be lifegiving. But penance is not about punishment, and it is not to be connected necessarily with guilt or shame, much less foster these!! When an element of the spiritual life, whether eremitic or non-eremitical, is built into the life, that life will become unhealthy, whether the person really has this vocation or not. This is because such skewed notions of penance or other central elements of c 603, for instance, do distort our senses of our self and the God who calls us to wholeness -- if we can even recognize what wholeness is!

Each of the central elements of c 603 and so, of solitary eremitical life as the Church understands it, can be distorted because of ignorance or skewed theologies. When this occurs, they will lead to further skewing and other elements will become distorted as will the witness value of the life. This means that it will not serve others in the way it is meant to serve, namely, as a model of a life centered on Christ in relation to a God whose love is unconditional and whose mercy is gratuitous. Whether we are looking at an overly literalistic and individualistic notion of solitude, a distorted notion of prayer rooted in tendencies to measure things in terms of human achievement, a notion of hiddenness that is mainly defined by externals, we may end up with a distorted understanding of contemporary eremitical life, and that is apt to be singularly unhealthy. 

There is an interplay between local Church and hermit or hermit candidate in the way the central elements of c 603 are to be defined. The hermit or hermit candidate lives the elements as she feels called to do and the local Church (through the formation team and mentor) evaluates this in relation to other hermits, the eremitical tradition, the needs and insights of the Local Church, etc. There are essential senses that all hermits tend to agree on and variations of these individuals may feel called to live instead. The local Church evaluates all of this and discerns whether the entire life may honestly be called eremitical and healthily eremitical. The idea is to get a unified and healthy vision and praxis of how this person will live this vocation if it is agreed this is what she is called to in the Name of the Church. The normative elements of c 603 are important and one must live them with integrity; at the same time that does not require slavish fidelity to a dictionary definition of a particular word or value, Instead genuine faithfulness may require relative flexibility within a field of meaning.

Being a Work in Progress and Having no Regrets

 [[Dear Sister Laurel, I wondered if you have ever said you have devoted your life to canon 603 or wondered about the wisdom of that. I heard that somewhere. It was sort of as though you had wasted your life on a stupid canon law. You wrote not long ago about living as a lay hermit and then renewing your petition to become a consecrated hermit because you believed you had something to bring the Church. Was dedicating your life to c 603 part of that? If someone thinks spending time and energy on a stupid canon law is a waste, what would you say to them?]]

Thanks for your questions. No, I never said I devoted my life to c 603 as canon or felt called to do so. You see, it is not true. Yes, there is no doubt that over time this blog has taken on a focus and that focus is c 603 and the life this made canonical in the Church, but this blog is only one piece of my life, and it is important for whoever made the comments you heard to realize that. For instance, I do spiritual direction regularly, and my daily life is given over to prayer, some study, and Scripture. I also teach Scripture in my parish, and though we only meet once a week, it does take time to prep a class! Additionally, I spend time mentoring candidates for c 603 profession, and while I usually will not work with more than two candidates at a time, it still takes time and requires additional reflection and prayer. Finally, I do some recreational stuff. Since I am not playing violin due to a broken left wrist (not to worry; it happened several years ago now), I am learning to play cello instead and I also color with colored pencils (cf works in progress and completed in this article).

Yes, one focus of my study and reflection is c 603 itself, but I am also reading about consecrated life, discernment and formation of vocations to the consecrated life, and of course, more generally the nature of eremitical life itself. As I have noted before, a small group of c 603 hermits is reading Cornelius Wencel's book Eremitic Life together, and though we have all read it before (sometimes several times!), in looking at it together we are able to explore and share the various ways God has worked in us and called us to this vocation.  We all have different interests, different schedules, different gifts and limitations, but we all are grateful to God for this canon and desire to live it with and for God and for the Church. Having said all that, let me point out something far more important and maybe more pertinent, namely, that in concerning myself with c 603 here and elsewhere, I am concerning myself with lives, eremitical and non-eremitical lives that are precious to God, and to something that has the potential anyway, to positively touch many more people in the years to come, well into the future of the Church.

I had not the slightest inkling that a developing focus of my life would be c 603 itself, nor that I would ever work with and even mentor other c 603 candidates and hermits. I would certainly have told you that you were crazy if you had suggested these things to me. The same is true with virtual lauras. Of course, I barely had email when I was consecrated. Skype was, at least for me, in the future and ZOOM was in the far future. There was no way to have imagined, much less worked to implement such ideas!! In the days after consecration, Sister Nerina and I tried to form the Network of Diocesan Hermits; we succeeded to some extent, and in some ways, what is happening now is the natural outgrowth of that idea, surprising as that is to me. The reason I renewed my petition with the Diocese of Oakland before Bp John Cummins retired was because I knew I had something to offer the Church both because of disability and giftedness made significantly rich in a contemplative and eremitical context. I also thought this because of my theological education and work in hospital chaplaincy though I was not sure exactly how these would become important in an eremitical life.

Today, I simply marvel at what God is doing in and with my life. That is particularly true of my own personal work in spiritual direction and the way that has allowed God to bring so much together so it all makes a truly awesome sense. I really could not have done this simply with my own planning and energy. And, like the picture to the left, while it is not precisely what I originally envisioned, nor, at various points was I happy with its progress (at other points, I loved what was happening), in the end I was happy with it and think perhaps that will be true when I hand my own life back to God for the final exhaustive and irrevocable time. 

I have not the slightest doubt that God has willed my being c 603, as well as my spending time and energy on it,  possibly even from when I was an infant and long before such a canon was a glimmer in the Church's eye. If someone were to suggest that c 603 is a waste of my life and I should move on to "something more spiritual" or whatever, I suppose (because this is the image that has popped into my mind just now), I would tell them what Harry Potter's "Marauder's map" told Professor Snape in The Prisoner of Azkaban, namely, that they "keep [their] abnormally large nose out of other peoples' business!" In a more Scriptural way, I might remind them not to judge lest they find themselves judged in the process.

Three Vocational States, Two Hierarchical Ones

 Dear Sister, you wrote,[[In part, however, women religious gave up their habits in order to truly stand in solidarity with others in the laity and call them to take on the universal call to holiness and ministry Vatican II recognized and made such an urgent matter in this world. They did so to help curtail the tendencies of the laity to think of themselves as second or third-class citizens in the Church and God's eyes. In other words, they stepped down from a fictional pedestal they had never wanted, so that others might rise to the level to which they were and are truly called as Disciples of Jesus Christ. This is precisely one piece of what vocations to the consecrated state are supposed to do.]] 

I had never heard this before. I wish I had known this; it is so much more positive than what I have heard said about women religious and habits over the years, and maybe said myself in those early days when it was so shocking and disappointing!!This is a completely new way of seeing what happened!! Did Vatican II tell religious to do this, because I was under the impression that the Vatican didn't like it much when women religious threw off the habit? Some still wear a habit though, so why is that? And what does one do with the three states of life, lay, consecrated, and clerical?]]

Great questions! Thanks for following up and also for sharing your own feelings and perspective from those "early days"! Yes, women religious read the documents of Vatican II and recognized that one major emphasis of the Council was the empowerment of the laity to truly see themselves as central to the ministry of the Church and not as second or third-class persons with no real vocation! Laity were not simply to be ministered to, they were called to minister themselves to the whole world they penetrated daily in their work, schooling, recreational activities, family life, etc. Because both priests and religious or consecrated persons were called to embrace a greater separation from the world in the arenas of finance, power, and relationships, the Church recognized that the laity were called to secular lives and to be Church there, where only they could truly go and be.

At the same time the Church began to let go of her tendency to demean vocations she considered secular and even secularity itself. This was an even huger step and really hard to make, but the Church has been about doing that for the past @60 years. One thing about the everyday world theology was beginning to appreciate better and which also helped with all of this, was the recognition that our ultimate destination is not heaven, but a new heaven and earth and also, that this new creation began to be accomplished through Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension. With God's revealed will to be Emmanuel (God With Us), it was already happening that heaven had begun to interpenetrate earth and that Jesus was, through his resurrection and ascension, Lord of this new world. Once the strict distinction between heaven and earth was mitigated in this way every vocation became a call to minister as part of the coming of God's Kingdom here! The secular was no longer to be disparaged, but to be embraced as the place God was laying claim to and recreating.  And of course, the secular realm was exactly the place most people of the laity were called to minister with their lives, not as second-class citizens in the Church, but as laity-as-Church for whom this was their proper sphere of life and expertise.  Vatican II's universal call to holiness truly only makes sense in light of this insight into what the Christ Event occasioned in our world.

The Vatican did not tell women religious to throw off their habits, no, but it did tell us to update and renew our congregations in light of their original charisms. At the very least it meant the modification of habits, but for many, their original charism meant to let go of the habit altogether. They were still consecrated women with ecclesial vocations, and public commitments to image Christ in their professions of the Evangelical Counsels. Thus, they served in the ways I have spoken about recently to both priests and the rest of the laity. (Men religious were sometimes drawn from the priesthood and like the women, were called to serve both other priests and the laity in their consecrations and professions of the Evangelical Counsels). Similarly, they would continue ministering to the lost and least in the ways they always had as well as in new ways too.

What I can say about those of us who continue to wear habits is that those I know who do, associate it with their consecrated life as eschatological signs, signs of the inbreaking of God's presence in the world. For some, they may have discerned the habit was part of their original charism (this would especially be true for monastics). The right to wear a habit was never taken away from them and, in fact, is extended to them during the rite of profession and consecration.  Most wear habits as a sign of material poverty as well. I do that. Additionally, I wear one as a reminder and sign of stricter separation from the world and a reminder that eremitism was the origin of monastic life. Finally, I recognize that bishops gave the tunic to hermits living in their dioceses or who came there desiring to preach or minister otherwise. Thus, the habit can be seen as an original part of the hermit's calling. For those in the religious state, in some situations wearing a habit is still significantly helpful and truly meaningful, especially when it is not used to signal special prestige or worldy values.

We still recognize three vocational states in the Roman Catholic Church, lay, consecrated, and clerical. It is simply that the term lay may be used in terms of either a state of life or as a reference to its hierarchical place in the Church. With public profession and consecration, a person enters the consecrated state of life. They may be drawn from either the lay or clerical states to do that. The Consecrated state of life does not constitute a third level in the Church's hierarchy, however, so consecrated hermits are also either lay or clerical. At the same time, they do still constitute ecclesial vocations that serve the Church in the ways I have described recently.

A Simple Change in Language, A Profound Spiritual Lesson (Reprised From 19. August.2024)

Postscript: 

Marsha died this morning at @7:00 EST, at the IHM Motherhouse Campus in Monroe, MI. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with her for many years and particularly during these last weeks and months. Marsha was under hospice care, met with me weekly or oftener (recently), and was accompanied in close friendship and sisterhood by many IHM Sisters and Associates. They surrounded her when she died as is the IHM custom and as Marsha had always wanted.  I am reprising this piece today and have redacted it slightly to bring out important truths; I have also used Marsha's name throughout.

Original Piece: 

One of the persons I accompany in Spiritual direction (Marsha West) is actively dying. We met today for only a half hour, and during that half hour, we focused on a lesson that is fundamental to spirituality and maintaining one's focus on God, even in the presence of terrible pain and weakness. I learned it from my own Director and try to pass it on to those I work with. It's a "simple" lesson with far reaching consequences, and yet, it is not one that is easy to do! I am hoping I can share here, what it is and something of why it is so important. The lesson is this. When you are speaking of what you feel -- especially if the feelings are multiple or at least seem antithetical, or when you are speaking of what is true and what you feel, please do NOT use the word BUT to link the clauses. Use AND instead! Let me give you an example.

It begins with a relatively positive statement: "I had a great idea today!" and then, all-too-often, the person says something like, "BUT I am afraid I don't have the expertise to carry it out!" Suddenly the excitement of the first statement is quenched with the second more negative or critical statement. If BUT were replaced with AND, this would not happen. Today Marsha said, "I feel so sick and weak! I am not capable of being myself." I asked her then to tell me who she was.  I suggested she imagine doing a school assignment and write 4 or 5 sentences affirming her identity. We tried it together and her first sentence was, "I live within the presence of God." She then followed this immediately with, "BUT I don't find any comfort in this!" We talked about what she was experiencing, of course, and then I brought her back to her first sentence and how she had followed it up; I pointed out the BUT in the middle of the construction. I asked her to replace it with AND. 

She then repeated,"I live in the presence of God AND I find no comfort in it." At first, she thought there was not much difference between using but vs and, but pretty quickly she said both sentences over again out loud, finishing again with, "I live in the presence of God, BUT I find no comfort in it." What she saw was the "but" in the sentence negates the whole first part and caused her to focus only on the second part, "I find no comfort (in living in God's presence)". Then she said again, "I live in the presence of God AND I find no comfort in it." And she began to see that replacing but with AND, manages to hold both truths together simultaneously. Both parts remained alive for her, both things remained true, and she could feel those truths even though it was uncomfortable to live them in tension with one another. 

In fact, holding both truths together with AND, does a lot more than this. It allows one to focus on the truth that one lives in the presence of God even when one is finding no apparent comfort in that --- a very positive affirmation that diminishes the power and scariness of the second clause. As one continues to pay attention to the fact that one dwells in the presence of God even though there are negative feelings at the same time, it allows one to find comfort precisely where there was none present before! It allows one to find God in the unexpected and even in the unacceptable place, right where Christ made him present through his public life and cross! And even when we are not speaking of God directly, we will gradually feel stronger when we substitute AND for BUT in our constructions. 

Marsha then moved on to make several other statements of identity. "I am beloved of God. . .", "I am a disciple of Christ. . ,", "I am a loving mother and grandmother. . ."; each was followed with a critical or self-doubtful BUT statement. And finally, "I am an IHM Associate. . . " She looked at each of these and, more and more securely, began to hold everything together with AND: "I am a disciple of Christ and I feel incredibly weak!" "I am a loving mother and grandmother AND it is so hard to die [and leave them without me]!" And finally, "I am an IHM associate AND. . ." (Marsha stopped here and looked at me; she was stunned and radiant with surprise and joy.) At this point Marsha found there was no BUT statement waiting to detract from the first half of the sentence, no critical voice telling her she was incapable, or doing it wrong, etc.). She felt only gratitude, not least because she was coming to see she didn't need to lose a sense of identity in dying into the presence of God. This was the gift of the IHM Sisters' and Associates' welcoming and sustaining love to Marsha. 

Being completely honest about what one feels is not a betrayal of one's faith. It helps demonstrate how strong that faith is. Marsha knew this, but as she approached death, it was harder to hang onto! Expressing such complete honesty results in the kind of statement Jesus made from the cross when he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Faith is held together with the sense of abject aloneness and abandonment; Jesus still calls upon his God in faith.

Yes, Marsha was a woman of deep faith, a woman who worked hard in spiritual direction over the years, a woman who loved deeply and generously, AND she was a woman who found dying demanding and difficult as she also found ways to rest in God while letting go of any need to control things or make God measure up to her expectations. In these moments she found God always surpassed those expectations in surprising ways!! I reminded her of Paul's quote from 2 Cor 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness," for that is what she practiced in this session, as she held two seemingly antithetical facts together: 1) the graced presence and power of God AND 2) the incredible weakness she experienced as she felt the diminishment of dying overtaking her strength. Holding these two experiences together in a single act of faith and love is often the essence of being human. Practicing using AND instead of BUT can help us learn and internalize this lesson.

Used with Permission: My thanks to Marsha who gave permission for me to tell the story of this session and of her own struggle in faith and dying. In fact, she hoped I would do so. Otherwise, of course, our sacred work was entirely confidential.

Follow-up on the Ways Consecrated Persons Affect the Church and its Hierarchical Structure

[[Dear Sister, can you say something more about how ecclesial vocations affect either priests or laity, and so, how they help the Church be the Church God will it to be? Also, I hadn't heard that women religious let go of the habit in order to witness to the importance of the role of laity. Could you say some more about this?]]

Thanks for your questions. I agree it is important to explain more about ecclesial vocations as a leavening agent that changes the entire Church, so thanks for the opportunity. First, we should say that all Christians are called to live the evangelical counsels in some sense. We do a disservice to every vocation if we see the counsels as only important for consecrated persons or only part of their vocations. At the same time, consecrated persons live the Evangelical Counsels in a radical way meant to serve as a Christic paradigm for others in the Church. Consecrated life serves the Church by reminding her of the Christ who is in her midst as Brother or Sister while also present as her Lord. 

For priests, consecrated persons (and maybe especially religious priests) remind them that life in communion with Christ is profoundly prayerful and only that flows into service of equals among a communion of equals. This is important because it makes sure that the Catholic Church's hierarchical division into clerics and laity does not degenerate into a worldly thing and instead is genuinely Christian where the first become the last and the last become the first. The hierarchical nature of the Church is not problematical of itself so long as it continues to be, as much as possible, the hierarchy of the Kingdom of God. Should it degenerate due to ambition into a hierarchy of power and worldly status it is a greater tragedy than we can imagine. Consecrated women model the same Christlikeness of humility and service and do so (as do consecrated men) from positions of ministerial, communal, and theological expertise that challenge ministerial priests to always improve their own senses of these things so they may serve even better.

For the laity, consecrated men and women live lives dedicated to God in Christ and remind all the laity that this union must come first in every vocation. Individually they have no money to give, but as congregations they invest in the larger community and ministries that serve people in a myriad of ways, and of course, they give generously to the least and most needy in our society by pouring out their own lives for this purpose. In terms of the Church itself, consecrated men and women remind us all of the centrality of the poor Christ and the way we are each called to model him in our world. For the rest of the laity consecrated persons call them to aspire to more in their Christian lives. They provide a significantly countercultural model of success that is supremely loving and this summons both priests and laity to create both a Church and world marked in the same way. 

As John Paul II observed, a Church without consecrated persons and with sacred ministers and laity only, the Church would not be the Church her founder willed. Consecrated persons serve as a leavening agent that helps make sure the Church is countercultural, communal, and courageously and generously so. Hierarchy in this Body does not mean a privileged priestly class ruling over others who have nothing to bring to the Lord's table. It means a Body where all come around that table as a community made to serve one another with our own gifts, limits, and needs in whatever way we God calls us to. Again, consecrated persons are not a third level between the other two groups. Drawn from both priests and laity, they serve to summon all to an equality in Christ that allows the Church to truly image its Lord and his disciples in the world. 

By way of answering your last question let me tell you a brief story. About ten years ago someone wrote me about becoming a Catholic Hermit and wearing a habit. This person claimed to already have a habit she wore at home. She also noted that she was able to pray better in a habit. I found this lacking in the transparency, openness, and humilty (loving honesty) necessary for prayer. It is also theologically unsound. I can't count the number of times I have heard from those I meet that they believe religious have a special line to God, or that dressing up in a habit helps one pray better. Similarly, where serious prayer, unfortunately, becomes associated with those in a habit, so does ministry, the notion of union with God, and authentic holiness. 

Women religious took off their habits, in part, because these had originally been imposed on them by a Church demanding they become monastics to be recognized as religious. However, they were directed by Vatican II to recover the original charisms of their congregations and for most, this meant jettisoning monastic garb, and adopting ordinary dress (among other things). In part, however, women religious gave up their habits in order to truly stand in solidarity with others in the laity and call them to take on the universal call to holiness and ministry Vatican II recognized and made such an urgent matter in this world. They did so to help curtail the tendencies of the laity to think of themselves as second or third-class citizens in the Church and God's eyes. In other words, they stepped down from a fictional pedestal they had never wanted, so that others might rise to the level to which they were and are truly called as Disciples of Jesus Christ. This is precisely one piece of what vocations to the consecrated state are supposed to do.

Some Not-so-Preliminary Conclusions about Canon 603 and this Blog!

My recent focus on ecclesial vocations is something prompted by several different factors. Two are most important: 1) my work with c 603 candidates and on a guidebook for discernment and formation of such vocations, and 2) the clear way the Holy Spirit has been working not only in my own life and vocation but also in the lives and vocations of those I work or collaborate with in one way and another. 

 The thrust of eremitical vocations is often thought to be individualistic and selfish. (Even, or perhaps especially, the quest for personal holiness can lead us badly astray without a strong ecclesial context, sense, and commitment.) When c 603 hermits struggle against the stereotypes and biases that mark what most folks believe about solitary eremitical life, it is most often a struggle to provide an understanding of the vocation that clearly stands against those who view these vocations as irrelevant or as marked by selfishness, personal failure, and isolationist tendencies.*** Unfortunately, some hermits (both canonical and non-canonical), usually inadvertently, strengthen the case against understanding the vocation as meaningful in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or significant in the way it moves the Church towards a stronger focus on and representation of the Kingdom of God. Such vocations put a premium on privacy (which is not the same as stricter separation or withdrawal from the world), are focused on a too-individualistic notion of personal holiness, are unconcerned and sometimes entirely uninvolved with the Church's mission in this world, and are often isolated from the faith community we identify as "primordial Sacrament."

Canon 603 counters all of these tendencies by establishing vocations that are public and ecclesial. It is critical that dioceses and those they profess as c 603 hermits understand and appreciate these two dimensions of the vocation and come to terms with them in spite of the hidden nature of the vocation and its humbleness. These two dimensions introduce new tensions into the vocation and some critics treat these as though c 603 life is a betrayal of "traditional hermit life"; in truth, however, they are the source of a fresh sense of the vocation's humble generosity and other-centered meaningfulness. These two dimensions serve to allow eremitical life to truly exist as an expression of the Church's loving, sacrificial, Christ-centered, and Christ-shaped heart. Without faithfulness to all of the canon's foundational elements, but particularly these two dimensions of the vocation, eremitical life would fall inexorably into a selfish individualism, isolation, and disengagement with others making it instead, a vivid example of the worldliness true eremitical life seeks to disavow and stand against.

Over the past almost two decades I have contended off and on with one relatively isolated lay person; over the course of that time and partly because of this contentious relationship, I have come to understand more and more clearly the importance of the Holy Spirit calling some hermits to public and ecclesial vocations, vocations that serve the Church and are normative of all authentic eremitical life while protecting the life from falling into all of those stereotypical distortions so prevalent in the stories of hermits throughout the centuries. Though I regret I have not always done so, I have mainly managed to keep my writing focused on issues rather than persons, and over the same period, the issues raised by this lay hermit's interpretation and praxis of eremitical life have lead me to a very clear perception of some of the things eremitical life must never be allowed to become if it is to serve the Gospel and the Church that is called to proclaim it as wholeheartedly as God wills. Moreover, with God's assistance, it has led me to see clearly precisely why c 603 was so important in the history of eremitical life, how this canon in its ecclesiality honors the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and how necessary it is in nurturing and protecting healthy solitary eremitical vocations. For that, I owe God who works to redeem such difficult situations, my profoundest thanks!

So, I am excited to continue to explore c 603 and its central elements, along with its foundational public and ecclesial dimensions. All of these make clear that these vocations and the canon that governs them are the will and gift of God for the sake of the whole of God's People and in a special way for hermits. I feel blessed to be able to appreciate and write about this. To that end, I will continue to eschew making my posts personal. I will not presume to speak about someone's supposed motivations or behavior, presumed gender preferences, putative personality disorders, or any other personal trait or condition one simply cannot truly know remotely. I have been the subject of all of these things over these years, indeed they are still occurring, and I will not perpetuate the same. (Because God can and does transfigure something deeply unworthy into a grace or blessing does not mean we choose what is unworthy to get all the more blessings!! As Paul concludes in Rom 6:2, God forbid!!) At the same time, I recognize that occasionally I will need to identify a specific hermit or wannabe hermit to prevent misunderstandings and the belief I am speaking about a whole group of persons. The bottom line here is that if I do not use a person's name, please do not presume I am speaking about any particular person!! The hermit world is far larger than that and one who proceeds in this way will only appear insecure and foolish!! My concern in this blog is the issues that face solitary eremitical life in the Catholic Church because of God's gift of c 603 and its vocations, not, in the main, with their representatives, adversaries, or exemplars. 

Camaldolese Symbol, Today: Monks and Oblates,
consecrated and laity as partakers
of the same cup and sharers in the same charism

With regard to lay or non-canonical hermits generally, as I have already noted several times, I believe they are and will always represent the lion's share of hermit vocations in the world and Catholic Church. They can and maybe meant to serve a significantly prophetic role therein. What the Archdiocese of Seattle is doing with these vocations is positive and (I believe) critically important in helping us all to understand the reason for vocations with a strong ecclesial sense, even when they are not specifically considered ecclesial vocations. These vocations may also be instructive in terms of developing effective discernment and formation processes for c 603 hermits. Thus, a third factor prompting my focus on ecclesiality beyond the two mentioned above, is my recent education on the way the Archdiocese of Seattle is handling the situation of non-canonical or lay hermits. That continues to work in me as a kind of leaven and to bear surprising fruit. My thanks to Paul, the Catholic lay hermit from the Archdiocese of Seattle, who wrote me just after last Pentecost for his assistance.

*** At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that canonical vocations are necessarily marked by pride, a desire for prestige and authority, and necessarily violate the hermit's call to humility. I will discuss this end of the spectrum in another article.

Archdiocese of Seattle's Practice With Lay or Non-Canonical Hermit Vocations

[[ Sister Laurel, which diocese supports non-canonical or lay hermits by recognizing them at Mass? You wrote about it fairly
recently but I forgot the diocese. If someone wants to be a consecrated hermit in that diocese they cannot, but at the same time, the diocese supports eremitical life. I think that argues pretty clearly and strongly that one can be a Catholic AND a hermit without being a Catholic Hermit via c 603!! That's especially so since it is unusual to allow some kind of commissioning of lay hermits during Mass, don't you think? I appreciated your explanation of how some canons apply to lay persons in the Church and then additional canons apply if/when one is consecrated. I really had never heard what that meant before; it's not as negative as it had first sounded, but it raises a question for me. As I am a layman and can live many different vocations by virtue of that baptismal identity, am I freer than those with vocations defined by additional canons?]]

Thanks for your question and observations. I have made a similar point recently, though not in such a focused way, so yes, thanks! The Archdiocese is that of Seattle and it is, indeed, an unusual step to let lay hermits dedicate themselves or otherwise recognize lay (or non-canonical) hermits in this way. As you say, it indicates that one can certainly be a Catholic AND a hermit even if one is not a Catholic Hermit who lives this vocation in the name of the Church. I think it also, therefore, puts an end to any arguments that a Catholic living as an isolated individual and insistently calling oneself a Catholic Hermit or a consecrated hermit must also (upon learning this is a serious misuse of canonical and theological categories and language) consider oneself "illegal" or "leave the Church" if one is to remain a hermit. Those kinds of hysterical assertions may make good theatre or vlog posts supporting or encouraging some imagined victim role, but they are entirely out of touch with reality in the Catholic Church.

Your next question is quite good and I can only give you a general answer. As a lay person you are entirely free to pursue many vocational paths to live out your lay vocation. (This is my preferred terminology for distinguishing the canonical and non-canonical aspects of this vocation; I see it contrasts with your own.) The lay vocation itself is Sacramental and canonical; it is entered through reception of the consecration of baptism and confirmation and it is defined and governed in terms of rights and obligations by canon law -- though most of us don't think of our lay lives as being defined this way. 

Still, the requirements we must maintain to be a Catholic in good standing are certainly canonical. These are found in Book II, The People of God (from laos or λαος for People), cc. 224-231 of the (Revised) Code of Canon Law. Even so, as you say in your question, generally speaking, except for your lay vocation per se, the pathways you may be called to and/or choose in order to live out this vocation are likely non-canonical because you are called to live your Catholic Christian vocation in the midst of the world. Also, yes, we could say that you have greater freedom to do whatever and go wherever you personally discern God is calling you to. This is what it means to have a secular vocation (another term we are learning to have much greater esteem for)!!!

Ecclesial Vocations Serve the Universal Call to Holiness

[[ Sister, does the idea of ecclesial vocations conflict with Vatican II's strong emphasis on the universal call to holiness? It used to be thought that religious were called to greater holiness than the laity. Does the idea of ecclesial vocations try to move back behind that emphasis?]]

Great question!! Thanks for asking!! No, the notion of ecclesial vocations is entirely consonant with the emphasis of Vatican II. Actually, the accents on Union with Christ and serving the Church so that it may truly be the Church God calls it to be attributed to ecclesial vocations, allows this emphasis to be understood in terms of a diversity of vocations all of which call persons to an exhaustive holiness. I can't stress enough that the term ecclesial vocation means a vocation that belongs to the Church before it belongs to any individual and that those entrusted with such a vocation are called to serve the whole Church uniquely by modeling or representing the very nature of the Church for all of its members. In fact, because ecclesial vocations are about service rather than self-aggrandizement, those living these vocations can readily recognize that every person is called to holiness and because they serve the Church, they can assist in calling every person to the fullness of holiness in their own vocations.

While the specifically (or explicitly) ecclesial responsibilities of consecrated persons may be greater than those of others in the Church, and while the call to holiness includes the call to model this for others, the call to holiness itself is neither greater nor lesser than the call to holiness of any other person in the Church. Moreover, other vocations are every bit as responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel with their lives, though ordinarily, this means they do so in terms of the secular world in which they live and work and study. 

One of the problems that cropped up in the wake of Vatican II, in part precisely because of the situation you outlined in your question, was the number of departures from religious life. Because of the universal call to holiness, some felt there was no need to pursue religious life and all it entailed if one could achieve genuine holiness in other vocations. What was necessary was a perspective less geared to an individualistic pursuit of holiness. The focus on the ecclesial nature of vocations to the consecrated state helped the Church find and embrace this new perspective, and it continues to help us hold onto both the importance of consecrated vocations as well as the universal call to holiness and the importance of all other vocations, though perhaps especially, lay vocations. We must not, however, make the same mistake many in the Church once did in treating these vocations as though they represent a "higher (or greater) holiness". Far from moving behind the emphasis of Vatican II, ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state have the mission to serve the Church in specific ways that assist the realization of this universal call to holiness in and by the whole Church.

Ecclesial Vocations and the Characterization, "Objectively Superior"

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, I have never heard this explanation of ecclesial vocations before. For that matter I have never heard any explanation of ecclesial vocations before!! I didn't even know it was a thing!! One of the things about Vita Consecrata is that it speaks of the objective superiority of vocations to the consecrated state and I was just never comfortable with that idea. You claim that ecclesial vocations don't mean something higher or more Catholic, but then what do you do with the "objectively superior" piece of things??!! I hear you saying that ecclesial vocations belong to the Church first of all and serve the Church uniquely, which is why they are called ecclesial. Do you see the c 603 hermit vocation in that light? I think that might make more sense of this vocation than I have heard before. (Sorry, no offense meant, I am a new reader!!) Anytime you can get back to me is fine! Thanks.]] 

Thanks very much for writing/questioning on this topic! I wrote several months ago about the term "objectively superior" here On the Objective Superiority of Some Vocations so you might look at that. What I tried to make clear there is that 1) to refer to a vocation in this way (not to a person with this vocation!!) refers to it having everything necessary to lead to holiness (and I will add now that that is both for the individual and for the Church itself), and 2) the use of this term does not allow the piling up of other comparisons like inferior, lower, less, etc. A vocation that is objectively superior has everything necessary for those called to it to achieve what they are called to if they live it well, in this case holiness of self and Church. But those called to it are NOT superior (or more Catholic, more loving in regard to the Church, etc). This is emphatically NOT the case! Still, such vocations are paradigmatic of what is needed to achieve real holiness; they serve as examples of this particularly through their profession of the evangelical counsels and ministry to others (both of which put communion with Jesus right smack in the middle of their lives!).

Yes, I do see the c 603 hermit vocation in this light. The values of the canon, the non-negotiable elements that comprise it (silence of solitude, persevering prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, evangelical counsels, and even a consciously worked out program of life) are all things that are necessary for any Christian seeking union with God in Christ. And I think there is no doubt that the Church itself needs to be a source and model of all of these things in our world!! When I wrote about ecclesial vocations a couple of days ago I likened these to leaven in dough, but the way they work is by inspiring others, allowing them to contact and/or imagine a life of genuine hope and holiness, reminding us all of the universal call to holiness, the universal vocation to be Church in and for the world and Kingdom of God! 

One of the reasons I regularly speak about ecclesial vocations in terms of commissioning and commitments, rights and obligations, is to indicate that these are responsible vocations. Yes, they are uniquely graced, but they are graced so that they can serve the Church and others in similarly unique ways. Graces are not given because God loves a person more than God loves others; they are given so that one may serve others (and in the case of ecclesial vocations, the Church itself) in ways others are not similarly called to serve. We all have different gifts and callings. We each have different missions as well. Speaking about our own gifts and calling should not disparage anyone else! Ordinarily, in the Catholic Church, we recognize the many members, gifts, vocations, given and empowered by the Holy Spirit and we rejoice in them and in the creativity of the Spirit that makes them possible!!

I am regularly awed by what God has done for and with me and my life. I could never have imagined any of it, and often cannot imagine it now. Still, recognizing all of that and writing about it, or otherwise responding to the gift of vocation (which includes God having brought me into the Church when I was 17), is an act of both humility and gratitude --- and it is a joy to me. To hide all of this under a bushel basket would be a betrayal of God's gift to me and to the Church that promised me so much! To use it to denigrate others and other vocations would be a similar betrayal. Hence, I am clear that there are a number of ways to live eremitical life, all esteemed by God and (at least potentially) by the Church. Some of these are specifically ecclesial vocations, some are not, but they are all valuable in their own way. It is my sincerest hope that whether consecrated or not, every member of these vocations discover why God has called them to this specific form of eremitical life and experience the same awe that I regularly experience. 

Like you, I have also struggled with and mainly resisted the language of "objective superiority" present in Vita Consecrata and older documents as well. It seemed elitist and thus, profoundly unchristian. At the same time, I believe I now better know what is NOT being said with that term and I appreciate how such vocations both belong to the essence of the Church and serve her by helping her be the truly humble servant Church Jesus commissioned his disciples to be. Ecclesial vocations 1)  remind priests that they are called to be persons of prayer and penance so they may to minister as servants in all things, and 2) they remind the laity (of which I remain a part) that they are called to union with God in Christ so that they may be Church in all of the unexpected and even the unacceptable places and situations that some believe are necessarily godless and from which the Church too should be excluded. To be called in this way, is to be called to a vocation with a valuable, even unique mission. It is essential to the existence of the Church and belongs to her before it is entrusted to me. I can and do try to honor that humbly as do others I know who have been called to such vocations.                                                   

Once again on Matters of Conscience and One-issue Voting

 In 2012 I posted the following as part of another piece occasioned by situations involving partisan political positions being taken on parish grounds of distant US local Catholic Churches. In that post I reminded folks that this kind of activity was contrary to Church teaching, contrary to the separation of Church and State, and something which actually endangered freedom of religion and the Church's tax-free status. At the same time I had been asked something about how I was voting, especially when neither party seemed particularly acceptable to Catholics and may differ from Church teaching and praxis --- for instance on the issues of abortion and contraception. In light of Tuesday's Election probably a good time to restate some of this, especially the Church's teaching on the primacy of conscience.

So, since a couple of people have asked me about voting (they actually asked about how I am voting but I am not going there) let me restate 1) the pertinent part of the Church's teaching on the nature and primacy of conscience, and 2) Benedict XVI's analysis of elections which involve, for instance, the issues of abortion and contraception when neither candidate or party platform is really completely acceptable to Catholics.

First, we are to inform and form our consciences to the best of our ability. This means we are not only to learn as much as we can about  the issue at hand including church teaching, medical and scientific information, sociological data, theological data, and so forth (this is part of the way to an informed conscience), but we are to do all we can to be sure we have the capacity to make a conscience judgment and act on it. This means we must develop the capacity to discern all the values and disvalues present in a given situation, preference them appropriately, and then determine or make a conscience judgment regarding how we must act. Finally we must act on the conscience or prudential judgment that we have come to. (This latter capacity which reasons morally about all the information is what is called a well-formed conscience. A badly formed conscience is one which is incapable of reasoning morally, discerning the values and disvalues present, preferencing these, and making a judgment on how one must act in such a situation. Note well, that those who merely "do as authority tells them" may not have a well-formed conscience informed though they may be regarding what the Church teaches in a general way!)

There are No Shortcuts, No Ways to Free ourselves from the Complexity or the Risk of this Process and Responsibility:

There is no short cut to this process of informing and forming our consciences. No one can discern or decide for us, not even Bishops and Popes. They can provide information, but we must look at ALL the values and disvalues in the SPECIFIC situation and come to a conscientious judgment ourselves. The human conscience is inviolable, the inner sanctum where God speaks to each of us alone. It ALWAYS has primacy. Of course we may err in our conscience judgment, but if we 1) fail to act to adequately inform and form our consciences, or 2) act in a way which is contrary to our own conscience judgment we are more likely guilty of sin (this is  actually certain in the latter case). If we act in good faith, we are NEVER guilty of sin --- though we may act wrongly and have to bear the consequences of that action. If we err, the matter is neutral at worst and could even still involve great virtue. If we act in bad faith, we ALWAYS sin, and often quite seriously, for to act against a conscience judgment is to act against the very voice of God as heard in our heart of hearts.

And what about conscience judgments which are not in accord with Church teaching (or in this case, with what some Bishops are saying)? I have written about this before but it bears repeating. Remember that at Vatican II the minority group approached the theological commission with a proposal to edit a text on conscience. The text spoke about the nature of a well-formed conscience. The redaction the minority proposed was that the text should read, "A well-formed conscience is one formed in accord (or to accord) with Church teaching." The theological commission rejected this redaction as too rigid and reminded the Fathers that they had already clearly taught what the church had always held on conscience. And yet today we hear all the time from various places, including some Bishops, that if one's conscience judgment is not in accord with Church teaching the conscience is necessarily not well-formed. But this is not Church teaching --- not the teaching articulated by Thomas Aquinas or Innocent III, for instance, who counseled people that they MUST follow their consciences even if that meant bearing with excommunication.

Benedict XVI's Analysis:

Now then, what about Benedict XVI's analysis of voting in situations of ambiguity where, for instance, one party supports abortion but is deemed more consistently pro-life otherwise? What happens when this situation is sharpened by an opposing party who claims to be anti-abortion but has done nothing concrete to stop it? MUST a Catholic vote for the anti-abortion party or be guilty of endangering their immortal souls? Will they necessarily become complicit in intrinsic evil if they vote for the candidate or party which supports abortion? The answer is no. Here is what Benedict XVI said: If a person is trying to decide for or against a particular candidate and determines that one candidate's party is more consistently pro-life than the other party, even though that first party supports abortion or contraception, the voter may vote in good conscience for that first candidate and party SO LONG AS they do not do so BECAUSE of the candidate's position on abortion or contraception.

In other words, in such a situation abortion is not the single overarching issue which ALWAYS decides the case. One CAN act in good faith and vote for a candidate or party which seems to support life as a seamless garment better than another party, even if that candidate or party does not oppose abortion. One cannot vote FOR intrinsic evil, of course, but one can vote for all sorts of goods which are clearly Gospel imperatives and still not be considered complicit in intrinsic evil. By the way, this is NOT the same thing as doing evil in order that good may result!! Benedict XVI's analysis is less simplistic than some characterizations I have heard recently; theologically it seems to me to be far more cogent and nuanced than these, and it is [an analysis] Bishops who are supposed to be in union with him when they teach as the ordinary Magisterium should certainly strongly reconsider and learn from.

In Thanksgiving for my own Faith Community:

Meanwhile, I want to take this opportunity to say how very grateful I am for my faith community. We stand together around one Table; we share one Word; we drink from one Cup. We are very different from one another politically, theologically, economically, and so forth --- and we are all aware of it. Yet we trust one another to vote their consciences and pray that the will of God will be done. We do NOT allow differences in politics to divide us in a literally diabolical way. We may not agree on a specific issue or candidate, but we recognize the Church's theology of conscience allows that and respect one another in our disagreements. Thus, we continue to worship together and grow together in Christ. As the USCCB's  1999 document, "Faithful Citizenship" reminds us, "Our moral framework does not easily fit the categories of right or left, Democrat or Republican. Sometimes it seems few candidates and no party fully reflect our values. We must challenge all parties and every candidate to defend human life and dignity, to pursue greater justice and peace, to uphold family life, and to advance the common good." I find that in my parish at least, we are generally Christians first and trust one another to be that to the best of their ability. In this time especially, that is a very great gift and precisely what the Universal Church should be as a sign to the world!