Feast of Jesus' Baptism (Reprise)

 Of all the feasts we celebrate, the feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service --- a new way of being human. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception. Rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way that expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for ours is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CVs and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, even so, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission, and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicates. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self that must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way that subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely so that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

Basic Vocabulary, One Final Time

[[Dear Sister Laurel, while reading several posts on terminology for hermits I realized I nor anyone else have ever asked you why it is you refer to yourself sometimes as a canonical hermit, sometimes as a consecrated hermit, sometimes as a diocesan hermit, and at other times a c 603 hermit. Can you please summarize why you use these terms and also lay hermit and priest hermit? Also why do you draw a distinction between the term profession and "vowed"? Isn't every making of vows a profession? If that's not the case then what word is used for making vows that are not a profession? Can you cite church authority for your position?]]

I suppose I haven't ever put up a post which is just vocabulary. Probably I should have done that. The various ways I describe my own vocation are rooted in the ways they are authorized, established, and governed. This vocation is canonical, that is, it is legally constituted in and by canon law. Specifically it is constituted primarily under a specific canon, namely, canon 603. (Other canons do apply, but c 603 is the definitive canon for this vocation.) This is the way I get canonical hermit or c 603 hermit. Also, my vocation is lived alone or (sometimes) in a laura of hermits (a laura of c 603 hermits which does not rise to the level of a community of hermits, or a semi-eremitical institute).

I also call myself  and this vocation "consecrated". That is because in addition to the consecration stemming from baptism (the consecration that makes each of us a lay person), the church has consecrated me (i.e., mediated God's consecration) in the Rite of Perpetual Profession with a prayer of solemn consecration. Thus I and some others are consecrated hermits. We did not consecrate ourselves, we dedicated ourselves to God and the service of God's Church; God consecrated us in a second consecration (God set us apart as sacred persons) through the mediation of the Church. The hermit's dedication under c 603 takes the form of a profession of the evangelical counsels or other sacred bonds which bind in religion (and so, under the pain of sin), but additionally the Rite includes consecration and commissioning. This also means that in professing vows (always a public act), and receiving God's consecration, we are initiated into a new state of life, namely, the consecrated state.

The entire event can be called "profession" or "consecration" (a form of synecdoche where the whole (event) is named by a single part) but in either case we are dealing with something more than just the making of vows; we are dealing with all that is necessary to initiate one into a new state of life with new legal rights and obligations. In answer to your question, not every making of vows is a profession; only those acts of dedication using vows or other sacred bonds which also initiate one into a new and public state of life are rightly called profession. This is why a vocation to consecrated eremitism uses the terms profession (not just avowal), consecration (not just blessing).

Also, I call myself a solitary hermit because although I am consecrated, I am not formed in the charism nor do I make my profession in the hands of the legitimate superior of a congregation or institute of consecrated life. I do not represent such a congregation as a vowed member. (So, I am Camaldolese by oblature, and a diocesan hermit by profession.) The church calls me and this eremitical vocation diocesan because it is a state of consecrated life 1) governed most immediately on the diocesan level and is 2) supervised by the diocesan bishop in whose hands we make our professions and 3) who (along with anyone he delegates) is our legitimate superior. And finally, the church calls this vocation public because it involves the public act of profession which initiates me into a state of life with public rights, obligations, and in some ways expectations on the part of the People of God -- people in my parish, diocese, and wider Church.

Lay hermits are baptized but have not been initiated into the consecrated state of life which requires a "second consecration" publicly mediated by the Church. Lay hermits may make private vows or none at all but if they make vows this is not a "profession" it is an avowal but does not initiate into a new state of life. They could use the evangelical counsels or other promises, but none of this is done canonically (publicly under law), nor do they acquire the public rights, obligations, or create public 'expectations for the whole People of God. No competent authority receives these vows though they may witness them without becoming responsible for the vocation as would a legitimate superior. Priest-hermits are like lay hermits, but in the ordained state. They may also be consecrated under canon 603 or as part of a canonical institute of consecrated life, or they may not be consecrated. 

Thus, hermits may exist in and are named in terms of the lay, consecrated, or ordained states. The first is a direct expression of one's baptism, the second and third are specifications of one's baptismal consecration with the addition of a second consecration that sets them apart as a "sacred person" or an ordination. (I don't much like this description, "sacred person", but neither do I know a better way to say this.) These three states of life are the most fundamental vocational divisions and descriptors of eremitic life and the ones the Church uses. The terms lay and clerical are also used in a hierarchical sense. When the term lay is used hierarchically rather than vocationally, then I (and all religious who are not ordained) are lay persons because I am not ordained.

Feast of the Baptism of Jesus (Reprised)

Of all the feasts we celebrate, [today's] feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for our's is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it  because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS, and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus' freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self which must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way which subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life-possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely in order that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (Reprised)

Of all the feasts we celebrate, this Sunday's feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for our's is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it  because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS, and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus' freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self which must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way which subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life-possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely in order that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

Should our Focus be ONLY on what makes vocations distinct from one another?

[[Dear Sister, if espousal to Christ is an icon of the Church it seems to me that married couples would also serve in this way. But if this is true, then how does the witness they give differ from that of religious and consecrated virgins? I am trying to understand what distinguishes these vocations. If EVERYONE'S vocation represents an instance of the spousal bond with Christ, then doesn't the vocation of the CV lose its distinctiveness? You quoted one CV a few weeks back who said if the vocation didn't have its own mission and identity she hoped it would simply be suppressed. Doesn't your theology empty this vocation of distinctness? Doesn't it lead to the very situation this CV outlined?]]

First let me quote the passage you are referring to just so it will be available: [[ I often think that it will be good if CV lives its own ancient charism like the virgin-martyrs in today's world . But if it is called to modify its charism and embrace what other vocations like secular inst and laity already are called to live, then I personally would prefer if CV is totally suppressed by the Church or used as a ceremony or rite available to all vocations of consecrated life but not as a vocation with its own identity and mission.]]

Regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, it is true that it represents an icon of the Church and of the spousal bond with Christ shared by everyone in the Church. Remember that Pope Benedict wrote: [[This means that Christ and the Church are one body in the sense in which man and woman are one flesh, that is, in such a way that in their indissoluble spiritual-bodily union, they nonetheless remain unconfused and unmingled. The Church does not simply become Christ, she is ever the handmaid whom he lovingly raises to be his Bride and who seeks his face throughout these latter days.]] (Called to Communion) While Benedict was writing here in part to establish the Trinitarian nature of espousal it follows clearly that married couples are icons of the Church as spouse or Bride of Christ. Further, it is important to note that both males and females serve in this way.

Again, all of the vocations mentioned serve as icons of the Church as Bride of Christ, and some symbolize mainly the this-worldly character of that identity. Thus the Sacrament of Matrimony. Others point to the eschatological nature of this identity; that is, some point to a union with Christ which is eternal and which is the perfection or fulfillment of any this-worldly reality. They point to a spousal bond which is present proleptically here and now in the midst of the worldly reality we know so well but whose fullness and perfection is identified as heaven or "the Kingdom" --- the realm where God is truly all in all and no one is given in marriage. Religious vocations and the vocation of consecrated virginity are examples of this latter witness with CV's called upon to make this imagery and reality explicitly present in the "things of the spirit and the things of the world". For Religious the spousal bond is the presupposition to and foundation for everything else they are and do but for most it is usually less explicit in their ministry, charisms, or commissions than in those of CV's. In any case, the question is not one of distinctiveness so much as it is of significance or meaningfulness I think. CV's are called to make explicit a call shared by all Christians.

Every vocation reminds us of dimensions of what we are ALL called to. There is NO vocation which is merely distinct or meant to point to the specialness of the one called. In other words there will always be overlaps in the nature of each vocation because each one images and witnesses to Christ and the Trinity. Ordained priesthood makes explicit and paradigmatic dimensions of the priesthood of all believers and the call to be Christ for others as Christ was given for others. Similarly Religious life makes explicit and paradigmatic lives of prayer, service, and the evangelical counsels rooted in a spousal relationship with Christ all are called to in some way. Consecrated virgins are called to make explicit the spousal bond every Christian is called to and to live out the gifts of spousal, maternal, and virginal love which are the perfection of every act of Christian ministry and care; some (those living in the world) are called to do so in a way which summons anyone living a secular life to such authentically human ways of being. Others do so as persons separated from "the world" by vows and cloister and also call all to authentically human being.

While the things that distinguish vocations from one another are important, focus on them need not blind us to the deep similarities and foundations they share. Only as we are aware of and honor these can we truly esteem the one who is their source rather than the one who is gifted by him. Vocations' diversity and special charisma are important because the Body has different functions and needs but there is a universality about these as well.  For instance, every life can and should witness to the nature and place of solitude in the redemption of isolation but few can do so as effectively as hermits. This is part of the gift all eremitical lives are to the whole church and world --- not because only hermits are called to authentic solitude, but because we ALL are. 

Beyond this, lay hermits may be able to speak more powerfully about this to many people who will never have standing of any kind than will a diocesan hermit who has been given standing in law. On the other hand, the diocesan hermit may (and only may) be able to witness more effectively to others about the history of the eremitical vocation in the church as well as to its ecclesial nature and its normative characteristics and significance by virtue of her standing in law.  Though there are meaningful differences, the two vocations are essentially the same; where they differ is in graces, charisms, and mission. It would be a terrible mistake to argue that these qualitative differences are necessarily the same as differences in essence. The challenge is to honor BOTH commonalities and differences. The result of failing in this is elitism and an inability to truly witness in the ways the Church calls on us to do. Remember that martyrdom refers to witnessing with one's life to the love of God for us in Christ. That love is a covenantal or spousal love offered to all and meant to turn this world and its values on their heads.

Minimized Secularity: A Legitimate Development for CV's?

[[Dear Sister, Wouldn't it be possible for the Church to discover that the vocation of consecrated virgins living in the world has developed in a way which requires the kinds of things you say separate Religious from aspects or dimensions of the world? I understand your argument that this would mean the Church was wrong for 30 years, but vocations DO develop. Why couldn't a mitigated secularity (your words) be a development?]]

That's a good question and I am pretty sure it is precisely what the minority of CV's who desire the separating trappings of Religious life would argue. When I spoke of being free to experiment in my own vocation in order to discover the shape of eremitical life in the 21st Century I was referring to this question indirectly. You may remember that what I said there is that any experiments I might do would be limited by the nature of my vocation. For instance, I can't make it a secular vocation when part of the canon reads "stricter separation from the world" --- and so, defines this as even more intensely non-secular than other religious vocations.  I can't do this when the liturgy by which I was professed stressed this separation at every point (official liturgy is normative as law is normative). Once my own vocation becomes secular it ceases being eremitical.

There is no calling it secular in the "weak sense" because I don't live on monastery property or out in the boonies, or in a literal desert for instance. It is eremitical because it is defined in terms of the central elements of canon 603 and the Rite of Profession we used, or it is not eremitical at all. Further, these elements are always the ones which guide my implementation of various practices; thus, if I am called on to do some limited ministry at the parish I have to be sure my life is still clearly eremitical in terms of stricter separation, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude. I cannot begin to define my life as "less eremitical" or eremitical in the weak sense, or even as "more ministerial" --- as good as any of those things are generally. I am committed to keeping its essential nature or I will lose it altogether.

In canon 603, for instance, "stricter separation from the world" clearly does not refer to a physical place. It means non-secular. For that reason Bishops profess urban hermits as well as those living in more natural wildernesses. It seems reasonable that when canon 604's Rite of Consecration refers to women "living in the world" then, it is not referring simply to physical location.  It is referring to something more essential and fundamental on which all else is therefore built. This conclusion has to be buttressed with the other things I have mentioned, including the fact that canon 604 CV's are said to be called to serve in the things of the spirit and the things of the world (cf homily from Rite of Consecration), the fact that it is women living thoroughly secular lives who are irrevocably consecrated, the historical and theological context of the vocation which underscores a recovery of a secular vocation lost in the 12th Century when the vocation became the sole property of cloistered nuns, the fact that ministerial or apostolic religious who are virgins do NOT receive this consecration as they surely should if the vocation is not truly secular, the important emphasis of Vatican II on the universal call to holiness, and finally the New Evangelization's emphasis on a new missiology which esteems the secular while struggling against secularism.

 While I have referred to canon law history, the theology of consecrated and religious life, Christology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and a few other things in various posts on this, my basic concern and argument is pastoral. The bottom line for me is that unless this is a thoroughly secular vocation (consecrated life though it is) it does not make sense; unless it is truly secular it will remain a somewhat half-baked, less than radical vocation (neither secular nor religious), and will be incomprehensible and inspiring to neither those living secular lives nor to those living as Religious.

Only if it is a truly secular vocation is it truly charismatic since charisms come from the interaction of the world's need and the influence of the Holy Spirit; only then will it speak relevantly and prophetically to a world-at-large which is called to live the life of the Kingdom in the state of secularity. (I firmly believe this world does NOT truly need yet another vocation which suggests secularity is NOT a call to a radical, exhaustive holiness!) I simply don't believe turning the vocation into a quasi-religious vocation will inspire most people to live an eschatological or sacramental secularity. While my own vocation can summon people to build silence, solitude, and prayer into their lives to a greater degree, and while it can remind them that it is God alone who completes us and is sufficient for our needs, there is also the danger that I give the signal one must leave the world to be a person of prayer, silence, or genuine solitude. I may, unfortunately, give the mistaken signal that one needs vows or special garb or legitimate superiors, to be called to or become holy. And so forth.

Referring only to the fundamental nature of consecrated virginity and not to its special graces, a vocation called secular and given to others "in the things of the world" as well as those of the Spirit is a gift to the secular world in particular for it says that holiness is possible without the separation adopted by religious. It was once taken as common truth that such separation was required for genuine holiness. But this is, of course, no longer the case. Vatican II stressed the universal call to holiness and in light of that vocations to secular institutes as well as the recovery of the consecration of virgins living in the world have become significant calls to a secularity which leads to genuine holiness. Meanwhile the New Evangelization calls for the Church to proclaim a Gospel which transforms all of reality. It hardly seems reasonable to me then that turning the vocation into a quasi religious vocation or otherwise mitigating its secularity so that it is no longer the gift the post-Vatican II Church and the New Evangelization require can be called a development --- at least not a legitimate or positive one.

One final point. The ancient vocation  to consecrated virginity went through a development which saw it used more and more exclusively for women entirely separated from "the world" and cloistered in monasteries and convents. This is now seen as something which turned the nature of the vocation on its head. (cf,  Holland, Sharon, "Consecrated Virgins for Today's Church") Eventually, even the remaining secular expression of the vocation was lost (around 1139). It is the case that this loss corresponded to a time of decreased esteem for the secular and the association of the call to holiness with religious and priestly life alone. This development contributed to the hardening of divisions between sacred and profane, religious and secular, which was destructive of dimensions of the spiritual life of the Church and represented a kind of class-ism which is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Vatican II worked mightily to move past this in what she taught and the revival of the secular consecrated virgin vocation developed as a piece of this. I would therefore be chary of any suggestions that CV's wishing to recapitulate this original development from secular to cloistered in some way is a good thing. Moving away from the thoroughgoing and sacred secularity of the vocation seems to me to be doing just that.

Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (Reprised and Redacted)

Of all the feasts we celebrate, this Sunday's feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for our's is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it  because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS, and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus' freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self which must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way which subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life-possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely in order that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

On Consecrated Virginity, "Hairsplitting" and "nitpicking"

[[Dear Sister, I see that you got hassled for "hairsplitting" and "nitpicking" in the distinctions you drew in Phatmass discussion on Consecrated Virginity of Women living in the world. Like you I believe that words have meaning and it is a sign of respect for meaning and truth to take care with language. I don't mean to ask you to repeat all you have written here about the vocation to sacred secularity which c 604 represents but I wonder if you have an explanation of why people so object to someone being clear about how the Church uses language?  With regard to c 604 and consecration why does this seem to be so do you think? Why is the secularity of the vocation such an issue? Also, why do people seem to need to say "My consecration is better than yours!!"?]]

Yes, I did get in a bit of  difficulty for making sure folks were using a basic vocabulary correctly. (One person even suggested Jesus would be weeping over all this hairsplitting! I agree he is likely sighing in forebearance, but not because of my concern over significant nuances.) For instance, one person said CV's made vows to their Bishops. I pointed out not only that CV's do not make vows at all, but that all vows are made to God alone, not to human beings. When someone complained that after all this was not heresy (and so, she implied, not all THAT important) I pointed out that it could be heresy and was, at the very least, blasphemy since making vows TO a person rather than in their hands arrogates to them a dignity which is due God alone. The content and dynamics of a vow of obedience would be quite different if one was vowing this TO a person rather than doing so in a way which commits BOTH persons to discern together what the will of God would be in any given situation. I also spoke of the distinction between receiving and witnessing a vow, and I pointed out that Vatican II assiduously kept the distinction between consecration (an act of God) and dedication (the human side of the commitment) so that we should not speak of consecrating ourselves to God, but of dedicating ourselves.

So, why are folks so careless with language, and more, so upset when one insists that words have meanings and that in canon law and theology people are very careful about nuances? Good question. I am sure simple ignorance is a big part of this. We aren't always used to using language accurately and in this world of instant electronic contact where letters replace words and acronyms replace actual sentences, taking care to actually learn and respect the nuances of usage or to reflect on the importance of these is becoming less and less common.  Unfortunately, another piece of this ignorance is an unawareness of the significant implications of usage. For instance, as noted above there is a BIG difference in living the content of promises made to a person and living the content of vows made to God. Vows bind both the subject and the superior in an ecclesial relationship as mutual discerners of God's will, and does so explicitly. It also makes clear that this is not blind obedience and that while the two persons are not peers, an individual, for significant reasons, may indeed disagree with a superior's judgment and be truly obedient to God nonetheless. Similarly there is a big difference between a legitimate superior receiving one's vows (an act done in the name of the church and resulting in legal relationships and obligations) and simply witnessing them (not done in the name of the Church , etc.) or between either eschewing (or embracing) secularism and eschewing (or embracing) a secular vocation.

But where vocations come into play being accurate is threatening to some. For those still wed to the notion that a lay vocation is an entry-level vocation and "lower" than a supposedly "higher" vocation like "consecrated" life, to point out that specifications of baptismal commitments with private vows are acts of dedication, not consecration or that these leave the person in the lay state, is something which threatens their view of themselves and others. Here the Church has simply done a very poor job in effectively teaching Vatican II's universal call to holiness, catechizing on the nature of Baptism, or on being clear how exhaustive the discipleship demanded of EVERY Christian is --- especially in light of a past Tradition that seemed to speak of things rather differently and which has never been adequately translated for contemporary church life.


With regard to c 604 and secularity we run into the same problems, and they all come to a head in this vocation's charism and importance. There are several problems: 1) people don't distinguish between the secular and secularism, though these are two very different things. Secularism treats the secular as the ultimate reality determining their actions and values; often they even worship it. Secularity, on the other hand, treats the everyday world of space and time (saeculum) as the potential sacrament of God's incarnational presence, honoring it appropriately as mediatory and charisma (gift); 2) people still distinguish a secular vocation as "lower" than a religious vocation despite the fact that both represent calls to exhaustive holiness, one a call lived in the world, and the second a call marked by degrees of separation from the world. (Thus the second has distinctive garb, and vows which qualify one's relationship to the central worldly dimensions of wealth, power, and relationships where the former does not.) 3) there remains a tendency to equate secularity with the profane (that which is "outside the temple"), and thus to denigrate it while equating consecrated life with the sacred (that which is of or within the Temple.)

When women consecrated to the sacred secularity of canon 604 argue against this secularity they tend to be unable to embrace the paradox here and continue to try and stress one element (sacredness or secularity) over the other. Thus, if one is consecrated the conclusion is they can't be secular and if one is secular the conclusion is one cannot be living a consecrated life (that is, in the consecrated state of life). But, the Incarnation modeled by Jesus tells us this is exactly wrong and so does what authoritative writers (including a Pope or two) have written about the vocation to consecrated virginity of women living in the world. It is hard to let go of the either/or, higher/lower mindsets so typical of the world's ways of evaluating things and to adopt the ways of the Reign of God. (None of us are far from being the disciples clamoring to know who is higher or who would be sitting at Jesus' right hand!) And yet, letting go of these ways of valuing reality is precisely an aspect of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world that is its truest charism or gift to the Church and World. It is in regard to this Kingdom message that CV's are apostles and prophets with a countercultural truth.

There is two further reasons this is all so difficult: 4) we are actually asking CV's under c 604 to adopt another theological context for understanding the eschatological nature of their vocations. If heaven is a  merely otherworldly reality (what is sometimes referred to as pie in the sky by and by) then it is true there is no reason to accept the call to be apostles of a Kingdom which interpenetrates this one and transfigures it into the Sacrament of God's presence. (For that matter there is little reason to invest in this world at all, whether in ministry, medicine, politics, education, or anything else.) But to be truly meaningful canon 604 requires CV's to recognize and embrace the truth that Paul, John,  and the early Church more generally spoke of heaven or eternal life in terms of the reconciliation and transformation of the saeculum in a way which looks forward to God one day being ALL in ALL. That is a huge theological step away from what so many believe today about heaven or the secular and a very demanding theological context to ask CV's to embrace and be clear about with their lives. Even so, it is a fundamental part of the theological context which undergirds the paradoxical sacred secularity of the call to consecrated virginity and allows it to be precisely the kind of gift our world yearns for so desperately.

The vocation is easily misunderstood and distorted without or apart from this context. After all, what the world does NOT need is another vocation which seems to say the secular cannot be embraced as the place God is made fully manifest, a vocation in which some dimension of the incarnational God we call Emmanuel is embarrassing or scandalous, a vocation which fails to embrace a thoroughgoing secularity vividly proclaiming the truth of Vatican II's universal call to holiness.

And this raises the final related reason all this is so difficult: 5) this is a "new" (recovered) vocation in search of its truest meaning after having been partly subverted by cloistered life and disappearing altogether in the 12th Century. The original consecrated virgins as a whole were not proto-nuns. They were secular women consecrated to serve the Church in every sphere of life and this vocation continued into the 1100's. But for centuries the only consecrated virgins have been cloistered nuns in solemn vows. With the promulgation of c 604 the Church has recovered the secular vocation which is to stand side by side the cloistered vocation in equal dignity. Unfortunately, the church and world have not yet come to understand or esteem this vocation properly, and neither have some CV's. Thus, some women consecrated under c 604 see themselves as quasi-nuns rather than secular women who are also consecrated.

The upshot of this is the vocation is usually defined in terms of what it is not rather than what it is (it is not religious life, these women are not nuns, do not have vows, are not called Sister, are not secular in the "strong sense", are not laity, etc). Such a vocation does not speak positively or prophetically to anyone. It is still in search of itself, and still struggling for recognition equal to that given to nuns, Sisters, canonical hermits, etc. I sincerely believe that until CV's consecrated under c 604 wholeheartedly adopt the SACRED SECULARITY of their vocations this struggle will continue and so will the vocation's inability to speak to anyone effectively (pastorally) much less prophetically.

As for your last question, why is there such a need for people to say essentially that, "My conse-cration is better (more lasting or eternal, more spousal, more God-given, etc) than yours"?  I guess everything I have spoken of up until this point is a piece of the answer, but the more general response would need to be, "Sin." Human sin is the reason for this. Sometimes it is evident as a lack of humility or desire for status along with a failure (or refusal) to see that every consecration, from Baptism onward, is an eternal act of God and a unique gift to the recipient, to the Church, and to the world more generally; but it is also true that in treating some vocations as superior and others as inferior the entire church has colluded in this situation. It is understandable that a person who believes they are called to an exhaustive discipleship and holiness would not believe an "entry level" vocation is sufficient.

Much of the time however, the answer to your question really has to do with our inability to think paradoxically --- another symptom of human sinfulness or estrangement from God, I would suggest. In fact, I would argue that our disregard or disdain for language and nuances of meaning is similarly rooted; so too is the  anti-intellectualism which seems to believe that someone who is trained to take these things seriously and honor truth in this way, is merely saying they are "better" than the next person. We do tend to judge what gifts of God we will accept and which we will not; anti-intellectualism clearly rejects certain gifts out of a false humility, a superficial sense of equality, and more importantly perhaps, a lack of appreciation or gratitude for truth.

I hope this is helpful.

On the Significance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation --- Revisiting the Question

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I have returned to thinking I am a lay hermit, and nothing more, and though God can work miracles in our lives and does marvelous things we could not foresee, at this moment I don't see anything so grandiose [as being admitted to profession as a canon 603 hermit] happening in my life. My life is marvelous in itself, and I try in all humility to bury myself in His will, not thinking anything of myself as being in the least special at all. I feel that God has consecrated me, but any consecration the Church would do would have to be as a consecrated lay man, and I still don’t see any provision in Canon Law for such a state; perhaps you can clarify what other options may exist of which I am unaware.]]

Hi there,

      By way of introduction and since you have read this blog for a while let me suggest you and newer visitors reread some of the pieces on the importance and nature of the lay vocation and the lay eremitical vocation. I don't want to repeat everything I have said in those but I feel a need to reiterate some of it as in a partial response. 

First though,  let me say that I understand the pain you feel at desiring eremitical consecration and the difficulties of waiting on a diocese to respond to your request. You are new at living eremitical life (just two years or less) with no background in religious life; it ordinarily takes much more time to discern this vocation, much less to be allowed to live it in the name of the church. I also went through the hassle of long waiting periods,a sometimes unresponsive diocese, occasional fearful and controlling chancery personnel, lost files, mislaid letters, and so forth. It was not always easy and I almost found other ways to live my gifts from time to time, but in patient prayer and reflection I also came to see that lay eremitical life was an immensely valuable vocation and if that was what God was calling me to, then perhaps I was meant to learn to appreciate this more than I had come to already.

I will take issue with some of what you said and applaud some other things. First, any sentences referring to being a lay hermit and using words like "just" or "only" or "nothing more" to describe this are dead wrong and may well indicate you have not yet come to completely see how truly wonderful is the vocation to be a lay hermit or the way in which your life can speak to those right around you and the Church as a whole. You ARE consecrated. That happened for you at Baptism. I think you need to consider that part of what you are feeling is the reality of your baptismal CONSECRATION. There is no need for a separate vocation to be a "consecrated lay person" since lay persons ARE, by definition, consecrated or they would not be part of the laos, the laity, or People of God. I strongly suggest that part of what God may be calling you to is a stronger, clearer sense of the dignity and significance of an eremitical vocation lived in the lay state.

It is true this is not the same as being called to the consecrated state of life, but because there is nothing higher or more sacred than baptism which makes of us a new creation and calls us to an exhaustive holiness, neither therefore can we say that the consecrated state of life is a higher calling nor that the lay state is some sort of merely entrance-level vocation. As I have said many times here, these two states of life are different in their canonical rights and obligations, but neither is higher than the other. The language of objective superiority which Aquinas used does NOT translate in this way and Aquinas seemed to assiduously avoid implications of vocational inferiority or a lower vocation. I would urge you to drop any qualifying language which diminishes the dignity of the lay state or the significance of lay eremitical life. Whether or not this stage of your life leads to diocesan eremitical life it is an infinitely significant vocation and the model you are currently given to live out for all those persons living around you, many of whom are isolated elderly or chronically ill, etc, and need to be reassured of the significant value of their lives.

This week we begin the 50 year anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II and one of the most important pieces of theology it fostered was on the dignity of the lay vocation and the universal call to holiness. One of the challenges the Church still must accomplish is a move to implement this dimension of the Second Vatican Council consistently, completely. Ironically, that achievement falls MAINLY to lay persons to claim and make real! You can do this right now, without waiting for the Church to admit you to profession under canon 603. You write: [[Nor can I really speak with any authority, never having been a novice, professed monk, or anything more than just a layman. I do not want to be an "outlaw" or rebel of any kind, but the existence of people like myself means God is anything but done with moving among men to bring redemption to them by any means possible.]]

But the truth is while you do not have the training provided by religious life you do have authority. You are a baptized lay person living (and learning to live) an eremitical life and coming more and more to understand what doing so means for those living in the world you inhabit all the time. You can speak to THIS vocation and this world with a particular authority and credibility I might myself have relinquished in accepting canonical standing. What I mean by this is that my own life is separated from those around me, not merely by eremitical life, but by my canonical standing. While I am very keen on witnessing to isolated elderly, chronically ill persons who are isolated by their illness, and others who may discover that eremitical life could redeem their isolation, In the past few years I have come to realize that lay hermits might well be able to speak with greater credibility to these people than someone with different standing in canon law. I suspect this may be a special charism which lay hermits have especially; that is, I think this may be a gift of the Holy Spirit which lay hermits bring to both the Church and the world in ways canonical hermits may not be as effective in bringing.

But doing this means taking the fact and dignity of one's baptismal consecration with complete seriousness. Of course God is not done bringing people to redemption in Christ by any means possible; you are absolutely correct in this, but the primary, essential, or foundational way God does this is through baptism. Bringing the charism mentioned above  to the Church and world also means reflecting on the place eremitical solitude occupies in your own life. When you can speak clearly to yourself about what these mean you will come to appreciate what they mean or could mean in the lives of others around you. You could begin blogging about this perhaps, or finding ways at your own parish to speak about it. You have begun this process already. In what you wrote above you said, [[My life is marvelous in itself, and I try in all humility to bury myself in His will, not thinking anything of myself as being in the least special at all.]] I applaud the first part of this sentence  --- for your life is indeed marvelous in itself. But you are entirely special and so is your call. All of us, by virtue of our birth and then again by virtue of our baptism and rebirth in Christ are infinitely significant and ultimately special. Genuine humility actually recognizes this and genuine spirituality is a grateful response to it. 

I ask that you try to imagine how many people who were once catechized and inculturated to believe that vocations to the lay state were second or third class vocations and yearn to really serve God in a "special" way would welcome hearing from a lay hermit that they simply have to recognize the truth of their lives as they stand right now! During this year of Faith where we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Vatican II and renew our commitments to its achievements this could be quite a gift for you to bring to the Church and world in your own unique way! In fact, in a Church where we once again have a growing clericalism and similar forms of hardening elitism it may be a critical mission God has given you. At this point in time you are a lay hermit and nothing less!! It is a crucial vocation. Whatever the future holds for you in regard to canon 603, the only thing which can diminish this lay eremitical vocation is appreciating it inadequately and living it badly. I urge you to embrace it as an infinitely significant vocation and really make it your own.

I will respond to other parts of your email as time allows, especially to those parts which make observations based on the situation outlined in my post on the diocesan hermit in the Archdiocese of Boston. In the meantime I ask that you look again at earlier posts reiterating the significance of baptismal consecration.

Questions re Canon 603 and Public Profession

Hi Sister O'Neal, I think you have written about this before but I read the following in a blog after I looked up "public and private hermit vocations". [[Or, if public profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession of promises or vows, Canon 603 does not need to be utilized or incorporated. If not, the hermit is publicly avowed and consecrated, but not bound by that Canon. Regardless of Canon 603 or not, a public profession is that: public. People know.]] Can you either comment on this or point me to other places where you have already done this? (redacted slightly)

Yes, I have written about this issue quite a bit. You can find pertinent posts under labels like "public vs private vows", "lay hermits v diocesan hermits, " "consecrare vs dedicare" etc. There are several misconceptions in this comment, three of which are quite significant.

The most fundamental error comes in the last sentence which asserts essentially that whether a profession is canonical (canon 603 in this case) or not, so long as it is done in front of people and people know of it, then it is a public profession. This is not true. When we speak of public vows we are not speaking of vows which involve some degree of notoriety --- no matter how modest that may or may not actually be. We are speaking about vows in which the person assumes public rights and obligations. Public vows are received "in the name of the church" and in such a profession the person assumes a new ecclesial identity (in this case, that of a diocesan hermit) while private vows are not received in the name of the Church --- even if they are witnessed by the Pope --- and do not indicate a new ecclesial identity. (In this case one is and, at this point in time, remains a baptized lay person with all the legal rights and obligations which come to one by virtue of baptism --- no small matter --- but the legitimate rights and obligations involved in being a solitary Catholic Hermit do not attach.)

The second, but related error comes in the first sentence where the writer affirms that public vows as a hermit can be made but that canon 603 need not be used. Were this writer speaking of religious eremitical life (semi-eremitical life that is) where hermits are publicly professed as part of a religious congregation like the Carthusians, Camaldolese, etc, this statement would be strictly true. Persons publicly professed in this way use other canons but not canon 603. But in the given context, where s/he is speaking about a solitary hermit, it is not true. To state what I have written before here in reference to the history of canon 603, etc, if one is to be publicly professed as a solitary hermit one MUST be professed under canon 603. There is no other option within the Roman Church. This is part of the significance of canon 603. Canon 603 makes something possible in universal law which has never been possible before. So, if one truly believes she has discerned that God is calling her to be publicly professed as a hermit in the Roman Catholic Church, she must seek admission to profession and consecration under Canon 603. This will entail the Church's own discernment in the matter because ecclesial vocations are vocations where God's own call is mediated by the Church. They are never assumed by the individual on her own. Again, public vocations involve the assumption of rights and obligations not found in private vocations so the Church must be involved in the discernment of such vocations. Canon 603 is precisely the Canon through which such rights and obligations are granted or assumed by the solitary hermit.

The final error involves the use of the term consecration. This is a really common mistake and I have heard people at every level of the church make it in adopting the common usage re "consecrating oneself" but it remains a mistake. Namely, consecration is not simply the act of giving oneself to God. In fact, it is not something a human being does at all. Vatican II rightly (and carefully) reserved the word consecration for the action of God alone. Since God is Holiness, only God may make holy --- only God, that is, may hallow or set something aside as holy. The human action involved in profession is "dedication." In definitive or perpetual public vows the act of profession is accompanied by prostration, the calling on the communion of saints to witness and participate in what is happening, and a solemn prayer of consecration. We refer to the entire event as "profession" or "consecration" but even so, consecration per se is something only God does. Meanwhile, the proper term for a person with private vows is "dedicated." The act they make in making private vows is an act of dedication.

Further, except for baptism itself, we reserve the term "consecrated" as a kind of shorthand for entry into the "consecrated state." Here the term "state" refers to a stable state of life or "status." Private vows do not initiate into the consecrated state of life  nor do significant private prayer experiences where God in Christ touches and "consecrates us"; thus, it is not accurate to speak of a person with private vows as "consecrated." (By virtue of our baptisms we are all consecrated by God but this does not initiate us into what is called the "consecrated state (of life)." It is important to remember this in case we are tempted to think that "consecrated state" means "holier than everyone else" or a "higher vocation." There is nothing "higher" or "holier" than Baptism and the recreation that occurs there. After all, we can leave the obligations of the consecrated state but we cannot ever truly leave the obligations of the consecration of Baptism behind.)

Hope this helps.

Public vs Private Profession or Profession vs Commitment: Followup questions

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, As a lay person who has made Simple, Personal Vows to God which were witnessed by the parish priest, and as a lay person who has written and observes a personal Rule, it seems that my actions are strictly between myself and God, and that no special obligations or relationship exists between me and any official part of the Church, and in no official capacity, and that even though my vows were witnessed by the priest, I have not accomplished a "Profession". Am I correct? It would seem I am truly on my own, and not obligated to the Church in any official way, which leaves me free, but obligated to live a good and moral life and loyal to the Church. I hope to have the help of the Church, certainly Her prayers and blessings as I may have the good fortune to receive them, but that I am not in a "consecrated STATE" as far as the Church is concerned.

Thanks very much for your questions. I realize asking them indicates both understanding and substantial personal pain. I am breaking them up and placing them throughout this post, but let me try to answer in a way which brings out not only the distinctions involved between public and private profession (or, what some, more accurately, call profession vs dedication) but also the seriousness of what you have indeed committed to.

As noted in the last post, Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, defines profession as a formal, solemn, and public act by which a person undertakes a state of life, and when looked at that way, your vows are indeed a dedication but not a profession. In what I have written on this blog I have tended to a usage which distinguishes between public and private professions while implicitly linking these to differing states of life. Sister Sandra's usage in making state of life an explicit part of the definition of profession is less ambiguous and for that reason, perhaps significantly more helpful than my own in avoiding misunderstanding and the obscuring of important distinctions; still, I think we are in essential agreement. Your vows are private and that means that while they are a personally significant expression of your baptismal consecration (for you are indeed consecrated in that way), you remain in the lay state to live out that expression. As is true of any person in the church, you, as baptized, are obliged to live out the evangelical counsels in some way in that state and your vows express this explicitly. What remains true is that the Church which you help constitute both needs and expects you to live out any commitments you make with integrity and seriousness. She has affirmed that baptism constitutes a universal call to holiness and that holiness is no less exhaustive or significant than the call experienced by someone in the consecrated or ordained states.

It is true that, as you say, your private dedication of yourself via these vows does not cause you to enter the consecrated state of life and does not lead to the same kinds of legitimate (canonical) relationships an ecclesial vocation with public vows does. You do not have legitimate superiors, for instance, do not belong to a congregation or religious community by virtue of this commitment nor do you enjoy additional rights, obligations or protections which are part of such relationships in order to support the stable state of life for which they exist. While you are expected to live out your baptismal vows (the laws which bind every Catholic are indeed binding on you and hold you accountable for this) you have assumed no additional legal rights or obligations nor entered into the additional legal (canonical) relationships which obtain in public profession. However, the values you live out in those vows are personally binding on you nonetheless because they are real specifications of your baptismal consecration. Your dedication (i.e., your private vows) commits you in a serious and real way until you discern either that you are no longer called to this or until you determine you need no additional vows to live out your baptismal consecration and act to have these vows dispensed by your pastor, for instance.

The Importance of Private Commitments

[[This is an important distinction because there actually would seem to me to be a consecration of sorts present by virtue of trying to fulfill what I believe to be God's desires in my life; it would seem necessary in order to fulfill them. I am obligated to obey the Church by the wording and intent of the my (sic) vows, as much as I am obligated to fulfill my vows to God to whom I made them, and a blatant refusal or deliberate failure to do so would be a sin. I had the intent of living by the vows I took forever, but it seems the Church does not see my vows that way in spite of what I may have intended. Which makes me wonder then, what is my obligation to my Lord if having made vows with the intent of permanency and solemnity the Church does not see things that way? If I were a younger person it might be easier to resolve the issue by entering a religious order or lay institute and making profession; unfortunately, it seems that time is past.]]

Both God and the Church expect you to live out the private vows you have made as part of a significant Christian commitment, and to do so with integrity. The Church expects you to lead others in taking their own baptismal commitments with absolute seriousness as well. She also takes your private vows seriously --- which is one reason she provides for their dispensation by your pastor, Bishop, or others designated to do so in case you discern you are called to something else (c.1196), for instance. She does not simply say, "Oh, just move on --- forget about them! They are insignificant" They are not. They are significant commitments to God. However the church, who had no part in discerning the wisdom of or mediating your vows, does regard them as private commitments which can be dispensed without additional legal steps and without directly affecting your relationships with others in the church should you discern that is the right course of action. (For instance, when a religious seeks dispensation of her vows this affects others in direct and significant ways, whether they are her superiors who participate in what is often a painful process of discernment and cease to be legally responsible for her or her vocation), her community more generally (who love her and, though retaining profound friendships, lose her as a Sister in religion and important member of the community or congregation), or the church as a whole (who now welcome her as a lay person), etc.) Should you ever seek dispensation of your vows others are not similarly affected because your commitments, while personally significant, are private and made privately to God.

Even so, what does not change in all of this for you is your baptismal consecration and your responsibility to live out an exhaustive holiness accordingly in ways which are paradigmatic of and for the lay state. This IS a formal, solemn, and public sacramental consecration for you and affects many people and the life of the Church more generally. It is the power of this consecration which I believe is behind your sense that some consecration is necessary to live out your own private commitments. Your baptismal consecration grounds and empowers your living out the will of God in your life.

A larger question regarding the place of private vows for the baptized or married

Whether this applies in your specific case or not, one of the issues your questions raise is the remaining effects of a theology of religious life and vocation which effectively treated baptism as an entry level position in the church and other vocations as higher levels and more exhaustive forms of holiness. We have to encourage people to take their lay (baptismal) consecration and commitments with absolute seriousness. We have to be clear that every Christian is called to the evangelical counsels in some sense and we have to find ways to communicate that. Too often people seek to make private vows in an attempt to express their sense they are called to a self-commitment and holiness "more" exhaustive than their baptismal consecration involves.

For instance, they may make a vow of obedience as "listening" and commit to reading the Bible or listening to the Word of God in other ways when in fact these are generally things EVERY Christian is obliged to by virtue of their identities as Christians. They may make a vow of poverty in terms of a simplicity and detachment which are themselves something every Christian is obliged to by virtue of their baptism.

Sometimes, as I have mentioned before, I hear from married persons seeking to make additional vows --- usually of poverty and obedience, though sometimes also of chastity. When we talk about the matter and examine why they feel this way and what it is their marriage vows call them to in this place and time, there is usually no need for additional vows. Further, given the relationship between wife and husband there is usually no real place for vows which are private and bind only one of them. What was needed in such cases was a clearer idea of how significant and demanding are the public vows (baptism and marriage) they have already made. The significance and nature of these vows as public vows which are a means and call to achieving holiness and union with God, and in the case of marriage vows, a call to such holiness and union through this union with another, had slipped from sight. So had the need to reflect on and grow in their understanding and living out of these vows --- just as Religious routinely reflect on and grow in their their own.

The Church has contributed to this problem through the centuries. Vatican II took a decisive step away from the theology which engendered and exacerbates it. But we have a long way to go in implementing Vatican II in our lives and allowing it to guide our theologies, especially in this area. While wonderful and essential, it is not enough that lay people are moving into areas of ministry that were closed to them before. A fundamental change in our appreciation of what the lay vocation is and demands is still necessary so that people do not continue to feel they have only been called to an entry level vocation and cannot give their whole selves to God in this way.