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.

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.

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 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.

On Calling oneself and striving to be "Nothing"

[[Sister Laurel, I have been reading a hermit who calls and refers to him/herself as "nothing" and who strives more and more to be nothing. This makes the writing sort of hard to read and confusing because sometimes she/he is speaking of him/herself and sometimes referring to the lack of something, but I wondered about how valid such an approach to spirituality is. Should I be striving to be nothing, to lose myself completely if I want to be a hermit? If this is essential I am not sure how to even begin. Can you help me?]]

First, I would recommend you speak to your spiritual director about all of this and get his or her perspective on it. However, I can offer you my own view of such an approach. It is, in my estimation not the most effective approach to spiritual growth and can be seriously counterproductive. It seems to me that it is far better to work to become God's own in everything we do and are rather than to become "nothing." It is a fact that apart from God we are nothing at all anyway. And yet with God and in light of God's adoptive love, we take on very significant and precious identities which should not be minimized even as they challenge us to more. The task set before us by God is, with God's grace, to become fully human in covenant with Him, and therefore fully God's own; I think that keeping this uppermost in mind and in our hearts is far and away a better approach.

One of the problems I have with referring to oneself as "nothing" then, especially if one is a Christian, is that it is simply not true. We are adopted daughters and sons of God, heirs to God's kingdom and those who are charged with allowing it to come definitively. We are a new creation, made new in Christ and so, partial answers (or, perhaps better put, privileged witnesses to God's answer) to the world's domination by sin and death and to that same world's greatest hungers and yearnings. We are light and hope to that world and a sign of its greatest potential. So, while apart from God we are and can do nothing, as baptized heirs of God we are far from that. Humility, remember, is a form of loving truthfulness, not a form of denigration or self-loathing based on a partial and distorting datum --- no matter how subtle those are.

A second problem I have with referring to oneself as "nothing" then has to do with the fact that doing so cripples us and focuses our attentions and energies on deficiency rather than on potential and giftedness. Our world is not served in this way, nor, I think, does it help us to marshal the energy and talents necessary to serve the world by focusing on our complete inadequacy or deficiency. This is especially true in a world where people suffer either from a lack of self-esteem on one end of the spectrum or narcissism on the other. Reflecting the identity which is wholly a gift of God and the deepest truth of who we are empowers us to avoid either of these extremes and will assist us to empower others to do the same. I personally find nothing inspiring in a way of identifying oneself which views oneself in such negative terms and calls others to adopt the same mindset. There is nothing which says "Good news" to me in this.

A third problem then is that because such an approach focuses us away from who and what we are in light of God, it also turns our focus away from God's own grace and "valuation" of us, and therefore away from an attitude of gratitude which is the very heart of Christian existence and prayer. If the summit of Catholic Sacramental life is the Eucharist (thanksgiving), then the summit of spiritual life is a correlative gratitude for God, his creation, and all he has done for and with us. Naming and referring to ourselves publicly as "nothing" is certainly not this. I would argue that neither is it truly humble; it misses the fact that true humility is a form of loving honesty about who we are in God. True humility recognizes both our poverty and our giftedness but it is grounded (humus) in the grace and love of God.

You asked if you should be seeking to lose yourself completely. The answer is no. While this MAY be good Buddhism (and I am not even sure this is the case), etc, it is not good Christianity. Christian monastic life recognizes the ambiguity of human life this side of death and thus speaks of a true and a false self. We are indeed called upon to find ways to enhance the true self through the grace of God, and to allow the false self to be stripped away or, where possible, to be made true by God's love, but this is not the same as losing oneself completely. Instead it is what the scriptures refer to as finding oneself and coming to abundant life in Christ. Again, my own approach to living an eremitical life involves living so that I am wholly God's own, not so that I am nothing at all. It is a challenging task which definitely involves the stripping away of distortions, falseness, darkness, sin and death, but all of this is the means to an end --- that is, to a selfhood which witnesses to God's great goodness and is of almost infinite worth to God and to the world he seeks to bring to fullness. In worldly terms I am not much, but in terms of God's own call I am much much more than "nothing." So are we all called to be.

I hope this is helpful, but again, speak to your own director to help augment this perspective with references to saints who have adopted the language of "nothingness" and the historical circumstances and approaches to spirituality which promoted such. I think you will find they never thought of themselves as merely "nothing" and did not allow such language to wholly overshadow their sense of self, especially in terms of their giftedness in God and value to him.

On Esteeming the Lay State and the Multiplication of Vows

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why do you think lay people feel a need to make private vows rather than living their Baptismal consecration more fully? You seem to suggest there is a failure here and that private vows are being made without good enough reasons, as when you refer to substantive reasons being needed to justify more vows.]]

Good question, but complex too and one I can only start to answer. I think the reasons are several so let me point out some I am aware of.

First, there is the "objective superiority" language of Thomas which has mainly been misunderstood by non-Thomists (and some "neo-Thomists" as well), and which is largely beyond reach now in our time and culture. (It is not a matter of translating words but instead of translating language as a whole: mindsets, philosophical categories, etc and often this is simply impossible to accomplish for any but true experts in scholastic thought.) Because Thomas (et al) spoke of vocations to "states of perfection" in terms of "objective superiority" we naturally translate this into the dichotomous or competitive language of superiority/inferiority, better/worse, special/ordinary, higher/lower, perfection/imperfection and so forth. But, as far as I can see, Thomas eschewed language of better/worse, inferiority, imperfection, or higher/lower better than those who followed him and failed to understand him as well as they might have. Even so this language is no longer helpful and has entered our culture and especially our church in ways which make it hard to properly or adequately esteem either the lay state, and within that, the married state or dedicated single life. We truly need to find ways to esteem the gifts which these are, and especially the ways in which they witness to God's love and reveal God to the world, which do not buy into the "this-worldly" competitive language. Similarly we need to find ways to esteem the gifts of consecrated life, priesthood, etc without buying into all-too-worldly concepts and language of competitiveness and status (in the common sense of that term).


Secondly, I think that there is simply too little personal reflection on what is entailed in Baptism/Confirmation and the commitments made there by the laity themselves. The institutional Church tries to make up for (or better, perhaps, encourage) this in homilies, adult faith formation, the commissioning of ministers, the sprinkling rite and renewal of baptismal promises done at various points throughout the Church year at Mass but the responsibility for reflection and expression here falls directly on the laity. In the main this failure to reflect adequately is due to a failure to implement Vatican II as thoroughly as it required. Part of this means that Baptism is still seen mainly as something done to babies which washes away sin rather than ALSO and even primarily being an act of consecration which should be ratified throughout one's life in decisions every bit as momentous as those flowing from religious vows, ordination, and entrance into the ordained or consecrated states.

Sometimes I receive emails from people thinking about making private vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Occasionally these are from married persons who feel something driving them to do this. When we explore what is going on it almost always comes down to two things: 1) they have not reflected at all on what their baptismal promises (or consecration more generally!) requires of them NOW, and 2) they have not done anything similar with their marriage vows. Once they engage in this kind of reflection and find ways to renew and specify the meaning of these vows in the present moment there is rarely a need for additional vows. After all, the evangelical counsels are meant to be entered into in some form or expression by every Christian. Working out within the context of a marriage how poverty, chastity (chaste love), and obedience (a faithful hearkening to the Word and Presence of God in our lives) are to be exercised by both persons is a necessary exercise. What must be remembered though is that Religious vows are specifications of baptismal vows, and I would suggest that marriage vows are also specifications of baptismal vows. They oblige us to reflect on this foundational commitment and to specify it further in our lives.

It may not be realized by most people, but religious vows are not made and then set aside as wholly understood or exhaustively entered into on the day of profession. (Though neither do I mean they are only half-heartedly or partially entered into on this occasion!) What I mean is that vows are not only contracts or covenants which bind legally or morally; they are doorways through which one enters the world (and the Kingdom) in a new way, from a new perspective, with a new mind and heart. One spends an entire lifetime exploring what they mean and oblige to; one spends an entire lifetime conforming oneself (or being conformed) to these. Obedience at temporary profession may look very different than it looks 25 years later. It may look very different to the superior than it does to the postulant. Poverty and chastity (or conversatio morum and stability) are similar and their shape changes as the person matures spiritually and personally. Thus religious or consecrated men and women regularly renew their vows (or other commitments) publicly (in community), and they do so privately much more frequently than that. (In truth every day is a lived reflection on these vows.) Baptismal vows are the framework for living a life of discipleship and if we have not reflected on our baptismal or marriage vows for some time, we may have failed to reflect seriously on the framework or shape discipleship is meant to take in our own lives.

Thirdly then, I think we need to provide liturgical options for the renewal of baptismal and other commitments. The Easter Liturgy is wonderful for this, the rite of sprinkling and renewal of vows which stems from this and continues throughout the church year, especially when it attends Baptisms of new members, can be helpful, but it must not simply become pro forma or routine. One reason people may fail to take these commitments seriously is because individual parishes do not do so either. Today, for instance, we have parishes which fulfill the directives and honor the teaching of the Church on baptism by requiring significant preparation on the part of families and godparents. They understand the theology of baptism and treat initiation into the faith community as something of great dignity. However, we also have parishes which "make it as easy as possible" despite knowing that once baptized the child will never be seen in the church again except perhaps for the occasional wedding or funeral. We are caught between two paradigms or theologies of baptism, the first which focused almost solely on the washing away of original sin, and the second which adopts the richer vision of baptism as the Sacrament which makes of the person part of the People of God, the LAOS, from which we get the theology of the lay state. The first paradigm and acquiescence to pressure to "just baptize the kid or I will find someone who will" is a source of our failure to regard adequately vocations to the lay state because it itself fails to regard initiation into the People (laos) of God adequately.

Baptism is not a right. It is a privilege. Belonging to the People of God is a gift and privilege --- though one we ordinarily do not exclude people from. Being a member of the Body of Christ is a gift and privilege with corresponding rights and obligations. We must, as a church, give full and consistent voice to this message across the board. Insofar as this means rejecting the older paradigm of baptism and its rather mechanical approach to original sin as inadequate, we must do that --- not just intellectually but in all of our pastoral praxis. Otherwise we give double messages and people come away thinking baptism (and entrance into the lay state) are merely received passively while implying no real change in our humanity (forgetting we become a New Creation!) or ongoing maturing commitment and personal engagement. In other words, we give the impression that except for washing away the stain of original sin when we were infants (whatever THAT means to us really) they are just not all that big a deal. The result is we mistakenly come to believe it is only through OTHER VOWS, entrance into OTHER states which are solely associated with adulthood and active and mature commitment that we reach the fullness of the Christian vocation.

I have to cut this off at this point. I hope this helps as a beginning answer (for there are certainly other reasons I have not mentioned). If it raises more questions or leaves confusion, please get back to me.