Question: Secular Vocations, Are they all that Bad???

Dear Sister O'Neal, is having a secular vocation all that bad a thing? I have been following the conversation you have been participating in on Phatmass and I have read a lot of what you have posted here. . . . It seems to me that some really just believe that having a secular vocation is not okay if they are "in the consecrated state." Are these two secular and consecrated states incompatible like oil and water? . . . Is the Church trying to change the charism of the vocation in claiming it is secular? . . . Is that why one person posted the following:

[[ 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.]]

Thanks for the questions. You are probably now aware of this, but I responded to the post containing this quotation last week. I may post parts of that response here as part of this response, but first let me take on your questions. The simple answer is no, there is nothing intrinsically incompatible about a secular and a consecrated vocation any more than Jesus' divinity is incompatible with his humanity or the Incarnation is contrary to the nature of  a transcendent God.  Incompatibility is a judgment we make when we refuse to allow God to act paradoxically or refuse to think that way ourselves.  Secular, in this case, refers first of all to the PLACE where the vocation is carried out and points to the context the person is (secondly) to wholly embrace and transform in whatever state of life and with whatever gifts they are called to do that. It therefore involves not just place but way of relating to place.

In other words one may be consecrated and be called to live that in the secular state. This is what Baptismal consecration means for the vast majority of Christians. Initiation into the consecrated state (which builds on Baptism) means that one is set apart by God as a sacred person and set apart FOR God and all that is precious to him. It may also mean that one is set apart from the world in various ways and degrees (as in the case of Religious in community and hermits), but the Church has made it clear that in the case of canon 604 consecrations of women living in the world, these women have been consecrated into a secular vocation. It is hard to see how the Church herself could affirm this through her Bishops and in the Rite of Consecration itself (an authoritative instance of doctrine since, as the saying goes, "as we pray, so we believe"), and also believe the two were incompatible.

It is equally hard to believe CV's could argue that the charism of their vocation is the same as a lay person's simply because it is also a secular one. Charisms are the result of the Holy Spirit's gifts (graces) given in response to the needs of the Church and world. In other words it is borne of a constellation of factors and often has a decided pastoral character even if this is not directly exercised. (Eremitical life is one of these charisms where the pastoral nature is not usually directly evident.) It may well be that in a world where the needs that exist are addressed by several different vocations with their own unique graces and perspectives there will be a similarity in charisms and missions but also significant differences. For instance in a Catholic school there may be lay teachers, Religious, and CV's. The mission is the same for all of them: to teach and form good Christian students. But each brings a different set of graces to the mission and each will be a distinct gift to the school and contribute uniquely to the school's own charismatic character.

After all,  if the Holy Spirit gives the Church a variety of graces which the HS desires be used to transform the secular world from within, for instance, and does so in different ways through different vocations, one cannot argue that because they are called to the consecrated state they cannot be called to a secular vocation any more than one might argue that a person in a secular institute cannot work directly for the Church.  The Church does not dictate to the Holy Spirit about where consecrated persons are called to live an exhaustive holiness and neither do CV's. The Holy Spirit can do what s/he will and the Church's job is to discern what this is and then implement it. CV's bring different graces to the secular world than either the laity or those in secular institutes; where this world is the new mission territory of the Church, and where the Church herself is embracing a new appreciation for this world (and for the complexity of the secular), CV's living in the world represent a new and rather unique vocation to eschatological secularity.

Changing the Charism of the Vocation?

Regarding a change in the charism of the vocation we DO need virgin martyrs today, but I am convinced that what that means is CV's living an exhaustive and prophetic witness to the transfiguration of the secular into the realm where God is truly sovereign and so, all in all. We won't be sent to arenas nor are we contending with the Roman Empire in the way the early Church was. Even so, the evil which must be confronted head on in a kind of guerrilla warfare worthy of Ss. Perpetua or Thecla (who lived thoroughly secular lives), et al is secularism. Just as early Christians lived a wholly countercultural life which witnessed to the freedom of Christians and turned Roman family and civil life on its head, and just as they did so in the midst of the world, so today CV's living in the world are called to a radically countercultural life which does somewhat the same. 

A  profane secularism marked by individualism, narcissism, consumerism, the trivialization of sex, naturalism without room for Christ, a media saturated culture which is gradually changing the very nature of humanity itself, etc, is contrasted with an eschatological secularity marked by covenantal (especially spousal and maternal) love and lives given wholly to the service of the Church's ministry to and in this world. So, by recognizing this vocation as a secular one I think the Church has really recovered the ancient gift quality of CV's. I don't think it is an essential change at all but the recovery of a vocation once usurped by cloistered religious, a vocation which existed side by side cloistered CV's until the 12th Century, a vocation with unique graces which is therefore called to inspire everyday Christians to live up to their own vocations in a new kind of martyrdom (that is, a new kind of witness with one's life).

And finally, what about this notion of suppressing the vocation if the Church continues to discern it is a secular life with a similar mission and charism to vocations held by the laity? I can understand feeling this way if the vocation really adds nothing unique or has no distinct charism or identity. However, something does not need to be wholly distinct from something else to have its own identity and charism. All Christians share a common Baptism and a common adoption as sons and daughters of God. All are called to assiduous prayer (including the LOH) and some form of the evangelical counsels. All are called to what  is ultimately a spousal union with God and a life which is truly eschatological. But CV's living in the world say these things are real right here and right now in their own consecrated lives. How can CV's only see the graces of their vocations or recognize the charism it brings if the vocation is quasi-religious? Why would a truly eschatological secularity marked by the graces of spousal love and covenant fulfillment and lived in a world of pervasive,  threatening, profane secularity NOT be a tremendous and unique charism of the Holy Spirit?

If this vocation is MERELY a reprise of an anachronistic way of living, then indeed it makes little sense and may be destructive. But at the same time unless this vocation corresponds to the secular one the Church discerned was necessary and ripe for recovery, and unless its graces really are pertinent in a freshly compelling way, I agree there is no reason for the vocation and would suggest the Church made a mistake in bringing it back. Perhaps it is important that those the Church admits to this consecration can REALLY appreciate what distinguishes this from a lay vocation even while taking joy in the values and dimensions of life and mission they share. Perhaps too the Church needs to add a profound appreciation of the vocation's eschatological secularity to the discernment criterion. Otherwise, I suspect some of these vocations are precisely what the province of Los Angeles feared they were when it refused to consecrated ANYONE according to either canon 603 or 604. LA thought these were merely fallback vocations for persons who really wanted to be religious and couldn't commit fully to the life, or for women who tried Religious life and were dismissed from discerning a vocation for any reason at all.

Still my own conclusion is that the secular expression of this consecrated vocation is not a change in charism, but a recovery of it. Had the vocation simply developed into a cloistered form and otherwise ceased to be my conclusion would be very different. Canon 604 reprised a secular vocation which stands side by side the cloistered expression in equal dignity. I can't see how one can say the Church changed the charism of the vocation in doing so. At the same time, she clearly says that consecrated and secular are not only NOT oil and water, but are brought together by God in a highly significant instance of the transfiguration of reality into the Kingdom of God.

In the early Church the world was the new and very challenging mission field; in the contemporary Church we are moving into a period of increased emphasis on mission and valuing of the secular as our missionary field. We have two "new" (and truly ancient) forms of consecrated life which remind us of this: 1) canon 603 consecrates hermits who remind us all of the foundational relationship which stands at the heart of everything else --- every ecclesial undertaking --- our relationship with God who is source,  ground, and also goal of existence, 2) canon 604 consecrates virgins living in the world who reflect in an explicit way here and now the eschatological goal of all human existence, namely, spousal union with God. Each of these vocations remind us that the Kingdom of God involves the transformation of reality. Each further says in its own way that  this transformation comes from appropriate engagement, whether this engagement is expressed in separation and prayer (canon 603) or in prayer and immersion (canon 604). In the case of canon 603 it is important for diocesan hermits to remember that separation does not mean isolation from the saeculum; in the case of canon 604 it is similarly important for CV's to remember that immersion does not mean enmeshment --- secularity (and especially consecrated secularity) is not secularism, something the Church especially needs dedicated vocations to express if her renewed missionary emphasis is to succeed..

If Rome Encourages Habits, why Discourage them for CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, does the Church's strong desire for women religious to wear habits figure into your argument about the secularity of the vocation to consecrated virginity for women living in the world? You haven't mentioned it explicitly is why I ask.]]

Great question! I haven't mentioned this because I am not really sure it is directly pertinent or how it might be so. However, I do think it is clear that CICLSAL would like to see women religious wearing some form of distinguishing garb and living lives which are more clearly separated from the world than they are secular. Thus, your point is a good one: if Rome believes habits are necessary to indicate a consecrated (rather than religious) life, and given the clarity with which Rome has pushed for distinguishing garb for religious, it makes little sense that CV's living in the world would not be encouraged to wear distinguishing garb if their vocation is quasi-religious rather than strongly secular.

But the opposite is actually the case. Instead CV's living in the world have been increasingly discouraged or even prohibited from doing so by Bishops' conferences and Associations of CV's. (Meanwhile commentators on the canons which are to govern an association or be a model of these group's governance has suggested that secular institutes are the most appropriate model and that there are to be no statutes which change the nature of the vocation to a quasi religious one, for instance.) I think you are correct that this is another very suggestive piece of the Church's clarity on the strongly secular nature of the vocation. (The ring indicates the consecrated nature of the vocation as does the limited use of a veil.) However, I believe the Church was clear about this when she stripped the use of the habit from the Rite of Consecration in the process of revising it. There she was being clear about the secular nature of the vocation even while she stressed its consecrated nature. So, perhaps what you describe is a bit of "circumstantial evidence" which strengthens this conclusion.

Again, great question. Thanks!

A Summary of the Church's Position on the Thoroughgoing Secularity of Consecrated Virgins living in the World

[[Sister Laurel, I appreciated the post you put up on another forum summarizing all you have written about the CV vocation for women living in the world. I also agree you have not been nitpicking. Could you please put that post up here so others will see it as well? Thanks, a CV in Canada.]]

Mary of Magdela, Apostle to the Apostles

Yes, I would be happy to. A note to readers: the references to tone and nitpicking are in response to those who believe the issue is being debated only to prove oneself right. We have to recognize that the secular expression of the vocation was once lost due to folks making it into a religious vocation and, as I have argued here, it is its sacred or eschatological secularity which makes it such a tremendous gift of the Holy Spirit to our Church and world. Thus, there is something really critical at issue here --- not someone's need to be right. After all, there is a significant difference between marshalling an argument in a systematic way for the benefit of those discerning the vocation and simply being argumentative.

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

I would personally urge readers to abstain from reading a "tone" into a post even if the import of that post is the clarification of matters or the presentation of theological reasoning which contrasts with that of someone else. However, let's be clear about what has been called nitpicking. Meanings are important and so are nuances. To clarify these often has tremendous significance in the life of the Church. Nitpicking means to pick at meaningless and tiny differences. I don't think anyone pointing out the basis of the Church's approbation of this as a wholly secular and wholly consecrated vocation can even remotely be considered to be engaged in nitpicking.

The vocation is a secular one AND it is a form of consecrated life. These two elements, in the eyes of the Church, are not in conflict with one another. They quailify each other (thus we get a sacred or eschatological secularity) but they do not mitigate one another.  It is not the case that if something is MORE secular then it is necessarily LESS consecrated or vice versa. Vatican II esteemed secular vocations in a fresh and significant way. It spoke passionately about the universal call to holiness and the vocation not merely of lay persons, but of anyone called to live out their vocations in the secular world. It was out of this context and under the express instructions of Vatican II that the Rite of Consecration was revised so it was not merely for cloistered nuns, but for women "given to the Spirit and the world in the things of the Spirit and the things of the World."

Some would like to see this vocation as "secular in the weak sense" (meaning only that it is not lived in a monastery). That IS a different view of the vocation than the Church herself holds. The USCCB, the USACV, Documents from CICLSAL or from Sister Sharon Holland (as chief in that office under the mandatory Cardinal and Bishop), and the Rite of Consecration itself are all clear that the vocation is a secular one in a much stronger or thoroughgoing sense. The use of veils is limited to the Rite of Consecration and Mass or liturgy on the anniversary of that consecration. Habits are not worn, vows are not made, titles and post-nomial initials are not used. The relationship with one's Bishop is one of a warm paternal nature; he is not the CV's legitimate superior and she is not bound to him by a vow or promise of obedience. The CV's relationship to her diocese is significant, but she is not bound here by the same kind of residential stability as the hermit professed under canon 603. CV's work wherever they can in whatever expertise they are able to exercise. In free time they may volunteer to work for the Church or other charities. Their lives are lives of prayer and service and they are encouraged to pray the LOH --- though it must be made clear that this is the official prayer of the entire Church, not simply of priests and religious, and that ALL lay persons and their parishes are encouraged to pray at least MP and EP from the LOH, just as are those in the consecrated state of life.

The actual revision of the Rite was meant to recover the secular expression of the vocation which was not only more original than the cloistered expression but which, until the early 12th century, co-existed with the cloistered expression. Meanwhile, the cloistered expression is seen to have turned the nature of the vocation on its head and eventually caused the significance and validity of its secular expression to have been obscured, then lost altogether. All of this along with the Church's emphasis on New Evangelization and refreshed emphasis on missiology in and to the secular (and thus to Catholics and non-Catholics alike), a Christology which sees Jesus' active life as completely secular even as he is wholly consecrated to God (Jesus was not cloistered, not a monk nor hermit, etc), an examination of the discussions during the steps leading to the promulgation of this as a secular vocation, theological reflection on the distinction between religious life and consecrated virginity under canon 604 for women living in the world, a fresh appreciation of Paul's eschatology, and the lived experience of the hugest number of women thus consecrated argue the secularity of this vocation. It is a secularity which is truly consecrated, authentically eschatological (proleptic of the Kingdom) but it is an unmitigated secularity nonetheless.

I will add one other piece of evidence which clearly says the Church sees the vocation in this way, namely, she does not require women living secular lives to leave any of this (work, relationships, activities including political activities, hobbies, normal dress, etc) BEFORE (or after) she consecrates them. She allows secular women living secular lives to discern this vocation and to be consecrated. This would be completely irresponsible if thereafter the Church believed these women were to adopt quasi-religious vocations with distinctive garb, vows, legitimate superiors, etc. It is also contrary to the way the Church operates with ANY other vocation to the consecrated state. Imagine what would happen if a women discerned long and carefully the way God was calling her to serve the Church and world in her secularity, and after consecration required she embrace a quasi-religious life instead! The Church has been very clear in her praxis, liturgy, and theology, that this vocation is radically secular even as it is radically consecrated. This is precisely the witness the Church and world needs today when secularism (not the same as secularity) is running rampant and requires a genuine alternative.


Those who would prefer to live a quasi-religious life or to make that of CV's living in the world into a quasi-religious vocation really will cause this vocation to continue to make sense to no one --- and thus, to effectively change nothing, especially the way the secular is truly viewed. (It is meant to be the place where God's Kingdom comes to be in perfection so that "God is all in all.") Religious will continue to regard these women as "wannabes"  or at least continue wondering what the vocation is really all about, and those living secular lives will continue asking, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" --- and rightly so. Meanwhile those living secular lives will continue to believe they have second class or entry level vocations and "heaven" will be defined in terms of "pie in the sky by and by" rather than the eternal life that is meant to interpenetrate this world and, in fact, perfect it in the sovereignty of God. I write all this because I believe the vocation is a tremendous gift of God to our Church and world, but it is only such a gift if it is wholly a secular one as well as wholly a consecrated one. I also write it because I believe it is irresponsible to disregard all of this and suggest that the Church has NOT decided the nature of this vocation's secularity. Thirty years of consecrating secular women to live secular lives based on all of the above suggests otherwise.

Question: Canon 604 as Quasi-Religious? Then consecrate Religious women first!

[[Sister O'Neal, why would adopting some of the things some CV's say are necessary (garb, vows, required prayer of the entire Liturgy of the Hours, full time parochial employment, etc)  mean that the consecration should be used for apostolic Religious who are also virgins?]]

Sorry I wasn't clear about this.  Consider this a corollary to my post on not consecrating women living secular lives IF canon 604 does not govern an uncompromised secular vocation. The adoption of the things you mention indicates a mitigated and even compromised secularity rather than a thoroughgoing one. If they are really essential to the vocation it begins to lose it's distinctive gift quality to the secular and post-Vatican II world. The vocation ceases to say to those leading secular lives, for instance, that they are called to an exhaustive holiness which can be achieved in their secularity. It begins to say separation from the saeculum is necessary for true holiness. Thus, if the CV's we are consecrating are required to become quasi-religious because the elements of religious life they adopt which make them less secular are necessary to the vocation, then it only makes sense that every Religious who is a virgin should also receive this consecration. After all, they live the elements of religious life which separate them from the world more radically than CV's without all the limitations of vows of poverty, obedience, Rules of life, Constitutions and Canon Laws. Even further, it makes sense that they should receive the consecration BEFORE any women who have not (yet) been adequately formed in the elements of religious life and who are still living a wholly secular life.

My point is that the vocation today has two clear expressions, one cloistered and the other secular. The first speaks especially to Religious (though not only to them) and is a kind of intensification of certain dimensions of their vocations; the second speaks especially (though not only) to those living secular vocations and is an eschatological witness to what secularity is meant and destined to be. If the vocation on the other hand is really only "secular" in the "weak sense" of not taking place in a monastery amongst cloistered nuns, then we should only be consecrating women who ARE separated from the world in significant ways. Only two groups of women really fit that criterion, nuns and apostolic or ministerial Sisters. Of course, the simple fact is that most of these women would not need or want this consecration, even if their relationship with Christ is specifically nuptial. They are already consecrated and the graces attached to the consecration don't necessarily add to the graces of their vocations as they stand right now. Unless c 604 consecration brings something truly distinctive to the Church and world it ceases to make sense or speak prophetically to people; neither are its graces uniquely pertinent. The only element of this vocation as it is being lived out in today's Church which really allows this prophetic speech and serves to make the vocation truly distinctive and a unique gift is its (consecrated and eschatological) secularity.

If instead it is really a form of weakened, essentially compromised, or even inauthentic religious life then it ceases to be prophetic or to truly speak of radical discipleship as a religious. If it is a form of weakened or essentially compromised secular life, then once again it ceases to speak to anyone who is called to live radical discipleship as a secular. Again, it becomes a vocation which is neither fish nor fowl and merely evokes the standard questions: "why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" or " are only those separated from the world called to true and wholehearted (radical) discipleship?" or again, "is there something necessarily wrong with secularity? Wasn't Jesus' own vocation as well as that of his Mother secular ones --- even if they were also mystical and contemplative?" (While I agree Jesus' vocation was also a consecrated and exhaustively eschatological vocation, I don't think we can argue Jesus lived his public life and calling as a religious, monk, or hermit, for instance.)

 There is NOTHING wrong with being called to a secular vocation in the fullest sense or to being called to witness to the eschatological and consecrated nature of authentic or redeemed secularity. I believe being called to do this is an incredible gift (charism) of the Holy Spirit to our world and Church today. But if this is NOT what canon 604 vocations are meant to be, then we must stop consecrating women living secular lives and, to the degree virginal Religious women request it, begin consecrating those who have truly discerned, are formed in, and live lives which are at once religious and appropriately ministerial without being or becoming secular.

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.

Why are we consecrating virgins living SECULAR lives if the vocation is not secular?

[[Sister, in arguing that consecrated virgins living in the world are called to a secular vocation which is without mitigation or qualification you once said something about formation needing to be changed if the vocation was NOT secular. I couldn't find what you wrote though. Can you help me with this?]]

Yes, sure. First though, while I am clear the Church teaches canon 604 vocations are secular vocations without mitigation, they ARE significantly qualified as sacred or consecrated secularity. I hope I was sufficiently clear on this point in other things I have written.

The point you were looking for is found in my 20. November.2011 response to Jenna Cooper's  (Sponsa Christi blog) post around that time. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Canon 604 --- Response to Jenna Cooper In that post I argued that the Church's own praxis confirms the secularity of the vocation in the fullest sense of that word. She does this in a number of ways, but one significant way involves consecrating women living secular lives while not demanding a formation where one relinquishes a secular life in the process. The Church does not require a change of jobs, a move to a convent, preparation for vows (which means, among other things, divesting of property or signing a cession of administration), a new way of dressing, letting go of relationships, hobbies, interests (including political interests and activities) or anything else which marks their way of life as secular. She does not require these women let go of a personal life-vision of a secular mission which is sacramental,  truly holy and which the entire world is MEANT to live. IF the vocation were not really secular then the Church would need to require candidates for consecration adopt a different way of living BEFORE consecrating them (and before determining they COULD be consecrated).

This would need to occur so that, at the very least, both the candidate and the diocese can discern whether or not the person is truly called to this. As you are no doubt aware, the Church does not profess or consecrate anyone without being sure they have lived the life expected of them for some time prior to definitive commitment. It would be completely irresponsible to do otherwise not only because the discernment process would be worthless in such a case, but also since the person thus professed and/or consecrated is placed in danger of serious sin if they are not truly called to the life embraced. Integrity of witness and life would require one be formed in the life one was expected to live and more, that one be prepared for the life that God is calling them to live.

Thus, a hermit, for instance, does not move into her hermitage and begin living the silence of solitude on the day of (much less the day after) consecration, nor does she only begin living poorly, celibately, or obediently the day she makes vows. She does not quit her secular job just prior to being professed (even temporary vows!), for instance, or give up all of her everyday secular activities and relationships the day of profession. She must be a hermit with the heart, vision, and habits of a hermit long before being professed or she is NOT professed. Similarly, neither does the Church expect a consecrated virgin to start living a non-secular (or quasi-religious) life the day of her consecration. Quite the contrary is true. For those suggesting consecrated virginity for women living in the world is not a secular vocation I argue instead that the vocation is a secular one not least because the Church consecrates women living entirely secular lives.

There is a corollary here. Some suggest that the secularity of the vocation is doubtful and can only be seen in the superficial or "weak" sense of "not living one's consecration out in a monastery."  They seem to expect the Church to add on extra requirements (the whole  Liturgy of the Hours (LOH), distinctive garb, vows or at least promises of obedience, full time parochial work, etc.) AFTER a woman has been consecrated to the life. But what does this say about the way the vocation has been lived during the past 30 years? What does it say to those women whose vision of mission extends this call into every corridor and corner of human activity in true catholicity? What does it say to scholars who are clear that c 604 represents a recovery of a charismatic way of living both a consecrated and entirely secular life that was lost in the 12th Century but until then existed side by side and in equal dignity with cloistered nuns who were also consecrated virgins?

It suggests that in the past 30 years women living this vocation were all wrong because they were living a clearly secular vocation rather than a quasi-religious one. To be frank, it suggests that the Church was mistaken in trying to recover the secular expression of this vocation and that historians and theologians reflecting on the import of sacred secularity are all wrong. It suggests that c 604 is misguided and rather than having a central place in the new evangelization or in promoting Vatican II's insight that ALL, including those living secular vocations, are called to an exhaustive holiness, this vocation really has no meaningful place at all. (Vocations which are neither fish nor fowl tend to speak to no one radically enough to inspire them.)  It suggests the Rite of Consecration itself was badly written not only because it specifies this is for women living in the world, but because the homily included there is clear that these CV's are given entirely to their brothers and sisters in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world.

Everything the Church says and does with regard to this vocation says it is a secular one, and secular in the fullest sense. From what she writes about its nature and history, to her liturgy of consecration, to the way she implements and governs it she affirms the vocation as secular. It is ALSO and emphatically a consecrated vocation with a charism and special graces the world needs very badly indeed. But the world needs this vocation in order to live its own secularity with sacramental vigor and integrity. If one takes away (or minimizes) either element then one changes the essence of the vocation.

Fortunately, apart from a minority of CV 's who seem to prefer this be a form of quasi-religious life in which they are more visibly set apart from the saeculum by externals, there is no reason to believe the Church's own view of the unabashedly secular nature of this vocation is up for grabs or is otherwise unsettled. In any case, one small  but significant piece of the evidence for this is simply the fact that the Church does not require candidates for consecration under c 604 to cease living secular lives and embrace some form of separation from the world (symbolized by distinctive garb, vows, etc), before (or after) she consecrates them. (The veil is worn during the Rite of Consecration and sometimes again on anniversaries of that day; otherwise the visible and public symbol of the vocation is the CV's ring.)

Radical Secularity?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, you disagree that CV's wearing veils, embracing lives which are more like those of religious than not, etc is a more radical form of the CV life for women living in the world. How can secularity be a radical call? Why wouldn't those things indicate a more radical discipleship than secularity?]]

 I am posting a copy of a piece I already wrote, and which you may have seen (it's one of the pieces which was criticized for nitpicking and hairsplitting). The basic idea is that we ALL live a radical discipleship wherever we are called to do that. Radical means at the root; the location is far less important in determining radicality than wholeheartedness or thoroughgoingness. CV's living in the world and called to be apostles in the things of both spirit and world are called to live this radicality in the world, the saeculum. Here is the piece; if it is what raised your questions and so, actually leaves them unanswered, then please get back to me:

Personally, I don't think what is being suggested by those who seek to make c 604 into a quasi-religious vocation is a more radical way of living out consecrated virginity in the world, but instead, a less radical way. Distinctive garb and religious vows for the CV called to secularity are ways of separating oneself from the everyday world in which one is called to live out one's vocation. This is especially true of  religious obedience which frames one's freedom in ways which restrict or mitigate one's secularity, but it is true of religious poverty as well. What seems far more radical to me is living a completely secular life but as a consecrated person; in other words, it is a sacred secularity which one is called to live radically, not a vocation which is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious.

While consecration under c 604 sets one apart FOR and to God, it does NOT set one apart FROM the world. One is not meant to be OF the world in the sense 1 John uses the term so often, of course; instead one is of God and set apart FOR God, but one is absolutely called to live this vocation IN the world and in the things of the world, not in stricter separation from it as religious and hermits are called to. A passage from the homily of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins Living in the World reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world.]] (emphasis added). As I have noted in the past, NO religious has ever been told they are apostles "in the things of the world"!

Vatican II worked very hard to be sure that lay persons understood theirs was not an entry level vocation, not second class, and similarly that the secular world was not to be despised but embraced for its truest potential and transformed into (or allowed to be) the sacrament of God it was made to be. While secularism is not a good thing (this essentially asserts the secular is the ultimate value and reality), the secular itself and thus the ordinary life we call secular, as God reminds us in Genesis, are essentially VERY good and holy indeed. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called upon to live out this truth as exhaustively as possible and summon lay persons to do the same in their own state of life.

I personally can't think of a calling which is more challenging than a radical living out of one's secular vocation in a way which allows the secular to be every bit as sacred as it is meant to be. Religious are separated from aspects of secular life by their vows, and in many cases, by distinctive garb. (The vow of poverty separates them from the economic dimensions of the secular world in some ways, obedience separates them from the world of secular power and influence and, as noted above, asks them to exercise freedom differently, while consecrated celibacy separates them from many of the relationships and social obligations which are part and parcel of secular life.) They are actually prohibited from taking a full part in secular life canonically. CV's consecrated under canon 604 are not only called to take a full part in secular life, but to do so in a way which calls it to become completely and exhaustively the realm of the sovereign God. Theirs is a witness  which is at once radically holy and radically secular. I would argue anything which mitigates or compromises the sharpness of this paradox is actually less radical than the vocation calls for.

[Regarding flexibility vs making of canon 604 something it is not because there are supposed lacunae in the canon itself]: In my own life I am certainly free to discover the shape of contemporary eremitical life as our Church and world needs it. The canon that governs my life itself gives me that right and obligation by demanding a specific combination of non-negotiable elements and the Rule which the hermit herself writes. The Fathers who created this canon allowed for that freedom and flexibility, of course. However, they did not allow me to neglect or compromise the essential nature of either the eremitical or the solitary eremitical vocation in doing so. I am responsible not only for my own vocation, but for the eremitical vocation itself (and more specifically, the solitary eremitical vocation).

Thus, when the Church defines it as one of "stricter separation from the world" and (sometimes) marks that with distinctive garb and a prayer garment (cowl, etc), frames and structures it with vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, defines it more clearly with a prohibition of community life (lauras are different than cenobitical life), and with functional cloister and diocesan stability (diocesan hermits cannot move to another diocese without the permission of both current and receiving Bishops), I cannot simply relinquish all of these and turn it into a secular vocation because I might personally feel called to this in some way or because (rightfully) either a secular or cenobitical religious vocation too seem very good to me. My experimentation and discernment have definite limits because of the solitary eremitical NATURE of my vocation, no matter what the Fathers failed to say in their deliberations on establishing this vocation in the 20th Century. I suggest the same is true of canon 604.

"Hermits Living in the World" and other Confusions

[[(Culled from recent emails) Sister Laurel, wouldn't hermits living in the world also be called to a secular vocation then? As a diocesan hermit aren't you a secular hermit, then, a hermit "living in the world"? Should you be wearing a habit, using a title, etc?]]

Good questions. There is some fairly understandable but significant confusion regarding terms in these questions though, I think. First, a hermit is, by definition, one who lives in "stricter separation from the world." This is true whether the hermit is lay or consecrated, Religious (professed in community) or Diocesan (professed as solitary). If the person is truly a hermit they are, in an essential way, not living "in the world" even if their hermitage is located in the middle of San Francisco. Just as the silence a hermit is called to and which defines who she is is not merely or even primarily external silence, but instead an inner silence of solitude, so too is the hermit's separation from the world not merely a matter of external environment --- that is, it is not a matter of living in a monastery or not. Living in a monastery is only the most superficial or externally identifiable part of not "living in the world," and wherever a hermit is physically located she is meant to be "more strictly separated from the world" in those less superficial ways. Thus, where most disciples are called to be in the world but not of it, hermits, no matter where they live physically, are called to be neither "in the world" (in the theological and canonical senses of the term) nor of it. For diocesan hermits this is a central and non-negotiable element of the Canon defining and governing their lives.

"In the world" then, in the theological/canonical sense of the term (the sense which applies to both Canons 604 and 603), means that the world is one's normal sphere of living, activity, and ministry. This means that one works out one's salvation and serves to assist others to do the same in the secular arenas of family, business, politics, academia, economics, science, technology, industry, and even in more usual active ministry in the Church, etc. Thus, one living in the world generally does so without public vows of poverty, chastity and obedience because these, in some sense, establish a degree of separation from "the world," and the normal (and completely healthy) ways of relating to it. But none of this describes the hermit whose life is canonically defined as one of "stricter separation from the world." Thus, the term "hermit living in the world" is somewhat incoherent (i.e., it doesn't hold together or make sense as formulated).

Secondly, the term diocesan. Despite the valid and good analogy many CV's draw between themselves and diocesan priests, some of the same elements of comparison comprising the analogy are less than accurate or true with regard to Diocesan Hermits. When referring to C 603 hermits the term "diocesan" refers to a legal, not merely pastoral relationship with the diocesan Bishop. Diocesan hermits are not professed in institutes of any kind, and so are not legally bound there. Their public vows are made in the hands of the local Bishop and this means he is their legitimate superior, not merely their pastor. He supervises their lives and approves their Rules of Life and specific changes to these. He assigns or accepts a delegate (quasi superior) to meet regularly with the hermit between meetings with the Bishop. If such a hermit needs to leave the diocese, she requires the permission of Bishops on either end of the move --- unlike CV's, for instance, who may move wherever they will (a notification of the new Bishop is appropriate, of course, but they do not need his approval to move there and still be a Consecrated Virgin. It is not the case, despite comments I have read to the contrary, that CV's are tied canonically to a specific diocese or are in essentially the same positions as those incardinated as diocesan priests). Instead, CV's are initiated into a universal Order of Consecrated Virgins by their consecration. Canon 603 hermits are tied to their diocese legally unless and until another Bishop allows something akin to a monastic transfer of stability and accepts responsibility for them.)

Thus, in the life of Canon 603 hermits, the term "diocesan" which is now being applied so widely, is a legal and jurisdictional term; it does not refer to a specific kind of spirituality, or even necessarily to a particularly explicit commitment to the local Church (though I happen to strongly believe it should call for the presence of such), and it certainly is not used to indicate secularity in the same way the term "diocesan" serves to do for diocesan priests when it is used as a synonym for "secular" or "without religious vows". Thus, one should be careful when drawing parallels between those who are "diocesan." To extend these across the board --- especially into the affirmation of secularity --- will be seriously misleading.

As for the habit, use of title, etc, these serve to mark separation from the world as well as the hermit's public profession of the evangelical counsels and solemn consecration. Again, hermits are not called to be secular, and in A Handbook on Canons 573-746, Ellen O'Hara, CSJ writes regarding Canon 603 hermits, "the term "religious" now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relationship to an institute." (p.55, "Norms Common to Institutes of Consecrated Life") Their public vows underscore this new and more qualified standing vis-a-vis the world. Thus, hermits are clothed in their habits and cowls (or other prayer garment) in part as symbols of their relation to the world: both more strictly separated from it than even most religious or monastics, and yet, initiated into this vocation for the praise of God and the salvation of the world as well.

If parts of this discussion are confusing remember that "the world" is a polyvalent symbol which refers to 1) God's good creation, 2) the world which is distorted by sin, and so, ambiguous, and 3) that which is resistant to Christ and not open to God's saving presence. Some sentences above may use more than one sense of the term in trying to describe the paradox and tensions involved. Again though, hermits are called to absolutely reject "the world" in the third sense (both outside and within themselves), to more strictly limit their contact with and participation in "the world" in the second sense (even from ministry, relationships, and other aspects which may be significantly good and graced), and quite often, to refuse themselves participation in some aspects of "the world" even in the first and completely positive or graced sense. This is not the picture of a secular life "lived in the world."

Secondly, remember that except in the case of priests the terms diocesan and secular are not necessarily synonyms. Neither, again except in the case of priests (especially given Ellen O'Hara's description of C 603 hermits which qualifies them as Religious), is religious the opposite of diocesan. Instead the opposite of diocesan is ordinarily universal or pontifical, while secular (i.e., pertaining to being in the world in an integral way) ordinarily contrasts with Religious (separated from or related to "the world" in a qualified way). Again, hermits may be lay or consecrated, Religious (in the strict sense of the term) or solitary and diocesan, but the notion of a secular hermit is an oxymoron.

Postscript to An Open Letter to Consecrated Virgins on Sacred Secularity

I noted in the first part of this "Open Letter" that one of the objections to what I had written about consecrated virginity for women living in the world, was that this notion of secularity was not part of the charism of the vocation, because the phrase "in the world" was merely an add-on -- a way of saying, "not in the monastery" but not of characterizing this expression of vocation itself. After pointing out that this vocation is an ecclesial one, the Consecrated Virgin I have been corresponding with wrote as follows (and generously allowed me to comment on this on this blog):

[[But I can say with confidence that 'secularity' is not an element of the particular 'charism' of consecrated virginity. If secularity was an element of the central charism then even monastics who received the same consecration would be obliged to it !

CONSECRATION [being set apart]for God and a married life with Christ which leads to spiritual fecundity thus serving the mission of the church is the Trinitarian seal caused by the Rite of Consecration to a life of Virginity. The fact that this seal is also for women not living in monasteries but who continue to live in the ' world outside the monasteries' -------- is a mere add-on to the title of the rite in the Roman Pontifical which has no direct relation to the 2000 yr old charism itself.]]

I would respond that, the phrases "living in the world" or "in the world" are not, as far as I can tell, mere add-ons in the sense above, but phrases which substantially qualify the Charism of Consecrated virginity. To suggest what you clearly do about language describing a Rite which was specifically revised to allow for women living in the world seems naive to me. The usage does mean that the women being consecrated are not monastics or cloistered Religious, but it means far more than this as well. Neither is the term apostle (one sent out) or its adjectival form "apostolic" merely a superficial add-on. As noted, these terms occur in the Rite itself in the homily supplied therein. Canon 604 itself uses the phrase "in harmony with their state," in reference to service of the church which, it seems to me, must indicate a distinction between nuns (who may also receive consecration as virgins) and women living in the world since they are both in the consecrated state. (Ordinarily we would distinguish religious from lay states, but that cannot be the case here so the distinction must be between two other states. Those two states and ways of living one's life and ministry must be Religious and Secular. The ability to associate --- though not as an institute --- it seems to me, is given specifically here, despite the canonically already-established right of all persons in the Church to form associations, precisely to underscore and support the secularity of this form of consecrated life under canon 604).

Also, where you see a single charism with no clearly and substantive secular variation (as contrasted with its Religious one), I see a single Charism (consecrated virginity and all that entails in its central symbolism) with two distinct charismatic expressions (one Secular and one Religious) --- analogous perhaps to the single profession and consecration of religious who may then also have differing charisms (cloistered, ministerial and all the variations of those), or, better perhaps, analogous to the distinction between secular and religious priests (one Charism but two expressions). In any case, I see no theological problem with suggesting the Holy Spirit works in two distinct ways with the same basic charism nor in seeing consecrated virginity at the same time as a multi-faceted gift to the church and world. My sense is the Church herself was aware of that and celebrates it in renewing this rite as an option for women living in the world. At the same time, however, I cannot see secularity as merely one of many possible expressions of the Charism. The Church recognizes two such expressions: Religious and Secular --- though, with regard to (consecrated or sacred) Secularity I would agree that there are a multitude of possible ways to live out this basic expression.

Further then, I don't see where the emphasis on secularity differs from the original consecrated virgin tradition enough to be considered a rupture with it. Rather, I see the complete usurpation of the vocation by nuns (or, much better said perhaps, the reservation of the Rite to cloistered Religious) as a kind of break with the original vocation's secularity: though also a development, it was too one-sided or exclusive and represented a kind of turning this vocation on its head. Canon 604 as an option for women living in the world, it seems to me, recovers something which pre-dated the exclusive use of the Rite by cloistered nuns (or the existence of cloistered nuns at all for that matter) and the Church has emphasized the nature of this recovery by revising the Rite and specifically using the language of secularity and apostleship. I would need to see a substantive study of the original vocation in the primitive Church which concludes on verifiable grounds that the original virgins were essentially or functionally cloistered (or else all desert Ammas) to be convinced otherwise. My own reading of the NT and extra-scriptural sources does not support this; instead such a treatment seems anachronistic to me.

Finally, an accent on the ecclesial nature of the vocation does not conflict with secularity. Diocesan priests are secular priests and clearly have an ecclesial vocation, namely a vocation which is mutually discerned by Church and individual, mediated by, and undertaken or exercised in the name of the Church. Secularity per se has to do with the world which includes God's good creation. Thus the Church is not antithetical to the world in the broadest sense of that term, nor, in her best (and holiest) moments, is she set completely apart from it. She functions apostolically and as leaven to minister to and within the world and is meant to transform it and assist in bringing it to fulfillment. An essential part of this, and one more necessary at this point in history than at other points, is that she now does this through women who embody a vocation to consecrated virginity and all that means, and who do so precisely in their secularity. These women, more than cloistered religious or than CV's acting instead as quasi-religious, will be able to effectively serve as true prophets in a world which trivializes sex as well as commitment while commercializing the former as well. It seems to me that a woman who lives and operates in greater separation from "the world" can be more easily dismissed by that same world as living an irrelevant and somewhat isolated lifestyle. I don't think this is what the Church had in mind with Canon 604.

An Open Letter to Consecrated Virgins on Sacred Secularity

The posts I put up on the significance of the secularity of Consecrated virginity for women in the world (C 604) have evoked some interesting correspondence. In one exchange a Consecrated Virgin from India (I will be happy to include her name if she gives permission) made two points in the main: 1) secularity is not part of the Charism of the CV under Canon 604 because the reference to "in the world" in the Rite was merely an "add-on"; the original vocation was not secular in any sense, and 2) in her own country the emphasis on the secularity of this vocation has resulted in the destruction of the vocation's actual charism. Consecrated virgins in India find themselves regarded as having second rate vocations at best and essentially unrecognized or slighted while Religious were given preference for positions like EEM, etc. In celebrations of the day devoted to Consecrated Life, CV's were not included. Thus, this CV posited that the solution to the problem was ignoring the secularity of the vocation and emphasizing its nature as consecrated.

Since I think her her problem is not completely unique, and since I find her solution really exacerbates the problem, I want to post an open letter to all CV's (edited here and originally sent to this individual), but especially to those Consecrated Virgins who feel sympathetic to the solution she suggests. In this letter I address the second point above. I will post my response to the first point separately.

Poignantly, she writes: [[ I come from a real life context where the focus on secularity has caused a rupture from the original charism. A context where consecrated virginity is treated as the vocation to be a pious single lay woman subordinate to clergy and religious and called to be hidden leaven in the world. A temporarily professed religious is given preference over a consecrated virgin when there is need of a Eucharistic minister. Consecrated virgins are not called for Church celebrations of the Day of Consecrated life on February 2.The focus on secularity is killing the charism. Ignoring the secularity which comes by default seems more helpful in living the original charism of this recently rediscovered vocation in the church.]]

Identifying the Problem, Finding the Real Solution

Dear [Consecrated Virgin],
I sympathize with your situation but I think you have misdiagnosed the problem and have the solution backwards. The only way to get people to honestly regard your (plural) vocation is to cease pretending to be something you (consecrated virgins generally) are not, namely quasi-religious whose relationship to the world is less than integral, and to live out a call to sacred secularity as radically as you (plural) can. Of course, and very unfortunately, a church which does not adequately regard secularity will treat Religious with greater regard. This is a long established bit of ecclesiastical dysfunction rooted in a distorted theology of secularity which must be combatted. Further, you come from a country where priests in some Rites are associated with a particular caste, and where people are still dismissed or esteemed on the basis of castes. I think this makes dealing appropriately with the class-ism of the church much more difficult. Neither your local ecclesiastical nor your cultural situation (both of which involve a denigration of groups of people, which, in one case, is Seculars or non-Religious) is resolved by denying the dignity and importance of secularity.

For you are a consecrated virgin sent as an apostle proclaiming the gospel which says there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. It is not acceptable in light of this to treat any form of consecrated life as better or lesser than any other. For that matter it is not acceptable to treat any divine vocation as greater or lesser than another. While I think you both know and agree with these assertions, what I think you have missed seeing is that if you ignore or treat secularity as secondary or merely an "add-on" indicating simply that you do not live in a monastery, you will actually be supporting the very problem you decry. Yes, you must fight to be understood as consecrated women, but you cannot and must not do this by denigrating (even subtly or implicitly) lay or secular vocations in the process. To emphasize one's consecrated state at the expense of secularity or the laity (which is what I hear your statements doing -- though inadvertently, I am sure) is as illegitimate theologically and pastorally as what is being done to consecrated virgins in your country. In the end you are actually denying the truth and effectiveness of your own consecration. It is somewhat analogous to denying one's femininity while asserting (or trying to assert) one's humanity because men are esteemed where women are not. In doing this one ends up actually denigrating what is the essence of one's own humanity, one's womanliness, and becomes a parody of what one is made and called to be. In essence, in fighting for the regard which is rightfully yours as consecrated women in the Church, you have joined the "enemy" (i.e., a worldly mindset which judges worth based on classes, etc) and denigrated the laity and secularity in the process. This, as I am sure you well know, is emphatically NOT what Vatican II intended.

Neither is it the solution to your predicament, for I believe you have lost sight of (or chosen to ignore) precisely the element which allows your vocation to make profound and challenging sense in today's Church and which would be a key to resolving this predicament for so many others --- not least those who find themselves resenting that they are "only" called to be lay persons (called to the extraordinary dignity and challenge of baptismal consecration) and/or those whose main arena of activity is the saeculum. This is one of the places the power of paradox becomes so very evident --- along with so much of Christian theology which stresses the subversion of the status quo and dominant paradigms by self-emptying, losing one's life, the perfection of power in weakness, a foolishness which is far wiser than the wisdom of men, becoming a fool for Christ, etc. In every way, Christianity is countercultural and those who wish to serve as icons of the body of Christ need themselves to truly be countercultural in the same way.

Implications for Consecrated Virgins Living in the World

What this means for Consecrated virgins is the assertion, not the denial of their secularity. When I say this I don't mean one should downplay one's consecration but rather assert it precisely IN its secularity. The two are NOT opposed any more than Jesus' divinity is opposed to his humanity or his Mother's consecration by God requires she retire from or denigrate the world in which she works out her motherhood. (Do we really think Mary was not an essentially contemplative and completely involved presence in her world? Do we not hear when she is given as a Mother to all of us that she is a Mother in and to the world? Even while she is a model to Religious, is she not also, and perhaps more poignantly, a model to Seculars?? Would she have been offended if told her vocation was to one of sacred secularity?) I don't think so, but the point is that these two things (consecration and secularity) do not conflict because the world is essentially good and holy, and because it is meant to be Sacrament of God's presence. Undoubtedly it takes workers within it to help recover its wholeness and holiness in God and bring it to fulfillment; it takes workers within it who truly believe that heaven and earth are called to interpenetrate one another and that God is meant to be all in all. This is the vision of reality which underlay Vatican II's insight and insistence on a universal call to holiness --- a vision which does not allow us to denigrate, even implicitly, ANY vocation by treating others as superior.

The consecrated virgin living in the world must be committed to the subversion of any other notion of heaven and earth, reality essentially divided into sacred and profane, etc. Instead she must embrace a Sacramental view. She must also, I think, be committed to the subversion of schema of the world which sees some vocations as higher than others, some as "only" that of a devout layperson, some vocations (assuming they are lived well!) as more closely following Christ than others, some as secular when that means opposed to the sacred. (It is one thing to say that one practices a poverty or chastity that is more literally like that practiced by Christ and another thing entirely to say that one vocation follows Christ more closely (is more an instance of discipleship) per se. The first describes the way one expresses one's discipleship, the second refers to discipleship itself.) There is absolutely no reason to necessarily see Religious as better disciples of Christ than those living in and committed to the world (seculars), and consecrated virgins living in the world are meant to help the Church and world realize (come to know and make this real) as acutely and thoroughly (radically) as they can.

On Hierarchies and Anti-Hierarchies: "The first shall be last and the last shall be first."

One of the ironies of the Church, I think, is that she is hierarchical and actually prepares the way for a Kingdom which is anti-hierarchical. Too often, however, the hierarchical nature of the Church has been nothing more than an echo of the very worst class distinctions (and correlative denigrations) of the world. Your own local Church seems to do this by echoing the class structure of the surrounding society --- it continues to be a church which does not effectively value the lay vocation or even the consecrated vocation to a sacred secularity. (Unfortunately, your own offense at a temporarily professed Sister taking precedence over a consecrated virgin is also an instance of this, I think. It is interesting and disturbing to me that you would actually distinguish this religious as "temporary professed" for instance --- as though there would have been no (or at least less a) problem if she had been perpetually professed.) Vatican II was a step (a quantum leap in fact) away from the values of the world and towards those of the Kingdom of God. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called to implement this subversive vision in the most radical way possible ---- by reminding us all that the world is meant and called to be paradise, and that the Kingdom is NOT hierarchical as we so often see in a fallen world, but is instead the place of "the great reversal" where all of our worldly values (including hierarchy of every kind) will be turned on their heads. (I believe this is what Jesus was saying with, "the first shall be last" --- not that he was positing a new kind of hierarchy. Rather I think he was saying. "The kingdom will be unimaginable" --- for a world in which the last would be first was truly unimaginable.)

This is truly challenging even in a culture not structured on castes, but, I can see where it would be far more challenging for the CV living in such a culture itself. Still, Christ was a countercultural presence (and was despised by both the Romans, Greeks, and Jewish leaders because of it). He did not cave in to the values which surrounded him, but lived and died with integrity in the face of them ---- and redeemed them through that living, dying, and rising. Consecrated virgins are called to no less. Jesus did not retire to the desert for the whole of his life, but worked out his own vocation in the world in a way which did not leave the world unchanged. Consecrated virgins are called to no other, and, in their own way, no less.

A final Plea

I implore you (again, plural) then not to accent consecration to the exclusion or denigration of secularity. Embrace secularity as the means for your consecration to be truly meaningful. Make it clear to those whose values you decry that the universal call to holiness is both truly universal and a call to exhaustive holiness. Do not let your consecration as a virgin living in the world make second class (or less) the consecration to baptism which is the fundamental vocation grounding all others, nor (even implicitly) let it denigrate the saeculum which you are called to remind both Church and world is the Sacrament of God's Incarnational presence. Also, do not fear being a more or less hidden leaven. Let your consecration be evident in the graces of spiritual motherhood and spousal love revealed (realized) in the world. Let it be evident, that is, in its proper secularity. I promise you that if you do that, you will shine as brightly and be as extraordinary and as clearly set apart for God as anyone (and especially as God or his Church) could wish. Embrace the radical Christian vocation of Sacred secularity, not hierarchy or the Greek version of compromise, and the literal mediocrity of what is called the middle way.

On the Paradox of Sacred Secularity

[[Sister Laurel, by treating the vocation of the consecrated virgin as a secular vocation aren't you making it a part time, hidden vocation? If CV's are set apart by their consecration, doesn't it diminish the vocation to make it so strongly secular?]]

Thanks for your question. I hope you have read what I wrote about paradoxical vocations because I would like to build on that in my answer. There are essentially two ways of looking at reality. The first is what I referred to as the Greek way of seeing. This way tends to distrust paradox and sees the elements involved in the situation as truly conflicting with one another. So, for instance, it would be impossible for a Greek (i.e, one who thinks in this way) to see how one could be truly divine to the extent one is truly human, or truly rich to the extent one lets go of worldly riches, or for someone's power to be perfected in weakness (except in terms of exploitation of that weakness!). This way would consider the beatitudes' sheer foolishness, an incarnate God ridiculous, a crucified messiah even more so, etc. Instead of paradox Greeks tend to think: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And so, they might see secularity as the thesis, consecration as the antithesis, and some form of balance or golden mean as the synthesis (and only reasonable alternative to insanity).

But Christians see things in terms of paradox, knowing that there is paradox at the heart of reality, at the heart of God's self-revelation, and at the heart of his revelation of the nature of human beings. We tend less to see reality in terms of thesis and antithesis as we do in terms of apparent conflict and deep identity (these two elements together comprise paradox). So too, we do not look for resolution in a synthesis which is expressed as some sort of golden mean, but instead in a truth which pushes both terms as far as one can to sharpen the apparent contradiction and assert (and hopefully reveal) their deep identity. Thus, it is possible for Christian theologians to speak of power perfected in weakness, life found in death, divinity revealed exhaustively in true humanity, meaning revealed in absurdity, sacred secularity, and so forth.

As I have noted before, I think the CV vocation is an essentially paradoxical one of sacred secularity, the call to be apostle in a way where one's consecration leavens (and sometimes, confronts!) the entire world of secular values, institutions, structures, relationships, etc. The word I used earlier was "thoroughgoingness." Nothing should be allowed to act as a barrier to this thoroughgoingness, but especially not one's consecration!! My point is the division of reality into sacred and profane is pre-Christian or other than Christian. With Christ, the veil between sacred and profane, temple and non-temple, even human (earthly) and divine (heavenly), was torn asunder. Such divisions are, in fact, a consequence of sin. Too often our approach to reality has forgotten this, and neglected the potentially sacramental character of all of the world. But Gaudium et Spes and Vatican II more generally recalled us to affirm these insights and the insight that every person was called to the same degree of holiness, even if the paths to this holiness differed.

It is not that the CV living in the world is hidden, but rather, that her presence is not marked out by exterior boundary lines and limits (as, for instance, is mine or that of other diocesan hermits who wear cowls, habits, and the like). I firmly believe her presence will be visible to the extent the spousal relationship she shares with Christ animates her being and ministry. Neither do I think that this can be a part time vocation, any more than I believe any public ecclesial vocation is a part time one. Dividing the vocation up into public worship and a completely private, personal spirituality would be a way of reinforcing the Greek disparity or dichotomous approach to reality. Seeing ALL that one does as potentially reflective of one's consecration and one's public vocation is what is called for for C 604 CV's, or anyone with a public ecclesial vocation.

I believe the Incarnation is the best model for understanding what I am trying to say. Jesus is Divine, but that Divinity is exhaustively expressed and revealed in his authentic humanity. If he becomes docetic (that is, if he merely seems to be truly human or is only partly human), then he also ceases to be truly divine as well (at least if we are talking about the real God here). Jesus has to be completely one in order to be wholly the other. It is a paradox which the Greeks could never accept, any more than they could accept a crucified (literally, a godless) God. An incarnate God, a God who participated exhaustively in every moment and mood of his own (now) sinful creation was ludicrous to the Greeks, and no real God at all; however, for Christians such a God proved and revealed his true divinity in precisely this way --- not in remaining remote or detached from this reality. Similarly, the CV living in the world is consecrated, but that consecration is proved and revealed precisely in the secularity of her vocation. Secularity does not detract from or diminish her vocation or consecration; it establishes the truth and exhaustiveness of it.

I hope this helps. Again, all good wishes.

Age Requirements for Consecrated Virgins Living in the World

[[Sister Laurel, do you agree or disagree that there should be age limits with regard to consecrated virginity? Why or why not?]]

Generally I think there should be age requirements at the lower end of the age spectrum only, but not at the upper end. I say this because I believe that consecrated virginity takes real maturity and life experience, and the discernment of such a call should be clearly distinguishable from other life situations and vocations.

Today young women have a variety of choices to make about how God is calling them, including religious life, marriage (which may well be a later call than we have allowed for traditionally), dedicated singleness, and eremitical life (which, in its solitary rather than religious form is definitely a second half of life vocation). I honestly don't see how one can make these choices wisely without experience and affective maturity. This includes not only an experience of dating, but advanced education (where appropriate, professional and theological training and experience, and ministerial experience) which enables one to have a clear sense of the importance of this vocation's unique secularity. It also would require time working with a spiritual director in order to develop a mature faith and prayer life which is self-directed in the power of the Spirit and disciplined similarly, and which is able to interface effectively with the world in which one works, lives, and, worships.

Thus, I would tend to believe that 30 is the absolutely lowest age generally wise for the consecration of virgins living in the world, and would suggest that 35 might be more prudent. Since this is not a Religious vocation and does not have the kind of formation program, checks, and supervision available to those entering Religious life or proceeding to perpetual profession, and since it truly does take time for a prayer relationship with Christ to crystallize in terms of being spousal or nuptial, and since even then this does not mean necessarily that one is called to this consecration, more time is required. We do not think it an exorbitant requirement that a nun or Sister be required to go through three or four years of initial formation before being allowed to make first profession, nor that they be required to continue supervised ongoing formation for as much as another six years in order to be admitted to perpetual profession (which, by the way, --- and contrary to what some CV's have written in stressing their own consecration --- is not only an act of self-giving or dedication but which includes solemn consecration by God through the mediation of the Church following and accompanying the making of vows). Neither do we think it reasonable to immediately profess someone showing up at the chancery door because they live alone and desire to be a diocesan hermit --- even if they have lived in solitude for some time. These vocations take years to mutually discern, and rightly so.

I think the conversation we have been having about the secularity of this vocation, and the fact that CV's under canon 604 are NOT called to a kind of quasi-religious life, nor to a vocation which is externally distinguished by veil, habit, promises of obedience, nor mandated specific prayer practices besides being a person of significant prayer, points up that some may embrace the vocation before working through (or to) its real challenges and demands. I am especially concerned that some would like to create a superior/subordinate or subject relationship of obedience with the Bishop that goes beyond the warm paternal relationship spelled out as essential in the Rite of consecration itself, and which is inappropriate for one truly living responsibly in the world. (It also will not serve or benefit the Episcopacy in quite the same ways as the warm paternal relationship can well do.) When such a superior/subordinate relationship is required to discern in detail how one should pray, dress, etc, in order to not be a matter of private or personal whim, I begin to suspect too-juvenile or immature notions of obedience and responsible freedom are at work -- especially for one living in the world.

I don't see or entertain the same kinds of concerns with the other end of the age spectrum, though certainly discernment and formation are still necessary --- which could take some time. Maturity is not simply a function of age though it most often requires minimal age levels to achieve.