Living Solitary Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you write what you do in the name of the Church? Do other hermits have that authority? When you use the phrase, "in the name of the Church" what do you mean?]]

Hi, and thanks for the question. The answer is simple and very straightforward. No, what I write is my opinion, though I certainly strive to be sure that those opinions are well-informed and accurate in theological, pastoral, and ecclesial terms. Neither I nor any other hermit has the authority to write in the name of the Church unless this authority is specifically granted in the giving of what is called a mandatum. However, what I and other canonical hermits have been given is the authority (and more fundamentally, the obligation) to live solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church. To some extent that implies the authority to explore this vocation, to grow and mature in it, for instance, and even to share what we have come to understand with others, but it does not mean that I, for instance, write or speak in the name of the Church. Of course not.

Remember that c 603 is the universal Church's norm for solitary eremitical life. (Other canons apply to hermits living their vocations within a communal context.) It describes a vision of this form of eremitical life and adds to that the requirement that the c 603 hermit writes her own Rule of life based on her experience, education, and training. The diocesan hermits I know take this vision seriously and (to greater and lesser degrees) share with one another so that day by day we may grow in our embodiment of the vision c 603 represents. I tend to share based upon my own experiences, education, training, etc., on this blog and that means that what I write is a reflection of what I have come to know about this vocation and the way I am called to live it. Still, while what I write may be helpful to some folks (including members of the hierarchy or canonists reflecting on this vocation), it does not mean what I write itself is necessarily normative, authoritative, or done in the name of the Church.

The phrase, "in the name of the Church" comes from the idea that the Church commissions people to act in certain ways on her behalf and thus, with the Church's authority. Just as Kings, for instance, charged ambassadors with tasks to carry out in the King's name in various foreign kingdoms --- meaning where the ambassador spoke or acted according to orders, the King himself spoke --- so too does the Church commission each of us to proclaim the Gospel in ways that are appropriate to our own state of life. In fact, each of our lives is meant to be an embodiment of such a commission. Thus, each of us at baptism assumes the name Catholic. We are Catholics who live our vocations in the name of the Church. Those who are married in the Church are also commissioned to live married life in the name of the Church and to do this faithfully -- a rather important charge or mission! Religious do the same with religious life. And so forth.

The shorthand way of pointing to all of this is to say of someone, [[X is a Catholic nun (or priest), or is part of a Catholic (or Sacramental) marriage.]] I am a Catholic (diocesan) hermit, which is the shorthand way of saying the Church has commissioned me to live this specific vocation in her name. I do this in faithfulness to c 603, its traditional context, and the larger context of eremitical life. Simply to say one is a Catholic is to claim to have been commissioned to live a foundational vocation to discipleship in the Church's name. That commission was associated with our baptism and is renewed at every Mass as we are nourished in our faith and then sent forth as Christ's own disciples. Beyond baptism, however, we may be called to religious life (including semi-eremitical life), consecrated life as solitary hermits or virgins. These are ecclesial vocations which the Church herself directly entrusts to individuals through a second consecration and commissioning to live in the Church's name. Thus, these persons are Catholic hermits, nuns and brothers, and virgins, not merely Catholic AND a nun, brother, etc.

We see something similar when a theologian is given a mandatum by the Church to teach and do theology in the Church's name. In order to do this, a theologian must do their terminal degree at a pontifical institution and be granted the authority to call themselves a Catholic theologian. This authority can be withdrawn by the Church as well, something that once happened to Hans Kung. Note well, however, simply because a theologian cannot call themselves a Catholic theologian, this does not mean that person's theology is not faithfully and exhaustively Catholic. The same is true of non-canonical hermits. While they cannot call themselves Catholic hermits (i.e., because they are not authorized to identify themselves as living a normative (canonical) vocation), this does not necessarily mean the person is not faithfully Catholic. It simply means the Church has not authorized her to live eremitical life in her name.

Given your questions, what might also be clearer to people reading the posts on this blog over the past couple of months is precisely why I might be upset at someone calling themselves a "hybrid hermit" and not taking as seriously as the Church expects, the commission associated with being admitted to profession as a diocesan hermit under c 603. Acceptance of profession under this canon is associated with an acceptance of a commission to live the terms of the canon as faithfully and fully as one can. The vocation is not an excuse for doing active ministry. The central elements of the canon are normative for this life. If one lives a c 603 life honestly, then they will be hermits, not some form of "hybrid hermit" or "hermit monk". Yes, in time, they will grow into this life more and more deeply if they have truly given themselves over to the vocation the canon describes and defines, but they will never be (called to be) something other than a hermit. If one cannot answer this call or accept this commission to live this vocation in a normative way in which both the hermit and c 603 life itself thrive in them, then one will naturally (and rightly) conclude they are not called to this vocation.

Whom Could It Hurt?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered why it is dioceses are so reluctant to profess hermits when they don't have to support them financially? I mean if money isn't the issue, then what is? Who will be hurt by professing someone if they don't quite fit the description of canon 603? When I approached my diocese they asked  that I live as a hermit under direction for a year or two, and then re-approach them. I don't see the need and I don't see the need for a spiritual director either! I have God and He directs me better than any human being ever could. I just don't get why it's a big deal to just profess someone if they desire it.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are important and timely. I heard someone ask the first one just a couple of weeks ago, and over the years I have been asked variations of it many times -- often without the reference to finances; sometimes a person will ask as you did, "Who will it hurt?" or, "What does it matter?" (Sometimes I have thought this bishop or that has professed someone they don't really believe is a hermit while asking themselves the very same question!!) All of these are questions usually raised by non-canonical hermits or by those who desire to be hermits and who may desire to be canonical. Sometimes the responses given by dioceses sour these persons on seeking canonical standing, and often the reasons are simply not understood or appreciated. When I heard the question two weeks ago it surprised me because of the reference to money. Your own question is surprising because it comes so quickly on the heels of that other one. The answer I gave two weeks ago was, "Because it is very rare for human beings to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude," and that is where I will begin here.

It is very rare for a human being to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude; most of us are called to love and be loved in ways eremitical existence does not really allow for; the need for society is real and necessary for most people in ways it is not for the hermit. Nor is this merely about the difference between introversion and extroversion. It is about the meaningfulness and fullness of one's life. Moreover, for the Church to allow someone to live this vocation in her Name, she must be as sure as possible that the witness the person gives is similar to the witness given by Jesus in the desert: she must see clear signs that it is in the desert of eremitical solitude that one is, through the grace of God, victorious over the powers of evil and solidified in one's identity (one's authentic humanity and capacity to love) in God. Another way of saying this is to affirm that very few people are called to witness to the victory of the Gospel of Christ through the silence of eremitical solitude.

For the church to admit someone to eremitical profession and thus, to canonical standing, is to allow that person to live the life in her name; this means she sees clear signs that this vocation is leading this person to wholeness and holiness and that they will serve others with their witness. It also means the church is relatively well-assured of the fact that the one professed will be open and attentive to the directives of superiors and others in the church in order that this witness be the best it can be. This is why the discernment process for canonical vocations is mutual. The issue is not financial; it is one of authentic witness, and so too, of participating in the Church's own mission and the very great charism of eremitical life.

 The Richness of Canon 603:

Can 603 is not merely a brief description of eremitical life, though I agree it is that. More, though, it defines a vision one is called to embrace, a piece of the church's own spiritual tradition one is invited to represent afresh, a commitment one is called to make as an expression of the Gospel of God in Christ. When I have written about the central elements of the canon before, I have written about them as mysteries to be explored. (cf.,  Followup on Canon 603 and Freedom) Canonical standing is both the right and the obligation to engage in this specific exploration all the days of one's life; it signifies the right and obligation to do so in the Church's name -- not only for the sake of hospitality to God, and for the sake of the Gospel, but for the sake of one's own freedom, wholeness, and holiness in incarnating and witnessing to these things. Because of this it is important for the Church to be sure that the individual whose vocation is in question (i.e., being discerned) really does give every indication of being called to all of this and to authentic freedom (which includes the ability to love compassionately) precisely as a hermit who can live the vocation in the Church's name.

For instance, you say forthrightly that you "don't see the need" either to live as the Church asks you in this situation, nor to work regularly with a spiritual director.  As baptized you have every right to decide in this way that you will not be subject to the directives of the Church in these matters. But what you do not have the right to do is to reject these directives and at the same time expect to be granted the right to make public vows as a hermit who lives her life under the supervision of the Church, under regular spiritual direction, and who is therefore publicly bound to do so obediently in her name. The Church, in the person of your diocesan personnel, asked you to live a particular way for a year or two so that she could adequately discern the potential presence of an ecclesial eremitical vocation. She is not discerning a vocation to individualism with you, nor does she mistake the freedom of the hermit for the license of the individualist. When you ask whom could it hurt to profess someone anyway, the answer is, a significant number of people and the solitary eremitical vocation itself as it has been entrusted to the Church. Let me explain.

Asking to Profess a Commitment to a Specific Desert Existence for the Sake of Others:

Those who approach the Church requesting admission to perpetual profession, are asking to live a desert existence which is almost infinitely meaningful in Christ and the power of the Spirit. We do this because, in one way and another, we have known desert experiences throughout our own lives and learned that God is always there in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. We do this because these desert experiences have made us desirous of loving and witnessing to precisely such a God, and we do so for the sake of all of those others whose lives will find them at one time and another in various deserts or wildernesses with all of the constraints, dangers, deficiencies, and also the potentialities of such lives. We do not do so simply so we may do as we like. We accept the constraints and the great potential of this ecclesial definition of solitary eremitical life because, 1) we know this ecclesial vocation does not belong to us but to the church,  2) because we know that God is found in a privileged way here, and 3) because we appreciate that this Presence will make of our lives an instance of Gospel victory and freedom which can serve others in profound ways.

Individualism simply doesn't do this. If I am witnessing to someone who finds themselves in a desert or wilderness situation from which there is no escape --- say the desert of chronic illness, for instance -- I cannot "kick off the (relatively minor) traces" of canon 603 supervision and obedience, and expect my life to say anything important to this person. They are searching for a way to live their potential and to find freedom despite the serious and inescapable constraints of their illness. My life as a canonical hermit with its constraints and correlative freedom to explore the depths of God and humanity, witnesses to the possibility of doing so; life as an individualist rejecting the constraints of law, ecclesiality, and so forth, is far less likely to do so. Besides, as I pointed out in the article linked above, the foundational and essential elements of canon 603 are not merely constraining elements for the solitary canonical hermit, they are doorways to the Mystery of God and the Human person constituted in dialogue with God, and I embrace them as such.

Whom Does it Hurt?

To profess someone who does not feel called to embrace and, in fact, refuses to embrace these same elements, witnesses to something other than the c 603 hermit does --- whatever that is. It is damaging to the power of the canon's vision and witness to profess someone who cannot and does not witness to the very thing the canon stands for. One has a responsibility to discern how and where one best witnesses to the way God has worked and is working in one's life. The Church has an obligation to do the same with regard to canon 603. If one is called to witness to something else or to do so in another way, it would be irresponsible of the Church to admit one to profession under canon 603. (cf. Eremitism or Exaggerated Individualism?).

We do not honor the vocation or charism of a vocation (the way it is a gift of the Holy Spirit) by professing those we don't believe are truly called to come to human wholeness and holiness in this specific way. For that matter we demean their true vocations by doing so, just as we deprive those to whom their lives might otherwise speak, of this vocation's appropriate message and messenger. That is significant damage, damage to the Church's witness, to the vocation's power and relevance, and to those touched directly by this dishonesty; that is whom it hurts. And ultimately, because very few truly come to wholeness or holiness in this way or witness to the power of God to bring one to holiness and wholeness in this way,  the Church professes relatively few hermits under canon 603 (or in congregations). Again, it is a rare vocation which the Church honors, not in numbers, but in appropriate fidelity, care, and truthfulness.

A Followup Question on "Bearing Our Crosses"

[[Can you say more about this idea that God does not send us crosses, but rather sends us into a world which is full of them and commissions us to carry them? How can you say that God did not send Jesus the cross he agreed to carry?]]

First, let me say that all the crosses that come our way come with the "permissive will" of God. However, too often we interpret the fact that God "permits" something to happen as though it is equivalent to the notion that he wants it to happen. The use of the word "will" in the term "permissive will" can be somewhat misleading therefore, and it can be associated with the idea that God is in total control (which, by the way, is not the same thing as affirming he is sovereign); sometimes when the term "permissive will" is used, we imagine something like options or possibilities being run past God so that he may intervene or not, say no or not: will she be sick or not; will disaster strike this person or not; should she suffer this pain or that loss, or not; will she die or not; etc? God is ALWAYS on the side of life, not death.

But God is NOT in total control, nor does he stand in the midst of the world's possibilities like someone making a deathcamp-selection of who shall suffer and who shall not. There are, as Paul clearly states, powers and principalities at work in our world, including death and sin, which God is in the process of bringing under complete subjection to himself. In Christ he has won the decisive victory over these realities or realms, but he is not yet "all in all" and some aspects of the world remain yet untouched or unchanged (or perhaps better said, inadequately or incompletely touched or changed) by his presence. Our world is marked not only by order, but by disorder, not only by meaning, but by senselessness, not only by truth but by falsehood and falseness. And God permits all this because it is the price of a free creation who can eventually turn responsively to him in genuine love.

My comments regarding God NOT sending us the crosses we are called upon to carry was largely based on the distorted but very common view of how permissive will operates or "what it looks like". It was meant to stress that, in fact, things happen which God does not directly will or send. That he permits them is not to say he wills them, nor even less that he wants them to happen. He works at all times to redeem the world, every aspect of it, and to reclaim it from the powers of sin and death. The decisive victory, once again, has been won, but there is yet work to do and the result for us is the crosses that ordinary life sends our way daily. Will these crosses eventually disappear? Yes, for one day God will truly be all in all and there will be complete victory over sin and death.


Dietrich Bonhoeffer once summarized the entire situation in a quote I like very much, and have used here before, I think. He said, "Not everything that happens is the will of God, but inevitably, nothing that does happen happens OUTSIDE the will of God." God is sovereign in this world. Ultimately he will be the total victor, of that there is no doubt. But in the meantime he is not in COMPLETE control. For this to become reality means that you and I must take on the crosses life sends our way, wherever they come from! If we do this worthily IN CHRIST, then these symbols and bits of sinful, death-dealing reality will eventually be transformed into sacraments of God's presence and love, just as the cross WE PLACED ON JESUS' SHOULDERS, and the death he died, was transformed into a sacrament of God's presence.

There is one other problem with thinking that God sends the crosses that come into our lives. Most of the time these crosses are fashioned, as I noted yesterday or so, with bloody human hands and from the twisted, frightened, defensive human heart. Our tendency to think that God sent the cross that Jesus died on has sometimes prevented us from seeing that he REALLY AND TRULY died at our hands under the control of our torturers as crowds of us stood and jeered and mocked, and as our religious people orchestrated the matter even while they tore their clothes in anguish in feigned --- or delusional --- innocence. The cross was completely and wholly fashioned and laid on him by sinful human hands and hearts. When I consider what it was that God willed, it was that Jesus enter exhaustively into our flawed and distorted reality; God willed that he drink as deeply as possible from the cup of our lot, that he experience the very worst of what humans can do AND THAT HE REMAIN OPEN AND RESPONSIVE (OBEDIENT) TO HIS FATHER AND THE SPIRIT in spite of it all. Did he will Jesus' crucifixion per se? No, but there is no doubt it came to Jesus as a piece of the life he lived; still, it was very much something that WE WILLED and did to him. I can hardly agree that our will and God's were identical here except in the most paradoxical and ironic way!

On the other hand, there is another side to the equation I set out: namely, that God sends us, as he did Jesus, into our world and commissions us to carry the crosses the world lays upon us! God's will of course, is to be "all in all" as the Pauline phrase goes. The way that happens is by human beings bringing (allowing) God into those places he cannot force his way into. Jesus did this as exhaustively as he could by dying the deepest most "godforsaken death" one could die while yet remaining open to and dependent upon his Father to make sense out of it, to bring life out of it, and to turn the most horrific human injustice into the source and absolute measure of divine justice/mercy. We must extend this achievement to all the dark and unhealthy places that remain, and that means taking on life's crosses and allowing God to transform them with his presence. God has given us a mission in this world: we are to participate in its perfecting and being brought to fulfillment. This means we are to share in God's own destiny and make it our own; we do this by embracing both God and the crosses (as well as the great joys!) life sends our way.


But God goes further still than simply commissioning us to carry them. He accompanies us in this. More, like Simon the Cyrene, he helps us carry them; he takes a lot of their weight upon himself. He not only did this in Jesus so that our crosses are never as heavy as they might have been without the Christ Event, but he does it now, moment by moment. The image I like very much here is the picture of Jesus holding a young man up. The cross --- whatever it actually is is unclear, though the picture refers to the divine healer --- is the young man's, but the young man is Christ's and so Jesus carries or upholds both the young man and his burden. In all of this God wills to extend his sovereignty (that is, life lived solely in light of his love and mercy) to the whole of reality.

A Distinction between Willing and Commissioning

Perhaps another image will help us distinguish between what God wills for us, and what he commission us to do. When someone joins the armed services in order to protect or extend certain values to the whole world, the officers do not will for men and women to be hurt or die. The commission they are given is one of fighting and bringing peace and other values to a region, for instance. In the process, some will be captured, some will be tortured, others will suffer in all manner of other ways, and many will die. The officers do not will these things and they work in all kinds of ways to prevent them from happening, but the commission remains and it means taking on these kinds of things in the process of carrying it out. A less militant, but more effective image might be the peace corps: the commission is to educate, build community, enhance societies, etc. The means to carrying this commision will entail suffering, hardship, crosses. Does the peace corps as sponsoring organization WILL or WANT these things? No, but taking them on is very often part of the volunteer's commission and the Peace Corp will assist the person in doing so.

My response regarding Jesus is based upon this distinction. God willed for Jesus what was entailed in a life completely obedient to Him, or better, perhaps, he willed a completely obedient (open, attentive, responsive) life which would implicate Jesus' Father and their mutual Spirit into every moment and mood of human existence. Jesus was commissioned in this way. The general mission was God-willed; the specific cross on which he died, and thus, the manner of his passion and death was fashioned by the world and laid on Jesus' shoulders by human hands and hearts. Now let me say that I think it is possible and necessary to say that God willed this particular cross, and embraced it himself, but one needs to make our own role in it completely clear in doing so. That becomes even more important when we are dealing with the crosses that life hands us, but that God has never willed for us.

I hope this clarifies a bit more what I was saying in my last post. Again, please get back to me if it raises more questions or causes greater confusion!!

On Bearing the Crosses that Come our Way

[[1) Are there such things as "unworthy" crosses, or "unholy" crosses? 2) Is God only able to use "holy crosses", or "worthy crosses" in our lives?? 3) Does he simply remove these ["unworthy"] crosses for us??]]

Well, it's an interesting couple of questions, but the answer to the first one is no (or potentially so), and the answer to the second question is a definite no!! The third one is a bit more nuanced, so see below. Let me start with the second question, which is more straightforward, and more clearly theological. It will provide the basis for answering the first and third questions as well.



To begin we must start with the central paradigm and symbol of our faith, the Cross of Christ. When we think of the Cross of Christ and Christ's passion it is critically important to remember that what was most significant about it was not the agonizing physical torture associated with it, horrific as this was, but rather the shame, offensiveness, and scandal of the cross. There was nothing holy, or worthy, or respectable about the cross Jesus assumed as his own. Quite the contrary. It was in every way the cross formed and shaped from and by human sinfulness, depravity, cruelty, inhumanity, and shamefulness --- not from human nobility, compassion, integrity, or anything similar. This cross represented the antithesis of the holy, the good, or the noble. It was understood to represent Godlessness (anti-life, anti-holiness, etc.) in as absolute a way as anything could. And of course, it is THIS shameful, unholy cross that God uses to redeem and reconcile his entire creation! (I am not going into this theology of how that happens in detail here; I have done that other places so please check the tags in the right hand column to find those articles re how the cross works, or the "Theology of the Cross".)

With this in mind, I think I can now approach the answer to your first question. There is no doubt that many of the crosses that afflict our lives are the result of unworthy choices, whether our own or another's. Not all the crosses we are called to bear are the result of an unchosen illness, for instance. People hurt one another, sometimes deeply and in ways which leave wounds which are difficult to work with or treat. Children are abused by parents and their capacities to love, trust, or live can be badly impaired. Adults sin seriously and impair their own and others' physical and emotional health in the process. In so many ways we carry the scars of these events, sometimes for years and years, sometimes our whole lives long. When you refer to unworthy or unholy crosses I think you are probably referring to these kinds of things, crosses that are the result of sin, inhumanity, cruelty, and the like. They are not unworthy in and of themselves, but they are the result of choices which are unworthy of both God and mankind, so let me go with that understanding for the moment.

What do we do with the Crosses the World Sends our Way?

So, what are we to do with such crosses? And further, can God use these for his own purposes even if he does not "send them"? Well, as with any cross we are to bear them patiently. HOWEVER, to bear them in this way does not mean simply to carry on without treatment, therapy, necessary personal work, healing and the like. To bear these kinds of crosses REQUIRES we work to allow the healing we need to live and love fully as human beings. This correlative work is actually a piece of bearing our cross patiently, ironic or contradictory as that may initially sound.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. A child who is abused will grow up scarred; it is a cross she will have to bear for her whole life, though not necessarily always in the same way. However, it is a cross which will need to be borne precisely by taking on therapy and the hard work of healing. Were she to refuse this work and thus allowed her life to be dominated or defined completely by the past, she would not be embracing her cross or bearing it patiently, but denying and rejecting it. One does not embrace one's cross by refusing to live fully. To bear a cross patiently means to take on LIFE in its shadow, and marked by its weight and imprint, but also to do so with the grace of God which brings life out of death, wholeness out of brokenness, joy out of sorrow, and meaning out of senselessness. It does NOT mean to forego the challenges of living fully in the name of some piously-rationalized cowardice and "victimologization". For instance, the abused person would not be bearing her cross patiently if she said, "Well, God sent this cross, so I will simply accept all the consequences, dysfunction, crippled human capacities, and distortions that come with it. Don't talk to me about therapy, or moving out of this abusive relationship, or working hard to change the situation, etc!"

Prescinding from the idea that God sent this cross for the moment (a notion which I personally reject and explain below), what this attitude describes instead is capitulation to what Paul calls the powers of sin and death which are so active in our world. It is the refusal to allow God to redeem the situation, the refusal to be free in the Christian sense, and represents the embracing of bondage or slavery instead. It is an act of collusion with the destructive effects and process of the cross. Whether one is motivated by cowardice, hopelessness, masochism, or some other similar thing, in this case the pious sounding, "God sent this cross so I will accept it, all its consequences, dysfunction,. . ." is a refusal to live fully, to seek genuine holiness and humanity. It is a refusal of God's grace as it usually comes to us as well, for God's grace here ordinarily comes to us through things like the processes of therapy, spiritual direction, personal work, and all the relationships and changes which bring Christ's own hard-won healing and wholeness.

Can God Use unworthy Crosses?


Can God use these "unworthy" crosses for his purposes? Of course. Why would he not be able to? To suggest otherwise is to say that God is incapable of redeeming certain aspects of his creation, or of making all things work for good in those who love him and let him love them. It is to suggest the Christ Event was a failure, and today's passage from Romans 8 ("nothing will separate us from the love of God") is hyperbole at best, and a lie at worst. God may not have sent this cross, but there is no doubt that he can use it as a unique mediating source of grace in one's life. We grow in all kinds of ways when we embrace the unavoidable difficulties life throws our way, but especially when we do so in faith and in concert with God's grace. This points up another way of refusing to carry one's cross, an unusual way I think, but one nonetheless. It is a refusal to carry one's cross to say, "God did not send it, so let's just be rid of it (or ignore it, etc). I cannot grow in this virtue or that one in light of this cross because it is unworthy, unholy, and God did not send it." In fact, God ordinarily does NOT send the crosses that come our way. They are forged instead in the workshops of human sin, stupidity, cruelty and violence --- just as Jesus' cross was. And yet, he expects us to take them on with his grace so that he might redeem us and our world. I don't for an instant believe that God sent chronic illness, injury and pain for me to live with, however, he can use these with my cooperation to transform both me and my world. I don't for an instant believe that God sends the crosses that are the result of abuse, neglect, carelessness, cruelty and the like, but there is no doubt that he can use these to transfigure their sufferers and our world.

Does God Simply Remove unworthy Crosses?

Your last question was a bit more of a surprise than the other two and you may need to say more about it for me to answer adequately. Let me take a stab at it though. Does God simply remove these crosses for us? My first answer is no, though I am sure he COULD do. My second or related response is a question, namely, "why should he?" I suppose in some way this question stems from your other two: if a cross is unholy and unworthy and God did not send it, then why shouldn't he simply remove it? But the simple fact is that crosses become holy and worthy in the bearing of them! They are "worthy" or "holy" crosses only when the one afflicted by them bears them worthily and in holiness. These crosses become something other than the result of human sinfulness and cruelty only when they are borne with grace --- and here grace does not simply mean superficial equanimity (or something less noble like grudging resignation!); it means "with the life-giving life and power of God's accompanying love." God has chosen to redeem this world by participating in its crosses, but as with Jesus, that means that one has to take the cross on in a conscious way and walk with it. Of course we will fall under its weight from time to time. Jesus did as well. But in the end, it is only in this way that God can take on sin and death, enter into them exhaustively, and transform them with his presence. We take these things on as a piece of Jesus' own redemptive work; we cannot eschew such a burden and be true to our callings.

Theologically, it makes no sense to me to try and distinguish between those crosses which are sent by God and are worthy of being borne, and those which are not. Partly that is because I don't believe God sends crosses so much as he sends the means by which they may be redeemed and become redemptive. Partly it is because it is precisely the unholy and unworthy that God takes on WITH US (and in us!), in such cases, transforming them into something of real worth and holiness. Did God send Jesus the cross he took on! NO, it was entirely a human construct made with our own bloody hands and twisted, frightened hearts, but absolutely he did send Jesus into our world to TAKE IT ON! Do you hear the difference? Does he send us the crosses that come our way? No, but he sends us into the world so that we might be part of its redemption and fulfillment and that means he sends us into the world to take on the various crosses that COME OUR WAY "naturally" (and by "naturally" I mean that come our way through the human sinfulness, cruelty, and violence we meet everyday).



No cross is worthy or holy until it is borne with grace and courage. God does not send crosses per se, but he sends us into a world full of them expecting to help us in their redemption, and he certainly commissions us to carry the crosses that come our way. The only other point that needs to be reiterated is that we bear crosses patiently only when we choose to live fully in spite of them, and in taking them on with the grace of God accompanying and empowering us. That means we take on the therapy, medical care (including appropriate medications for pain, etc), personal work of healing, and so forth that are part of these crosses. If someone has hurt us, even if they have hurt us very badly, it also means taking on the work and the PROCESS of healing we call forgiveness. This can take years and years of course; it is not simply an act of will --- even though it involves such acts (sometimes many of them in renewed intentions to let the past go). It requires assistance, not only of God, but physicians, psychologists, confessors, spiritual directors, and friends. The bottom line is there are many ways to refuse to carry a cross including labelling them unworthy or unholy and waiting for God to simply remove them, but to carry them means more than to simply accept the events that forged them initially; it means to accept everything necessary to transform and redeem them and ourselves as their bearers as well.

I hope this answers your questions; if I misunderstood them in some way, please get back to me and clarify.