On the Need for Serious Reflection on the Sacred Secularity of Consecrated Virgins Under c 604

[[ Sister, do you think Religious Sisters are jealous of CV's being called Brides of Christ? Why would someone want to prove that CV's are Brides of Christ but not Religious women? I have the impression that there is a theological vacuum in the work being done on the vocation of the CV today. I wondered why you don't do more of this?]]

Many thanks for your questions. I think one of them was the same as asked in the last post so perhaps I didn't answer that. My bad!  Let me give it another shot! 

First, though, are religious Sisters jealous of CV's (living in the world) being Brides of Christ? No, not at all, at least I have not met one. Most Sisters know they are espoused to Christ and value it beyond saying, but we don't tend to want to be recognized for it of itself. Instead, though our experience of Christ may be nuptial in character (it is not always so), we want to be known for our hearts, our compassion, our availability, and all the ways any degree of union with Christ is evidenced in our lives and ministry. Otherwise, being espoused to Christ means very little. Many Sisters today have difficulty with the bridal imagery associated with religious life and that is fine; it simply does not match their experience in prayer or may have resonances which are otherwise problematical. Again, they love Christ and want to be known for the quality and expansiveness of their hearts, for the compassion they have for all of God's creation, for the energy and intelligence they spend on others for the sake of the Kingdom, for their discipleship. And they are. There is no reason whatsoever to be jealous.

The canonist I have been speaking with about the uniqueness of CV's identity as Brides of Christ believes this identity is rooted in a true and everlasting bond which is unlike that of Religious. I don't believe her intention is to strip Religious of their identity in this way so much as it is to sufficiently recognize and honor the nature of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world. However, I am not speaking here of the virtue of her academic work or her personal motivations (which I think are valid and necessarily limited as all such work is) so much as I am speaking of the ramifications such work could have, and even more, of the reasons I have seen for others' attempts to strip religious of their identity as Brides of Christ (e.g., Religious are only engaged to Christ (built on a misunderstanding the word betrothed in regard to Jewish marriage practice) while CV's are Brides, Religious consecrate themselves with vows while CV's are consecrated by God, or the bond of the consecrated CV is eternal while that of consecrated religious is not). 

The reasons underlying what I believe is a lopsided emphasis on Bride of Christ imagery and identity are multiple. Too often CV's have been treated as women without the courage or ability to "go the whole way" into religious life. As is true with any "new" (though ancient) vocation, the bulk of the faithful neither understand nor honor this calling. As I myself once wondered about the validity and meaning of this vocation so does the majority of the Church wonder about the same things. The renewal of this vocation too often seems an act by which the Church is attempting to mobilize a new army of workers to replace Religious whose numbers are diminishing, a kind of stopgap vocation to increase or at least harden the division between male priesthood and the role of women in the Church, or a form of "religious life lite" to many of the faithful. At the same time, the faulty use of the term "consecration" for an act humans commit has led to all manner of "consecrations" which tend to empty the Divine consecration shared by consecrated persons in the Church of meaning and import. 

Everyone in the Church should be aware that in baptism and all forms of life known as "consecrated", God is the one who consecrates while the human person dedicates him/herself via some form of profession or private vow. That is especially true of public commitments. Unfortunately, it is possible to find CV's asserting that their consecration is by God while Religious "consecrate themselves via vows"! (Even more unfortunately, one can find religious congregations referring to members being consecrated via profession which then morphs into "religious consecrate themselves via profession.) The former emboldened expression is useful as synecdoche, a figure of speech where one part stands for the whole, as either the term profession or the term consecration refers to the whole event involving both the making of vows and the assumption of a new state of life via divine consecration mediated by the Church. The reference to "consecrating oneself", however, is inaccurate when used instead.

What is disappointing to me is the apparent bare nod to secularity I find in the work of most CV's writing about their own vocations today. Even the USACV (United States Association of Consecrated Virgins) provides only the barest information on the secularity of the vocation, largely limiting that to the idea that CV's living in the world are responsible for their own upkeep and the individual nature of their ministries. But the meaning and value of a secular vocation is far richer and of much greater contemporary and theological import than this! Besides, solitary hermits under c 603 are also responsible for our own upkeep and we are definitely not secular vocations. Still, I have yet found no theological reflection on the timeliness of sacred or eschatological secularity and none at all regarding the important shift to an eschatology stressing the interpenetration of the Kingdom of God with that of this world or the promise that one day God will be all in all. In light of these significant lacunae, discussions of whether or not the bond of the CV is eternal or whether religious are also truly Brides of Christ strike me as theologically analogous to the Church spending time and energy in quibbles over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in the face of global disaster.

The vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is real and meaningful (potentially it is profoundly significant and enormously timely), but it cannot remain or truly be that if CVs' reflection on and living out of their vocation is limited to emphasizing a single dimension of this call (espousal to Christ) cut off from the equally necessary secular dimension of that same vocation. I have said previously that the CV's secularity is profoundly qualified by espousal; I should also say, then, that the espousal itself is profoundly qualified by secularity. These two dimensions mutually qualify one another in a single radical consecrated vocation. To miss or eschew this is to miss the nature of the whole. Only in this way do they represent an icon of the Church we so badly need today and see called for by an emerging and deeply Scriptural eschatology. 

By the way, you asked why I don't undertake this work. Let me say that I have a definite theological and pastoral interest in it, especially in terms of the eschatology involved and the way that is combined with the significance of secular vocations, but for the present I am working on a project re the discernment and formation of c 603 eremitical vocations. An occasional post in response to questions will have to do for the present. Still, given the way Pope Francis is acting to end clericalism (cf., Praedicate Evangelium) there may be an added impetus to reflect more thoroughly on secularism and eschatological secularity in the near future.

Private Vows, Not an Act of Profession and Not the Way to Consecration as a Hermit

[[Dear Sister, if someone writes: that their vows were received by a Catholic priest on behalf of the Church and God Himself and that they are a consecrated hermit as a result, can this be the case? Can my spiritual director receive my vows and consecrate me in this way? I would rather do it this way than go to my bishop (just being honest!).]]

LOL!! I appreciate your honesty and understand what you are saying!! The answer to your question regarding intention is no, no priest or priest spiritual director unless specifically designated to do so on behalf of the diocese by the local ordinary, can receive vows or consecrate you in the eremitical life. The Church has only two ways for such a thing to happen: 1) she professes and consecrates you as a member of a semi-eremitical or eremitical congregation, and 2) using c.603, you make your profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop or his explicit designee. 

Both of these options involve public vows and a change in one's state of life. A priest can certainly witness private vows (a private dedication, not consecration) --- for these do not involve a public commitment, new rights and obligations, or a new state in life -- but (without acting on behalf of the bishop with regard to c 603) he cannot do so with the intention to consecrate nor to participate in an act of profession. (Profession, which involves more than the making of public vows, is, by definition, always a public act involving new canonical rights and obligations. If these new public rights and obligations are not involved, then the act is not profession even when vows are involved.) I've written a lot about this so check out labels re private vs public vows, etc., if you need more. 

Is Canon 603 Exclusionary?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you have written any number of times about what is unique about canon 603. I have never heard you saying that it excludes people from the consecrated state. Instead I have heard you saying that the church finally allowed hermits to be included in the consecrated state. Is this the case? Were hermits always understood to be lay persons? How about religious? How were they regarded? What I am most concerned with is whether canon 603 excludes people from being thought of as consecrated as one blogger is now arguing.]]

Thanks for your question and your summary of what you have heard me saying. I think you have heard me very clearly. When I emphasize the Desert Fathers and Mothers were a lay vocation my intention is not merely to be accurate and avoid anachronism, it is  also to point to how varied and significant lay vocations can be and have always been in the Church. But let's be clear, despite being rooted in baptismal consecration, these vocations were not understood as consecrated vocations in the way we use that term today. These and later hermits were not somehow part of the consecrated state (a different and even later category within the church). Hermits could be seen as consecrated when they were part of an institute of consecrated life and made vows within this context, but otherwise, they have not been seen as consecrated except insofar as the  whole People of God is consecrated in baptism.

Remember that the Church was pretty much always divided hierarchically into laity and clerics. Early on there were also ascetics, virgins, and widows. Monastic life pretty much overtook eremitical vocations by the sixth century. (The rise of monastic life from the 3rd C and Benedictinism beginning in the 6th C continued as the Desert Fathers and Mothers died out and eremitism continued as semi-eremitism in the Western Church.) Consecrated virgins outside of monastic life died out (was subsumed into religious life) by the 11th C.  Religious became unofficially a kind of third and median division in the hierarchical schema. In time this ambiguity was clarified. Vatican II and the revised Code of Canon Law especially said very clearly that religious are not a median division in the hierarchy of the Church, not a third or middle level, and that hierarchically speaking, Religious are part of the laity. Even so, solitary hermits were not regarded as part of the consecrated (Religious) life within the Church. Eremitical life was a diverse, often eccentric, or disedifying phenomenon which also had occasional saints, but it  was not considered an instance of consecrated life unless the hermits belonged to an Order or congregation of Religious.

What was significant re canon 603 was that for the first time in the history of the universal Church solitary hermits could be recognized in law as part of the consecrated state.  As I've written before, but with a different emphasis maybe, when Bishop Remi de Roo made his intervention at the Second Vatican Council he had been dealing with a dozen or more hermits who had had to leave their Solemn vows, leave their congregations, and be secularized because they could not be hermits according to the proper law of their congregations. That was the term used: secularized. It was the term meaning antithetical to the consecrated or Religious state. Even today we remember references to religious vs seculars. These monks had to leave the consecrated state and live the silence of solitude as hermits in the lay (or, if they were priests, clerical) states. This was the only possibility that existed in the Church. They could not leave their monasteries and expect to be considered to still be in the consecrated or Religious state. (At this point in history religious and consecrated are essentially synonyms; this changed with the reintroduction of consecrated virgins who were not religious (c 604) and consecrated hermits (c 603).)

In any case, though consecrated with what was called the "second consecration" they no longer existed in the consecrated state and there was no way within the Church to contend or achieve the opposite. Their vows had been dispensed, they had no legitimate superiors (though Bishop de Roo served them as Bishop Protector), and the church generally had no way to canonically govern or legitimately support their eremitical vocations or those of others like them unless they formed a semi-eremitical community under established canons. In other words, solitary hermits who had been secularized were unable to consider themselves consecrated hermits even if they had spent years in religious life and solemn vows.

It is important to understand what these monks had given up in order to live a call to eremitical life in the lay (or clerical) state; they had no other option in attending to God's call. Their situation, and that of others desiring to live lives as solitary consecrated hermits, meant there was a lacuna or gap in Church perception, practice, and law. The church needed to recognize the nature and value of the eremitical vocation in general (no matter the state of life), but particularly, she needed a way for solitary hermits, when this vocation was mutually discerned, to be initiated into the consecrated state with all that implied. Canon 603 was the result and it filled this gap. That occurred in 1983.

Canon 603 was not added as an option for those who liked law, were legalistic, or simply prideful. It was not added so Bishops could discipline recalcitrant lay hermits. (First, there weren't many in the Western church, and second, admission to the consecrated state is not the way the Church deals with difficult or troublesome people or situations.) It was added because the Church as a whole had never had a way to consecrate solitary hermits. Indeed, the Church had rarely wanted to do so! Some bishops had seen the value of eremitical life and taken anchorites under their care in the Middle Ages while other (mainly male) hermits wandered the land, sometimes helpful (ferrymen, foresters, etc.) and often simply eccentric or bizarre. While legends grew up around hermits (the source of most stereotypes) and some were considered quite holy, they were never part of the consecrated life of the Church because they did not belong to Religious Institutes.

When one reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one must be careful not to read it anachronistically. The same is true of Canon 603. It has never been meant to exclude hermits through history from the consecrated state (as though it could do so retroactively!). It was meant to fill a lacuna in Church perspective, practice, and law and make it possible for the first time ever in the universal church to constitute and recognize solitary hermits in law (canonically) as members of the consecrated state. In doing so it extended the category "Religious" to those with no connection to a religious congregation (Handbook on Canons 573-746) --- a very great change in the way the Church thought and practiced.

Replying to Objections and Misunderstandings

[[Hi Sister, does a Catholic (c 603) Hermit require a legitimate superior? One blogger writes that there is no mention of the hermit having a superior nor requirement to adopt a personal Rule of Life, no such thing as a lay hermit, no requirement for any kind of stability, and that the term dedication is never used to describe a Catholic Hermit's profession of the evangelical counsels. Can you respond to these assertions? I have included the post below.]]

Thanks for your email. Yes, I saw the post (or posts) several months ago. I have written about all of these assertions in one way and another here so it did not seem necessary to respond, but since you ask, and since the post is actually being read perhaps I do need to cite and respond to the assertions in a more direct way. Maybe all these points need to be present in a single post I can simply link people to in the future. (While I do welcome all questions and will continue to do so, that would be a relief from having to write the same stuff yet again!)  In any case, let me be clear that, as far as I am aware, none of these points is a matter of interpretation on which reasonable folks may differ. The assertions made by the poster cited seem to me to be rooted in misunderstanding or actual ignorance of language and usage many of us, myself included, take for granted. Probably we ought not do that. In any case, I have broken up the post you have supplied and answered each point below. I sincerely hope this is helpful.

[[There is no mention of the hermit having a "Superior" in either The Catechism of the Catholic Church or in Canon Law 603. The latter does state that the hermit who publicly professes the three evangelical counsels into the hands of the diocesan bishop, is to live his or her proper program of living under the diocesan bishop's direction. Thus, the hermit's director is by [church] law to be his or her bishop.]]

When a canon says that one makes their public profession in the hands of another (for instance, the local ordinary or diocesan Bishop) they are identifying that person as the legitimate superior of the one making their profession. As noted in other posts, the act of making one's profession in the hands of another harks back to feudal times when folks made acts of fealty in the hands of their political and legitimate superiors. Today there is a clear sense of intimacy about this act because it establishes a legal or legitimate relationship (and a moral one as well) in which the two people entrust themselves to this relationship -- though in very different ways -- so that a God-given vocation can flourish.

The meaning of this act was immeasurably enriched and made clearer to me when I first met with Archbishop Vigneron on the Feast of the Sacred Heart. At the end of that meeting he extended his hands and I rested mine in his while we both prayed for the process of discernment we were embarking on together. Later, when I made my vows in his hands while resting them on the book of Gospels, I recalled that first meeting and time with others where prayer was linked to resting my hands in theirs. It was especially poignant because of this. These relationships have been life giving to me and a source of the mediation of my vocation.

The bottom line here is that the actual words "legitimate superior" are not necessary. The concept is clearly present throughout. Canon 603 refers to public profession, to being recognized in law and to making one's profession in the hands of the local Bishop under whose direction the hermit will live her life. All of these imply or explicitly refer to the reality of legitimate superiors. Direction, for instance, does not mean spiritual direction (as in the work of a spiritual director per se --- even if that person is the bishop!) but rather is the general term for the exercise of authority by a legitimate superior. Meanwhile, the obedience owed one's legitimate superior differs in character from the general obedience one owes one's spiritual director, Scripture, one's pastor, et al. and this is clearly referred to via the presence of references to canon law and a personal Rule, Plan, or Program of Life.

As I wrote a while back, if one wonders if a hermit is legitimate (canonical), that is, if she is canonically commissioned to live her life in the name of the Church then ask her who her legitimate superior is. That works for any religious one is doubtful of as well. In a solitary hermit's case this will ALWAYS be the local diocesan bishop.

[[Rule of Life: Again, adopting an individual rule of life is not stipulated per se in the institutes of the Catholic Church or CL603 per the consecrated eremitic life. However, history and tradition of eremites who successfully and heroically lived a holy hermit life, as well as prudence and wisdom, suggest that determining and being true to a rule of life is a positive inclusion.]] and also [[ Can. 603 §1. In addition to the institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance.]]

The phrase "institutes of the Catholic Church" as some sort of law or statutes is not recognized usage. In any case, Canon 603 does not read "the institutes". Instead it says, "besides institutes of consecrated life canon law also recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life" and by this it means, "Besides congregations, Orders, and communities of consecrated life canon law (the Church) also recognizes solitary consecrated eremitical life" and does so specifically in this canon. This portion of the canon outlines c 603 as the single recognized way to public profession for hermits who are not part of institutes of consecrated life. Regarding the assertion that a Rule is not an explicit requirement of canon 603, the canon also reads, "and observes his or her plan of life (vivendi rationem) in (the Bishop's) hands." The plan of life is ordinarily written out and approved by the Bishop. (The approval is formalized in a Bishop's decree of approval.) Sometimes it is called a Rule or "regula" or even Rule or Program of Life but what is really clear is that the canon specifies such a Rule or Plan.

[["Lay hermit": There is no such term or category as "lay hermit" in Church Law, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church Tradition, or Church History. Hermits [eremitics] are specified under the category of "The Consecrated Life," specifically 920-921, in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. In the 20th century, they are also specified in Canon Law 603. (The hermit vocation, by virtue of the required inclusion and profession of the three Evangelical Counsels [celibacy, poverty, obedience] and by specified program of life, preclude a hermit from being a lay person. ]]

There is no need for such a term in most discussions in canon law, etc. The reality is understood and, for instance, may be said to be referred to in canon 603.1. (603.1 refers to hermits generally and may thus also speak to lay persons who live as hermits. Canon 603.2 refers specifically to those recognized in law and who are consecrated hermits and together with 603.1 is a governing canon of their lives.) Paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism may, despite their awkward location, also refer to both lay and consecrated hermits or they may in fact refer only to those who are consecrated.  In any case, whether the term lay hermit itself is ever used (and it IS used cf the reference to Fr Mark Miles' Dissertation below in the paragraph beginning, "As I have written here . ."), the reality is clearly present in canon law. Here, without citing every canon specifically, is why I say so.

Vows may be private or public. Except for the consecration of virgins living in the world only when a baptized person makes public vows and is consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church in a public juridical act does that person enter the consecrated state of life. Those hermits making private vows remain lay persons if they were already lay persons and ordained if already ordained but they do not enter the consecrated state. The term "lay hermit" simply means a person in the lay state who is living as a hermit. It is distinguished from "consecrated hermit", "diocesan hermit", consecrated religious, and professed religious because all of these imply public profession and consecration through which one enters and takes on the legal (and moral) obligations and rights of the consecrated state. Since anyone may make private vows or write a Rule or program of life and live it there is nothing in these per se which preclude one from being both lay and a hermit. The majority of hermits have, in fact always been lay (or non-canonical).

As I have written many times here the unique thing about canon 603 is that for the very first time in universal law the solitary eremitical vocation is recognized in law as a "state of perfection"  and those consecrated in this way are recognized as religious in the RCC.  In other words, there were no solitary consecrated hermits prior to canon 603. Nor are there solitary consecrated hermits in the Western Church apart from canon 603. Canon 603 was created for the very purpose of admitting solitary hermits to consecration. Today the term lay hermit is used to distinguish those (non-clerical) solitary hermits who have not been admitted to the consecrated state under canon 603. I am reminded of Thomas Matus, OSB Cam's account of the life of Nazerena. He notes and Father Mark Miles emphasizes the importance of the following: [[On 2nd February Nazarena entered the Camaldolese Benedictine Monastery of St Anthony on the Aventine  . . The important fact is that eventually Nazarena obtained an interview with the Cardinal Secretary of State who authorized her to live as a lay anchoress in the same Camaldolese Monastery. . .]] Canon 603: Diocesan Hermits in the Light of Eremitical Tradition. Miles, Mark Gerard, Rome 2003.

Remember that vocationally speaking the Church recognizes three states of life: lay (especially the married state of life), consecrated, and ordained. (Hierarchically speaking there are only two, lay and ordained.) A hermit may be a member of any of these states of life.  Whether one is lay or ordained, initiation into the consecrated state (except in the single case of consecrated virginity) requires public profession and consecration. To say that private vows preclude a person from being a lay person is to misunderstand the nature and necessity of public profession in the initiation of one into the consecrated state. Unfortunately, it also denies that private vows of the evangelical counsels are even possible for those in the lay state. Moreover it says that the Church has two routes to living in the consecrated state of life, one which is canonical and under the direct supervision of legitimate authority and one which is not. Of course, this is hardly the way the Church works with regard to the gift of consecrated life.

[["Stability" (remaining in one locale): This is not required but may be what the hermit's earthly superior requests of the hermit. Some religious orders, whose members live as hermits, include "stability" in their professed three evangelical counsels.]]

Canon 603 does in fact require a form of stability of the diocesan hermit precisely because she lives her life under the supervision of the local Bishop and he is her superior in law. She must remain within the diocese where she has been professed unless another Bishop agrees to accept her as a diocesan hermit and allows her to make (or live her) vows in his hands. Since her own Bishop is relinquishing jurisdiction, he must also agree to the move and will confirm that the hermit is professed under canon 603 and in good standing in the diocese. In any case, though it may be transferred through a kind of excardination and incardination similar to the transfer of diocesan priests or somewhat analogous to the transfer of stability of monks and nuns moving to new monasteries, etc., stability is definitely required of the diocesan hermit. This is part of the legal relationships which obtain with public profession and consecration. Moreover, we can assume this means they are the will of God because they are an important way of protecting and nurturing this vocation for the benefit of the entire Church.

[["Dedication": There is no such term used to describe a Catholic hermit's profession of the three evangelical counsels [poverty, celibacy, obedience] and one who lives in accordance with the stipulations per Consecrated Life of the Church: The Eremitic Life, in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. [The term "dedication" is often used currently by Protestant Evangelicals and those of other denominations who do not practice infant Baptism; such as: make a "dedication" of their children to God or to live a godly life.]]]

Canon 603 reads as follows: [[A hermit is recognized as dedicated to God in the consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond. . .]] One's public dedication to God is marked by one's profession of the evangelical counsels via vow or other sacred bond. In other words one's profession represents a dedication to God. Vatican II consistently used the term "dedication" or similar terms meaning the giving of self to refer to the human dimension in public profession. The Divine element or dimension was referred to as "consecrare," since only God may sanctify, set apart as sacred, or consecrate. I admit that in light of all this it is hard for me to understand how one can contend there is no such term as "dedication" [or to dedicate] used to describe a hermit's profession of vows. On the other hand the distinction between dedicare and consecrare is profoundly Scriptural so it does not surprise me that some Protestants honor it in referring to the dedication of their children to God prior to sacramental baptism. Evenso, the attempt to deny this is part of the normative language of the Roman Catholic Church in speaking of public professions or of canon 603 itself is simply wrong.


One of the problems with the usage in the blog you have referenced and another possible source of misunderstanding is that the author uses the term Catholic Hermit to refer to any person who is Catholic and living as a hermit. I (and the Church herself) use the term Catholic Hermit to refer to any person who has embraced and been authoritatively admitted to a specifically ecclesial vocation which is lived in the name of the Church. To repeat myself (cf other articles on cc 216 and 300) there are canons which specify one cannot apply the term Catholic to an enterprise or role unless proper authority permits it. For instance, not every theologian who is a Catholic can call herself a Catholic Theologian (and her theology may indeed be profoundly Catholic nonetheless). Only those exercising this role with a specific mandatum may do so. Sometimes the mandatum is withdrawn and the person, though profoundly Catholic, is no longer allowed to consider or refer to themselves as a Catholic Theologian.

Not every religious institute may do so either, nor may every Catholic who is a hermit. A Catholic Religious Institute lives religious life in the name of the Church and is specifically authorized to do so. So too with a Catholic Hermit. Whenever one sees " a Catholic x or y", whether this is a person, an institute, radio station, or role it means (or should mean) this reality is and does what it does in the name of the Church. It means there has been a specific commissioning by appropriate authority to act in the name of the Church. The Catholic hermit lives the eremitical life in the name of the Church because the Church, in professing and consecrating her publicly has commissioned her to do so.

[[Married hermits: Both parties need to agree to their marriage rights being dissolved and with the choice to enter consecrated life and to choose celibacy. This may occur if they are older and the high calling and purpose of the married state of life is fulfilled so that the required Evangelical Counsels (poverty, obedience, celibacy) of the consecrated state of life could be met.]]

Marriage rights are not simply dissolved. Remember that Marriage is a Sacrament in which two persons become one flesh. The reason the Church does not allow divorce is because she understands that this bond is created by God and cannot be dissolved by man. Though it involves these, it is much more than the establishment of certain rights and obligations. If it is determined that no true sacramental bond was created then the marriage can be annulled, that is declared null or empty. An Annulment does not dissolve marriage bonds; it establishes publicly that no true (sacramental) marriage ever occurred. Neither does civil divorce end the sacramental bond; instead it puts an end to the civil rights and obligations associated with such a bond. This is why an annulment must also be sought after a civil divorce.

By the way, I should point out that every Christian is called to live some form of the evangelical counsels. Married persons are not called to religious poverty or religious obedience, but they are certainly called to a profound stewardship of this world's goods and a simplicity of life that is edifying; they are also called to an obedience to the Word and will of God which is profoundly challenging and world-changing. Private vows may include or specify the evangelical counsels but for married persons these will not include obedience to a legitimate superior or the relinquishing of one's own will. Neither will they include a commitment to poverty which is inappropriate for the effective raising of  and care for children. Finally, again, lay hermits (hermits in the lay state) may or may not make private vows. They make sense if care is taken, but they are not required nor, again, do they initiate one into another state of life.

The idea that two older people may have "fulfilled the purpose of their marriage" --- which apparently refers to having and raising children is completely preposterous since one purpose of marriage is to bring one another to God and the commitment is one unto death. Having and raising children so they too may know God is likewise a significant purpose of marriage but not the whole of the matter. No person who is validly married can be admitted to public profession or to the consecrated state of life. This is because one must be free of all such bonds to take on the life bonds of other state of life. Similarly, one in the consecrated state of life cannot attempt marriage. Nor can one in the ordained state. If one makes vows of poverty, chastity and obedience while married they must be private vows. (I am not suggesting such vows are prudent or not, only that they must be private.) Such vows do not initiate (or attempt to initiate) one into a new state of life nor do they dissolve one's marriage, for instance --- which is another assertion the poster you cited has made in these posts.

Addendum: The Church as such has kept the requirements for hermits simple. It is diocesan Bishops who have added provisions for public profession of diocesan hermits.

While the Church as such has done a remarkable job of recognizing the freedom of the hermit and kept legal requirements to a minimum, the Revised Code of Canon Law and c 603 is universal law, not merely diocesan. Canon 603 and the recognition of and provision for canonical hermits in the consecrated state is binding within the entire Western (Latin) Church. It is true that each diocesan bishop is called upon to implement this canon as seems best to him while maintaining the character of canon 603 life outlined therein, however, he does so in service (and obedience) to universal law. It is also true that we tend to call c 603 hermits "diocesan hermits" but this is done to indicate 1) who the hermit's legitimate superior is, and 2) the specific stability attached to her commitment. It is akin to recognizing a Religious Institute as one of diocesan right. This designation does NOT mean the hermit is not recognized by universal law within the entire Church.

I hope this is helpful.

Private Vows and the Lay Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, how do I make private vows to become a consecrated religious hermit without joining a community?]]

Hi there. Thanks for writing. I am also  including someone else's question below this one since the subject is related. I think there is some confusion in your own question. To become a consecrated religious hermit (that is, a hermit in the consecrated state of life), you cannot do so with private vows. You see because this is an ecclesial vocation you must do so through the formal (and canonical) mediation of the Church. You can only do this via a public profession.This requires 1) a petition to your diocese followed by  2) a mutual discernment process if your diocese sees you as a good candidate; then, if admitted to profession by your Bishop it will mean 3) public vows received by and Divine consecration mediated by the Church. The key here is public profession and consecration (which only comes with perpetual public vows) made in the hands of the local Bishop. The consecrated hermit is publicly commissioned by the Church in the person of the local Bishop to live her life in the name of the Church. She is literally then a Catholic hermit (not simply a Catholic AND a Hermit) and (after perpetual vows) a consecrated religious. Thus it always involves a public commitment and solemn consecration. You might consider this after living as a lay hermit for some time, especially if you live private vows for some time and work out a workable Rule of Life.

If you wish, on the other hand, simply to live as a lay hermit (not publicly professed and consecrated) and eventually make private vows you are free to do that by virtue of your baptism, but there is no formal procedure for doing so. Remember this would be an entirely private commitment. To make such a commitment in a meaningful way your life as a hermit really requires regular spiritual direction and you need to have lived as a lay hermit for some time (at least a couple of years would not be unreasonable to expect) before even considering making private vows. Until you and your director believe you both need and are really ready for these you should prepare by considering what your baptismal commitment requires of you in more specific terms.

Renewing and Specifying one's Baptismal Commitment as Either an Alternative or Preparatory Step to Private vows:

(Please note my opinion on using any setting during Mass has changed. Please read my explanation of this in Reexamining an Earlier Suggestion)

For instance, you may find they require you to live the evangelical counsels in some way and you will want to shape a commitment including these expressed in a way which really fits your life. Your baptismal commitment requires a sound prayer life as well so you will want to spell out what this means for you. The same is true of silence, solitude, and penance. Being a disciple of Christ requires some degree of all of these and you can specify what you feel yourself called to at this point in your life as someone already committed and consecrated in baptism but without entering the consecrated state of life. Your pastor could certainly help you to work out a brief ritual where you renew and specify your baptismal commitment in terms of lay eremitical life.

It seems to me (with a lot of caveats!!) that if this was what you decided to do you could renew your own baptismal commitment and further specify that commitment during Mass within the context of the parishioners' own general renewal of baptismal vows. This is the ONLY situation in which I would suggest such vows might conceivably occur during Mass --- that is, as part of a renewal of baptismal vows. Such a commitment would have to make clear in a very explicit way that this is a lay commitment and that you are not assuming any additional canonical rights or obligations such as are associated with religious life, but if this could be done, it could be quite a lovely and meaningful commitment. It could also be of immense value to your parish and even beyond parish boundaries. Your parish would know you as a lay (but not a consecrated or Catholic) hermit and you would have some chance to share what that means with them. Some, especially the elderly and chronically ill, might want to do something similar; the difference this could make in their lives could be immense.

(Again, I have rethought this position although I continue to wish for ways to celebrate lay eremitical lives within the parish. I believe the Church is absolutely correct in not witnessing the vows of a lay hermit during Mass. Because of this ambiguity, I have kept the post up rather than simply removing it.)

At the same time you would model the lesson that we need to think about and make concrete the kinds of demands our Baptismal vows require of each of us. That is rarely done, I think, and it is important; often we do not need additional vows but we do need to specify and commit to the ways our baptismal promises are meant to be lived here and now. In preparing for this step what you will actually be doing is constructing an informal Rule of Life which covers prayer, penance, evangelical counsels, silence, solitude, lectio, and other essentials in the hermit's life. Over time you will probably want to rework or even rewrite this. Though it may take you some time to do this, and especially to do it while truly living as a lay hermit with the aid of your director, working in this way can prepare you for meaningful private vows as well as strengthening your baptismal commitment itself. However, let me be very clear, if there was the slightest doubt or the least impression given that this was not a specification of an entirely lay vocation and NOT entrance into the consecrated state of life, the vows should not occur at Mass. It may be that this cannot occur without misleading others. If that seems likely then this idea would not work and needs to be relegated to the trash heap.

If You Decide to Make Private Vows

If and when your director agrees with you on your own need and readiness for a temporary private dedication as a lay hermit (say, for a period of three years or so) she can witness these for you at any time. Your pastor can also witness these. As already indicated, the Church does not celebrate private vows at Mass because she does not wish these to be confused with public vows which are associated with ecclesial vocations lived in the name of the Church. These are also associated with legitimate superiors and (with perpetual vows) with entrance into the consecrated state, as well as with other legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations.

Because private vows are undertaken as a private (as opposed to public or canonical) commitment, they do not lead to any additional rights or obligations not already associated with Baptism. This is another reason they ordinarily take place apart from Mass. (If your pastor agrees, for instance, you might well make them after Mass though which would allow some friends and family and interested parishioners to attend and witness this private dedication.) At the end of the duration of these vows (three years or whatever you have chosen) you will need to discern whether or not you are being called to make this commitment a perpetual one or perhaps approach your diocese with a petition to become a consecrated Catholic or diocesan hermit. (Private vows can still be dispensed at any time by your pastor and others as well without any formal paperwork; if you were admitted to public profession private vows would also cease to be binding as soon as you made public vows.)

Getting Ahead of Ourselves:

But this is getting a bit ahead of things. Again, you will need to live as a hermit in a focused and conscious way while under regular spiritual direction for at least a couple of years before you can really meaningfully consider such a private dedication. (This might differ if you have already lived as a religious and been through formation with a canonical group.) Remember that even if you have been living alone for a while this is not necessarily the same as living an eremitical life. When you understand the difference on the basis of your own experience and can articulate this for your director you may be close to readiness for private vows. In this I recommend you listen carefully to your director and her reservations or concerns; then discern what that means for you and work on whatever it requires. The same for your pastor if you desire him to witness such a dedication. (The preparation for public profession is much longer (at least five years before first vows) and commensurately more demanding in terms of discernment --- which is undertaken with the diocese, not merely on one's own.)

The Problem of Language:

There has been a lot of confusing use of language by some lay hermits today. Your own question conveyed some confusion about terminology which you may have gotten from some of these persons, a couple of whom have several blogs. While you may not be interested in this particularly, your question is an opportunity to address this problem. Especially, it is time to remind  readers of how the Church  uses various terms. After all, when a person calls herself a Catholic Hermit, but is not using that term in the way the Catholic Church does it is at least incoherent and sort of an absurd practice. The basic principle is simple: we enter states of life through the Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, and Orders) and through public profession and/or consecration (Religious life, consecrated eremitism, and Consecrated Virginity). There is no other way. Each initiation into a new state of life is mediated to us by the Church in a public and graced juridical act.  Private vows never initiate us into a new state of life. Neither does any consecration (dedication) of self. Only consecration by God received in a public rite mediated by the Church does this. This is part of the reason we call such vocations ecclesial vocations.

For instance, a consecrated person is one who is in the consecrated state of life. She has been consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church and except in the case of consecrated virgins, has made public vows (or other sacred bonds for some c 603 hermits), these involve additional canonical rights and obligations as well as the formal and legal relationships required to fulfill these. Thus people who have entered the religious or consecrated states of life have legitimate superiors and public (canonical) vows of obedience. The same is true of the term consecrated religious or just religious; the church uses these terms to refer to a publicly professed and ecclesially consecrated person who exists in the consecrated and religious states of life. Consecrated  and Religious life always imply the public assumption of additional legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism.

Consecrating oneself to God is rightly called dedication; it is not the same as being consecrated BY God through the mediation of the church. When one 'consecrates' oneself to God (dedicates is absolutely the preferred term for this act) one does not enter the consecrated state of life. The Church does not call consecrating oneself  "consecrated life" because there is not change in state of life. A hermit who consecrated (dedicated) herself to God is not a consecrated hermit; she remains a lay hermit who is privately dedicated. This means not every Catholic living as a hermit is a Catholic hermit nor are they consecrated. If one is living the life and is commissioned to do so in the name of the Church in the hands of a legitimate superior, then and only then is one considered a Catholic hermit. For a lay Catholic living as a hermit under private vows, she remains and is called a lay hermit because she lives her eremitical life under or according to the very same canonical rights and obligations which came to her with baptism into the lay state.

[[Sister Laurel, if I have doubts about whether someone is a Catholic Hermit or not is there a question I should ask which will give me an answer the person can't waffle about or dance around?]]

 I am adding this question which I received a few days ago because much of what I have just said  provides an explanation of my answer. My first inclination was to say the critical question is, "Have you been  publicly professed and commissioned to live as a hermit in the name of the Church?" A friend pointed out that a person intent on dancing around the question might still be able to do it or might just lie. She suggested the bottom line question regarding whether someone is a Catholic Hermit  or a consecrated religious should be: "Who is your legitimate superior?" A similar question (a kind of corollary)  is "In whose hands did you make your public profession?"

For diocesan hermits the answer to either question will be their Bishop, a specific Bishop with a name! (It will not be the person's spiritual director, even if that director is a priest and it will especially not be a director in a different diocese! A delegate may serve as a quasi superior but will do so on behalf of the Bishop and diocese.) For a hermit belonging to a canonical community it will be the superior of her house or of the congregation. If you are really concerned about the standing of someone claiming to be a Catholic Hermit or a consecrated hermit/religious then ask them about their legitimate superior. No one responsible for a public and ecclesial vocation will hesitate to answer explicitly. Meanwhile, if this is an additional step you feel is important to take you can contact the person's diocesan chancery. Diocesan hermits' chanceries will generally verify that a person is a publicly professed and consecrated hermit in good standing and may even include the hermit's date of perpetual profession in their response to your query. They will not provide any information beyond these basic facts.

Also the consecrated hermit will ordinarily be given a document identifying them as a consecrated hermit in the diocese on the occasion of their perpetual profession and consecration. It will be signed by the Bishop in whose hands the hermit was professed, the Vicar for Religious or ecclesiastical notary and sealed with the diocesan seal. It is equivalent to a Sacramental certificate and while hermits don't have any obligation to show these on demand to any casual questioner they are official documents which indicate the hermit's canonical standing and underscore the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.

May a Diocese take a "More Private Path" to Consecrating Hermits?

Dear Sister O'Neal, I am confused by something I read online about hermits and private consecrations. You have given the impression that if a Bishop receives a person's vows as a hermit, he will do so under canon 603. You have also said that c 603 is a universal law which replaces any specific diocesan statutes on eremitical life locally. Is it possible for a diocese to decide not to go along with canon 603 but to use private vows instead? What I read is this: [[ I also respect the reasons and desires for those who God wills to have very private consecrations, even if their Bishops have received their vows privately or held by designes [sic, designees] in the Diocese. God and each hermit, and each hermit's Bishop and spiritual guides, ascertain the chosen path, through God's will. . . . My Diocese takes more the private route, and this is not that they do not go along with Church law which provides for a public profession. Their view of hermit life is that of the more private path. I am in this Diocese, and I have no need to move to find one that is otherwise; both forms are valid and credible.]]

There are some inaccuracies and possibly even attempts at misdirection in what you have cited so let me try to clarify the basic choices in front of a diocese and candidates for eremitical life. First, there are four options for such a person: 1) publicly professed and consecrated (canonical) eremitical life in community (semi-eremitism), 2) publicly professed and consecrated (canonical) solitary eremitical life under canon 603, 3) privately dedicated eremitical life whether in a non-canonical community or as a solitary lay hermit, and 4) solitary lay hermit without private vows or dedication.These four options include two public eremitical vocations (one solitary and one communal) and two private eremitical vocations (one with private vows and one without). A diocese per se ONLY deals with public or canonical professions and consecrations. Private acts of dedication do NOT involve the diocese per se.

Given this basic outline, I understand the confusion you experienced. You see, what you quote makes it sound like the Church consecrates hermits and does so either publicly or privately. It seems to be saying there are two routes to consecrated eremitical life in the Church and that dioceses may choose one or the other. But this is simply not the case. If one is consecrated as a hermit (that is, initiated into the consecrated state as a hermit with an ecclesial vocation) it will ALWAYS occur at a public (that is, a canonical) rite of perpetual profession and consecration. If there is no public rite, and the vows are a private act of devotion and dedication, then one does not become a consecrated person in the church nor a religious or religious hermit. One (presumably) remains called by God to live their eremitical life as a lay person witnessing to the richness of lay life (which also specifically and assuredly resonates with the spirit of the desert elders of the 4-6th centuries) in the Church.

A lot of the confusion in the above quoted passage is rooted in the use and misuse of the term "private". While the common meaning has to do with lack of notoriety, when we are speaking of vows as private we mean vows which do not imply the extension of legal (canonical)  rights and obligations to the candidate beyond those of baptism. These would be private vows and a private act of the individual. The Church as such neither approves nor disapproves such actions per se. When we are speaking of a public profession we are referring to vows via which the Church extends additional legal rights and obligations to the candidate which are assumed by her in her profession.  Private vows do NOT involve the extension or assumption of legal rights. Public vows do. There can be lots of notoriety or none at all. This does not change the nature of the profession. Perhaps the following will make some of this clearer. Let's say, for instance, that a diocese wants to profess and consecrate someone in a country where this ecclesial action  could get that person killed or otherwise make them a target for persecution; in such a case, the rite of profession might be held privately (that is, quietly and without notoriety) but it remains a PUBLIC (canonical) RITE of profession and consecration. 

In other words. to speak of public vows is to mean the persons professed become "public persons" in the Church and representatives of the consecrated (and religious) state even if this is lived out in hiddenness. (Hermits do so with the eremitical life.) With private vows or the dedication of self (popularly referred to as consecrating oneself) no new state of life is assumed nor are the correlative legal rights and obligations which are part and parcel of a new state. The reference to "those whom God wishes to have very private consecrations"  confuses public in the sense of notoriety (or that which is contrary to hiddenness) and public in the canonical sense of "assuming public rights and obligations".

Thus a person who claims their diocese wants to use a more private route than canonical (public) profession in an attempt to suggest they choose their consecrated hermits to be more hidden has either got something wrong somewhere or is trying to obscure the difference between lay and consecrated vocations. A diocese wishing to have only lay hermits (that is, no consecrated solitary or diocesan hermits)  may well decide it is unwise to profess anyone at all under canon 603 but this means they simply allow individuals to pursue eremitical life privately and as lay persons. No diocesan approval or permission is implied in such a case. The lay hermit is doing privately what she has every right to do as a Catholic lay person. Similarly, the use of the term "private consecrations" is also mistaken. The proper term is "dedications". If a diocese decides there will be no public professions and consecrations under canon 603, then private dedications which the person makes herself are the only option. These are not consecrations in the sense that public rites of consecration are because with a private dedication one does not enter another stable state of life; again such acts of dedication are an entirely private matter which do not involve the Church in the public mediation of the call; neither do these result in the individual's profession, consecration by God, or any associated assumption of legal rights and obligations --- which are always publicly mediated by the Church.

To summarize: While some dioceses may refuse to use c 603 yet, NO dioceses as such takes "the more private path" because there is no "more private path" for a diocese as such TO take. Either a diocese will profess persons they discern are called to this canonically (publicly) or they will not do so at all. Those who are not admitted to public (canonical) profession may make private vows and live eremitical life privately. Private vows are always the act of an individual acting independently of the diocese per se. It is an important dedication of self but it is one in which the person is not initiated into the consecrated state nor does one's Bishop (or one's spiritual director) choose this for the person or give one permission for this.

More on Hermits and Private vs Public Obligations, Relationships and Witness, etc.

[[Dear Sister, am I right in saying you are in charge of determining how much solitude is healthy for you, or how much is allowed while maintaining other ecclesial obligations? What if you wanted to spend three months or more in absolute reclusion? Could you do that? How does that work? Your own life is governed by a Rule which you wrote. Could a lay hermit (I mean a hermit who is not a canonical hermit) write a Rule which allowed her to be completely reclusive and not go to Mass regularly? Would this be an example of the competing obligations you spoke of earlier today? My guess is this wouldn't work even though she is doing it to be a hermit --- a good thing and pleasing to God as the Catholicam blogger wrote! I say that because it seems kind of elitist to me.]]

Really great questions and points, especially because they tie into yesterday's posts and the discussion begun on two other blogs and continued here.

Yes, I am largely the one responsible for discerning how much solitude and what kind God is calling me to, what I need for a healthy eremitical life as well as what degree and kind of solitude honors other (sometimes competing) ecclesial and personal obligations. However, neither do I do this alone --- nor could I. I couldn't even say that God alone and I determine this without need for others because it is so easy to delude oneself about what is of God, what God is saying, etc. That was one of the reasons people like Peter Damian and Paul Giustiniani had a healthy caution when it came to the solitary eremitical life which they both esteemed; they saw this life as fraught with peril. One really does need to discuss things, consider what others see and hear (especially what they observe in terms of growth in the hermit's own life and the fruitfulness of her solitude), weigh the consequences, engage in mutual prayer, and so forth. The stable relationships canonical standing creates are necessary for truly discerning what God is calling one to. When a large change like that of reclusion is being considered (and even for a diocesan hermit already living substantial physical solitude reclusion is still a significant change and commitment, and not just for the hermit herself  --- more about that below).

You see, complete reclusion is difficult for a diocesan hermit because she really is responsible for her own upkeep, shopping, errands, and sometimes a limited degree of ministry. For me that means I do regular spiritual direction and assist at the parish for a brief time about one morning a week. However, if I were to determine that I really needed to do something like what you suggest, what I would be likely to do to begin anyway, is to 1) take one or two days a month to see clients during the three month period (I cannot responsibly stop working with people while I am discerning this matter), 2) ask for others in the parish to take on what I am doing there while I continued doing maybe one morning a month for that three month period (if someone can take over that day as well, then that would be fine), and 3) request parishioners to help me by shopping for me, bringing me Communion for the week (there are some alternatives to this but something needs to be worked out), etc. I would probably also elect to meet with my own director at least once or twice during this time. This would not be complete reclusion but it would be the closest to which I could responsibly come right now; if after this kind of period of discernment I determined I was being called to even greater solitude for a longer time then I would need to find ways to achieve that. But, again, all this needs to be discerned.

I have written here before that one of the things a diocesan hermit must be open to is the possibility that God is calling her to reclusion and I am quite serious about that. If I were to discern a call to reclusion, then my Bishop would need to agree and an arrangement with my parish and pastor made to ensure regular reception of the Sacraments, occasional Mass here in the hermitage, and some way to get provisions and have errands run. My expectation would be the diocese and parish would assist with some of this but, as you can see, a lot would need to be worked out and other people would need to make commitments to enable my reclusion. A hermit can never forget the love and faith of those who allow  and often help support and empower her to live solitude in their midst; the situation with reclusion is, again, even more dependent on others as she is given the freedom to explore communion with God. Remember that when, and to whatever extent, we are in union with God we will be called and empowered to regard and treat our brothers and sisters with greater love and solicitude, not with less, and certainly not with a mere abstraction of the word love (e.g., "I love humanity; it's people I despise!" "I love souls, but embodied historical persons are not my concern!") even as we spend our time navel-gazing in the "contemplation" of our own existences! Communion with God fires our hearts and focuses us outward even as it draws us in and requires a real and creative introspection. In my experience, that introspection is meant to be at the service of a greater outward focus toward real people.

Private vs Public Commitments, Rights and Obligations

I am sorry if I was not clear regarding what happens when a lay hermit takes on private obligations (as opposed to the public obligations assumed in public profession); let me repeat some and try to clarify as I go. Since a lay hermit is a baptized Catholic she will have assumed and been charged with the public rights and obligations associated with that commitment. The obligation to attend Mass (Sunday obligation) is part of this. These rights and obligations are legitimate ones meaning the person is bound in law to make them a true priority in her life. If a person makes a private dedication as a hermit she or he remains in his/her current state of life and assumes no additional (or potentially modifying) rights and obligations. Additional rights and obligations are extended to a person by the Church and assumed by that person in public professions and consecrations as well as in ordinations and marriages (!). In Public (canonical) vows the Church mediates God's call and the person's response in a way which binds both the person and the Church in a public act and a new ecclesial relationship.

This means that if a non-canonical or lay hermit decides to write a Rule which demanded she miss Mass on Sundays, for instance, she would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public and ecclesial one she has already accepted as a life obligation. She would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public (legal and moral) one she accepted freely and was charged or commissioned with by the Church. One could not do this apart from other really significant extenuating circumstances and remain a Catholic in good standing --- at least not without seriously deceiving oneself. In such a case, the extenuating circumstances would themselves need to be serious enough to permit the person to miss Mass; being a lay hermit who is privately dedicated to solitude simply wouldn't be sufficient in this way.  In other words, public rights and obligations trump private rights and obligations while legitimate or canonical rights and obligations trump non-canonical rights and obligations in this regard. Because of the differing weights or seriousness of the person's commitments (that is, some that are public and canonical or legitimate, and some which are entirely private) this would not be a good example of what I was speaking about when I mentioned competing obligations; in my usage about that I was referring to competing public and canonical or legitimate obligations all of which publicly (legally and morally) bind the canonically professed hermit.

Public Commitments, A Matter of Relationships and Witness

The reason public vs private are "weighted" in this way is important because of the correlative relationships and witness which attach. Private commitments are, while not unimportant, of less social consequence. After all they are called called private for a reason!  Public commitments issue in public responsibilities to live one's ecclesial commitments in an edifying way and thus, with integrity and with an eye toward how one's actions affect others; this is true even of the hermit whose life is essentially hidden! They involve others, not least in the expectations they allow others to necessarily hold in the committed person's regard; further they are either a witness to others or they represent a betrayal of one's responsibility to witness appropriately to those others. If an avid soccer fan (and a Catholic) sincerely believes God is calling her to watch every game of the World Cup no matter her obligations to spouse, or children, or parish (Church) or God via these other relationships, and decides she is justified in this way, she is lying to herself in one way or another.  Nor is the example she is giving particularly edifying.

To take a  more serious example, if a wife decided she no longer wished to take part in marital relations, nor to care for her family because God was calling her to embrace celibacy and live as a hermit, once again she would be lying to herself and others and failing to witness to the sanctity of marriage and sexual love as she has PUBLICLY committed herself and been commissioned by the Church to do. The Church no longer effectively devalues the Sacramental and legal state of marriage nor profanes marital love in the name of religious life or celibacy as higher values. What then of someone who is legitimately allowed by the Church to call herself a Catholic Hermit and who, without the mutual discernment or approval of legitimate superiors, thereafter claims that God has blocked her way to participate in any significant way in normal ecclesial life (including Mass and the Sacraments) or who contends that the abstract (bloodless) "love of souls" takes the place of concrete love of others? Is this really the message of the Gospel entrusted to the Church? Does this constitute an edifying example of Christian witness? Does it even witness to the vocation of the Catholic Hermit and the way the Church understands that today?

You see, what is also true is that the public commitments in each of these situations is presumed to be an expression of God's will! This is especially so because, as ecclesial realities, they are sanctioned and blessed by the Church. That means there must be pretty significant indications when one proposes changing them for what one privately experiences as the will of God! It also means in some way these private experiences and determinations need to be corroborated or affirmed by others in the Church (meaning pastors, Bishops and their delegates, etc) as well. In the situation you referred to --- a privately dedicated hermit determines she is called by God to reclusion and to cutting herself off from the Sacramental and ecclesial life of the Church symbolized in the minimal obligation of Sunday Mass -- I  was not struck so much by the elitism of the determination (though I certainly agree this person would never allow other Catholics to make the same determination in the name of private revelations and discernment) as I was struck by the extreme individualism, and even narcissism of the situation.

Canon 603 allows for the first time ever in universal law for individuals who are not part of religious communities and congregations to live and explore the depths of the vowed life within the realm of eremitical solitude (communion with God), that is, a life which says God alone is sufficient for us human beings. But it does this with ecclesial vetting, oversight, and support. Far from getting in the way of the individual's relationship with God the structures and relationships set up in canonical standing create a realm of freedom where the individual may truly live a life of assiduous prayer and penance without real concern that she ought to be about something else, some more active ministry, some money-making project for the sake of others, etc.

But the paradox is that this solitary enterprise is taken on for the sake of others and as a specifically ecclesial reality. While other people do not occupy the hermitage with the hermit, their faith and support make this life possible; moreover they look to the hermit for a witness which illumines some dimensions of the Gospel in a particularly sharp or compelling way. The Church has given the faithful this right when it called, professed, and consecrated this hermit from their very midst and then established her hermitage there as well. The bottom line truth here is that the hermitage is a still point in an often chaotic world and this is not for the hermit's benefit alone! She is there at the service of God and others. Not all hermits' lives are good and pleasing to God. A misanthrope's (or other individualist's) isolated shack is not the same as the hermit's dwelling which is always situated in profound relationship to God and others in the heart of the Church.

Questions on Male version of Canon 604

[[Dear Sr. Laurel, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I know about Canon 604 and how certain women can be consecrated virgins, and this consecration can never be dispensed with. But can laymen be consecrated celibates? Is there such a thing? Or would they just make a private vow of chastity? E.g., I know someone who was promiscuous for a number of years, came back to the Church, and made a private vow of chastity. I don't know if he took it a step farther and went through any ceremony with a bishop or priest, but he is a layman and not married, and plans on remaining unmarried. He refers to himself as a "consecrated celibate."]]

The answer to your first question is no. At this point in time there is no vocation for individual lay men who would like to be initiated into the consecrated state in a way similar to consecrated virgins. Rome is said to be talking about reprising the vocation which existed in the early Church (men consecrated in this way were generally called Ascetics), but as far as I know, no steps have been taken to do this. (By the way, a similar vocation has been proposed for widows, and a few Bishops have "consecrated" Widows in this way, but as yet, the vocation has not been ratified by Rome and c 605 which refers to new forms of consecrated life and  demands Bishops' openness to these requires that this ratification occur before it can be considered a new form of consecrated life. Until it does, we do not have consecrated widows either.) Canon 603 governs eremitical life and it is possible for a single lay man to discern an eremitical vocation, but again, this would be vastly different from the vocation of canon 604 or that of ascetics in the early Church. It is emphatically not, as some have reportedly said, the male counterpart to c 604.

If a person decides to remain celibate they may make a private vow. In such a case, they are, for the length of time the vow is kept, dedicated celibates, but not consecrated ones. Despite the wide misuse of the terms consecration or consecrate today as actions referring to one's self-disposition, it remains the case that only God consecrates, only God makes holy or sets aside as holy, only God through the public mediation of the church initiates one into the consecrated state of life. Vatican II was very careful to refer to the human action in profession with terms like dedication, etc and reserved the term consecration for the divine action in such a commitment. Additionally, therefore, its usage is reserved for initiation into the consecrated state of life. To use it otherwise is confusing at best. You see, since initiation into the consecrated state implies public rights and obligations along with new legal relationships as well as necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church (this is one of the reasons this is considered a public commitment), it is unhelpful to use it to refer to someone who has not been formally and publicly called to or accepted those rights and obligations. (By the way, it can and has been argued that no consecration can be dispensed, but the public obligations, rights, and legal relationships attached to the vows and to the consecrated state of life can be dispensed.)

Finally, your friend might have had a priest or Bishop witness his private dedication (or even receive these vows AS PRIVATE), though this is not strictly necessary,  but there is no provision in canon law for the public reception of such a vow by an individual. For this reason, their presence would not change or have changed the entirely private and dedicatory nature of the vow itself. It remains a significant but still-private act of personal dedication.

I hope this is helpful.

On Consecrated Virginity, "Hairsplitting" and "nitpicking"

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is helpful.