Questions re Canon 603 and Public Profession

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps.

A Question on Catechism Paragraphs 920 and 921

Sister Laurel, what you write about the following texts is different from what this other hermit writes about it. Could you explain why that is?

[[What constitutes a consecrated Catholic hermit? The Church is specific in sheer simplicity: "920 Without always professing the three evangelical counsels publicly, hermits 'devote their life to the praise of God and salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance.' "921 They manifest to everyone the interior aspect of the mystery of the Church, that is, personal intimacy with Christ. Hidden from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because he is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One." . . .So it is, too, with the reality of what is a consecrated hermit. It is written out in the Church's Catechism, in two clear-cut, line-item paragraphs. The [specific person] is advised to not debate, question, or reinterpret. Best to succinctly and simply: read; ponder, accept. And live it. ]]

Sure, though I have written about this before so please check out related posts in the labels' list on the right. The two paragraphs taken from the Catechism come from a section called "The Consecrated Life." They  are very brief statements about essentials and therefore presume all the other things the Church teaches about consecrated life to contextualize and understand them properly. Part of that is that initiation into the consecrated state of life is achieved via a public commitment received in the name of the Church. It requires admittance into a stable state of life. State of life here refers to something like lay, consecrated, or ordained states. It does not refer to eremitical life itself.

So, for instance, the glossary at the back of the Catechism reads in part, "Consecrated Life: A permanent state of life recognized by the church, entered freely in response to the call of Christ to perfection and characterized by the profession of the evangelical counsels. . ." Note that private vows do not lead to a permanent state of life. Consecration is defined in the same glossary as, "The dedication of a thing or person to divine service by a prayer or blessing. . ." Thus, the prayer of consecration in Mass in which bread and wine are transformed and set aside as holy, or the prayer of consecration in rites of profession which complements the dedication of the vows. (In the instance of hermits, this prayer is prayed by the Bishop with hands outstretched over the hermit at the rite of perpetual profession.)

Thus, and contrary to what I have written before about these paragraphs including a reference to lay hermits, they do not refer to private vows or private commitments despite the phrase, "without always professing the evangelical counsels publicly." Here, the accent is not on publicly (vs privately), but instead on the possibility of using "other sacred bonds" than the three vows. Diocesan hermits (consecrated solitary hermits) may use a form of commitment other than vows, and are the only form of consecrated life who may do so. This somewhat confusing and clumsy sentence (at least in English!) is a reference to this fact because the definition of Consecrated life refers specifically to the profession of evangelical counsels with vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The exception in the case of diocesan hermits needed to be explicitly mentioned, so the sentence needs to be understood as saying something like, "Diocesan hermits always make a public commitment, but they do not always use vows to do that".

The mistake made by the person you quoted is the mistake of failing to contextualize what s/he read, and treating these paragraphs as though they can be read apart from the established ecclesial definitions of consecrated life, consecration, and the Church's own theology of these things. They cannot, and to do so is to engage in not a simple but a simplistic reading. My own failure in reading these paragraphs was similar: I was confused by the reference to "publicly" and thinking it was used to contrast with "privately." While I was aware Canon 603 says, "or other sacred bonds" (besides vows) I had never heard of a case and thought vows were, at least customarily the way every diocesan hermit went. It took a conversation with a canonist friend to sort that out. In any case, for these reasons I thought these paragraphs also referred to lay hermits (in a somewhat confused way given the heading of the section, The Consecrated Life). I no longer think so, although I think these paragraphs should be edifying to lay hermits.

P.S, the Catechism definition of consecrated life is generally correct (if truncated and minimally helpful to actual hermits) but Canons 603 and 604 both represent exceptions. Canon 603 (diocesan hermits) represents an exception because they may use "other sacred bonds" besides vows. Canon 604 (consecrated virgins) represents an exception because there are no vows at all. Still, they both represent public commitments with initiation into the consecrated state.

Follow-up on Part-time Eremitical Life

Well, I've riled some feathers in responding to questions about the "Saturday-only" hermit. Mainly, I think I have been misheard or misunderstood so I am going to post the comments received and try once again to make clear what I am and am not saying.

[[For heaven's sake, the life of the monastic or hermit is not holy orders. I don't think you have the right to claim that if one's particular vocation in that mileau (sic) is not precisely what has developed heretofore (or, considering how canon law develops, which flavor or style of the life 'won out' over others) that they ought to go back and reconsider their baptismal vows. My goodness, what an uncharitable remark. My mother is a Ph.D. in nursing; is she a better nurse than a first year? She'd be the first to tell me, after 45 years in nursing, it depends on the nurse. All of your arguments in your responding post seem to follow the fallacy that more time in service or more closely aligned with a particular mode of canon law makes one a better hermit. Bah. Is my close friend, a Jesuit of 50 years a better priest than the newest member? Is a Saturday only theologian better than a 7-day-per-week theologian (frankly a closer analogy since neither involve a sacrament)?]]

I am honestly not sure what I said that was uncharitable in suggesting that anyone in the lay state (or for that matter anyone in any state) reconsider their baptismal promises and commitments. The situation I was addressing was this: there is a failure throughout the church to esteem the lay state, to see it as possessing the dignity it does. What has happened over time and for a number of reasons (including the clericalization of the church) is that when adults desire to make adult commitments to and in Christ they look not first to their baptismal promises (or even to their marriage vows) and to specifiying those vows as needed at this point in time, but automatically to the idea of multiplying vows (and so making private or public vows) as the only form of adult commitment possible besides ordination. Sometimes these even conflict with marriage vows as when married people seek to make vows of celibacy.)

Further, because the Church has consistently given the impression or explicitly stated because of a misreading of Thomas that the laity are in an inferior state of vocation, those who really desire to live the fullness of discipleship have come to believe it will only be possible for priests, nuns, brothers, sisters, monks, hermits, and consecrated virgins --- and not as lay persons. But this is untrue. Vatican II was clear about this. The lay state is part of a universal call to holiness, an adult and exhaustive form of holiness which glorifies God every bit as much as any other vocation or state of life. How it is uncharitable to ask people to START here, and if they are in the lay state to take responsibility for that and for the call to holiness and the dignity of this vocation, I really can't see. This has nothing to do with hermits or non-hermits. It is a problem in the church as a whole, and a quite serious one. We have hundreds of thousands of lay people who believe their vocations are second-class or juvenile and less exhaustive forms of discipleship than those of nuns, brothers, priests, etc. They live and are pained everyday by the sense that their call from/by God is an inferior one. I have simply said this is not the case. The Church has emphatically said this is not the case. So I don't see this as uncharitable but charitable.

I do not know why the discussion morphed into terms of better/worse or younger/older either. I have tried assiduously to reject characterizations framed in terms of better and worse. For instance, I have written time and again that consecrated hermits are no better than lay hermits, but rather that the rights and obligations they have in the Church because of their canonical standing are different. Again, I think we are seeing in your comments the deeply entrenched holdover from the misapplied scholastic language of "objective superiority". That is especially true of your comment that neither monastic nor eremitical lives are holy orders or matters of a Sacrament -- as though that makes them less significant. It does not. For certain, the better/worse language did not come from my posts because in regard to vocations and states of life I reject it absolutely. Thomas also rejected this language and so he drew careful arguments noting that an objectively superior state of life does NOT mean a subjectively better or more holy Christian. Today, the solution needs to be formulated differently than Thomas did; the various states of life are different from one another, with different rights, obligations, and responsibilities, but none are better than the others. Each one is rooted in a call by God and is invested with infinite worth and dignity. Again, different, not better.

Regarding younger/older and experienced/in-experienced, there is no doubt that we all grow into our vocations. Those who wish to be hermits may begin by building in silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world. In and of itself this does not make them a hermit. At some point solitude herself MAY open the door to these people and a change takes place if they accept the invitation to enter. In such a case they are no longer solitary persons grappling with the individual elements of the canon or life. Instead, they are hermits in a fundamental sense now living the silence of solitude and allowing (or learning to further allow) everything else to flow from and support that life. Once the door has been opened and one has walked through it in response, growth continues (or should continue). Meanwhile, the central reality of these persons' lives -- the silence of solitude which is a short hand reference to union with God and the quies that flows from it --- will call for greater external silences, stricter separation from the world, etc. Again, not better or worse, but different!

[[And please, Sister, let's not use the straw man fallacy. Comparing a person's Saturday only eremitc life with a saturday only state of motherhood is pathetic. Sorry, it is. Do I need to spll (sic) it out? If one has committed one's heart to a solitary life as best as they are able, but it involves work outside the home, what is that to you? A mother and spouse have an entirely other promise--of course they don't get (much) time off. The point is that I am and many are pushing the meaning of words and of particular callings. You are not, and neither is canon law, the first or last word on what constitutes an eremitic life. You certainly are the last word on what it constitutes to you and those of your persusion or particular charism, but that's it. Period. Don't lay down roadbloacks to others. The fact that is that there IS a groundswell, a grass-roots movement of folks, in the married or other secular states looking for a deeper commitment to their spiritual development, with expression in their lifestyle and self-styling--they are allowed to use old words in new ways. Especially when they don't impinge on the nature of the sacramental forms.

I think the analogy holds. If a person babysits a child once a week, that does not make her a Mother no matter how badly she would like to be one. If a person lives an eremitical or desert day once a week, this does not make her a hermit or desert dweller no matter how much she would like to think it does. The illustrations can be multiplied: if a person leads a Communion Service once a week (or even several days a week) on his pastor's day(s) off, this does not make him a priest or pastor (though he may be very priestly and pastoral). If a person prays contemplatively once a week this does not make them a contemplative. A person who spends a day a week at a monastery or enclosed in their own house is not necessarily a monk or nun who lives a cloistered life. It is simply not appropriate or accurate to speak of a Saturday-only eremitical LIFE as you have done --- unless you are speaking about a hermit who is actually failing to live her call to a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and separation from the world, etc. Here the distinction another diocesan hermit once drew might be helpful: many people are called upon to build in elements of eremitical spirituality in their lives, but this does not make them hermits nor argue that they are called to eremitical life per se. Put another way we could say that some people's lives have an eremitical flavor or cast without being eremitical lives.

You can and probably should feel free to push the meaning of words all you like, but in doing so you need to beware of emptying them of meaning altogether and making them incapable of communicating anything substantive. You should also not be surprised however when the onus of demonstrating the legitimacy of your usage falls directly on you. Whether we like it or not, the Church has a normative understanding of what constitutes eremitical life. Those of us who live that from the inside know the wisdom of this definition. We know from the inside what the struggles and joys of FULL-TIME silence of solitude, etc, mean -- as opposed to a single desert day a week -- for instance. There is simply no comparison. Both are good, but they are also not the same thing, and they require different names as a result. The Church's normative statement (Canon 603) has been formulated in a way which ensures certain non-negotiable and foundational elements even while it allows flexibility and diversity in expression. You are mistaken then if you believe canon law is not open to newness in this regard, and you are certainly mistaken if you say that I am not. However, to push words in ways where they may mean anything one would like is simply to ensure they mean nothing at all.

As I have written now a number of times, a hermit who needs to work outside the hermitage on a part-time basis is not ideal but this can still be made to work on a case by case basis. However, someone who needs to work FULL-TIME, especially outside the hermitage has, I sincerely believe, ceased in essential ways to live the fundamental elements which define the life. Meanwhile, back to the Saturday-only example which is even more troublesome:  one day a week of contemplative prayer, silence and solitude is NOT an eremitical LIFE. It is a wonderful and helpful thing, but it is not what Canon 603 (or the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the whole eremitical tradition) recognizes as an eremitical LIFE. The reason this is important is because the Church recognizes eremitical life as she discerns it is to be defined as a pastoral gift to the Church and world. (See  below.)

[[So, I think we should just agree to disagree. I guess it comes down to who is the more accepting here? What is the most compassionate response? For that matter, why don't you go back and consider your own baptismal vows---why weren't they enough? What makes your life intrinsically 'other' than other's? It doesn't sound very nice the other way, does it?]]

While we may agree to disagree, there is a distinction between being genuinely accepting and merely being uncritical and uncaring of meaning or truth. Compassion requires that we be truly loving, and it is not loving to allow a person to live a lie, or to empty meaningful terms of content when that content is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and World. Canon 603 is such a gift. It defines the nature of eremitical life in a world and at a time when dislocation, isolation, alienation, and the search for meaning in our isolation and alienation are rampant. Even so, it is a canon which allows for great diversity even while (and perhaps because) it clearly spells out foundational, or non-negotiable elements comprising authentic solitary eremitical life. It is the entire vision of eremitical life which it provides us which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to both the Church and world.

I will repeat my main point from the other post because this is the true answer to "What is it to you?" above as well. FULL-TIME hermits who have allowed isolation and marginality to be redeemed and thus transformed into the "Silence of solitude," can speak effectively to all those persons in our parishes, dioceses, neighborhoods and world who CANNOT leave their situations for time off one day a week -- those who are chronically ill, disabled, the isolated elderly, impoverished, etc. Hermits' lives are compassionate answers to many of the most significant questions these myriads of people have and are. These people need to know that their aloneness is not a sign of the senselessness of life or abandonment by God, but the ground out of which God can call them to the silence of solitude and union with himself. I don't think a person who is busy, engaged, working, socializing 5-6 days a week, and then takes a day for silence, solitude, and contemplative prayer can effectively serve in this way. Hermits, whether lay or consecrated, who live the terms of Canon 603 with the whole of their lives CAN minister to these people in a way I believe no one else can do quite as fully or effectively. I believe this ministry is part of the charism of eremitical life and a reason the life (not the avocation) is growing today. It is certainly a reason eremitical spirituality is growing today, but again, embracing elements of this spirituality does not make one a hermit anymore than my own embracing of elements of Ignatian spirituality makes me a Jesuit.

Finally then, on the question regarding my own call to something other than the lay state. This is not a new question and I have written on it before two years ago or so, so please check that out. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: My credibility regarding the Importance of the Lay Vocation My own discernment of this took several extended periods of time, and my discernment of a call to consecrated eremitical life rather than lay eremitical life took about 25 years. In answering that call finally (with perpetual profession and consecration) I did so because I felt called to accept rights and responsibilities that did not flow from baptismal commitments, but from a different call as well: I was called (both subjectively and objectively) to consecrated celibacy and a nuptial or spousal relationship with Christ, and I was called to witness to that publicly with a form of love which was more eschatological and universal than otherwise. I was called to be obedient in a way which specified my usual call to obedience with a legitimate superior, the elements of Canon Law, the Church's definition of eremitical life, etc, and again, I was called to do that publicly. The same is true of poverty. I felt called to a degree and kind of poverty which does not automatically flow from the baptismal or lay state. I found I needed this commitment to live freely what I felt called to.

But let me be clear, I did indeed live my baptismal commitments fully before this and I realized that I might well never be admitted to the consecrated state as a hermit if the Church did not agree that this was God's own Call for me AND FOR THE CHURCH. (In that case, I would need to come to terms with the idea that perhaps I had not discerned properly). In fact the Church DID agree, and mediated God's own call, my response and profession, and God's consecration to me. Had the Church said no, I would have remained in the lay state, a lay hermit, and tried to live this full-time life in a way which glorified God and gave honor to the lay state. It would have been a different life, one where I would still be doing much of what I am doing now, but with different rights and responsibilities in terms of the Church. (I need to say here that the fact that I DID come to terms with living as a lay hermit is important to who I am today as diocesan hermit and allows me to esteem lay eremitical life better than I think some do. It also allows me to appreciate the differences between the two forms of eremitical call. So again, as I well know --- these are not to be seen in terms of better or second-best, but different.)

Those different rights and responsibilities include the living out of Canon 603 with the whole of my life in as faithful a way as I can. Part of the responsibility means learning more and more about the forms and fundamentals of the eremitical life over the past @2000 years of Church life and why they are included in the canon. It means standing in that tradition and taking it on in ways which allow it to speak to the contemporary world. It does not mean emptying the term of meaning or trying to apply new senses to it before I understand from WITHIN the life and have thus accepted a personal responsibility for it. "Hermit" is not a word without history or meaning, and while the application of this meaning can certainly vary, like most things we need to accept the basic meaning and live it before we start jettisoning bits in the name of some sort of individual liberty.

I hope this clarifies some points of misunderstanding.

Dedicare vs Consecrare, Half-way States, and Related Questions

Dear Sr. Laurel, I want to commend you, first of all, for your most erudite and intelligent posts, esp. regarding the "Intercessors of the Lamb" and all that has gone on. Fabulous! However. I have become very heavy of heart in reading your commentary on the status of "Public Associations of the Faithful". I have a copy of Fr. Gambari's book stating that those in Public Associations of the Faithful, while not belonging to an Institute of Consecrated Life, do indeed live a consecrated life, within the framework of a Public Association; they are considered to be consecrated "theologically" while not "canonically", as members of an Institute of Consecrated Life, acknowledged by the Church.

For those of us who have made vows, under the diocesan bishop, in an Association of the Faithful, Public, there is a "midway" point; it is not considered to be 'public' in the same way as a diocesan institute, a diocesan hermit, nor in the case of a consecrated virgin consecrated by a bishop (realizing that this is not a "vowed" state, but a consecrated state); Fr. Gambari makes it clear that those in this situation are considered "consecrated persons" but not those in an institute of consecrated life.

I think you may be too rigid in your definition of what consecrated life entails. From my understanding, a man or woman may make consecration to the evangelical counsels under a bishop without belonging to an institute of consecrated life, while not belonging to either the order of hermits nor of consecrated virgins. There is a "half-way"...of diocesan oblates....those men or women who would make consecration to the evangelical counsels at the service of a Diocese under a bishop who would not belong to an institute of consecrated life nor any of the ancient orders. I'm just bringing this to your attention. You are doing great work in making these matters known. Please do not take this as a criticism of what you have said. I am just offering this to you as further information. ]]

Dear Father,
I can understand your concerns and the depth of your feelings here. I actually know them first hand from both sides of the dedicare/consecrare distinction. The theological dimension of any significant form of dedication or commitment should be recognized and esteemed. Again, as I have said before, there is nothing insignificant about lay life, nor about private or non-canonical vows. (And by private vows I mean any vows the Church herself does not regard as public and which do not bind in LAW or create necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church as public vows do. The latter is also true of non-canonical vows made by members of non-canonical communities.) There is no doubt that there is a serious moral and theological dimension to EVERY vow, resolution, act of personal dedication, etc. Fr Gambari's work MAY be attempting to do justice to that dimension, as well as looking at the diverse ways the Spirit moves in the Church. I don't know (the book is out of print and I have not read it).

But I do know that Vatican II worked mightily to reverse elitist trends and get the laity to embrace their part in the universal call to holiness. If, beyond the vows and promises associated with the sacraments of initiation, laity feel called and wish to make commitments which specify their baptismal consecration, and if they truly require these to live their baptismal commitments fully (the reasons here would need to be substantial for additional vows or promises), then those commitments should be regarded. However, this does not mean these commitments are synonymous with initiation into the consecrated state of life any more than it means Baptism per se signifies entry into this particular state. Nor should it mean this. Were this to happen we simply would continue to foster the sense that lay life is not a significant calling to holiness, that is, it is not, in and of itself, special or capable of representing an exhaustive form of discipleship. I am afraid all this talk of "middle" or "half-way" states makes me feel that the realization of the mandate of Vatican II in regard to the laity is still very far away --- and I say this as a theologian, not as a canonist, for I am emphatically NOT the latter.

Let me respond to one of the specific examples you gave, and also note that in doing so I have consulted with a canonist on some of what I am saying here. I will start with the issue of diocesan oblates. I have never heard of such a thing so it sounds like a local practice. It is unclear from your description whether these are individuals or a group of people. At this point, let me assume it refers to individuals who may be akin to what is sometimes called a "diocesan sister". In such a case we would be speaking about a potentially new form of consecrated life not yet recognized in Canon Law, similar to the male equivalent to consecrated virgins perhaps -- which some would like to see recognized as a new form of consecrated life. While a Bishop may (and in fact is encouraged to) discern "new forms of Consecrated Life" these forms must, according to Canon Law (c 605) be ratified by the Apostolic See before being considered new forms of consecrated life. (The authority to do this is specifically reserved to the Holy See who amends Canon Law with a Motu Proprio. Bishops may not do so on their own. On the other hand, Institutes of Consecrated Life MAY be erected by a Bishop when the Apostolic See is consulted but this requires a formal Bishop's decree.)

In such cases the titles, etc which are associated with the consecrated state MAY be extended to individuals or groups while the Church discerns the nature of the vocation at hand but unless and until the Church mediates God's own call to enter the consecrated state of life to the person through public profession, the individuals themselves still remain in the lay state. Their dedication of themselves to God is a significant specification of their baptismal vows nonetheless. Legitimate and valuable speculation about "theological consecration," (or what I have heard referred to as "passive consecration" as opposed to "active consecration") and reflection on the moral dimension of personal dedication to God may occur among theologians and canonists, but this cannot and ought not be confused with what is identified by the Church at this point in time as entrance into the consecrated state of life. In terms of Canon Law there is indeed an anomaly with regard to secular institutes (which have semi-public vows), but here members remain lay (or ordained). They do not enter the consecrated state of life.

Once again, the rule (exceptions mentioned below are cc 603-604) is that the consecrated state is entered by public vows (which means more than that these vows are made in public even if witnessed by the Bishop). Public vows are RECEIVED (not simply witnessed by someone) in the Name of the Church and are canonical vows which bind legally in ways private vows do not. (So, for instance, as part of the vow formula of public profession and consecration, and with the person's hands in the Bishop's own, a sentence like the following will be included: "I ask you, Bishop_______, as Bishop of the Diocese of_______*** to accept my vows in the name of the Church and to grant me your blessing. May the Word of God which I touch with my hand today be my life and my inspiration, this I pray.") Except for the anomaly already mentioned all other vows, no matter the venue in which they are made or who is present, are private.

*** (N.B This part of the formula may refer to the legitimate superior with authority to act in the name of the Church who may not be (and usually is not) the Bishop. However, the person MUST have the authority and the intention of receiving public vows in the name of the Church.)

Theological and Canonical speculation and reflection may lead eventually to changes in Universal Law and to the Church publicly affirming new forms and expressions of consecrated life. However, as it stands now the distinction between entering the consecrated state through profession AND the mediation of God's own consecration of the person, and remaining in the lay state with significant dedication of one's life to God even through the use of private vows, is linked to public vows except in two cases. These are, consecrated virgins (no vows at all) and those relatively unusual diocesan hermits making their public commitment through sacred bonds other than vows. These stable forms of life are both specifically recognized and provided for in Canon Law and their associated rites of profession or consecration are public in the canonical or ecclesial sense of that word. At this point in time there are no other exceptions, no other new and stable forms of consecrated life recognized by the Church. As the CCC affirms after noting that every person is called to live the evangelical counsels (par 915): [[It is the profession of these counsels within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.]]

Given the confusion and even concern caused by the (sometimes indiscriminate and injudicious) use of habits by the HIOL and triggered by their suppression, not to mention the thousands of cases of people calling themselves "consecrated" while adding "though privately," mistaking private vows for public ones because they are witnessed by a priest during Mass despite the fact that these do not bind in Law in the same way public vows do, adopting religious garb on their own initiative, etc, and especially given the very clear and assiduously maintained distinction between dedicare and consecrare in the documents of Vatican II, I believe the CCC and Canon Law leave no wiggle room for half-way states in this specific regard. I strongly believe we should use the second Vatican Council's language here and respect the distinction it clearly maintained, just as we should work harder on assisting everyone to truly and seriously regard the place of the lay state in the universal call to holiness and as a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world.

While the proliferation of associations and institutes which desire to be institutes of consecrated life MAY represent the work of the Holy Spirit with regard to potential and diverse expressions of consecrated life, they may also (or instead) be a piece of the Church's heritage of failure to esteem lay life adequately and its propensity to make the lay state a kind of second or third-class reality in the Church. Only through mutual discernment will this be determined and groups either remain lay or be publicly recognized as part of and their members be initiated into the consecrated state; until and unless this discernment occurs the positing of half-way or middle states (which supposedly represent neither the lay nor the consecrated state) seems detrimental to the challenge of adequately regarding lay life. It is theologically problematical, canonically unjustified, and, it seems to me, does an injustice to both the lay and consecrated states. I do promise to read more about this (especially if I can find a copy of Gambari's book) and consult further with the canonist I mentioned. In the meantime, many thanks for your email.

Question on Consecration vs Dedication

[[Sister Laurel, you speak of consecration and being "initiated" into the consecrated state as though it means more than the person making vows or dedicating his life to God. You also refer to something "objective" happening besides what happens "subjectively." Doesn't this make of religious profession something kind of "magical"? . . .]](I will need to answer the rest at another time. My thanks for your patience.)


Yes, in recent posts on the former HIOL, and in others over the past three years I have spoken in this way. I would suggest you look at labels having to do with "dedicare vs consecrare" for instance for more detailed discussion of the topic than I will give right now. Let me summarize it this way: despite the common use of the term consecrate (for instance: "I consecrate myself to God. . .") the documents of Vatican II were very careful in distinguishing between this less accurate and the more proper usage. Therein, VII INVARIABLY used terms like dedicare or in mancipare for the HUMAN element in profession, and consecrare for the DIVINE element.

In the rite of perpetual profession there are correlative moments: 1) After the Word of God and Homily the person is called forth formally and replies "You have called me, Lord. Here I am." (or something similar), 2) she is examined on her readiness to answer/accept this call in all of it aspects with and for the whole of her life, 3) she prostrates while the entire Church in heaven and on earth are called upon to witness and participate in what is about to happen to her through the Church's mediation (the Litany of the Saints is sung here), 4) with her hands on the book of the Gospels she makes her profession of vows in the hands of a legitimate superior (for the hermit it is her Bishop), and the vow formula is placed and signed on the altar 5) the Bishop, with hands extended, prays a prayer of solemn consecration over her thus mediating God's own consecration of her, and 6) the insigniae of profession and consecration are given to her.

The entire rite is meant to mediate God's call to the person in an effective or performative way and to receive the person's vows (part of the mediation process and dynamic), but please note the central elements, ## 3,4 and 5. In the rite of profession for temporary vows there is no prostration and no prayer of consecration though there IS a prayer for God's grace in its stead. In the rite of perpetual profession this then is replaced by the "Solemn Blessing or Consecration of the Professed". (Note that consecration is only referred to here, not at the profession of vows per se.)

In the Rite of Consecration of Virgins the distinction between dedication and consecration is even clearer. Here the virgin makes no vows at all. She is asked several questions regarding readiness to follow Christ and then she is asked if she is resolved to accept solemn consecration as a bride of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note the rite in no way suggests the person is consecrating herself to God. There is a prayer and statements of resolution to follow Christ in perfect chastity. Following this there is a long prayer of "Solemn Consecration" followed by the presentation of insigniae. For diocesan hermits who choose to dedicate themselves publicly without vows, but instead make a public resolution, oath, or some other form of sacred bond, this is also received by (made in the hands of) and followed by the formal or actual consecration by their Bishop.

I don't think there is anything magical here in the sense I believe you mean it. But mysterious and awesome? Yes. The Church has discerned this vocation with the person. In light of this she acts to mediate God's own call and "setting apart" of this person as a sacred person. Only God can make sacred. Only God may consecrate. Only God may hallow. These are the verbs which are proper to God himself. When the Church acts "in his name" she acts in the power of his person and allows God to act through her. This is fundamental Catholic theology and ecclesiology. Thus, similarly to what happens in baptism, the person is objectively changed by what occurs in public perpetual profession or the consecration of a virgin. (This is why religious profession has often been treated as a new baptism or as sacramental in character.) The point though, with regard to HIOL and private vows is that only the dedicare portion of the equation occurs there, not the consecrare aspect. This certainly means the dedications and professions of evangelical counsels by HIOL members was serious and sincere. But they were not ALSO consecrations in the sense that Vatican II and the Rite of Religious Profession uses the term.

Question on Private vows: Consecrare versus Dedicare

[[Sister O'Neal, you have written about the difference between private vows and public vows as the difference between a person consecrating themselves to God, and God consecrating the person. Are there actual church documents that indicate such a difference? Isn't consecration consecration whether private or public? (I have private vows so the question is important to me.)]]

Your questions are excellent and they point up an area where my own writing and speaking here has been imprecise. In part, in earlier posts I drew a distinction between active and passive consecration because of the work of another writer on consecrated life, but that may not be adequate. This is because I had not looked at the original language used in several church documents in some time, so your question gave me the chance to do that. The results are significant and will actually cause me to change the way I speak about this matter in the future. In particular, I will no longer speak of a person consecrating herself to God, and try to reserve the term consecration for an action of God only --- for in the strict sense making holy or setting apart as a member of the consecrated state is something only God does; consecration is a divine and not a human action. (Accepted common usage allows one to speak of consecrating something or oneself to God though, but this is really misleading and confusing. What remains true, whatever usage one eventually adopts is the two kinds of ACTION must be distinguished from one another.)

It is in the documents of Vatican II where one finds a clear distinction between what is a divine action and what is a human action. In Lumen Gentium and Perfectae Caritatis, for instance the verb consecrare and noun consecratio are never used for the human element in profession. When the human element is meant, these documents use terms like, se devovere, mancipare, and dedicare. (I have not looked at JP II's Vita Consecrata closely or in the original Latin in this particlar regard, so I can't yet speak to that.) As noted above, what is clear though is that the pertinent documents of Vatican II draw a distinction between consecration, which is something God does, and dedication (etc), which is the corresponding human action involved in profession. Now, if this latter usage is true of the human element in public profession, it is equally true in private profession. At the same time, what is missing in private vows besides the calling forth in the name of the Church is the entire prayer/rite of consecration which is part of perpetual or solemn public profession. This is true whether or not one uses "consecration" in the broad and common sense of dedication or not.

When one is consecrated to and by God through the mediation of the Church in a formal and juridical act, one is set apart in a new state of life ("status"), viz., the consecrated state. Through ecclesial mediation one is changed; it is sometimes spoken of as analogous to the change being effected in the consecration of bread and wine. (I have seen this analogy used by dioceses and archdioceses in explaining the nature of the consecration of a woman in regard to the Consecration of Virgins and, though I would define this change in the person cautiously and specifically in terms of being made fit to receive the graces, rights and obligations of a new state of life, I adopt it here.) Private vows do not involve such mediation by the church or such an act of transformation even though one is (presumably) led by God to make such vows. What this essentially means is that private vows ordinarily mark a continuing lay vocation (that is, it involves no change in state of life); public vows mark a vocation to the consecrated and/or religious state (status). Both involve the significant dedication of self to God and are meaningful and important vocations; both are presumably embraced as responses to the Holy Spirit, but they differ at the same time.

Your own private vows are a specification and intensification of your baptismal vows; your dedication to God is significant, and I personally hope you will reflect on and find ways to share what they mean for the lay vocation. It is actually too bad that while we have the reality of private vows and many lay people with such vows, most of the writing and reflecting about such things are done by priests and religious! This is especially true, I think, in a world so thoroughly secularized and needing the witness of those who resist this secularization while remaining firmly within the world of ordinary temporal affairs. However, it is also true because while the church esteems the lay vocation, she has a long history either of not doing so adequately or of mainly leaving the reflection on it to those who are not part of the lay state. The result is a failure to hear how truly important the lay vocation is from the inside of that vocation --- and that is always sadly inadequate. If, for instance, I write about the importance of the lay eremitical vocation it always raises the question of why it is I did not choose to live as one then. The same inadequacy results often when some people make private vows because on some level they are actually not affirming their own lay vocation; instead they are affirming they do not believe it is "enough"; religious life is better, lay life (they believe) is an entry level vocation only. Unfortunately, until Vatican II, the Church made this way of thinking all-too-easy. So, again, I hope you will find ways to reflect on and write about your own vocation. I believe both it and your own doing this are critically important to many more people than you might know.

Whether one adopts the distinction between passive and active consecrations mentioned in Centered in Christ (Roberts, OCSO), continues to use "consecrate" in the broad and common sense of dedicating to God, or adopts the less ambiguous and (I think) theologically more adequate conciliar linguistic distinction between consecrare and dedicare (etc) to underscore the differences involved, what remains true is that in private vows one is not initiated into the consecrated state. This particular setting apart requires an act of God, and that is one which the church clearly teaches is always mediated by the Church in a public and juridical (canonical) act; it is another (and even the primary) reason vocations to the consecrated state are called ecclesial vocations.

I hope this helps. As always, if this raises more questions or is unclear in some way, please get back to me.