On Moving to Another Diocese: Diocesan Hermits vs Consecrated Virgins

[[dear Sister, why is it you [a diocesan hermit] would need the permission of both Bishops if you [a diocesan hermit] were leaving one diocese and moving to another? I don't think consecrated virgins need permission of a new Bishop, so why do you?]]

Thanks for the question. As I understand the issue, there is a difference in Consecrated Virgins and diocesan Hermits that is pretty fundamental. Diocesan hermits make vows and are thus considered religious where Consecrated Virgins do not. CV's do promise to remain chaste in their virginal state and like anyone in the Church the evangelical counsels are important to their lives, but they do not have a vow of religious obedience and the Bishop does not take on the responsibilities of legitimate superior in their case. Their bishop is rightly said and asked to have a "special relationship" with CV's in his diocese, but this is not one that binds in obedience in the way a vow of (religious) obedience does for a c 603 hermit. Canon 603 reads that the hermit's life is undertaken under the direction of the local ordinary. This is not a reference to spiritual direction, but more to the "direction" of a role like that of "Novice Director" or "Director of Juniors" in a religious congregation. Vows are made in his hands and he is thus a legitimate superior; the term direction underscores this.

While I don't personally think bishops generally find the direction (or supervision) of a hermit is particularly onerous (delegates serving as "quasi-superiors" or "directors" are a major assist in governing here), it is still a different matter than in the relationship that exists between a Consecrated Virgin and her bishop. Thus, before a Bishop takes on such a responsibility with a hermit proposing to move to his diocese, he will be certain the hermit is in good standing with the original diocese and meet with the hermit in order to decide whether or not he can take on this responsibility. There may be good reasons he decides he cannot. My sense is CV's will meet with a new bishop as an important piece of courtesy and also to begin establishing what is meant to be a significant relationship with both bishop and diocese, and I believe some are writing as though this rises to the level of "permission" but I don't think this last bit is accurate. In any case, c. 603 hermits require a new bishop's agreement to accept their vows and serve as legitimate superior, otherwise, though consecrated, in moving to a new diocese they would have to leave the consecrated state with its ecclesial rights and obligations.

p.s. I should have clarified this earlier. A diocesan hermit does not need "permission" of both bishops, though that is a shorthand way of saying both bishops will be involved. Hermits will need the "cooperation" of their home bishop in attesting to their good standing in the diocese and the permission or formal acceptance of their vows by the bishop of the new diocese.

Followup Questions: On the Supposed Difference Between the Espousal of Religious and Consecrated Virgins

[[Dear Sister, if both religious and consecrated virgins are called to a similar espousal with God, then why are some nuns consecrated as virgins and some not? This seems to argue that there is something different in these two vocations. Why would nuns also want to accept the consecration of virgins if they are already espoused to God as Brides of Christ? Since some Sisters eschew the identity of "Bride of Christ" doesn't this also suggest they are not Brides in the same sense as CV's consecrated under c 604?]]

Thanks for your questions. I think the question of why we continue using the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for nuns is a really thorny one today. It will take some real thinking to deal with the problems it creates as well as the good it represents. However, I don't think it allows us to conclude there is necessarily any conflict nor substantive difference here. Remember that the Church specifies that for a nun eventually ALSO receiving the consecration of virginity after solemn profession --- even some limited time (e.g., several days or weeks) after the rite of profession --- the symbols of espousal usually given at solemn profession along with the solemn prayer of consecration are withheld until the Rite of consecration of virginity. The idea here is that these are not substantively different consecrations and therefore they are not to be repeated. (If profession of vows were merely an "engagement" and consecration of virginity represented the actual marriage as some CV's naively and erroneously argue, then this specific withholding of ring and solemn prayer of consecration would not make much sense. Similarly if profession were the way in which someone consecrates herself while in the Rite of consecration of Virgins it is God doing the consecrating --- as some CV's also sometimes argue erroneously --- then this division would not make much sense either.)

Why do Some Nuns use the Rite and others do not?

Some religious do not receive the consecration because their congregations are not permitted to use the Rite.  (The use of the rite by Religious is restricted to Carthusians and maybe one of two other congregations of cloistered nuns.) Cloistered communities that are allowed to use the Rite may consist of women who were once married as well as virgins but only the virgins among them might receive this consecration; these congregations may also have  nuns whose prayer lives are explicitly nuptial and who wish to formalize that through the Rite. My own impression is that this could be done through the readings, imagery, prayer, and homilies associated with solemn profession and consecration (profession is the dedication piece of things; it is accompanied by a solemn prayer of consecration) --- especially if the house is only professing one or two nuns; with a larger group the chances of needing to accommodate differences in prayer lives and personal sense of mission increases. Though I appreciate that these congregations have kept alive a form of ancient vocation which is traditionally very significant and while they also serve today to remind CV's consecrated under canon 604 that their own vocation by way of contrast is a call to a renewed form of secularity, I don't think we can argue that the Rite of consecration of virgins used for nuns marks the nun as someone called to a different consecration than her Sisters who do not use the Rite. And yet, some CV's seem to believe this is exactly what it suggests.

For me this uneven practice within houses of nuns actually raises the question of the appropriateness and fruitfulness of continuing to use the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for nuns who are solemnly vowed and whose rite of  definitive profession already includes a solemn prayer of consecration and Bridal significance, imagery, and insigniae. This is especially true since the earliest consecrated virgins did not have to be physically intact, but were women who had given themselves wholly to Christ and were therefore considered "virgins" and more, consecrated virgins. Today we really do need consecrated virgins to whole-heartedly accept their own call to an eschatological secularity and it occurs to me that too often the existence of nuns who add the Rite of consecration of virgins to their own solemn profession (minus its usual solemn prayer of consecration) diminishes the sense that secularity is an appropriate form of espousal to Christ. This is also true because these nuns became the group that eventually completely co-opted the use of the Rite among those living secular lives and led to an end of the secular expression. Certainly it can lead to the idea that religious life is tiered and that some are made to experience Christ's love more intimately than others because they are "chosen" by God to be consecrated in a way substantially different from their Sisters (and Brothers!). We have to be cautious of any interpretation of the use of the rite of consecration of virgins which leads in this direction.

Because of the tendency by some today to treat the consecration of religious and that of CV's as being of different weights or degrees, a further piece of my answer to your questions comes from a consideration of the fact that the French Bishops have made it clear that hermits being consecrated under canon 603, for instance, should not add the consecration of canon 604 to this. They have noted that each consecration is complete in itself. One does not add anything by adding the consecration of virgins to consecration under canon 603. Dioceses in the US have adopted this policy (i.e., today we do not see canon 603 professions and consecrations of diocesan hermits accompanied, much less "completed" with consecrations  of virginity under canon 604) and it seems that canonists generally tend to find it a wise policy.  Were one consecration so different in character from the other that the other could be added (for instance if one were  "constitutive" and one was not), or if one were a fuller or more complete form of the first, none of this would make sense.

Religious Eschewing the Designation Bride of Christ

Meanwhile contemporary Religious who have shunned the identification, "Brides of Christ" have done so for several legitimate reasons. The most important one is that the identification was used in an elitist sense and also one which stripped or tended to strip it of its eschatological meaning. It was seen as indicating marriage in an incredible and mainly "this-worldly" sense by many; at the same time ONLY religious associated this imagery or vocation with themselves --- married people, for instance, though they should have seen themselves as imaging the ecclesial call to espousal to Christ as well, did not. Single persons had no sense at all of being participants in this eschatological call by virtue of their baptism. In general the Church per se was not easily seen as the Bride of Christ with, for instance, religious and married people serving as related but differing icons of this identity.

Further, many Sisters' prayer lives were not similar to those of persons with mystical experiences of union with God. This, coupled with an exaggerated emphasis on religious as Brides of Christ, led to unnecessary self-criticism of their own prayer lives, and unwarranted doubt about the quality of their own vocations; in short, it was destructive. Finally, most Sisters today find the Bride of Christ imagery less helpful than imagery of Sisters or Brothers who identified with everyone and  resonated with imagery that spoke clearly of their availability to all as well as to the universal call to holiness so very important to Vatican II. None of this detracts from or obviates the espousal of religious to Christ, but it does remind us that the reality of espousal can be lived and witnessed to in various ways -- some less legitimate or edifying than others. Especially it reminds us that espousal is not elitist. It is not primarily about the one who is espoused but rather it is about the One who loves them with an everlasting love just as it is about the person's commissioning to bring others to imagine and accept their own call to a union with God which is also spousal. If someone feels the need to proclaim they are "a Bride of Christ" in a way which is elitist and does not open others to accept a share in espousal with Christ, then perhaps the need they are evidencing is too-self-centered  --- too exclusively this-worldly and not sufficiently theological, ecclesial, or eschatological.

Patterns of Exclusion and Elitism

At the present time some in the Church are over-emphasizing the Bridegroom imagery of priesthood in a literal way which requires male gender and mandatory celibacy. (Advocates of this over-emphasis seem to forget that the Church, both Roman and Eastern, also has married priests today and has historically had at least women deacons. They also seem to be forgetting that in baptism we all become Brides to the Bridegroom even as we all image  the risen Christ.) This has led, I believe, to an unfortunate correlative emphasis on Consecrated virgins as the female counterpart to male clergy and even more especially to the Bishop.

Unfortunately, in order to argue this position, advocates have to omit the fact that both male and female religious have been considered Brides of the Bridegroom throughout the entire history of the Church; they must tacitly deny the early history of the Church that defined virginity in terms of giving one's whole self to God in Christ and included both women and men (usually called ascetics); as a consequence they have also embraced a notion of consecrated virginity that focuses on females and physical intactness only. Finally, they are now stripping the eschatological dimension from the symbol Bride of Christ when used for individuals thus turning it into a too-this-worldly marriage. All of this seems to me to  involve neglecting the fact that the Church as a whole, male AND female, married AND celibate, is the Bride while the Bridegroom is the risen and ascended Christ, that is the Christ whose eschatological identity is therefore more cosmic and less culturally derived or merely historically defined.

This pattern, of course, reprises several of the valid reasons contemporary religious have shunned the designation, "Bride of Christ" in the past 50-60 years or so. It should be clear that they did not do so because they are not espoused to Christ in the same way that CV's consecrated under canon 604 or cloistered nuns receiving the consecration are. Both are espoused (and both represent the espousal we are all ultimately called to), one group as religious, whether cloistered or ministerial) and the other as consecrated secular persons. In this way they once again reflect the same two forms of the vocation that existed side by side until the 11th century.

Consecrated Virginity and Separation from the World

[[Dear Sr Laurel, Thank you for answering my e-mail in the past. I have read your comments on phatmass about consecration to both hermit and consecration (sic) virgin with interest - especially the possiblity (sic) of a call to both a spousal relationship with Christ and the call to contemplative solitude. Just to take things a little further... do you think it is possible that a vocation to consecrated virginity can include an element of separaton from the world (whilst in the world), living a life with a great degree of solitude and contemplative prayer ?]]

If one is very careful in delimiting how one uses the term "world" (the Johannine usage has three senses and canon law reflects these in c 603 for instance), if one is not attempting to mitigate much less do an end run around the essential secularity of the vocation, and if one is careful not to actually be embracing (or attempting to embrace) eremitical solitude, then yes, I believe one could integrate a secondary "separation" (i.e., not being of the world which is supported by contemplative prayer) with the secular (being in the world) character of one's vocation as well as integrating the contemplative dimension of one's life with one's active and ministerial life. Besides being profoundly Christian this is the only way I can see what you are referring to actually working for a canon 604 CV. For that matter, it is probably also the only way one can genuinely maintain a profoundly eschatological secularity.

You see, while the hermit embraces stricter separation from "the world" primarily in the sense of "that which is resistant to Christ", she ALSO embraces a stricter separation from the things of the world which are more ambiguous (qualified goods and realities which are mixtures of (the) godly and godless) than even other Religious, and thirdly, in her call to remain within her cell living a life of assiduous prayer and penance, she often maintains a stricter separation even from elements of God's good creation per se. (These unqualified goods are often sacrificed in order to maintain custody of the cell, an even greater good for the hermit.) A consecrated virgin, like every other Christian, is called by canon 604 to embrace "separation from the world" in the first sense but in relation to the other senses of the term she is entirely secular. Thus, unlike religious whose relationship with the things of the world are qualified by their vows and hermits who are called to stricter separation from the world than even most religious, the CV under canon 604 will live, work, and minister in the world which is ambiguous and freely relate to the world which is God's good creation. If she negotiates this division in senses of the term "world" and integrates contemplation with a ministerial life in and to the world she will actually be living the very thing which distinguishes secularity from secularism; she will be refusing to allow the secular a place of ultimacy in her life and will, moreover, be modeling an appropriate (eschatological) attitude toward the secular.

What remains primary for the c 604 CV, however,  is the fact that by definition her vocation is a secular one (that is, it is lived out in the world and exercised in the "things of the spirit AND the things of the world"). This does not allow her to opt out of engagement with or ministry to the world and it means her contemplative life serves her secularity. Frankly, many people live (or attempt to live) as lay contemplatives today; they combine responsible secular lives with a strong contemplative prayer life and, apart from the consecration of the virgin per se which they do not share, this actually seems to be what you are describing. Remember that it is the Virgin's consecration under c 604 itself which obligates her to and makes her capable of  an eschatological secularity the world needs very much. However, the moment one's description of the CV's life veers into eremitical or semi-eremitical solitude (for instance with references to "great degrees of solitude") one may actually be speaking of a betrayal of c 604's essential call. Thus, the subject line of your email to me refers to a "hermit element" in the OCV vocation. I would say that description is illegitimate and should never be used with the c 604 CV. Every significant Christian vocation should probably have a contemplative dimension which requires a degree of  physical solitude and silence and contemplative prayer, but these are not "eremitical elements" nor are they specifically eremitical at all. Something more is required to make them eremitical --- which is why I argue that living a pious life alone is, of itself, not essentially eremitical.

You write: [[ I know that the Rite refers to the CV living in the world, but I always thought that this referred to the fact that the CV was not in the monastery and therefore in the world. My reasoning came partly from my understanding that the CV vocation originally was lived in solitude or within the family context, and later CV's started to live in community which led to the formation of monasteries. Therefore, it could be said that the same vocational call to a consecrated spousal relationship with Christ was lived both in the world ( i.e., alone or with family), and in the monastery. ( I would see the main difference being that in the monastery there is the addition of religious vows). ]]

But in this I would argue you are mistaken at several points. First, as I have written several times in response to Jenna Cooper's "secular lite" position, the Rite which was renewed by the Church in c 604 does not merely say "living in the world" as though this merely means "rather than living in a monastery." It says (cf. the homily) that one is called to live in the world and serve one's brothers and sisters "in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world".  As I have said a number of times in posts on this topic there are two forms of consecrated virginity today, one lived in the world (a secular form), and one lived as a religious in a vowed expression of separation from it (a specifically cloistered form). I would argue that Canon 604 very specifically reprises a secular form of the life which existed into the 12th century (until 1169 CE) side by side with the cloistered Religious form and was, unfortunately, eclipsed by it. This is really the charism and more immediate source of canon 604, the form of the life the Church sought specifically to re-establish in a world crying out for witnesses to consecrated or eschatological secularity. 

Even if one seeks to move back behind this fact to the early Church, it is important to remember that in the early Church, worship was done in house churches; it was homes that were the center of ecclesial life and consecrated virgins were a central part of this life. Public and private life interpenetrated one another and their boundaries were blurred. The same is true of lives of prayer; folks lived integrated lives of profound prayer AND profound secularity. The entire Church community described in Acts of the Apostles embraced the values later associated specifically with the evangelical counsels of Religious life. This did not make them monastics or other than secular. When folks decided to embrace solitude and rejected "the world" (as in the desert Fathers and Mothers) they left this more integrated life behind and traveled into the desert. Monastic life grew directly out of this desert/eremitical movement as lauras were transformed into monastic communities per se. Meanwhile religious profession via the vows qualifies one's relationship to the world in at least two and sometimes three senses of the word and creates a form of relative separation from it, especially in the senses of 1) that which is resistant to Christ, and 2) that which is ambiguous, the realm of power, wealth, and so forth. The monastery setting is an appropriate physical way of accommodating this entire pattern of qualified relation to the world as is life in community more generally. It is a symbol of a life which is NOT the original form of consecrated virginity, that is, not secular, and not given over to both the things of the spirit and the things of the world.

[[b) - Also, can it be understood that the main service of a CV could be prayer? ( The Rite distinguishes service and prayer, which suggests a form of service on top of prayer as service - or is that not necessarily the case? ) I wonder, because the Rite does suggest that the lifestyle is adapted to the gifts of a person, which could include a predisposition to a life of contemplative prayer and a degree of solitude) ]]

No, I don't think so. Again CV's are consecrated to serve the church and world in the things of the spirit and the things of the world. They are called to a form of eschatological or consecrated secularity.  While prayer is a central and critical component of the CV's life, it is not the defining characteristic, at least not to the extent where it could be said to detract from or replace service in more direct ways. If a person has the necessary gifts and a predisposition to contemplative prayer, this is wonderful and certainly serves any authentic active ministry, but if you are speaking of the gift and predisposition to a contemplative life and vocation per se then  it is unlikely you are speaking of a vocation to canon 604 for women living in the world; again canon 604 very explicitly articulates a secular life of service in the things of the world as well as of the spirit.

If a woman truly feels called to a contemplative life and even to one of eremitical solitude, then I personally believe she should pursue these in a specific and conscious way, either in a monastery, a semi-eremitical community, or perhaps, in rare cases, as a diocesan hermit. These avenues as well as religious life more generally are open to her in the contemporary Church as is lay contemplative life so, unless her original discernment and formation were completely inadequate or skewed and her consecration premature or ill-advised, I wonder why she would want to formally embrace a specifically secular vocation and then fail to live it (or even seek to redefine it as an essentially contemplative or even semi-eremitical one) because she has now discovered different gifts and a different sense of call. This does raise the question of adequate discernment however, and it argues for consecrating only mature vocations, rather than allowing the consecration of women whose spirituality is not yet well-defined. (Note well that I am not ruling out elderly CV's embracing a life of prayer in their post-work years, but this is a different question I think.)

You also write: [[To explain my question further: c) - My impression is that some if not most of the early virgins lived lives of prayer, lived at home, and were not so involved in apostolic service - which was more the domain of deacons / deaconesses. I don't have ready literature to support this view, it's more of an impression that I have gained with time and general reading, although I would like to follow this up if I have the opportunity.

d) - While I intend to be loyal to the teaching of the Church, and seek to understand it more fully, I wonder how interpretations have developed historically... In the light of Vatican II which encouraged a return to roots of consecrated life, it does seem to me that some of the modern interpretations of CV, (perhaps including the Rite itself ), do not always make room for the expression of the vocation as it was in the early Church. ]]

Unfortunately, from what I have seen and read, there is not a lot of direct evidence regarding the nature of the lives lived by virgins in the early Church supporting this. I have seen nothing that indicates they lived essentially contemplative or eremitical lives, for instance.  Again, I think it goes without saying they were women of both deep prayer and significant service. I say this in part because categories were not so sharply drawn at that time so the lives of deaconesses and virgins probably overlapped, especially given the domestic focus or locus of local churches as well as the sense that virgins dedicated to Christ became "men" in a spiritual sense and that they specifically argued for the opening of ministry in ways that would not have been possible otherwise. What I am also suggesting here is that the evidence of what virgins who had given themselves wholly to Christ did in the face of being barred from certain ministerial roles suggests this limitation was more a function of cultural biases than it was the acceptance of a true charism. Thus, St Perpetua et al argued for their essential "maleness" and struggled to be allowed to minister in all the ways men did. This hardly suggests they saw the original charism of their lives as one of separation from the world or of being given over to contemplative prayer except to the degree this supported direct ministry and witness in and to the world.

However, this seems to me to also be somewhat beside the point in looking at c 604 vocations. As I noted above, in promulgating canon 604 the Church seems very clearly and deliberately to have been recovering the secular form of the life that not only pre-dated but also had developed side by side the cloistered form and, again, which was first subverted by the cloistered form of it (cf Sharon Holland, IHM's essay on Consecrated Virginity today) and then was completely eclipsed by it in a Church which came to value Religious life and devalue the secular. It seems to me that contemporary CV's must be keenly aware of and honor not only these more immediate roots of her vocation, but also the correlative reasons the Church established canon 604 when she did as well as the limitations she imposed by removing references to a habit, living in community, vows of obedience, etc. In particular the contemporary CV under c 604 must be able to see her vocation in light of Vatican II, the emphasis on the new evangelism and missiology, and a growing esteem (and need) for a consecrated secularity which is in necessary contrast to both secularism and to (non-secular) Religious life as it is institutionalized today. It would be nice to see CV's who have read the proceedings leading to the promulgation of canon 604, for instance. If we want to understand the mind of the Church in reprising this life that surely seems to me to be a primary source of understanding the authentic charism of this vocation.

There are a number of posts I would refer you to here which have already covered these points more adequately. One of them is Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Minimized Secularity, a Legitimate Development? Another is Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Secular vs Secularism and Consecrated Virginity but others would also be helpful, I think. I hope you will look at these (cf the labels below as well as the links). 

If secularity is good for CV's, perhaps Diocesan Hermits Should Live Secular Lives

Dear Sister, one CV pointed out the following; [[I personally think Diocesan hermits who are not confined to Solitary life due to Illness , would be a gift to the Church and world by considering how to live the Silence of Solitude in the deserts of the world , by striving to be the only Christian Presence in atheistic or post-christian environments. IN FACT THE CHURCH AND THE DESERTS OF THE WORLD 'NEED' THE PRESENCE OF CHRISTIAN SOLITARIES AND DIOCESAN HERMITS. If CV who are an Image of the Entire Church who is the bride of Christ , ought to wholeheartedly embrace their secularity in the spirit of Vatican Council II , I'm sure that religious and hermits are also called to embrace a different form of separation from the world of power , economics etc. by living really among the poor of the world , incarnating themselves among the powerless and oppressed of the world.]] I am sure her point was that just serving others in the secular world does not mean CV's are secular themselves but I thought the post a bit snarky. Will you respond to it?

Thanks for emailing this to me. I don't know if the intention was to be snarky; I thought she could have been presenting an unnuanced or non-paradoxical version of the theology of eremitical life I have already laid out here many times in reference to Merton's talk of  redeeming the "unnatural solitudes" of modern slums, for instance. However, I have already responded to it. Here is the post I put up on Phatmass.

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

Your post points to a perennial temptation for hermits: the desire to exchange eremitical solitude for a kind of ministry folks recognize as fruitful when they fail to see the pastoral fruitfulness or ministerial capacity of solitude itself. The desert Fathers and Mothers have several stories about this temptation. It is always hard to discern between two goods --- in this case the need to leave one's solitude and minister to atheists more directly or publicly (here meaning out in the open) -- or to do this with anyone else, really --- vs the need to maintain custody of the cell, for instance. This temptation can be even more keen if one came to eremitical solitude by way of chronic illness or has education and training the world seems badly in need of. However, because something is beneficial does not mean it is beneficial in the way God wills nor is it the only way we determine a vocation's charism. At the same time, if we are trying to determine if and in what way a vocation is a gift to Church and World, we must look at the benefits it represents pastorally. This is certainly part of the equation  --- but only part. My own sense (and the sense of the Church) is that eremitical solitude is profoundly ministerial all by itself and the need for this ministry (which is NOT usually exercised directly, person to person) is at crisis proportions in today's world.

Inner AND Outer solitude:

Unfortunately, the call to the silence of solitude (eremitical solitude) requires not just an inner solitude of the heart, but an external one as well. In any case, most diocesan hermits ARE already living their vocations in what Merton called the "unnatural solitudes" of urban settings, etc. We are present in our separation and embrace both dimensions (separation and a paradoxical presence) so that separation might be redeemed not only in our own lives but especially in those of persons isolated for any reason whatever. Our lives say that authentic solitude is not mere isolation; they witness instead to the transfiguration and redemption of isolation through participation in God's love. For a multitude of people (the chronically ill, isolated elderly, bereaved, prisoners, etc) especially need the witness hermits provide by the redemption of physical separation and its transformation into inner solitude and presence precisely in one's separation. In other words hermits ARE profoundly present and related to others but it is a paradoxical presence and relatedness achieved in separation and symbolized by prayer. THAT is the primary way hermits are called to minister in the Church.

When I wrote earlier that no matter how good making the eremitical vocation a secular one might seem, it is still contrary to the essential nature of the life and cannot be embraced without betraying the very nature of the vocation, this is what I was referring to. My own vocation speaks to everyone about the need for authentic solitude (a unique form of dialogue or communion) in a balanced life but it speaks especially vividly to those who are physically and often psychologically isolated and need to know their situations can be redeemed and made meaningful --- even if the physical separation of those lives cannot be changed. What makes my own life ministerial is its separation --- but only as a transfigured separation which witnesses not only to the truth that God alone is enough for us, but to my own profound paradoxical relatedness to everything in God. Thus my life does not minister to the world in the way many others do, but it ministers profoundly and uniquely in its "silence of solitude". It speaks to the fear of solitude which is rampant today, to contemporary isolation, to our phobia for silence and our inability to find life meaningful unless it is productive in all the ways the world demands (including a kind of ministerial activism which many cannot participate in), and especially to the human fulfillment and relatedness to all of creation each person can only find in God.

The Church Defines Eremitical Life as non-secular and CV's living in the world as secular vocations

The point you are missing is that the Church very clearly defines the eremitical vocation as non-secular (and this is true whether we are speaking of lay or consecrated hermits) because this is its very nature. Not only does canon 603 state that non-negotiable foundational elements of the life include "stricter separation from the world" and "the silence of solitude," but in the Rite of Profession this is underscored by the Bishop's questions about readiness to embrace not merely an inner solitude but an external one as well. It is underscored by the vow formula which includes a statement that one earnestly desires to accept and live the grace of solitary eremitical life and it is underscored by clothing the hermit with the cowl besides the habit as a prayer garment which sets apart. It is framed by public vows which separate from the world of power, prestige, economics, and relationships along with a Rule of life which spells out the way this intense non-secularity is lived daily.

 It is underscored by an essential "hidden(ness) (CCC) from the eyes of men" and a process of discernment and personal formation which MUST include the transition from living merely as an isolated person to being a hermit living the silence of solitude itself BEFORE one is admitted to vows of any sort. Meanwhile CV's consecrated under canon 604 are women "living in the world", that is women living secular lives. This form of consecrated life eschews all the things which set such a woman apart from others also living secular lives except consecration which radically transfigures her secularity even as it calls for it. CV's living in the world are thus called to be apostles to the world in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world. Just as I cannot alter the nature of a vocation in which God makes my separation fruitful or calls hermits to live such a fruitful separation, CV's living in the world cannot change the way God makes their secularity distinctly fruitful or calls them to allow him to do so --- at least not without betraying the very call God has mediated to them via the Church.

No Hermit is "confined to solitude due to illness"

By the way, no diocesan hermit is "confined to solitude due to illness". That puts the cart before the horse and mistakes the defining element of the life as the isolation of illness rather than the relatedness of solitude. Chronic illness may be one of the reasons some of us find ourselves isolated from and out of sync with the world around us, but actual solitude is a good deal more than this and it is freely chosen. It is solitude which defines our lives, not illness, as you at least imply in this passage. Solitude is a living reality witnessing to the love of God made fruitful in isolation and to isolation transfigured and made fruitful in the love of God and of others. We may begin to consider that we are called to a life of eremitical solitude in part because of chronic illness (as I myself did), but that is only the very first part of discerning an actual call; a call to eremitical solitude is never merely the result of one's illness any more than living a relatively pious life alone is automatically the same as "the silence of solitude" or being a hermit.

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.

Rules of Life: Why are they required for Diocesan Hermits but not for Consecrated Virgins?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
      why does a diocesan hermit write a Rule of Life when a consecrated virgin does not? As I understand it from what you have written, hermits are required to write a Rule of Life. Why aren't CV's required to do so in the same way? Is their vocation less significant? Less important?]]

Interesting questions and not ones I have been asked before. I am not sure I can answer why a virgin conse-crated under canon 604 (a consecrated virgin living in the world) is not required to write or live according to a Rule but I know why a hermit MUST write and live by one. Let me start there.

Remember that a Rule functions is two main ways. First, it provides a vision of  Gospel life rooted in both the eremitical tradition and also in the hermit's own story and experience. This vision honors both the past and the present. It allows the more abstract idea of hermit life to be lived in a concrete contemporary context. Since the hermit turns to the Rule frequently it serves as a touchstone to remind her of the way God has worked in history and especially in the Christ Event; it reminds her of how God has worked in her own life and in the lives of other hermits while it also affirms the way God needs to work though solitary hermits in the life of the Church and world today.

Besides reminding the hermit of these things, the Rule inspires her to persevere and live her vocation with integrity. It is especially important to have something like this when one's life is largely self-directed and counter-cultural. As I have noted before, on the negative side of things, the slide into mediocrity and lack of integrity is a very easy and quick one when one lives alone with only God as a companion. It is SO easy to let this prayer period or that period of lectio or journaling or study slide, to allow the silence of solitude which is not only the essential environment but also the goal of the life to be replaced instead by days of some silence and some solitude which allow one simply to relax and kick back.  On the more positive side of things, it is easy to embrace other goods (choices for life with others, ministry to others, etc) which have a clear Gospel value and significance but which also may eventually lead one away from an eremitical life; the value of eremitical life is not always easy to see clearly when faced with such immediate needs and goods. A Rule presents the hermit with a vision of reality which is eremitical, a rare and mainly misunderstood life which is defined in  terms of the silence of solitude, not merely a life of peace and quiet lived alone, and it reminds her how desperately the world and church needs her witness to the value of such a life.

Secondly, the Rule functions in a legislative sense. It is law as well as Gospel and the hermit is bound canonically to live it well. She has a vow of obedience and the Rule serves the living out of this and the other vows of poverty and chastity as well. Besides the Gospel-rooted and eremitical vision of reality the Rule provides, it spells out the daily ways in which the hermit embodies these in her own concrete situation. Does she pray the Divine Office? Which Hours? When does she pray quietly and contemplatively? How does she live out poverty or chastity or obedience? What limited ministry does she do outside the hermitage? How does she ensure this does not threaten a life of the silence of solitude? What activities does she undertake outside the hermitage and when? With whom? How does she support herself, take care of health care, funeral and other kinds of needs?

The ways these are spelled out need not (and, in fact, should not be) in picayune detail or without room for flexibility, but there must be a basic listing of concrete obligations which are part of this particular hermit's living her vocation well. In negotiating the challenges and opportunities which come to her through parish community, friends, pastor, and so forth, this dimension of the Rule provides a baseline for serious reflection and consideration. Always it summons her back to the fundamental commitments and requirements of a HEALTHY life, and more, a healthy eremitical life of stricter separation from the world even as it frees her to respond within limits to new and legitimate challenges and opportunities to love and minister. Without the vision the Rule provides, however, there would be no way to achieve a faithful flexibility with regard to concrete obligations or to deal with the task of negotiating the challenges and opportunities that come her way.

More fundamentally, without the Rule the hermit is more than apt to simply become a more or less pious person living alone. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it is not what she is called to nor is it the life or witness  so many who are isolated by age or illness or circumstances need today. Bereft of an overarching vision and mission she may become individualistic and even narcissistic in the way she lives physical solitude. More positively she may commit to any ministerial request that comes her way imprudent as that may be. She may say yes to many goods and commit to love in ways which are necessary and typical for most Sisters but which also will make her something other than a hermit. As I have noted before negotiating this particular set of tensions between goods IS an inescapable piece of her vocation and she ought not eschew it.  Still, she needs some assistance in negotiating it effectively and with integrity. The Rule essentially ensures that whatever she does, whether in cell or outside the hermitage she will do as a hermit.

Now, what about consecrated Virgins? Why no required Rule for them? My own sense is that a CV can be a CV anywhere in any situation and may indeed be called to that. Whether active or contemplative she can embody the mission of  the consecrated Virgin living in the world. She may well commit to praying certain Hours of the Divine Office, periods of quiet prayer, and so forth, and she may certainly benefit from living some sort of Rule, but she lives this calling "in the world" and that requires a kind of responsiveness to the everyday give and take, demands and invitations of the secular world which hermits are not called to.  Of course it is absolutely not the case that the hermit life is more important or significant, but it is radically different, witnesses especially to a vastly different group of people,  and in its own way, is less flexible and far more fragile. Thus both diocesan hermits and CV's can benefit from a Rule but for the c 603 hermit it really is indispensable; hence I think c 603 is wise in requiring it.

I hope this helps.

"Hermits Living in the World" and other Confusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Paradox of Sacred Secularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps. Again, all good wishes.

Consecrated Virginity and Secularity, Some More Questions

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I still disagree with your proposal that the Consecrated Virgin is a secular in what one CV calls, "the strong sense." She (Jenna Cooper) makes clear on her blog (Sponsa Christi) that Lumen Gentium defines laity as those who have neither entered the consecrated state, nor those with Holy Orders and cites par 31. She also notes that Lumen Gentium says that secularity is peculiar to the Laity. Because of this she argues that consecrated virgins are 1) not laity, and 2) not called to a secular vocation in the strong sense of the term, but rather in order to set them off against cloistered nuns who also receive the consecration of virgins.]]

These are good points. Let's be clear however that par 31 of Lumen Gentium sets the laity off (in terms of proper spheres of ministry) against those in the religious state, not the consecrated state: [[The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church [meaning here a canonical Religious].]] The text does not read, "those who have entered the consecrated state," for instance. Once upon a time (even at Vatican II) these terms (consecrated and religious) may have been synonymous or largely so, but no longer. The same may have been true regarding the terms lay and secular (though we still have to consider secular priests as a clear exception), but, if this was ever so, it is not the case now despite the fact that the saeculum is generally a proper sphere of activity for the laity. (There are exceptions. It would not be so for lay hermits, for instance.) The Church now has forms of consecrated life which are secular, not Religious, and consecrated virginity of women living in the world (Revised CIC, 1983, c 604) is one of these. Members of secular institutes represent another.

It is true that in part the consecration of virgins under canon 604 represents a distinction from the same consecration given to nuns after solemn profession, but from what I have read, this is merely a part of the truth. It also specifies the locus of the c 604 CV's place of activity and responsibility, and it does this with the phrase "living in the world" which is buttressed by minimal or no additional formal requirements (no requirements of LOH, habit, promise of obedience, vow of poverty, etc). I also think it is significant that canon 604 follows c 603 as one of two new forms of consecrated life which itself clearly stresses "stricter separation from the world" as an essential element for the hermit. Thus, "living in the world" seems analogous to that to me (an essential element of the vocation) for the c 604 CV and is to be read in "the strong sense." (Please note, my use of "in the strong sense" is not of my own choosing or preference, but related only to your own usage.)

However, the heart of my own appreciation of the "strong sense" of this term stems from a pastoral and theological perspective, not a canonical one. In the first place, I think there is no avoiding the sense that consecrated virginity for women living in the world is a half-baked, perhaps poorly discerned and badly timed vocation without a reason for being IF it is understood as a quasi-Religious vocation and its secularity is denied, shunned, qualified, or mitigated. Consecrated virgins are used to hearing questions like, "Why didn't you go "all the way' and become a nun?" for instance. Similar questions include, "Why didn't you make a vow of poverty (or obedience)?" "Why doesn't the canon allow for or require these?" These are really good questions, and references to literally being a "Bride of Christ" --significant as that is -- hardly answers the questions or even makes sense without the corresponding call to secularity. Even if one was willing to answer these questions with some form of, "I am literally called to be a Bride of Christ," the next question has to be, "So? Why would God in Christ call anyone, much less a non-Religious to this?" "Is the Church simply multiplying vocations which call for separation from the world?" "Does she really only esteem these?" "Is the universal call to holiness something she takes seriously whether one lives that out in the world or not?" (The unpoken question here is, "How seriously are we called to take Gaudium et Spes, or the II Vatican Council's stress on the universal call to holiness?)

It seems to me it is only the secularity of the CV's living in the world which establishes this identity as truly pastorally or theologically significant and especially, as something other than a bit of precious and anachronistic poetry which no longer speaks effectively to people. It is in its secularity that being a virgin and non-Religious Spouse of Christ and icon of the Church becomes meaningful. The world needs the witness of such virginity, such all-encompassing personal commitment and fulfillment, and of the grace of motherhood which is so intimately bound up with it --- but she needs it from within the midst of the world itself. Only from within the world's very midst does it appropriately signal that Christian hope focuses not on "pie in the sky by and by," but on the transformation and transcendent fulfillment of God's good creation. Only if the vocation really means what it says, regarding "being in the world" can it serve this way.

My own deep sense then is that if one wants (feels called) to be separated from the world in some externally distinguished way (garb, etc,) then she should become a religious or hermit because that is more likely what God is calling her to. Both of these make sense and are not "half-baked" vocations in search of a raison d'etre. If, however, one wants (i.e., feels called) to be a spouse of Christ living in the world then accept that this is a paradoxical calling. By this I mean it is not a matter of compromises (for instance, because one is consecrated or set apart unto God one acts as a quasi religious part of one's time (when one is acting like a consecrated person), and lives and works in the world the rest (and supposedly, in one's secularity is not acting like one set apart unto God at these times) --- a kind of neither fish nor fowl approach). Rather it is a matter of a thoroughgoingness (precisely because in one's secularity one is consecrated and wholly set apart by and unto God in an objective way, one is free to act within and for the world on behalf of the Kingdom with a radicality others might not be able to manage). In other words, my own approach to this reality is Christian, not Greek, and it is thus not offended (scandalized) by paradox or the radicalness and exhaustiveness of the Incarnation.

One final point. I received an email from someone who has determined to seek the Consecration of Virgins for women living in the world. She also is interested in participating in politics at the state level. She wondered if that was possible, and if the two could be balanced. While I would say it is an astounding opportunity to act as leaven and apostle within such an arena, I don't know if balance is precisely the word I would use here. Instead we need people who live their consecrations exhaustively, with integrity, and as radically as they can. Imagine the baptized doing this in the political realm! What hope it would bring to our world! Imagine a woman whose life was centered on Christ, who lived an assiduous prayer life nourished by Christ in Word and Sacrament, who indeed is spouse of Christ, living all this out in sacred service as a political leader! Priests and Religious cannot do this; they are prohibited, but Canon 604 CV's are not and their very secularity, absence of vows, etc make it possible while their consecration makes it desirable and even necessary. Such a vocation as that lived under Canon 604 is not a quasi, second-class vocation in search of itself --- at least not if its secular nature is taken seriously with thoroughgoing commitment. We have heard the description that Christians are disciples called to be in the world but not of it. CV's under Canon 604 are meant to be icons or paradigms of this very Gospel counsel.

I hope this clarifies why I have argued as I have.

Picture above, St Mary Magdalene, in honor of a friend and CV who finds her identity as apostle to the Apostles inspiring and iconic.

More Questions: On Hermits, Consecrated Virgins, and Eucharistic Spirituality

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you think [the version] of Eucharistic spirituality [you have written about] works for non-hermits? What do you do with the Canon that requires you to attend Mass daily --- just ignore it? Some consecrated virgins argue that daily Mass attendance is something which should be required of them as consecrated women. How would you respond to them?]]

I do think this version of Eucharistic spirituality works for non-hermits. First of all I believe that everyone is called to let Eucharist work in their lives in a way which allows all of reality to be regarded as sacramental and to bring everything to a fullness of expression of the Word of God. Further, I think that every person is called to participate in the dynamics of self-emptying and resurrection (fullness) which are at the heart of the Eucharist. This is true no matter how often a person actually participates in the celebration of the Eucharist (so long as their participation per se is serious and allowed to serve as leaven for the whole of their lives). Some people are also called to share in the specifically eremitical dynamic of the redemption of isolation and its transformation into solitude. Often these persons cannot attend Mass with any regularity, but they can still live an essentially Eucharistic spirituality which is nourished and inspired by the Eucharist nonetheless.

As for the Canon you refer to, I am assuming you mean C 719, sec 2. Please note that this reads [[The celebration of the Eucharist, daily if possible, is to be the source and strength of the whole of their [members of religious institutes] consecrated life.]] All I can note is that this refers to the celebration of the Eucharist within the community itself --- something that is often not always practical today because of the shortage of priests. It also says, "if possible." I believe, therefore, that this canon recognizes that the Eucharist may and should well be the source and strength of one's life even if daily participation in it is not possible. In fact this is the focus of the text. Thus, while I don't ignore this canon, and while I believe it applies in a general way to diocesan hermits as well as to members of religious institutes, I also recognize that it is not meant to directly address solitary eremitical life, and is not as absolute in some ways as some people seem to believe. (For instance, it does not say, "Religious MUST attend daily Mass except when prevented by illness or other serious reason.") The focus of the Canon is on allowing Eucharist to be the source and strength of the whole of one's consecrated life, not on mandatory frequency of attendance per se.

Regarding consecrated virgins, I really don't see creating a general requirement for all CV's. Consecrated virgins are a diverse group. Despite being women "living in the world" some are more contemplative than others, some more involved in ministry, some live their consecration in challenging ways amidst the professional and business communities, and others mainly within a parish community with ministry to these people, etc. Certainly they must embrace a serious Eucharistic spirituality, but that does not necessarily mean daily Mass any more than it means that for religious women or diocesan hermits. My own preference here is to be more discerning regarding those women who are consecrated as virgins living in the world (i.e., make sure they have mature prayer lives and spiritualities) and allow them to do as they personally discern they are called to in conjunction with their directors, Bishops, etc. In other words, require that they do as they discern is essential in their own case. Some will surely find that daily Mass is both possible and important; others will find it less possible, but both will find that the spirituality to which it summons them is indispensable and non-negotiable. It depends on the individual, those to whom she ministers, etc, as to what she discerns is critical for her own life and praxis at any given point or time.

I am not particularly up on the conversations of the CV's who argue that daily Mass should be made a general requirement, but I wonder if it might not reflect a need to make the vocation approximate that of women Religious and to separate CV's (or establish themselves as clearly or visibly separated) from the laity. Since consecrated virginity itself is not understood readily as a distinct or significant vocation, it may also represent, at least for some, a piece of feeling a need to have the Church spell out additional requirements which seem to validate the vocation. In some ways it has always seemed to me that reprising this calling has created a "vocation in search of a job description." It is hard for people to understand this vocation because the CV's are not religious and are also something other (though not more!) than devoted lay persons. IF the vocation has validity (and I genuinely assume it does) then it does not have this as a pseudo or quasi Religious vocation. CV's will need to establish themselves and an understanding of the nature and significance of their vocation, but this, it seems to me, will never be done if the obligations attached to their consecration and the canon which governs the life are treated as inadequate and additional requirements added after the fact. Either this vocation is genuine and has its own significant nature and charism within the church, or it does not. Multiplying required external observances does not take the place of a (perhaps!) missing charism and essential justification. Instead, to me anyway, such multiplication looks a bit defensive --- as though CV's are not comfortable with the inner justification of the vocation per se.

While it is undeniably true that vocations and especially an understanding of their implications for the life of the Church develop over time, it HAS to be noted that the Church did NOT establish attendance at daily Mass as a requirement when it published Canon 604 and it might easily have done so in 1983 understanding that this was essential to the vocation. The same is true with other things like Liturgy of the Hours, Rule of Life, distinctive garb (veil, etc), a commitment to religious obedience, etc. Was the Church naive in establishing the vocation? Did it fail to regard and legislate what was essential to it? Someone would need to seriously demonstrate this, I think, if they were to claim that certain practices were essential to the vocation itself despite not being part of canon 604.

In this and other matters it would be especially pertinent and interesting to hear what discussions were held about this canon before it was promulgated. How did other drafts read? (Canon 603 had numerous drafts; I assume the same is true of Canon 604.) How did Bishops understand the nature and significance of the vocation? Why were vows not required? Why no Rule of Life? Why no distinguishing garb? Why was the relationship with the Bishop described as unique but not in terms of his being a legitimate superior and with no provision made for a promise of obedience, for instance? It seems very significant to me, and probably illustrative of how the Bishops envisioned the vocation, that these things were NOT required given how natural doing so would have been. (We know that these things CAN be spelled out because some of them at least are spelled out for diocesan hermits in C 603. It also seems that the institutional Church generally desires external signs and explicit requirements and commitments like promises of obedience. But in this case they did not go this way. Why not?) What was the role of the CV in the early Church? How did what came to be religious life differ and why? Answers to these questions would help me to answer your question a bit more intelligently, and it seems to me that they are questions anyone arguing the need for more general requirements should be very conversant with.

In any case, to get back to your question about Eucharistic spirituality and daily Mass attendance, it seems to me that consecrated virgins are certainly called to develop and model an intense and encompassing Eucharistic spirituality, but it must be done according to each virgin's own discernment, vision, and sphere of ministry. Some virgins will model this especially for those who cannot get to daily Mass; others will model it for those who can. Some will do it for those who are more contemplative, and some will do it for those with very active lives in business and the professions, for instance. However, all (one sincerely hopes and trusts) will do so with devotion and personal integrity.