In Memoriam, Nadine Brown (1929-2013)

I am sorry to post that yesterday, Nadine Brown, formerly Mother Nadine Brown of the public association of the faithful known as the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb, died at the age of 83.  For all the questions the suppression of the HIOL raised and left unanswered, I think there is no doubt that Nadine was a faithful, courageous, woman of significant vision who served Christ, his Gospel and his Church as she discerned was best. I extend my prayers to those who knew her well, and especially to those who remained at the Bellwether campus. We trust the fundamental goal of Nadine's life has now been achieved in Christ and that her mission of intercession will continue from within the life of the Trinity. The website for the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc posted the following:

October 24, 1929 - June 3, 2013

The Lord called Mother Nadine to follow Him in a life of prayer and penance as a cloistered religious

in the Congregation of the Good Shepherd. Sixteen years later, it was discerned He was now calling

her out of the cloister, in order to bring the rich heritage of this contemplative spirituality and its

intercessory fruits to everyone, thereby offering to all Christians the means of

achieving a relationship with God which was formerly seen as the prerogative of the monk or nun.

Mother Nadine was the Foundress of Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc. and the director of
Bellwether Contemplative Formation Center, the global headquarters of a very unique ministry of providing to everyone, free of charge, the contemplative experience of the spirituality of
Jesus so that what “they have freely received they can freely give” witnessing throughout the world to His Love, His Joy, His Peace, His Presence! It is also out of this contemplative union with Jesus that His ministry of Intercession and Deliverance “continues to bear Fruit in great abundance”!

She was the spiritual mother to many and will be very missed. 

Have I Softened my Stance on Assistance to the Former HIOL???

[[Sister Laurel, since it is Thanksgiving, I wanted to ask if are you still against providing assistance to the former HIOL? If so why, and if you have not softened your position on this, why not? They have proven obedient to Archbishop Lucas when others have not.]]



Yes, I am still adverse to providing relief for this group of people except an immediate emergency fund which should be administered to individuals (not to the community) for their immediate needs. Again, my reasons have to do with transparency, responsibility or acountability, prudence, and equity or justice --- reasons which are interrelated and segue into one another. Obedience to Archbishop Lucas is not an issue here. Other issues with this claim aside, Christians are not rewarded financially for keeping the commitments they have made freely.

First, transparency: I have seen no indications that any of these members is working or seeking jobs, applying for government assistance (if truly destitute and/or unable to work) which vowed religious also have to apply for, etc. I do not mean to say that I assume they are not, but simply that I don't know. They are said to be spending the next year discerning but there is no indication what this means. Does it mean determining what shape a new community will take, how they will support themselves, how active or contemplative they are, etc? Communities (lay or consecrated) seeking to live contemplative lives MUST be able to support themselves. That is simply part of the legitimate expectations belonging to discernment of genuine vocations and healthy communities. If they are going to do so by mendicancy then that needs to be clear. Again, the point here is information.

It is one thing for the Archdiocese to promise an accounting of where the money goes that comes to the relief fund. Well they should. It is another for the community itself to indicate what the former HIOL members are providing for themselves and how. There has been no indication that the latter will be forthcoming and ordinarily that would be fine (it would be a more or less private matter), but NOT when the public/laity are expected to support the group, especially in the long term. We do not do that for any other group of CANDIDATES for consecrated life, not contemplatives, apostolic religious, or even solitary eremites or consecrated virgins in the Church. Again, we don't do it for Public Associations of the Faithful much less for private associations. Nor should we. My question is, "How and when will we start expecting this group as a whole (if they choose to remain together) to support themselves as any other group in the church consecrated or lay is expected to do?"

A second part of transparency comes with my felt sense that the HIOL were imprudent in the first place by making vows which left them destitute. I don't know why canonists in the Archdiocese were not overseeing things or if the civil board eschewed this oversight right along but I do know that it seems to me that either IOL Inc bears the brunt of responsibility for supporting these people, or the Archdiocese as part of its own admission of inadequate supervision needs to pick up the slack here. (We are told that members of the community approached the diocese months ago with concerns; why were these not thoroughly investigated THEN?) At least, it seems to me, there needs to be an honest accounting of why it was these persons were left destitute, allowed to make private vows of poverty in a risky situation which are less prudent commmitments than the commitments of those in institutes of consecrated life, etc. If Archdiocesan officials warned people about the imprudence of their vow and the vows were made anyway then it really seems to me the consequences fall directly on the shoulders of those who acted despite the warnings. Again, too much of the situation is obscure and I personally cannot see assisting people in a way which does not call to real accountability at the same time.

Here we have verged into the second realm, responsibility or accountability as well. Besides the Archdiocese's role, and the individual responsibility of those who made vows, there is simply the (at least moral and possibly legal) responsibility of IOL Inc. As already noted I would want to understand why they are NOT assisting their former members, members who presumably bankrolled the community at some point. Perhaps there is no way to make them step up to the plate here, but I would want to know their place in all this --- which again returns us to the issue of transparency as well.

I have already spoken of prudence and equity really. In fact we have no way of knowing anyone in this group truly has a contemplative (or any other specific) vocation (remember they are discerning both their vocations and the shape those will take), and even presuming they do, I would want them to be responsible in the same way any other fledgling or established contemplative community (or solitary) would be. One question that comes up again and again is how were they supporting themselves before and why can't they continue to do that now?? I doubt very much all 56 were doing sufficient spiritual direction to support the community (and I would certainly wonder what was happening to other directors in the diocese if this were the case). Anyway, if they were doing paid ministry besides direction why can't they continue it now? They were in a process of discernment already. They are in one yet again. Continuing working would surely help with the process of transition. And if they were bankrolled by someone or some group of people, why was this allowed by the Archdiocese without backup plans in place? And again we get back to the questions of prudence, accountability, and transparency as well.

Is the Church willing to support every suppressed (or even every fledgling) community in this way until they transition back into ordinary lay life OR become institutes of consecrated life --- or at least every one that wishes or chooses to wear a habit (yes, I believe this is part of this particular equation)? When the next private association of the Faithful fails to become a public association, or a public association fails to become an institute of consecrated life will their respective dioceses advocate for them in the way this is being done? Remember that there are many of these extant right now and usually they are simply experiments which will and should fail. If not why not? Why do these reasons apply in this particular situation? And if so, then really, where do people who want to quit working and establish themselves as contemplative communities (or even as diocesan hermits or consecrated virgins) sign up for this new form of ecclesiastical welfare while they discern their vocations? (As I already mentioned, ordinarily they would need to be able to provide for themselves or be turned away from consideration as even serious candidates for canonical consecration. I don't think this is a precedent we want to change.)

Again, I am all for assistance as a short term, emergency fund to be administered to individuals with special needs, especially while they apply for government assistance if that is what is required. I am fine with helping individuals with the clothes needed for job interviews and anything associated with that on the short term. I am grateful to know that these people have been gifted with food, clothes, and other material needs for the time being, but the list of things needed for the next year at least continues to rankle: $25,000 a month for rent, and when they are settled, cars, trucks, computers and printers, gift cards (which suggests to me that some of these former HIOL are already getting government assistance and cannot receive cash), furniture, etc. Again, while they would LIKE to stay together as a community I wonder if it is really the church's (read the laity's) responsibility to make this possible financially, and, should they choose to do so when they ordinarily do it for no other similar group, then for how long should they continue? When does assistance become enabling? How do we know it is not that already?

In my first post on this I said I personally would need answers to lots more questions than had been forthcoming to this point. Nothing has changed in this regard, except that the "Intercessors' relief fund" makes the issue of transparency and accountability even more pointed. So, no, I have not softened my stance on this particular point yet. I am open to being convinced with information and signs of individual accountability on the part of these former members and on the part of the Archdiocese as well as IOL Inc, but no one (IOL Inc, Archdiocese of Omaha, former HIOL, etc) seems be providing that.

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.

Nadine Brown: Disobedient? Right to Personal Ministry?

[[Dear Sister, do you think Nadine Brown is being disobedient to the Archbishop of Omaha in continuing her ministry? Can she just continue to teach and minister, make visitations to groups of "Companions" and the like and not be disobedient]]

Thanks for the question. First, let me say I have no idea whether Nadine Brown is being or has been disobedient to Archbishop Lucas. As far as I can tell, she has done what she was asked and continues on with her own PERSONAL ministry. She has a right to do this even under Canon Law so long as she in no way uses the term Catholic to characterize it. While she is Catholic her MINISTRY IS NOT --- though this in no way necessarily indicates unorthodoxy! (Please check other posts which distinguish between Catholic hermits, Catholic Theologians, etc and hermits or theologians who are ALSO Catholic.) So long as Brown is clear on all these points, and especially that this is a personal ministry, not a Catholic one, that is, not one undertaken in the name of the Church, or one which is in any way approved by the hierarchy, she can proceed as she has already.

Further, so long as the "Companions" remain the Companions of IOL, INC, and not of the Public Association that was Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb, yes, she may work with such groups how ever she wishes. So long as all members are clear they are participating in Brown's personal ministry, and that it is not done under the auspices of the Church, they may continue as before. However, to the extent this activity detracts from parish involvement or sets up an alternative structure to parish ministry which can injure unity in the parish or diocese, there will be room for serious caution and criticisms. Similarly, to the extent people are participating in a personality cult (and I neither know nor suggest this is the case) there is room for serious caution and criticism. One sign of this is the insistence that no one else in the Church is doing what Nadine Brown is doing, for instance. As charismatic as Brown is, her ministry is not unique. Further, to the extent donations to IOL Inc detract from contributions to Church-sponsored ministry and life, there will be room for criticism. Finally, if Nadine Brown's writings or teaching generally are found to be unorthodox there may be room for serious caution and the Church has a right and responsibility to mark this.

Today's Gospel may well apply to the situation you ask about. Remember that in Luke's text for today the steward is removed from his position, but acts cunningly (actually, he acts dishonestly) to ensure he will have a place and the good will of the people he stewarded after he loses his position. The Gospel certainly distinguishes between acting as children of the light vs children of the dark, but it also advises acting in ways which are cunning or shrewd on behalf of the Gospel's proclamation. In some ways we are always surprised or even shocked by the praise the master gives the steward for the way he has behaved but this does not obviate the lesson regarding shrewdness in proclamation. If the world is cunning in its own ways, so too must the children of light be in its service to the GOSPEL. So long as we do not confuse the two "worlds" (or the two ways of acting), we will be okay. In many things this is certainly a slippery slope and the one acting must be VERY cautious not to overstep, but with regard to IOL, INC and Nadine Brown's personal ministry Canon Law allows what she is doing, and the Gospel may require it.

All this being said, I would certainly like to see Brown's IOL, INC contribute substantially to the upkeep of its former members. While no one has a right to expect the return of money or resources from a community, diocese, etc which they have freely given to these, the simple fact is that IOL, Inc appears to be well funded and economically secure. There is little doubt that former privately-vowed members, Associates, and Companions have contributed to that. "Te Laudamus Deum" on blogspot has listed the members of the lay board and all things considered a little less THIS-WORLDLY SHREWDNESS and a little more Gospel generosity and humility would be nice to see. Of course if this is already the case, it would be wonderful to hear the Archdiocese of Omaha announce it is so --- or IOL, Inc, for that matter.

Question on Whether the Truth is Demeaning

[[Dear Sister Laurel, pardon me but isn't it demeaning to the HIOL to insist they were lay rather than religious? Since they had made vows hadn't they accepted the same life as religious men and women?]]

Thanks for your questions. I suspect a lot of people are asking (or have definitely asked me already) something similar. Thus, though I think I have answered all of this at least indirectly let me give it an explicit but relatively brief shot. Regarding being demeaning my answer must be no. Is it demeaning to be a member of the lay state? Clearly not. Is it demeaning to live a life outlined in the Acts of the Apostles, for instance, with values which apply to every Christian? Again, of course not. Is it demeaning to be honest about where one has been called by God to this point in time? Emphatically not. Neither is it at all demeaning to affirm clearly that the discipleship of the former HIOL led them to make private vows as specifications of their baptism, or that is caused them to ASPIRE to existence as an institute of consecrated life and to enter into a long and risky period of mutual discernment with the Church while they ministered in unique and committed ways.

On the other hand, it would be demeaning to the Church as a whole to fail to be clear that the HIOL had not yet become an institute of consecrated life, nor had its members been admitted to the consecrated state or to all of the rights and obligations which attach to religious life and that state. It would be unjust to allow people to continue to believe that the use of habits and titles were not merely "on loan" against the day that would all happen. For that matter, it would be unjust to allow the Church at large to believe there are canonical religious congregations that are mixed (that is, are communities which, despite vows of consecrated celibacy, do not have distinct communities of men and women) or allow children to wear the garb of professed religious, or who perhaps undervalue the Sacrament of marriage in the process of esteeming religious life TOO highly.

Regarding your second question, the answer is again, "no". I would ask you to refer to the last post I put up on the use of the term "vowed" which I think outlines the very large difference between the life of the religious and that of the former HIOL. While it is true there are superficial similarities (and more than usual), and while it is also true that the HIOL were allowed to approximate the life of the religious until one does all the things religious women and men do in making public profession (and until God "does TO them" all the things God does during the rite of public profession in consecrating them) living as if one is a religious is still not the same as BEING a religious.

Of course it is wrenching to lose the sense of approaching what what yearns for and has a personal certainty that this is what God is calling one to. It is painful in the extreme to have to realize the gap which remained between what one was and what one meant to be. The HIOL were in something of an in-between position here: lay persons seriously discerning WITH THE LARGER CHURCH a vocation to consecrated life and given reason to hope and believe one day they would be admitted to this and their charism affirmed publicly. It is tremendously confusing and challenging to one's own sense of God's presence in one's life to have to begin afresh one's discernment regarding what specifically God is calling one to because a MUTUAL conclusion was not reached. But this is the risk of entering into discernment with regard to an ecclesial vocation. It is the same essential dynamic that occurs when an individual says to a diocese, "I have a call to ordained life and ministry" and the diocese discerns --- perhaps after years in seminary formation --- that the person is at the very least not called to embrace this life with them at this time. When all of this is accompanied by a failure of leadership and a split and internal conflict in the original group the pain is underscored and amplified. But, the truth remains the truth and it is not demeaning to clarify that.

On the Use of the term "Vowed"

[[Sister Laurel, Why is the term "vowed" usually reserved for those with public or canonical vows? Do you mean to say that these are better than private vows?]]

The simple reason is that in the Roman Catholic Church, except for the act of consecration of a consecrated virgin which is unaccompanied by vows, or the consecration of the relative minority of diocesan hermits who choose sacred bonds other than vows, only public vows received by the Church and accompanied by the prayer of consecration during the rite of religious profession initiate a person into the consecrated state, a new and stable state of life. (As noted diocesan or c 603 hermits provide an exception here in some cases because the Canon allows for "public profession confirmed by vow or other sacred bond," but again, this would be an exception to the rule while it still involves public profession and is accompanied by the prayer of consecration. In a general way it would be considered a vowed life even with other sacred bonds.)  Private vows do not do what public vows do, nor do they bind in law in the same way. Thus we refer to the vowed life, the vowed state, or, within true religious communities, the vowed members, and when we do so we normally mean the publicly or canonically vowed.

In drawing the distinctions I have I absolutely do NOT mean that public vows are better than private vows, but they are different in the rights and responsibilities attached and, as just outlined, the state of life they help initiate a person into. As I wrote recently on another matter, diocesan hermits are specifically professed under Canon 603 but this is not the only Canon which binds in law and in conscience once the hermit is professed. A lay hermit may privately vow poverty and chastity (and if they can do so reasonably with someone who will act as director or superior --- an unlikely proposition --- obedience), but in so doing she is not bound in law to either Canon 603 or any of the other appropriate Canons which bind the diocesan hermit. Private vows do not bind in law in the same way as public vows. So, not better but different.


In a similar way, people have the right to certain NECESSARY expectations of the publicly professed person as someone who has professed an ecclesial vocation which they actually do not have with privately professed persons. They have the right to expect, among other things, that the Church herself was really, officially, and formally part of discerning and mediating this vocation, that the person acts in the church's name in living it out, that she is competent to commit to doing so for the whole of her life, that she may be approached as someone who represents the vocation with integrity and transparency, and so forth. They have the right to expect that, in some substantial way they can call on in need, she lives her life for them as she would for her own family, for instance. Thus too the public rights/privilege to title and habit, post-nomial initials, etc which are meant to serve as signs of these rights and responsibilities, and which are symbols of the state of life itself.

This, as I have written before, emphatically does not mean the lay hermit who makes private vows (or no vows at all!), for instance, has a second class vocation, or that she does not live the eremitical life every bit as well as the diocesan hermit, but it does mean that people do NOT have the right to necessarily expect of her what they may necessarily expect from a diocesan hermit. This includes that hermit being bound by and meeting the obligations of ALL of the Canons --- and thus to all of the canonical relationships which apply to consecrated life for the WHOLE (length, breadth, and depth) of her life. What applies to this illustration with hermits is true with regard to public vs private profession more generally. Again, not better, but different.

One of the reasons I am emphatic that people must be clear whether they are publicly or privately professed is that in the former case God's own call has been mediated to the person, and their response received (not merely witnessed) in a way which creates both moral and legal rights, responsibilities, and necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church. To summarize then, in general we use "vowed" to reference not just the obligations and responsibilities legally and morally assumed by the person professed, but to an entire constellation of rights and necessary expectations which people have a right to hold with regard to the one who is professed/consecrated and related to the People of God in this new and public way. Private vows neither bind nor obligate in the same way, nor allow for the same expectations. It is for this reason we ordinarily do not refer to these persons as "vowed." In other words, private vows are certainly personally binding, but not publicly so. It is a very large difference and for that reason we ordinarily reserve the term "vowed" for the latter.

cf also: Ecclesial vocations --- a matter of stable relationships for more on the stable relationships comprising the heart of canonical standing.

On the Question of Delegates for Public Associations of the Faithful

One of the questions raised by all the confusion, turmoil, and tragedy of the former HIOL situation is that of oversight, accountability, and how it is a Diocese remains completely informed about the condition of a Public Association of the Faithful, and also keep it completely informed. While my comments on support for the former HIOL may have seemed to lack compassion, they were rooted in a gut sense that something went wrong a while ago and is only now coming to the surface and while emergency assistance is important these original problems are the source of the current crisis.I am not unsympathetic to the current plight of the former HIOL, but (current legitimate emergency needs, important as they are, notwithstanding) I believe the tragedy could have been softened, attenuated, mitigated, or prevented altogether had adequate oversight and accountability been ensured right along. This is especially so with regard to the private vow of poverty which actually left former members destitute and without provision for what is a common eventuality in the life of many Associations of the Faithful.

That same sense was part of my response to the question regarding accusations of abandonment and a rush to judgment on the part of the Archdiocese when I noted that perhaps Archbishop Lucas has simply acted in a timely way after others either saw no need yet, or simply failed to do so for other reasons. At bottom I personally believe that the HIOL were not sufficiently aware of their own canonical standing as lay persons, were insufficiently cognizant of the risky status of Associations of the Faithful, and were perhaps not sufficiently clear to others regarding this category of standing in law (though I cannot verify this since their original website has been taken down). One sign, however, is that they did indeed make private vows of poverty without sufficient concern or provision for the very real possibility that the group would never become an institute of consecrated life and might even be dissolved or suppressed. How the lay board works into all this I can't say but the entire situation leaves the impression of inadequate oversight on the part of the diocese and canonists involved there as well as HIOL and IOL, Inc. Unfortunately, there seems to be lots of responsibility (not to say blame!) to apportion here, even if it is not apportioned equally. Because of this, it is my feeling that it is not necessarily the responsibility of the laity to bail people out here --- especially not in the long term! In any case, steps must be taken to ensure this never happens again, something which is key should the 56 former HIOL choose to re-form as an Association of the Faithful with an eye towards PERHAPS one day becoming an ICL with public vows.

One way of doing this is to appoint a delegate or delegates for such groups. For diocesan hermits who see their Bishops for a sit-down meeting once or twice a year usually, a delegate is either appointed by the diocese or chosen by the hermit to keep his/her finger on the pulse of things. S/he will also act as intermediary between hermit and diocese, and the Bishop will sometimes ask for his/her input on requests by the hermit for this or that permission (the use of post-nomial initials, for instance, or major changes in the hermit's Rule or praxis). Some have written here in the past that this is simply another layer of unnecessary institutionalization which detracts from the simplicity and humility of the eremitical vocation, but it really benefits the hermit and the Bishop who (along with the hermit herself) is usually only just now learning first hand about what it means to have (or be) a diocesan hermit in the diocese. (Since diocesan hermits are so rare or uncommon most Bishops do not have much experience with this. Neither do most Bishops, who are the hermit's legitimate superior, have the time to meet more frequently with hermits under their jurisdiction.) As I have noted before, the delegate thus serves as a quasi superior for the hermit and allows for genuine and adequate accountability, oversight, and information for everyone involved. Should something be questionable in the life of the hermit, or should the Bishop have concerns, the delegate serves to help mediate needed elements of clarification and resolution to both parties in a more complete and objective way. Further, the arrangement clearly cuts down on surprises and makes resolutions easier to manage -- before the situations they address have become established and more complex than originally.

All of this explains my own sense that the HIOL, a much more complex reality than a solitary diocesan hermit or hermitage after all, should certainly have had a delegate appointed by the Bishop who would be or have been responsible for communicating concerns to the Bishop in a timely fashion and working out (or calling for the appropriate people to work out) problems within the community in a similar manner. This is not meant to single out the former HIOL; it would be appropriate I think for any Lay Association of the Faithful whether private or public. It is my own sense that the delegate should probably be a perpetually professed religious with experience of the distinction between inner and outer forums in religious life, the appropriate way leadership and obedience works out in contemporary consecrated life, what happens when steps are taken prematurely or without sufficient prudence to really provide for former members or live a healthy poverty, the role and authority of the lay board, etc. Alternately, a canonist with similar experience and sensitivity, and who, for instance, has a real sense of the danger signs which must be looked out for in new groups, can clarify canonical matters for everyone, etc could well serve in such a position.

Unfortunately a lay board (which actually may be part of the problem and is certainly part of the organization requiring oversight and accountability) cannot do this, and while the moderator or general superior/director of the association will certainly assist in maintaining the mutual flow of communication, a delegate is not a member of the community (thus, s/he may be more objective) and is capable of functioning at least as a quasi superior for the whole community with their best interests AND those of the Church at heart. The fact that a delegate serves as quasi superior, though not binding members to obedience by vow or law, would also help bring to light any difficulties in the area of obedience or concerns with too-exclusive reliance on the leadership of one person, for instance. Additionally, such a delegate can help underscore for all the fact that this is a lay association in the process of discernment under the supervision of the diocese. At the very least, the impression given by the HIOL suppression has been that there was a vacuum in communication between HIOL leadership, lay board, and diocese, and perhaps therefore, in oversight and accountability as well. A diocesan delegate could well have helped overcome such a situation before it reached crisis proportions.

Were the Hermit Intercessors Religious?

[[Dearest Sr Laurel, The 56 didn't stay in a motel. They were in a Benedictine Retreat House. Now they were somewhere in Iowa [if i am not mistaken] and they'll be moving to Blair, NE, in a former campus dormitory. I feel that you're (sic) post lacks compassion for these former hermits. You seem to forget that they were in a religious community. You seem to attack even the obedient hermits {okay call them metaphorical hermits] by telling them they were never religious. This alone creates confusion. Some may even think they are deceiving people even from the start. Some may think they are fake brothers and sisters.

Now in your recent post, it seems that you discourage people to donate to the destitute former intercessors although you have clarified this at the end of your post. Yes they are part of the laity now, so they mustn't receive any support now? But they were in a religious community before, took vows of poverty and now they have nothing. Some of them are old now and have no family to return to. So, because they are laity they must be sent to charity homes for the aged? Some of them left their jobs because they entered "Religious life" so, they must be sent back to the world again because they are laity and we must not care for them now from now on? There's a great possibility that they'll be founding another community. Fr. Baxter has said that.]]

Thank you for the corrections regarding the motel, and the note on the dormitory. I have made the appropriate correction in the original post. I haven't seen where the former HIOL has published anything yet on this latter issue outside their request for money and their comment that it is difficult finding a place large enough for 50 plus people, so thank you for this information. I am sorry my last post seemed to lack compassion. There is no doubt the plea for longterm corporate assistance did not sit well with me. Because of that, and because they are pertinent, I should correct you on a couple of points. First, I do indeed discourage people from contributing to the support of the former HIOL as a group or "community", especially without demanding a good deal more transparency and clarity before doing so not only on the part of the former HIOL group of 56, but of the IOL, Inc. Secondly, and especially important, however, is the simple fact that the HIOL were never religious. I am not the source of confusion here, nor am I attacking anyone in clarifying their canonical status. Certainly there is nothing wrong with being a member of the laity (i.e., lay STATE in the vocational sense). Neither should it be seen to be an attack or somehow demeaning in pointing out that someone was a member of the lay state rather than the consecrated state.


So again, the HIOL were members of a Public Association of the Faithful. They did not have canonical (public) vows, were not members of an institute of consecrated life, and their vows, though made in good faith and a serious personal commitment, could be simply dispensed at any time by their pastor or bishop, and without the canonical process of public vows. It is not simply that they are NOW lay persons; they have been lay persons right along (and not merely in the hierarchical sense of that term which applies to non-clerics, but in the vocational sense which distinguishes between lay, ordained, and consecrated faithful). As I noted earlier, they were allowed the use of habits and titles AS THEY DISCERNED with the Church whether or not they would ever become an institute of consecrated life and be admitted to the consecrated state of life, but that eventuality was NEVER assured.

None of this means people should not contribute to them if they choose but simply that they should be clear the HIOL were not religious. Neither does this necessarily point to deception or pretense (although I personally find continuing references to "vowed members" as opposed to other lay members somewhat and perhaps purposely unclear (or maybe just confused) since ANY lay person may make private vows at any time which have the same gravity as those of any HIOL; further, they may do so do so on their own initiative without mutual discernment, permission from anyone, or anyone actually receiving those vows. The term vowed is ordinarily reserved for those with PUBLIC or canonical vows because they are initiated into the consecrated state by their profession and have their entire lives PUBLICLY defined in these terms, something that private vows do not do. Again what all this means is not that HIOL vows were insignificant (they were quite significant) but instead that the members of the HIOL were not religious, and need to be VERY clear in the future about their identity and category of canonical standing especially when they request assistance. Perhaps it will help if I quote rather extensively here from a canonist who specializes in consecrated life to back up what I am saying.

[[Reasons Why Knowing the Canonical Status of a Community is Important

1. Only members of Diocesan-right or Pontifical-Right Religious Institutes are religious and enjoy the rights of religious and the obligations of religious. Vowed members of such Religious Institutes are in the consecrated state. The Intercessors of the Lamb, contrary to popular opinion, were NEVER a religious institute and its members were not in the consecrated state. “Consecrated” or vowed Members had some of the trappings of religious life: a habit, vows, chapel, statutes, etc., but they were not recognized in the Church as true religious. Why? Because they were in the more risky (to discerners) stage of being a Public Association of the Faithful.

While they had the intention and hope of eventually following some kind of consecrated lifestyle in a form approved by the Church, the Intercessors of the Lamb had the same status as any other Public Association of the Faithful (think Legion of Mary, Worldwide Marriage Encounter, etc.). A good percentage of Public Associations of the Faithful who wish to become a Religious Institute or evolve into a Secular Institute or a Society of Apostolic Life simply fold, fizzle out, are suppressed, or disintegrate for a variety of reasons. Oftentimes, it is because there are unhealthy practices within the community, shady financial practices, personality struggles, etc. The bottom line is that even people with vows in a Public Association of the Faithful remain lay (if non-ordained) because they are not in a Religious Institute.]] Therese Ivers, JCL, Diocese of Sioux Falls.

In fact, I believe that there has been some serious imprudence on the part of the lay board who was meant to govern the HIOL, and possibly on the part of the community's leadership as well. Any person who is discerning a vocation with an Association of the Faithful should realize that the position of the organization is tenuous as best. Even (and perhaps especially) in making private vows of poverty in such an organization there probably should be some sort of provision for members who must leave or who are left high and dry should the organization dissolve or be suppressed. I am not in the least suggesting the former HIOL were disobedient (nor, however, that obedience -- or cooperation with the Archbishop -- should be rewarded financially), but I think we must be clear on the nature of the group and ask some serious questions about the MORAL and possibly legal obligations of IOL, Inc, as well as the imprudence of being wholly unprepared to pick up the financial pieces in case of the group's failure --- especially if asking for assistance from the laity generally distracts from demanding IOL, Inc act responsibly and morally in their regard.

In saying this I am assuming that the HIOL were clear on the private nature of the vows they took, and clear on the risk attached to being part of a still-discerning Association of the Faithful. (If they were not the situation becomes even more serious and irregular.) And while I can understand they would ask for emergency assistance, I have been very surprised that they seriously appear to expect the laity to support them for an indefinite period, provide luxury items like cars, trucks, computers, printers, and the like, or that they have not considered that their current circumstances will seriously effect the way they have been able to live their lives --- just as it would when any Association of the Faithful fails for whatever reason. Thus, it is not that I don't want former HIOL's assisted financially per se --- especially as emergency assistance; what I want is the appropriate people doing that and in the most appropriate way (namely, individually not corporately) given the (now former) canonical status of the group.

Further, in pointing to what I consider a serious example of imprudence on the part of HIOL leadership or perhaps abdication of responsibility by the IOL,Inc (I don't know which is involved or if both are) I will refer to one warning sign put forth by another Canonist, Peter J Vere, JCL, MCL. It is taken from a list of warning signs used in evaluating new groups. Vere writes that discerners et al should be cautious regarding groups evidencing, [[5. [a premature] insistence on placing all goods in common: While the Church has a history of associations and religious orders in which members place all their goods in common, the decision to do so should come after a reasonable period of careful discernment. Placing one’s goods in common is not for everyone, and the consequences of such a decision are lifelong. Additionally, the potential for abuse by those who administer the common goods is great. Therefore, canonists frown upon any insistence by an association that its new or potential members place their goods in common.

Due to the fact that modern times see less stability in common life, with members sometimes opting to leave after a number of years, the most prudent handling of goods in common is to place them in trust until a member dies. That way, if the member leaves, the goods are available to meet his or her needs outside of the community.]] (Emphasis added)

The link to the rest of this article will be found on Therese Ivers' site, "Do I Have a Vocation?" (More than this this point may be applicable so people should definitely take a look at it!) Ivers is also planning a series on the HIOL/IOL, Inc and people really should stay tuned. Strictly canonical questions can be directed to her as well.

As far as forming another community goes, everyone needs to be clear that this will continue to be a (Lay) Association of the Faithful, and possibly a private association before it becomes a public association in the beginning. It will have no different standing in law than any other Association, and vows made by members will remain private vows unless and until the Archbishop erects the group as an Institute of Consecrated Life and admits members to public vows where they actually assume the RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CANONICAL VOWS. Remember that there are literally hundreds of such groups extant at this point. Most desire to be ICL's at some point and some are headed by persons who long to be "foundresses". Many have private vows but have not yet received permission to adopt the habit "on loan" against the day they are made ICL's -- nor will they ever.

Most dissolve or are told they cannot continue by their local ordinary because of all kinds of irregularities and eccentricities. Do they have a right to expect the laity of the Church to support them as groups (or even members individually) nonetheless? Do they have the right to expect the laity to support them while they start out? I don't think so. Emergency help (counseling, social workers, financial aid, etc) especially for those who are too elderly to work should be made available, but I do personally think that those who are elderly and/or incapable of working should apply for government assistance (just as those who ARE publicly (canonically) professed sometimes need and are expected to do when they age or become infirm --- for neither dioceses nor laity support these persons). Those who are capable of working should do so of course, just as any other lay person is expected to do --- even if they believe they are called to contemplative lives or even to lives of eremitical solitude --- again, just as those with canonical vows (including diocesan hermits) are required to do --- and absolutely as every other person in the Church with private vows must usually do when in need.

It is possible that the Church will need to rethink the wisdom and prudence of the custom (for it is only custom) of allowing Public Associations of the Faithful who wish to become Institutes of Consecrated Life (etc) to adopt habits and titles prematurely (say, before it is sure that a Bishop WILL erect the group as an ICL, etc), or make vows which give up all property or the right to such, etc, as a result of this situation. Habits and titles are properly associated with the assumption of public rights and responsibilities, and generally too, with initiation into the consecrated state (exceptions, for instance, include novices who are allowed to wear the habit of the institute as they prepare for profession because they do indeed have some rights within the congregation which candidates do not have. They signal this to the rest of the Church along with the fact that they are indeed immediately preparing for public profession by adopting modified religious garb (e.g., white veil, no ring or community emblem associated with final profession). The confusion that is being generated in this case amongst average church members, and in fact, which is being insisted on as truth (as in your own email to me) in order to justify assistance and so forth is significant and a matter for concern I think.

On the Question of Relief for Former Hermit Intercessors and the Fund for Retired Religious

Perhaps this should be two separate posts, but the first issue segues into the second and also helps explain my ambivalence or outright antipathy to the first question. For that reason, and for now at least, I will keep these together. Also, if my opinions on the first question (supporting the former Hermit Intercessors) changes, I will post that as soon as I can.


I admit to having felt torn on the issue of financially supporting those 50 some former Hermit Intercessors who are now staying at a retreat house. (Temporary assistance while they transitioned to ordinary lay life was not a problem at all, and I was pleased to see the Archdiocese of Omaha assisting in this. Ongoing support was the issue.) However, these former HIOL have published a letter now appealing for assistance and they put their needs at $25,000 per month to take care of rent (for a place large enough to house all 56 of them), utilities, food, basic living expenses, etc.

They also list things they will be needing "once they are settled" like computers, printers, furniture, cars, trucks, gift cards (to buy whatever they need), phone cards, etc. And I find my ambivalence changing to outright antipathy. I wonder, for instance, just why the rest of the laity (because after all, these are lay persons who are no longer in the same category as groups like the Knights of Columbus even) should be footing the bill for this? Further, there is no indication that this is a merely temporary situation, no notice that the members of this lay community will be working to support themselves or whether they will continue to need to live from the charity of others indefinitely, etc. Granted, the group claims a couple of thousand other laity who were Companions or Associates of the group and if they want to assist and are able to do so, then they should, but I honestly cannot get my head or my heart around the idea of the laity in general supporting a group of other lay people in this way who are not, never were, and may never be a religious congregation with public vows.

At the very least I personally would want a LOT more information about what went on to cause the breakup, how the HIOL have been supported in the past (because, God knows, their campus and nearby holdings hardly speak of poverty or fledgling communities to me), and what the Archdiocese itself is doing for them (and not just financially, but in terms of what could become a kind of fast-tracking them to public association status again and why. Again, this is my own ambivalence speaking). I would also want some answers about prudent provisions for the future and why they weren't made --- as is the case usually in any actual religious congregation for candidates, novices and anyone NOT perpetually professed in public (canonical) vows. (For instance, why has everything been turned over to the IOL, Inc before public vows were even allowed much less made? Why was nothing set aside (perhaps in some escrow account) in case a person should need to leave the group for some reason? Does the IOL, Inc have NO legal obligations to members who are now destitute? Do they plan to exercise any MORAL responsibility for helping their former members transition to ordinary lay life? And beyond this, why is this smaller group NOT planning to transition to ordinary lay life UNTIL they can find a way to regroup and support themselves? It would certainly be expected of any other lay group in the Church.)

So, at the risk of seeming more heartless than I already may let me remind readers of the ordinary circumstances of consecrated, publicly vowed religious men and women in the church (including contemplative nuns and monks). You already know that diocesan hermits are expected to support themselves in some way and can expect no financial assistance from their dioceses. We routinely sign a waiver of claim at perpetual profession which says clearly we 1) will maintain financial independence and 2) will not expect the diocese to be responsible for our actions or expenses. In fact, the ability to do this is a central piece of discerning a vocation to diocesan eremitism, and the inability to do so argues against the person having such a vocation at this point in time. But it is a widespread misunderstanding that religious congregations (institutes of consecrated life with public vows and obligations) are actually SUPPORTED by the Church. This is something I hear even today despite the number of times I have heard it addressed. Religious congregations generally live from the support of the working members, and as the median age of congregations has risen and the number of younger Sisters and Brothers has declined, it has become harder and harder to stretch these salaries to support the entire community and the ministry they do. It is estimated that by 2019 the number of religious above the age of 70 will outnumber those below it by 4:1. (By the way, this whole dynamic is one of the reasons communities are unable to accept disabled or otherwise unwell persons, and a piece of the reason older vocations are only cautiously accepted by some congregations.)



Some retired members receive social security (though it should be remembered that religious never paid into the system until around 1972 --- given the fact that they each earned on average far less than $75 per month, they simply were too poor and there were no provisions in law for those with public vows of poverty). Some receive Medicare or Medicaid for medical expenses, and some may be eligible for SSI, a supplemental payment of @$800 a month which, while usually available to the disabled, is meant to help the truly destitute live when they cannot draw ordinary social security benefits or the amount is VERY low. (In CA, for instance the current SSI payment for any disabled person is $840, a combined amount from State and Federal government, which is meant to pay for ALL needs the individual has each month: rent, utilities, food, transportation, clothes, insurance, etc.) In other words, it is their entire income except that those who can work a bit are allowed to earn $65. Beyond this every dollar must be returned to the State or Federal government because it is seen to indicate there is no real need for the SSI payment in such cases. I will tell you that ALL gifts of money, no matter how small, COUNT AGAINST this income, and religious congregations are assiduously honest in accounting for such gifts. So, if Sister needs a new sweater, for instance, friends are asked to give her a sweater rather than the money to buy one.

Some people believe that religious congregations in such circumstances deserve it. If they had really lived their vocations, really lived as religious and not "given up their habits, etc" they would have lots of younger members to support the older retired and infirm ones. But this is patent nonsense (not to mention a rather pagan way of looking at reality). These are congregations of religious men and women who have literally given their lives for the Church and World and are now struggling to continue their lives and work in that same Church and world. They receive no direct financial assistance from the Church in any way whatsoever and NEVER HAVE (except of course whatever the laity have given!!). Meanwhile, despite being the teachers, nurses, social workers, spiritual directors, pastoral ministers, etc etc etc, of most adults in the Church they are either forgotten or their real need (which includes the need of the congregation as a whole to live and minister on) remains largely disregarded. Once a year there is a collection in each parish benefiting a fund for relief of retired religious. Over the years they have collected money, which, when parcelled out averages a one time payment of about $640 for every religious man and woman.



So, I am not saying do not contribute to support the former HIOL, though I would certainly suggest you demand more answers and information before doing so. I am saying that there are thousands and thousands of retired men and women religious who have lived public vows of poverty, chastity and obedience for their entire adult lives and whose congregations now need assistance, not simply to support and care for these members BUT TO CONTINUE MINISTERING EFFECTIVELY TO THE CHURCH AND WORLD WHILE THEY DO SO. And this is the really crucial part of things. These retired religious do not want assistance for themselves, and their congregations are more than happy to provide for their own Brothers and Sisters. As in any family, it is a labor of love and familial responsibility. But doing so (not to mention the anxiety attached to doing so) can detract from the capacity of the congregation to minister and to thrive as a whole, and this is something we all have a responsibility to help prevent if possible.

The bottom line here? PLEASE consider supporting the Retirement Fund for Religious. It is not simply a worthy cause, but one which contributes to the health and vitality of every established religious congregation in the Church. Check out their website for important FAQ's and more detailed explanations and data than I can give!

Archdiocese's treatment of Hermit Intercessor's of the Lambs

One person wrote me the following email which raises, among others, the question of how the church (namely, the Archdiocese of Omaha) has treated Nadine Brown, and by extension, members of the HIOL. One other question it raises which is significant is the notion of discerning a vocation and how that happens with ecclesial vocations --- those which are effectively mediated by and are lived in the name of the church.

[[. . .All of this scandal is a tragic end to the loving ministry of Mother and the intercessors. Where can she go now that the church has abandoned her? They stripped her of her cloths, her life's vocation; and suppressed her voice. She must feel that there is a scarlet letter on her forehead. Where can we go and to whom can we ask for prayers by email from someone who does not know who we are, who will respond immediately with gentle love and kindness? Many, many, blessings were received through IOL ministry. ]]

First let me say how very sorry I am that the members of the former HIOL have suffered the loss they have. It is always difficult when, for instance, a person is required to leave formation in religious life, or religious life itself, the ordained priesthood, etc. And of course the HIOL situation was both more abrupt and unexpected than these usually are. What is true though in all these cases is that whenever we attempt to discern ecclesial vocations, we are never sure that we have such a vocation unless and until the church herself agrees and calls us forth officially for consecration. This is because the discernment in such situations is always mutual. One cannot do so on one's own -- crucial as that part of the process is. God's own call in the heart of the person is incomplete until the Church herself clarifies, affirms, and even mediates that call as well. Beyond this, because ecclesial vocations are not simply identified by rights and responsibilities that come from baptism alone, one must be admitted to profession (public) or ordination, to acquire new rights and responsibilities and the church has every right to govern and supervise these vocations.

As an example of what I mean let me use my own vocation to eremitical life. At one point and because of something which had nothing to do with me personally, my diocese ceased considering professing anyone under Canon 603. In a sense that left me hanging, however it did not nullify my own discernment in the matter completely. I was called by God (directly or in an unmediated way) to eremitical life, but what I had to accept was that perhaps this was not a call to diocesan eremitical life. Thus, until and unless my diocese discerned the reality of this vocation and admitted me to perpetual public vows I could not actually say I had been called to C603 life. More, until the very liturgy of profession where I was called forth in the name of the diocese and my parish, was examined, allowed to make profession, and received consecration and commissioning at the hands of my Bishop, I would have to consider that the very vocation (the call of God) itself was incomplete and objectively "uncertain" no matter what I felt in my heart (subjectively). In part this is because during the profession liturgy the actions of church and individual are effective. That is, in the calling forth of the candidate, the speaking of the vows, the praying of the prayer of consecration, etc, something comes to be that was not the case before. This thing comes to be in the very act of speaking. All of these events together constitute the definitive mediation of God's own call to the individual via the Church.

None of this, I am sure, eases or mitigates the pain being felt either by Nadine Brown or those to whom she ministered and who rightly came to value her assistance and life so, but it does argue that the church has not deprived her of anything (especially a vocation) that was hers apart from the larger church's own discernment and mediation, and certainly I don't think they have abandoned her in any way. In the first place, Nadine Brown's vocation was not sure. Both she and the HIOL were discerning the nature of their call along with the Church in the form of the episcopacy. They were a public association of the faithful but they were NOT an institute of consecrated life. Thus the vows held by all of those professed were private or non-canonical vows which did not initiate them into the consecrated state. Whether that consecration would or even should ever happen was an as-yet unsettled question and discernment of the matter was not simply the responsibility of Brown or other HIOLs; it was something the Church herself was ALSO responsible for.We have to understand then that the actual mediation of such a call had not occurred though the steps taken in moving from private association to public one with the intention of perhaps moving to ICL gave serious reason to believe it COULD happen one day if all went well.

Nadine Brown (or any of the HIOLs) still has the option of making private vows at any time, though it is true she/they cannot do so as part of the HIOL. A world of certain possibilities has been foreclosed to them for the moment, but they all have rights as a result of their baptism. None of those has ceased, and while it is surely difficult to start over (or continue simply as a private association of the faithful) it can be done.

The Treatment of the Hermit Intercessors by Archbishop Lucas and the Archdiocese



Despite what I have read about a rush to judgment and your own language of abandonment, etc I think it is really important to see just how generous and compassionate the Archdiocese of Omaha is being with regard to the HIOL. To provide clothing, a place to stay, counseling and direction is simply not something that is usually done even with vowed religious. The idea that a diocese will work with members of a lay organization (in the same category as the Knights of Columbus) until they figure out what they are going to do next, and what sounds like the possibility of supporting the former HIOL's in reforming in some way is literally (and unfortunately) almost unheard of. Unless Nadine Brown has allied herself with the lay board which is said to be resisting the reforms the Archbishop required, she would be part of this group with whom the diocese is working. So, "abandonment" is certainly too strong a word here.

I will say that personally I don't see where any scandal need attach to Nadine Brown from the actions of the Archdiocese. They required the group to get new leadership and so Brown resigned her role at that point. There is nothing necessarily insulting or offensive in that. There are many stories of Saints throughout the centuries who were not the best Abbots, Abbesses, etc, or were not the best at a given point in time in the congregation's history! One of the signs of a community that is ready to become an institute of consecrated life is its ability to accept new leadership and to grow from that rather than simply being demoralized by and falling apart or becoming seriously polarized because of it. So, there is no reason simply because of the Archdiocese's actions to see Nadine Brown as having a large red letter painted on her forehead. Unless she has done something truly scandalous herself. . ..

Finally, I hope you will look for others who can serve in the way Nadine Brown and the HIOL did. In fact, there is no reason she herself cannot carry on a private ministry of the kind you believe you have lost, and no reason you cannot assist in this, though again privately or perhaps through a parish, for instance. She is a lay woman as she has been right along during her time with the IOL. She has gifts and you (plural) have needs. Help each other continue to bring those together for the good of the whole Church and the world. Nadine Brown is part of the Body of Christ. That has not changed. The immediate context for her ministry has changed, but the ministry itself need not.


Addendum: 27.October.2010: Please note that the Archdiocese of Omaha has published a statement clarifying a distinction between the Association of Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and an allied group known as the Intercessors of the Lamb. Thus, I am changing most of the IOL references in my posts to HIOL because they refer to the once canonically approved public association, not the secondary group which was never canonically approved. This can also have an effect on my comments regarding Companions of the IOL. If the Companions are simply a lay group associated with the IOL, Inc and not the HIOL, then as I have now noted above, they might well be able to continue --- though in my opinion maintaining the name Companions of Intercessors of the Lamb seems imprudent at best, and will likely be confusing, counterproductive, and possibly disedifying to the rest of the Church.

Followup Question: Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Profession under Canon 603

[[ Sister Laurel, in one post on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb you referred to persons who use the term "hermit" in metaphorical ways. Are you saying you believe they were not real hermits? Maybe it is more that they are examples of the term hermit being enlarged rather than "emptied of meaning." Have you considered this?]]

With regard to the Intercessors I have to first say I do not know enough about the way the members lived to draw a conclusion one way or another. The two things I do know about them suggest that perhaps the term "hermit" is meant to indicate a dedication to some form of desert spirituality and a life with some added degree of solitude (aloneness) and silence, but not in the same sense that Canon 603 requires. Similarly, I have heard or read that the "hermits" lived active and fairly social lives most of the week but set aside Saturdays for solitude, silence, and contemplative prayer. IF this is the case, then I would suggest this is neither eremitical life as I personally understand it, nor certainly as the paradigmatic canon 603 defines it. However, my concern in referring to a metaphorical usage was less with "realness" of the eremitical lives of the Intercessors per se as with the possibility of the situation they are now in contributing to a problem which crops up with regard to Canon 603 occasionally --- namely, the profession of those whose lives bear little or no resemblance at all to the life defined therein.

Misuse of Canon 603 in Professions:

Let me explain. While I believe the usage of the term "hermits" in the title of the former intercessors' community was metaphorical (they were not literally hermits as the church understands and codifies this vocation), it remains likely that despite being equivocal and somewhat confusing, the usage can still be of value in pointing to the place of silence and solitude in every life, and especially in ministerial or apostolic lives. Every life can benefit from desert spirituality, no matter how active that life because every life will experience times which especially bring home the fact that nothing but dependence on God will truly sustain or nourish authentically human life. However, with regard to those who wish to be professed under C 603 such equivocal usage and confusion would be contrary to the canon and detrimental to the vocation itself. Canon 603 does NOT define hermit in a metaphorical sense, nor does it do so in terms of silence AND solitude which merely need to be quantified in this or that way. It does not allow for vocations which are merely expressions of a metaphorical eremitism and loosely inspired by the early desert Abbas and Ammas, nor lives which are simply more alone or quiet than most people's. (Please cf the text of the Canon at the foot of this post for the defining or normative terms used in the Code.)

Instead, those professed under this canon must be hermits in a literal sense and as defined herein, thus spending their entire lives embodying more completely the vocation to solitary eremitical life and the charism C 603 describes as "the silence OF solitude." And yet occasionally we hear stories of people being professed under Canon 603 whose lives truly bear no resemblance to the life outlined there, often because C 603 is the only canon allowing for the profession of an individual and can seem to provide an opportunity for making vows when no other way is open to a person. Thus, for instance, in one diocese several years ago a woman was professed despite the fact that she is in every way living an active apostolic life. She works full time five days a week, sets Saturdays aside for silence, solitude, and contemplative prayer and frankly describes the term "hermit" as a metaphor for her life.

In regard to this specific case, let me say clearly and emphatically that this Sister sounds like a completely amazing person and is someone I would personally like to know. She is praised highly by those who know her and apparently works to the limits of her ability in giving her life for others in Christ. However, all of this notwithstanding, she is NO hermit and the life she lives cannot, even remotely, be considered a life of "the silence OF solitude," "assiduous prayer and penance," and "stricter separation from the world" which is part of the strictly non-negotiable nature of solitary or diocesan eremitical life. In her case (and precisely because she is remarkable) I truly believe Canon 603 was used as a stopgap way of professing her because nothing else was available --- which indicates possibly exemplary motives on the part of the diocese --- but I also believe it represented a serious and imprudent misuse of the Canon which actually endangers the very vocation it is meant to nurture, protect, and govern.

The Implications of Misuse of the Canon

Obviously this is a rather "gnarly" problem and one with which the Church will have to deal. Every individual profession sets or continues a precedent and in this particular case it sets a precedent which can easily and eventually empty the terms of Canon 603 of meaning. Further, if the precedent is repeated, if others with similar lives are professed, this could actually lead 1) to increased reluctance by Bishops to profess ANYONE under this canon --- something we actually do see today, 2) to increased interventions by the hierarchy imposing more and more rules, guidelines, etc, and 3) (when all else fails) to the actual suppression of the solitary eremitical life altogether. The latter has certainly happened in the past. Besides outright suppression, what we have seen at various points in the Church's life more generally is that either solitary hermits and their vocations are smothered in rules or swallowed up into communities as the church tries to regulate their lives, or the term "hermit" comes to be used merely metaphorically for any life of greater aloneness or relative silence and even as a synonym for isolated do-your-own-thing life, life characterized simply by misanthropy, selfishness, bizarreness, etc, etc.

In the first situation hermits may come or be brought together by bishops in what may initially be authentic lauras (which are colonies more than they are juridical communities) and then find that over time increased rules, structure, etc, invariably transforms the laura into a religious community. In this way the solitary eremitical life is thus lost and replaced by cenobitical life. In the second situation every element outlined in Canon 603 is perverted or otherwise rendered null or empty. What replaces eremitical life is an antisocial, eccentric life constituted less by Christian freedom than by some merely humanistic liberty, and the term "hermit" ceases to have real meaning for most people apart from this notion. (This allows for situations like the one I wrote about recently where "Tom Leppard" was identified by a reporter as a hermit, situations which do nothing more than reinforce stereotypes and makes the actual vocation unbelieveable and ridiculous.) When this happens the church can (and has) suppressed the vocation because it has come to represent abuse, misuse, distortion and a libertinism which is disedifying and even contrary to Christian discipleship.

The Importance of Canon 603 in protecting the solitary eremitical vocation

Thus, Canon 603 is significant because it allows in Law for the solitary eremitical vocation particularly. The entire stress in the Canon is on this, and this is really the first time in the history of the Church that this has occurred on a universal level. Given the very fragile nature of the vocation and the two major ways it has been imperiled in the history of the Church noted above (1) increased institutionalization and excessive oversight and 2) inadequate or lacking institutionalization and insufficient oversight which thus allows an "anything goes" kind of life), Canon 603 defines the life in terms of BOTH non-negotiable and universal elements AND individual flexibility ( via the individual Rule of Life written by the hermit herself and based on her experience of how God calls her uniquely). It is thus clearly defined, but also can have quite diverse and relatively flexible expressions.

I think the Canon is therefore masterfully written in a way which allows for fidelity to the traditional understanding of this life AND to the freedom and creativity in the specific living out of this which each hermit is also called. Canon 603 is an incredibly wise and prudent attempt to protect one of the most delicate vocations in the church. If it is misused though, if its essential elements are misdefined, disregarded, or treated as negotiable and a life professed under the canon in not truly defined by them and so, ceases to be a literal expression of these elements, the term hermit may become a mere metaphor, which, as important as that may be to some, is not at all what Canon 603 is meant for. In such a case it would not be a matter of the term hermit being enlarged so much as it would represent a genuine emptying of the term of meaning. It would also render the Canon ineffective in doing what it was truly meant to do, namely (again), to nurture, protect, and govern a very rare and fragile vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world.

Hence, my concern with metaphorical vs literal, and solitary vs communal or cenobitical in my post on the possibility of professing former Intercessors under Canon 603. In responding to the question I was not concerned so much with the nature of the HIOL's use of the term hermit (though I admit I don't like usage which confuses the issue of what is or isn't a hermit), but rather with whether this was a life which the church could somehow "automatically" profess under Canon 603 without separate and serious discernment or caution --- especially given the communal nature of the HIOL vocation. The question posed by the reader raised all kinds of caution flags in my mind, not regarding the HIOL themselves, but with regard to maintaining the vitality, meaning, and purpose of Canon 603 per se.

Text of Canon 603, Revised Code of Canon Law

Sec 1: Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance.

Sec 2: A hermit is recognized in the law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.