Question on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Trivialization of the Habit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I don't usually read your blog. I read it because of the post on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb. I am pleased you admitted you did not have an opinion on the suppression. I wonder though why you were critical of the fact that children were wearing the habit of the community. They are part of the community after all. I thought the picture was kind of cute and pointed to the fact that the IOTL was fostering vocations among the very young. Why would you call this practice "trivialization" of the habit? Seems a bit harsh to me. Also, why would this picture raise questions about the IOTL's membership in the Congregation of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) or the organization itself?]]

Welcome to this blog then, and thanks for your questions. I have written in the past about habits having meaning. They are symbolic and ecclesial garb with which the church vests a person because of mutual discernment of a God-given vocation and the assumption of life commitments mediated by the Church. (Sometimes "Church" means congregations and their representatives which are officially recognized, sometimes it means a Bishop (as in the case of diocesan hermits, for instance). The point is the garb has meaning in this context and one needs to be authorized to wear it if they are publicly representing a vocation. A habit represents the achievement of various degrees of discernment and correlative commitment to an ecclesially mediated call. Thus, it is not unusual to see the stages of such commitments mirrored in aspects of the habit (for instance novices may wear a white veil while professed wear some color or a black one), or to see various pieces of clothing given to a person as they move from postulancy to novitiate to temporary profession and then to perpetual profession (for instance the monastic cowl is given at solemn or perpetual profession for monks and some hermits while rings, medals, crosses etc are given at various points as well in many congregations).

There are various ways the habit (or even religious insignias like rings and medals) can be emptied of meaning or, as I said in my other post, trivialized, and even rendered incredible and untrustworthy. Sometimes people adopt garb on their own rather than accepting that the Church through appropriate authority invests a person not only with the garb, but with the commensurate rights and obligations of the vocation represented to others via the vesture. They have therefore neither been given nor accepted these in a meaningful (or authoritative) way and no one they minister to really knows whether they have or are prepared for living out this vocation --- though on seeing the vesture they will assume they may necessarily turn to this person with various expectations (not least that the person has been confirmed in this vocation by the church and acts in her name and with her authority and supervision) and that they may therefore do so safely and meaningfully. The habit gives THEM this right just as it gives the religious who wears it certain rights and obligations as consecrated persons in the Church. Formation, education, supervision, competence, maturity, commitment, and faithfulness to the life of the evangelical counsels are a few of the expectations that NECESSARILY come with the wearing of the habit. They are expectations any Catholic (or non-Catholic for that matter) has a complete right to hold in regard to those wearing such garb publicly.

In my own experience veils and some other pieces of religious garb are treated as sacred; they are as consecrated objects reserved for those who are consecrated or preparing for consecration. Often in the past, and sometimes still religious pray as they put each piece on. Whatever the custom in this regard, they are not costumes, not meant for "dressup" or "pretend." In recent years most religious have gone through sometimes-harrowing and at least difficult processes to discern whether God has called them to either retain or give up the habit. Sometimes these decisions are made in the face of peers who discern the precisely opposite thing, and have done so honestly and in good faith. The bottom line here is that whether we retain or forego the wearing of the habit we treat habits as meaningful garments and we respect that significance. Thus, we do not lend friends extra veils to use for halloween costumes; we do not allow children to wear them to feel like their aunt the nun (for instance) or to dress like this or that saint during school pageants. In those instances we use costumes that are clearly that --- not the real deal. This reminds the kids both of what is true, and what may to be aspired to. To do otherwise is to trivialize and misuse something the Church treats with great respect and significance. To trivialize something in this way, I believe, empties it of meaning. To empty something of meaning may be the essence of sacrilege.

You see, I don't believe there is anything cute about the picture because I don't think it indicates a single unique instance of this practice. The picture was submitted to the CMSWR for their website as representative of the life of the community. It affects me somewhat the same way seeing the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" wearing habits does (though at least their's are clearly costumes and meant to be a parody)! Yes, the child is part of the "community" (though I wonder if she and the others SHOULD be), but she is a child -- not professed, not a nun, not someone who has been through all the discernment and formation for such a life and assumed the completely ADULT rights and obligations associated with the commitment of vows. Who else in the community wears a habit for inadequate or casually justified reasons --- whether or not they have a vocation to consecrated life or have completed the appropriate formation or met the normal canonical requirements (which do not ordinarily include marriage and minor or dependent children)? When I see an adult in the habit of the community and veil of the professed, especially if she is walking along with habited children in tow, can I truly assume that she is someone who truly IS what the habit represents? I doubt it now because I really cannot trust the habit means the same thing to the Hermit Intercessors that it means to the Church or to religious women and men.

Note well that I have merely focused on the fact of the child wearing the habit as a form of trivialization. The picture at issue appears to show us a family ALL in habit however, and if this is true, then this underscores the question of whether the habit means for this group what it means for the rest of the Church. Do ANY of these people have vows of consecrated celibacy or chastity, for instance? And if so, what of their marriage vows? What does the habit still MEAN in such a case? Also please note that although your question (and so, my answer) has to do with a comment I made on the trivialization of the habit, the questions of the welfare of the children in this situation --- children who presumably go to school and play with other children in the community --- and of the real nature of this mixed community are also raised front and center with this picture. For me personally it is a snapshot which raises questions about misplaced priorities (marriage vs religious life, for instance) and inadequate boundaries (I would want to understand how families, and celibates actually live in this situation) and, despite recognizing that snapshots can be notoriously misleading, I can understand simply from this small fragment of the community portrait why some might wonder whether or not the group is more cult-like than representative of an Association of the Faithful on the way perhaps to becoming an Institute of Consecrated Life.

Children in Veils, CMSWR, and Former Membership of the Intercessors.

As for why this practice raises questions with regard to CMSWR and membership within it consider that the CMSWR is very conservative and inflexible on the issue of member communities wearing habits. Sometimes they have given the impression that members of communities who do not wear habits are not "real religious" so I wonder if they care that a member community is dressing children in religious garb associated with canonical consecration. I would wager they will be a tad chagrined at this photo for, for me at least, it calls to mind the old in-joke among Sisters (which was more true than some liked) that in Catholic schools the quality of teacher education and aptitude was so low one could put a habit on a broom, set the broom inside the classroom and get as gifted a teacher as some sisters already there. The jibe was that in many cases no one would notice the difference! After all, so long as there was a habit present in the classroom, what else was really necessary?

For that reason, the fact that CMSWR requires the wearing of habits, but may not be judicious enough to notice when pictures of a member group (a LAY group, by the way) on their very website includes habited children while they consider canonically vowed women religious who have given their entire lives to Christ and his Church to be "pseudo sisters" simply because they don't wear habits seems ridiculous to me, and surely must be embarrassing to the CMSWR. We (LCWR, CMSWR, diocesan hermits, etc) ALL argue that the habit does not make the Sister but it seems that perhaps in this case the CMSWR (and certainly the Intercessors of the Lamb) have forgotten this piece of wisdom. At least as I say, it raises serious questions for me.

Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Profession under Canon 603

[[Sister, could the former members of the Hermit Intercessors become Canon 603 hermits? What would it take for this to happen?]]


This is a huge and complex question. In some ways though, it is a simple question as well. My own opinion is that a few of them, AS INDIVIDUALS, MIGHT, in time, discern a vocation to diocesan eremitical life, but given the situation at hand both they and the archdiocese (or their home dioceses if they return to those) must act with even greater caution than ordinarily. Canon 603 is not meant simply to provide a way to profess someone who has not been or cannot be professed any other way. It is not simply a fallback position when one vocational path fails -- for whatever reason. One must really discern a true vocation to eremitical life and beyond that, to consecrated eremitical life. Even more specifically, one must discern a call to diocesan (that is, SOLITARY) rather than religious eremitical life. From what I can see the "Hermits'" life is intensely and definitively communal, not to mention familial, and simply calling members "hermits" does not make them hermits especially in the sense Canon 603 uses the term. One may well be contemplative, for instance, without in the least being called to eremitical solitude. Beyond this, one may be called to religious eremitical life without being called to solitary eremitical life, whether lay or diocesan.

So, what would it take for this to happen? Former members interested in pursuing this option would need, again, to discern vocations to SOLITARY eremitical life (not merely contemplative life, and not life in community or even to religious eremitical life), and this would require at least several years AFTER transitioning out of the life of the Intercessors. They, like all potential aspirants for profession under canon 603 would need to discern whether they were called to live eremitical life as a lay person or with canonical vows and, if the latter, approach their own diocese with a petition to be admitted to profession and the beginning of a process of MUTUAL discernment. Sometime just before (or after) this they would need to write a Rule of Life based on their own lived experience of solitary eremitical life which they would submit for approval by canonists and the diocesan Bishop. And, as noted, they would need the diocese to discern the same vocation and admit them to canonical vows --- just as any other candidate or aspirant for Canon 603 profession must do.

Those who would be eligible to discern this would meet all the requirements diocesan hermits must ordinarily meet: they will be single (or if divorced, have received an anullment) and be otherwise unencumbered of minor or dependent children, etc. Note that I have heard of some diocesan hermits who work part time caring for elderly parents, for instance, but this is not universally accepted and the signs of eremitical vocation and readiness for canonical profession must be clear nonetheless, not simply for the individual and hierarchy mutually discerning the vocation before them, but for those to whom the hermit will witness and minister in and from the silence of solitude within the parish, diocese, etc.

In many ways then, the steps would be the same as for any other person, but the church hierarchy will be especially sure Canon 603 is not being seized on as a stopgap means of profession or a merely compensatory fallback position for someone who would much rather live in community, etc. In particular the Church would need to be sure that whatever individuals seek to live according to Canon 603 and who might THEREAFTER seek to come together in a Laura, have EACH discerned a vocation to solitary eremitical life and are not using Canon 603 merely to reconstitute a remnant of the Intercessors or find a merely alternative way back into habit and (finally, admission to public) vows!! The question which must be answered satisfactorily for everyone concerned (not least for diocesan hermits who HAVE discerned, are professed to, and live the life with integrity!) is "Why, if you truly feel called to this, did you not seek profession according to Canon 603 BEFORE the suppression of your group? Why now??"

Thus, the entire process of discernment from initial experimentation with the life through perpetual profession could well take the same time as it does for anyone else (from to 8-12 years or more) with no assurance that temporary, much less perpetual profession will actually occur until quite late in the process. Given the current situation especially, it would also probably be prudent -- if such permission was granted at all -- to allow such hermits to come together in a Laura for mutual support, etc, only AFTER perpetual profession under Canon 603. (I would argue this is necessary anyway for proper discernment and assurance regarding the solitary nature of the vocation, but that it is especially important in the former Intercessors' situation. After all, lauras fail far far more often than they succeed but the vocation and vows of the diocesan hermit remain nonetheless. Living the vocation without benefit of a laura, and without the formation of the laura must be possible for the individual hermit, but it is especially important for those whose whole experience of professed life is semi-eremitical at best, or for whom the term "hermit" was an ideal or metaphorical term only.)

Regular readers of this blog know that I have written in the past about the dangers of inappropriate use of Canon 603 to profess persons who have no real vocation to solitary eremitical life. I think your question is an important one because there will be a great temptation to "just profess" members under Canon 603 without appropriate discernment, or true understanding of the difference between solitary and communal or semi-eremitical life. This is a temptation former Intercessor members and hierarchy must take care to resist and avoid. Similarly the temptation to form a community and merely call it a laura to justify it (and get members professed) is equally problematical today, so the situation of the formerly privately professed members of the Intercessors of the Lamb raises this issue as well. There are very real differences between the two and sometimes canonists focus more on subtle technical or juridical elements to the exclusion of the substantive elements rooted in the nature (charism, mission) of the life itself. (I am thinking especially here of a dissertation on Canon 603 I read several months ago, and which I -- and some other diocesan hermits I know -- believe is especially flawed in this way. (It is helpful in others!) The dissertation argues for what is canonically possible in light of other canons but what is "possible" canonically is not always the same as what is prudent for or theologically and spiritually sound in terms of the solitary eremitical vocation itself.)

I hope this helps.

Suppression of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb

I am posting the following stories about the suppression of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb because they raise a number of issues I have written about in the past. Included would be the use of the designation Catholic (Catholic hermit, Catholic Congregation, Catholic organization, etc), the right (and responsibility) to wear a habit or use a title as something which is given (and taken away) by the Church and cannot be assumed by individuals on their own, the difference between canonical and non-canonical vows (Religious Sisters and Brothers v Hermit Intecessors), and the issue of being cautious about new charisms or communities which are moving (or wish to move) towards canonical status.

Also alluded to in the earlier article (second below) is the fact that the move to canonical standing is meant to be overseen at every stage by the diocese, and well should be. I have treated all these issues as serious because the Church holds them to be so, not because I am legalistic, but because I am strongly pastoral. They are not, as some persons would like to contend, abstract or merely intellectual issues. They affect lives at every level, and almost every one of them is reflected in the situation with the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb. I believe the following letter and story underscore the same concerns at every point. 

Personally while I have never understood the designation "hermit" in the group's name or much else about them (I did not know they were a "mixed community", for instance, nor did I know that the "hermits" had a schedule like the one I wrote about recently --- 5 days of activity and Saturday devoted to solitude and silence, for instance), but given my knowledge of this now I would say the inaccurate use of the term hermits raises the question as to whether the group was trying or planning to try to use c 603 rather than the canons and procedures for congregations to become canonical. If so, I would object to that. On the other hand, I have no opinions whatsoever on the suppression. I simply do not know much more than is included in the following letter from Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Omaha, Timothy McNeil or the preceding article (placed after the letter though), and that is not enough to form an opinion in the matter. 

Clearly suppression is a very serious and significant move, and we should pray for those members who are now formerly privately vowed** and must find ways to live out their Christian commitment in new ways and contexts, but more than that I cannot say without research and reflection. 

N.B., I am, however, including a picture I just saw (from the CMSWR website under members) which has a CHILD wearing a habit and professed person's veil. (There is a small boy with what looks like a monk's habit/hood in the same picture but the details are hard to make out.) Consider what I have written about casual practices which empty the habit of meaning or significance and see if this does not fit that bill. The trivialization of the habit in this way would raise questions for me about the group as a whole all by itself --- and perhaps about their putative membership in CMSWR and what it says about that organization's policies and stances regarding non-habited communities as well.) ** It should be noted that the vows of ANY of the HIOL were considered private or non-canonical vows since the group/organization had not been established as an institute of consecrated life yet. Vows of those who are part of an association are considered private. Only those of religious and diocesan hermits are considered public, while those of members of secular institutes are a kind of anomaly which are considered semi-public. The vows of Societies of Apostolic Life are also considered private. 

 Despite these distinctions what should be noticed is 1) that vows of whatever sort represent significant commitments, and 2) nonetheless, the HIOL have not been reduced from the consecrated state because they had never been initiated into the consecrated state. It is important to keep that in mind in evaluating the Church's actions here. 

[[October 15, 2010 Today, for grave reasons, I suppressed the Hermit Association of the Intercessors of the Lamb. The reasons for this suppression are noted in a separate news release, principally, the refusal of the lay civil board of the Intercessors of the Lamb,Inc., a Nebraska corporation, to acknowledge my authority in making much-needed reforms in the community. The way of life of some fifty vowed members was in peril due to actions of a handful of civil directors. The vows of the former members have ceased (c. 1194), and they are to set aside the habit and refrain from using the titles “Mother,” “Brother,” or “Sister.” They are no longer considered to be in consecrated life or assimilated to it in the Church. 

I am providing for the care of the former members in the short-term, and remain committed to helping them in any way I can in the future. From this point forward, The Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is in no way associated with the Catholic Church. As Archbishop of Omaha, and in view of my authority to govern and guard the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church (c. 835 §1), I hereby decree that no liturgical or sacramental celebrations are to occur on any property owned by the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., within the Archdiocese of Omaha. Priests, deacons, and lay ministers are to observe this prescription. The chapel formerly known as the Our Lady of Light Chapel on the Bellwether campus in Omaha is no longer a Catholic chapel. Catholic faithful worldwide should be aware that any alms given to the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., are not being given to a Catholic organization. 

Those who previously had scheduled retreats or other Catholic ministry opportunities there should look elsewhere. Those who consider themselves “companions” or “associates” of the Intercessors, some of whom have even taken [private] vows, are hereby informed that such vows were never canonically recognized in the Church. Even if such vows were binding in conscience, they too cease in view of the suppression of the Hermit Association of the Intercessors of the Lamb and c. 1194. 

Of course, Catholic faithful are always welcome, in virtue of their baptism, to associate together and to pray. I would encourage those companions and associates to continue to pray for the former vowed members of the Intercessor community, for the Church, and for the needs of the world. 

An Earlier Piece of the Story (Status of Group, Leader steps down)

[[Deacon Timothy McNeil, chancellor of the archdiocese and director of communications, explained to CNA on Monday in a phone interview that Sr. Nadine had approached the newly installed Archbishop Lucas last year in order to move the group's status to the next canonical tier. In an effort to familiarize himself with the group before advancing Sr. Nadine's initiative, Archbishop Lucas had canon lawyer Fr. James Conn act as his delegate in conducting a canonical visitation of the Intercessors. “We learned some things that were kind of alarming,” said Deacon McNeil, adding that the findings showed that “they were not ready to make the next step.” “The findings were such” that if the group was going to advance to the next canonical status, he noted, “it would have to be under the leadership of another individual.” For that reason, the deacon said, Archbishop Lucas asked Sr. Nadine to resign “and she agreed to it.” 

When asked what the specifics findings of the visitation were, Deacon McNeil explained that they included “discord within the group, widespread dissatisfaction with current leadership, reservation of the Eucharist in a way that is not provided by ecclesiastical law,” poor “management of temporal goods” and an inability of group members to articulate the Intercessors' charism. “The combination of all of these things,” he added, “resulted in the group needing a new leadership change.” 

 Deacon McNeil said that Archbishop Lucas has appointed Fr. Gregory Baxter – a pastor of the local St. Margaret Mary parish who has held numerous archdiocesan positions – as trustee of the group. In a statement released by the Omaha archdiocese on Oct. 4, the archbishop said that “Father Conn’s preliminary findings, as well as Father Baxter’s appointment as trustee, will help chart a course forward for the community. I’m grateful for Father Conn’s good work, and I have full confidence in Father Baxter’s ability to guide the visitation to a successful conclusion.”