Consumed by the Temporal or in Love With the God Revealed as Emmanuel?

Sister, do you understand the following passage? Could you please explain it? [[To be consumed with the temporal world--even the temporal world of humankind's temporalization of the Church by the human-created laws which involve yet more temporalization of one's existence in what is a temporalized church--then God's Law of Love is lost to those temporal humans. This includes the path of life upon which God sets each of us, in whatever format that may be expressed in words. Those who are so temporal as to not be able to envision a life lived in the Love of the Holy Trinity are not of those of temporal nor spiritual association.]]

From this excerpt and my own reading of other passages and blog posts, I believe I understand where this writer is coming from yes, and I personally disagree with both her premises and her conclusions. I believe that theologically she has moved away from authentic Christianity while claiming to be a Catholic Christian, and so I am critical of what she writes. In any case, what she seems to be saying is that living life in space and time (i.e., life in the spatiotemporal realm) and being concerned with things of space and time (like canon laws that help mediate God's will) obviates one's ability to be ultimately concerned with God's law of love. It's an exaggerated version of, "If you concern yourself with the things of this world, you can't attend to God's Law of Love or even envision a life lived in God's love," and thus, has both theological and spiritual implications.

Much of what this writer opines seems clearly based on an exaggerated division between the temporal and the eternal (or even the spiritual). From my own perspective, she seems unaware of God's determination to be Emmanuel right here in space and time or God's realization of that determination in the Incarnation. In this way (that is, in Jesus' incarnation of the Word throughout his life and into death itself) the eternal breaks into the temporal and is at work divinizing it. This results in a kind of paradox of which your writer seems unaware, namely, while not forgetting contemplative prayer and mystical experiences of God, it is in truly attending to the everyday "ordinary" reality in which we live, that we meet God and God's mercy and love all the time!!! God is eternal, yes, AND God has chosen to become Emmanuel right here and right now. We do not despise the spatiotemporal; we recognize that our world is now a sacramental reality with the capacity to reveal God in life's every moment and mood.   

I am not sure what your writer means by the temporalization of the Church. The Church is temporal by its very nature, just as all Sacraments are temporal even as they mediate the eternal. It is not plopped down full-blown from heaven but Divinely called and breathed into being from earthly roots. At the same time, the Church mediates the power and presence of God just as all sacraments do. The Church, however, is not the Kingdom of God though she prepares the way for God's Reign. While she serves the eternal in this sense and has a definite mystical dimension, she is not eternal; she remains a temporal reality meant to sanctify the realm of space and time by assisting in its divinization. In Christ, chronos becomes kairos --- time shot full of futurity. One of the ways the Church assists this to happen is with canon laws like C 603 which allow for and govern Divine vocations in the very midst of space and time. 

There seems to be a degree of unwarranted judgment in this writer's approach to canon law --- especially with canon 603 and those like myself who concern ourselves with exploring it and the life it describes and prescribes. Because someone like myself lives and explores the terms of the canon by allowing them to serve as doorways into the depths of Mystery or the Transcendent, this does not mean one is incapable of concern with God's law of love. Just the opposite. Neither does one's exploration of this canon and work on applying it creatively for solitary eremitical vocations mean one is somehow cut off from the Holy Spirit. Absolutely just the opposite!! It is one small way some of us living life under this canon serve others and the Church itself. We do that precisely because the Love of God moves us to do so; God works in and through Canon 603 for those called to live and/or explore this life. Unfortunately, the tendency to judgmentalism seems to prevent your writer from reading what I actually write about the canon and what it makes possible in terms of the power and presence of God. I am sorry that is the case.

Please note: I chose the pictures I did for this piece because each one is concerned in its own way with God's Love/Presence breaking into and transfiguring the ordinary realm of space and time. The first and third pictures remind me of what we miss when we denigrate the world around us or forget where God is truly found --- namely, in the unexpected and unacceptable place. The third also reminds me of what it means to see as a child sees and love as a child loves when everything (even a painted "plaster" figure) is allowed to mediate the love of God.

My sincere apologies, if the writer mentioned above, heard me saying she is not a Catholic Christian.  (Cf. On Sinful Judging Take Two)  I believe it is clear for most folks that, in fact, it is because she is a Catholic and a non-canonical hermit and blogger who often writes antagonistically about c 603 and those so professed, that I am concerned with her writing about canonical (consecrated) eremitical life. I think it is very likely the reason folks comment on or ask me about what they read on her blog(s).

Essential Hiddenness and the Vocation to Extraordinary Ordinariness (Reprise)

Image from Saturday Evening Post article

In the current (May/June 2013) issue of The Saturday Evening Post there is an article on "The New Urban Hermits" for which Jack El-Hai interviewed Karen Fredette (former hermit and, with her husband Paul, editor of Raven's Bread), Roger Cunningham (former Buddhist hermit), and myself. There are a couple of factual inaccuracies which make me sound like a vowed Camaldolese rather than a vowed diocesan hermit and Camaldolese Oblate but generally I think the article is really well done and that Jack El-Hai got his head and heart around something few people really understand. He deserves real credit for that.

One of the fine points Karen Fredette  makes is that hermits are about doing ordinary things with an extraordinary motivation.  I made a similar point used later in the article which, when taken with Karen's comment, suggests hermits experience this as the sustaining "glue" and heart of a vocation to contemplative life including eremitical solitude. It is certainly fundamental to Benedictinism and Camaldolese Benedictinism. I can't post the article here (I don't have a copy to do that with anyway) but I can reprise a post I put up here five years ago on living "an extraordinary ordinariness." Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Essential Hiddenness and the Vocation to Extraordinary Ordinariness (05. June.2008) Too often people think of hermits or their essential hiddenness as abnormal. This blog post spoke to these things; for those who are coming to this blog because of the SEP article, Welcome! I think you will find this post is a good introduction to the heart of eremitical faitfulness.

On Essential Hiddenness and the Vocation to Extraordinary Ordinariness

[[Thank you for answering my questions about the hiddenness of the hermit life. What you write about its "essential hiddenness" sounds like the same "hiddenness" which is true of the lives of many people living in the world. You and other hermits seem to make a virtue of this, but isn't it pretty ordinary?]]

Yes, it is very ordinary, and in fact, that is precisely its virtue. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the hermit is meant to witness to those whose lives are ordinary in ways which may cause them to question the meaning and value or significance of  those lives. I have written about those in unusual circumstances (chronic illness, disability, etc) who are called upon to witness to the Gospel in vivid and poignant ways, but I have not really said much about those who work day in and day out at menial jobs and who see their lives as essentially meaningless or unimportant. I think the hermit can remind us each that every life, no matter how apparently unproductive or ordinary, is really (or is certainly meant to be!) part of a profound dynamic where the Kingdom of God comes to be realized more and more fully in our world. That happens, for the most part and for most persons, in the perseverance and day by day faithfulnesses exercised in ordinary life.

There is nothing spectacular or even very remarkable about the hermit's life in the ordinary sense of those words. It is very much a life of day to day faithfulness to the call of God and that call summons the hermit to prayer, work, study, and (sometimes) even some degree of outreach or evangelization every day in a way which repeats again and again. No one much recognizes what happens here in the hermitage as special, and from one perspective, there is nothing special about it. It is completely ordinary whether one is writing an article, doing the laundry or cleaning the bathroom, praying Office, doing personal work, studying, or meeting with occasional direction clients. Even contemplative or quiet prayer is pretty ordinary stuff from one perspective. From another perspective, of course, it is all very special, because it is all done in and with God, and in order to foster the coming of his Kingdom. When the ordinary is undertaken with and in the grace or presence of God it always becomes extraordinary, and yet, no one is likely to see that really. When I wrote in my earlier response that even my telling you what I do during the day would leave the essential mystery of the life intact, that is what I meant.

The challenge to each of us is to undertake the ordinary in a way which is attentive and sensitive to the presence of God. It is the challenge to undertake these things with a care and even love which, through the grace of God, transforms them into something extraordinary. This is basic spirituality and it is this which the hermit's day to day life accepts and affirms as infinitely valuable. I can say without question that although I do not know how it happens, I know without a doubt that my life in this hermitage, my daily perseverance in cell, my faithfulness to prayer, work, study, and the ordinariness of life, allows for God's Kingdom to be more fully realized right here and right now. I know without question that Stillsong Hermitage is a small bit of leaven in the loaf that is my community and the world, and that it contributes to the transformation of that whole even though I may never really understand that or see it realized in my lifetime.

Personally, I believe that every person is challenged to embrace his or her life in this way, especially in its ordinariness. God transforms everything he is allowed to touch with his hallowing love, and our job is to let that happen in all the ways day to day living puts before us. If we can do that, and to the extent we do it, again, the ordinary will be transformed into something extraordinary because each task and moment becomes the occasion where God's grace is allowed to enter in and to triumph. That is the very essence of affirming the goodness and sacramental nature of all reality. So, in each and everything we undertake, we strive to be attentive, aware, care-full, loving, and (describing all of these together) truly present. Nothing in this life is really ordinary unless we allow it to remain that by foreclosing it to our own conscious presence and the effect of God's grace. On the other hand, the really extraordinary in our daily lives is likely to remain hidden from most people for the whole of our lives.

I am thinking of the husband or wife who cares for his or her sick spouse day in and day out for weeks, months, or years, for instance. The most mundane act is transformed when carried out with loving awareness, attentiveness, and openness to God's grace, and yet no one sees this or thinks much to remark on it. It is unspectacular in many ways, but clearly extraordinary at the same time. And yet it is essentially hidden from the eyes of the world. So much of our lives really is hidden in this way.

It takes the eyes of faith to see as the hermit or other contemplative sees! I think the hermit witnesses not only to this essential hiddenness, but to the humility and faithfulness that is so necessary in a world where everyone seems to need to make a name for him or herself --- even if the only name they can claim is that of victim --- a thriving category of dubious "achievement" in the contemporary world! The hermit witnesses to how truly extraordinary is the life of "ordinary" faithfulness, "ordinary" perseverance, ordinary "heroism," and "ordinary" love undertaken in God. After all, this is precisely what Jesus' life was about; it is precisely who Jesus was and what Jesus revealed true humanity to be. It is therefore unsurprising that Jesus' miracles were, in the end, insufficient to really reveal the Kingdom of God except as a testimony to the fact that that reign comes to us and is made manifest in ordinary faith! The hermit witnesses to how infinitely meaningful is the life that our contemporary world dismisses as trivial and insignificant -- if it is lived in and through the grace of God.

Addendum, July 2013: The article is now available on the Saturday Evening Post website:  May/June 2013 | The Saturday Evening Post

Sister, Why are you Personally Interested in the vocation of CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, while I appreciate what you have written about canon 604 vocations, I wonder why it is of such interest to you. You are not a CV, nor discerning a vocation to this. Why are you continuing a conversation which does not personally interest you?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this before a little more than a year ago so I would suggest you look at the posts on consecrated secularity and CV's from that time. Even so, I can summarize my concerns and interest for you. It begins with the fact that this vocation made NO sense to me either theologically or pastorally until I read Sister Sharon Holland,. IHM's essay on the place of the Consecrated Virgin in today's Church. As I wrote a year ago, before that I felt it was a reality "in search of a job description" or "raison d'etre", neither fish nor fowl --- rather like secular institutes sometimes seemed, but without the benefits of community life, vows, or a Rule of Life. It was the secularity, and especially the consecrated or eschatological secularity of the vocation which allowed its charismatic import as gift of the Holy Spirit to become theologically clear to me. Once this happened I could see this was not some half-hearted vocation for those unwilling or somehow unable to adopt the whole reality of religious life (what the LA Province called a "fallback vocation"), but instead a whole-hearted and very challenging call to a qualified (specifically, an eschatological) secularity the world is destined for. When I ask myself what allows me to understand this vocation as a gift of the Holy Spirit and to explain the vocation positively rather than in terms of what it is not, this is the primary element which allows me to do that.

So, to summarize the important elements of my PERSONAL interest:

1) Contrary to what some argue, consecrated secularity is hardly common or as natural as breathing. The Church has a long history of esteeming consecrated life but not so of secular vocations which have been seen as profane and hardly a way to holiness. This changed with Vatican II and the Church still needs a holiness which is modeled by those leading thoroughly or radically secular vocations which are ALSO radically and consciously consecrated. These vocations contrast belief in a God who ultimately makes a Sacrament of this world with secularism so we need people who embrace such vocations and make the distinction clear with their lives. I am completely committed to Vatican II and to its recovery of this  eschatologically secular vocation and the theology of a universal call to holiness.

2) Some are arguing that making this vocation a quasi-religious vocation (vows, distinctive garb, titles, post-nomial initials, etc) is actually a deepening of it and that younger CV's are thus doing this when older CV's have lived a mediocre consecrated secularity. I argue that this is instead a betrayal of the vocation as the Church clearly understands it, and that if these changes are made the vocation will cease to be meaningful, much less truly charismatic, and speak to no one. (These women will not speak to religious --- who would thus live a more radical religious life than CV's, nor would they speak to secular members of the Church who are called to embrace and witness to the Kingdom of God within the world in all of its everyday dimensions. Both the Church and the WORLD needs this  radically eschatological AND radically secular witness desperately because what VII called everyone to was an exhaustive holiness wherever their vocations were lived. This is still not well understood in terms of secularity.)

3) The arguments the Church uses are historical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, canonical, etc and because of this these reasons for calling the vocation a form of sacred secularity are interesting to and rightfully addressed by theologians. It is neither appropriate nor accurate to neglect the historical contexts pertinent to this vocation's nature and significance (Vatican II  and Centuries 1-12 especially, but also the reality of consecrated virginity as it existed BEFORE the Church hierarchy began to control it in the second century)  and then argue this is a "proto-religious" vocation or "more radical" than what women have lived for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, this is what I have heard some CV's without apparent theological, historical, or pastoral sophistication doing. (Part of this involves ignoring the variety of authoritative ways the Church teaches and only paying serious attention to de fide statements, for instance. Part of it involves suggesting a witness to sacred or eschatological secularity is not even needed by today's world. Someone with theological training and a personal acquaintance with consecrated and Religious life needs to counter these tendencies.)

4) Thus, I am concerned with this issue because the vocation was actually subverted in the past when it became associated with ONLY its religious (cloistered) expression and the original secular expression was wholly lost in 1139. This should not be allowed to happen again, especially when the vocation which reprises the original secularity of the call is only 30 years old. I am concerned with this because as a hermit I deal with world-hating (and world-demeaning) language all the time. I am in a unique position to reflect on the meaning of the term "the world" both exegetically, canonically, experientially,  and theologically and too, on the significance of secular vocations. Similarly, I am concerned with any notion of vocation which ignores the development of Vatican II and its universal call to exhaustive holiness along with the clear teaching that ALL the baptized are called to live some form of the evangelical counsels and are encouraged to pray the Liturgy of Hours.

Pastorally I have dealt often, and even regularly with the pain of those called to lay (and/or secular) vocations who mistakenly think they must make private vows to embrace a radical discipleship or aspire to authentic holiness. (Instead they need to specify the demands of their baptismal consecrations and/or marriage vows regularly. Too few have done this because they don't see Baptism as a call to radical discipleship.) It is a VERY common thing to hear lay people who are, almost by definition, usually called to secular vocations (lay hermits are different) to complain they feel called to a third class or entry-level vocation which makes them called but not really "chosen." It is similarly common to hear these same people asking the related question of whether the Church REALLY esteems secular vocations or has merely thrown them a few crumbs in revising their roles during liturgy. The theology supporting such notions is abhorrent.

5) Finally, I have the sense that SOME of the younger CV's are unclear on their own motivations in all of this. I think there is too much accent on NOT being mistaken for laity or members of secular institutes, or on separating oneself from them in visible ways. I believe some of these CV's have bought into a very worldy misunderstanding (worldly in the worst sense) of Thomas Aquinas' teaching on the objective superiority of religious vocations and that they demean or denigrate secular vocations in spite of VII or the call to a New Evangelization. I believe that some of these women are resistant to thinking paradoxically as the Gospel requires of us and therefore are fostering a way of thinking which is fundamentally Greek and pagan rather than truly Christian. I also believe that some of these women do not really understand the import or content of religious poverty or religious obedience and the very different freedom that issues from these as opposed to properly secular expressions of the evangelical counsels. Like others, I wonder why these women did not simply pursue religious life if they truly believe the secularity of the original call which persisted for more than 11 centuries side by side the religious expression was wrong or somehow immature and in need of deepening.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

A Summary of the Church's Position on the Thoroughgoing Secularity of Consecrated Virgins living in the World

[[Sister Laurel, I appreciated the post you put up on another forum summarizing all you have written about the CV vocation for women living in the world. I also agree you have not been nitpicking. Could you please put that post up here so others will see it as well? Thanks, a CV in Canada.]]

Mary of Magdela, Apostle to the Apostles

Yes, I would be happy to. A note to readers: the references to tone and nitpicking are in response to those who believe the issue is being debated only to prove oneself right. We have to recognize that the secular expression of the vocation was once lost due to folks making it into a religious vocation and, as I have argued here, it is its sacred or eschatological secularity which makes it such a tremendous gift of the Holy Spirit to our Church and world. Thus, there is something really critical at issue here --- not someone's need to be right. After all, there is a significant difference between marshalling an argument in a systematic way for the benefit of those discerning the vocation and simply being argumentative.

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

I would personally urge readers to abstain from reading a "tone" into a post even if the import of that post is the clarification of matters or the presentation of theological reasoning which contrasts with that of someone else. However, let's be clear about what has been called nitpicking. Meanings are important and so are nuances. To clarify these often has tremendous significance in the life of the Church. Nitpicking means to pick at meaningless and tiny differences. I don't think anyone pointing out the basis of the Church's approbation of this as a wholly secular and wholly consecrated vocation can even remotely be considered to be engaged in nitpicking.

The vocation is a secular one AND it is a form of consecrated life. These two elements, in the eyes of the Church, are not in conflict with one another. They quailify each other (thus we get a sacred or eschatological secularity) but they do not mitigate one another.  It is not the case that if something is MORE secular then it is necessarily LESS consecrated or vice versa. Vatican II esteemed secular vocations in a fresh and significant way. It spoke passionately about the universal call to holiness and the vocation not merely of lay persons, but of anyone called to live out their vocations in the secular world. It was out of this context and under the express instructions of Vatican II that the Rite of Consecration was revised so it was not merely for cloistered nuns, but for women "given to the Spirit and the world in the things of the Spirit and the things of the World."

Some would like to see this vocation as "secular in the weak sense" (meaning only that it is not lived in a monastery). That IS a different view of the vocation than the Church herself holds. The USCCB, the USACV, Documents from CICLSAL or from Sister Sharon Holland (as chief in that office under the mandatory Cardinal and Bishop), and the Rite of Consecration itself are all clear that the vocation is a secular one in a much stronger or thoroughgoing sense. The use of veils is limited to the Rite of Consecration and Mass or liturgy on the anniversary of that consecration. Habits are not worn, vows are not made, titles and post-nomial initials are not used. The relationship with one's Bishop is one of a warm paternal nature; he is not the CV's legitimate superior and she is not bound to him by a vow or promise of obedience. The CV's relationship to her diocese is significant, but she is not bound here by the same kind of residential stability as the hermit professed under canon 603. CV's work wherever they can in whatever expertise they are able to exercise. In free time they may volunteer to work for the Church or other charities. Their lives are lives of prayer and service and they are encouraged to pray the LOH --- though it must be made clear that this is the official prayer of the entire Church, not simply of priests and religious, and that ALL lay persons and their parishes are encouraged to pray at least MP and EP from the LOH, just as are those in the consecrated state of life.

The actual revision of the Rite was meant to recover the secular expression of the vocation which was not only more original than the cloistered expression but which, until the early 12th century, co-existed with the cloistered expression. Meanwhile, the cloistered expression is seen to have turned the nature of the vocation on its head and eventually caused the significance and validity of its secular expression to have been obscured, then lost altogether. All of this along with the Church's emphasis on New Evangelization and refreshed emphasis on missiology in and to the secular (and thus to Catholics and non-Catholics alike), a Christology which sees Jesus' active life as completely secular even as he is wholly consecrated to God (Jesus was not cloistered, not a monk nor hermit, etc), an examination of the discussions during the steps leading to the promulgation of this as a secular vocation, theological reflection on the distinction between religious life and consecrated virginity under canon 604 for women living in the world, a fresh appreciation of Paul's eschatology, and the lived experience of the hugest number of women thus consecrated argue the secularity of this vocation. It is a secularity which is truly consecrated, authentically eschatological (proleptic of the Kingdom) but it is an unmitigated secularity nonetheless.

I will add one other piece of evidence which clearly says the Church sees the vocation in this way, namely, she does not require women living secular lives to leave any of this (work, relationships, activities including political activities, hobbies, normal dress, etc) BEFORE (or after) she consecrates them. She allows secular women living secular lives to discern this vocation and to be consecrated. This would be completely irresponsible if thereafter the Church believed these women were to adopt quasi-religious vocations with distinctive garb, vows, legitimate superiors, etc. It is also contrary to the way the Church operates with ANY other vocation to the consecrated state. Imagine what would happen if a women discerned long and carefully the way God was calling her to serve the Church and world in her secularity, and after consecration required she embrace a quasi-religious life instead! The Church has been very clear in her praxis, liturgy, and theology, that this vocation is radically secular even as it is radically consecrated. This is precisely the witness the Church and world needs today when secularism (not the same as secularity) is running rampant and requires a genuine alternative.


Those who would prefer to live a quasi-religious life or to make that of CV's living in the world into a quasi-religious vocation really will cause this vocation to continue to make sense to no one --- and thus, to effectively change nothing, especially the way the secular is truly viewed. (It is meant to be the place where God's Kingdom comes to be in perfection so that "God is all in all.") Religious will continue to regard these women as "wannabes"  or at least continue wondering what the vocation is really all about, and those living secular lives will continue asking, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" --- and rightly so. Meanwhile those living secular lives will continue to believe they have second class or entry level vocations and "heaven" will be defined in terms of "pie in the sky by and by" rather than the eternal life that is meant to interpenetrate this world and, in fact, perfect it in the sovereignty of God. I write all this because I believe the vocation is a tremendous gift of God to our Church and world, but it is only such a gift if it is wholly a secular one as well as wholly a consecrated one. I also write it because I believe it is irresponsible to disregard all of this and suggest that the Church has NOT decided the nature of this vocation's secularity. Thirty years of consecrating secular women to live secular lives based on all of the above suggests otherwise.

Minimized Secularity: A Legitimate Development for CV's?

[[Dear Sister, Wouldn't it be possible for the Church to discover that the vocation of consecrated virgins living in the world has developed in a way which requires the kinds of things you say separate Religious from aspects or dimensions of the world? I understand your argument that this would mean the Church was wrong for 30 years, but vocations DO develop. Why couldn't a mitigated secularity (your words) be a development?]]

That's a good question and I am pretty sure it is precisely what the minority of CV's who desire the separating trappings of Religious life would argue. When I spoke of being free to experiment in my own vocation in order to discover the shape of eremitical life in the 21st Century I was referring to this question indirectly. You may remember that what I said there is that any experiments I might do would be limited by the nature of my vocation. For instance, I can't make it a secular vocation when part of the canon reads "stricter separation from the world" --- and so, defines this as even more intensely non-secular than other religious vocations.  I can't do this when the liturgy by which I was professed stressed this separation at every point (official liturgy is normative as law is normative). Once my own vocation becomes secular it ceases being eremitical.

There is no calling it secular in the "weak sense" because I don't live on monastery property or out in the boonies, or in a literal desert for instance. It is eremitical because it is defined in terms of the central elements of canon 603 and the Rite of Profession we used, or it is not eremitical at all. Further, these elements are always the ones which guide my implementation of various practices; thus, if I am called on to do some limited ministry at the parish I have to be sure my life is still clearly eremitical in terms of stricter separation, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude. I cannot begin to define my life as "less eremitical" or eremitical in the weak sense, or even as "more ministerial" --- as good as any of those things are generally. I am committed to keeping its essential nature or I will lose it altogether.

In canon 603, for instance, "stricter separation from the world" clearly does not refer to a physical place. It means non-secular. For that reason Bishops profess urban hermits as well as those living in more natural wildernesses. It seems reasonable that when canon 604's Rite of Consecration refers to women "living in the world" then, it is not referring simply to physical location.  It is referring to something more essential and fundamental on which all else is therefore built. This conclusion has to be buttressed with the other things I have mentioned, including the fact that canon 604 CV's are said to be called to serve in the things of the spirit and the things of the world (cf homily from Rite of Consecration), the fact that it is women living thoroughly secular lives who are irrevocably consecrated, the historical and theological context of the vocation which underscores a recovery of a secular vocation lost in the 12th Century when the vocation became the sole property of cloistered nuns, the fact that ministerial or apostolic religious who are virgins do NOT receive this consecration as they surely should if the vocation is not truly secular, the important emphasis of Vatican II on the universal call to holiness, and finally the New Evangelization's emphasis on a new missiology which esteems the secular while struggling against secularism.

 While I have referred to canon law history, the theology of consecrated and religious life, Christology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and a few other things in various posts on this, my basic concern and argument is pastoral. The bottom line for me is that unless this is a thoroughly secular vocation (consecrated life though it is) it does not make sense; unless it is truly secular it will remain a somewhat half-baked, less than radical vocation (neither secular nor religious), and will be incomprehensible and inspiring to neither those living secular lives nor to those living as Religious.

Only if it is a truly secular vocation is it truly charismatic since charisms come from the interaction of the world's need and the influence of the Holy Spirit; only then will it speak relevantly and prophetically to a world-at-large which is called to live the life of the Kingdom in the state of secularity. (I firmly believe this world does NOT truly need yet another vocation which suggests secularity is NOT a call to a radical, exhaustive holiness!) I simply don't believe turning the vocation into a quasi-religious vocation will inspire most people to live an eschatological or sacramental secularity. While my own vocation can summon people to build silence, solitude, and prayer into their lives to a greater degree, and while it can remind them that it is God alone who completes us and is sufficient for our needs, there is also the danger that I give the signal one must leave the world to be a person of prayer, silence, or genuine solitude. I may, unfortunately, give the mistaken signal that one needs vows or special garb or legitimate superiors, to be called to or become holy. And so forth.

Referring only to the fundamental nature of consecrated virginity and not to its special graces, a vocation called secular and given to others "in the things of the world" as well as those of the Spirit is a gift to the secular world in particular for it says that holiness is possible without the separation adopted by religious. It was once taken as common truth that such separation was required for genuine holiness. But this is, of course, no longer the case. Vatican II stressed the universal call to holiness and in light of that vocations to secular institutes as well as the recovery of the consecration of virgins living in the world have become significant calls to a secularity which leads to genuine holiness. Meanwhile the New Evangelization calls for the Church to proclaim a Gospel which transforms all of reality. It hardly seems reasonable to me then that turning the vocation into a quasi religious vocation or otherwise mitigating its secularity so that it is no longer the gift the post-Vatican II Church and the New Evangelization require can be called a development --- at least not a legitimate or positive one.

One final point. The ancient vocation  to consecrated virginity went through a development which saw it used more and more exclusively for women entirely separated from "the world" and cloistered in monasteries and convents. This is now seen as something which turned the nature of the vocation on its head. (cf,  Holland, Sharon, "Consecrated Virgins for Today's Church") Eventually, even the remaining secular expression of the vocation was lost (around 1139). It is the case that this loss corresponded to a time of decreased esteem for the secular and the association of the call to holiness with religious and priestly life alone. This development contributed to the hardening of divisions between sacred and profane, religious and secular, which was destructive of dimensions of the spiritual life of the Church and represented a kind of class-ism which is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Vatican II worked mightily to move past this in what she taught and the revival of the secular consecrated virgin vocation developed as a piece of this. I would therefore be chary of any suggestions that CV's wishing to recapitulate this original development from secular to cloistered in some way is a good thing. Moving away from the thoroughgoing and sacred secularity of the vocation seems to me to be doing just that.

Radical Secularity?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, you disagree that CV's wearing veils, embracing lives which are more like those of religious than not, etc is a more radical form of the CV life for women living in the world. How can secularity be a radical call? Why wouldn't those things indicate a more radical discipleship than secularity?]]

 I am posting a copy of a piece I already wrote, and which you may have seen (it's one of the pieces which was criticized for nitpicking and hairsplitting). The basic idea is that we ALL live a radical discipleship wherever we are called to do that. Radical means at the root; the location is far less important in determining radicality than wholeheartedness or thoroughgoingness. CV's living in the world and called to be apostles in the things of both spirit and world are called to live this radicality in the world, the saeculum. Here is the piece; if it is what raised your questions and so, actually leaves them unanswered, then please get back to me:

Personally, I don't think what is being suggested by those who seek to make c 604 into a quasi-religious vocation is a more radical way of living out consecrated virginity in the world, but instead, a less radical way. Distinctive garb and religious vows for the CV called to secularity are ways of separating oneself from the everyday world in which one is called to live out one's vocation. This is especially true of  religious obedience which frames one's freedom in ways which restrict or mitigate one's secularity, but it is true of religious poverty as well. What seems far more radical to me is living a completely secular life but as a consecrated person; in other words, it is a sacred secularity which one is called to live radically, not a vocation which is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious.

While consecration under c 604 sets one apart FOR and to God, it does NOT set one apart FROM the world. One is not meant to be OF the world in the sense 1 John uses the term so often, of course; instead one is of God and set apart FOR God, but one is absolutely called to live this vocation IN the world and in the things of the world, not in stricter separation from it as religious and hermits are called to. A passage from the homily of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins Living in the World reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world.]] (emphasis added). As I have noted in the past, NO religious has ever been told they are apostles "in the things of the world"!

Vatican II worked very hard to be sure that lay persons understood theirs was not an entry level vocation, not second class, and similarly that the secular world was not to be despised but embraced for its truest potential and transformed into (or allowed to be) the sacrament of God it was made to be. While secularism is not a good thing (this essentially asserts the secular is the ultimate value and reality), the secular itself and thus the ordinary life we call secular, as God reminds us in Genesis, are essentially VERY good and holy indeed. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called upon to live out this truth as exhaustively as possible and summon lay persons to do the same in their own state of life.

I personally can't think of a calling which is more challenging than a radical living out of one's secular vocation in a way which allows the secular to be every bit as sacred as it is meant to be. Religious are separated from aspects of secular life by their vows, and in many cases, by distinctive garb. (The vow of poverty separates them from the economic dimensions of the secular world in some ways, obedience separates them from the world of secular power and influence and, as noted above, asks them to exercise freedom differently, while consecrated celibacy separates them from many of the relationships and social obligations which are part and parcel of secular life.) They are actually prohibited from taking a full part in secular life canonically. CV's consecrated under canon 604 are not only called to take a full part in secular life, but to do so in a way which calls it to become completely and exhaustively the realm of the sovereign God. Theirs is a witness  which is at once radically holy and radically secular. I would argue anything which mitigates or compromises the sharpness of this paradox is actually less radical than the vocation calls for.

[Regarding flexibility vs making of canon 604 something it is not because there are supposed lacunae in the canon itself]: In my own life I am certainly free to discover the shape of contemporary eremitical life as our Church and world needs it. The canon that governs my life itself gives me that right and obligation by demanding a specific combination of non-negotiable elements and the Rule which the hermit herself writes. The Fathers who created this canon allowed for that freedom and flexibility, of course. However, they did not allow me to neglect or compromise the essential nature of either the eremitical or the solitary eremitical vocation in doing so. I am responsible not only for my own vocation, but for the eremitical vocation itself (and more specifically, the solitary eremitical vocation).

Thus, when the Church defines it as one of "stricter separation from the world" and (sometimes) marks that with distinctive garb and a prayer garment (cowl, etc), frames and structures it with vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, defines it more clearly with a prohibition of community life (lauras are different than cenobitical life), and with functional cloister and diocesan stability (diocesan hermits cannot move to another diocese without the permission of both current and receiving Bishops), I cannot simply relinquish all of these and turn it into a secular vocation because I might personally feel called to this in some way or because (rightfully) either a secular or cenobitical religious vocation too seem very good to me. My experimentation and discernment have definite limits because of the solitary eremitical NATURE of my vocation, no matter what the Fathers failed to say in their deliberations on establishing this vocation in the 20th Century. I suggest the same is true of canon 604.

On the Paradox of Sacred Secularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps. Again, all good wishes.

Which of You Would Not? The Parable of the Woman and the Lost Coin

>


Today's Gospel is one of those which causes ambivalence for me on several levels. In Luke 15:1-10 Jesus is faced by Pharisees who grumble because Jesus eats with sinners and tax collectors. They have a point. How, they ask, are we to maintain the purity or integrity of the People of God if we allow the unclean or active sinners to join in our table fellowship? The Pharisees have their eyes on one version of "the big picture" and their approach to reality is a defensive one. Preserve the larger reality even if it means that individuals are treated as expendable or less precious. This is classic pragmatism, the greatest good for the greatest number!

Luke's own community is facing some of the same issues. Persecutions have led to defections and the nascent Church needs to determine how they will treat these people who, after all, are members of their own families and friends. How will Luke's communities be Church in such a situation? How should they feel about and act towards those who have betrayed them and Christ? In some ways we tend to face the same questions even today. Consider Eucharist. We wish to prevent defilement of the Eucharist and have it witness to unity, both completely appropriate concerns, and so, we do not allow certain people to receive the Sacrament even if they desire it, even if they wish to participate as fully as possible in our table fellowship. If Paul's language from the first reading was applied here, this whole approach to reality, this way of seeing the "big picture" would be called "the flesh". In monastic life it is called "worldly." In everyday parlance we call it "common sense" or being practical or reasonable.

Answering Jesus' Question: The Old Big Picture

It is into this situation that Jesus tells several parables about the lost. Each is effectively prefaced or bracketed by the rhetorical question "Which of you would not?" We know what the answer SHOULD be, the answer Jesus believes is natural, the answer which makes Jesus' question rhetorical. This answer commits us to extravagant and even apparently imprudent actions on behalf of the lost. But how often do we really answer the question honestly (if of course we pause to truly answer it at all)? Consider the situation: if Jesus said, There are 100 sheep in the desert, all in danger of wandering off, dying of thirst, starving or being set upon by predators without their shepherd. One wanders away. Which of you would NOT go after it for as long as it takes and at whatever cost?" How many of us would enthusiastically wave our hands in affirmation that indeed we would act just that way? I suspect if we were to lose such a sheep we would be more inclined to write it off as expendable, part of the acceptable risk of doing business in a dangerous world, a sad but sustainable loss.

And if Jesus were to say to us, "A woman lost one of ten similar and ordinary coins. She was frantic to find it it was so precious to her. She swept the whole house, lit all the lights, turned over the furniture, and when she found it she threw a huge party for family and friends. Which of you would not do similarly?" How many of us could really say we would naturally feel or act as she did? Granted, we might look as hard as we could for a while, but throwing a huge and expensive party when it is found? How likely would THAT be? How foolish would THAT look? So, when Jesus says, "which of you would not?" it is more likely most of us would have to raise our hands to say, "Not me!" than would nod in happy agreement with him. Most of the time we live in a world of different values than this, the world of common sense, expendable goods, and sustainable loss. Our hearts and minds are not really geared in the same way Jesus' are. We don't see or evaluate things in quite the same way usually. Again, as Paul puts it, ours is ordinarily the perspective of the flesh not of the spirit.

So Jesus, consummate psychologist that he is, tells us these parables to disorient us and shake us loose enough from our usual way of seeing, thinking and feeling to allow us to choose another way. He seeks to inspire a change in our minds and hearts, to convince us that this is the way GOD approaches the smallest bit of reality, and certainly, he seeks to help us feel the urgency and pathos the loss of a single person to sin is to God. He wants us to know a God who searches for us with great urgency because we are never expendable to him, never a "sustainable loss." But something is missing for contemporary readers in these parables because they really do not compel in the the way they compelled Jesus' hearers. (Here is another source of my ambivalence.) And I think the parable of the woman with the lost coin is the key to renewed hearing.

The Significance of the Lost Coin

Most commentators focus on the fact that the coin might have been a drachma or a denarius. In either case it would have equaled a day's wages or a bit more. Thus, its worth is established: large but not inestimable. But there is another way of reading this parable -- far more challenging and also more inspiring. Consider that when a woman was married she was ordinarily given a gift of a headdress into which was woven or sewn 10 coins. The headdress with the coins (usually a gift of her father) was to be worn in public at all times and was a symbol of the woman's faithfulness to her husband and marriage, to her people, and to the covenant and God Himself. Should a coin be lost, her husband had the right to conclude she had been unfaithful. Should she actually be unfaithful, her husband could remove a coin and send her out to public shame and disgrace. What was at stake here was not simply a day's wages, but the honor of Israel, the integrity of the covenant, and of course, the woman's very life itself! Consider her search for the coin then in this light! Can we feel the pathos? Are we convinced of the value of what has been lost? Does the urgency of what is at risk clutch at our stomachs and our hearts? Do we feel a compassion and desire to help her in her search, or, if the coin is found, to rejoice with her and help her throw a party the likes of which the neighborhood has not seen? If so, Jesus' parable has done the larger part of its job.

Moved to a New Answer? The New Big Picture

If so, we know a little of what God feels and wishes us to feel in regard to the meanest sinner. Not least, we know a fraction of what God feels in our own regard and for nothing we have done, created, achieved, etc. Simply because he is God and we are his own. If so, we have, at least briefly, felt and seen as the Spirit inspires us to see and feel. The worldly calculus of expendable goods and sustainable losses has been short circuited for the moment and we have adopted the world view of Christ. This single sinner, this meanest person is not just a coin, an expendable fraction of the whole, any longer. S/he is a symbol of God's completely gratuitous love and sovereignty, his unceasing faithfulness and stewardship, his very nature as God --- and s/he is a symbol of our share in all of that and how well we assume these things in our own lives.

Discipleship is about allowing God to BE God in time and space. It is about mediating God's own presence into those places of sin and death human beings choose to take into themselves where God cannot go by simple fiat. It is about making God present where he wills to be present. It is about protecting HIS INTEGRITY as it is experienced by others because he has entrusted a part in that to us. As Paul tells us in the first lection, we ARE the Circumcision; we ARE the covenant. What affects us affects God and vice versa. This means accepting a very different BIG picture than that of the Pharisees, or than which tempted Luke's community. It means accepting the non-commonsense view that we preserve the church, the very Body of Christ, by seeking out and treating as infinitely precious and God's own each individual life, not by focusing on the 99 who are relatively safe. So, let us consider how well God loves us; consider the woman with the lost coin and the urgency of her quest. Consider our own approach to table fellowship (i.e., to life) with the lost. How now do we answer Jesus' question, "Which of you would not. . .?"

Secularism, a Disease of Heart and Vision

I was most struck by today's first reading (Col 3:7-13) and its relation to what Pope Benedict has described as a crisis of our world --- rampant secularism. It is common to think of secularism as an inordinate esteem for the profane, something that reaches idolatrous proportions at times. But contrary to part of this analysis I think that at its root secularism has more to do with the failure to regard reality, ALL reality, as fundamentally sacred, as gift of God, as that which is to be honored and regarded in light of the One who grounds and gifts it. Secularism occurs precisely when we compartmentalize reality into the sacred and the profane. It occurs when we refuse or are unable to see the innate tendency of all things to reveal to us the God who grounds them, or to participate in and contribute to the goal of human and divine history: that God might be all in all. In short, it is a failure to take a sacramental view of reality.

Once the sundering of reality from its ground occurs, once that is, we begin to divvy things up into sacred and profane`we actually ensure that secularism can gain the ascendancy. Religion occupies a compartment of our lives, business another. Prayer and worship occupies a piece of our lives, sex (or food, or relationships, or material goods and our relation to them) another. And on it goes through all the dimensions and activities of our lives. But the fundamental truth for Christians is reflected in yesterday's Gospel. Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. In him the veil between sacred and profane has been rent in two and the distinction no longer holds. As Paul is at pains to convince the Colossians in today's first reading, in Christ all things are reconciled to God. In principle nothing is profane or "outside the temple". In him God (will be) all in all!

Evenso, we are called upon to make this truth real in our own lives, to embody it as fully as we are able. Secularism begins with the divisions in our own hearts, and the end to secularism comes only as we allow God to heal the divisions there and begin to see with the singleness and purity of what the Gospel writers call "new eyes" or with what Paul calls the remaking of our own minds -- eyes and minds sensitized and commited to honoring the sacredness of all of reality.

As Paul turns to the new church in Colossae he advocates "putting to death" all those ways of immorality which were so common as a piece of putting on Christ and becoming the imago christi baptism makes possible. His list of sins fall into two broad areas, sexual sins and sins of the tongue, or affective and expressive sins. What Paul knows I think is that there are two broad dimensions to us which are uniquely human. They are central and pervasive, and they distinguish us from mere animals and constitute us as reflective of the divine. Both are relational dimensions of our existence; they constitute us as capable of loving others, of giving ourselves and receiving the love and being of others in a way which creates abundant and expressive or revelational life. These two dimensions, the sexual and the expressive or verbal, symbolize the whole human being.

What seems clear to me from the list of sins Paul compiles, whether they belong to the dimension of speech or of sexuality is that none of them would exist if we were truly able to regard ourselves, others, and our world as essentially holy. How often sex is used in ways which trivialize it and those who engage in it! How often it is used to demean, exploit, punish, etc. The same is true with speech. How often we trivialize it, distort it, use it to separate, exploit or punish or demean! Our world is innundated in torrents of meaningless "speech," instead of speech which creates community and gives others a place to stand in our world and God's Kingdom; this grows more catastrophic almost daily as people simply treat everything as important to say --- and lose sight of the significance of real speech (not to mention the context required for this which is silence!). Beyond the actual trivialization of speech we have Slander, lies, rage. And yet, how possible would these be if we truly regarded reality, ourselves and others as fundamentally sacred?

Secularism is indeed a crisis today. The solution is what Paul calls putting on Christ, allowing our hearts to be remade, allowing our eyes to see as God sees, acting towards the world, ourselves, and others as they truly are in their profoundest reality. It was the answer and the challenge when Paul wrote from prison to the Colossians. It is the answer today as well.