Canon 603 and Some Misconceptions

[[Sister Laurel, what does it mean to call canon 603 a "proviso"? Here is the passage [from something I read online] that has me confused, [[What is cited in The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the proviso of CL603, and by virtue and fact of the specific vows required of each state of life in the Church, should suffice to explain why consecrated Catholic hermits (and also the consecrated virgins and widows) are part of the Consecrated Life of the Church--although they can have originally derived from the Hierarchy or the Laity.  Likewise, consecrated Catholic hermits (virgins, widows, religious brothers and sisters) are not representative nor part of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, as in Holy Orders of priests and bishops.]] I am also confused by the following [also from something I read online] [[The Catholic aspiring to the consecrated state of life as an eremite, must then fulfill the requirements in profession of vows and live in accordance with the cited specifics in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of the institutes of the consecrated life of the Church.And, if the aspiring hermit requests and a bishop agrees, then to fulfill the additional provisions of Canon Law 603.]]

I can understand why you are confused. There are several problems with the first passage cited. First Canon 603 is not a "proviso". It is not a conditional statement or stipulation attached to an agreement. It is a norm which, by itself alone, provides for and defines a form of consecrated life lived in law and in the name of the Church. I don't know why anyone would refer to c 603 in this way unless 1) she does not understand the word proviso, or 2) she is trying to make of c 603 a conditional option added to a larger binding contract or set of statutes which then may or may not be used by a diocese at their discretion. In such a case she is simply mistaken in this. Granted, canon 603 is a Canon in the larger code of canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps it could bear the name "provision" since it provides for a singular form of consecrated life (though this fails to capture the normative nature of a canon) however, it does not have a conditional or provisional character. So, I understand and share your confusion with such a characterization. I think the poster's mistaken meaning is made clear in problem # 6 below.

The second area of difficulty is the division of the People of God into Lay and Hierarchy. The proper terms are ordinarily laity and clerics or laity and clergy or even lay persons and ordained. Though the entire Church is hierarchical we also technically refer to the hierarchy of the Church as the clergy from Deacon to Bishops and higher. When we refer to the consecrated state of life or "consecrated life" however, which can be drawn from either laity or clergy, the Church is very careful to point out that this does not constitute part of the hierarchical structure of the Church; this is important because once not so long ago our Mass prayers referred to priests, religious, and laity as though there were three castes and religious were part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. This contributed to the highly problematical notion that lay life was an "entry level" vocation and religious (or consecrated) life was a 'higher' vocation with priests being even higher.

Today we note that the term lay has two distinct senses, 1) a hierarchical one in which laity includes all baptized who are not clerics (this also implies all religious and consecrated persons who are likewise not also clerics), and 2) a vocational one in which those in the lay state are contrasted with both religious (those publicly professed), consecrated persons (those in the consecrated state of life), and the clergy (the ordained). So, for instance, vocationally speaking I am a religious and member of the consecrated rather than the lay state of life. Hierarchically speaking, however, I am a lay person. My pastor, for instance, is also a religious and member of the consecrated state of life vocationally speaking. Hierarchically speaking, however, he is a cleric or priest. Lay hermits (those with private vows or even without them) are lay in both the vocational and hierarchical senses of the term. This is why in sec 873ff the CCC notes, "The term "laity" is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church."

The third problem is that the Catholic Church does not presently have consecrated widows who belong to the consecrated state of life or the "consecrated life" in the Church. While this vocation existed in the ancient Church and Pope John Paul II wrote about it hoping it would be included in canon law to be made part of Church life once again as a public and ecclesial vocation, and while some Bishops have accepted the dedication of widows and are required to be open to "new forms of consecrated life" (c 605 requires this), Canon 605 also states that any new form of consecrated life must be ratified by the Vatican (the Pope). In the case of a vocation to consecrated widowhood this has not been done. It therefore does not represent a form of consecrated life in the Church today though there are significant hopes that one day this will change.

The fourth problem is with the reference to Catholic Hermits or other members of the Consecrated state not being representative of nor part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as are priests and Bishops. This sentence is confusing because it can be read two ways: 1) Consecrated Life is not representative of the hierarchy or 2) Consecrated Life is not representative of the Church nor is it part of the hierarchy. While the consecrated state of life does not constitute part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, those in the consecrated state are certainly representative of the Church herself. They are specifically commissioned to live out the various forms of consecrated life in a representative way in the name of the Church. Thus they are Catholic religious or Catholic hermits. Lay persons live the lay state similarly which is why they may call themselves Catholics or Catholic laity. The lay state is entrusted to them when they are consecrated in baptism and they are commissioned through the Sacraments of initiation to live it well. This means every member of the Church is representative of the Church in some way --- though I agree, they are not all of the hierarchy. Some are representative of the clerical state (Catholic priests and deacons). Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and Pope represent the hierarchy proper while all are part of the Laos tou Theou. Unfortunately, it sounds like the poster you cited could be arguing a form of clericalism which says only clergy represent the Church!


The fifth problem comes in your second citation and has already been written about in a previous post here. The term "institute" refers to a religious community or congregation of some sort, not to a legal norm, requirement, principle, or statute. Consecrated life has three basic forms, community life (both ministerial and contemplative in a variety of institutes), solitary eremitical life (c 603), and consecrated virginity lived in the world (c 604).

The sixth problem is related to problem #1 above. As noted above, Canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" appended to these other supposed "institutes" and requirements. It is the ONLY way in which a person can become a solitary member of the consecrated eremitical state of life and thus live that life in the name of the Church. If one wants to become a consecrated hermit without joining a congregation it MUST be through this canon. There is NO OTHER way. Neither oneself nor one's diocese can choose another option (say, private vows) nor treat this canon as optional or "provisional" and still allow one to enter the solitary consecrated eremitical state. This is what makes canon 603 so very unique; it extends the category "religious" and thus, the possibility of public vows and consecration to a person without any link to an institute of consecrated life. (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746, p. 55 on c 603.2)

The seventh problem is also related to treating Canon 603 as a set of "additional requirements" but more specifically suggesting these are added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other requirements or "institutes" of the Catholic Church. While the CCC is an important compendium of the teaching and life of the Church designed to give every Catholic a basic sense of what the Church believes and teaches as well as how her members live this faith, in regard to the consecrated eremitical life it is more descriptive than prescriptive. For hermits belonging to Institutes of Consecrated Life what is prescriptive of their life (what prescribes how they are to live while extending commensurate rights and marking their ecclesial obligations) is law, namely, canon law and the Institute's own proper law (her constitutions, statutes and Rule).

For the solitary hermit consecrated under canon 603 what is prescriptive of her life is similar: Canon law (especially c 603 but other canons as well), and her approved Rule (given a formal Bishop's declaration of approval). The Rule, which the hermit writes herself, serves as the c 603 hermit's own "proper law" while Canon 603 in particular especially represents universal law in her life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes dimensions of such lives but is not binding in the same way universal and proper law are. In fact, some parts of the CCC (like paragraphs 920-921) must be read in light of the Code of Canon Law (as well as the Catechism's own glossary), not the other way around! To put the Catechism in a more primary place and add c 603 as a "proviso" or an additional, conditional requirement, for instance, is to completely misunderstand the nature of the CCC, its relation to Canon Law in these matters, and especially then, the vocation to solitary consecrated eremitical life and the role of c 603 in that life.

Thanks again for your questions. They were excellent. For the time being I am going to distance myself from the continuing list of misconceptions being posted on the blog you have cited. Not only is it Lent, but I have some other writing, another project, and one other question to complete which means I won't be able to get back to you again for several days in case you have further questions; (it may be Saturday or later before I can do this). Besides, this matter of the distinction between lay hermits and hermits consecrated under canon 603 really has been explained here many times in one way and another, several times quite recently, and I am feeling a tiring and kind of sad futility in trying to clarify or even occasionally correct what may, at least for some persons who blog about this, really be a willful distortion and refusal to hear.

You see, it is one thing when a single critical  and canonically obscure or complex word is misunderstood here and there or when there is legitimate and honest disagreement between knowledgeable people; it is another when entire texts are wrested from their ecclesial context and twisted in a thoroughgoing way to conform to an entrenched delusional system. Your own question made me aware that perhaps the situation I was addressing was more the latter than the former so I am grateful you posed it for that reason too. The first kind of situation can and should be dealt with through discussion; both persons come away ahead then. The second cannot. While I feel strongly that canon 603 needs to be better understood, and more strongly that folks not be misled, it is that second kind of situation from which I need to distance myself.

Meanwhile, your own questions and those of any reader here are something I am happy to continue responding to --- though from now on it may be without the passages they cite. Thus, I encourage you to please feel free to check older posts under the appropriate labels if questions remain or are raised in the meantime.

"Different, Not Better"?

[[Sister, it sounds like you believe vocations to the consecrated life are better than those which are not. I know you say "different, not better" but if the rights and responsibilities are greater then doesn't that indicate the vocation is better too? I am trying to understand how distinguishing between initiation into the consecrated state is not better than remaining in the lay state. I am also trying to see how what you say is not a subtle demeaning of the lay state.]]

It is really a shame that the language of superiority and inferiority has had to take such a hold in regard to these discussions --- something that has happened throughout the history of the Church. We are still suffering from its effects. It is possible to find religious men and women and priests who affirm that the consecrated or ordained states are better or higher than the lay state because of Aquinas' analysis of the objective superiority of such vocations), but this is not what I hold nor, I think, is it what Thomas held. (My own impression when I hear this reference to "better" is that they have completely misunderstood the import of the Thomistic language here.) In any case I think that Thomas' language is almost impossible to accurately adopt today given the strongly ingrained impulse we have towards egalitarianism and our allergy to the language of superiority/inferiority -- no matter how it is nuanced -- so I prefer to speak of "different, not better" and I mean this sincerely.

The Dignity of Baptismal Consecration and the Universal Call to Holiness

When we speak of God calling some people to the lay state, some to the ordained state, others to the consecrated state, do we really want to say that he calls some to a better or "higher" vocation than others? I don't think so. Because someone is given and accepts a different set of rights and responsibilities than another do we want to suggest those rights and responsibilities are better than those of another person? I definitely don't think so. It is possible to esteem people and the vocations they have been called to without buying into the superiority/inferiority game (which again I don't think Thomas was doing himself.) It is also, therefore, possible to differentiate vocations with regard to rights, responsibilities or state without demeaning other vocations. In what I have written I have sincerely tried to do this, and in fact, my objections to "half-way" or middle states was rooted in the recognition that speaking or thinking this way fails in precisely this regard.

Why is it as soon as people feel called to an intensification of their baptismal commitment they almost automatically think in terms of requiring consecration, vows, special dress, titles, etc which supposedly do not make them lay any longer? Why not instead undertake reflection on the baptismal commitment and vows themselves and find ways to specify them in every day life? (I would note that liturgically we try to do this with the sprinkling rite where we renew our baptismal vows or with the commissioning of ministers, but the question is why isn't this truly effective?) Why is it reflection on the lay vocation is even yet generally done by priests and religious? Why is it the insistence of Vatican II on the place of the laity in the universal call to holiness has not taken hold as fully or effectively as it might have or was desired by the Council Fathers? I think in all of these ways and others we see the effect of a Church that has indeed treated the lay vocation as second or third class. The sense of needing to be called to consecrated or ordained life to really "give oneself" to God in a full and meaningful way is a left-over bit of this ecclesiastical world-view which is symptomatic of a deep-seated sense of inferiority on the part of laity generally.

Combating the Sense of Lay Inferiority: Religious Lay Aside the Habit

One of the most important reasons many religious men and women gave up the habit was to encourage the laity (and here I mean laity in the vocational sense of those in the lay state) to assume the dignity of these vocations. Religious women especially saw themselves as part of the laity (in the hierarchical rather than vocational sense of that term) and let go of dress which distinguished them in ways which contributed to the superiority/inferiority divide which was assumed so strongly before and immediately after Vatican II. The intention was not to demean or deny their own sense of belonging to the consecrated state or the dignity of that (though they are accused of this today, sometimes by the very laity meant to benefit from the act of relinquishing the habit), but to enhance the laity's sense of being called to the same kind of vocational dignity. The accent here was on affirming the universal call to holiness and encouraging those in the lay state to see themselves in terms of this very great dignity and call. Thus, religious sacrificed the signs of vocational distinction for the greater solidarity of baptismal or hierarchical equality.

I believe in some ways this was effective and broke down barriers to ministry, etc. Certainly it assisted people in valuing lay life and imagining or actually seeing themselves as genuinely called by God both to holiness and to ministry in ways similar to those called to consecrated life. In many ways the visual and emotional divide which not only distinguished but alienated and exacerbated the destructive "special vs ordinary" or "superior vs inferior" dichotomies was minimized. In other ways though it was ineffective or even counterproductive. The Church as a whole lost the sense of the presence of the vocation to the consecrated state and the divide between religious and lay was transferred over time to become (to mention one way only) the divide between "true religious" vs "quasi religious", for instance. It lost the sense that "lay" has two senses in the church and left us with the hierarchical sense alone. It also may have contributed to the sense that initiation into the consecrated state comes merely with dedication of oneself via vows of any sort beyond baptism, and obscured the distinction (not inequality!) between ecclesial and non-ecclesial vocations.

The point is that religious women generally have been at the forefront of insisting on the universal call to holiness and the very great dignity of ALL vocations and vocational states. I am not automatically placing myself in this company, but I do agree with the theology that both informs these efforts and motivated the Council Fathers at Vatican II. What all these people have seen and do see today is that Baptism and what happens there is of tremendous import and dignity. To become adopted Daughters and Sons of God when we were not these before is an almost unimaginable gift worthy of immeasurable esteem. To live and minister in the name of Christ is of similar import. To be consecrated in the Sacrament of initiation and made a part of the very Body of Christ should not be minimized or treated as a 2nd or 3rd class vocation. It is not!

I personally wear a habit, and I do so for a number of reasons which I believe are well-founded. However, there are also several reasons which would lead me to drop its use in short order. This issue of esteeming the lay state and minimizing the superior/inferior and special/ordinary divides is one of them. If I really thought the wearing of the habit at this point in time was contributing significantly to the inability of lay people to take the vocation to the lay state seriously or to believe they had to enter the consecrated state to really give themselves to God, I would likely need in conscious to let go of it. One reason I do not is because I have seen its relinquishment also create a kind of gap or lacunae in understanding the difference between consecration and dedication, or between ecclesial and non-ecclesial vocations. The sacrifice women religious made in order to bring home the Vatican II message of a universal call to holiness was a significant one but at the same time it was not completely helpful.

Different, Not Better: The Body of Christ has Many Members with Many Functions

Even so, the bottom line here is that we are told, and asked to believe, that the Body of Christ has many parts with different functions. An eye should not wish (or try) to be a hand, a hand should not wish (or try) to be a foot, etc. Nor, of course, should the eye be treated as "better" than the hand, etc. They are distinct realities and have different functions, different gifts, but each is important to the functioning of the whole and none is better than the other. The rights and responsibilities of the eye are different than those of the hand, but different here does not mean better. The pastor of my parish has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but this certainly does not mean his vocation is better than mine. Similarly the mother across the street from the church has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but this does not mean that either of our vocations is better than the other's. A lay hermit has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but again, that does not mean either vocation is better than the other. I think you see what I am trying to say with all this!