Kohlberg's stages, Ego, and the Desire for Renown

Sister I read the following online. It was written last September and I wondered if you could comment on it since you have written on the issue yourself.

[[As for someone who keeps tabs on such matters has informed, there is still the niggling over what hermits call themselves or not, whether a Catholic hermit or a whobody hermit, whether Jesus' Catholic hermit or Canon Law's Catholic Hermit. Whether a priest can call a hermit a Catholic hermit, or whether a Bishop must call a hermit a Catholic hermit.

Of course, ultimately and presently, it does not matter. Such niggling only brings the nigglers to the imprisonment of Kohlberg's fourth stage (or even down to the second) of moral development. To a hermit of Christ, a Catholic hermit without identity, it does not matter. It does not matter to pew Catholics, nor to non-Catholics. And it will never matter to anyone but those few who are caught up in identity and need for renown in the visible Church.]]

Yes, I have read the comment, but as you note, it was a while ago. In fact I also responded to a question regarding another post from the same blog just a month later so I am certainly familiar with it. The author has an interesting and, to my mind anyway, somewhat cynical perspective on diocesan eremitical life. The question from the same time period I already responded to had to do with visibility as a betrayal of the authentic eremitical vocation. In answering that I referred to the essential hiddenness of the hermit life. I also clarified the source of Canon 603 and how both Canon Law and the Catechism impact the life of the canonical hermit --- for they do so quite in different ways. At this point I should note that the blogger in question is no longer adding posts to this blog, and claims to have moved beyond the designations "hermit" or "Catholic hermit" --- though of course the older posts are still extant and apparently still being read. Because of that, I suppose I will continue to respond to occasional questions regarding older posts.

Kohlberg's Stages Misunderstood

In dealing with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, it is probably important to clarify that, at least as I understand the matter, when one moves to another stage of moral development, elements of the earlier stages do not simply drop away. Instead, they are transcended through integration into a more comprehensive and less one-sided or undifferentiated stage of moral decision-making. So, for instance, a person who went through a stage in moral development where law was their driving concern (and we all do this) may still allude to law in making moral decisions without becoming legalistic, or to the place of authority (4th stage development) without subscribing (or regressing) to a "law and order" way of justifying moral behavior and choices. We see this in people who respect the law and authority but who are capable of creative responses to moral situations law is too general to address. That person might well refer to law or legitimate authority, but be quite far from being driven by a "law-and-order" mentality or legalism of any kind. In fact, it is a sign of relative maturity that in their creative responses to reality they can allow law and authority a proper place.

Thus, one may be well-anchored in what Kohlberg identifies as the post-conventional or more mature and less self-centered stages of justifying moral decisions and still point out that law is important. The same with genuine authority. My own position that Canon Law serves love in various ways (to the extent this is actually true and allowed to be true) is an example of this kind of justification I think. What is preeminently important in determining what is moral (and truly human) here is charity, but the person who loves well does not simply or generally jettison law or authority in the process. Neither does a theologian who refers to authority in the Church, or to the rightful (pastoral!) application of canon law, automatically regress to earlier stages of moral development and motivation in so doing. The opposite is more likely true if the emphasis is truly on the pastoral. On the other hand, the person who dismisses the rightful place of law and authority in life may well be regressing to a more infantile and individualistic "anything goes so long as it serves me" stage of moral decision making.

So Who Cares?

The second point the poster makes is that who is or is not a Catholic hermit does not matter to anyone except those "few who are caught up in identity and need for renown in the visible Church." I suspect the author meant ego rather than identity (for existing in Christ is a matter of significant identity, though not of ego) but I can only respond to what she said. Of course I disagree, and I do so because words have meaning and the meaning of words (and the lives and other realities they describe) is important to people. As I have noted before, there is a thing called "truth in advertising" and if one says they are a Catholic Hermit, others have the right to expect that they are using the term in the way the Catholic Church uses it and have accepted all the rights and commensurate obligations which are linked to it. That is only fair and only charitable to others who seek to understand and trust the reality to which the term points. It is also only fair to the word itself, for to use it any way one wishes is to empty the word of meaning and make it untrustworthy or unbelievable. As I have noted before, a word that comes to mean anything at all simultaneously comes to mean nothing whatsoever.

This blog has noted a number of times that the term Catholic Hermit indicates a public vocation accepted and lived out in the name of the Church, and perforce, it therefore means that others necessarily have a right to certain expectations of the one so designated. They do not necessarily have the right to those same expectations when the person is a privately dedicated hermit. Again, while this emphatically does not mean that the lay hermit is less a hermit or lives the life less well than the diocesan hermit, it does mean that 1) the diocesan hermit is responsible to the Church and in a formal and objective way that differs from the more private responsibility of the lay hermit, and 2) this results in expectations on the part of the faithful which are their right by virtue of the hermit's public profession and consecration.

To argue that speaking of the import of canonical standing or the designation "Catholic Hermit" and all these things mean for the hermit and others is "niggling" or that people in the pew don't care who is called these things is naive, and perhaps disingenuous. If a person showed up at Mass and introduced herself as a "Catholic Hermit", but later on made it clear that she really only meant she was Catholic and living a relatively pious life alone, one doesn't have to think hard to see what the result would be. It would be especially problematical if, for instance, that person calling themselves a hermit proved to have serious emotional difficulties and used the term hermit to justify social isolation, an inability to love people, or a spirituality which was so individualistic as to interfere with one's capacity to participate in or build community. In all these instances the person would be furthering destructive stereotypes of the term "hermit" --- something which is, unfortunately, not uncommon. (Remember the post about Tom Leppard.) It would, if qualified as the life of a "Catholic Hermit", be especially detrimental to a general understanding of the vocation the Church has only recognized in Canon Law for the first time beginning just 28 years ago.

Of course, it is absolutely true that most people are unlikely to care which Canon prohibits the use of the term "Catholic" for individuals and groups except as appropriate authority allows, but they will surely care whether a person IS what they claim to be or not, especially if they are not using the terms in the same sense the Church does more generally. The above examples of stereotypes aside, consider a person showing up at a parish in a habit, or using the title Sister or Brother (and expecting others to do likewise in their regard) because by baptism we are all sisters and brothers to one another. Would a parish congregation really not care that the title and garb were self-assumed? Would it really not matter that the person has no authority to do this, no formation, no legitimate supervision, no formal and binding commitment in law, and apparently, no real concern for or responsibility to the people (or local church and community) to whom they are presenting themselves? I have to say my own parish and diocese would certainly care. In any case, even if they failed to care would this be a cogent argument? Do we really want to say, "No one really cares about the truth here, so it doesn't matter"?

On A Desire For Renown

Finally, a note regarding identity and being caught up in the need for renown. First, as noted above, ego and identity are very different things and should not be confused with one another. As Christians we have a unique identity in the world. It is a significant identity, and one which is a gift to us and to the rest of the church and world whenever it is lived with integrity. To be clear about our own identity can be a way of honoring the Spirit who graces us and forms us in this identity. To indicate that one is a diocesan or "Catholic" Hermit is a way of being clear that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church this way, and in fact, in one's own life specifically. Since this work is essentially redemptive and a source of hope to many, it is no small matter! And if this is true, then admitting one's identity in the Church is a piece of humbly accepting oneself and glorifying God. It need have nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for personal renown, so one ought to be wary of judging motives on the basis of external conditions alone.

For instance, I have a blog and this last year did a podcast. Did (or do) I do those for personal renown, or because these serve the Church and this vocation by helping people become aware of it and transcend some of the stereotypes which still attach to it? The external reality (the blog, the podcast) is the same, but the motives cannot be seen merely by looking to the external reality. The same is true of habit, title, and post-nomial initials. Did I adopt and do I use these because of ego and a desire for renown, or is there a more legitimate reason? As the blogger you quote also says, "The habit (externals) does not make the person." True enough but this truth cuts two ways: it may refer to the arrogant or hypocritical religious (or hermit) in a habit, of course, but it may also refer to the person who is smug and condescending in his "hiddenness" or exterior obscurity while judging the other on appearances. The simple fact is that most likely there are elements of both stellar motives and less stellar ones present in any person's divided, ambivalent heart. Once again, last Sunday's parable of the weeds and wheat is appropriate here, I think. When dealing with the motives of another, we must allow these to stand and grow alongside one another for fear of uprooting (or in this case, mis-judging) what is of God. We should trust the person to deal with her own ambivalence or ambiguity over time. Judgment is rightly and ultimately left to "God and his angels."

Regarding hermits and renown more generally though, it should be recalled that they have, at times, been drawn kicking and screaming (or the inner equivalent of that) --- but obedient nonetheless --- into the ecclesiastical and even political limelight, sometimes becoming Cardinals and even Popes in the process. One hardly considers they agreed to this as part of a hunger or drive for renown (much less a regression to a more primitive stage of moral decision-making defined in terms of self-interest and benefit). My mind goes back to Peter Damian (Camaldolese) who was one such hermit-Cardinal and Doctor of the Church. He was a reformer and prodigious writer, battling against simony and other problems through open letters and pamphlets. Was he accepting of the title Cardinal (etc.) because he was hungry for renown? Did he get involved in questions of reform and renewal out of mere self-interest? A prudent or judicious person would hardly suggest this without real evidence!

Being Heart Smart

Today everyone tends to be "heart smart." We are concerned with cholesterol, with eating right and getting sufficient exercise to keep our hearts healthy and functioning at peak efficiency. Above all we work to keep the blood flowing through our hearts so that it reaches and nourishes every cell in our bodies. And we know that failure to do this spells death for the whole body as well. Our hearts are wonderfully dynamic organs which pump life throughout the whole. And yet, a single clot can still them forever.

In the New Testament, the word "heart" is a strictly theological term. What I mean by that is it refers specifically to the place within us, "Where God bears witness to himself." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). God is actually a constitutive part of the human heart. His ongoing love, his continuing and continual pouring forth of himself is part of what makes us human, what makes us to be most ourselves. The place, or perhaps better, the EVENT where this happens in us, is what the Scriptures call "heart". Let me be clear, in Scriptural terms it is not so much that we have hearts and then God comes to dwell within them; rather, it is the case that WHERE God dwells and is active within us summoning us ever anew and afresh by name to be, THERE is what the Scriptures call "heart." (By the way, I think this is part of what Pope Benedict is referring to in his book on Eschatology when he calls the human soul a "dialogical reality". Heart and soul are interchangeable terms in much of Scripture).

Like God himself, our hearts are dialogical or communal in nature, and just like with the physical organs in the center of our chests, it is through them that God's love flows through us and to our world, through us and especially to the rest of the Body of Christ. If that flow is stopped, our hearts die. If we refuse to allow this life to flow through us to others, if we try to hold onto it or refuse to pass it on, it will come to act like a clot in our spiritual lives and death will ensue. So it is that we are called upon to allow God's forgiveness to flow through us to others, his mercy through us to others, his love through us to the rest of his creation. It is actually only to the degree that we hand on what we have been given, only to the degree we allow these things to flow through us to others that we even receive them ourselves. While I believe it is true that God does not give us what we deserve (for we can never deserve Him), but rather what we will receive as gift, I think it is also true that what we receive as gift is what we allow to flow through our hearts to nourish and enliven the rest of the Body of Christ and his creation. This idea allows me to make greater sense of a recent lection from Luke:

[[Do not judge and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you: a good measure poured out, pressed down, shaken together and running over will be poured into your lap. . .]] The ethics of the Christian is not one of quid pro quo, though this text can sound like it is. Christian ethics is a matter of dealing with others as God deals with us; it is a matter of freely letting flow to others what God speaks or pours forth in our hearts. To the degree we do this, the flow will continue with a vastness and generosity beyond all quantifying. To the degree we fail to do this, the very mercy God offers us as gift will stand unreceived as a clot in our own hearts --- whether shaped as fear or ingratitude or false pride, etc --- thus condemning us; the flow of life to our very self will be seriously restricted, and so too, fail to reach the world through us.

There is a second lesson in recent lections related to this dynamic and dialogical notion of the human heart. It involves what the psalmist was getting at when he said "I will walk with blameless heart" or what the author to Colossians was urging when he admonished, "let the peace of Christ control your heart!" Both phrases refer to a kind of integrity which is supposed to possess our lives (or be possessed by them!). Both are concerned above all with what or who is sovereign in (or controls) the human heart.

We know that the Christian life is above all an obediently loving life; that is, it is a life which is attentive and responsive, and while we are certainly called upon to listen and respond to the Word of God that comes to us from outside ourselves, most FUNDAMENTALLY, we are called upon to be attentive and responsive to this Word, to claim and embody the unique name which God speaks on a continuing basis deep within us. When the psalmist says he will walk with a blameless heart, he is referring, I think, to a life which is obedient in this way, a life where our own hearts do not bear witness against us. He is referring to a life where our outer selves and our inner selves are identical or in harmony, where what we are in the world is always an obedient response to the Word God speaks in the core of our being, and so too he is referring to what the author to the Colossians referred to when he said we are to allow the peace of Christ to control our hearts, namely an incarnational integrity born of attentiveness and responsiveness to the God who is part of our very being.

In one of the Gospels this week, a dead man was told by Jesus to "arise", and it is certainly tempting to want God come to us in such dramatic and miraculous ways. But in quiet, subtle, and equally miraculous ways, God calls us to arise out of death and nothingness at every moment. If we can only learn to hearken to this call deep within us, it will not only bring life on the biological level, but it will bring us the abundant life which is Jesus' gift to us. In light of this idea of the human heart, we need never fear that we are too far stuck in sin, too far removed from the living God, too "old" (in whatever way this manifests itself), or without fresh potential. There is quite literally a spring of living water at the core of our being, an ever-newly given identity where moment by moment God calls us by name to be. So long as we live, God dwells within us calling to us to "arise!" Where this really occurs on every level of our being I think we allow the peace of Christ to control our hearts and walk blamelessly in genuine integrity. Where this occurs, I think we are REALLY "heart smart."