Consecrated Virgins vs Religious: Which are Espoused to Christ?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, a CV has written that in [in contrast to] the Rite of Religious Profession, consecrated virgins have a spousal mission. She also writes, [[Con-trasted to the mission of the religious to live a religious life according to vowed evangelical counsels and separation from the world, the consecrated virgin's mission is to serve the Church primarily as Virgin, Bride, and Mother]] and then [[It should be noted that the Rite of Profession of Religious emphasizes the evangelical counsels and communal lifestyle and barely touches upon a Bridal or nuptial theme whereas the Rite of Consecration to a life of Virginity does not reference the evangelical counsels at all except virginity and the emphasis is entirely upon the themes of virginal espousals and motherhood.]] Does this support the idea that CV's under c 604 are Brides of Christ but Religious are not? Why would this CV make such an argument?]]

Well, I don't know the conclusions drawn from these comments by the person you are citing, but in and of themselves, these comments do not support that idea, no. Does this writer actually argue this explicitly? The conclusions they do support are part of the position I have put forth before, namely, Religious and CV's are similarly consecrated by God and espoused to Christ but they live this reality out differently in most cases due to differences in context, charism, mission, etc. Most fundamentally, one group lives it out as consecrated religious and the other as consecrated secular persons.  Beyond that, one group (ministerial religious) ordinarily lives it out implicitly while the other group (CV's living in the world) do so, and are meant to do so, explicitly. (Cloistered religious may do so more explicitly and some apostolic religious also legitimately feel called to do so.)

The profession  of evangelical counsels effectively separates persons from or significantly qualifies their relationship to the world in fundamental areas (i.e., those of economics, power, and relationships). These religious may or may not be called to witness primarily to espousal per se; instead they may be called to live out this espousal in ways which make something else more directly the gift they bring to the Church and world. For instance, the Sisters of Mercy are consecrated Religious, espoused to God, etc,  but the charism they specifically bring to Church and world is the gift of ministering Christ's mercy to the poor, marginalized and ignorant with a special vow for that. Espousal to God in Christ in an underlying and foundational reality which is usually left implicit in this as they act as spiritual mothers and sisters to the world of the marginalized and poor. In other words, for ministerial religious, their commitment to others often tends to move espousal per se to the background even as it moves the resulting gifts associated with spiritual motherhood and sisterhood to the fore. The gifts and graces of spiritual motherhood and sisterhood however, stem from their espousal/consecration which is itself a specification of their baptism.

CV's on the other hand are called upon to live out their espousal explicitly in a secular way and context. They are Brides of Christ but not Religious Sisters. They are consecrated women,  icons of the eschatological espousal every person is ultimately called to and they are called to live this out explicitly in the world and in the things of the world right here and right now. At the same time, while they are not vowed to religious poverty, or religious obedience, they, like every Christian, are called to embrace the values of the Gospel; these include the counsels of poverty, obedience, and chastity according to one's state of life. The apparent absence of reference to the evangelical counsels in the Rite of Consecration however, is due to the absence of vows or life in community, and to the vocation's secularity, not to the absence of these values more generally.

Especially, neither does the difference in emphasis of the Rite of Profession of Religious from the Rite of Consecration under c 604 indicate one rite refers to espousal while the other does not. Nor does any difference refer to a different degree of espousal any more than this difference refers to a different degree of consecration. Again, one rite refers to the espousal of Religious who live out their consecration in terms of public vows and (diocesan hermits excepted) life in community, while the other refers to the espousal of virgins living exhaustively consecrated AND secular lives where their identity as Brides of Christ is explicit and the fundamental ecclesial gift they bring to the Church and world.

I think the passage you have cited says as much. What it does not (and cannot honestly) say is that the Bridal imagery or nuptial import is absent in the Rite of Profession/Consecration of Religious, nor that where it is present it is different in kind or degree from that of the Consecration of Virgins living in the world or vice versa. What differs is emphasis and context, charism and mission. Both Rites use Bridal language while the insigniae given in  Religious Profession and the Consecration of Virgins living in the world is the same as has always been the case in any consecration and/or profession. These are nuptial in nature: veils, rings, etc. (Cf, for instance the picture and prayer of the giving of my own ring where the Bishop said, according to the prescribed rite: [[ Sister, receive this ring for you are betrothed to the eternal King: Keep faith with your Bridegroom so that you may come to the wedding feast of Eternal joy.]] So again, in both cases -- Religious and CV's living in the world -- espousal is real and fundamental. Where these two groups differ is in the way they are called by the Church to live this out and symbolize it for others.

Attempts to Deny the Nuptial Reality of Religious Profession

Though what you have cited does not say so, there is indeed a movement afoot (possibly only composed of a minority of CV's) to say that CV's under c 604 have the right to be called Brides of Christ where Religious do not.  One CV actually (and erroneously) wrote that she has the right to ask a Sister calling herself a Bride of Christ to stop doing so! But the Church herself has traditionally understood her own identity as reflective of a spousal bond and vocation and has Traditionally recognized a special expression of that spousal bond and ecclesial identity in the vocations of Religious women and men.  There is absolutely no indication that by reprising the secular vocation of canon 604 the Church wishes to affirm that CV's are Brides of Christ while denying Religious are similarly espoused. The evidence is quite the contrary in fact.

Additionally, some CV's have actually asserted that if Religious Women and Men share in the charism of spousality it weakens or dilutes the charism of CV's! Of course since we (Christians) are ALL ultimately called to this espousal and since the Church herself is the Virgin Bride of Christ, it hardly makes sense to argue that a lack of exclusiveness "dilutes" the CV's charism. ALL vocations, and especially all ecclesial vocations share in and express this universal conjugal love between God and his own. Relative to other vocations Religious and CV's image this universal vocation in a more explicit way even if they differ from one another in degree of explicitness,  just as those called to marriage and the holiness and sacramentality of sexual love image different dimensions of this same universal call.

What remains true is that CV's consecrated under c 604 cannot change almost 2 millennium of Church tradition simply because they are themselves in search of a rationale for their vocations which fails to center on (or, in some instances, fails even to recognize) the foundational secularity qualifying the consecrated nature of the calling. Graces, mission, and even the charism (gift quality) of the vocation may differ from those of others also called to reflect the ecclesial vocation of spousal (all-encompassing and total or conjugal) love; what does not change is the underlying spousal call and bond. (This is equally true for religious who reject the nuptial imagery and trappings associated with their profession and consecration.) Though other things may be at play, the apparent need to argue a difference in the consecration and espousal of Religious in distinction from canon 604 CV's seems to me to stem first of all from an inability to accept the radical secularity of the vocation. Because they do not accept this, they must find something else which makes their vocation truly meaningful and distinct.

Additional Reasons for this Denial:

I think there are a couple of other related reasons as well. First, this minority of CV's seem to be impatient with the Church's (meaning here the whole People of God's) slowness in coming to understand and appreciate this "new" vocation. Admittedly, it is sometimes frustrating to give oneself to a little-understood or appreciated vocation! This leaves the increased hiddenness of the CV's vocation to rankle with some CV's. Instead of allowing time for the Church as a whole to establish and reflect on the unique gift quality of a consecrated vocation lived in the world and the things of the world (and therefore living without distinguishing garb, title, vows, or insigniae beyond the wedding ring each CV wears), there seems to be a need to establish themselves as special and "set apart" in a way which also actually betrays the fundamental secularity and the charism of the vocation. We ought not need to suggest we are special merely in referring to what distinguishes us from other vocations; sometimes we are special because we share a charism with others while our mission in extending or mediating this charism to others is quite different.

Once CV's become more secure in articulating the charism and mission of their vocation as both conse-crated AND secular, I believe and hope the need to redefine the consecration and espousal of Religious will cease. The same is true when CV's living in the world become completely comfortable with the paradox I mention below, namely, that being set apart FOR and BY God in their case does not necessarily mean being set apart FROM others; it does not ordinarily involve distinguishing garb or insignia beyond their ring. For the CV living in the world, being set apart for God as a consecrated person in the church means secular lives, secular dress, etc. Certainly I have spoken with mature examples of this vocation for whom elitism is unacceptable even as they understand and live out both the uniqueness and the universality of their vocation; they give me hope in this matter. What is true, I think, is that only as CV's live out the paradox of their vocations wholeheartedly will the Church as a whole become more accepting of it.

Secondly, it seems to be the case that a number of CV's really desire to be Religious, but for some reason are unable or even unwilling to enter a congregation and move through all the steps and formation required. For that reason there seems to be a movement afoot to take a secular form of consecrated life and transform it instead into a quasi-religious form which simply lacks, "all the bells and whistles." In such cases, where the radical secularity of the vocation is actually denied, the common  and usually misguided question, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" actually has some cogency. Related to this is the too-facile distinction of Religious life from secular life in a way which treats secular life as less than truly devout, and certainly as not fitting to one who is consecrated by God. As I have written here before, today the Church is moving to reappropriate a more adequate notion of secularity, an understanding which is to be carefully distinguished from secularism and where, whether consecrated, ordained, or lay, persons can embrace the fact that they are called to live out lives of radical discipleship to Jesus in the world and in the things of the world precisely in order to call others to the same discipleship. CV's will especially call others to recognize that they too share in some way in the vocation of spousal union with God in the midst of secularity.

This means that CV's living in the world have actually been given a significant place in this dimension of the Church's mission. Paradox is often hard for people to appreciate or embrace but here CV's are called to embrace and live the paradox of consecrated or eschatological secularity. The Church seeks to hold these two things together as a piece of its own sacramental character; she consecrates virgins TRULY living in the world so that they might be icons of the Christian paradox where the divine is exhaustively revealed in flesh, the sacred is revealed in the ordinary and all of existence is called to be a living symbol of the reality of God's love which is poured out in the creation of ordinary life.

Can Consecration Ever be Undone?

One piece of recent developments in reflecting on the meaning and significance of c 604 vocations, and a piece which must be relinquished, is the notion that the CV is made Bride of Christ in a way which changes her ontologically. In saying this I do not mean that consecration does not change the person at all --- especially in her capacity to receive the grace of God which is specifically pertinent to her unique vocation.  However, I do mean that the person is not made "Bride of Christ" as though there is some sort of special form of humanity, some unique genus known as "sponsa Christi" into which the CV has been transformed which is unlike what happens to religious during their own consecration.

At her consecration the CV is uniquely graced and made especially capable of receiving the graces associated with bridal, virginal, and maternal love proper to the Kingdom or Reign of God; at the same time she is made legally and morally responsible for receiving and living out these graces as best she can on behalf of others in accordance with Canon Law and the Rite of Consecration --- especially as a consecrated person and icon of the universal calling of the whole Church to be Bride of Christ.  As with Religious who are consecrated by God at perpetual or solemn profession (this does not happen with temporary profession), the consecration per se cannot be undone; even so, what can be relinquished or undone are the legal and moral rights and obligations which attend and mark the CV's entry into the consecrated state of life.

Religious are dispensed from their perpetual vows in order to achieve this relinquishment. When dispensed in this way they do not cease to be consecrated but they are no longer consecrated persons in the Church. Since CV's have no vows they cannot be dispensed from them, but it does happen that CV's leave the legal rights and obligations enjoined on them with consecration and thus too, leave a state of life with its commensurate obligations, responsibilities, and public privileges and expectations. Such a CV does not cease to be consecrated, but she does cease to be a consecrated person (i.e., one in a public state of  consecrated life) in the church. She ceases, in other words, to be an iconic figure in the way CV's living in the world are called to be.

Is Christ the Consecrated Virgin's "Husband"?

Another way of  buying into extravagant and elitist ontological claims is by embracing the notion that Christ becomes the CV's "husband." I admit that I have never been comfortable hearing some use this term and I have become more uncomfortable with it as it is linked with increasingly elitist notions of the CV's consecration. We must always remember the analogical nature of our language when we are speaking of God; when the eschatological reality of the metaphor "spouse" or "Bridegroom" is replaced by the this-worldly legal and social term "husband" we are no longer taking significant care with our language or our theology. Further, we are talking about a change in Christ's own identity which is also exclusionary and I emphatically don't think we can do that.

Those who are espoused, betrothed, or (perhaps less appropriate linguistically) "wedded" to Christ become unique sharers in and witnesses to the CHURCH'S identity as Bride of Christ. We never say Christ is the Church's husband; it is simply not appropriate nor theologically accurate. We refer to him as the Bridegroom because it preserves the dimension of a real marriage which is not yet consummated or marked by home-taking. We do the same with CV's; the Church does so in all traditional, official, or authoritative documents referring to this vocation that I have seen. (See for instance par 18 of Pius XII's "Sacra Virginitas" where Pius carefully and consistently maintains the distinction between Christ as spouse and others as "husbands" --- even going so far as to speak of virgins as espoused to Christ and thus free of husbands!) Neither then do we say the Church (nor individual Sisters, Brothers (!), Friars (!), or CV's) are Christ's wives. Such language strips away the eschatological and ecclesial nature of the identity the CV or any of these others have accepted and makes claims of a spousal bond apparently ridiculous. I believe this usage is theologically naive and harmful to the actual witness the CV is meant to give.

To summarize then, because the vocation is ecclesial and makes the CV an icon of the Church's own identity, as well as because it is a share in an eschatological reality and points to a union which occurs in eternity when neither man nor woman will be given in marriage, it cannot make of Christ a "husband" in a this-wordly sense. Again, in Xtn theology we tend to keep the Scriptural language of espousal (Bridegroom, spouse, Bride) and eschew more common language of wife and husband in speaking of this dimension of consecration precisely to maintain the eschatological nature of the union and identity.  (Again, refer to Pius XII's usage in Sacra Virginitas.) Taking care in this way might also prevent some of the extravagant and elitist claims we are seeing  and hearing from some CV's. After all, I have called this vocation one of eschatological secularity; just as CV's cannot deny or diminish the secularity of it and be true to it, neither can they legitimately deny nor diminish its eschatological nature without betraying the vocation.

Is the CV really a Bride of Christ then? Yes, absolutely, but in a way which is representative, iconic, proleptic, and prophetic, rather than exclusive or elitist. The CV is a Bride of Christ in a sense which says, "I am what you are also called to be eschatologically, and I am this here and now so that you might know you are also called to this!" She is not a Bride of Christ in a sense which says, "I am a Bride of Christ and you consecrated Religious are not!" nor, "I am a Bride of Christ now and will be so in eternity in a way you will never be!"  Instead, the CV consecrated under c 604 lives out the specifically ecclesial identity of  Bride to the eternal Bridegroom in a particularly vivid and coherent way; she does so precisely so others may also do so (and aspire to do so) in the differing ways God calls them to share in this foundational ecclesial identity. The call and mission of CV's consecrated under c 604 is a tremendously significant ecclesial witness which serves the whole Church in reminding us of something fundamental which has been lost sight of, namely, the universal call to spousal love, the call of every person and God's Church as a whole to a union with God through Christ that is best seen as "nuptial."

Though I have focused on the nuptial character of this vocation, I should also say that this call is also profoundly significant in extending and clarifying the Church's new and evolving stances on secularity and mission! This too is part of its charism and a witness and challenge the world needs profoundly. This vocation reflects a form of "set apartness" which itself is only truly expressed when it is lived exhaustively within the culture; it is the "set apartness" proper to the Incarnation of the Word of God and to a Church whose very nature (like that of the God she worships and mediates) is missionary. The CV living in the world ministers and missions, not merely by going out to segments of the world preaching, teaching, healing, and so forth, but by manifesting the Kingdom of God here and now IN secularity --- albeit a wholly transformed secularity, an eschatological secularity proper to the "time" when God will be all in all.

Please also see: On Consecrated Virginity: the Nature of This Espousal

Eschatological Secularity, What do you mean by this?

[Dear Sister,
      thank you for answering my last question [why you are personally interested in the vocation of CV's]. You have written about CV's embracing a consecrated or sacred secularity and I understand that. But you have also begun using the term eschatological secularity. I get it has to do with the Kingdom and end times, but why do you use it here and not in reference to other vocations?]]

Sure. I am using the term specifically to qualify and connect the secularity of the vocation with the Kingdom of God in which all things will be perfected and transformed and God will be all in all. Other terms (sacred secularity, consecrated secularity) don't do so nearly as well. They carry the idea of being made a sacred person and somehow being set apart from God but what they also do too often is suggest this has to be distinct from the saeculum rather than consistently embedded in it. (N.B., embeddedness and enmeshment are not the same things!) They tend to see consecrated lives as proleptic of heaven but that is a heaven which is wholly distinct from this world and has nothing to do with interpenetrating it, transfiguring, or ultimately perfecting it into the realm it is meant to be because God is truly and wholly sovereign there.

To link secularity closely with the word eschatological seems to me to do three things: 1) it immediately indicates the locus of God's transforming, reconciling, and hallowing power and presence, namely THIS world of space and time,  2) it underscores the incredible dignity and challenge of secular vocations --- but especially the vocation of CV's living in the world, and 3) it demands that CV's reflection on the specific graces of their vocation (spousal, virginal, maternal, and apostolic love) be spelled out in terms of the needs of heaven AND the needs of earth, the needs or yearnings of the Spirit and the needs or yearnings of the world. In other words it makes clear this vocation is a very profoundly pastoral one. It also suggests that systematically this is an avenue theologians would do well to pursue in thinking through the nature and implications of this ancient AND very new vocation.

I don't use this term with other vocations because it doesn't actually fit them as well. It may come close to an aspect of what secular institutes witness to, but there we are not dealing with a consecrated state of life; members are either in the lay or ordained states depending upon their state of life when they made semi-public vows. Thus I think the paradoxical vocation I have been speaking about is most sharply indicated in the term "eschatological secularity."  As importantly, I think this term charts a course for reflecting on and living out the vocation which focuses on its RADICAL secular and ultimately pastoral nature. Last year I was truly stunned to hear a CV suggest that she could see no pastoral need for a vocation which was specifically secular. I admit I am still a bit amazed by its lack of theological or pastoral acumen or sensitivity, but I believe it is actually a very common impression held by the majority in the world who see heaven as freeing us from or as an escape from this world rather than being the ultimate state of its transfiguration and perfection in God. It certainly helps explain why these particular CV's tend to want to be recognized, not as secular, but as quasi-religious. As part of this it seems clear to me that our world is yearning for models of secularity which are sacred rather than profane and which are radically informed and transformed by the values and ideals of the Kingdom of God rather than of all that opposes God.

Thus, one of the things I found missing in some CV's statements about their vocation was any significant reflection on or explanation of either the charism or the mission of the vocation. In other words, they spent no time reflecting on or articulating the gift quality of this vocation to OTHERS or why the Holy Spirit would have brought it forward again at this point in history, nor did they do anything similar with the idea of to whom they were specifically sent and in what way or why. Clearly consecration as a virgin was a personal gift to them, but that really seemed about all --- except perhaps that it added some to persons doing volunteer work for charities and the church.

To deny a profound pastoral need for a secular vocation which was at once also and radically eschatological was the most extreme example I could point to regarding this lack. It is one thing to say "I am a Bride of Christ" or "I am consecrated and called to be an apostle" or "I am an icon of the Church as Bride of Christ", but it is something else entirely to then articulate a theology of those things which is a gift to the Church and World because it gives hope and challenges others to see the ultimate significance of their own calls and lives. My almost immediate reaction to any of these affirmations is, "So what?" and then, "Why is that important pastorally?" or "Why is that a gift of the Holy Spirit?" Others I have heard have said something dismissive like, "Well, that's nice, but [followed by a shrug of one shoulder and a quizzical look]?" To draw attention to the eschatologically secular nature of the vocation is provocative and challenges CV's to do the required reflection on the import of their uniquely qualified (consecrated) and radically secular vocations which exist for the sake of the Church and World.


 If you have read this blog apart from the posts I have written on consecrated virginity of women living in the world you know that I believe eremitical life has a tremendous charism ("the silence of solitude") which is a gift specifically to the millions and millions of socially isolated in our world who are looking and hungering for ways to redeem and transform isolation. As our societies become increasingly media-dominated the isolation grows and varies in forms and intensity while it expands in universality. The need for people who can speak to this with their lives grows exponentially. Hermits, lay or consecrated and rare as we are, are among those who speak most vividly to this situation. So are monastics more generally. Thus, at the heart of what often can seem to outsiders to be a very selfish vocation is a profound charismatic element which makes  it God's gift to a very thirsty world. Consecrated virgins MUST discover and articulate their own vision of the charismatic and, thus, the profoundly consecrated AND secular nature of their vocation. They must discover the mission they are called to embrace by God through the mediation of the Church. Otherwise, the vocation of CV's living in the world remains an irrelevant, anachronistic, and somewhat elitist bit of preciousness which speaks effectively or prophetically to no one. I believe the term "eschatological secularity" will help some CV's and theologians more generally to do this.

Followup on the Question re: What a "woman Religious looks like"

In an earlier post a reader objected that the Sisters who are part of member congregations of LCWR don't look like representatives of consecrated life because, presumably and generally speaking, they no longer wore habits. I said I would respond to that objection in a separate post so let me give it a shot. Let me be clear though: in this response I don't intend a comprehensive discourse on the issue of wearing habits. Instead I want to focus on one of the things that is happening because of the Nuns on a Bus tour --- namely the act of making clear "what a ministerial woman religious actually looks like".

Let's be clear, as a kind of introduction, that apostolic or ministerial Sisters often only wore the daily dress of their cultures. Some of the habits we identify today as "nun's habits" were really the widow's weeds of the day. In fact, Sisters wore these and were encouraged to wear them by other Sisters in the early days of the US because of the anti-Catholicism prevalent during that time. In time these costumes (the common European term for them) became a formalized habit which, rather than assuring these Sisters fit in well with the culture and society of their day and could minister effectively, stood out from the normal garb of the day. Various parts of such habits also eventually acquired religiously symbolic value but this was because they were intimately related to the consecrated women who wore them (including those in monastic life from the long past)--- not because the garb itself began as symbolic or religiously significant. Thus, we need to be aware that religious habits were born of necessity, custom, and association with the persons who wore them and the lives of generosity, prayer, and holiness those women actually lived.

In 1900 in a text called Conditae a Christo which still defined all religious life in a monastic shape but without strict cloister, and then 1917 with the Code of Canon Law, the Church recognized a kind of hybrid religious life which made normative anachronistic dress which sometimes had been forced on Sisters so they could be called "real religious." Often the Sisters' ministries had to be tailored as a result and so there were significant trade offs in the situation. After Vatican II, and because of its directives and values, women religious modified their religious garb, and often, as they re-examined the history and charisms of their congregations they went back to simple contemporary dress. They also began appraising their commitment to set corporate ministries or "apostolates" in light of their own charisms and the Council's teaching on the universal call to holiness. What was clear to the Sisters was that projects that had needed Sisters originally (the foundation and staffing of hospital and school systems) now could easily be turned over to lay persons. In any case, government took over the responsibility of education and health care in ways which made the Sisters' work to bring these to the marginalized less imperative or necessary --- and in some cases, less possible.

They moved on to other ministries which were as ground-breaking and unaddressed as had been health care and schooling for the poor and otherwise marginalized they had first been involved in. In such ministries archaic, expensive habits (and make no mistake that traditional habits were expensive in several ways!) were not helpful but in fact often created a barrier to those the Sisters sought to serve. Christ's presence never created unnecessary barriers. Unfortunately the result of all of this meant that Sisters largely passed from public view and many Catholics felt Sisters had abandoned them and the institutions they had established. Because Sisters weren't readily identifiable by distinctive dress and also worked on the margins of society rather than in parish schools, etc, many Catholics and non-Catholics wondered if they still existed at all. Neither did they realize that the changes in Sisters' ministries and dress were, in part, directly tied to a need to lift up the vocations of ALL of the laity to serve without distinctive dress or a kind of "special" status beyond the consecration of their Baptism in Christ.

Today in the Nuns on the Bus tour one of the things that is happening is that Sisters who were thought to have died out, abandoned ministry and/or the religious life, and whose consecration beyond Baptism was inextricably tied to distinctive garb, are demonstrating what they have been doing for the last 47 years since Vatican II ended. These Sisters are giving the lie to all the stereotypes and malicious rumors --- that, for instance, they are not women of profound prayer, that they are not living community, that they are unfaithful to their vows, that they have given up important ministry to deal in weird and wacky spiritualities, etc. Further, they are giving a face and voice to what it means to be a ministerial Religious today. In the Sisters associated with this tour we see deeply faithful, profoundly compassionate, and radically committed women whose credibility is rooted precisely in their commitment to their vows to stand in solidarity with those on the margins of society. They are making visible to the mainstream what has so long and unfortunately been invisible to most of the church --- lives of total dedication to God and those he holds as precious, and total consecration by God to lives of real holiness.

It is instructive and ironic that all of the media are still using the iconic images of nuns we associate with Sisters prior to Vatican II. In a sense the media is underscoring stereotypes and not paying attention to what is actually going on right in front of them, namely the public revelation of a form of religious life which is marked by simplicity and solidarity. Further, it is a form of religious life which is carried on by strong women who value their own womanliness and therefore empower women in this society more generally --- especially women who will never have "special status" in the Church and will never wear distinguishing garb which comes with the special perqs and deference attached to religious habits. In the Nuns on the Bus tour increasingly the images of the Sisters involved create normative images in our own minds of just what most consecrated women dress and act like today. This is a piece of the picture that has been missing and it is important. As a result, instead of looking for the presence of women religious because of their distinctive garb, we begin to look for them as the superficially hidden leaven in all kinds of vital "love-does-justice" projects and contexts. We begin, in other words, to seek (and to see that we are responsible for seeking) evidence of genuine holiness and compassion in the unexpected place -- a holiness and compassion which we can ALL find ourselves called to.

This is the original pattern of ALL religious life rooted in the incarnation of the Word of God. It is a pattern which has been recovered by women Religious who seek to empower others, not to garner esteem and status for themselves or their "state of life." It is a pattern which breaks open stereotypes and draws our attention to what is profoundly important, the reality of commitment to God and consecration by God lived out in hearts which are humble and with which we should all be able to completely identify. As important as I personally believe habits are in given situations, I recognize that they are ALWAYS less important than the more profound and personal witness given by the women Religious on the Nuns on the Bus tour (or in any other situation for that matter). After all, few in our church or society will ever wear habits or be able to completely identify with those who do; but everyone can identify with and be inspired by those who reveal their hearts to us during these weeks of the bus tour. They are the face of one form of religious life in today's church and we are privileged to see it so clearly.

More questions: Canonical Status, may a Bishop insist one make vows according to Canon 603?

I received a couple of related questions from someone confused by something they read from a non-canonical hermit online. Because I have already dealt with these issues generally (Canonical consecration vs non-canonical dedication) elsewhere in some depth, I am sharing the things that concerned the reader and answering them again, though I think in less depth; still, I apologize for any redundancy here. One question in particular, however, was completely new and somewhat disturbing in its implications, so readers will find this covers new ground. The questions were as follows:

[[I read in another hermit's blog that the church considers a hermit with private vows part of the consecrated state, and that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly and simply says this. The blogger indicated there was no real distinction between private and public consecration. Because of this he also claimed that Canon 603 was optional and that he could make vows in the hands of his Bishop without it. Are these things true? I ask because you have written about differences in the past. Also, there was a reference to the person's Bishop insisting that the blogger make vows under canon 603, though he was resisting the idea and had told him he was clear he was called to remain other than a canon 603 hermit. Is it possible for a Bishop to do this?}}

Assuming you have quoted accurately, the first statement is not strictly true. While it is true a person may privately consecrate (or better, dedicate) themselves to God and thus live a life which is privately set apart for God as a hermit, they do not become part of the consecrated state in so doing; they remain in the lay state. That is, the Church does not "raise" the person (sorry, but as I have said before, that's the verb used most often) to the consecrated state as is done in perpetual public vows. As I have noted before, what both the Catechism of the Catholic Church states and the revised Code of Canon Law makes very clear is that admission to the consecrated state requires public profession of vows. However, the paragraph from the Catechism being referred to in your question is somewhat ambiguous because it is listed under the heading "the Consecrated Life." Still, the entire section begins by pointing out that admission to the consecrated state is by public vow (CCC 915b refers to admission by vow to a permanent state of life; cf Code of Canon Law below).

What I think the authors of the catechism also wished to indicate in the paragraphs your question referred to (probably CCC 920-921), is that a serious eremitical life dedicated to God as a specification of one's baptismal consecration, can be lived whether one enters the consecrated state or not. That is part of the reason for saying, "while not always making public profession of the evangelical counsels. . ." (Another reason, however, is that diocesan hermits MAY publicly make other than vows per se.) Any ambiguities are largely cleared up if one reads these paragraphs in context, and also if one reads the Code of Canon Law on the matter. That is especially true of Canon 603 sec 2 " A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and observes his or her plan of life under his direction."

As far as your second question then, Canon 603 is not optional if one wishes to be canonically or publicly professed and consecrated as a hermit by the Church and become a member of the consecrated state of life. Neither is it one option among others if one is going therefore to publicly assume the rights and responsibilities of such a state or live the eremitical life in the name of the Church. If one makes private vows in the presence of a Bishop (which is NOT the same as doing so "in the hands" of one's Bishop) that is similar to making private vows in the presence of any other priest or one's spiritual director. What makes the vows PUBLIC is the fact that the Bishop legally/canonically admits the person to such profession, and accepts these vows as public in the name of the Church. In the rite of (religious) profession in such an instance he also affirms the hermit in this specific charism, chooses her for this consecration and, after receiving her vows prays the prayer of consecration over her, again all in the name of the Church. Because one makes such vows in his hands, he (and his successors and designees) become the hermit's legitimate superiors (or superiors in law). In this way a mutual relationship is set up in law between hermit and Bishop and this is indicated by the phrase "in his hands." The hermit acquires a new standing in law which is not done in private vows. All this pomp and ceremony is thus not merely a way of celebrating the same thing as private dedication and vows --- only just more elaborately. Instead it says that something different is happening here than happens when a private person (even a Bishop!) receives private vows or witnesses someone making a private dedication of self to God.

If one is a complete neophyte hermit, or contemplating becoming one, and is still considering how to live out one's baptismal consecration then in this very limited sense one can say canon 603 is an option (or, more accurately, a potential one since others must also discern such a vocation for canon 603 to actually come into play). Also, if one has lived as a non-canonical hermit for some period of time one might discern one is called to canonical consecration (or at least that one thinks one is, since again mutual discernment is involved in this); in such a case canon 603 remains an option which could be pursued. Perhaps this is what your blogger meant. But if he stated or implied that private vows and public vows are completely equal options, both functioning in precisely the same way in admitting to the consecrated state, then no, he was in error.

I suppose it is easy to make mistakes on these differences (especially given the ambiguity of the Catechism when taken out of context, and given the two distinct meanings of the term "consecrated life"). That is especially true if one ignores the glossary to the CCC (cf "consecrated life"), or the more specific Code of Canon Law on the necessary relation between public vows and the consecrated state. Your last question, however, refers to a much more serious and misleading matter which is not subject to linguistic ambiguity or confusion. Let me be clear: NO ONE IN THE CHURCH MAY INSIST THAT A PERSON MAKE VOWS under canon 603, or any other canon or set of canons. The idea that a Bishop would "insist" when, as you say, the individual claimed to not want or feel called to such profession or consecration is nonsensical, and of course, any vows made in such a case would be invalid (cc 573.2), not to mention a travesty. Vows are not thrust upon a person, nor can one be obliged in obedience to make vows. The entire idea misunderstands the theology of vocation and profession underlying them which requires the individual call be freely (not to mention clearly) heard, freely mediated by the Church, and freely accepted and embraced in a sense of certainty by ALL PARTIES INVOLVED that this is where and HOW God himself is calling the one concerned .

I admit to feeling pretty strongly about this matter because I occasionally hear stories from hermits who, despite being clear that they ARE CALLED TO THIS SPECIFIC CONSECRATION, are denied or postponed admission to Canon 603 profession simply because it is still relatively new, the diocese does not want responsibility for such an arrangement, or because they don't see the need for canonical profession or question the validity of the eremitical life more generally. (I am not referring to those not admitted because the diocese involved decides they are not actually called or have other substantive valid reasons.) Thus, to hear in light of this, that someone has suggested that their Bishop might INSIST they be professed under Canon 603 when they claim to have a different (e.g, a non-canonical eremitical) vocation and not want this for themselves is really problematical and disturbing. This is especially true when the charism of the diocesan hermit may differ in some ways from that of the non-canonical hermit. Were it true that someone was professed because their Bishop wanted it when they really did not, it would also be scandalous to those witnessing the vows. However, I don't believe for a moment any competent Bishop would do such a thing. Instead, (and again I am assuming the questioner has cited the person accurately), it would seem to me that whoever stated this has either misunderstood the situation vis a vis his Bishop, or, for some other subjective reason has seriously misspoken and mischaracterized the objective situation.

One final comment. As I have written here before, Hermits may clearly be non-canonical or canonical and whichever form of the life one is actually called to is meant to be a blessing to the church in its own way. One hopes anyone would be able to come to terms with the unique way God is calling him or her. Both forms of eremitism are significant vocations and should be esteemed. However, one does not do this by blurring the distinctions which do exist between the two. For instance, private consecration allows the non-canonical hermit to remain solidly amidst the laity and signals clearly how silence, solitude, prayer, and penance are important in the life of every person in the church. It also witnesses to the need for any adult to make more specific their own baptismal commitment and consecration. Public consecration as a diocesan hermit can and should witness in this way too (afterall, it is a public vocation despite its hiddenness), but it is also apt to speak more clearly to monastics and religious of these things, and call others to consider the consecrated state as a possible vocation. Both forms however, are characterized by greater separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and thus are similar gifts to the church.

Followup Question on Canonical Status, Ecclesial vocations, etc

A follow-up question to the one on canonical status arrived in my email box:

[[Thank you for explaining that canonical status does not mean "status" in the usual sense of the word. I really had not heard that before. It is probably true that everyone thinks of canonical status as indicating what you called, "relative ranking" and "perks," but not the responsibilities or legal standing leading to these. You said too that the discernment period is often protracted. That raises two questions for me:1) why does one need to undergo such a process, and 2) why does anyone else need to be involved in discernment in the first place? Isn't this between the individual and God? The idea of a "unique charism" is new to me too. Doesn't this conflict with what you called the "hiddenness" of the hermit? And what about people who do not feel called to the kind of parish or diocesan ministry you referred to? Can't they be canon 603 hermits too? Shouldn't they?]]

I'm pretty sure I have written about some of these matters before (I will try to link you to the pertinent article down below), but let me also reprise that here. The answer to both your questions has the same root, namely, vocations like the eremitic, religious, ordained priesthood, or call to consecrated virginity, are what are called "ecclesial vocations." This means that although the individual can feel personally called to them (and of course MUST feel so called!), the Church herself plays a role in mediating God's call to the individual. If you look over the rite of religious profession or of ordination you will see there is a place where the candidate is formally called forth on behalf of the Church, but speaking as the mediator of God's own will in the matter. She stands and responds, "Here I am Lord; you have called me, and I come to do your will," or something similar. This is more than a bit of superficial pro forma ritual. It is the symbolic expression of the fact that the church herself mediates God's OWN call to this candidate and extends this call formally at a public liturgy. In the question and response which follow immediately, the Bishop will ask the candidate what she requests of God and his Holy Church. She may respond, "The privilege (or grace) of perpetual profession," or something similar, adding a request for "the grace of perseverance," etc. At that point the Bishop, says something like, "With the help of the Holy Spirit, we confirm you in this charism and choose you for this consecration. . ." Only after this dialogue is concluded, a homily is given, and an examination of the candidate's readiness to assume the responsibilities of this call are carried out along with (in perpetual profession) the prostration and litany of the Saints symbolizing the whole Church's involvement in this act, does the actual profession of vows take place.

I think it is not understood sufficiently that vocations like this in the church are NOT matters of individual discernment alone. When I say the vocation is an ecclesial one, I mean several things: 1) the Church herself discerns who is called to this vocation; 2) the Church regulates and oversees the vocation because specific expectations and responsibilities are involved, 3) the Church mediates the ACTUAL CALL of God TO the person, and 4) she receives the hermit's vows authoritatively and publicly consecrates her to the service of God and his Church. There is no doubt that a person can feel a call years before the local church (the diocesan church) is ready to move on such a vocation, and the person needs to remain true to that in the meantime, but it is ALSO true that in Roman Catholic theology, vocations to consecrated, religious, and priestly life, the Church herself mediates God's OWN call; she does not merely recognize or validate that the individual's discernment is sound --- though of course, she does this too. So, to answer your second question first, yes, the call is between the person and God but not ONLY between them. Even more accurately it might be said that the call to an ecclesial vocation involves God, the individual and God's Church in a mutual dialogue of discernment, call, and response. We might also say that unless and until the Church formally calls the Sister forth to make her perpetual profession and to consecrate her to God (or at the very least DECIDES OFFICIALLY to admit her to these things), the call is at best incomplete or only partial.

Your first question was also good: why does such a process have to take place (and why, I will add, is it often so protracted)? The fact is, it is easy for an individual to make a mistake regarding vocation. I would say that with regard to an eremitic vocation it is even easier. But even when one is correct about one's own discernment, it takes some years to grow into the vocation, especially as, in the case of canon 603, one may not be coming from a monastic background or background in other formation to religious life. On the diocese's side a number of things must be clear to be sure they are dealing with a DIVINE vocation: the person must be psychologically and spiritually sound, they must be able to support themselves in some way, shape, or form, and must demonstrate the ability to carry on with this vocation in relative independence from superiors or other church leadership (as well as in obedience and fidelity to them) for the WHOLE of their lives.

The local diocese must also feel this vocation is right for the local church (diocesan eremitism is relatively new so reflection on what it means for any dioceses involved is ongoing). Details need to be worked out: what kind of communication and how much will take place between the hermit, her Bishop, Vicar, etc? How will the vow of obedience work out in terms of everyday and unusual requirements or requests on the hermit's behalf? What about ongoing formation, education, spiritual direction, routine "permissions" or oversight, and the like? The simple fact is most diocesan personnel have no experience dealing with candidates for the eremitical life, and sometimes themselves see the vocation as unnecessary, a waste of time, or too eccentric to attend to seriously. And, since candidates have often lived out commitments to other forms of religious or consecrated life before coming to the conclusion that they are called to eremitic life, or they have come to eremitic life rather late in life after significant changes, trauma, etc, greater care may be taken than would be the case otherwise --- and rightly so!


And of course I have not even discussed the unique charism of the diocesan hermit here (though I have done so in another post below). The fundamental vocation is defined as one of silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and greater separation from the world. However, an ability to relate well to people, to be a vital part of a parish, professional competence (in and out of cell), and genuine compassion are also part of this vocation. It is not generally enough to be temperamentally a loner (and in fact, this may be a contraindication of/to such a vocation. Those who are not temperamentally loners can make wonderful hermits and they are not coming from a place where their temperament also disposes them to isolation rather than solitude!). One embraces eremitical silence, solitude, prayer, penance and greater separation from the world in order to spend one's life for others in this specific way. Whatever FIRST brings one to the desert (illness, loss, temperament, curiosity, etc) unless one learns to love God, oneself, and one's brothers and sisters genuinely and profoundly, and allows this to be the motivation for one's life, I don't think one has yet discerned a call to diocesan eremitism.

While this was not part of your question, let me say something here about the phrase "the world" in the above answers. Greater separation from the World implies physical separation, but not merely physical separation. Doesn't this conflict with what I said about the unique charism of the diocesan hermit? No, I don't think so. First of all, "the world" does NOT mean "the entire physical reality except for the hermitage or cell"! Instead, "the world" refers to those structures, realities, things, positions, etc which PROMISE FULFILLMENT or personal completion apart from God. Anything, including some forms of religion and piety can represent "the world" given this definition. The world tends to represent escape from self and God, and also escape from the deep demands and legitimate expectations others have a right to make of us as Christians. Given this understanding, some forms of "eremitism" may not represent so much greater separation from the world as they do unusually embodied capitulations to it. (Here is one of the places an individual can fool themselves and so, needs the assistance of the church to carry out an adequate and accurate discernment of a DIVINE vocation to eremitical life.)

Not everything out in the physical world is "the World" hermits are called to greater separation from. Granted, physical separation from much of the physical world is an element of genuine solitude which makes discerning the difference easier. Still, I have seen non diocesan hermits who, in the name of "eremitical hiddenness" run from responsibilities, relationships, anything at all which could conceivably be called secular or even simply natural (as opposed to what is sometimes mistakenly called the supernatural). This is misguided, I believe, and is often more apt to point to the lack of an eremitical vocation at the present time than the presence of one. (Let me say that even in these cases, these journeys can grow and mature INTO authentic eremitical vocations. It may take some time, and it ALWAYS requires really good spiritual direction sometimes along with psychological assistance and therapy, but it is possible!)


You also asked: {{. . . the idea of a "unique charism" is new to me. Doesn't this conflict with what you called the "hiddenness" of the hermit? And what about people who do not feel called to the kind of parish or diocesan ministry you referred to, or who are unable to do it because of illness or other limitations? Can't they be canon 603 hermits too? Shouldn't they?]]

One of the things mentioned in Canon 603 is that the eremitic life is lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. The idea of praising God is not problematical, I don't think,(that is, I don't think you need me to say more about what this means, true?) and obviously one does (or SHOULD DO) this whether one remains in cell or goes out occasionally. One's whole life SHOULD BE a psalm of praise, a magnificat to the Lord, as I have written before. The idea that the eremitic vocation is not geared towards self-indulgence, escapism, pathological introversion and the like is underscored by this phrase. The phrase "for the salvation of the world" does the same. At the same time, I think these two phrases, while applying to all eremitical life, especially ground the vocation to DIOCESAN eremitism as one with the unique charism I have outlined.

ALL hermits, solitary, monastery-based, non-canonical, laura-based, etc, are concerned with the salvation of the world. We all pray for the world; we all serve as a still-point leavening our world with the peace of contemplation, and mediating the energy or reality of the Kingdom through our prayer. My point in the earlier blog entry was that for the diocesan hermit, the relationship to parish and diocese symbolized in a vow of obedience to God in the hands of the hermit's Bishop comes into greater focus and occasions specific expectations and responsibilities other hermits might not share. Still, the actual outworking of this charism occupies a spectrum, from praying for parish and diocese while remaining secluded, to ministering in more active ways occasionally while maintaining an essentially eremitic life.

Obviously the individual hermit's gifts, talents, capacities, training, education, inclinations, resources, and the like help determine where along the spectrum she falls. Also, while the charism is part and parcel of the vocation, I believe, how it is expressed or embodied over time can shift as well. There will be rhythms to the hermit's ministry: sometimes greater reclusion will be called for, sometimes greater apostolic work. The point I wanted to make is that with public profession, the parish and diocese have rights and expectations in the diocesan hermit's regard which do not obtain with non-canonical status, for instance. One's eremitism is not merely between oneself and God, but is meant for the well-being of others as well, especially of one's parish and diocese. So long as one demonstrates a true willingness and capacity to be a hermit FOR these others in identifiable ways, then yes, the hermit can and should be a diocesan hermit in spite of personal limitations or disability.