Canon 603 Hermits and Rejection of Vatican II

[[Dear Sister, are the majority of Catholic Hermits progressive or liberal rather than Traditionalist? You consider yourself progressive or liberal don't you? Is it possible to reject Vatican II and be a canonical solitary hermit today? I was thinking that maybe the c 603 hermit vocation would be perfect for someone who doesn't accept Vatican II but does not want to leave the Church. Or would this be another example of what you have called "stopgap vocations"? In your opinion should the Church be professing hermits who  reject Vatican II?]]

Thanks for your questions. I must admit I am curious as to why you are asking them; what raised them for you? But in any case let me give them a shot. Labels like liberal and progressive are not always helpful I don't think. I don't know what they actually mean a lot of the time. I thought of myself as progressive or liberal when I was a student. Later though I came to see myself as essentially conservative --- conservative in a way I consider genuinely healthy.

What I mean by this is I hold onto the core truth, try to understand it more and more fully, and then try to apply it in ways which lead to new life, growth, maturity, etc. Since God is both "always the same" and the source of continuing newness and surprise I think this is the only way to go. Moreover, as a hermit, there is no doubt that I am part of a really ancient vocation whose roots are spiritually conservative but which is also incredibly prophetic and open to the newness which that leads to. When the roots are deep and lasting newness is not a problem. That said, I don't know whether most c 603 hermits are progressive, etc. Only occasionally do I hear of hermits whose conservatism veers from healthiness into a dystrophic traditionalism. On the other hand, those whose eremitism is not profoundly conservative in the sense I have described are unlikely to last as hermits unless and until they develop the roots healthy conservatism and the truly prophetic require.

Before I answer your questions about eremitical life and Vatican II let me point you to a video of a hermit professed according to c 603 in the post-conciliar revised Code of Canon Law. Though a bit long it tells the story of the first contemporary solitary hermit in Ireland. Unfortunately  Sister Irene Gibson rejects Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church utterly.  Her conservatism has become a less healthy traditionalism. From what I can see from this video she and I disagree on almost everything theological except the fact that vocations are not a call issued and answered only once, but something we must respond to daily. Sister Irene believes this is because human beings are sinful and would fall away from their vocations otherwise. I accept that as a secondary reason but contend the primary reason is that God is a dynamic reality calling us at every moment and we are called to be responsive individuals whose "yes" is offered again and again.

I suspect Sister Irene's eremitical vows have since been dispensed because she really is entirely opposed to the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and exists in schism with it; she now lives with a Tridentine community of Sisters so far as I know, but nonetheless, I respect her and would say she was a true hermit with a true vocation to the silence of solitude. Whether she should ever have been professed as a canon 603 hermit is another question entirely. Her life says very clearly that God alone is sufficient and I admit I am quite impressed with her integrity and courage as someone living an intense solitude without even the support of her local (or national) Church for many years.

In the following video I think that despite the dislike with which she refers to the Roman Curia (" the bureaucrats in Rome"), her complete hatred for what Vatican II wrought, and a theology that, in my opinion, fails to do justice to either history or the God of Jesus Christ --- something that causes a distorted focus on sin rather than on the God of mercy --- there is a gentleness, a degree of humility, and real love for the people with whom Sister Irene interacts and for whom she prays. It is this capacity for humility, love, and compassion which grows in solitude along with a capacity for silent suffering that, I think, attests to the authenticity of Sister's eremitical vocation. The seriousness, reverence, and core of deep sadness and grief which informs a life which is truly loving only underscores this authenticity in my mind.



As for your questions regarding Vatican II and solitary eremitical life per se, I do not think it is possible to be a solitary hermit according to the Revised Code of Canon Law if one rejects Vatican II. First of all the very Code which allows for solitary hermits in universal law for the first time in the history of the Church is a result of Vatican II and the reforms achieved and envisioned there. It seems ironic in the extreme to me, not to mention inconsistent and more than a little self-serving and even potentially hypocritical to seek (or allow) profession under such a canon when one no longer believes in the Church whose life it reflects. Remember that canon 603 describes a life lived in the heart of the Church, a very specifically ecclesial vocation lived under the supervision of a Bishop of the contemporary (that is, post-conciliar) Church. It makes little sense to profess and consecrate someone within a Church they believe is a betrayal of 2000 years of ecclesial history. How, after all can they meet sacramental obligations? How can they vow obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior whose authority they reject? I think you see the problem.

While at first glance this may seem to be a "perfect solution" for someone who, as you say, "rejects Vatican II but does not want to leave the Church," in reality they have already left the Church --- for the Ecumenical Council is the highest expression of the Church's authority at work. Although I have never applied the term stopgap in this sense (I ordinarily mean something is stopgap if it provides a pseudo solution which plugs a hole in canon law for those who cannot be professed in any other way or who wish to circumvent canonical procedures already in place), I think you might be right in applying this term here.

The bottom line in this situation is that this is an entirely inadequate and imprudent "solution" to the problem of someone who rejects Vatican II but whom we might want to "keep" within the Church in some sense. (If the person is struggling with aspects of the Church, as, for instance the desert Mothers and Fathers struggled with them while perhaps living a prophetic life within the Church, I think this is a different matter. It seems to me that Sister Irene might well have been in such a position when she was first professed.) One cannot be a "Catholic (c 603) Hermit" while at the same time rejecting the very Church in whose name one is professed, consecrated, and called to live the eremitical life. No true vocation allows for such disingenuousness; after all we are called by the God who is Truth to witness to Him and the Good News of his Christ Event.

Sister Irene's situation may be more extreme than others but it helps underscore the ecclesial nature of the c 603 or diocesan eremitical vocation. I believe she was professed under c 603 in good faith and it is possible that she was professed before she had the experiences she describes regarding both Vatican II, the Greek Orthodox Mass, and her insight into the supposed nature of the post-conciliar Church. (Despite c 603 postdating VII by almost 20 years, I say this because the timeline of these events is not entirely clear to me from her comments.) Even so, whatever the timeline, at some point she essentially "left" the post-conciliar Roman Catholic Church (and later she left it in every sense for the Tridentine Church and religious life there).

If she was already professed, her vows under canon 603 would likely have been dispensed; if she made her profession only after coming to see the Church as she does, it would have been determined to be invalid. It is not so much that the Church should not be professing folks who have rejected Vatican II, though this is certainly true, but rather, that she really cannot do so validly because these persons have, in their heart of hearts --- as well as in terms of ecclesial worship and doctrine --- left the Church themselves, and simply cannot be thought of as living their lives in (much less as part of) her very heart.

Vatican II is irreversible!!! GET ON WITH IT!!

If I had to say what it was about Francis' interview in Thinking Faith (or America) that was so stunning to me, what made it so completely overwhelming, I would point to all the individual points he made which reflected the clear and unambiguous influence of Vatican II. When I look back over my own reading of those 12,000 words I see someone stumbling upon piece after piece of the Pope's comments as though she had discovered a treasure only to find that there was another treasure further on, and yet again after that. It took me two days to read the entire interview and when I finished it I was both energized and exhausted with joy and gratitude and hope.

But eventually I would need to point to one piece of the interview which was stupefying to me (it transcends and unites all the other stunning moments!), namely, what Pope Francis said clearly and unambiguously about Vatican II and the whole "hermeneutics of rupture (or discontinuity) vs continuity" business. In one single sentence Francis told the entire Church that, the hermeneutics of rupture and continuity aside, (especially to the degree they are played off against one another and become dominant and divisive), Vatican II and its way of approaching reality in light of the Gospel (and vice versa) is irreversible so (he strongly implied) GET ON WITH IT!

Here is the passage with the critical sentence emphasized. [[Vatican II was a rereading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture, " says the pope. "Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear, the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today --- which was typical of Vatican II --- is absolutely irreversible.]]

To a certain extent casting the story of the inter-pretation of Vatican II into that of continuity vs discon-tinuity or rupture has been a red herring since no competent theologian ever interpreted Vatican II as a rupture with the Church's Tradition. Instead they recognized that it involved reNEWing of the Church in terms of a deeper continuity --- that of the Gospel from which the Church's life stems and by which it is nourished and ordered.

Renewing the Church in terms of the Gospel did indeed make all things new, but at the same time there was a profound continuity preserved and fostered. No progressive theologian spoke of Vatican II as ONLY a rupture with Tradition, but they certainly looked carefully at that which was truly new, as well as sometimes contrary to accretions to and distortions of Tradition. Over time those alarmed with the momentum Vatican II had in parishes, dioceses, and lives everywhere stressed the continuity of Vatican II with the Tradition --- and over stressed it so that again and again what we heard was "nothing new" happened at Vatican II, or, "one cannot speak of a Spirit of Vatican II; one can only read the documents of Vatican II literally in a way which precludes any discontinuity with the Church's Tradition." Anything new was seen as a betrayal of the Tradition while Tradition came to be identified with the merely old. Newness was identified with simple novelty (neos, new in time) and Tradition with that which was incapable of genuine newness (kainotes, qualitatively new). Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: New because Eternal, Notes From Stillsong: Always Beginners.

The  deepest problem here was that when Tradition was looked at in this way proclamation of the Gospel and the implementation of Vatican II was crippled and the Gospel's  power to address and continually remake reality in a way consonant with the ever-new and eternal life of God was blocked.  However, this approach also produced unnecessary division. Catholics who desired to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, were always really relatively few in  number, but were insultingly portrayed as though they reflected the unCatholic and destructive agenda of progressive theologians; this in turn made it difficult for these professionals to speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in our world (much less in the Council) if that required or led to anything new at all.  Meanwhile, those who reacted to this cartoon version of things and who embraced the idea of continuity without ANY discontinuity were hardened in their embrace of the past (not of Tradition itself which is a living reality) as norm of all truth. Both positions are heretical; both caricature Vatican II and what was achieved (and attempted) there. Both prevent God from drawing us into the absolute future of his life where all is truly new.

It is this entire situation that Francis has addressed with his statement quoted above. Here Francis affirms the existence of the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity (extremists do exist on either side of the interpretative divide and too, substantive conversations over difficult points of interpretation must continue to take place) but he says very clearly that the basic reform nature of the Council was rooted in the Gospel and he clearly affirmed we need to continue to hear the Gospel in terms of the contemporary situation. This essential focus and momentum of the Council is irreversible. It is the teaching of the Church, indeed the highest teaching of the Church binding Popes and People, and we must act in light of it.

At any number of points in this interview Francis helps the Church to move beyond division, pettiness, and ideology so that the Gospel of God's mercy can be proclaimed. More, again and again he turns to the Gospel to overcome (and to demand we ourselves overcome) the division, pettiness, and ideological impulses that taint our faith and lead us to neglect the real struggles of our time. But it seems to me that it is here in his comments on Vatican II that these marching orders are most far-reaching and  are most profoundly articulated. Many people have been waiting "for the other shoe to drop" and for Francis to show us who he REALLY is --- thinking that would be a doctrinal hardliner who belonged in the CDF rather than the seat of chief shepherd. Well, in this interview I think the other shoe HAS dropped and what we have been shown is a man who is the one we have seen right along since his election as Bishop of Rome.

Already we are hearing traditionalists denying anything new is coming out of Rome these days. "What NEW tone?" says one online commentator. "A new tone? REALLY?" says another. (The more honest tradionalists are decrying Francis as a liberal traitor. Some are asking (seriously) if the Pope is Catholic or if the Church will be standing at the end of his papacy.)  On the other side of the extremist spectrum we have folks suggesting anything goes, Church dogma and sexual morality will fundamentally change or be jettisoned. In truth what Francis has done is more radical than either of these extremes for it transcends and corrects them in light of the Gospel of God in Christ. He speaks continually of the Good news of God's love and justice-making mercy, which, as I said in Religious are Prophets, MAKES ALL THINGS NEW.

But for theologians long-hampered by some of the hierarchy's resistance to the idea of anything new being introduced by Vatican II, by the effective invalidation of the term "the Spirit of Vatican II", and disheartened by apparent sustained attempts to roll VII back to Trent by folks within the highest levels of the Church, Francis' affirmation is a staggeringly clear and unambiguous commission to renew their work with the vigor of their theological youth and the shrewdness and wisdom of their current experience and age. For the rest of the Church it signals a call to revisit and reclaim the hope, enthusiasm, and promise occasioned by the Council 50 years ago while we all work towards the day VII is fully received by the Church. Vatican II and its way of approaching reality in light of the Gospel and all that demands is irreversible. We must GET ON WITH IT!

On Recovering (or Renewing) an Excitement and Hope for Vatican II

Well, the day before yesterday was one of those days where amazing things happen ALL day long. First, there was the inauguration of a Pope who holds the poor and marginalized in his heart and gives them priority in his theology and pastoral focus --- the first inauguration since that of John Paul I where I felt true excitement and hopefulness for the papacy, the reform of the curia, and the eventual health of the Church; it was the first inauguration where I was moved by the simplicity (and beauty) of the liturgy, the vestments, etc, and so, was reminded of the Christ I know myself. It was an inauguration in which I heard the Gospel proclaimed in Greek --- which took me back to school days --- and where the Homily spoke of caring for creation and one another as good stewards of God's own love and life in what was a typically Franciscan way.

I was taken back to school days too when, in the afternoon, I went  to a symposium at my old college on Vatican II featuring the Church historian Massimo Faggioli speaking about his book, The Battle for Meaning. Also in attendance were Bp John Cummins (Bp Emeritus of the Diocese of Oakland) and Bp Remi De Roo (Bp Emeritus, Victoria, BC and a Bishop who attended all four sessions of Vatican II). Now, some readers of this blog may recognize Bp Remi's name from pieces I have written on the history of Canon 603, especially for his intervention at the Second Vatican Council on the contribution of the eremitical life to the life of the Church. (cf the labels to the right and below for associated articles here) I had never met Bp De Roo, but I had read his intervention at the Council and he has been something of a hero of mine because of his support of the eremitical vocation.

So, I had emailed a Brother at the college and asked if there might be a chance to meet Bp De Roo to thank him for his place in establishing this vocation in the contemporary Church. That was arranged and I was able to hear the story from him directly, a story I have told here before and will summarize again: When religious were forced to leave their congregations and vows in order to follow a call to eremitical solitude Dom Jacques Winandy, a Benedictine monk and (eventually) another 11 or so of them ended up on Bp Remi's doorstep. He was named Bishop protector of a project allowing these hermits to live in a laura (individual dwellings, etc.) and try to live this vocation. It was the beginning of a resurgence of the eremitical vocation in the Latin Church. Later he gave (wrote) one of the interventions at Vatican II and, though none of the Council documents included eremitical life, the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) recognized the vocation in canon 603 partly as a result of Bp Remi's efforts.

Bishop Remi De Roo

Mass and Dinner with the participants and Brothers of the College followed and I was able to catch up a little with people I had not seen since I had graduated or been in the MA program there, I also met Brothers who had not been there when I was in school as an undergraduate or MA student. I had not anticipated this but it was a real joy. One of my old classmates was among those presenting at the afternoon session and it was wonderful to be able to talk with her, to attend Mass with her and extend the sign of peace during the celebration. It was also wonderful to hear Bp De Roo proclaim the Gospel and give the homily. Bp Remi has been a champion of Vatican II throughout the years and is known for his clear position on the primacy of conscience as well as his support of the sacramental nature of marital intimacy. He recently (September) published Memoirs of a Vatican II Bishop which (despite having just now read only half of it) I recommend.

At the evening presentation Bp Remi, along with Bp John Cummins and Massimo Faggioli spoke of the greatest achievements of Vatican II as well as what was still to be done in their estimation. Bishop De Roo spoke first of his conclusion that what John XXIII had wanted to happen with Vatican II HAD happened, namely, a new Pentecost.  He developed the same ten points as signs of this achieved new Pentecost as he used to indicate what was still necessary, namely,  our need to develop a spirituality of Vatican II. The ten points marking both achievement and remaining need?  1) a view of revelation centered in the person of Jesus Christ, not in propositions, 2) reclaiming and reading the Scriptures as the basis of our spirituality, 3) the recognition that real sanctity is a question of relationships, first with God and then with all others, 4) reclaiming our Baptismal dignity, especially a sense of the priesthood of all believers. Here Bp Remi reminded us there is only one "class" in our Church, that of disciple of Christ.

He continued: 5) a redefinition of the nature of genuine morality in terms of responsible freedom rather than as a matter of embracing moral precepts. Here Bp De Roo stressed the uniqueness of the conciliar statements on conscience --- not in terms of content, for that was entirely traditional, but in terms of the Council affirming this teaching clearly in its own documents; 6) A morality measured in terms of co-responsibility for all. (Bp Remi reminded us of Vatican II's statement that the laity/laos (the whole People of God) has right and sometimes the obligation to speak to pastors regarding their needs), 7) the commitment to the Kingdom or Reign of God. The Church is here as a servant of this one single work, the building of the Kingdom. Thus, the Church is always to be about dying to self so that God's Kingdom might truly come; (this was also the topic of Bp Remi's homily, the single work of God).

8) the universal call to holiness is something all need to clearly embrace, 9) Bp Remi encouraged us to ask ourselves, "Have I heard the call to mysticism?" Here he spoke of developing a heart attuned to God in prayer and of the need for everyone to really develop this; 10) a clear recognition and embrace of the notion of what Vatican II called the "hierarchy of truths." We cannot treat every truth as though it is important as every other truth. We cannot treat every practice as though it is as critical as every other practice. That is not Church teaching.  When I ask myself how many of these points are central to life in my hermitage, parish, and/or diocese (or even how many of them turn up in much of my writing here and other places) I have to say I am very hopeful and gratified.


Both Massimo Faggioli's and John Cummin's presen-tations were excellent too and I hope to post more about those soon. They dealt with the same questions. What was especially encouraging was the ongoing work occurring re Vatican II, the continued commitment to its reception by the Church, and a clear statement that the Council had been kidnapped --- not at the Council itself as its sometimes said, but later by those who suggested ANY competent theologian ever bought into a theology or hermeneutic of rupture, or, for that matter that the Council documents were ONLY in complete continuity with the whole of Tradition. There was both continuity (of course!) and discontinuity; no competent theologian ever affirmed anything else, or could competently affirm anything else. Faggioli's phrase for the notion that this was not the case was "science fiction" --- and insulting science fiction as well.

There is still a great deal of work to do, of course, and damage has been done to the aims of the Council in the past decade and more, but Vatican II was the occasion of a new Pentecost and, as we can see from Francis' election --- where conservatism is not a problem so long as the Church acts as Christ and truly and effectively proclaims the Gospel with its life and structures, from the almost universal desire of the Cardinals for reform of the Curia (cf. comments by Walter Cardinal Kasper on this matter recently), and from the excitement at every level of the Church over Francis' WAY of doing business, as well as from comments by Massimo Faggioli, we can trust in the Spirit as well as that "the genie cannot be stuffed back in the bottle."

Eschatological Secularity and CV's Living in the World

[[Hello Sister O'Neal, I have appreciated what you have written about secularity and non-secularity. It seems to move us away from ways of seeing these vocations which leads to evaluating them as second-rate or called to a less than exhaustive holiness. Am I right in thinking that besides the influence of Gaudium et Spes and the call to universal holiness from Vatican II the key issue is the way we look at the relation of heaven and earth and the coming of God's Reign in fullness? Also, have you read the Phatmass comments of one CV who wrote she cannot see how the universal call to holiness is really pertinent to the discussion on the sacred secularity of the vocation to consecrated virginity of women living in the world? She calls the two things "distinct ideas."]]

Hi there. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my answer to your question.  As you know, I have been sick for the past couple of weeks and am just now beginning to feel better and catch up with some of the emails I received regarding this discussion. (Being sick was a kind of gift in that it allowed me to participate in the Phatmass discussion by freeing me from other obligations, but it also kept me from doing everything I would have liked to do in a more timely way.) In particular I have your own email and two others to respond to publicly. The others have really already been addressed in what I have already written and in brief private replies, but your own and the remaining two require some public clarification and  perhaps even some more careful thinking through things I have already said.

Yes, I think you have two of the key issues I have mentioned exactly right. Because of the interrelated nature of these issues and my own desire to more clearly stress the integral relationship between heaven and this world in the secular call to holiness, I have also referred in this recent series of posts to eschatological secularity rather than my older terms from a year ago, sacred or consecrated secularity.  Both of these key issues are raised in the comments you also allude to so I am going to cite those here and respond to all of this as a piece. In the discussion on Phatmass, Sponsa Christi (Jenna Cooper) wrote: [[Writing in a spirit of respectful discussion...I’m not sure that the Church’s teachings on the universal call to holiness can be directly identified with Sr. Laurel’s concept of “sacred secularity.” To me, these would actually seem to be two distinct ideas. As I am understanding it, “sacred secularity” would seem to be the idea of relating to God primarily in and through mundane things; whereas the universal call to holiness is the teaching that every Christian, regardless of his or her state in life, is called to be holy.]]

Because two ideas can be distinguished does not necessarily make them completely distinct from one another. Meanwhile, sometimes insisting ideas are entirely distinct can, even unintentionally, also be a way of rendering them "safe" and refusing to allow them to effect the radical change they are meant to bring or proclaim the Gospel message in the powerfully transfiguring way it needs to be heard. My own sense is that Vatican II's "universal call to holiness" is intimately related to the Church's reevaluation of the secular in our vocational schemata. Every person I have read or spoken with about this has appreciated this almost instinctively. After all, the call to universal holiness is not simply a call to individual holiness regardless of state of life. It is also a call to participate exhaustively in the Reign of God and to further implicate that Reign via whatever state of life the person is called to. Beyond this, it is not simply a notion that one can become holy in spite of  or regardless of whatever state of life one occupies, but more, that one can both become holy and transform the world IN and through that specific state of life. It includes the notion, therefore that  the secular itself mediates God's call to holiness and thus to exhaustive participation in God's Kingdom --- in this case because essentially the secular is and is meant to BE the Sacrament of God's exhaustive Lordship and presence. 

As Sponsa Christi (Jenna Cooper) rightly says,  part of my speaking of a call to "sacred (or consecrated) secularity" affirms that one can relate to God through the mundane, but it goes much further as well. It says that a life which is really,  formally, and canonically "set aside" by and for God, and which is an icon of the eschatological Reign of God, can realize its ultimate potential within the secular; similarly it says that the secular is an entirely appropriate context for lives which are truly set aside by and for God. More it says that vocations to an eschatological or sacred secularity are significant for the realization not only of the individual's call to holiness, but for the world's realization of its own potential as well. Such persons are called to be secular because the secular is called to be the ultimate realm of God's exhaustive holiness and dominion.  Until Vatican II it was simply not possible to say most of this. Prior to Vatican II and her emphasis on the "universal call to holiness" a call to secularity was not only a second-rate vocation, but the secular itself was unworthy to serve either as an adequate context for holiness (or, in particular, for vocations to the consecrated state); neither was it understood to be worthy or capable of being the raw material for the Kingdom of heaven --- the bread and wine which can, should, and will become the Body and Blood of Christ.

My own sense in all of this is that last year my thought (and so my posts) did not go far enough. They rightly reflected the truth that CV's living in the world are called to a secular vocation, and assuredly one which is significantly qualified by the virgin's consecration. That was necessary not only to honor what the Church clearly teaches about this vocation in historical terms,  or in her liturgy, theology, and praxis, but also to make sense of it and it's imagery as things which were compelling in contemporary terms. This year, I think linking the idea that heaven is not merely pie in the sky by and by, but that it involves the ultimate transfiguration of this world here and now deepens or radicalizes the ideas I dealt with last year. At the same time it allows this vocation to appropriately witness to a theology of the eschaton very few Catholics are sufficiently familiar with and to underscore the whole of VII's teaching on the universal call to holiness and essential goodness and goal, the sacramentality of creation.

 Beyond these things, linking these ideas helps provide a systematic theological underpinning which demands we no longer use canon 604 as a charismatically, theologically, and pastorally insignificant "fallback vocation" which women (or dioceses!!) automatically turn to when another vocation fails or, for instance, they simply cannot accept that a lay vocation is a radical call to discipleship. Instead this linkage underscores the fact that the call of CV's living in the world is significant in all of these ways and, in its character as both eschatological and  truly secular, is a more radical gift to Church and world than any quasi-religious (etc) vocation can ever be. Consequently, those discerning and being professed (via propositum) and consecrated into this vocation must be able to appreciate and honor both dimensions of the call, the eschatological and the secular. Otherwise there is significant reason for believing they should be discerning a different vocation or that they have merely embraced this call as a stopgap or fallback vocation --- just as the Province of LA was so concerned about after the promulgation of canon 604 that they refused to consecrate anyone accordingly.

The Importance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation, Followup Questions

[[Sister Laurel, 
      is there some way to live as a lay hermit and ALSO do so, as you put it, 'in the name of the Church'? One of the problems I have is that the Church does not seem to know lay hermits exist. I don't think it is a vocation that is regarded by the Church. I guess I am asking if there is a way to avoid all the institutional red tape and requirements of canon 603 and also have the Church really CARE about lay hermits! It seems to me if the Church  herself really esteemed lay hermits it would be a lot easier for people to accept that maybe this is what they are called to.]]


I think these are really excellent questions! My response to the first one is, unfortunately, no, I don't think there is any way to live this "in the name of the Church" in the sense of a special commissioning and consecration. But one still lives it by virtue of one's baptism and that particular commissioning  ---  that is, one lives it in light of the rights and obligations granted by baptism and so, one will be a part of exploring a contemporary form of life in the tradition of the desert Fathers and Mothers. 

If one really wants to live the eremitical vocation per se "in the name of the Church" then one should pursue Canon 603 profession and consecration. I personally chose to do so especially because I thought the way God had worked in my own life added something special to the witness to the silence of solitude, namely, the redemption of the isolation related to chronic illness, and other similar situations. This was something I felt needed to be witnessed to in the Church in a more official way. Without public vows I felt somewhat "unfree" in this regard. I also chose to do so because I had lived vowed life and desired to continue living vows I had come to love but to do so now in a solitary
eremitical context. Without these two reasons I could have lived as a lay hermit without any substantive difference between that life and the one I live now. The presence of these two particular reasons suggested to me that God was calling me to pursue Canon 603 profession and consecration for  reasons that had nothing to do with status nor with believing it was a "higher vocation," or something similar.

Your desire to avoid all the red tape of Canon 603 is understandable. Many lay hermits object to the various requirements, time frames, discernment processes, supervision, and other things that seem to them to constrict the degree of freedom they need within their lives. Although I don't agree with them in this I can understand their point of view. What seems to be important in your questions and desires is for the Church to really esteem the lay eremitical vocation. The question is how does one achieve this? The problem is that there is a bit of a vicious circle here, namely, lay persons won't generally embrace eremitical life unless the Church esteems it and at the same time the Church will not esteem it in more than principle if folks are not living it in exemplary ways. So who breaks the stalemate? It has to be lay hermits --- just as was the case for those desiring the eventual promulgation of canon 603. After all, the Church officially esteems both lay life and the eremitical life; she stresses the freedom and responsibility of lay persons to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit in living out their vocations. She is open to seeing how lay vocational experiments really work and has learned important lessons from the desert Fathers and Mothers, so what more encouragement do lay hermits need?

A lay hermit could well live an eremitical life in the midst of her parish. She could reflect on the life, its significance, nature, etc and write about that. She could contribute on the parish or diocesan levels or she could begin a blog and write about the eremitical life, the importance of its counter-cultural witness and the ways she personally lives it out. And of course, she could be an encouraging and even inspiring presence to those in their parishes that had to live some forms of isolated existence due to illness, age, or other problematical circumstances. This could include modeling significant ways to live the evangelical counsels as all baptized are called to do even though the person does not have public vows and it might even include demonstrating the importance of a Rule of Life for any person attempting to live a truly Gospel life. All of this and more could be done better than a canonical hermit might well be able to do because the diocesan hermit is (or is often perceived to be) distanced to some extent by virtue of her canonical standing. What is important is that this be a true lay life lived from the graces of baptism in ways which speak profoundly and powerfully to every segment of the Church. it would be a vocation which had listened attentively to Vatican II's teaching on the laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem) and on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) and addressed the necessary contemplative dimension of implementing these documents in the contemporary church and world.

If persons in the lay state of life could do this and effectively accent the generosity and love which compelled them to live this vocation, they would also go a long way to free the notion of eremitical life from stereotypes and distortions. Their lives would also underscore the notion that religious are not called to a higher form of holiness than the laity, and that contemplative life and some degree of the silence of solitude is important, indeed, foundational to all states of Christian life. Finally, if lay persons could do this they would go a long way towards assisting the whole Church to realize the goals and values of Vatican II. The hierarchy would come to appreciate the vocation and, more to the point perhaps, pastors would begin encouraging the (at least experimental) living of it in those they felt or even suspected were called to it. 

Reclaiming Key Terms: The Spirit of Vatican II, a Pastoral Council

Since we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council I have been reading several things on the Council and what happened there. One of these is the 900 page Journal of Yves Congar. (It is an amazing read for its frankness.) Last night I read an article about a Church historian who said he believed there would be a schism in the Roman Catholic Church. In general he acknowledged that such things are healthy so this was not really a doom and gloom piece. There is no doubt that the Church as a whole is in crisis, and that is true in Europe, the US and South America as well as Australia. One of the specific problems Diarmaid MacColluch brought up was the following: [[ Catholicism faces a division over attempts by popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to "rewrite the story of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council by portraying it as a "minor adjustment" in church governance, rather than as a "radical move to change the way authority is expressed.]]

I found that statement a remarkable summary of what has come to be the struggle over the interpretation of the Council. Most importantly it occurred to me that the phrase "radical move to change the way authority is expressed" is a pretty good summary of part of what is sometimes called "the Spirit of Vatican II." And as I thought about that I realized that I have become somewhat reticent to speak of "the Spirit of Vatican II" because of all the complaints about the vagueness of the term. Most criticisms of Vatican II, most statements of resistance to it I have read or heard usually start with objections to "the Spirit of Vatican II" as though that phrase never referred to anything real and as though we can truly understand the documents themselves apart from that Spirit which drove their composition and redaction; some have tended to forget that this term refers to the reality which mainly animated the Council itself and was the inspiration for John XXIII's calling the Council at all.

The related word then, the term which defines the Spirit of Vatican II and gives shape to all it meant to accomplish is "pastoral." It is no surprise then that this term is the second one which is usually demeaned by critics of Vatican II and those who would like to reduce our reading of the Council to the documents themselves divorced from their history and the struggle it took to compose and promulgate them. In other words the Spirit of Vatican II was the Spirit of the pastoral Church, the Church which trusts the power of the Gospel entrusted to her; it is the Spirit which defines how authority is to be expressed and how the Church is to teach and be Christ for a needy world. In calling for a PASTORAL council John XXIII clearly opted for a different way of expressing authority. It was the HUGE struggle throughout the council --- getting documents that were truly pastoral in tone and approach. The individual documents were important but at least as important was the tone and tenor John XXIII wanted the Church to assume in its teaching.

And yet, right from the beginning of the Council's history of reception these two terms were demeaned and ridiculed. We've all heard innumerable times, "Oh, it was just a pastoral council" and the implication was that it was not authoritative, not a solemn teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. Sometimes this was explicitly claimed. Questions were raised during the Council --- and resolved there as well. Yet, even today you will find people, usually traditionalists, who play Trent, a dogmatic council, off against Vatican II, a "merely" pastoral Council. At the same time these same folks tended to ridicule what was done in "the Spirit of Vatican II" because these things meant being pastoral, exercising authority in the way Jesus himself did; they were done --- dare I say it --- in ways which were sensitive to and respectful of individual truth as well as objective truth and so, represented a sometimes more feminine, nurturing way of approaching reality. And you know, all of this ridicule, scoffing, and denigration of central hermeneutical keys had an affect!

I would ask anyone reading this if you too have become more reticent to speak of the Spirit of Vatican II in the face of it all. How about becoming more hesitant to boldly proclaim that a PASTORAL Council is more demanding than and just as authoritative in what it teaches as one which is concerned with making dogmatic "de fide" statements? After all, together these two terms define a Council which called the Church to reform herself, to be converted in every way into a community of faith in Jesus Christ and the power of the Spirit. She was called not only to teach, but to teach CREDIBLY and with the authority of authentic Christians --- something John XXIII and the majority of Bishops at the Council understood meant pastorally.

So MacCulloch's comment really struck me. I came to see that as long as we are left without a sense of the SPIRIT of VII we will be missing what we are meant to proclaim --- and that is a radical move to change the way authority is exercised/expressed. Unless we reclaim our insistence that this was a demanding pastoral Council which, precisely in this way, provides us with the keys to reading and implementing the documents of the Council we will continue to lose the ability to move forward with that task. All too often today we are seeing the way authority is expressed by an unconverted, yet-unreformed hierarchy, a hierarchy which has defined the process of reading and implementing the documents of the Council by effectively ruling certain words out of the conversation. Bearing this in mind, I think my own hesitancy is cured. With what the NT calls parrhesia, I think I will speak boldly of the Spirit of Vatican II; I will try to make clear what it really means to call this Council a pastoral Council --- that is, a Council where the Church, speaking with the authority of Christ, calls herself --- her entire self --- to conversion and then reaches out to the world she is meant to pastor. I sincerely believe this is a key to reclaiming the Council and making sure the work of the Holy Spirit continues.