On Vatican II and the Value of Contemplative and Eremitical Life

[[Sister Laurel, it seems to me that Vatican II asked Christians to turn toward the world in service. In this way, we got a lot of service from the laity, which was very good. What I wondered was what that did to the contemplative life and even to esteem for contemplative prayer amongst the laity? Did it have an effect, or was it all kind of neutral? I am asking because you said few people understand your vocation, and I wondered if Vatican II had a part in causing that. For instance, you write against a notion of fleeing from the world when world means God's good creation, and I think I understand this, but how does contemplative life serve the world? Did Vatican II sort of cut the legs out from under esteem for the contemplative life?]]

What really great observations and questions! While some, including Thomas Merton, suggested he perceived a developing "activistic, antimystical, and antimetaphysical Christian consciousness leading Christians 'to repudiate all aspiration to personal contemplative union with God and to deep mystical experience, because [among other things] this is a pagan evasion, [and] an individualistic escape from community, '" others point to the very strong statement of Vatican II, "The contemplative life belongs to the fullness of the Church's presence" as part of their disagreement with Merton's position. Vatican II also took steps to preserve papal cloister and in the document on Religious Life supported contemplative life while asking that outdated customs and practices be pruned from the life. On balance I would say that Vatican II preserved contemplative life and required attention to what would invigorate or reinvigorate it, even as the Church, in response to the entirety of the council's writings and thrust, took a different and more incarnational perspective on the nature of the secular world.

Some of the Contributions of Vatican II

I do agree that while Vatican II wrote in ways that would preserve and stress the Church's esteem for contemplative life, the accent on apostolic service or ministry had consequences that were not wholly anticipated. So did the accent on a (sacred) secularity that reflected God's incarnation in Jesus. This supported the potential sacramentality of the created world and invited humankind to honor the sacred nature of creation, and it softened the gulf between heaven and earth, thus allowing people to think in terms of the new heaven and new earth being established right here and right now in light of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. Heaven and earth were seen by Scripture scholars and theologians to interpenetrate one another, and this implied letting go of a focus on "getting to heaven" while "fleeing the world"; it meant embracing more of what Rahner called a mysticism of ordinary life. This shift changed approaches to contemplative life to some degree,  but my sense is that it led to healthier and less elitist notions of contemplative and eremitical life.

It is true that Vatican II was confronted with specific interventions on behalf of eremitical life, and while the council did not establish eremitic life directly as a state of perfection as Bp Remi de Roo called for, the revised Code of Canon Law, which was also part of the council's mandate, made room for this with c 603. Still, while Vatican II did not take a direct stance on eremitical life, it did considerably strengthen the Church's dependence on Scripture, and this implied not only a recovery of the desert tradition and its strong accent on encounter with God in the silence of solitude, but also the importance of a deep prayer life accompanying and underpinning any active ministry. Jesus' own life, especially as portrayed in the Gospel of Luke, gave us a strong theology of hospitality, including the importance of hospitality to the God who would be Emmanuel in silent and individual prayer. This strong emphasis on the importance of Scripture in the life of the Church also gave us the robust incarnational theology noted above.

Even Thomas Merton's criticism of Vatican II's influence was countered by his "turn to the world" and his reworking of the way the contemplative or the solitary life is related to and serves the world --- itself a clear theme at Vatican II. That was anticipated and prepared for by Merton's epiphany at 4th and Walnut on the streets of Louisville just a few years before the council. This epiphany was the root of his turn to the world, his rethinking of vocations to the silence of solitude, and his appreciation of the universality of calls to contemplation. It just took some time for this new plant to blossom, but my sense is it flowered in the soil of Vatican II, which, in her appreciation of the goodness of God's creation and in her universal call to holiness, did indeed take a new and non-dualistic view of "the world". For all these reasons, I would have to say Vatican II's esteem for and protection of contemplative life more generally, and eremitic life more specifically, though often accomplished indirectly, is well established. 

Justifying the Existence of Contemplative and Eremitical Life:

In other words, I would suggest that any failure to esteem contemplative life generally and eremitical life more specifically comes from somewhere other than Vatican II itself, and that makes me wonder if contemplative life hasn't always been misunderstood in some significant ways, not least by drawing a hard line between heaven and earth and treating the world outside the monastery or hermitage as profane. In any case, I would argue that the reasons for this are not due to Vatican II itself. So, how does contemplative life generally, and solitary eremitical life more specifically, serve the Church and the larger world? How can we justify its existence, especially if it is not escapist or individualistic? I have been writing about this under the label, "existential solitude", or interior solitude,  and the call to explore this, so let me just summarize my position on this here.

Every human being is constituted in a state of existential solitude. This solitude is inviolable, and no one can enter into it with us, no matter how close our relationship with them is. This state of existential solitude means that at the depths of our being, in the very center of our lives, we exist alone with God (though most people may be consciously unaware of God dwelling in the depths of their being). Whether we are consciously aware of this or not, this is how we are constituted as human beings, and it is in coming to terms with this specific solitude that we become authentic human beings capable of loving God, ourselves, and others. (By the way, this foundational relationship, which is intrinsic to human existence, is the source of the Church's teaching on the inviolability of conscience.) Contemplatives, and especially hermits, are committed to plumbing the depths of this existential solitude, to finding God there where he resides closer to us than we are even to ourselves, and witnessing for the sake of others to both God and the nature of authentic human being. 

When Benedictines, for example, enter a monastery, they do so to "seek God". They do this not because God is not "out there" in the world, or because God is tucked away here in this monastery, needing to be found in the sacred place rather than the profane world! No! In light of the Christ Event, both the monastery and "the world" are sacred places! Instead, people come to the monastery to seek God because he is within us, deep, deep within us, and because the journey to the depths of ourselves takes time, patience, courage, determination, encouragement, and thus, various forms of structure and support. In particular, it takes the faith community and sacramental life of the Church along with the canonical structures, which provide for a stable state of life in which this journey to the depths of our being may be securely undertaken. The Church serves the c 603 hermit in this way so that s/he may undertake this journey that reveals human beings (and God as well) for who they really are. 

There are so many sources of (mis)understanding regarding what constitutes truly human existence in our world today. The hermit and contemplative life provide one radically countercultural definition. This vision stresses every person's existential aloneness and, at the same time, the communal nature of every human life. Merton was worried Vatican II would destroy any sense we each have that the inner journey to the center of ourselves must be made by every person in whatever state of life they live their humanity. When he used terms like, "activistic, antimystical, and antimetaphysical Christian consciousness", he was concerned individuals would no longer see the quest for union with God as essential to every Christian life, no matter the value of their active ministry. My sense is that Vatican II gave us a more robust access to Scripture and to a Jesus whose humanity was rooted in faithful prayer (i.e., dialogue with God at every level of his being) and expressed in his active ministry and life with others, as well as in his regular turn to solitude. Both of these revealed Jesus' union with God and the nature of divinity and humanity. Contemplatives, and especially hermits, live our lives dedicated to the dialogue with God that constitutes the core of authentic humanity. We each make this profound and profoundly humanizing journey over long years, and witness to this constitutive relationship for the sake of all of God's creation. That is the primary value of our lives.

Three Vocational States, Two Hierarchical Ones

 Dear Sister, you wrote,[[In part, however, women religious gave up their habits in order to truly stand in solidarity with others in the laity and call them to take on the universal call to holiness and ministry Vatican II recognized and made such an urgent matter in this world. They did so to help curtail the tendencies of the laity to think of themselves as second or third-class citizens in the Church and God's eyes. In other words, they stepped down from a fictional pedestal they had never wanted, so that others might rise to the level to which they were and are truly called as Disciples of Jesus Christ. This is precisely one piece of what vocations to the consecrated state are supposed to do.]] 

I had never heard this before. I wish I had known this; it is so much more positive than what I have heard said about women religious and habits over the years, and maybe said myself in those early days when it was so shocking and disappointing!!This is a completely new way of seeing what happened!! Did Vatican II tell religious to do this, because I was under the impression that the Vatican didn't like it much when women religious threw off the habit? Some still wear a habit though, so why is that? And what does one do with the three states of life, lay, consecrated, and clerical?]]

Great questions! Thanks for following up and also for sharing your own feelings and perspective from those "early days"! Yes, women religious read the documents of Vatican II and recognized that one major emphasis of the Council was the empowerment of the laity to truly see themselves as central to the ministry of the Church and not as second or third-class persons with no real vocation! Laity were not simply to be ministered to, they were called to minister themselves to the whole world they penetrated daily in their work, schooling, recreational activities, family life, etc. Because both priests and religious or consecrated persons were called to embrace a greater separation from the world in the arenas of finance, power, and relationships, the Church recognized that the laity were called to secular lives and to be Church there, where only they could truly go and be.

At the same time the Church began to let go of her tendency to demean vocations she considered secular and even secularity itself. This was an even huger step and really hard to make, but the Church has been about doing that for the past @60 years. One thing about the everyday world theology was beginning to appreciate better and which also helped with all of this, was the recognition that our ultimate destination is not heaven, but a new heaven and earth and also, that this new creation began to be accomplished through Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension. With God's revealed will to be Emmanuel (God With Us), it was already happening that heaven had begun to interpenetrate earth and that Jesus was, through his resurrection and ascension, Lord of this new world. Once the strict distinction between heaven and earth was mitigated in this way every vocation became a call to minister as part of the coming of God's Kingdom here! The secular was no longer to be disparaged, but to be embraced as the place God was laying claim to and recreating.  And of course, the secular realm was exactly the place most people of the laity were called to minister with their lives, not as second-class citizens in the Church, but as laity-as-Church for whom this was their proper sphere of life and expertise.  Vatican II's universal call to holiness truly only makes sense in light of this insight into what the Christ Event occasioned in our world.

The Vatican did not tell women religious to throw off their habits, no, but it did tell us to update and renew our congregations in light of their original charisms. At the very least it meant the modification of habits, but for many, their original charism meant to let go of the habit altogether. They were still consecrated women with ecclesial vocations, and public commitments to image Christ in their professions of the Evangelical Counsels. Thus, they served in the ways I have spoken about recently to both priests and the rest of the laity. (Men religious were sometimes drawn from the priesthood and like the women, were called to serve both other priests and the laity in their consecrations and professions of the Evangelical Counsels). Similarly, they would continue ministering to the lost and least in the ways they always had as well as in new ways too.

What I can say about those of us who continue to wear habits is that those I know who do, associate it with their consecrated life as eschatological signs, signs of the inbreaking of God's presence in the world. For some, they may have discerned the habit was part of their original charism (this would especially be true for monastics). The right to wear a habit was never taken away from them and, in fact, is extended to them during the rite of profession and consecration.  Most wear habits as a sign of material poverty as well. I do that. Additionally, I wear one as a reminder and sign of stricter separation from the world and a reminder that eremitism was the origin of monastic life. Finally, I recognize that bishops gave the tunic to hermits living in their dioceses or who came there desiring to preach or minister otherwise. Thus, the habit can be seen as an original part of the hermit's calling. For those in the religious state, in some situations wearing a habit is still significantly helpful and truly meaningful, especially when it is not used to signal special prestige or worldy values.

We still recognize three vocational states in the Roman Catholic Church, lay, consecrated, and clerical. It is simply that the term lay may be used in terms of either a state of life or as a reference to its hierarchical place in the Church. With public profession and consecration, a person enters the consecrated state of life. They may be drawn from either the lay or clerical states to do that. The Consecrated state of life does not constitute a third level in the Church's hierarchy, however, so consecrated hermits are also either lay or clerical. At the same time, they do still constitute ecclesial vocations that serve the Church in the ways I have described recently.

Ecclesial Vocations Serve the Universal Call to Holiness

[[ Sister, does the idea of ecclesial vocations conflict with Vatican II's strong emphasis on the universal call to holiness? It used to be thought that religious were called to greater holiness than the laity. Does the idea of ecclesial vocations try to move back behind that emphasis?]]

Great question!! Thanks for asking!! No, the notion of ecclesial vocations is entirely consonant with the emphasis of Vatican II. Actually, the accents on Union with Christ and serving the Church so that it may truly be the Church God calls it to be attributed to ecclesial vocations, allows this emphasis to be understood in terms of a diversity of vocations all of which call persons to an exhaustive holiness. I can't stress enough that the term ecclesial vocation means a vocation that belongs to the Church before it belongs to any individual and that those entrusted with such a vocation are called to serve the whole Church uniquely by modeling or representing the very nature of the Church for all of its members. In fact, because ecclesial vocations are about service rather than self-aggrandizement, those living these vocations can readily recognize that every person is called to holiness and because they serve the Church, they can assist in calling every person to the fullness of holiness in their own vocations.

While the specifically (or explicitly) ecclesial responsibilities of consecrated persons may be greater than those of others in the Church, and while the call to holiness includes the call to model this for others, the call to holiness itself is neither greater nor lesser than the call to holiness of any other person in the Church. Moreover, other vocations are every bit as responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel with their lives, though ordinarily, this means they do so in terms of the secular world in which they live and work and study. 

One of the problems that cropped up in the wake of Vatican II, in part precisely because of the situation you outlined in your question, was the number of departures from religious life. Because of the universal call to holiness, some felt there was no need to pursue religious life and all it entailed if one could achieve genuine holiness in other vocations. What was necessary was a perspective less geared to an individualistic pursuit of holiness. The focus on the ecclesial nature of vocations to the consecrated state helped the Church find and embrace this new perspective, and it continues to help us hold onto both the importance of consecrated vocations as well as the universal call to holiness and the importance of all other vocations, though perhaps especially, lay vocations. We must not, however, make the same mistake many in the Church once did in treating these vocations as though they represent a "higher (or greater) holiness". Far from moving behind the emphasis of Vatican II, ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state have the mission to serve the Church in specific ways that assist the realization of this universal call to holiness in and by the whole Church.