Question: Secular Vocations, Are they all that Bad???

Dear Sister O'Neal, is having a secular vocation all that bad a thing? I have been following the conversation you have been participating in on Phatmass and I have read a lot of what you have posted here. . . . It seems to me that some really just believe that having a secular vocation is not okay if they are "in the consecrated state." Are these two secular and consecrated states incompatible like oil and water? . . . Is the Church trying to change the charism of the vocation in claiming it is secular? . . . Is that why one person posted the following:

[[ I often think that it will be good if CV lives its own ancient charism like the virgin-martyrs in today's world . But if it is called to modify its charism and embrace what other vocations like secular inst and laity already are called to live, then I personally would prefer if CV is totally suppressed by the Church or used as a ceremony or rite available to all vocations of consecrated life but not as a vocation with its own identity and mission.]]

Thanks for the questions. You are probably now aware of this, but I responded to the post containing this quotation last week. I may post parts of that response here as part of this response, but first let me take on your questions. The simple answer is no, there is nothing intrinsically incompatible about a secular and a consecrated vocation any more than Jesus' divinity is incompatible with his humanity or the Incarnation is contrary to the nature of  a transcendent God.  Incompatibility is a judgment we make when we refuse to allow God to act paradoxically or refuse to think that way ourselves.  Secular, in this case, refers first of all to the PLACE where the vocation is carried out and points to the context the person is (secondly) to wholly embrace and transform in whatever state of life and with whatever gifts they are called to do that. It therefore involves not just place but way of relating to place.

In other words one may be consecrated and be called to live that in the secular state. This is what Baptismal consecration means for the vast majority of Christians. Initiation into the consecrated state (which builds on Baptism) means that one is set apart by God as a sacred person and set apart FOR God and all that is precious to him. It may also mean that one is set apart from the world in various ways and degrees (as in the case of Religious in community and hermits), but the Church has made it clear that in the case of canon 604 consecrations of women living in the world, these women have been consecrated into a secular vocation. It is hard to see how the Church herself could affirm this through her Bishops and in the Rite of Consecration itself (an authoritative instance of doctrine since, as the saying goes, "as we pray, so we believe"), and also believe the two were incompatible.

It is equally hard to believe CV's could argue that the charism of their vocation is the same as a lay person's simply because it is also a secular one. Charisms are the result of the Holy Spirit's gifts (graces) given in response to the needs of the Church and world. In other words it is borne of a constellation of factors and often has a decided pastoral character even if this is not directly exercised. (Eremitical life is one of these charisms where the pastoral nature is not usually directly evident.) It may well be that in a world where the needs that exist are addressed by several different vocations with their own unique graces and perspectives there will be a similarity in charisms and missions but also significant differences. For instance in a Catholic school there may be lay teachers, Religious, and CV's. The mission is the same for all of them: to teach and form good Christian students. But each brings a different set of graces to the mission and each will be a distinct gift to the school and contribute uniquely to the school's own charismatic character.

After all,  if the Holy Spirit gives the Church a variety of graces which the HS desires be used to transform the secular world from within, for instance, and does so in different ways through different vocations, one cannot argue that because they are called to the consecrated state they cannot be called to a secular vocation any more than one might argue that a person in a secular institute cannot work directly for the Church.  The Church does not dictate to the Holy Spirit about where consecrated persons are called to live an exhaustive holiness and neither do CV's. The Holy Spirit can do what s/he will and the Church's job is to discern what this is and then implement it. CV's bring different graces to the secular world than either the laity or those in secular institutes; where this world is the new mission territory of the Church, and where the Church herself is embracing a new appreciation for this world (and for the complexity of the secular), CV's living in the world represent a new and rather unique vocation to eschatological secularity.

Changing the Charism of the Vocation?

Regarding a change in the charism of the vocation we DO need virgin martyrs today, but I am convinced that what that means is CV's living an exhaustive and prophetic witness to the transfiguration of the secular into the realm where God is truly sovereign and so, all in all. We won't be sent to arenas nor are we contending with the Roman Empire in the way the early Church was. Even so, the evil which must be confronted head on in a kind of guerrilla warfare worthy of Ss. Perpetua or Thecla (who lived thoroughly secular lives), et al is secularism. Just as early Christians lived a wholly countercultural life which witnessed to the freedom of Christians and turned Roman family and civil life on its head, and just as they did so in the midst of the world, so today CV's living in the world are called to a radically countercultural life which does somewhat the same. 

A  profane secularism marked by individualism, narcissism, consumerism, the trivialization of sex, naturalism without room for Christ, a media saturated culture which is gradually changing the very nature of humanity itself, etc, is contrasted with an eschatological secularity marked by covenantal (especially spousal and maternal) love and lives given wholly to the service of the Church's ministry to and in this world. So, by recognizing this vocation as a secular one I think the Church has really recovered the ancient gift quality of CV's. I don't think it is an essential change at all but the recovery of a vocation once usurped by cloistered religious, a vocation which existed side by side cloistered CV's until the 12th Century, a vocation with unique graces which is therefore called to inspire everyday Christians to live up to their own vocations in a new kind of martyrdom (that is, a new kind of witness with one's life).

And finally, what about this notion of suppressing the vocation if the Church continues to discern it is a secular life with a similar mission and charism to vocations held by the laity? I can understand feeling this way if the vocation really adds nothing unique or has no distinct charism or identity. However, something does not need to be wholly distinct from something else to have its own identity and charism. All Christians share a common Baptism and a common adoption as sons and daughters of God. All are called to assiduous prayer (including the LOH) and some form of the evangelical counsels. All are called to what  is ultimately a spousal union with God and a life which is truly eschatological. But CV's living in the world say these things are real right here and right now in their own consecrated lives. How can CV's only see the graces of their vocations or recognize the charism it brings if the vocation is quasi-religious? Why would a truly eschatological secularity marked by the graces of spousal love and covenant fulfillment and lived in a world of pervasive,  threatening, profane secularity NOT be a tremendous and unique charism of the Holy Spirit?

If this vocation is MERELY a reprise of an anachronistic way of living, then indeed it makes little sense and may be destructive. But at the same time unless this vocation corresponds to the secular one the Church discerned was necessary and ripe for recovery, and unless its graces really are pertinent in a freshly compelling way, I agree there is no reason for the vocation and would suggest the Church made a mistake in bringing it back. Perhaps it is important that those the Church admits to this consecration can REALLY appreciate what distinguishes this from a lay vocation even while taking joy in the values and dimensions of life and mission they share. Perhaps too the Church needs to add a profound appreciation of the vocation's eschatological secularity to the discernment criterion. Otherwise, I suspect some of these vocations are precisely what the province of Los Angeles feared they were when it refused to consecrated ANYONE according to either canon 603 or 604. LA thought these were merely fallback vocations for persons who really wanted to be religious and couldn't commit fully to the life, or for women who tried Religious life and were dismissed from discerning a vocation for any reason at all.

Still my own conclusion is that the secular expression of this consecrated vocation is not a change in charism, but a recovery of it. Had the vocation simply developed into a cloistered form and otherwise ceased to be my conclusion would be very different. Canon 604 reprised a secular vocation which stands side by side the cloistered expression in equal dignity. I can't see how one can say the Church changed the charism of the vocation in doing so. At the same time, she clearly says that consecrated and secular are not only NOT oil and water, but are brought together by God in a highly significant instance of the transfiguration of reality into the Kingdom of God.

In the early Church the world was the new and very challenging mission field; in the contemporary Church we are moving into a period of increased emphasis on mission and valuing of the secular as our missionary field. We have two "new" (and truly ancient) forms of consecrated life which remind us of this: 1) canon 603 consecrates hermits who remind us all of the foundational relationship which stands at the heart of everything else --- every ecclesial undertaking --- our relationship with God who is source,  ground, and also goal of existence, 2) canon 604 consecrates virgins living in the world who reflect in an explicit way here and now the eschatological goal of all human existence, namely, spousal union with God. Each of these vocations remind us that the Kingdom of God involves the transformation of reality. Each further says in its own way that  this transformation comes from appropriate engagement, whether this engagement is expressed in separation and prayer (canon 603) or in prayer and immersion (canon 604). In the case of canon 603 it is important for diocesan hermits to remember that separation does not mean isolation from the saeculum; in the case of canon 604 it is similarly important for CV's to remember that immersion does not mean enmeshment --- secularity (and especially consecrated secularity) is not secularism, something the Church especially needs dedicated vocations to express if her renewed missionary emphasis is to succeed..

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.

Sister, Why are you Personally Interested in the vocation of CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, while I appreciate what you have written about canon 604 vocations, I wonder why it is of such interest to you. You are not a CV, nor discerning a vocation to this. Why are you continuing a conversation which does not personally interest you?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this before a little more than a year ago so I would suggest you look at the posts on consecrated secularity and CV's from that time. Even so, I can summarize my concerns and interest for you. It begins with the fact that this vocation made NO sense to me either theologically or pastorally until I read Sister Sharon Holland,. IHM's essay on the place of the Consecrated Virgin in today's Church. As I wrote a year ago, before that I felt it was a reality "in search of a job description" or "raison d'etre", neither fish nor fowl --- rather like secular institutes sometimes seemed, but without the benefits of community life, vows, or a Rule of Life. It was the secularity, and especially the consecrated or eschatological secularity of the vocation which allowed its charismatic import as gift of the Holy Spirit to become theologically clear to me. Once this happened I could see this was not some half-hearted vocation for those unwilling or somehow unable to adopt the whole reality of religious life (what the LA Province called a "fallback vocation"), but instead a whole-hearted and very challenging call to a qualified (specifically, an eschatological) secularity the world is destined for. When I ask myself what allows me to understand this vocation as a gift of the Holy Spirit and to explain the vocation positively rather than in terms of what it is not, this is the primary element which allows me to do that.

So, to summarize the important elements of my PERSONAL interest:

1) Contrary to what some argue, consecrated secularity is hardly common or as natural as breathing. The Church has a long history of esteeming consecrated life but not so of secular vocations which have been seen as profane and hardly a way to holiness. This changed with Vatican II and the Church still needs a holiness which is modeled by those leading thoroughly or radically secular vocations which are ALSO radically and consciously consecrated. These vocations contrast belief in a God who ultimately makes a Sacrament of this world with secularism so we need people who embrace such vocations and make the distinction clear with their lives. I am completely committed to Vatican II and to its recovery of this  eschatologically secular vocation and the theology of a universal call to holiness.

2) Some are arguing that making this vocation a quasi-religious vocation (vows, distinctive garb, titles, post-nomial initials, etc) is actually a deepening of it and that younger CV's are thus doing this when older CV's have lived a mediocre consecrated secularity. I argue that this is instead a betrayal of the vocation as the Church clearly understands it, and that if these changes are made the vocation will cease to be meaningful, much less truly charismatic, and speak to no one. (These women will not speak to religious --- who would thus live a more radical religious life than CV's, nor would they speak to secular members of the Church who are called to embrace and witness to the Kingdom of God within the world in all of its everyday dimensions. Both the Church and the WORLD needs this  radically eschatological AND radically secular witness desperately because what VII called everyone to was an exhaustive holiness wherever their vocations were lived. This is still not well understood in terms of secularity.)

3) The arguments the Church uses are historical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, canonical, etc and because of this these reasons for calling the vocation a form of sacred secularity are interesting to and rightfully addressed by theologians. It is neither appropriate nor accurate to neglect the historical contexts pertinent to this vocation's nature and significance (Vatican II  and Centuries 1-12 especially, but also the reality of consecrated virginity as it existed BEFORE the Church hierarchy began to control it in the second century)  and then argue this is a "proto-religious" vocation or "more radical" than what women have lived for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, this is what I have heard some CV's without apparent theological, historical, or pastoral sophistication doing. (Part of this involves ignoring the variety of authoritative ways the Church teaches and only paying serious attention to de fide statements, for instance. Part of it involves suggesting a witness to sacred or eschatological secularity is not even needed by today's world. Someone with theological training and a personal acquaintance with consecrated and Religious life needs to counter these tendencies.)

4) Thus, I am concerned with this issue because the vocation was actually subverted in the past when it became associated with ONLY its religious (cloistered) expression and the original secular expression was wholly lost in 1139. This should not be allowed to happen again, especially when the vocation which reprises the original secularity of the call is only 30 years old. I am concerned with this because as a hermit I deal with world-hating (and world-demeaning) language all the time. I am in a unique position to reflect on the meaning of the term "the world" both exegetically, canonically, experientially,  and theologically and too, on the significance of secular vocations. Similarly, I am concerned with any notion of vocation which ignores the development of Vatican II and its universal call to exhaustive holiness along with the clear teaching that ALL the baptized are called to live some form of the evangelical counsels and are encouraged to pray the Liturgy of Hours.

Pastorally I have dealt often, and even regularly with the pain of those called to lay (and/or secular) vocations who mistakenly think they must make private vows to embrace a radical discipleship or aspire to authentic holiness. (Instead they need to specify the demands of their baptismal consecrations and/or marriage vows regularly. Too few have done this because they don't see Baptism as a call to radical discipleship.) It is a VERY common thing to hear lay people who are, almost by definition, usually called to secular vocations (lay hermits are different) to complain they feel called to a third class or entry-level vocation which makes them called but not really "chosen." It is similarly common to hear these same people asking the related question of whether the Church REALLY esteems secular vocations or has merely thrown them a few crumbs in revising their roles during liturgy. The theology supporting such notions is abhorrent.

5) Finally, I have the sense that SOME of the younger CV's are unclear on their own motivations in all of this. I think there is too much accent on NOT being mistaken for laity or members of secular institutes, or on separating oneself from them in visible ways. I believe some of these CV's have bought into a very worldy misunderstanding (worldly in the worst sense) of Thomas Aquinas' teaching on the objective superiority of religious vocations and that they demean or denigrate secular vocations in spite of VII or the call to a New Evangelization. I believe that some of these women are resistant to thinking paradoxically as the Gospel requires of us and therefore are fostering a way of thinking which is fundamentally Greek and pagan rather than truly Christian. I also believe that some of these women do not really understand the import or content of religious poverty or religious obedience and the very different freedom that issues from these as opposed to properly secular expressions of the evangelical counsels. Like others, I wonder why these women did not simply pursue religious life if they truly believe the secularity of the original call which persisted for more than 11 centuries side by side the religious expression was wrong or somehow immature and in need of deepening.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

If Rome Encourages Habits, why Discourage them for CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, does the Church's strong desire for women religious to wear habits figure into your argument about the secularity of the vocation to consecrated virginity for women living in the world? You haven't mentioned it explicitly is why I ask.]]

Great question! I haven't mentioned this because I am not really sure it is directly pertinent or how it might be so. However, I do think it is clear that CICLSAL would like to see women religious wearing some form of distinguishing garb and living lives which are more clearly separated from the world than they are secular. Thus, your point is a good one: if Rome believes habits are necessary to indicate a consecrated (rather than religious) life, and given the clarity with which Rome has pushed for distinguishing garb for religious, it makes little sense that CV's living in the world would not be encouraged to wear distinguishing garb if their vocation is quasi-religious rather than strongly secular.

But the opposite is actually the case. Instead CV's living in the world have been increasingly discouraged or even prohibited from doing so by Bishops' conferences and Associations of CV's. (Meanwhile commentators on the canons which are to govern an association or be a model of these group's governance has suggested that secular institutes are the most appropriate model and that there are to be no statutes which change the nature of the vocation to a quasi religious one, for instance.) I think you are correct that this is another very suggestive piece of the Church's clarity on the strongly secular nature of the vocation. (The ring indicates the consecrated nature of the vocation as does the limited use of a veil.) However, I believe the Church was clear about this when she stripped the use of the habit from the Rite of Consecration in the process of revising it. There she was being clear about the secular nature of the vocation even while she stressed its consecrated nature. So, perhaps what you describe is a bit of "circumstantial evidence" which strengthens this conclusion.

Again, great question. Thanks!

A Summary of the Church's Position on the Thoroughgoing Secularity of Consecrated Virgins living in the World

[[Sister Laurel, I appreciated the post you put up on another forum summarizing all you have written about the CV vocation for women living in the world. I also agree you have not been nitpicking. Could you please put that post up here so others will see it as well? Thanks, a CV in Canada.]]

Mary of Magdela, Apostle to the Apostles

Yes, I would be happy to. A note to readers: the references to tone and nitpicking are in response to those who believe the issue is being debated only to prove oneself right. We have to recognize that the secular expression of the vocation was once lost due to folks making it into a religious vocation and, as I have argued here, it is its sacred or eschatological secularity which makes it such a tremendous gift of the Holy Spirit to our Church and world. Thus, there is something really critical at issue here --- not someone's need to be right. After all, there is a significant difference between marshalling an argument in a systematic way for the benefit of those discerning the vocation and simply being argumentative.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I would personally urge readers to abstain from reading a "tone" into a post even if the import of that post is the clarification of matters or the presentation of theological reasoning which contrasts with that of someone else. However, let's be clear about what has been called nitpicking. Meanings are important and so are nuances. To clarify these often has tremendous significance in the life of the Church. Nitpicking means to pick at meaningless and tiny differences. I don't think anyone pointing out the basis of the Church's approbation of this as a wholly secular and wholly consecrated vocation can even remotely be considered to be engaged in nitpicking.

The vocation is a secular one AND it is a form of consecrated life. These two elements, in the eyes of the Church, are not in conflict with one another. They quailify each other (thus we get a sacred or eschatological secularity) but they do not mitigate one another.  It is not the case that if something is MORE secular then it is necessarily LESS consecrated or vice versa. Vatican II esteemed secular vocations in a fresh and significant way. It spoke passionately about the universal call to holiness and the vocation not merely of lay persons, but of anyone called to live out their vocations in the secular world. It was out of this context and under the express instructions of Vatican II that the Rite of Consecration was revised so it was not merely for cloistered nuns, but for women "given to the Spirit and the world in the things of the Spirit and the things of the World."

Some would like to see this vocation as "secular in the weak sense" (meaning only that it is not lived in a monastery). That IS a different view of the vocation than the Church herself holds. The USCCB, the USACV, Documents from CICLSAL or from Sister Sharon Holland (as chief in that office under the mandatory Cardinal and Bishop), and the Rite of Consecration itself are all clear that the vocation is a secular one in a much stronger or thoroughgoing sense. The use of veils is limited to the Rite of Consecration and Mass or liturgy on the anniversary of that consecration. Habits are not worn, vows are not made, titles and post-nomial initials are not used. The relationship with one's Bishop is one of a warm paternal nature; he is not the CV's legitimate superior and she is not bound to him by a vow or promise of obedience. The CV's relationship to her diocese is significant, but she is not bound here by the same kind of residential stability as the hermit professed under canon 603. CV's work wherever they can in whatever expertise they are able to exercise. In free time they may volunteer to work for the Church or other charities. Their lives are lives of prayer and service and they are encouraged to pray the LOH --- though it must be made clear that this is the official prayer of the entire Church, not simply of priests and religious, and that ALL lay persons and their parishes are encouraged to pray at least MP and EP from the LOH, just as are those in the consecrated state of life.

The actual revision of the Rite was meant to recover the secular expression of the vocation which was not only more original than the cloistered expression but which, until the early 12th century, co-existed with the cloistered expression. Meanwhile, the cloistered expression is seen to have turned the nature of the vocation on its head and eventually caused the significance and validity of its secular expression to have been obscured, then lost altogether. All of this along with the Church's emphasis on New Evangelization and refreshed emphasis on missiology in and to the secular (and thus to Catholics and non-Catholics alike), a Christology which sees Jesus' active life as completely secular even as he is wholly consecrated to God (Jesus was not cloistered, not a monk nor hermit, etc), an examination of the discussions during the steps leading to the promulgation of this as a secular vocation, theological reflection on the distinction between religious life and consecrated virginity under canon 604 for women living in the world, a fresh appreciation of Paul's eschatology, and the lived experience of the hugest number of women thus consecrated argue the secularity of this vocation. It is a secularity which is truly consecrated, authentically eschatological (proleptic of the Kingdom) but it is an unmitigated secularity nonetheless.

I will add one other piece of evidence which clearly says the Church sees the vocation in this way, namely, she does not require women living secular lives to leave any of this (work, relationships, activities including political activities, hobbies, normal dress, etc) BEFORE (or after) she consecrates them. She allows secular women living secular lives to discern this vocation and to be consecrated. This would be completely irresponsible if thereafter the Church believed these women were to adopt quasi-religious vocations with distinctive garb, vows, legitimate superiors, etc. It is also contrary to the way the Church operates with ANY other vocation to the consecrated state. Imagine what would happen if a women discerned long and carefully the way God was calling her to serve the Church and world in her secularity, and after consecration required she embrace a quasi-religious life instead! The Church has been very clear in her praxis, liturgy, and theology, that this vocation is radically secular even as it is radically consecrated. This is precisely the witness the Church and world needs today when secularism (not the same as secularity) is running rampant and requires a genuine alternative.


Those who would prefer to live a quasi-religious life or to make that of CV's living in the world into a quasi-religious vocation really will cause this vocation to continue to make sense to no one --- and thus, to effectively change nothing, especially the way the secular is truly viewed. (It is meant to be the place where God's Kingdom comes to be in perfection so that "God is all in all.") Religious will continue to regard these women as "wannabes"  or at least continue wondering what the vocation is really all about, and those living secular lives will continue asking, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" --- and rightly so. Meanwhile those living secular lives will continue to believe they have second class or entry level vocations and "heaven" will be defined in terms of "pie in the sky by and by" rather than the eternal life that is meant to interpenetrate this world and, in fact, perfect it in the sovereignty of God. I write all this because I believe the vocation is a tremendous gift of God to our Church and world, but it is only such a gift if it is wholly a secular one as well as wholly a consecrated one. I also write it because I believe it is irresponsible to disregard all of this and suggest that the Church has NOT decided the nature of this vocation's secularity. Thirty years of consecrating secular women to live secular lives based on all of the above suggests otherwise.

Question: Canon 604 as Quasi-Religious? Then consecrate Religious women first!

[[Sister O'Neal, why would adopting some of the things some CV's say are necessary (garb, vows, required prayer of the entire Liturgy of the Hours, full time parochial employment, etc)  mean that the consecration should be used for apostolic Religious who are also virgins?]]

Sorry I wasn't clear about this.  Consider this a corollary to my post on not consecrating women living secular lives IF canon 604 does not govern an uncompromised secular vocation. The adoption of the things you mention indicates a mitigated and even compromised secularity rather than a thoroughgoing one. If they are really essential to the vocation it begins to lose it's distinctive gift quality to the secular and post-Vatican II world. The vocation ceases to say to those leading secular lives, for instance, that they are called to an exhaustive holiness which can be achieved in their secularity. It begins to say separation from the saeculum is necessary for true holiness. Thus, if the CV's we are consecrating are required to become quasi-religious because the elements of religious life they adopt which make them less secular are necessary to the vocation, then it only makes sense that every Religious who is a virgin should also receive this consecration. After all, they live the elements of religious life which separate them from the world more radically than CV's without all the limitations of vows of poverty, obedience, Rules of life, Constitutions and Canon Laws. Even further, it makes sense that they should receive the consecration BEFORE any women who have not (yet) been adequately formed in the elements of religious life and who are still living a wholly secular life.

My point is that the vocation today has two clear expressions, one cloistered and the other secular. The first speaks especially to Religious (though not only to them) and is a kind of intensification of certain dimensions of their vocations; the second speaks especially (though not only) to those living secular vocations and is an eschatological witness to what secularity is meant and destined to be. If the vocation on the other hand is really only "secular" in the "weak sense" of not taking place in a monastery amongst cloistered nuns, then we should only be consecrating women who ARE separated from the world in significant ways. Only two groups of women really fit that criterion, nuns and apostolic or ministerial Sisters. Of course, the simple fact is that most of these women would not need or want this consecration, even if their relationship with Christ is specifically nuptial. They are already consecrated and the graces attached to the consecration don't necessarily add to the graces of their vocations as they stand right now. Unless c 604 consecration brings something truly distinctive to the Church and world it ceases to make sense or speak prophetically to people; neither are its graces uniquely pertinent. The only element of this vocation as it is being lived out in today's Church which really allows this prophetic speech and serves to make the vocation truly distinctive and a unique gift is its (consecrated and eschatological) secularity.

If instead it is really a form of weakened, essentially compromised, or even inauthentic religious life then it ceases to be prophetic or to truly speak of radical discipleship as a religious. If it is a form of weakened or essentially compromised secular life, then once again it ceases to speak to anyone who is called to live radical discipleship as a secular. Again, it becomes a vocation which is neither fish nor fowl and merely evokes the standard questions: "why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" or " are only those separated from the world called to true and wholehearted (radical) discipleship?" or again, "is there something necessarily wrong with secularity? Wasn't Jesus' own vocation as well as that of his Mother secular ones --- even if they were also mystical and contemplative?" (While I agree Jesus' vocation was also a consecrated and exhaustively eschatological vocation, I don't think we can argue Jesus lived his public life and calling as a religious, monk, or hermit, for instance.)

 There is NOTHING wrong with being called to a secular vocation in the fullest sense or to being called to witness to the eschatological and consecrated nature of authentic or redeemed secularity. I believe being called to do this is an incredible gift (charism) of the Holy Spirit to our world and Church today. But if this is NOT what canon 604 vocations are meant to be, then we must stop consecrating women living secular lives and, to the degree virginal Religious women request it, begin consecrating those who have truly discerned, are formed in, and live lives which are at once religious and appropriately ministerial without being or becoming secular.

Minimized Secularity: A Legitimate Development for CV's?

[[Dear Sister, Wouldn't it be possible for the Church to discover that the vocation of consecrated virgins living in the world has developed in a way which requires the kinds of things you say separate Religious from aspects or dimensions of the world? I understand your argument that this would mean the Church was wrong for 30 years, but vocations DO develop. Why couldn't a mitigated secularity (your words) be a development?]]

That's a good question and I am pretty sure it is precisely what the minority of CV's who desire the separating trappings of Religious life would argue. When I spoke of being free to experiment in my own vocation in order to discover the shape of eremitical life in the 21st Century I was referring to this question indirectly. You may remember that what I said there is that any experiments I might do would be limited by the nature of my vocation. For instance, I can't make it a secular vocation when part of the canon reads "stricter separation from the world" --- and so, defines this as even more intensely non-secular than other religious vocations.  I can't do this when the liturgy by which I was professed stressed this separation at every point (official liturgy is normative as law is normative). Once my own vocation becomes secular it ceases being eremitical.

There is no calling it secular in the "weak sense" because I don't live on monastery property or out in the boonies, or in a literal desert for instance. It is eremitical because it is defined in terms of the central elements of canon 603 and the Rite of Profession we used, or it is not eremitical at all. Further, these elements are always the ones which guide my implementation of various practices; thus, if I am called on to do some limited ministry at the parish I have to be sure my life is still clearly eremitical in terms of stricter separation, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude. I cannot begin to define my life as "less eremitical" or eremitical in the weak sense, or even as "more ministerial" --- as good as any of those things are generally. I am committed to keeping its essential nature or I will lose it altogether.

In canon 603, for instance, "stricter separation from the world" clearly does not refer to a physical place. It means non-secular. For that reason Bishops profess urban hermits as well as those living in more natural wildernesses. It seems reasonable that when canon 604's Rite of Consecration refers to women "living in the world" then, it is not referring simply to physical location.  It is referring to something more essential and fundamental on which all else is therefore built. This conclusion has to be buttressed with the other things I have mentioned, including the fact that canon 604 CV's are said to be called to serve in the things of the spirit and the things of the world (cf homily from Rite of Consecration), the fact that it is women living thoroughly secular lives who are irrevocably consecrated, the historical and theological context of the vocation which underscores a recovery of a secular vocation lost in the 12th Century when the vocation became the sole property of cloistered nuns, the fact that ministerial or apostolic religious who are virgins do NOT receive this consecration as they surely should if the vocation is not truly secular, the important emphasis of Vatican II on the universal call to holiness, and finally the New Evangelization's emphasis on a new missiology which esteems the secular while struggling against secularism.

 While I have referred to canon law history, the theology of consecrated and religious life, Christology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and a few other things in various posts on this, my basic concern and argument is pastoral. The bottom line for me is that unless this is a thoroughly secular vocation (consecrated life though it is) it does not make sense; unless it is truly secular it will remain a somewhat half-baked, less than radical vocation (neither secular nor religious), and will be incomprehensible and inspiring to neither those living secular lives nor to those living as Religious.

Only if it is a truly secular vocation is it truly charismatic since charisms come from the interaction of the world's need and the influence of the Holy Spirit; only then will it speak relevantly and prophetically to a world-at-large which is called to live the life of the Kingdom in the state of secularity. (I firmly believe this world does NOT truly need yet another vocation which suggests secularity is NOT a call to a radical, exhaustive holiness!) I simply don't believe turning the vocation into a quasi-religious vocation will inspire most people to live an eschatological or sacramental secularity. While my own vocation can summon people to build silence, solitude, and prayer into their lives to a greater degree, and while it can remind them that it is God alone who completes us and is sufficient for our needs, there is also the danger that I give the signal one must leave the world to be a person of prayer, silence, or genuine solitude. I may, unfortunately, give the mistaken signal that one needs vows or special garb or legitimate superiors, to be called to or become holy. And so forth.

Referring only to the fundamental nature of consecrated virginity and not to its special graces, a vocation called secular and given to others "in the things of the world" as well as those of the Spirit is a gift to the secular world in particular for it says that holiness is possible without the separation adopted by religious. It was once taken as common truth that such separation was required for genuine holiness. But this is, of course, no longer the case. Vatican II stressed the universal call to holiness and in light of that vocations to secular institutes as well as the recovery of the consecration of virgins living in the world have become significant calls to a secularity which leads to genuine holiness. Meanwhile the New Evangelization calls for the Church to proclaim a Gospel which transforms all of reality. It hardly seems reasonable to me then that turning the vocation into a quasi religious vocation or otherwise mitigating its secularity so that it is no longer the gift the post-Vatican II Church and the New Evangelization require can be called a development --- at least not a legitimate or positive one.

One final point. The ancient vocation  to consecrated virginity went through a development which saw it used more and more exclusively for women entirely separated from "the world" and cloistered in monasteries and convents. This is now seen as something which turned the nature of the vocation on its head. (cf,  Holland, Sharon, "Consecrated Virgins for Today's Church") Eventually, even the remaining secular expression of the vocation was lost (around 1139). It is the case that this loss corresponded to a time of decreased esteem for the secular and the association of the call to holiness with religious and priestly life alone. This development contributed to the hardening of divisions between sacred and profane, religious and secular, which was destructive of dimensions of the spiritual life of the Church and represented a kind of class-ism which is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Vatican II worked mightily to move past this in what she taught and the revival of the secular consecrated virgin vocation developed as a piece of this. I would therefore be chary of any suggestions that CV's wishing to recapitulate this original development from secular to cloistered in some way is a good thing. Moving away from the thoroughgoing and sacred secularity of the vocation seems to me to be doing just that.

Why are we consecrating virgins living SECULAR lives if the vocation is not secular?

[[Sister, in arguing that consecrated virgins living in the world are called to a secular vocation which is without mitigation or qualification you once said something about formation needing to be changed if the vocation was NOT secular. I couldn't find what you wrote though. Can you help me with this?]]

Yes, sure. First though, while I am clear the Church teaches canon 604 vocations are secular vocations without mitigation, they ARE significantly qualified as sacred or consecrated secularity. I hope I was sufficiently clear on this point in other things I have written.

The point you were looking for is found in my 20. November.2011 response to Jenna Cooper's  (Sponsa Christi blog) post around that time. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Canon 604 --- Response to Jenna Cooper In that post I argued that the Church's own praxis confirms the secularity of the vocation in the fullest sense of that word. She does this in a number of ways, but one significant way involves consecrating women living secular lives while not demanding a formation where one relinquishes a secular life in the process. The Church does not require a change of jobs, a move to a convent, preparation for vows (which means, among other things, divesting of property or signing a cession of administration), a new way of dressing, letting go of relationships, hobbies, interests (including political interests and activities) or anything else which marks their way of life as secular. She does not require these women let go of a personal life-vision of a secular mission which is sacramental,  truly holy and which the entire world is MEANT to live. IF the vocation were not really secular then the Church would need to require candidates for consecration adopt a different way of living BEFORE consecrating them (and before determining they COULD be consecrated).

This would need to occur so that, at the very least, both the candidate and the diocese can discern whether or not the person is truly called to this. As you are no doubt aware, the Church does not profess or consecrate anyone without being sure they have lived the life expected of them for some time prior to definitive commitment. It would be completely irresponsible to do otherwise not only because the discernment process would be worthless in such a case, but also since the person thus professed and/or consecrated is placed in danger of serious sin if they are not truly called to the life embraced. Integrity of witness and life would require one be formed in the life one was expected to live and more, that one be prepared for the life that God is calling them to live.

Thus, a hermit, for instance, does not move into her hermitage and begin living the silence of solitude on the day of (much less the day after) consecration, nor does she only begin living poorly, celibately, or obediently the day she makes vows. She does not quit her secular job just prior to being professed (even temporary vows!), for instance, or give up all of her everyday secular activities and relationships the day of profession. She must be a hermit with the heart, vision, and habits of a hermit long before being professed or she is NOT professed. Similarly, neither does the Church expect a consecrated virgin to start living a non-secular (or quasi-religious) life the day of her consecration. Quite the contrary is true. For those suggesting consecrated virginity for women living in the world is not a secular vocation I argue instead that the vocation is a secular one not least because the Church consecrates women living entirely secular lives.

There is a corollary here. Some suggest that the secularity of the vocation is doubtful and can only be seen in the superficial or "weak" sense of "not living one's consecration out in a monastery."  They seem to expect the Church to add on extra requirements (the whole  Liturgy of the Hours (LOH), distinctive garb, vows or at least promises of obedience, full time parochial work, etc.) AFTER a woman has been consecrated to the life. But what does this say about the way the vocation has been lived during the past 30 years? What does it say to those women whose vision of mission extends this call into every corridor and corner of human activity in true catholicity? What does it say to scholars who are clear that c 604 represents a recovery of a charismatic way of living both a consecrated and entirely secular life that was lost in the 12th Century but until then existed side by side and in equal dignity with cloistered nuns who were also consecrated virgins?

It suggests that in the past 30 years women living this vocation were all wrong because they were living a clearly secular vocation rather than a quasi-religious one. To be frank, it suggests that the Church was mistaken in trying to recover the secular expression of this vocation and that historians and theologians reflecting on the import of sacred secularity are all wrong. It suggests that c 604 is misguided and rather than having a central place in the new evangelization or in promoting Vatican II's insight that ALL, including those living secular vocations, are called to an exhaustive holiness, this vocation really has no meaningful place at all. (Vocations which are neither fish nor fowl tend to speak to no one radically enough to inspire them.)  It suggests the Rite of Consecration itself was badly written not only because it specifies this is for women living in the world, but because the homily included there is clear that these CV's are given entirely to their brothers and sisters in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world.

Everything the Church says and does with regard to this vocation says it is a secular one, and secular in the fullest sense. From what she writes about its nature and history, to her liturgy of consecration, to the way she implements and governs it she affirms the vocation as secular. It is ALSO and emphatically a consecrated vocation with a charism and special graces the world needs very badly indeed. But the world needs this vocation in order to live its own secularity with sacramental vigor and integrity. If one takes away (or minimizes) either element then one changes the essence of the vocation.

Fortunately, apart from a minority of CV 's who seem to prefer this be a form of quasi-religious life in which they are more visibly set apart from the saeculum by externals, there is no reason to believe the Church's own view of the unabashedly secular nature of this vocation is up for grabs or is otherwise unsettled. In any case, one small  but significant piece of the evidence for this is simply the fact that the Church does not require candidates for consecration under c 604 to cease living secular lives and embrace some form of separation from the world (symbolized by distinctive garb, vows, etc), before (or after) she consecrates them. (The veil is worn during the Rite of Consecration and sometimes again on anniversaries of that day; otherwise the visible and public symbol of the vocation is the CV's ring.)

Followup to "Radical Secularity?"

[[Dear Sister, yes, that was the piece I read that raised my questions. Thank you. The paragraph you added in the beginning was very helpful in clarifying things for me. But I still wonder about calling this a secular vocation. Aren't CV's required to say the Divine Office? Isn't this a requirement of religious life? How can it also be a requirement of a wholehearted or "thoroughgoing" secular vocation? It seems to me that there is some confusion built right into the vocation itself.]]

There are other posts here from awhile back explaining the secularity of the vocation in more detail so I would sugest you look at those. Check the label "sacred secularity" and that should get you to those. Regarding the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours, yes religious often say it (unless one is ordained this is a matter of proper law rather than canon law --- as canon 663.3 explains). However, the Divine Office is highly recommended for any Christian and some parishes do celebrate Morning and Evening Prayer  (Lauds and Vespers) regularly. Also, some parishes without priests use MP (Morning Prayer) as the framework for a Communion service. Additionally, some who cannot celebrate Office everyday add a sung Vespers to their Sunday services, for instance. While these practices have never caught on with the whole Church, the Divine Office IS the official prayer of the entire Church and is not set apart for Religious alone.

For this reason I would say that this is another of those areas that Consecrated Virgins are called on to model a sacred secularity for all those called to Christian Discipleship. It would be great if CV's could help make Office a regular part of the prayer life in their own parishes or dioceses, for instance. It could be done effectively with just a handful of people (just as it often is in small religious houses) and a simple format. CV's could, conceivably lead the way in finding resources, teaching the Office, etc. (Meanwhile, teaching just Night prayer (Compline) itself, which can easily be prayed alone and needs fewer resources would be a wonderful service to many who would love this particular hour to complete their day.)  I would bet that some Religious who tend to pray Office alone because their ministries demand they live apart from a convent setting, for instance, would join in regularly as well. It would be a great piece of breaking down the artificial boundaries between religious and secular (because prayer is NOT one of the legitimate boundaries) and help transform the life of the parish as well.

Be clear in all of this that secular is not synonymous with profane or irreligious. Every Christian, Secular, Religious, or Eremitical is called on to be a person of prayer. The graces attached to the vocation of consecrated virginity lived in the world make these CV's apostles of a sacred secularity and may in fact be calling them to assist the laity to discover that their own vocations are calls to an exhaustive holiness and prayerfulness. If CV's are truly called to commitments in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world a piece of this will certainly be calling all their brothers and sisters to the life of prayer of the Church in a way which breaks down unnecessary (and often all-too-worldly) boundaries and divisions.

On Consecrated Virginity, "Hairsplitting" and "nitpicking"

[[Dear Sister, I see that you got hassled for "hairsplitting" and "nitpicking" in the distinctions you drew in Phatmass discussion on Consecrated Virginity of Women living in the world. Like you I believe that words have meaning and it is a sign of respect for meaning and truth to take care with language. I don't mean to ask you to repeat all you have written here about the vocation to sacred secularity which c 604 represents but I wonder if you have an explanation of why people so object to someone being clear about how the Church uses language?  With regard to c 604 and consecration why does this seem to be so do you think? Why is the secularity of the vocation such an issue? Also, why do people seem to need to say "My consecration is better than yours!!"?]]

Yes, I did get in a bit of  difficulty for making sure folks were using a basic vocabulary correctly. (One person even suggested Jesus would be weeping over all this hairsplitting! I agree he is likely sighing in forebearance, but not because of my concern over significant nuances.) For instance, one person said CV's made vows to their Bishops. I pointed out not only that CV's do not make vows at all, but that all vows are made to God alone, not to human beings. When someone complained that after all this was not heresy (and so, she implied, not all THAT important) I pointed out that it could be heresy and was, at the very least, blasphemy since making vows TO a person rather than in their hands arrogates to them a dignity which is due God alone. The content and dynamics of a vow of obedience would be quite different if one was vowing this TO a person rather than doing so in a way which commits BOTH persons to discern together what the will of God would be in any given situation. I also spoke of the distinction between receiving and witnessing a vow, and I pointed out that Vatican II assiduously kept the distinction between consecration (an act of God) and dedication (the human side of the commitment) so that we should not speak of consecrating ourselves to God, but of dedicating ourselves.

So, why are folks so careless with language, and more, so upset when one insists that words have meanings and that in canon law and theology people are very careful about nuances? Good question. I am sure simple ignorance is a big part of this. We aren't always used to using language accurately and in this world of instant electronic contact where letters replace words and acronyms replace actual sentences, taking care to actually learn and respect the nuances of usage or to reflect on the importance of these is becoming less and less common.  Unfortunately, another piece of this ignorance is an unawareness of the significant implications of usage. For instance, as noted above there is a BIG difference in living the content of promises made to a person and living the content of vows made to God. Vows bind both the subject and the superior in an ecclesial relationship as mutual discerners of God's will, and does so explicitly. It also makes clear that this is not blind obedience and that while the two persons are not peers, an individual, for significant reasons, may indeed disagree with a superior's judgment and be truly obedient to God nonetheless. Similarly there is a big difference between a legitimate superior receiving one's vows (an act done in the name of the church and resulting in legal relationships and obligations) and simply witnessing them (not done in the name of the Church , etc.) or between either eschewing (or embracing) secularism and eschewing (or embracing) a secular vocation.

But where vocations come into play being accurate is threatening to some. For those still wed to the notion that a lay vocation is an entry-level vocation and "lower" than a supposedly "higher" vocation like "consecrated" life, to point out that specifications of baptismal commitments with private vows are acts of dedication, not consecration or that these leave the person in the lay state, is something which threatens their view of themselves and others. Here the Church has simply done a very poor job in effectively teaching Vatican II's universal call to holiness, catechizing on the nature of Baptism, or on being clear how exhaustive the discipleship demanded of EVERY Christian is --- especially in light of a past Tradition that seemed to speak of things rather differently and which has never been adequately translated for contemporary church life.


With regard to c 604 and secularity we run into the same problems, and they all come to a head in this vocation's charism and importance. There are several problems: 1) people don't distinguish between the secular and secularism, though these are two very different things. Secularism treats the secular as the ultimate reality determining their actions and values; often they even worship it. Secularity, on the other hand, treats the everyday world of space and time (saeculum) as the potential sacrament of God's incarnational presence, honoring it appropriately as mediatory and charisma (gift); 2) people still distinguish a secular vocation as "lower" than a religious vocation despite the fact that both represent calls to exhaustive holiness, one a call lived in the world, and the second a call marked by degrees of separation from the world. (Thus the second has distinctive garb, and vows which qualify one's relationship to the central worldly dimensions of wealth, power, and relationships where the former does not.) 3) there remains a tendency to equate secularity with the profane (that which is "outside the temple"), and thus to denigrate it while equating consecrated life with the sacred (that which is of or within the Temple.)

When women consecrated to the sacred secularity of canon 604 argue against this secularity they tend to be unable to embrace the paradox here and continue to try and stress one element (sacredness or secularity) over the other. Thus, if one is consecrated the conclusion is they can't be secular and if one is secular the conclusion is one cannot be living a consecrated life (that is, in the consecrated state of life). But, the Incarnation modeled by Jesus tells us this is exactly wrong and so does what authoritative writers (including a Pope or two) have written about the vocation to consecrated virginity of women living in the world. It is hard to let go of the either/or, higher/lower mindsets so typical of the world's ways of evaluating things and to adopt the ways of the Reign of God. (None of us are far from being the disciples clamoring to know who is higher or who would be sitting at Jesus' right hand!) And yet, letting go of these ways of valuing reality is precisely an aspect of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world that is its truest charism or gift to the Church and World. It is in regard to this Kingdom message that CV's are apostles and prophets with a countercultural truth.

There is two further reasons this is all so difficult: 4) we are actually asking CV's under c 604 to adopt another theological context for understanding the eschatological nature of their vocations. If heaven is a  merely otherworldly reality (what is sometimes referred to as pie in the sky by and by) then it is true there is no reason to accept the call to be apostles of a Kingdom which interpenetrates this one and transfigures it into the Sacrament of God's presence. (For that matter there is little reason to invest in this world at all, whether in ministry, medicine, politics, education, or anything else.) But to be truly meaningful canon 604 requires CV's to recognize and embrace the truth that Paul, John,  and the early Church more generally spoke of heaven or eternal life in terms of the reconciliation and transformation of the saeculum in a way which looks forward to God one day being ALL in ALL. That is a huge theological step away from what so many believe today about heaven or the secular and a very demanding theological context to ask CV's to embrace and be clear about with their lives. Even so, it is a fundamental part of the theological context which undergirds the paradoxical sacred secularity of the call to consecrated virginity and allows it to be precisely the kind of gift our world yearns for so desperately.

The vocation is easily misunderstood and distorted without or apart from this context. After all, what the world does NOT need is another vocation which seems to say the secular cannot be embraced as the place God is made fully manifest, a vocation in which some dimension of the incarnational God we call Emmanuel is embarrassing or scandalous, a vocation which fails to embrace a thoroughgoing secularity vividly proclaiming the truth of Vatican II's universal call to holiness.

And this raises the final related reason all this is so difficult: 5) this is a "new" (recovered) vocation in search of its truest meaning after having been partly subverted by cloistered life and disappearing altogether in the 12th Century. The original consecrated virgins as a whole were not proto-nuns. They were secular women consecrated to serve the Church in every sphere of life and this vocation continued into the 1100's. But for centuries the only consecrated virgins have been cloistered nuns in solemn vows. With the promulgation of c 604 the Church has recovered the secular vocation which is to stand side by side the cloistered vocation in equal dignity. Unfortunately, the church and world have not yet come to understand or esteem this vocation properly, and neither have some CV's. Thus, some women consecrated under c 604 see themselves as quasi-nuns rather than secular women who are also consecrated.

The upshot of this is the vocation is usually defined in terms of what it is not rather than what it is (it is not religious life, these women are not nuns, do not have vows, are not called Sister, are not secular in the "strong sense", are not laity, etc). Such a vocation does not speak positively or prophetically to anyone. It is still in search of itself, and still struggling for recognition equal to that given to nuns, Sisters, canonical hermits, etc. I sincerely believe that until CV's consecrated under c 604 wholeheartedly adopt the SACRED SECULARITY of their vocations this struggle will continue and so will the vocation's inability to speak to anyone effectively (pastorally) much less prophetically.

As for your last question, why is there such a need for people to say essentially that, "My conse-cration is better (more lasting or eternal, more spousal, more God-given, etc) than yours"?  I guess everything I have spoken of up until this point is a piece of the answer, but the more general response would need to be, "Sin." Human sin is the reason for this. Sometimes it is evident as a lack of humility or desire for status along with a failure (or refusal) to see that every consecration, from Baptism onward, is an eternal act of God and a unique gift to the recipient, to the Church, and to the world more generally; but it is also true that in treating some vocations as superior and others as inferior the entire church has colluded in this situation. It is understandable that a person who believes they are called to an exhaustive discipleship and holiness would not believe an "entry level" vocation is sufficient.

Much of the time however, the answer to your question really has to do with our inability to think paradoxically --- another symptom of human sinfulness or estrangement from God, I would suggest. In fact, I would argue that our disregard or disdain for language and nuances of meaning is similarly rooted; so too is the  anti-intellectualism which seems to believe that someone who is trained to take these things seriously and honor truth in this way, is merely saying they are "better" than the next person. We do tend to judge what gifts of God we will accept and which we will not; anti-intellectualism clearly rejects certain gifts out of a false humility, a superficial sense of equality, and more importantly perhaps, a lack of appreciation or gratitude for truth.

I hope this is helpful.

Consecrated Virginity, Response to Sponsa Christi's Author

I had heard from several people that Jenna Cooper of the Sponsa Christi blog has responded to the series of posts I put up on Consecrated Virgins and what I have called a vocation to consecrated or sacred secularity back in September-October. Since then I have had time to read Ms Cooper's post on the matter a couple of times now and I appreciate the time she took to put it together --- especially given the fact that she is newly studying Canon Law in a language she has never studied until now. Unfortunately, I also found the response disappointing in several ways, and a bit frustrating as well. I am going to limit this response to those main points.

It was a bit frustrating because Ms Cooper never actually quoted me directly. She depended instead on characterizations of what I said and why, and she got some central things wrong; she also treated theological, canonical, and historical conclusions as "presuppositions" and "assumptions". However, because she didn't quote me directly, responding to these mischaracterizations with any specificity is frustratingly difficult. I understand that the blogosphere is not necessarily the realm of scholarly discussion, but I don't think one has to be a scholar to respect an interlocutor enough to actually quote what one contends or disagrees with. One vague but significant assertion Ms Cooper made was especially troubling in preventing any specific response.

She wrote: [[I don’t think it would be possible for me to respond to every point Sr. Laurel makes in her series on consecrated virgins, especially since it seems that we may disagree on some very fundamental philosophical and ecclesiological premises (such as the inter-relationship between a person’s identity and his or her concrete actions and choices, the nature of the Church as an institution, the role of the hierarchy in relationship to the Church’s charismatic dimension, and the objective theological superiority of consecrated life.]] I could respond that I am personally surprised to hear Ms Cooper believes there is an acceptable disjunction between one's identity and one's concrete actions and choices --- especially for those with ecclesial vocations (though I would be even more surprised to hear someone suggest I believe this!!), or that she doesn't believe the hierarchy has a significant role in relation to the church's "Charismatic dimension," or even that she doesn't accept the institutional as well as the charismatic nature of the People of God, for instance, but I suspect this is not what she was trying to say. So, specific citations are important, both for understanding, accuracy, and out of simple courtesy and respect.

In any case, Ms Cooper's response was also disappointing in some significant ways as well; these include:

1) a failure to cite relevant legitimate and authoritative texts as fully as needed, especially where they disagree with her own position. Similarly Ms Cooper dismisses expert commentary out of hand as non-authoritative --- apparently because they are not de fide teaching. (There are a number of degrees of authoritativeness which must be recognized in ecclesial documents --- sometimes co-existing within the same document. We need to be clear what level of authoritativeness we are demanding.) Further she asserts that [[no one can read the authoritative documents on this vocation and come away with a sense that it is a secular one]] --- despite a plethora of evidence that members of the USCCB hold a contrary position, theologians and canonists write about it and come to different conclusions, or that the USACV generally seems to hold this view. The problem is familiar: Ms Cooper reiterates her opinions but does not support them with specific citations, expert commentary, common Episcopal or Papal opinions and praxis, etc. A mere handful of examples of the numerous passages Ms Cooper neglects or dismisses include:

a) a passage from the homily of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins Living in the World which reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world.]] (Ms Cooper cites the first part of this statement, but fails to cite or address the emboldened portion.) Now it should be noted that even if the phrase "living in the world" merely means "not in a monastery" in the very restricted sense Ms Cooper asserts (an assertion I and others disagree with), even that is, if it merely locates the virgin superficially as outside a monastery and simply proclaims she is not a nun, the highlighted phrase from the homily in the rite clearly refers to being not only a sacred person, but a secular one as well. With the phrase "the things of the world" it points to all the areas a person living in the world works out her salvation (family, business, politics, economics, etc) and indicates a complete giving over both to the things of the spirit and to the things of the world. It is a significantly qualified secularity, of course, but secularity nonetheless.

For instance, Religious men and women --- even apostolic or ministerial religious are never commissioned to be apostles "in the things of the world," and of course hermits are called to stricter separation from the world so are even less called to any form of secularity. These persons' vows significantly qualify their relationship with the main dimensions of the world, power (obedience), economics, etc. (poverty), and relationships (celibacy) and thus reflect a canonical and real separation from the world; however they are certainly not necessarily living a more consecrated life than CVs living in the world. Such consecrated virgins, on the other hand, are not canonically called to a life which is "separated from the world." They are absolutely set apart by and FOR God, but this is not identical to being called to separation from the world; rather, for those called to be CVs living in the world, it is a call to a complete involvement with and in it --- though clearly and unambiguously from the perspective of a consecrated person who shares in a special way in the the spousal, virginal, and maternal love characteristic of the Kingdom of God. I don't know if Ms Cooper ever deals with this particular phrase of the homily ("in the things of the world") at other places in her blog, but I know she does not do so in her response to my posts, and that is certainly disappointing.

b) admonitions of John Paul II which include, [[On this meaningful occasion, I am happy to stress some fundamental directives that can guide your special vocation in the Church and in the World.]] or [[According to the Apostle, the virgin “gives her mind to the Lord’s affairs and to being holy in body and spirit” (I Cor 7:34). She seeks “the things that are above, which Christ is, sitting at God’s right hand” (Col 3:1). And yet this does not estrange [her] from the great values of creation and from the longings of humanity, nor from the suffering of the earthly city, from its conflicts and from the sorrows caused by war, famine, disease, and the wide-spread “culture of death.” Have a merciful heart and share in the sufferings of the brethren. Commit yourselves to the defense of life, the promotion of women and respect for their liberty and dignity.]] There is a clear sense here of being about the things of God right in the midst of the earthly city (Saint Augustine's term and a synonym for the world). It is, as I have already written, a paradoxical presence where one is present within this world, not estranged from it precisely because one is concerned with the things of God and more, because one lives the fundamental charism of virginal, spousal, and maternal love precisely in a context which needs this unique gift of the Holy Spirit.

c) an example of a certificate of consecration which reads: [[Virginem vitam saecularem agentem (i.e., a virgin living in the world). . .]] Note that the qualifying vitam saecularem is not really necessary if there is no significant distinction between the life of the cloistered nun who is consecrated as a virgin and that of the consecrated virgin living in the world. If this distinction is merely a matter of identifying superficial locations, the qualifying phrase would be omitted in a certificate of consecration since the vocations would be identical for the cloistered nun or the virgin living in the world and need not be specified. This suggests to me that the Church sees "vitam saecularem" as a significant qualification (or expression) of the foundational vocation to consecrated virginity.

d) However, much more compelling I think, is the article by Sister Sharon Holland, IHM, "Consecrated Virgins for Today's Church." This document was written by a (now) former "capo d'ufficio" or section chief with the congregation for religious (CICLSAL) --- meaning Sister was the third highest member of this curial department only behind the Cardinal and any Bishop with decision-making power (this authority is tied to ordination so being a Religious woman and the next one in line is no small matter); it should be clear that this article can hardly be dismissed out of hand. Even if one disagrees with Sister Holland's positions, one needs to contend with her article on its own terms (historical, liturgical, theological, etc) rather than simply dismissing it as unworthy of serious or considered attention.

Touching on just a very few points of this article, it affirms variously, [[Over the centuries, the use of the rite of consecration was quite completely reversed becoming common in monasteries of nuns with solemn vows and gradually disappearing from use among women remaining in their secular condition. By the time of the Lateran Council II (1139). . . the practice of consecrating women living in the world had ended]] Note well that this historical fact destroys Ms Cooper's argument that CV's living in the world were proto-nuns. In fact, other sources besides Sister Holland's are clear that there were 2 distinct rites of consecration in existence until this time, one for women living in the world, and one for nuns. In other words CVs from the first 3 centuries didn't simply develop into the cloistered vocation. This was one charismatic expression that developed, but the secular charismatic expression continued alongside it for another 8 centuries. Thus, the Code of Canon law 1983, and the revised Rite of 1970 (which specifically dropped vesture with a habit) are ways of recovering the distinctly secular (and consecrated) vocation of virgins living in the world which was wholly lost around the 12th century. Nothing less, nothing other.

Sister Sharon Holland, IHM, also reminds us: [[The Canon speaks of service to the Church "in harmony with their proper state." As has been seen, their state is of publicly consecrated persons in the Church and as persons who have received that consecration as individuals, remaining in their secular condition.]] In concluding her article, Sister notes, [[In 1996, the consecrated virgins also found their place in the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Vita Consecrata (N.B., this is, of course, an undeniably authoritative document) . . .[where the Holy Father adds], "Consecrated by the diocesan bishop, these women acquire a particular link with the Church, which they are committed to serve while remaining in the world." (VC 7)]] Sister Holland explains something of the meaning of this sentence in the following, [[. . .Consecrated virgins may be working as university professors, parish secretaries, nurses or pastoral ministers; they may be working purely secular jobs during the day and volunteering their services in a variety of charitable works on behalf of the sick, elderly, handicapped, or homeless in their time off. Wherever they are, they will be present as one consecrated, bearing witness to the love of God for all, made visible and mirrored in Christ's love for the Church.]]

Another disappointing area of Ms Cooper's response is 2) a complete failure to deal with the heart of the theological argument which grounds my opinion in the paradoxical and, through consecration, the highly qualified secularity of the consecrated virgin. (In regard to this last point, Ms Cooper sees consecrated life as mutually exclusive with secular life (except perhaps in the case of secular institutes, though she is unclear on this) rather than as a call to a redeemed and even a perfected form of secularity which reflects the Sacramentality and transcendent origin and goal of the created order, and which, for that very reason, has much to offer the world pastorally and prophetically. She writes, [[If consecrated virginity is indeed a vocation which calls one to be more “consecrated” than “secular,” no amount of pastoral need is going to change this fact.]] or again, [[ Therefore, every area of consecrated virgins’ lives should revolve unambiguously around the direct service of the Church and intimacy with God in prayer. Given this, consecrated virgins would therefore NOT ordinarily be called to be Christian witnesses in politics, purely civil affairs, the secular professional world, or the business or financial community.]] One has to ask what, for the Christian, is ever a purely civil affair given our belief that the Kingdom of God is a present reality realized within and through the things of the world. One also needs to ask if Ms Cooper's hypothetical here, "If they are called to be more "consecrated" than "secular", can be legitimately assumed (much less demonstrated!) to be true. Again there are other conclusions possible and I would argue they are theologically more cogent and compelling.

Further, while I have already cited Sister Sharon Holland's article on the diversity of ways consecrated virgins are at work in the world, I think one has to emphasize that no where in the Rite of Consecration does the Church specify that direct service to the Church (meaning working full-time in a parochial position of some sort) is the unambiguous focal point of one's life. God is this focal point, and clearly the Church is important in this as is service to the Church, but Ms Cooper's assertion conflicts with the Church's own position on this matter which she affirms by consecrating women living in the world in the fullest sense of that term. (If the Church did not mean these women to live a form of sacred secularity it would be necessary to require they adopt a different way of living BEFORE consecrating them. Discernment of the vocation, at the very least, would require this. Integrity of witness and life would require it. Thus, in consecrating women living in the world with all that entails as a consistent and normative pattern of praxis, the Church officially says this is a secular vocation at the same time it is a consecrated one.)

With regard to this second area of disappointment then, Ms Cooper does not address arguments rooted in Christology (for instance, the notion that Christ was paradigmatically secular in the life he lived even as he incarnated God exhaustively and thus witnessed to transcendence at every moment and mood of his life), sacramentality (most especially the sense that the world is meant function as a Sacrament of God's presence, just as Jesus' life and death did), eschatology (especially as it relates to our hope for a new heaven and earth, or to God's reconciling work in becoming all in all), missiology (especially the way a mission to the world and in the things of the world qualifies a charism), nor the difference between a more Greek way of thinking (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) and Christian paradoxical perspectives (cf my post on the paradox of sacred secularity). Neither does she deal adequately with the implications of the Church's liturgy and consistent praxis. I have already written about these things so I will not reprise them here.

Finally, I found it disappointing that 3) Ms Cooper's notion of charism was static and dismissive of the changing historical or pastoral situations or dimensions. Related to this I admit to being completely dumbfounded that Ms Cooper denied there was any pastoral need for the secular witness of Consecrated virgins. As she wrote: [[Whether or not there actually is such a pastoral need in the Church today (and I personally would tend to think that there is not), this kind of premise is actually kind of irrelevant to the question of whether or not consecrated virgins should live strongly secular lifestyles.]] Charisms are gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church and World precisely because there is a need for these gifts. Charisms thus actually cease to be or are renewed in light of pastoral requirements. (For instance (to use really vivid examples), communities whose charism involved ransoming captives of pirates, or those who were involved primarily with the conversion of Jews, might well find these dimensions of their charisms void or theologically illegitimate today and would need to look more closely at who they are today in light of the grace of God. cf Schneiders, Finding the Treasure on charism.) More specifically, consecrated virgins live a life of wholeness and generosity marked by spousal and maternal love precisely in their consecrated virginity. How is it possible to suggest the world at large which is loveless and sex-saturated in ways which trivialize this gift of God and whose capacity for personal commitment is diminished at every turn does not need this precise witness?

In other words, the essential vocation (Consecrated virginity lived in the world and committed to both the things of the spirit and the things of the world) was renewed by the Church, not simply because the vocation had been allowed to be eclipsed by its use by cloistered nuns and because a few hundred contemporary women thought perhaps they might personally be called this way by God, but because this essential gift is needed in a world of increased narcissism, sexual trivialization, and profane secularity. Charisms ALWAYS share these two poles, the eternal or transcendent and the historically particular dimension. Otherwise charisms would exist like rocks thrown into a pond --- an objective reality with no real relationship to the world which God loves and seeks to redeem, and therefore, with no power to transfigure that same world. They would be irrelevant at best, wholly anachronistic, and even destructive at worst. One certainly wonders why God would call virgins to receive consecration according to a solemn rite, compare these women with Mary, identify them as icons of the Church as Bride of Christ, and ask them to serve their brothers and sisters in a multitude of ways (but especially women, for instance) in the things of the spirit and the things of the world if their virginal, spousal and maternal love was not specifically needed by both Church and world (or if such need was considered irrelevant to the vocation itself). In any case, Frederick Buechner once defined vocation as that place where our own deep gladness meets the world's deep need. The same could be said of genuine Charisms, which are dynamic, not static realities and as such are always discerned in relation to the historical context or situation.

Much more could and needs be said in response to Ms Cooper's own response (and many more passages from various Bishops could be cited -- some very compelling), but, again, I will need to do that in other posts --- if, in fact, it seems prudent or desirable to continue the conversation.

A Note: for those wishing to respond to this post in some fashion, please read the posts on consecrated virginity which precede it (September-October 2011; see the list of labels on the right). Especially important is the post on the paradox of Secular or consecrated secularity, but other posts provide basic definitions which are necessary for those proposing to respond. This post is merely the latest in a series and assumes one is somewhat familiar with the posts that preceded it.