On the Need for Serious Reflection on the Sacred Secularity of Consecrated Virgins Under c 604

[[ Sister, do you think Religious Sisters are jealous of CV's being called Brides of Christ? Why would someone want to prove that CV's are Brides of Christ but not Religious women? I have the impression that there is a theological vacuum in the work being done on the vocation of the CV today. I wondered why you don't do more of this?]]

Many thanks for your questions. I think one of them was the same as asked in the last post so perhaps I didn't answer that. My bad!  Let me give it another shot! 

First, though, are religious Sisters jealous of CV's (living in the world) being Brides of Christ? No, not at all, at least I have not met one. Most Sisters know they are espoused to Christ and value it beyond saying, but we don't tend to want to be recognized for it of itself. Instead, though our experience of Christ may be nuptial in character (it is not always so), we want to be known for our hearts, our compassion, our availability, and all the ways any degree of union with Christ is evidenced in our lives and ministry. Otherwise, being espoused to Christ means very little. Many Sisters today have difficulty with the bridal imagery associated with religious life and that is fine; it simply does not match their experience in prayer or may have resonances which are otherwise problematical. Again, they love Christ and want to be known for the quality and expansiveness of their hearts, for the compassion they have for all of God's creation, for the energy and intelligence they spend on others for the sake of the Kingdom, for their discipleship. And they are. There is no reason whatsoever to be jealous.

The canonist I have been speaking with about the uniqueness of CV's identity as Brides of Christ believes this identity is rooted in a true and everlasting bond which is unlike that of Religious. I don't believe her intention is to strip Religious of their identity in this way so much as it is to sufficiently recognize and honor the nature of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world. However, I am not speaking here of the virtue of her academic work or her personal motivations (which I think are valid and necessarily limited as all such work is) so much as I am speaking of the ramifications such work could have, and even more, of the reasons I have seen for others' attempts to strip religious of their identity as Brides of Christ (e.g., Religious are only engaged to Christ (built on a misunderstanding the word betrothed in regard to Jewish marriage practice) while CV's are Brides, Religious consecrate themselves with vows while CV's are consecrated by God, or the bond of the consecrated CV is eternal while that of consecrated religious is not). 

The reasons underlying what I believe is a lopsided emphasis on Bride of Christ imagery and identity are multiple. Too often CV's have been treated as women without the courage or ability to "go the whole way" into religious life. As is true with any "new" (though ancient) vocation, the bulk of the faithful neither understand nor honor this calling. As I myself once wondered about the validity and meaning of this vocation so does the majority of the Church wonder about the same things. The renewal of this vocation too often seems an act by which the Church is attempting to mobilize a new army of workers to replace Religious whose numbers are diminishing, a kind of stopgap vocation to increase or at least harden the division between male priesthood and the role of women in the Church, or a form of "religious life lite" to many of the faithful. At the same time, the faulty use of the term "consecration" for an act humans commit has led to all manner of "consecrations" which tend to empty the Divine consecration shared by consecrated persons in the Church of meaning and import. 

Everyone in the Church should be aware that in baptism and all forms of life known as "consecrated", God is the one who consecrates while the human person dedicates him/herself via some form of profession or private vow. That is especially true of public commitments. Unfortunately, it is possible to find CV's asserting that their consecration is by God while Religious "consecrate themselves via vows"! (Even more unfortunately, one can find religious congregations referring to members being consecrated via profession which then morphs into "religious consecrate themselves via profession.) The former emboldened expression is useful as synecdoche, a figure of speech where one part stands for the whole, as either the term profession or the term consecration refers to the whole event involving both the making of vows and the assumption of a new state of life via divine consecration mediated by the Church. The reference to "consecrating oneself", however, is inaccurate when used instead.

What is disappointing to me is the apparent bare nod to secularity I find in the work of most CV's writing about their own vocations today. Even the USACV (United States Association of Consecrated Virgins) provides only the barest information on the secularity of the vocation, largely limiting that to the idea that CV's living in the world are responsible for their own upkeep and the individual nature of their ministries. But the meaning and value of a secular vocation is far richer and of much greater contemporary and theological import than this! Besides, solitary hermits under c 603 are also responsible for our own upkeep and we are definitely not secular vocations. Still, I have yet found no theological reflection on the timeliness of sacred or eschatological secularity and none at all regarding the important shift to an eschatology stressing the interpenetration of the Kingdom of God with that of this world or the promise that one day God will be all in all. In light of these significant lacunae, discussions of whether or not the bond of the CV is eternal or whether religious are also truly Brides of Christ strike me as theologically analogous to the Church spending time and energy in quibbles over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in the face of global disaster.

The vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is real and meaningful (potentially it is profoundly significant and enormously timely), but it cannot remain or truly be that if CVs' reflection on and living out of their vocation is limited to emphasizing a single dimension of this call (espousal to Christ) cut off from the equally necessary secular dimension of that same vocation. I have said previously that the CV's secularity is profoundly qualified by espousal; I should also say, then, that the espousal itself is profoundly qualified by secularity. These two dimensions mutually qualify one another in a single radical consecrated vocation. To miss or eschew this is to miss the nature of the whole. Only in this way do they represent an icon of the Church we so badly need today and see called for by an emerging and deeply Scriptural eschatology. 

By the way, you asked why I don't undertake this work. Let me say that I have a definite theological and pastoral interest in it, especially in terms of the eschatology involved and the way that is combined with the significance of secular vocations, but for the present I am working on a project re the discernment and formation of c 603 eremitical vocations. An occasional post in response to questions will have to do for the present. Still, given the way Pope Francis is acting to end clericalism (cf., Praedicate Evangelium) there may be an added impetus to reflect more thoroughly on secularism and eschatological secularity in the near future.

Resisting Sacred or Eschatological Secularity in the Vocation of the Consecrated Virgin

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, thanks for putting the post on Consecrated Virgins up again. Why would one want to argue that Religious Women are not espoused "properly speaking" while Consecrated Virgins are? Is there difficulty accepting the sacred (eschatological) secularity of the vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me say that the idea that CV's living in the world are truly, properly, betrothed to Christ and are to be called Brides of Christ and icons of the Church herself is right on. But this does not mean we must consider that Religious Women (and perhaps Men too!) are not properly Brides (or spouses) of Christ. 

If the entire point of the consecration of virgins under c 604 is to create women who are Brides of Christ in a way which is entirely unique to them and requires others to be deprived of the designation, then it seems to me this is, at best, a largely irrelevant vocation. But I don't believe that is the entire point of the vocation. When I first began writing about it I may have mentioned that for some time I felt it was sort of a vocation without a "job description"; more, it bothered me that when I wrote about friends being consecrated all I could say was what they were not (not a Religious, not vowed, not called Sister, etc.). So I began to read more about the vocation. Once I had read the Rite more carefully and some work by Sister Sharon Holland, IHM, et. al. I was convinced that the vocation had an important positive content, real substance, that our world needed especially at this time. That content or substance is the qualified (sacred or eschatological) secularity of the vocation.

As I have explained in other posts, the term secularity has often had a pejorative sense to it and in religious vocations there is a sense of "leaving the world" --- though there are both more sophisticated and abjectly simplistic notions of what this means. When religious make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, their relationship to the world around them, and to "the world" constituted by those who resist or reject Christ, is substantially qualified. They do not live secular vocations. Until c 604 reinstituted the vocation of consecrated virginity for those living in the world, membership in secular institutes was the one vocation that claimed secularity as part of its very nature without the pejorative connotation. Still, more often than not aspirations to religious life were more marked than the secularity of the vocation. Lay standing generally was seen as secular, but this was similarly denigrated. But with c 604 and its revival of this consecration for women living in the world and called to serve [[ in the things of the spirit and of the world]], suddenly secularity takes on a new value, namely the value of the Kingdom of God.

We are living into a new (and ancient because it is Scriptural) notion of what will come to be one day when God is all in all. Our Christian lives are not about "getting to heaven", but rather being citizens of the Kingdom of God and proclaiming with our lives that one day there will be a single reality we recognize as a new heaven and a new earth. In Christ's death and resurrection God embraces the whole of God's creation and makes it part of his own life. God takes even godless death into himself and in the process destroys it forever. Again, one day God will be all in all. That is our hope, and it is a dimension of the Good News of Jesus Christ. So, given this eschatological vision it is critical that the Church clearly recognizes the possibility of consecrating those who live secular lives. That serves as a sign, in fact, a powerful symbol of this new and ancient eschatology.

Regarding your questions:

Thanks for patiently reading to this point but the background was important, both the nod to the history of the Church's approach to secularity and to the way theologians are speaking about eschatology today. It indicates that there is a long history still needing to be shaken off and unfortunately, the CV's who with their very lives and commitments, should symbolize this step forward re both secularity and eschatology, are, in some instances not doing so. The reasons are likely complex and involve both a kind of allergy to the idea of being a secular vocation, and an ignorance of the eschatology I have spoken of above. Some will speak of "secular-lite" to characterize the secularity of their vocation rather than moving toward a truly radical vocation that affirms fully both its consecrated and its secular nature. Others, in seeking to do justice to the radicality of the vocation focus on its consecrated nature alone, that is, to the idea that CV's are Brides of Christ, but without really speaking of the secularity of this espousal. 

In all of this I think you are right. There seems to be a resistance to accepting the secularity of the vocation, so much so that there seems to be a need to deprive women (and men) religious of the sense that they are truly espoused to Christ, but in a religious rather than a secular vocation. I believe that some of this resistance comes from the longstanding sense that secular vocations are 2nd class, but also, it comes from a missing sense of the charism of the vocation --- what I once half-jokingly referred to as the lack of a "job description". The Church clearly stresses that CV's are Brides of Christ, but until CV's fully and wholeheartedly embrace the secularity of this identity, the need to distinguish themselves in other ways will continue to crop up I think. 

Moreover, until the call to an eschatological and sacred secularity is fully and radically embraced by CV's, the division between CV's and religious (to the extent this exists now) will continue and some in the Church will continue to think of the consecrated lives of CV's as "religious life lite" or as evidence of women without the courage to go the whole way and become religious. There is an incredible equality between Religious and CV's, because both are espoused to Christ, consecrated by God, and committed to the coming of the Kingdom of God. They differ in that Religious have a religious vocation which  qualifies and limits the ways they can interact with the secular world and CV's a secular call without the same limitations but having as profound and challenging a set of obligations as are found in Religious life.

My point in all of this is that so long as CV's feel compelled to stress their identities as Brides of Christ or truly espoused while giving short shrift to the eschatological secularity also intrinsic to this form of consecrated life, they will continue to be a mainly irrelevant and dubious vocation. Once they embrace the really radical combination of consecration/espousal AND the transfigured nature of secularity that is the result of the death and presence of the Risen Christ in all of reality, this vocation will gain a relevance and significance that even the identity "Bride of Christ" cannot hold for others who are shut out from such aspirations. The vocation must be a proclamation of the Gospel; simply insisting that one is a Bride of Christ (and, especially, doing so to the exclusion or minimization of the qualified secularity constituting the vocation) is not a proclamation of the Gospel nor will it speak effectively to others of the substance of that Good News.

Are Consecrated Virgins Alone Brides of Christ?

[[Sister Laurel, I saw a longish post from you on Facebook in which you claimed that religious are, properly speaking, Brides of Christ. You argued your position with Therese Ivers, a canonist and Consecrated Virgin whose position is that only Consecrated Virgins are Brides of Christ in a proper sense. Have you posted about this here? If not, I wondered if you would. Thank you!]]

Yes, I have definitely written about this in the past, but not for some time. I noted a post from Ms Ivers which came to my email from Facebook and decided this time to respond because of a specific line in Therese's post. She wrote: [[Religious, be proud of your identity. Sacred virgins, be proud of your identity. Those who belong to secular/religious institutes AND the Order of Virgins, be proud of your two vocations! But for goodness sake, learn to embrace your proper vocational identity, whatever it is, instead of identifying as something you are not (if that's what you are doing!).]] Therese is someone I consider a friend, and we are in agreement on many things; for instance, I generally agree with much of what she writes on eremitical life (and vice versa), but in this matter we disagree with one another. Here is the text of the post I put up this morning:

[[Therese, you well know that the Rite of religious Profession identifies the one making vows as spouse of Christ and Christ as Bridegroom (the rite uses this term at least four times) and again refers to the professed as "betrothed to the eternal King" and accompanies this with the prayer that they may come to the wedding feast of eternal joy. At the giving of the ring, [[ receive this ring for you are betrothed to the eternal King; keep faith with your bridegroom. . . I am betrothed to the Son of the Eternal Father. . .]] I see nowhere in any of this where the Church says, "but of course we don't really mean any of this except in an improper/non-proper or highly poetic/metaphorical sense." If we look at the readings the Church allows for religious profession, these numbers could be multiplied and would be underscored.

Meanwhile, during the prayer of solemn consecration the Church prays, [[may he make those bonds with which he has bound you to Christ on earth endure forever in heavenly love.]] Apparently, it is her intention that these bonds (real and proper bonds by the way) be eternal. I rejoice in my vocation, and it is to be a bride to my bridegroom. You have every right to rejoice in your own similar vocation, but to say religious have no right to consider themselves, properly speaking, to be brides of Christ, is a mistake. The church teaches as she prays so she believes (lex orandi, lex credendi), and in this matter, she prays, and so she believes religious women are brides of Christ.]]

In all of this a couple of things Therese Ivers argues (and we have discussed this either by phone or ZOOM or even in person) make no sense to me. The first seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, namely, the use of "in a proper sense" when that is contrasted with the quality of the consecration of Religious Women. I honestly cannot get either my head or my heart around what it means to say that she, as a CV, is a Bride in the proper sense, while I and other religious women perpetually professed according to the Rite of Profession of Religious Women (or rites that preceded this one), are not. More, I cannot read the Rite with its multiple references to espousal or betrothal (used in a Biblical sense to refer to actual marriage, not to something like "engagement" as some CV's -- not Therese Ivers, so far as I know --- have written in the past), to Christ as Bridegroom, or to the one making profession as spouse, and attribute some merely metaphorical meaning to it. 

Secondly, my understanding is that Therese Ivers speaks of the bonds associated with religious profession and consecration, and those associated with the consecration of the Consecrated Virgin as qualitatively different from one another with only the latter being a truly eternal or indissoluble bond. (Another way of saying this is to assert that the espousal of one Rite is qualitatively different from the espousal in the other Rite -- apparently a minority opinion of those revising these Rites.) But I can't read the text of Religious Profession with its prayer that this bond [[endure forever in eternal love]] as indicating the bond is not intended to be insoluble. Instead, I hear it as a prayer for the religious woman's faithfulness to this bond be maintained even beyond death. This is empowered by the love of God in Christ, of course, but it seems clear that the Church, through the grace of God, intends this be an everlasting bond. 

My essential argument in what I first wrote in response to Therese Ivers' post is that the law the Church has always taught is lex orandi (as we pray), lex credendi (so do we believe). The Rite of Religious Profession (revision of 1970) is normative in the Catholic Church for all Religious Professions including those made by hermits under c 603 who use this Rite. She prays this way, and so she permits (and, in fact, expects) us all to believe in this same way. Moreover, this Rite picks up what Religious have traditionally believed about their consecrations and espousal to Christ. Unless Therese Ivers is arguing the Rite of Profession misuses language and misleads the entire Church and especially those making Religious Professions, I can't see where her argument that, "religious aren't Brides of Christ in a proper sense" (again, what does that even mean?) holds together. More, I am beginning to believe it misses the point of this vocation and its emphasis on the proper nature of its betrothal entirely.

Circling Around Again to Find a Way Forward:

You see, as I try to move forward in the way I see the problem, it is not merely that I can't get my head or my heart around the notion that CV's are Brides of Christ in a proper sense, and Religious Women (or men!)** are not. I can't understand what is gained for the vocation of c 604 consecration by arguing this. More, is it really necessary to take something away from the nature of religious profession and consecration in order to do justice to the consecration of the CV? That seems to me to denigrate the very vocation folks arguing this way are attempting to praise. 

So, what does the vocation of CV gain by believing CV's are more properly "betrothed" than religious women are? Nothing that I can see. It seems a petty and divisive argument which fails to appreciate the rule lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. After all, both Religious and CV's are consecrated (an eternal reality established by God even if one leaves one's vows), both  are professed (though one uses vows for this and the other does not). Both Rites of perpetual profession/consecration uses the same imagery of espousal, the same giving of rings, the same veiling, the same imaging of the Church as Bride of Christ. The major difference in all of this is that one calling is to a degree of separation from the world (or a qualification of these things via the evangelical Counsels) and the other is identified as a unique form of sacred or eschatological secularity. This is the pivotal point of distinction, I believe and the reason for the heightened emphasis on betrothal in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for Women living in the world.

What I mean by this is that CV's are called to an eschatological or sacred secularity which can change (purify, sanctify) the way the entire Church sees and relates to the realm of the saeculum including every secular vocation. With religious women, CV's are Brides of Christ, but they need not embrace religious poverty, or religious obedience which qualifies religious women's relationship to the world around them in some significant ways in order to live this. Instead, they live it [[in the things of the Spirit and the things of this world]] reminding us all in a powerful way of the divinization of all things the Incarnation made real in the Christ Event. No longer need secular vocations be thought of as second (or third!) class. More, they cannot be thought of in this way. Instead they become paradigmatic of real and critical calls to holiness and union with Christ. The Kingdom of God/Heaven interpenetrates this world even now and CV's say (or are called to say) this in a unique way with their vocations. 

More and more I am beginning to believe the nuptial language of the Rite of Consecration of CV's living in the world, is meant to underscore not a distinction from religious consecration and its language of espousal per se, but rather the incredible nature of this vocation's secularity. No one, I don't think, would have renewed a long-lost vocation to women living in the world simply to contrast that vocation's consecration with that of religious (e.g., "By this rite we show what a true or proper espousal is as we show at the same time that religious' espousal is not a proper one!"). No vocation is essentially negative in its thrust nor established to denigrate another vocation. That is simply silly --- and in fact the majority members of the commissions that wrote both Rites refused to take out the language of espousal in the Rite of Profession of Religious Women. But what is not silly and what needs to be established strongly in light of a history of the Church denigrating the secular despite the witness of the Incarnation, is a vocation that shows the sacred nature of secular vocations and the way they truly image the Church as Bride of Christ --- just as really and powerfully as religious life and "leaving the world" does.

Generally speaking, the members of the Church were used to thinking of women Religious as Brides of Christ even if not all Religious women could personally relate to this language and imagery. What they were NOT used to at all, was the idea that a woman living in the world, a woman living a secular vocation, even a vocation which served the Church, could also truly be considered a Bride of Christ, nor that such a vocation could and should be esteemed as highly as the call to religious life. What do authors of a Rite of consecration do then to bring home the message that such women are called to an espousal every bit as real and significant as that of Religious Women? They make the Rite explicit in its emphasis on espousal, clear and unambiguous in its language of betrothal, and also, entirely clear on the fact that this creates a secular vocation no one in the contemporary Church expected to be possible. Now Bridal imagery is used to speak of a sacred or eschatological secularity which witnesses to the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven has interpenetrated our world in a new an awesome way.

There is no constructive need to emphasize betrothal or espousal and the Bidal imagery of this consecration unless one is doing so to change the way we see the Kingdom, the world around us we call secular, or the potential of secular vocations. Yes, the betrothal is real; the CV's espousal to Christ is every bit as true and significant as is the espousal of Religious in the Rite of Profession. But not more so. The language is weighty and there is emphasis on the proper and indissoluble nature of this espousal, as Therese Ivers rightly argues. But I would argue that it is done this way precisely because such language and imagery had seemed to be reserved for Religious Women and withdrawn (in the 12th Century) from women living secular vocations. The Kingdom of Heaven is present here and now in the religious and in the secular, the sacred and the profane. All is sacramentalized in the Incarnation, all of this world has become our God's proper medium of revelation. It seems to me this is the message underlying the spousal language of the Rite of Consecrated Virgins living in the World and the way we take it absolutely seriously.

I don't think this is new from what I have written in the past, though perhaps it more clearly links the explicit emphasis on Bridal imagery and identity with the secularity of the vocation. However, it is 9 years since I last posted on this issue, and I haven't re-read everything I wrote @2012-2013. For older writing on this topic, please see the label "eschatological secularity", and especially the following post from 2013: Consecrated Virgins vs Religious as Brides of Christ

** I focus on religious women in this piece because the Rite of Religious Profession of Women Religious seems so clear in this matter. The Rite of Religious Profession for Men is less clear in this, but I believe that Religious Men also are Espoused or Betrothed to Christ. After all, it is the Church which is properly the Bride of Christ. 

Public vs Private vows: Questions on the Nature and Breadth of Eremitical Commitment

Dear Sister, When a person commits to being a Consecrated Hermit/Hermit Sister, are they also making a commitment to being attached to a particular Church, to the Church in general, etc.? In other words, does it go beyond a marriage to God? I do realize that formally being under the obedience of a bishop would create that sort of tie. So, is the difference between being a private hermit and not “official” according to the Church mainly that those ties do not exist in the same way? This could be a deciding factor, down the road, with whether I might make private vs public vows. ]]

Good question. yes, diocesan hermits or other canonical hermits are embracing an ecclesial vocation in which they are granted certain rights while taking on specific obligations and expectations on the part of both the local and universal Church. The ties, however, are not simply those of obedience to one's bishop; obedience to one's bishop symbolizes deeper or more extensive ties within the Body of Christ.

You see, while one’s vows and espousal to God are very significant they are necessarily and profoundly embedded within a specific ecclesial context, namely that of the diocesan church (on behalf of the universal church), which both mediates and structures the vocation itself. This contextualization makes a very specific and profound kind of sense of the vocation. When one is consecrated in the RC Church, for instance,  one is initiated into a stable state of life. Stability here indicates more than the permanence and nature of one's relationship with God or the essential irrevocability of being set apart as a sacred person by God; it indicates all of the elements which help mediate and structure the divine vocation to this state: Rule, superiors (bishop and delegate), stability within the diocesan church (meaning one may not simply move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit without both Bishops' permissions), parish membership as a consecrated person (which gives other members the right to certain appropriate expectations), being subject to canon law re religious life or vows in ways lay persons are not, etc --- all of these and more are involved in what we call a “stable state of life” under canon 603.

One way of thinking of all of this is to understand that the vocation to consecrated eremitical life belongs more fundamentally to the Church than to the individual. The consecrated hermit lives eremitical life “in the name of the Church” who mediates God's consecration and thus she becomes a “Catholic hermit”. The Church discerns with but also admits to profession and consecration those she determines may have truly been graced with this call; she then mediates God's own call to the person in the Rite of Profession and she does so as an instance of the way the Holy Spirit is working in the life of the Church through this individual's vocation. The call is divine in origin but it is fundamentally ecclesial in nature. In other words, espousal to God (or consecration for that matter) is never an individualistic reality but ALWAYS shares in and reflects or images the more foundational and primary bridal identity and nature of the Church.

Personal espousal is thus always “derivative” in the way being a daughter or son of God in Christ is derivative. Christ is the only begotten Son and we are given a part or share of that identity in him within the Church. For instance, I and other c 603 hermits are espoused to Christ under c 603 (cf Rite of Religious Profession) and thus given a unique share and place in the Church's own espousal which we image in some way for the whole People of God. (That espousal, while real is ordinarily less explicit in terms of mission and charism than, for instance, the vocation of the consecrated virgin living in the world. Instead the hermit's charism is the silence of solitude and, while the two are profoundly bound together in her life, she is, I believe, called to witness to the silence of solitude more primarily than to espousal with Christ. In other words her espousal is revealed primarily in an ecclesial life of the silence of solitude while this eremitical charism is the gift she embraces on behalf of the Church whose espousal she thus shares and reflects.) If one wants to live eremitical life apart from specific ecclesial commitments and requirements then seeking consecration under canon 603 would not be the way to go.

It is true that a person with private vows is not initiated into the consecrated state of life. This means they are not espoused nor admitted to a stable state of life in the senses described above. Their commitment is entirely private and, while of course the person might never desire or decide to do so, they may walk away from their commitment at any time without in any way modifying or otherwise affecting their standing or various relationships in the Church; this is so precisely because there are no attendant ecclesial rights, obligations or expectations, no canonical standing --- beyond that associated with baptism itself --- neither is there ecclesial discernment or validation of eremitism as a vocation nor does one represent or live the eremitical vocation “in the name of the Church.” All of this is part of what we mean when we say one's vows are private.

Some hermits, however, in imitation of the  desert Fathers and Mothers (who were lay persons), want to live eremitical life with a private vow or vows as an expression of the traditional and profound prophetic character of the eremitical vocation. Their reasons are good ones, their decision to live eremitical life via a private commitment can be inspiringly courageous, and their vocation can make real sense in these terms. Some of us choose (and are chosen) instead to live the traditional  prophetic character of the eremitical vocation in a public ecclesial vocation as part of the Church's own gift and call to witness to the radically countercultural Gospel --- not only for the Church's  own sake but for the sake of a needy world. There are significant pros and cons to both.

I hope this is helpful. If it raises more questions or failed to answer your own please get back to me.

More on the Roman Catholic Canon 603 versus the Anglican canon 14.3

[[Dear Sister, I understand you feel the Anglican Canon is inadequate to guide those living an eremitical life. Do you think maybe the Episcopal Church doesn't mean it to guide eremitical lives? Maybe they only wanted to allow for individual religious without the interference of others. Maybe their solitaries don't think of themselves as hermits or at least maybe this doesn't happen a lot.]] (Second set of questions included below.)

I don't really know what most Episcopalian solitaries think of themselves. However, besides the criticism by an Anglican solitary regarding 95 % of solitaries who misleadingly call themselves hermits that I referred to here before, I have read blogs by those who think of the terms solitary and hermit as synonyms. (See also the references to one Anglican solitary and an Orthodox solitary who disagree with the notion that the two terms are synonymous at the end of this question's response.)

Hermits and Solitaries as Synonymous:

One Episcopal solitary, for instance, in responding to the question, [[What is a Solitary?]]  writes, [[ A Solitary is the modern name for a Hermit. . . . They are monks and nuns who are under vows held by a bishop instead of the superior of a community, and they are professed to be single [religious] and not a part of a community. Since the married state is a form of community, Solitaries are, by definition, celibate.]]  In this passage I think it is clear that the author sees hermits simply as "single religious", that is religious who do not belong to a community.

Later, when asked how one received training as a solitary he responds that it is the novitiate (that is, in religious community) which is indispensable. When he notes that one may then decide that one is called to go in a solitary direction, there is absolutely nothing implied in the use of the term "solitary" besides being a religious who then goes apart from a community, nor that (once one has sufficient human formation in community of whatever kind) one can only be prepared for eremitical life in solitude itself. Even later he does write that a hermit needs to ALSO spend some significant time in solitude during formation but the sense given is that this is additional to the more critical novitiate and optional, not integral to the life of a hermit. Unfortunately, a hermit is defined by this solitary as a religious who is single, that is, not part of a community. (In fact, this blogger writes that hermits are professed to NOT belong to a community --- as though this negative criterion is the real point and content of their profession! He opines this means ANY community including a parish community and thus, in this way too he underscores the individualistic character of the Anglican vocation.)

Maggie Ross (Sister Martha Reeves), a well-known Anglican solitary and fine writer, writes somewhat similarly when she observes that we are all solitaries or that there is nothing particularly unusual about hermits. [[We have made everything about the church much too exotic and the solitary life is an extreme example of this. The solitary is saying, "everyone is a solitary; in that inner solitude is the kingdom of heaven; don't be afraid, behold." ]] While I agree completely that solitude is the most universal vocation in the sense that we are each and all of us irreducibly solitary in our historical existence and while I think we are pretty close together with regard to her comments on inner solitude, where we differ is in her application of the terms "a solitary" and hermit.

While we may all be solitary, not everyone is "a solitary" in the vocational sense. Neither are all of us called to be hermits nor can we all be called hermits despite the ontological or existential solitude that marks us or the inner solitude of our hearts.**  Nor is it the case then that hermits are common-place, or that eremitical life and solitariness itself are identical realities. A piece of the desert vocation of the hermit is certainly its witness to the ontological solitariness of human being and even more fundamentally it witnesses to the communion between (union of) God and human beings that constitutes the human person. Beyond this, however, it witnesses to the redemption that occurs when human aloneness or solitariness is completed by that communion and is thus transfigured into eremitical solitude; further, it does so in a life wholly dedicated to God in the silence of solitude --- something few are called to do with their lives. In this way especially, the hermit represents a special and relatively rare commission to participate in the ministry of reconciliation to which every Christian is called.

In these two cases it appears that Anglican usage treats the terms  solitary and hermit as synonyms. Sister Reeves also seems to agree with you that solitary life is one which is so autonomous that there should be no interference from hierarchy or the Church at large. Apparently she argues this to support the freedom of the "hermit" and the prophetic character of the vocation (which seems to mean the person is in a position to criticize the Church in various ways.) It does seem to be fairly individualistic in her conception --- and even adverting to the role of the Holy Spirit in such a life, critical as that is, does not really compel one to believe the Episcopalian model of solitary religious or eremitical life is other than individualistic. The way the two terms are collapsed into one another, whether one starts with ontological solitude as Sister Martha does, or with "single religious life" as Br Randy does, simply underscores that fact.

Ignorance of the Nature and Charism of Eremitical Life:

Even more startling to me are Br Randy's following comments. Despite identifying himself as a canonical hermit with more than ten years in perpetual vows and a number more in temporary vows he writes, [[I know absolutely nothing about what a hermit is and don't claim to. I have experience of what it is for me to live the life of a hermit, but no imperical (sic) knowledge. What I claim to believe may change from time to time.]] How can this be the case? How can, even in what may really be a confusing nod to Apophatic theology, a publicly professed, or canonical hermit claim to know absolutely nothing about what a hermit is? From my perspective such a confession is genuinely stupefying. How, after all, can a person claim to be living as a hermit, be professed to live into this vocation more and more fully and yet have absolutely no idea what it means to BE a hermit? More troubling yet, how can a Church perpetually  profess someone in this situation --- or not dispense their vows if, over such a significant period of time, this is the confession the person is forced to make??

It is one thing to say, "I know in general what a hermit is; I know what this vocation expects of me and what I am professed to live and I both grow in and fall short of this vision every day of my life." It is another to say, "I have absolutely no idea what a hermit is!" Even the confession of having fallen short of one's profession depends on one knowing what it means to BE what one is professed to be! Imagine that a priest (or a candidate for ordination!) said this about his vocation. Would we ordain him? For that matter, what if I came to my Bishop, asked him to perpetually profess me as a solitary hermit under c 603 and then, as he asked me to discuss the gift this vocation would be to the church and world, I confessed I actually had no clue what a hermit actually was? Likewise, what if someone asked to be professed under canon 603 and, when asked about the canon she proposed to live her life by, showed no sense of ever having read it, much less having allowed it to define and shape her entire life! In this confession the author not only underscores the completely individualistic nature of his vocation but, in something I find even more troubling, he seems especially unaware of the charismatic nature of the eremitical vocation. What I mean is there is simply no indication in his comments that he possesses an understanding or appreciation of the very specific gift of the Holy Spirit this calling is to the Church whose mission is to proclaim the Gospel to our contemporary world.

At the very least I think we have to conclude the Anglican canon #14 is not generally used to profess individuals who have experienced and can actually witness to the gift (charisma) or specific gift quality (charism) of eremitical life. That is especially true if, as I argue often here, the charism of eremitical life is "the silence of solitude". There is evidence that generally the Anglican (Episcopal) Church treats the term hermit as a synonym for solitary and even for "single (non communal) religious". As such they build a basic misunderstanding into their use of Canon 14 to profess lone individuals as "hermits." In a world where exaggerated individualism is a critical problem that betrays the very nature of humanity, this basic misunderstanding is a correlative betrayal of eremitical life's witness to a solitude defined in terms of personal completion and rest achieved in union with God alone. Such a solitude differs radically from individualism or individual isolation. If this skewed portrait is NOT the vision of eremitical life they wish canon 14.3 to govern it does seem to me they are failing to provide a normative vision which would serve them better. As I understand the situation there is no other canon (norm) which does provide such a vision.

(I find the posts of one Anglican religious solitary under c14 refreshing here. Amma Sue, the author of the blog www.singleconsecratedlife-anglican.org is such a solitary and is very clear that she is not a hermit while she writes some about the "qualitative distinction" between herself and hermits. (She claims to quote me in this article but to be honest, except for the term "silence of solitude," and a reference to solitude as communion, I don't find my own words in what she writes.) She is cited in the exceptional blog City Desert (cf CityDesert on Solitary religious Life ). CityDesert (named after the classic by Derwas Chitty) focuses on solitary life in its variety of forms, especially as these are translated into contemporary situations and terms, and is always a wealth of information. Its author is a priest in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition who lives as an urban solitary in a city in Australia)

[[Should the Roman Catholic Church add a canon like the Anglican Church? Do you think it's a good idea to have [single] religious? I am thinking that if the RCC did this we could increase vocations and also those who don't feel called to eremitical solitude could still be professed.]]

One thing I think should be clear. When the Roman Catholic Church establishes a vocation to the consecrated life she does so because she has recognized a way of living which is a specific and significant gift of the Holy Spirit. A charism is the result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit meeting the needs of the contemporary world. When these two dimensions intersect, individuals may recognize that their own lives replicate the same needs and the same inspiration. Alternately, a person may perceive that their own gifts and talents are such that they may help the Church mediate the Spirit's Presence in ways which heal and transform the world into one shot through with the presence of God. In other words, these individuals recognize they are called to embody this specific charism (or gift) in ways the world urgently needs it. At times the Church re-establishes vocations or specifies them as states of perfection because of their value in proclaiming the Gospel in the contemporary world. She does not do so otherwise.

Remember that when the Church reprised the eremitical vocation and decided to admit solitary hermits to public vows and the consecrated state she did so in part because at Vatican Council II Bishop Remi de Roo published an intervention listing about a half dozen positive reasons for doing so, a half dozen ways in which the vocation represented the work of the Holy Spirit and was a gift to the Church and world. When the Church and her hermits look at the individualism rampant in the world or the growing isolation of so many elderly, bereaved, chronically ill, etc, they are also able to see that hermits (those who live the charism of the silence of solitude and the rest of the vision of c 603) speak to these persons with a particular vividness. They proclaim the redemption of isolation and its transformation into solitude in Christ.

Similarly, when the Church reprised the vocation of Consecrated Virgins living in the world she did so in part as a reflection of a newer (and more Biblical)  eschatology where heaven and earth interpenetrated more and more, where secular vocations were being re-valued, and where there was a serious need for a vocation of eschatological or consecrated secularity which reflected all this in ways religious life per se could not. Thus, the Church did not ask CV's to make religious vows which distanced them from or qualified their relationship with the secular world in significant ways. Instead she consecrated them as Brides of Christ and icons of the whole Church; she consecrated them to embody the relationship with Christ every person is ultimately called to, but commissioned them to do so here and now in every possible way and arena, i.e., "in the things of the world and the things of the spirit." Likewise, in a world whose nearly entire approach to sexuality involves its trivialization and profanation, CVs living in the world are called to be a witness to a counter-cultural reality in which sex is held to be sacred (and even sacramental) and the whole person is to be given to Christ for the sake of others. 

While both eremitism and consecrated virginity are ancient vocations the Church did not restore them for this reason alone, nor because, relatively speaking, a few people felt called to them. She did so because they represented gifts of the Holy Spirit which spoke powerfully to the needs of our contemporary Church and world. This is the way the Church always determines authentic vocations. Numbers per se are not the issue nor are the private vocational senses of individuals. Discernment of ecclesial vocations is always a mutual matter with both the Church and the candidate discerning such a vocation and this mutual discernment always includes an assessment of the charismatic significance and impact of the vocation.

Therefore, to answer your questions, unless the Church determines "single religious" (who are non-eremitical) represent a similar vocation representing a significant charism, there is no reason to think the Church should or will establish it canonically. Since canon 14.3, seems, in a clearly individualistic impulse, to be merely meant to create "single religious" with no necessary commitments to others in community, no intrinsic, much less defining sense of ecclesial responsibility or relatedness ("a solitary is professed to NOT be part of any community including a parish community"), and no sense of living a very specific and specifically valuable gift of the Holy Spirit either, I would argue that this is not an example the Roman Catholic Church would want or feel much drawn to follow.

** Sister Martha has apparently been questioned about this position that we are each "a solitary". She also wrote at another point in her blog, [[I have, for a long time, been saying that 'we are all solitaries'. And this is true: communities of all kinds are only as healthy as the solitudes that make them up; and those solitudes have the responsibility to the community to do the work that will help them to be spiritually mature. But that does not mean that everyone who likes their solitude should take vows. You can be ihidaye, have singleness of heart, within a marriage, community, and even alone in the woods. It does not mean you are 'a solitary' or should or, more importantly, could, from an eremitical point of view, make vows.]] I believe Sister Martha is right here and should retain the vocabulary of solitudes v solitaries. We are all existential "solitudes" --- a philosophical term reflecting our ontic state, but only some of us are solitaries --- a religious term which can include hermits, anchorites, and recluses.

On Symbols and Ongoing Mediation of Ecclesial Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was intrigued by something you wrote recently about the mediation of one's vocation to the consecrated state. You said that the mediation is a continuing reality and that this is linked to the reason we call such vocations "ecclesial." I couldn't cut and paste the passage but maybe you can do that for me? What I was wondering was whether you might say a little more about this? It is a new idea that my legitimate superior might play a part in the continuing mediation of my vocation and since I don't wear a habit I wonder how that applies. I believe I can see some of this now that you say it but I was hoping you would explain more fully. How are you using the term symbol? It must be in a more active sense than I am used to. Thanks for considering my questions.]]

Thanks, Sister, for your questions. Here is the passage you referred to:

[[ The bottom line in all of this is that initiation into the consecrated state is always a mediated event. Someone intentionally acting "in the name of the Church" admits a person to and mediates this consecration. Further, mediation of one's life in this state is a continuing reality with both liturgical and canonical dimensions. It extends not only to the mutual discernment of the vocation and the formal, liturgical mediation of the call itself by the Bishop at the time of definitive profession, but also to the extension of rights and obligations as well as to the legitimate relationships established to govern and supervise the vocation. All of these things participate in the continuing mediation of God's call to the person and the person's continuing response to and embodiment of this vocation.

This is precisely why such vocations are called ecclesial. At every point the individual lives the charismatic aspect of her vocation in light of the Church's own liturgical and canonical mediation and governance. Similarly, it is this dynamic covenantal relationship that constitutes the "stable state of life" one enters upon definitive profession and consecration. The hermit's Rule is the pre-eminent symbol of all of this but there are other symbols as well, legitimate superiors, religious garb and prayer garment, title and post-nomial initials. All of these point to a stable state of life which is dependent upon the Church's own continuing mediation. All of these participate in the mediation of this vocation, in differing ways and to greater and lesser degrees.]] (cf. If Vows are not Legitimate are they Illegitimate?)

My ideas here are based first on the sense that a vocation, even when we say yes to it in a definitive act (perpetual or solemn profession) is something we must say yes to every day. Secondly it is based on the ecclesial nature of the vocation to the consecrated state and the stable structures and relationships intrinsic to it. I think the bottom line is that every vocation is a living reality at whose heart is the living God and our response to that God. The relationships involved must be renewed ---offered and accepted anew every day. Even in prayer this is often an ecclesially mediated relationship.                                      

I have become more sensitive to the dynamic involved as I have dealt with several isolated lay hermits who live without any Rule, supervision, or oversight, and no real relationship to the Church beyond the fact of their baptism. (Claiming to live at the heart of the Church despite never attending Mass, having no relationship to the local Church and living an isolated life one simply calls "being a hermit" is to claim a destructive fiction which betrays one's baptismal vows and covenant; moreover it mistakes individualist isolation for eremitical solitude.) I have also become more sensitive to the reality of the continuing mediation of my vocation because of 1) my own work with my delegate and 2) the sense of responsibility (the call to respond) I have to my parish, both directly (as part of this community) and indirectly (as a hermit in their midst). I believe that a number of members of the parish perceive whether more or less obscurely, they are a part of this continuing mediation. Certainly my pastor does. In any case what has become clearer and clearer to me is that my own vocational call continues to be mediated to me via a variety of stable ecclesial structures and relationships.

While you undoubtedly know the experience of hearing God's call in a definitive way and having said a definitive yes to God's call in your perpetual or solemn profession, I am sure you also experience the need for an ongoing recommitment daily, weekly, annually at retreat, etc. But this is not a recommitment to an abstract idea of "vocation". It is the recommitment to the living God mediated to us in prayer, Liturgy, Scripture, and the stable relationships of our state of life. I did and do not commit to an abstract notion of eremitical life so much as I commit to the God who calls me to meet, remain with, love and be loved by him in the silence of solitude. Secondarily I commit to honoring and representing as honestly as I can a living tradition which is the Christian eremitical tradition. The opportunities for saying yes again and again are innumerable. But consider that there are certain privileged ways in which the invitation to say yes to God's specific call and thus, to his setting you or myself apart for service in the consecrated state of life occurs regularly in our lives.

Rule and Delegate (or Legitimate Superiors):

In my own life it is my Rule of Life that serves this function most explicitly almost every day of my life, but especially as I make decisions about variations in my horarium or whether to do x or y at my parish. It is rarely far from my mind as I write about this vocation or reflect on the terms of the canon (603), but the idea here is that it is a symbol of the life I have said yes to, a symbol of what has been life giving to me even before I wrote the Rule, and a symbol of the life the Church of Oakland commissioned me to live and the Bishop of Oakland approved with a Decree of Approval.

My Rule is a deeply personal document because it was my own work reflecting years of growth, study, and life in solitude, but it is also now an ecclesial document that marks my life as one of covenant with God as well as with and through my Diocese and the Universal Church. It is a living document which challenges, consoles, encourages, and empowers. Because it includes the episcopal (Bishop's) Decree of Approval it participates in the Church's own commission to me (and her prayer that it will assist me) to live the eremitical life well. In all of those things it mediates God's own call to me and invites my response. In all of these ways and more it mediates God's own Spirit to me.

Something similar happens with meetings with my delegate, or with my Bishop. In meetings with my delegate especially as we explore how I am living my life, problems that may occur, shifts in my understanding of the terms of the Canon or my Rule, and much more. Each meeting involves my own getting in touch with what I am called and consecrated to live; it gives me a chance to look at the overall pattern of my commitment to this life and to renew that. I genuinely feel that the vocation is extended to me in a fresh way during these meetings and that I answer that call in a significant way. Since my delegate serves both me and the diocese as my superior (or "quasi-superior") her role is an ecclesial one and it is not hard to see meetings with her as an expression and renewal of the covenant relationship between myself and the Church. These are not formal meetings, there is no liturgical element (though sometimes we have dinner together), but they do indeed continue to mediate call and response to an ecclesial vocation.

I would bet you that were I to discuss the matter with my delegate she would describe a sense of being responsible for the continuing mediation of God's call to me and my response to that call. I suspect that every person in the role of superior realizes to some extent that their governance is a piece of the mediation of ecclesial vocations. I suspect that most of the time the verb "to mediate" or the noun "mediation" are not the language used but however we speak of the active participation in the nurturing, protection, and governance of vocations to the consecrated state the idea is the same: we participate in the continuing mediation of call and response whenever we participate obediently (attentively and responsively) in the legitimate relationships which are part of life in a stable state of life.

On Habits and Other Clothes as Mediatory Symbols:

In fact, something similar happens every time I get dressed --- or when I put on my cowl (prayer garment) whether in the hermitage or in Church --- though to a much lesser extent. There is a renewal of what is very specifically an ecclesial vocation, an ecclesial identity. You may not wear a habit but I will bet you and your congregation made a conscious decision about what you do wear and that it reflects your own commitment to ministerial religious life, your own commitment to remind people of the vocational dignity of the laity, and to your own accessibility to the folks you encounter. My clothes (generally speaking!) are a symbol of what I have been called to, whether monastic or specifically eremitical. To put them on is to remind myself that what I live I live in the name of the Church. It is to accept anew my part in the covenant made with the Church at consecration --- at least when I am attentive to its potential and significance.

Yours may well also be a symbol of your ecclesial vocation, though not a symbol most people will automatically recognize or understand in this way. After all, as noted below, symbols are born, and this birthing may take time. It seems to me that they may certainly function in this way for you and for many ministerial Sisters. (I admit I have mainly thought about this with regard to the habit so accept these ideas as entirely  tentative.) Your own clothes generally reflect the values of your congregation, the values you personally affirm and live as a vowed ministerial Sister. What I am saying is that every time you consider what you are wearing and why you are doing so, your own commitment is (or at least may well be) renewed and the clothes can be the mediatory symbol which empowers this. Consecrated Virgins living in the World are specifically called to wear secular clothes rather than a habit. This is an explicit part of their ecclesial vocation and covenant: it can be a profound symbol of the very essence of their call and response to consecrated or eschatological secularity and can be a means for the continuing mediation of that call and response. Through this way of dressing, especially in its modesty and simplicity, the Church's own life and holiness further interpenetrates everyday life and the sacred transforms the profane.

Symbols:

When I speak of symbols I mean what Paul Tillich meant by them, namely, mediatory realities which participate in the very things which they mediate. They are much more than signs because signs only signify something by virtue of common agreement. Symbols are living realities which are born and can die. Moreover, as Tillich writes: [[ A symbol has truth: it is adequate to the revelation it expresses. [Here we might think of bread or wine being an adequate symbol to convey a nourishing reality or communion.] A symbol is true: it is the expression of a true revelation. [Here we can think of Bread and Wine being a new expression or embodiment of the Risen Christ.]] (It is important to remember that the term revelation means both "making known" and "making real" in space and time! This corresponds, I think, to the two senses of symbol Tillich speaks about.) Or again, Tillich writes, [[Religious symbols are double edged. They are directed toward the infinite which they symbolize and toward the finite through which they symbolize it. . .They open the divine for the human and the human for the divine.]] and finally, [[A religious symbol can die only if the correlation of which it is an adequate expression dies. This occurs whenever the revelatory situation changes and former symbols become obsolete.]]  (ST I:240)

Catholics often object to calling Eucharistic bread and wine "symbols" but really, in the way some first rate Protestant and Catholic theologians use the term "symbol," they mean bread and wine which participates in the Divine reality they mediate to us. These things ARE Jesus Christ himself; they are the way we meet and take him into ourselves. They are not merely a sign of Jesus' gift of self or love, they are a living reality which mediates Jesus' very self to us. We rightly respond "Amen" when presented with the affirmation, "the Body/Blood of Christ." This is one of the truly privileged ways --- even the most privileged way --- the Risen Christ is embodied in our world.  (N. B., Let me be clear, I am not attempting to convey an adequate theology of Eucharist here, nor am I saying the term symbol says everything Catholic theology says about the Real Presence --- though it is far more powerfully expressive of the heart of this theology than most Catholics actually understand; I am merely trying to speak of the proper way we ought to understand the idea of a symbol.)