Why isn't a Sense that God Consecrated One Enough for the Church?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, so why isn't it good enough for God to consecrate one? Why does there need to be a canon law with the Bishop consecrating the person? If someone has the sense that God consecrated them, why isn't that enough?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this several times quite recently and am not sure what else to say about the matter. I would ask you to check out the following posts and others under the labels ecclesial vocations or ecclesiality as well as canonical vs non-canonical vocations, etc: Follow-up, Who Can Live c 603? and Once Again on "Illegal" Hermits. In these posts and many others, I have focused on the distinction between ecclesial vocations and those that are not, why it is important for the Church herself to extend God's consecration to the hermit with an ecclesial vocation, what it means to belong to a stable state of life, and several other things including ministry of authority, sound spirituality, competent discernment and formation, etc. The only other dimensions I have not dealt with are that of potential self- deception and the problem of being unprepared for an authentic hermit life and perhaps incapable of living it well.

To claim one is consecrated by God in a private act may or may not be true or accurate. One may or may not have gotten it right and there is no way for the Church to verify it. (One can certainly examine the rite used and the intentions of the minister if there is paperwork to try and determine the reason for the rite. If it involved private vows, then there would be no consecration.) In any case, in the Roman Catholic Church, admission to Divine consecration requires initiation into a stable state of life where this gift of God can be verified, protected, nurtured, and governed. Because such a gift is NEVER for the individual alone, and because the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the individual, the Church establishes such vocations in law and provides for the structural elements I spoke of recently that will allow them to be lived as the Church understands they need to be lived out. The discernment of such vocations is mutual, involving both the individual and the church because they are ecclesial vocations. The Church is responsible for selecting and professing those with such vocations and God works through the Church via a second consecration beyond baptismal consecration. No one can validly claim God consecrated them in the RCC unless this Divine consecration is mediated to the individual through and in the hands of the diocesan bishop or, in communal religious vocations, in the hands of other legitimate superiors!

If someone insists otherwise, they are at least mistaken and perhaps even deluded in this matter. There is simply no such thing as private consecration in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, one may make private vows. Many people do! But this is not the same as consecration. Neither are private vows an act of profession. Profession is an act that includes one's dedication of oneself in avowal and the taking on of the canonical rights and obligations of a new state of life. In other words, it is a broader act than just the making of vows. Meanwhile, consecration is part of the entire rite of perpetual profession where the individual dedicates herself to God with a perpetual avowal, and God consecrates that individual as they take on the rights and obligations of this new state for the whole of their lives. 

 As I noted above, Divine consecration that is part of initiating one into the consecrated state of life is a gift of God entrusted to the Church and only then to the individual. Also, please note that this is not a matter of putting Divine consecration up against Episcopal consecration. These two belong together or there is no consecration. It is not that bishops consecrate if by that we mean they do this for some while God consecrates others! No!! God consecrates hermits, and God does so in the hands of his bishops (or other legitimate superiors when we are speaking of hermits in congregations). The Bishop is not a "stand-in" for God, as I heard it put recently. Rather, God works in and through the Church specifically in the person of the bishop by empowering him to mediate God's consecration of the individual.

Self-deception aside (somewhat), the greatest difficulty of asserting God has consecrated one privately, is that one may be completely unprepared for living out an eremitical vocation. They may not understand it and critically, they may not be able to negotiate the tension between the modern world and eremitical life that allows the hermit to be a gift to the contemporary Church and world. As I have said here many times, it takes time for both the individual and the Church to discern and form the vocations of solitary hermits. It takes probationary living out of the calling under the supervision of the Church while working with a competent spiritual director and continuing to discern. It takes study, collaboration, and deliberation; above all, it takes humility and docility. 

One must be able to be taught and consider that ultimately one really might have gotten things wrong. When someone continues to insist, "God consecrated me," apart from canon law, apart from a bishop's permission and entrusting of the vocation to one, or according to established Church structures and rites, and particularly when they do so while denigrating the need for these ecclesial elements and context or while banging on and on about how they are the ones to show dioceses and other hermits the true way hermit life is to be lived, they are unlikely to be showing either humility or docility. 

This is not the same as saying "I am convinced God is calling me to this vocation; I know it" and persisting in that even when a diocese is unwilling to profess one under this canon for the time being. One may be called to persevere in good conscience in such a situation and do this with an openness to be taught about why dioceses make the decisions they do.  In the meantime, perhaps one will also learn about ecclesial vocations and what one is proposing to take on and for whose sake!! Until and unless one does this, one is more an isolated person than a hermit. And that argues against one's having been consecrated by God (or called to this), not for it!

Follow-up to Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?

[[Sister Laurel, if a lay hermit insists c 603.2 applies to them because they were consecrated by God, how would you respond? I can see where none of the elements of c 603.2 apply to her situation except the term consecrated, but how should one respond to such an assertion?]] 

Thanks for your follow-up question. I am assuming the text of (your) first question, Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?), so folks should check that post if necessary. First, let me point out that the term used is consecrated life, not merely "consecrated" or even "consecration by God", so we are not merely speaking about a single event whether or not God did indeed consecrate the person. We are speaking about a stable state of life in which one is initiated not only by God but by the Church, to which (state of life) one is publicly committed, and in which one perseveres and thrives.  Divine Consecration is critical, of course, but the canon speaks of consecrated life (that is, a life at every moment witnessing to God's consecration in an ecclesial vocation) and the structural elements that constitute that "in law" in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Secondly, these structural elements involve those elements binding on both the individual and the larger Church itself. So first of all, the hermit makes a public profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop of the three Evangelical Counsels and is thus bound in law. In other words, this life is not a private one, hidden though it may be essentially. It is not anonymous. It is a canonical vocation with public (legal) rights and obligations the hermit takes on in the immediate presence of the bishop and the local Church. Such vocations are celebrated (mediated and received) for the sake of the Church's own life and holiness, not only for the sake of the individual hermit's life and growth in holiness. All this means the Church (the People of God) have the right to hold certain expectations of such a consecrated person. (Again, this is not a private dedication nor, generally speaking, is it one that allows the hermit to say, "No one needs to know I'm a hermit" as though no one has a right to know this!! Actually, in usual circumstances, people have every right to know that one is a Catholic Hermit because one is recognized in law in this way.)

Canon 603.2 continues by declaring that such a dedication is [[confirmed by vow or other sacred bond and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction]]. Again, these are essential elements pointing not only to the individual's most profound commitment to God made explicit in sacred bonds, Canon law, and Rule (proper law) she writes herself, but to the Church's acceptance of responsibility for this vocation. It includes mutual commitments on the part of the one consecrated and the Church mediating this consecration to live (or assist the person to live) this commitment under the Church's ministry of authority, both legal and moral. 

I suppose I would conclude this response by saying that a person arguing as you describe has made a critical error in focusing on the idea of being consecrated by God while suggesting she does indeed live c 603.2. Yes, Divine consecration is presupposed here, but that is not the focus of this section of the canon. What c 603.2 does is define the necessary structural elements for someone to be admitted to the consecrated life in an ecclesial vocation, that is, one established in law --- which is the only form of consecrated life the Church recognizes or gives her name to. Further, these essential elements include the concrete way the Church itself nurtures, protects, and governs such a life and gift of God. One cannot cut them out of the picture and still have c 603.2. So again, while such a hermit can live c 603.1, c 603.2 is a different matter.

Who can Live Canon 603 and in what sense?

[[Sister Laurel, can someone who is not professed under c 603 live the canon?]]

Thanks for writing! Because I believe the vision embodied in c 603 is normative of eremitical life in the church, my answer is yes, they can. At least, that is, the first section of the canon can be lived by any hermit in the church, no matter their canonical state or form of eremitical life. However, a non-canonical hermit and a canonical hermit in an institute of consecrated life would not live the second section of the canon. I recently cited that second section, but let me put the text of the entire canon up for you to see what I mean.

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance. 

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his supervision.

Members of institutes of consecrated life including those properly termed semi-eremitic, are canonical, but they do not fall under the second section of the canon. This is because their professions, consecrations, legitimate superiors, and canonical standing are rooted in other canons and the proper law of their institutes. Non-canonical hermits can fulfill all of the terms of c 603.1 but do not have standing in law as a hermit, nor do they live a "proper program of living" in a strict sense because in c 603.2 this means an approved Rule that serves as their own proper law that is lived under the supervision or direction of the local ordinary.

I've written this before but please note that "proper" in 603.2 is not a Britishism meaning "well or appropriately done" like when someone can make a "proper cuppa" tea for their guests. Proper in the c 603.2 sense refers to proper law and is approved, as an institute of consecrated life has approved constitutions and statutes that form their own proper law in addition to the requirements of universal or Canon law.  (The hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Decree of Approval and becomes legally binding on the day of profession.) On the other hand, any person could certainly write a Rule that serves as a vision of and means to live their own personal way of eremitical life. It would be considered proper to them alone even though it is not an officially approved Rule; it would just not meet the conditions of c 603.2, however.