Followup on Vocations and the Will of God

[[Dear Sister Laurel, many thanks for answering my questions on canon 603 and vocations generally. Did you mean that your sense of a deeper call (to authentic humanity) made it easier to handle the loss of concrete pathways? For example, what happens to women who feel called to preach or minister as an ordained priest but have to settle for something else? Would the theology you outlined in your last post ease their pain at being barred from the priesthood?]]

Great questions, thank you again! Yes, my sense that vocation first of all means a call to authentic humanity does make it possible to deal well with the loss of specific pathways. However, that does not mean it does away with the pain of loss, and especially not with the pain of being deprived of a vocational pathway that one desired deeply even to the point of knowing it as a call from God. It is more the case, at least in my own experience, that deep joy combines with pain; the pain adds a kind of poignancy to the joy one feels and the awe that comes from the sense of God's will being done in spite of difficulties and obstacles.

I suppose this is one of the places I am caused to reflect on the passion narratives and Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane; it is also one of the places this narrative is most consoling to me. I hear Jesus praying that he wishes the will of God could be realized in some other way, that surely it could shape itself differently than the events that stand in front of him now, and even (perhaps) that the events overtaking him are unjust and ensure the failure of his ministry as well as causing terrible pain to those who love him. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom with his life and he did that unceasingly. During the years of active ministry he had to reappropriate Israel's sense of who God's Messiah would be, how that messiahship would be shaped and what it would look like in the face of historical circumstances and oppression. Again and again the reshaping, both in Jesus' understanding and as he embodied this call himself, took the form of weakness and self-emptying; now in these final hours this weakness and self-emptying would reach its climax in abject helplessness, pain, shame, and an even deeper degree of openness to God's will.

Specifically, with regard to reflections on vocation what strikes me most about the Gethsemane situation and prayer is the profoundness of the apparent conflict between what Jesus dreamt of and deeply desired and what he commits himself to in spite of not seeing clearly what God is doing in it all. I wonder that Jesus did not see historical circumstances preventing God's will from being done -- but clearly he did not see things that way. I wonder that Jesus did not say, "Abba, how can any of this be your will??!!" but again, he did not say this. Instead, he placed himself in God's hands and walked resolutely into the future trusting that ultimately even abandonment by God and godless death could, in fact, be (or at least serve) the will of God and the way God does justice. For me one lesson of all this is God works at levels deeper, more profound than what we can ordinarily see. Moreover God reveals Godself in the unexpected and even the "unacceptable" place -- something we all should hold fast to when we see our lives going "askew" in this way and that.

Regarding women who feel a call to the priesthood, for instance, but are frustrated in this for the whole of their lives, no I don't think this theology takes away the pain of this; it may even sharpen it in some ways. However, I do think it provides the means to move forward with real hope in spite of the fact that historical circumstances can actually thwart God's will in some ways while we hold onto the fact that simultaneously God can and does operate in even more profound ways to achieve his will. As I was reminded last night during a class on Galatians, that freedom can be expressed in negative and in positive terms: we can be free from things and free for them. Sometimes these two forms of freedom co-exist on the same level: we must be free from certain things if we are to be free for other things. But sometimes they exist on different levels so that despite certain unfreedoms we can yet be free for deeper and more fundamental freedoms.

Here too I am reminded of the Bonhoeffer quote I have used here a number of times: [[ Not everything that happens is the will of God, but inevitably nothing that occurs happens outside the will of God.]] This may not ease pain, but it does create hope and opens us to experiences of fulfillment,  joy, and awe which can co-exist with and even contextualize the pain.

Requirements for c 603 Vocations; Vocations vs Vocational Pathways

 [[Sister Laurel, does Canon Law say a hermit has to be at least 30 years old? I saw that on a video along with the idea that a hermit doesn't need to have a Mass for profession; they can have a service and use some kind of sign (like a crucifix) or something. I couldn't find these in Canon Law (or the Catechism) but I am not a canonist. Are there other requirements for eremitical life in canon law?. . . Also, I wondered about the idea that God gives a vocation to every person. Are you saying when you write about ecclesial vocations, that sometimes vocations are not simply given by God directly to the person?

I am asking because if the Church says someone is not called to be a consecrated hermit does this mean God has not given the person a vocation at all? I believe that God calls every person and I think I understand what you mean when you say the discernment must be mutual but when the Church discerns a person does not have a given vocation don't these two things conflict? What I mean here is how can God call us to one thing if it depends on the Church saying yes, they agree we are called to this? When the Church makes a mistake and says, "no, we disagree" do we still have our vocation or do we need to accept we have no vocation? Thanks!!]]

Requirements for Consecrated (canonical) Eremitical Life:

Well, I am not a canonist either but I can say that neither of these things is located in canon law in relation to eremitical life (c 603). Public professions (especially final or solemn professions) are rightly celebrated at Mass according to the Rite of Profession for Religious. The Church considers Mass the exactly right place for such an important celebration of life commitments. She doesn't specify this with regard to eremitical life per se because it is well known and understood as a general principle in a Church whose highest spiritual aspirations are most clearly embodied and celebrated in the Eucharist. As for the age requirement canon law says nothing about this except that those being accepted by religious congregations for entrance must have completed their 17th year. I assume this is the legal requirement for c 603 as well; however, at the same time it is pretty well understood that eremitical life is a second half of life vocation. Thus, while canon law does not provide age requirements for c 603, a young person seeking to become a hermit would do better to join an eremitical or semi-eremitical community where they can get the assistance, and direct supervision, modeling, mentoring, etc any neophyte to religious life requires. Dioceses are apt to reflect this insight in their own praxis.

Neither does canon law or the Catechism for that matter say what garb or symbols can be used. With profession the hermit may receive a Breviary, habit, prayer garment (cowl for perpetual profession), ring, crucifix, scapular, or some other symbol of the life. Any of these might well be received at Mass. Some are appropriately given at temporary profession while some symbols (the cowl or ring, for instance)  are appropriate only with perpetual or solemn profession. By the way, because c 603 hermits are diocesan and solitary rather than members of a congregation, it is entirely inappropriate for a hermit under canon 603 to assume the name Carmelite, Franciscan, Dominican or other canonical Order or the initials associated with these, or to use a proprietary habit for a recognized canonical Order or congregation. Bishops cannot grant such proprietary habits to the hermit nor can they allow them to be assumed by a hermit in the diocese.

Excursus on the Right to Wear Proprietary Habits:

Excursus: The right to wear proprietary habits, which are associated with the specific congregation's charism, founder, etc. can only be granted by the Order/congregation themselves. Since they have the right (and obligation) to discern who is truly called to their community and who, with formation and "testing", can identify themselves as Franciscan, Carmelite, Camaldolese, etc (which means they act in the name of the Church  and the Franciscan, Carmelite, Camaldolese Order/congregation, etc.,) so too do they have the sole right to determine who will be garbed in their habit. It is deeply arrogant (and perhaps equally ignorant since those who do this generally do so out of naiveté) for a hermit who is unformed in a particular charism and spiritual tradition and not clothed by the Church (the Order itself) in a proprietary habit to assume the habit associated with that tradition. End Excursus.

Other Requirements for Admission to Consecrated Life:

The other requirements for admission to consecrated life (including eremitical life) include: one "not be bound by vows of matrimony [this would include vows followed by civil divorce but without a decree of nullity], not already be a member of another institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life and not be under the influence of force, grave fear, or malice." (As noted in another post, "malice" may include lying about some aspect of one's life which is critical to living an eremitical life.) Dioceses can probably set guidelines for their hermits, especially for what regular program of discernment, and formation they will follow along with the assistance of diocesan personnel. Certainly there will be things needed to find a person suitable to even pursue a process of discernment and formation as a diocesan hermit; these can be determined on a case by case basis simply because certain things may look different given differing contexts in each life.

For instance, a serious chronic illness may be a sign that God has called a person to the silence of solitude of eremitical life; for another person the very same chronic illness might be a sign (when seen within the context of their entire life) that eremitical life is escapist, isolationist, and/or otherwise imprudent for that person. The diocese has the right to make the best discernment they can make in each case even when these requirements are not canonical.

When our own Discernment and the Church's Discernment Conflict:

Your last comments and questions about vocation are very fine. And yes, I think you do understand the very difficult notion of mutual discernment and the mediation of a vocation by the Church herself.  If God gives every person a vocation and if some vocations are ecclesial, how are we to understand the experience of feeling called to a particular vocation when the Church says no? There are only a couple of possibilities: 1) the person's sense of call is somehow mistaken, or 2) the Church is mistaken in her judgment that someone is not called to a specific ecclesial vocation. As you identify with your questions it is the implications of these mistakes a theology of vocation must address. For instance, if a person or the church is mistaken in their discernment and judgment can the person "miss" or even lose her vocation? Is she condemned to forever feeling she cannot be what/who God calls her to be? While I completely understand the tremendous pain of having the Church decide one is not called to an ecclesial vocation I think it is important we remember that, 3) our truest or deepest vocations are even more profound and more lasting than the concrete paths which lead to the fulfillment of these vocations -- including the paths constituted by ecclesial vocations.

I recently had occasion to say to someone that 1) it was possible to be prevented from embracing a vocation one felt called to because the Church does not concur that one is, or even can be, truly called to it, but that, 2) at the same time God's will can still be done. How can this be? This paradox is true because God does not, first of all, call us only to one vocational path but to something much more fundamental and transcendent, namely, authentic humanity. If pathways are closed to us for some reason does this mean we cannot achieve authentic humanity? No, of course not, because God continues to call us --- not necessarily to the pathway that is closed to us but to humanity nonetheless. Our own faithful and creative response to God's continued creative summoning results in new pathways opening to us in which our deepest or truest vocation may be fulfilled. At every moment we are meant to discover the ways open to us through which we may become truly human. What I know from my own experience is that there have been any number of pathways to this which were closed to me for one reason and another. When I look back at each of them I know that each could have been a way I could have achieved the fullness of authentic humanity and I desired them profoundly --- even as they closed to me; at the same time I know that other pathways opened up to me as I responded to God's summons in spite of these closing pathways.

Eventually eremitical life opened as an undreamt of possibility to me and then --- with some long-term obstacles or difficulties conditioning my response -- consecrated eremitical life. At each point in my journey I had to let go of some pathways I had thought were definitive of who I was called to be. Sometimes these pathways were linked to elements in my life which were then relativized; these elements remained dimensions of my life but no longer were (or could be) the focus or the main way to fulfillment as other dimensions of my life assumed greater (or at least clearer) importance. Through it all, the times of loss, rediscovery, new discoveries and new creation by God, the call to be myself in the Gospel of Jesus Christ remained. I learned to respond to that call with the best pathway open to me at the time.

And  eventually I also discovered that throughout this long journey of loss, rediscovery, and reappropriation, that nothing at all was truly lost, that each pathway (no matter how far it took me or in whatever way it stayed with me or was left behind) carried me further towards authentic humanity. It is as though my life was composed of a number of major pieces (music, violin, theology, love of language, prayer, Jesus Christ, teaching, chronic illness, the desire to serve, the felt desire for religious life, etc) which could be combined in innumerable ways but the framework of the "puzzle picture" was the call to authentic humanity. At one point in my life violin dominated and controlled the way the puzzle pieces came together, at another teaching, at another apostolic religious life (with a view toward teaching!); theology became a pedal tone underlying everything when it wasn't the dominant focus or melody itself, and throughout the whole of my adult life chronic illness was either a dominant tone or a piece of everything, etc. Now, 50 years after I first entered religious life, though chronic illness remained a defining element, and though my life came to look nothing like I had pictured it through the decades, I recognize my deepest self in this eremitical call and see clearly how each of the central elements of all those various pictures is still present and has shaped my response to God and the call to be myself!!  God is faithful and calls us to ourselves no matter the apparent obstacles. All things work for good for those who love God.

Summary on Vocation versus vocational pathways:

Again, my answer is that no, we do not ever lose our most fundamental vocation. We can resist it, lose sight of it, even reject it, but nonetheless God continues to call us and this call is creative. If we are faithful to this call even as various pathways don't work out or are closed to us, God's will can and will still be done. But it is important to remember that God is primarily concerned with us as persons and not with abstract vocations.  Each of those possible pathways may have felt like they were also God's one and only will for us, but God's will is both deeper and beyond the conditioning circumstances that shape our lives. We cannot continue to focus on a particular pathway (a specific puzzle piece) while missing the deeper call --- though we can hold the pathway as a possibility which may open to us in the future as we pursue our deepest calling to authentic humanity. We can miss a pathway; we can be deprived of a pathway by circumstances (including mistakes made by the church); but the vocation is held by God beyond all historical circumstances and is something that can be fulfilled in history so long as we too are obedient (attentive) to it and faithful to the creative love/summons of God.

Today I can say God worked my whole life to produce the heart of a hermit. I was amazed to discover that within the past three years. Every twist and turn in my life has been important in the graced formation of this heart. But to be honest I have to say it is also the heart of a teacher and (perhaps) a professional violinist; it is the heart of a contemplative and an apostolic religious, a hospital chaplain, spiritual director, theologian, and so forth. Some of those pathways were closed to me, but the love of music, learning and teaching, theology, Scripture, prayer and life with and in Christ lived for the sake of God and others, are the puzzle pieces which combine today to create my own unique eremitical life.

I know this response was long, but your questions are significant. I hope it is helpful.