Eschatological or Sacred Secularity: An invitation not to Respond

Therese Ivers has written a couple of posts contending with my arguments that the CV vocation for women living in the world represents a new and important form of secularity, namely an eschatological or sacred secularity the Church and world seriously and urgently needs. They may be found here: Secular Institutes and Sacred Secularity and here: Not Sacred Secularity! She has also asked that I not respond to those posts until she has more time to engage in a discussion of the matter. Fair enough. She is working hard on her dissertation, so I am not going to respond fully at this time; still, I do need to say she has either misunderstood or simply mischaracterized my position in significant ways. For that reason, perhaps it will help if I "outline" what I have already written and make explicit what I mistakenly thought was clear in my posts. 

1. My interest in CV's living in the world stemmed from a sense the vocation lacked substance and I found no one speaking of that substance, if it existed. Upon attending and/or writing about the consecration of friends I was embarrassed that all I could say about this vocation involved what it was not (not a Sister, no vows, no wearing of a habit, bishop is not the legitimate superior of -- you get the idea) and I was searching for better ways to say what this new and ancient vocation was about in the midst of all the things it was not. (By the way, I think the vocation's ancient quality might also be a key to understanding it as a significantly qualified form of secularity, because the early church did not yet neatly divide vocations into religious and secular; they lived in light of a fresh and compelling sense of eschatological secularity as a result in the Incarnation, Passion/Resurrection of the Lord, and resultant New Creation -- the now coming to be New Heaven and New Earth.)
2. I read an article by Sharon Holland, IHM suggesting CV's consecrated under canon 604 (I thought nuns were consecrated in this way under other norms) had a significant vocation which was secular. Because I was doing theology on Christ's transformation of the world in his passion, death and resurrection, and because "secular" has always been a kind of slur or reference to a second or even third-class vocation, the idea that the Church had chosen those living secular lives for consecration as Brides of Christ/CV's was exciting. More, Sister Sharon's article helped make a significant, if paradoxical, sense of a vocation I thought lacked "a job description" as I first put the matter, or a raison d'etre, as I might say today.
3. I also read the Rite of consecration and the homily associated with it and discovered a significant reference about virgins being "apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the spirit and the things of the world." (Sharon Holland, IHM had also referred to this significant characterization in her article.) This characterization clearly speaks of a secularity re the vocation (i.e., those CV's living in the world), but one now qualified by consecration. Because it reflects the new creation achieved in the death and resurrection of Jesus, a new creation where heaven has broken into our ordinary world, I called this eschatological secularity. Often I have used an alternative term, "sacred secularity," for this expression. Whichever term I have used, I am convinced of two things in its regard: 1) the CV vocation needs this secularity if it is to make sense and be influential for sake of the Gospel in our contemporary world, and 2) CV's, because they are not religious with the vows of religious, could serve the Church and world as genuine apostles of the Gospel if and only if they whole-heartedly embrace the witness to eschatological secularity our world needs so very urgently. (We don't think of them as instances of religious life-lite; this means they live a secularity but significantly qualified by their consecration.)
4. I have not been concerned with the nuns who receive the consecration of virgins (if they are going to receive this consecration they do so after solemn profession in which the usual prayer of consecration is not said; it is delayed and replaced by the prayer of consecration in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins during this celebration). Rightly, they receive only one form of consecration and of course, it is not to any form of secularity. Since they are essentially irrelevant to my position on eschatological secularity, I have mainly not included them in any reference to CV's or CV's living in the world.
5. I am concerned with understanding and perhaps providing the beginnings of a theology which allows the consecration of a woman living in the world to be a Bride of Christ to be theologically meaningful for the whole Church. I am concerned that without this the vocation will itself be irrelevant, elitist, and have no sense of mission or charism. (Until CV's themselves provide a theological apologia for their vocation which is relevant, prophetic, and truly ministerial or pastoral in some clear way, the consecration of women living in the world as Brides of Christ is a quaint, but anachronistic adaptation of a once-meaningful (!!!) vocation in the early Church.
6. At present there are two forms of the CV vocation, one secular in the significantly qualified way I have been speaking of, and the other religious. (Emphatically, these two forms are not religious and religious-lite!!!) I have generally only been speaking of the first. That is not the same thing as saying the CV vocation per se is secular. Thus, I have tried to be clear I am writing about women living in the world as CV's. Unless I specifically refer to nuns who receive this consecration, I am not including them in any references to sacred or eschatological secularity. (Again, since nuns were receiving the consecration before the Church promulgated c 604, I assumed they were not covered in canon 604 and would be able to be consecrated as CV's even had c 604 only spoken of the significantly qualified secularity I am mainly interested in.)
7. I recognize that the continuing admission of nuns to the consecration of virgins is a problem in several ways and I believe the solution would be to cease admitting nuns to this consecration. It is superfluous, confusing, and to some extent, anachronistic. However, again, my real concern is with the relevance and nature of the CV vocation for women living in the world and that is what I have been writing about. Therese appears to have missed that point, for whatever reason (perhaps I was unclear), and as a consequence, she significantly mischaracterizes my positions or affirmations in her blog posts.

The church has failed to honor secularity and secular vocations for too long but in reintroducing this truly ancient vocation she seems to me to have provided a means or occasion of developing an eschatological view of the world that does justice to the new creation achieved in the life, death, resurrection and ascension and the way heaven interpenetrates created reality. She could do this if CV's living in the world are seen as called to a significantly qualified secularity (though she could do it without them as well). Without CV's embracing and witnessing to this qualified secularity, however, it is the CVs' vocation that will suffer for the eschatological secularity is a new reality established by God in light of the cross. If the Consecrated Virgin living in the world does not witness to this new reality, and do so in particularly focused ways, she has to face a real danger of being irrelevant, powerless in terms of charism or mission, and anachronistic.

Entirely secondary to this is my interest in the question whether all religious women (and men) are brides of Christ or not. It is not a question for me. I know the answer, and my own experience. My Sisters in religion know the answer. (As one said about a month and a half ago, "Until I read your blog I didn't even know it was a question!!") The tradition is clear about this in many ways, and the Rite of Profession of Religious Women is clear about it as well; it leads to the application of the principle, [[As we pray, so do we believe. . .]] in this specific matter. If the promulgation of c 604 and the Rite of Consecration changed that, the Church will need to explicitly announce this, change her Rites of Profession -- at least for Religious Women, and develop a truly compelling apologia on why this shift has occurred and is valid and necessary. Even were she to do this it would be an uphill battle to have this teaching received by the whole church --- and reception would be necessary. 

While I am waiting to read Therese's yet unfinished and thus unpublished dissertation (which she "cautions" me to read in the posts linked below!), I should also note that one dissertation, no matter how compelling or brilliant, will not change the minds and hearts of all the faithful or of most religious women in this matter, nor will it compel the changes I have noted would be necessary (e.g., in the Rite of Profession of Women Religious). So, for the time being, I won't be responding to Therese's posts on this matter. However, since my own interest is in the Church's approach to secularism, and because I do have a concern with the coherence and genuine relevance of the struggling** consecrated virgin vocation for women living in the world, I will continue to answer questions and write about those topics. Recent posts on this matter include:  Are Consecrated Virgins Alone Brides of Christ? and On the Need for Serious Reflection

On my use of the word "struggling":

** I use the word struggling not because of numbers (those are up), but because of the lack of significant work on the vocation being done by CV's do not seem to be able to do much more than thump their breasts while proclaiming, [[I am a Bride of Christ, I am a Bride of Christ!!]] No one, so far as I know, is contending with this, and most of us want to celebrate with them. However, in parishes all over the world the response among clergy and the faithful to these assertions is something like, [[Okay. And. . .?]] or, [[Sure, if you say so. . . YAWN!]] Were such women to write about the witness of consecrated virginity and the paradigmatic womanliness associated with it in a world where sexuality is routinely trivialized and womanhood along with it, for instance, people might start perking up at the idea. Were they to embrace in a really wholehearted way the eschatological secularity CV's living in the world are called to witness to because their vocation effectively shows that heaven and earth now interpenetrate one another, the faithful might become downright excited by the vocation. But, so long as the accent is on proving and praising what sounds like the elitist identity of such women especially because it is thus coupled with depriving others of long established and cherished identifications, the vocation will continue to struggle not only for recognition among Catholics, but for real understanding and esteem.

That said, I believe the work of Therese Ivers (whom, again, I consider a friend --- at least when she is not taking gratuitous potshots at me on her blog!) is more nuanced than this in at least some ways because she builds on the idea that CV's are called to be Mothers of Souls. But again, if this descriptor is used in a way that attempts to deprive religious Sisters who have long mothered children and adults in every way one might think of but one, such a designation will be doomed to failure. Once again, in this matter too it is the eschatological secularity such a vocation would be associated with which would make such Mothering a unique charism or mission of CV's rather than an exclusive possession of the vocation.

A Note on Definitions and Misunderstandings:

(I suspect one thing that might help with misunderstandings is my defining pivotal terms more frequently than every few posts on this topic, particularly the word secular which is the adjectival form of the noun saeculum or age --- thus, for instance novum saeculum originally referred to the new age (and world) which was inaugurated by the Christ Event. I specifically identify an eschatological secularity with witness to this novum saeculum and the way heaven or eternity and our created world now interpenetrate one another. It is related to the at-least-potential sacramentality of our world and to the continuing Incarnation of God in our midst. For this reason, my usage differs in some ways from that which simply identifies the secular with the profane or simply counters secular with religious. But more about this when I also have time to write about this topic again.)

On the Paradox of Sacred Secularity in Canon 604 Vocations (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, by treating the vocation of the consecrated virgin as a secular vocation aren't you making it a part time, hidden vocation? If CV's are set apart by their consecration, doesn't it diminish the vocation to make it so strongly secular?]] (Originally asked in 2011)

Please note: in this and all references to eschatological or sacred secularity, or the CV vocation, I am referring to the application of c 604 to women "living in the world." I believe c 604 refers primarily or solely to these vocations when it speaks of forming associations, for instance. I am not speaking of nuns who receive this consecration in place of the consecration received at solemn profession unless I refer to them specifically.

Thanks for your question. I hope you have read what I wrote about paradoxical vocations because I would like to build on that in my answer. There are essentially two ways of looking at reality. The first is what I referred to as the Greek way of seeing. This way tends to distrust paradox and sees the elements involved in the situation as truly conflicting with one another. So, for instance, it would be impossible for a Greek (i.e, one who thinks in this way) to see how one could be truly divine to the extent one is truly human, or truly rich to the extent one lets go of worldly riches, or for someone's power to be perfected in weakness (except in terms of exploitation of that weakness!). This way would consider the beatitudes' sheer foolishness, an incarnate God ridiculous, a crucified messiah even more so, etc. Instead of paradox Greeks tend to think: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And so, they might see secularity as the thesis, consecration as the antithesis, and some form of balance or golden mean as the synthesis (and only reasonable alternative to insanity).

But Christians see things in terms of paradox, knowing that there is paradox at the heart of reality, at the heart of God's self-revelation, and at the heart of his revelation of the nature of human beings. We tend less to see reality in terms of thesis and antithesis as we do in terms of apparent conflict and deep identity (these two elements together comprise paradox). So too, we do not look for resolution in a synthesis which is expressed as some sort of golden mean, but instead in a truth which pushes both terms as far as one can to sharpen the apparent contradiction and assert (and hopefully reveal) their deep identity. Thus, it is possible for Christian theologians to speak of power perfected in weakness, life found in death, divinity revealed exhaustively in true humanity, meaning revealed in absurdity, sacred secularity, and so forth.

As I have noted before, I think the CV vocation for women living in the world is an essentially paradoxical one of sacred secularity, the call to be apostle in a way where one's consecration leavens (and sometimes, confronts!) the entire world of secular values, institutions, structures, relationships, etc. The word I used earlier was "thoroughgoingness." Nothing should be allowed to act as a barrier to this thoroughgoingness, but especially not one's consecration!! My point is the division of reality into sacred and profane is pre-Christian or other than Christian. With Christ, the veil between sacred and profane, temple and non-temple, even human (earthly) and divine (heavenly), was torn asunder. Such divisions are, in fact, a consequence of sin. Too often our approach to reality has forgotten this, and neglected the potentially sacramental character of all of the world. But Gaudium et Spes and Vatican II more generally recalled us to affirm these insights and the insight that every person was called to the same degree of holiness, even if the paths to this holiness differed.

It is not that the CV living in the world is hidden, but rather, that her presence is not marked out by exterior boundary lines and limits (as, for instance, is mine or that of other diocesan hermits who wear cowls, habits, and the like). I firmly believe her presence will be visible to the extent the spousal relationship she shares with Christ animates her being and ministry. Neither do I think that this can be a part time vocation, any more than I believe any public ecclesial vocation is a part time one. Dividing the vocation up into public worship and a completely private, personal spirituality would be a way of reinforcing the Greek disparity or dichotomous approach to reality. Seeing ALL that one does as potentially reflective of one's consecration and one's public vocation is what is called for for C 604 CV's, or anyone with a public ecclesial vocation.

I believe the Incarnation is the best model for understanding what I am trying to say. Jesus is Divine, but that Divinity is exhaustively expressed and revealed in his authentic humanity. If he becomes docetic (that is, if he merely seems to be truly human or is only partly human), then he also ceases to be truly divine as well (at least if we are talking about the real God here). Jesus has to be completely one in order to be wholly the other. It is a paradox which the Greeks could never accept, any more than they could accept a crucified (literally, a godless) God. An incarnate God, a God who participated exhaustively in every moment and mood of his own (now) sinful creation was ludicrous to the Greeks, and no real God at all; however, for Christians such a God proved and revealed his true divinity in precisely this way --- not in remaining remote or detached from this reality. Similarly, the CV living in the world is consecrated, but that consecration is proved and revealed precisely in the secularity of her vocation. Secularity does not detract from or diminish her vocation or consecration; it establishes the exhaustive (radical) nature and truth of it.

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.

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. 

More Questions on Terminology: Lay vs Secular Hermits, etc.

[[Hi Sister, I haven't heard before of a secular hermit but what was really confusing in the following was the distinction between secular and lay hermits. Can you help me here? [[There are two spiritual states involved in an authentic hermit life. One is the Secular state which is anyone walking down the street doing their thing, and the other is the Consecrated state, in which the Church officially recognizes with an individual that he or she is definitely sacred by God's action. These hermits enter into an official relationship with God and the Church by a dedicatory ceremony after lengthy examination of their life and spirituality according to the Law of Canon 603 in the Church's Canon Law. I will not go into what that entails as there is ample material and readily available to read.. . .I should draw a further distinction between the Secular spiritual state and the Lay spiritual state. The difference is in the expression of Vows or promises by a Secular person for the dedication and direction of their lives, by God. Such persons may even decide it is beneficial to draw up a Rule which is a written declaration by the individual of how he or she will live their lives and direct them toward their spiritual goal and ideals.]]  Lay Hermit Intercessor. (Emphasis added)

Let me first say that, whether I wholly agree with some of the points (or posts) on this blog or not, I generally recommend it as an example of an important urban lay eremitical vocation. The author is living a simple, and it seems to me, truly eremitical life as a lay person and we need more folks following Mr. Miller's example. Not least this is because the Church is likely to have a number of genuine eremitical vocations among the retired, chronically ill, and elderly. Pastors need to be open to encouraging such vocations. If you have a chance, please take a look at the photography Michael does. Some, especially some of birds and waterfowl, is truly stunning.

I would argue that, in the post you cited, the distinction between lay hermits and secular hermits is not valid (and is not used) for at least two reasons. First, if a hermit is not consecrated or ordained they are in the lay state and this is true whether they make private vows and/or write a Rule or not.  Secular is not one of the three states of life recognized in the Church. It is a context in relation to which one lives in either the consecrated, ordained, or lay states. Secondly then, today we use secular less in contrast with religious as we do to refer to the context or locus of ministry in one's life and the way in which that life is conditioned by the evangelical counsels. Saeculum refers to the everyday space -time world of relationships and labor. The conditioning reality that modifies or defines one's relationship to this everyday world is the (public) profession of the evangelical counsels.

Most lay persons are called to secular vocations, meaning they are called to work in the various structures of this world, participate in building the economy, create and nurture families, and exercise real influence and power in this world in all the legitimate ways that happens. Especially they are called to live the evangelical counsels but not in the way a religious defines these. When used in this way every hermit, whether in the lay, ordained, or consecrated states, and whether they have a Rule and vows or not, are called to something other than a secular life. This is what makes their vocations "desert" vocations.  If one is trying to distinguish themselves from being a lay hermit by calling themselves a secular hermit because they have private vows and a Rule, the attempt is equally invalid. There is, in this sense, no such thing as a secular hermit.

Remember that the original distinction between religious and secular or lay stemmed from the fact that religious, are, to some extent formally distanced from or live a modified or qualified relation to this world, this saeculum; this is so because their vows change the way they relate in terms of economics (poverty), family and relationships (celibate chastity), and power (obedience). While everyone is called to live the evangelical counsels, not everyone is called to live religious poverty, celibate chastity, or religious obedience (with legitimate superiors, etc). Moreover, one form of consecrated life is radically and paradoxically secular and that is Consecrated Virgins living in the World. These women are given to God in the things of the spirit and the things of the world in a particularly challenging and contemporary vocation. These women are in the consecrated state but are called to live that consecration in a radical form of eschatological secularity. This is certainly a place where contrasting "secular state" with "consecrated state" simply doesn't work. Today then, we mainly speak of three states of life: lay, consecrated, or ordained and then qualify them in terms of their relation to the saeculum.

By the way, I am not convinced it is accurate to speak of the consecrated "spiritual" state of life either (though of course it is the result of the action of the Holy Spirit on these persons and their lives). The consecrated state of life (just as is true in the lay or ordained states) encompasses the whole of a person's self and life and is a legal state as well. In any case, I have never seen the Church refer to the consecrated or lay "spiritual" states and don't expect to see this usage adopted by theologians, etc precisely because these states involve the whole person, body, soul, and spirit. Recalling the comments  just made regarding consecrated virgins living in the world, here is another place using the phrase "spiritual" state, as in "secular spiritual state" is particularly misleading.  Again, it is not merely a "spiritual state" but involves the whole of the person and her life.

Personally, though I understand what Mr. Miller means, I would also be careful of using the term "official", as in "these persons enter into an official relationship with the Church". Every baptized person has an "official relationship" with the Church. That is, no one is an "unofficial Catholic!" Every baptized person is a consecrated and commissioned member of the Body of Christ we call Church. The person in the consecrated state of life, on the other hand, accepts a new set of legitimate relationships and legal rights and obligations which bind them beyond their baptismal relationships, rights, obligations, and expectations. They exist in a differently graced state of life with new covenants and commissioning, canonical vows, legitimate superiors, and so forth. It would probably be better to say that, generally speaking, those in the consecrated state of life have a canonical relationship with the Church which differs from those in the lay state. This difference is enough to justify speaking of canonical and non-canonical hermits, for instance, just as we speak of lay and consecrated hermits.

Finally, I would be very cautious in speaking of the Church recognizing the consecrated person or individuals as sacred. It is true that strictly speaking the Church sees individuals called to the consecrated state of life as "sacred persons" and their vocations as divine or sacred vocations, but this does not necessarily imply personal sanctity. (This is why Thomas Aquinas took such care in his discussion of the distinction between objective and subjective superiority.) Especially, this usage can seem to or actually denigrate the profound and foundational consecration and re-creation associated with baptism.  After all, with the Sacraments of Initiation every baptized person becomes a new creation, a person made holy (authentically human) by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. Generally speaking, many religious today, eschew the phrase "sacred person" because if they are sacred persons, then this seems to mean that those who are not in the consecrated state of life are not sacred. I tend to speak instead of "differently graced" or of being "differently bound in law and differently commissioned" or something similar. Certainly, none of this is without problems, overlaps, obscurities, and potential conflicts between VII and older ways of thinking and speaking. The Church is still finding her way here precisely because what was done at Vatican II attempted to do justice to the nature and dignity of lay life, but in some ways Vatican II created loose ends and these remain more or less unresolved theologically.

Summary:

The bottom line here is the Church recognizes three states of life: lay, consecrated, and ordained. In each of these we can find those who live their lives in the midst of the saeculum with no public vows to qualify their relationship to the realms of relationships, power, and money. There are secular (diocesan) and religious priests, consecrated virgins who are religious (nuns in solemn vows) and those who are called to live an eschatological secularity under c 604 applied to women liuving in the world. Religious men and women have public vows which qualify their relationships to the realms of money, power, and relationships even if their ministry has them immersed in the saeculum. Hermits, by their very nature, are the exception here. Whether lay or consecrated and thus either privately vowed (or not) or publicly professed, hermits are, by definition, withdrawn from the world and cannot be considered "secular". We especially do not use the term secular hermit to distinguish between a lay hermit (a hermit in the lay state) with private vows and Rule and one without. As noted, in some ways this supposed distinction sounds like a way to argue one is no longer a lay person because one has made private vows. Private vows or no vows at all, such hermits are lay hermits. Again, the Church recognizes three states of life and secular is not one of these.

Related Question:

[[Sister Laurel, would you agree or disagree that the important distinction in hermits is between those who are privately professed and those who are publicly professed?]]

I agree that this can be seen as the most basic distinction, but it is also the case that one needs to be using the words "private" and "public" in the way the Church herself uses these. Similarly, one needs to be using the term "professed" as the Church does.

Namely, public vows are those which, 1) are associated with public rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism, 2) with the exceptions ** mentioned below, are the necessary way one is established in a new and stable state of life, namely, the consecrated and/or religious state, 3) are necessarily associated with religious life and are essential for one claiming to be a professed religious, 4) are associated with vocations lived in the name of the Church (one becomes a Catholic Religious, Catholic hermit, etc.), and 5) involve canonical relationships (legitimate superiors, an approved Rule and the legal and moral obligation to live one's Rule, etc.) which are meant to ensure the integrity of the vocation itself and one's vocational response. If one speaks of public vows ALL of these things are necessarily implied.

(**The exceptions referred to above are consecrated virginity and c 603: CV's make no vows but do make a significant commitment; c 603 hermits may use a form of commitment using "other sacred bonds". Both involve God's consecration of the person mediated through the ministry of the Church. It is in this way these persons enter the consecrated state.)

Meanwhile, private vows are those which 1) are not associated with public or canonical rights and obligations beyond baptism or whatever state the person is already in, 2) do not initiate or establish one in a new and stable state of life, 3) are not religious vows which, by definition, are public, 4) are not associated with public vocations lived in the name of the Church (one does not become a Catholic Hermit with private vows), and 5) are not associated with the establishment of canonical relationships meant to ensure the integrity of one's vocational response. (That is, they do not involve legitimate superiors, or legal obligations to live one's Rule, but they do involve the moral obligation to live one's Rule or Plan of Life.) If one identifies oneself as privately vowed ALL of these limitations or exclusions are necessarily implied.

So, in summary, yes, one can certainly assert that the one distinction that "matters" for a hermit is that between public and private vows so long as one is not trying to reduce or even trivialize the meaning of these terms to their more common senses of known and unknown to others or informal and formalized. In other words, if one asserts this is the only distinction that matters then one needs to explain why they are such significant terms in the life of the Church. Most of my efforts in speaking about this in the past has involved  "unpacking" the way the Church uses these terms to speak of non-canonical and canonical eremitical vocations and the significant but differing commitments and obligations associated with these.

Finally, it is important to note again that the term profession is used only with public vows and consecration, that is with vows which initiate one into a new canonical state of life with new rights and obligations. Otherwise one speaks of (making) private vows, or private dedication, but not private profession. That is a distinction your own question obscures --- though it is also, understandably, a very common error in usage.

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.)

Consecrated Virginity, Eschatological Secularity and the Descent and Ascent of the Bridegroom

[[Sister Laurel, when you talk about consecrated virginity as a form of eschatological secularity you are talking about it in terms of this same eschatology you have been explaining the Ascension in aren't you? The bridal imagery Jesus uses to explain the Ascension applies directly to this vocation then doesn't it? It is an icon of this new creation and this new heaven and earth the Scriptures talk about. Is that right? If that is the case then I understand better why you have insisted this is a "significantly qualified secularity" defined in terms of eschatology and consecration. It is not only that CV's are icons of something still to come but that they are icons of something already here; both consecration and secularity are essential dimensions of this. . . .]] (Paraphrase and transcription of part of a conversation I had with another Sister on this matter. It builds on the following article among others: Consecrated Virgins and the Interpenetration of Heaven and Earth)

Yes, exactly.  When I write about consecrated virginity lived in the world as a form of eschatological secularity I am specifically thinking of the ascended Jesus and his mediation of God into the world as well as his mediation of the saeculum or created world into God. The new heaven and new earth we look forward to, that reality in which God is all in all has begun to exist but is not here in fullness. CV's living in the world are icons and apostles of this proleptic reality in a way which is unique not only because of the bridal imagery associated with the vocation but because of the vocation's secularity as well. Just like the Bridegroom CV's are called to mediate between heaven and earth by representing both fully. They are not to flee the world as some forms of religious life stress, nor do they represent an unchanged secularity. Instead they are icons of the ascended Christ and the new creation, the new heaven and earth his own life in God represents and mediates.

You see, when I think about Jesus as mediator there is an amazing symmetry about it. It is quite literally beautiful to me to see the way Jesus as God's Christ stands between two worlds and brings them together in himself.  All vocations participate in Christ and in his role as mediator but the bridal imagery used in the Gospel of John to speak of the Ascension and his "going to prepare a place for us" in the very life of God seems to me to be especially explicit in the vocation to consecrated virginity. So is the transformed secularity, that is, the eschatological secularity, of this new heaven and new earth. It may well be that any Christian consecrated in baptism can represent this kind of secularity but because of the explicit bridal imagery associated with it it seems to me that consecrated virgins represent this is a more vivid, explicit, and perhaps too, a more integrated way than other forms of consecrated life.

In the early Church folks were in greater touch than we are today with the fact that they belonged to an earth which was objectively different than it had been prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. They lived and breathed a truly eschatological secularity because they saw the new heaven and new earth both now present and its coming in fullness being right around the corner. We have lost touch with this sense but the renewal of this vocation, it seems to me, could represent a completely new (and very ancient) approach to the cosmos which is profoundly eschatological. Christ as Bridegroom models the movements of descent and ascent, kenosis and pleroma, self-humbling and glorification. It is in Christ that things which were once separated and alienated from one another are reconciled so that God might be all in all.

Remember that it was typical of religions to believe these things did not belong together in God or in the Divine (God could not be associated with kenois, humbling, sin, death, godlessness, suffering, etc); thus it was similarly typical to believe that created reality or material reality did not belong to the spiritual realm or vice versa. The Christ Event changed all that and it is Jesus as mediator and bridegroom that makes the reconciliation and eventual transfiguration of these both real and vivid. Christ mediates the sacred to the secular and the secular to the sacred, so to speak; the reality that comes to be in him, whether proleptically or in fullness, is an eschatological secularity --- a new heaven and a new earth. His Bride (the Church) shares in this mediatory vocation. It should not be surprising then that consecrated vocations serve to demonstrate a similar paradoxical "belonging together" of those things which were once seen as incompatible and rightly alienated.  So you see, I continue to believe CV's living in the world are called to demonstrate this in a privileged way. Those who reject the eschatological secularity of their vocations seem to me to have missed this central piece of what the NT bridal imagery is really all about.

On Consecrated Virginity and the Interpenetration of Heaven and Earth

[[Dear Sister, thank you for your post on Star Trek and the Resurrection of Jesus. (cf., StarTrek and the Resurrection of Jesus) I was most interested in the way you spoke of the interpenetration of heaven and earth and the tearing of the veil between sacred and secular, heavenly and fleshly. You see I am a consecrated virgin and have been reading what you say about eschatological or consecrated secularity. I hadn't appreciated that your insistence on the secularity of the CV vocation comes from a much broader and more fundamental theology. I know you have tried to explain this before so I just wanted you to know that your post helped me to see this more clearly as well as it did the nature and meaning of Jesus' resurrection. Thank you.]]

Thanks for your comments. Gratifyingly, a number of people found that post helpful. You are exactly right about the basis for my insistence on the secularity of the canon 604 vocation. While it is true that I don't think anything else makes sense, and also that I am convinced by the discussion of the matter by Sister Sharon Holland, IHM as well as by texts associated with the rite itself, my insistence is more profoundly driven by an eschatology which does not see heaven as remote but instead understands that in Christ it has begun to interpenetrate this world. The imagery of the rending of the veil between sacred and secular or profane, eternal and mortal (fleshly) is terribly important to the notion of a new creation occasioned by Jesus' death and resurrection. But this same veil becomes symbolized by the veil often associated with consecrated life, and especially that of consecrated virgins, I think. It truly symbolizes the interpenetration of heaven and earth and what could say this more powerfully than a form of consecrated life which is not driven by the "fuga mundi" impulse of some religious life but is instead both thoroughly consecrated and thoroughly secular?

There is a second symbol of this eschatology which I have mentioned before which the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus makes central, namely, the two step process of matrimony in Judaism. While the interpenetration of heaven and earth occasioned by the resurrection is real it is also proleptic of something that will only one day be fully realized when God is all in all. With Jesus' resurrection the new creation begins to be realized. The first step of the Divine union with humanity has been accomplished; the betrothal is a fact for those who are baptized into Jesus' death and resurrection. With the ascension Jesus returns to the Father to prepare a place for us in the very life of God and we look forward to the day when there will indeed be a new heaven and a new earth in which God is all in all.

In other words we look forward to the consummation of the wedding/union between God and humanity which represents the fulfillment of creation and God's will to share God's love/life exhaustively. Consecrated virgins are called to stand as icons of this reality and promise. It is not, as I have noted in other posts, the promise of disembodied existence in a remote heaven but of existence in an entirely transformed world/cosmos in which heaven and earth have been made to be a single reconciled and transfigured reality. Though a tad awkward, it would not be a big theological stretch to call life in this new heaven and earth "eschatological secularity." So, to suggest that CV's are called to a form of eschatological or consecrated secularity right here and right now in the midst of this new creation in witness to a betrothal that has occurred in the Christ Event and a consummation that is yet to come seems to me to be an accurate description of  a profoundly significant vocation.


As you recognize, the theology which underpins this vocation is indeed much broader and more substantive than some have perceived from considering the canon which defines the vocation or the rite which establishes it. Its scope is cosmic. The bridal imagery is the imagery of new creation and eschatological fulfillment achieved by the boundless and eternal love/mercy of God which will completely remake not only THIS world/cosmos but God's own life as well. (Our share in this is what we call heaven and Jesus goes to prepare a place for each and all of us in the Divine life.) It makes sense that an icon of this covenantal state is the consecrated virgin living an eschatological secularity. However, as I have written before, so long as consecrated virgins resist the secularity of their vocation or fail to understand their own betrothal as proleptic and iconic of a consummation/wedding which will occur for the whole of creation instead of as something elitist or entirely individual, they will simply ensure that their vocations are theologically and pastorally irrelevant and even destructive. (Link for this article: Consecrated Virgins and the Interpenetration of Heaven and Earth)