Followup Questions on Ecclesial Vocations, Canon 603, Freedom, Constraints, and Commitment

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am so profoundly grateful for the article in which you tackle some of the differences between lay and canonical eremitism.  One thought that struck me was, when a person opts to remain a lay hermit (or solitary as in the Episcopal Church), might that imply that the words, the obligations, of Canon 603 could be modified?  Well, now, I mean, what if my understanding of solitary life is different in some ways? ]]

Of course one can remain a lay hermit in either Church community and act with the same Christian freedom but with greater liberty in some ways as well. While I think that canon 603 is remarkably adaptable (witness the fact that no two diocesan hermits write the same Rule, follow the same horarium, or approach the question of active ministry in exactly the same way), and while I have never found the relationship with superiors to be onerous, it is true that in accepting the rights and obligations associated with a public commitment to and under canon 603, I am not able to simply explore anything that captures my imagination or shape my life in any way at all. While I think the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 apply to any form of eremitical life worthy of the name (and here I mean stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance as well as some form of the evangelical counsels and the notion that this is lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes --- all for the praise of God and the salvation of the world --- I can't really imagine or recall a meaningful or authentic eremitical life that wasn't an expression of these in one way and another) the other elements are not strictly necessary and certainly not in the same way for lay hermits.

You clarify your question when you write: [[I do not feel that my vocation is an ecclesial one.  It would exist if there were no institutional religion on the face of the earth.  Ideally, the church and its structures should be supports for spiritual life, not members of the church living to support the church qua institution, and a top-heavy one at that. Yes, Jesus described us as part of himself, himself and the father as one, so that we are all members one of another.  But where does he say that law should be multiplied and that each personal spiritual expression must be defined by a hierarchical structures of men? I take advantage of the church for my prayer.  I go on retreat at RC retreat houses.  But any manifestation of institutionalism just doesn’t work for me.  I feel as if, were I much younger and went through the steps to become a professed Hermit, I would probably then run away to have more freedom.  And I know the freedom of life in Christ.  It’s just that that is not quite the same as any hypothetical freedom of life in the Church.]]

The Church seems pretty present in your life:

 Well, first of all let me point out that in "taking advantage" of the Church as you describe, or even in considering canon 603 as a guide for your life in some way, reading about hermits (much less articles BY hermits!), considering writing for your church publication or newsletter, seeking spiritual direction, etc, etc, you are indeed dealing with expressions of the institutional church. While an institution, organization, or even an organism can become deformed or dysfunctional the simple fact is that even the simplest grouping of people will have institutional elements, rules, customs, standards, values, common beliefs and practices (rituals, etc), boundaries, and so forth. In your own home I know for a fact that you have instituted (note that word!) some of these in order to protect and nurture the quality of your eremitical (solitary) life. Because of this you also know, I think, that the constraints applied here have led to a real freedom to pursue your vocation as you perceive and receive it from God.

I think what you are concerned with is not the institution of the Church which is a living reality manifest in even the least among us (which is one reason Peter Damian referred to hermits as eccesiolae -- little churches) but, as you say, institutionalism, which is a rather different animal. To that end I would caution you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Similarly, I think you are confusing freedom with license to some degree. The same caveat applies here. When I chose to seek admission to vows, whether as a Sister in community or as a solitary hermit under canon 603 it was my experience that I was choosing among goods and that though there were significant constraints in the choices I had made, these served a deeper freedom.

No place we go or choice we make in this world is free from constraints --- even when those are the constraints of age or heath or intelligence, etc. The task is always to choose that set of constraints (or embrace them in a way) which allows God to do the very best within and with these. To do otherwise is indeed to choose a merely hypothetical freedom and to mistake mere license for genuine freedom. So long as we are not choosing sin vs faithfulness or indulging our falsely autonomous self I think our choice is always not so much freedom versus unfreedom as it is the choice between one expression of freedom and another one, one set of constraints and another one. If the constraints associated with the expression of freedom you choose do not serve you well or are impossible to bear, then by all means, you should select a different expression of freedom (by which I do not mean a different version of freedom) with a different set of constraints insofar as that is possible or prudent --- for sometimes, as you well know, our inability to bear constraints points to our own need for growth, faith (trust), and conversion. That is one of the key lessons of monastic (and eremitical) stability.

On Constraints and Commitment

One point here, of course, is that we cannot do away with constraints. That is simply impossible. Constraints help define our truest freedom. They are the result and the way of genuine commitment! Commitment always entails both constraints and freedom; in fact the language of commitment is that of responsibility and obligation. Both curtail our liberty while they lead to a more profound freedom. Another is that the constraints  themselves are not the point; the reality (or true freedom) they serve is. You also write: [[If it comes right down to the truth of the matter, I feel very deeply and definitely Christian, and called at the same depth to a life of liberty in solitude, with no one and no rules or expectations of how I’m going to live.  I trust myself, I trust in Jesus to lead me.  Because I’ve begged for this opportunity for so many years, studied about it, lived bits and pieces up until the past few years when I’ve been able to “grow” it, I feel pretty clear that the openings which have come my way, in bunches and with the feel of God all over them, this is what I’m called to. ]]

You may recall that  at one point when you wrote me before you said, [[I am writing a provisional Rule of Life and the variety of hermit lives and Rules raise some questions for me. For instance] if someone is a true Christian, and who can judge that?, and says she is a hermit, lives alone sincerely giving herself to prayer, to the heart of the world and by extension and above all, to God, what makes her less a hermit? Less "worthy" (and I know how you hate that distinction) of being called a hermit?]] I responded: [[Dear Poster, Thanks for your questions! If you take a look at the content of your conditional sentence above you will see that you have laid down some very stringent requirements for recognizing someone as a hermit (although I personally would switch God and world in your sentence so that the heart of God comes first and then the heart of the [next] world by extension). Essentially you have described what I refer to as the distinction between a person merely living alone (implicit in your post) and a desert dweller or hermit (which you actually describe explicitly):

IF someone is a true Christian

IF she consciously claims the life of a hermit (desert dweller) and lets that define her (desert spirituality)

IF she lives alone (or, in cases of real need, with a caregiver who does not get in the way of her Rule and actually allows her to live it as fully as she feels called)

IF she sincerely gives herself (not just a bit of time here or there) to prayer, (add penance, silence, solitude and the silence OF solitude).

IF she lives in the heart of God (or is genuinely committed to doing so) and by extension gives herself to the world in this way. . . (all of this I refer to especially as the silence of solitude). The devil is in the details.]]

Definitions as Constraints that Free Words to Have Meaning

I might also have noted in that post that your very description implies a set of constraints which allow you to see or establish the reality of someone and the genuineness of their commitments. Definitions are nothing more than constraints which allow (i.e., free) a word to be meaningful in a particular way. If you look carefully at your own life you will finds rules and other constraints galore. There is simply no meaningful or truthful life without them, and there is certainly no way to be the persons God calls us to be without them. Freedom, after all, is the power to be the persons God calls us to be and that also means not being the persons so much of reality (including our own super egos) tells us we can or cannot, must or must not, should or should not be.  The whole question is full of constraints --- those we must embrace to be true to ourselves and those we must eschew at the same time if we are to reject or at least refuse to collude with our false selves. Sin is a reality; false selves are realities; the presence of cultural voices and norms which militate against truthful or authentic humanity not only exist, they are rampant.

In my own life I also trust myself and I certainly trust Christ to guide me. He has never failed in that. But I also know myself as sinful and I know that the Rule I follow, the Canon which governs my life, the Word of God I focus my life on and in, the Sacraments that only come through the institutional Church, and  the superiors I am obligated by vow to listen carefully to in obedience, are some of the privileged and necessary ways I hear Jesus speak to me daily, sometimes even moment by moment. That is especially true not only with regard to Scripture and prayer, but with regard to my delegate, to those friends who know me well and challenge me to transcend and leave behind the false self who so often is too much a dominant voice in my life. Even so, I do not always listen well or respond generously or lovingly. These bits of "institutional life" are part of the way Christ speaks to me, but for that very reason I also need them to help mediate the grace which transforms my mind and heart. To be frank, I believe anyone who says they can hear Christ adequately apart from the institutional Church is probably kidding themselves. Calling the ecclesial the body of Christ is not merely some touching bit of poetry; it is also literally true.

You see, I could not say with you that my vocation would exist "if there was no institutional religion on the face of the planet". If Christ's church did not exist neither would my vocation; that is true because it is profoundly Christian in every way, not simply because it is a formally ecclesial vocation. I need Christ --- not least to call me to authenticity in the desert. I need Christ to show me the difference between isolation and solitude, between real independence in God (what Tillich called theonomy) and individualism, between the eremitism of the Tom Leppards of this world and his own. And that means I need the mediation provided by the Body of Christ. There is no resurrected Christ unless there is also still an embodied Christ and that implies a Church. By the way, while I am sure you meant no offense, let me point out there is absolutely nothing hypothetical in the freedom to which Christ has called me through and within his Church. I sincerely wonder if you and I are really all that different.

Discerning one is not Called to an Ecclesial Vocation:

The bottom line, however is that you have clearly identified that for the time being at least you are NOT called to embrace an ecclesial vocation. There is a thread of anti-institutionalism running through your heart and mind which, in some ways mirrors the concerns and lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. The difference is that the Desert Fathers and Mothers truly loved the Church and worked at their lives as an important part of being and encouraging the existence of what they perceived to be the TRUE Body of Christ and its Gospel. You see, they were committed to that and that made their vocations ecclesial in yet another and profound sense. While I don't think you are entirely different than they are they did have rules, customs, mentoring, etc to prevent them from simply going their own way on a whim (or in the clutches of the noonday devil!). I believe that is also true of you but some of what you have said makes me wonder. In any case, your desire to be entirely free of rules, etc means you will spend a lot of energy and time re-inventing the wheel. In some ways it will mean you will fail unnecessarily. In some ways it means that bias will keep your heart closed to some of the central ways Christ's presence comes to us and challenges us to commit ourselves and be remade. But it also means that to the extent you are truly committed to and in Christ you may discover a way to be a prophetic presence in the world which I will not.


As to your original question none of the essential terms of the canon can be modified in any significant way if one wants to live the vision of the eremitical life Christ's own Church sets forth as consistent with her tradition. Remember that the central elements of this canon were also lived by the Desert Fathers and Mothers who ALSO were engaged in a profound and extensive criticism of the worldliness of the Church. Indeed, they are part of these elements' very source as normative.

How you or anyone else chooses to embody these elements is actually part of the flexibility of the canon --- within limits of course (remember words can be emptied of meaning). Part of the canon need never apply to you, namely section 2 which reads, [[A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by a vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.]] You need never embrace any part of this section of the canon. You, like many other lay people will live as a hermit or solitary in exemplary ways perhaps, but you will simply not do so in the same way as one publicly professed/consecrated in an ecclesial vocation.

Thanks for Explaining the Pastoral reasons for Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for explaining the PASTORAL reasons for canonical standing. Does keeping the seriousness of all this in mind help you to live your vocation? I would think it must. Is it your position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life? You mention lay hermits but since you emphasize the pastoral importance of canonical standing I wonder if you believe it is really possible to live as a lay hermit.]]

Yes, keeping the public and especially the ecclesial nature of this vocation in mind (two dimensions of its serious-ness) is a great help to me in persevering in this vocation. Don't get me wrong, I love this call and every day I thank God for gifting me with it but it is not always an easy thing to be faithful to. For instance, as I have written before it is not always easy to discern what expressions of ministry are appropriate. Sometimes I would like to withdraw in more selfish ways than might be healthy or called for by eremitical anachoresis itself but the ecclesial nature of my vocation and the canonical nature of my commitment help me to recognize and resist this temptation. Other times I might desire to minister in some active way which might not be what is best for the vocation more generally or I might be inclined to spend time outside the hermitage in ways which draw me out of the silence of solitude; again, the ecclesial and canonical nature of my commitment assists me to be true to both myself and my call. Because I am not in this alone, because I am responsible in a public way for this vocation, because I have legitimate superiors (or quasi superiors!) and others (parishioners, pastor, friends, Sisters) who are also responsible in varying ways and degrees and to whom I can turn for assistance and support, living this vocation is both richer and easier than it would be otherwise.

However, it is absolutely not my position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life. Lay hermits do it all the time and they do it in a way which may minister and be more accessible to those who will never seek nor desire to seek canonical standing in their own lives.  I would suggest you read some of the posts I have put up on the lay eremitical vocation specifically to understand my thought here; I believe I have been pretty clear regarding how much I believe in this (the lay eremitical) vocation and in its possibility and importance today. When I say the public rights and obligations associated with canonical standing cause my own vocation to differ from the lay eremitical vocation but that the absence of these public dimensions does not constitute a deficiency in the lay hermit vocation I am both quite serious and entirely sincere.

In fact one of the things which makes me saddest is the fact that lay hermits seem generally not to take their own vocations as seriously in terms of its significance to the Church and world as they do the canonical version. Few that I can find write about it, reflect on its charismatic nature, or recommend it to others. Few offer to talk occasionally to their parishes or diocese about it, etc. While I know lay hermits who do not, many seem instead  to continue to subtly elevate the eremitical vocations connected with canonical standing (semi-eremitical and solitary eremitical life) when these are not accessible to them for a variety of reasons. Some do this by resisting  and never using the actual designation "lay hermit" while others make it their business to disparage canonical standing and those who seek and receive it, but the bottom line is that many lay hermits seem to treat lay eremitical life as a second class form of eremitism. Still, the specifically eremitical elements and dimensions of these two (or three!) vocations are identical --- especially if the lay hermit lives some form of the evangelical counsels, as all Christians really are meant to do.

Again, thanks for your comments. I am glad I was able to convey to you some of the pastoral reasons for canonical standing and canon 603. Others may be found in posts on the relationship of freedom and obedience, for instance, or the relational nature of standing in law (cf., labels below). As I said in the post you referred to, the critical question is really this one: if this vocation were NOT a gift of the Holy Spirit then why would we care about canonical standing? What the Church sees clearly is that  canonical standing and the activity of the Holy Spirit are not in conflict with one another nor  (as one person I spoke with recently commented) does the Holy Spirit's action makes the canon unnecessary. What is true is the canon exists precisely as one significant way the Holy Spirit nurtures, protects, and governs the contemporary solitary eremitical vocation in a world which militates against it in every way including especially: 1) its allergy to silence, 2) its isolationist and marginalizing tendencies, and 3) its heightened individualism --- all of which are antithetical to and cry out for genuine eremitical solitude.  All good wishes.

Should our Focus be ONLY on what makes vocations distinct from one another?

[[Dear Sister, if espousal to Christ is an icon of the Church it seems to me that married couples would also serve in this way. But if this is true, then how does the witness they give differ from that of religious and consecrated virgins? I am trying to understand what distinguishes these vocations. If EVERYONE'S vocation represents an instance of the spousal bond with Christ, then doesn't the vocation of the CV lose its distinctiveness? You quoted one CV a few weeks back who said if the vocation didn't have its own mission and identity she hoped it would simply be suppressed. Doesn't your theology empty this vocation of distinctness? Doesn't it lead to the very situation this CV outlined?]]

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

Regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, it is true that it represents an icon of the Church and of the spousal bond with Christ shared by everyone in the Church. Remember that Pope Benedict wrote: [[This means that Christ and the Church are one body in the sense in which man and woman are one flesh, that is, in such a way that in their indissoluble spiritual-bodily union, they nonetheless remain unconfused and unmingled. The Church does not simply become Christ, she is ever the handmaid whom he lovingly raises to be his Bride and who seeks his face throughout these latter days.]] (Called to Communion) While Benedict was writing here in part to establish the Trinitarian nature of espousal it follows clearly that married couples are icons of the Church as spouse or Bride of Christ. Further, it is important to note that both males and females serve in this way.

Again, all of the vocations mentioned serve as icons of the Church as Bride of Christ, and some symbolize mainly the this-worldly character of that identity. Thus the Sacrament of Matrimony. Others point to the eschatological nature of this identity; that is, some point to a union with Christ which is eternal and which is the perfection or fulfillment of any this-worldly reality. They point to a spousal bond which is present proleptically here and now in the midst of the worldly reality we know so well but whose fullness and perfection is identified as heaven or "the Kingdom" --- the realm where God is truly all in all and no one is given in marriage. Religious vocations and the vocation of consecrated virginity are examples of this latter witness with CV's called upon to make this imagery and reality explicitly present in the "things of the spirit and the things of the world". For Religious the spousal bond is the presupposition to and foundation for everything else they are and do but for most it is usually less explicit in their ministry, charisms, or commissions than in those of CV's. In any case, the question is not one of distinctiveness so much as it is of significance or meaningfulness I think. CV's are called to make explicit a call shared by all Christians.

Every vocation reminds us of dimensions of what we are ALL called to. There is NO vocation which is merely distinct or meant to point to the specialness of the one called. In other words there will always be overlaps in the nature of each vocation because each one images and witnesses to Christ and the Trinity. Ordained priesthood makes explicit and paradigmatic dimensions of the priesthood of all believers and the call to be Christ for others as Christ was given for others. Similarly Religious life makes explicit and paradigmatic lives of prayer, service, and the evangelical counsels rooted in a spousal relationship with Christ all are called to in some way. Consecrated virgins are called to make explicit the spousal bond every Christian is called to and to live out the gifts of spousal, maternal, and virginal love which are the perfection of every act of Christian ministry and care; some (those living in the world) are called to do so in a way which summons anyone living a secular life to such authentically human ways of being. Others do so as persons separated from "the world" by vows and cloister and also call all to authentically human being.

While the things that distinguish vocations from one another are important, focus on them need not blind us to the deep similarities and foundations they share. Only as we are aware of and honor these can we truly esteem the one who is their source rather than the one who is gifted by him. Vocations' diversity and special charisma are important because the Body has different functions and needs but there is a universality about these as well.  For instance, every life can and should witness to the nature and place of solitude in the redemption of isolation but few can do so as effectively as hermits. This is part of the gift all eremitical lives are to the whole church and world --- not because only hermits are called to authentic solitude, but because we ALL are. 

Beyond this, lay hermits may be able to speak more powerfully about this to many people who will never have standing of any kind than will a diocesan hermit who has been given standing in law. On the other hand, the diocesan hermit may (and only may) be able to witness more effectively to others about the history of the eremitical vocation in the church as well as to its ecclesial nature and its normative characteristics and significance by virtue of her standing in law.  Though there are meaningful differences, the two vocations are essentially the same; where they differ is in graces, charisms, and mission. It would be a terrible mistake to argue that these qualitative differences are necessarily the same as differences in essence. The challenge is to honor BOTH commonalities and differences. The result of failing in this is elitism and an inability to truly witness in the ways the Church calls on us to do. Remember that martyrdom refers to witnessing with one's life to the love of God for us in Christ. That love is a covenantal or spousal love offered to all and meant to turn this world and its values on their heads.

What Do I do when my Diocese Says "No"?

[[Dear Sister, I believe I am called to be a diocesan hermit. I have lived as a lay hermit for some time, about 8 or 9 years, and have petitioned to be allowed to make vows under canon 603 three times under two different Bishops. However, it seems that my diocese is unwilling to profess me now. They suggest I continue living as a lay hermit. I am terribly disappointed and maybe a little angry too. I know in my heart God is calling me to live as a hermit, and I have consecrated (sic) myself to him, so what do I do now? I have thought about moving to another diocese or waiting for yet another new Bishop but what does God want for me? What you wrote about ecclesial vocations was new to me. I hadn't realized some vocations were discerned by both the person and the church; I thought they were all just approved in some formal way. How can I feel called in my heart but not have the church discern in the same way? If [as your posts say] the church also has a place in "mediating" God's own call to me does this mean I do not have a call to be a diocesan hermit? What if the church is just making a mistake and is not open to having hermits in this diocese? I had better stop here. I want to go on and on but I don't know what to do.]] (redacted slightly)

I understand the disappointment, confusion, and even the anger you are feeling, but also the frustration and flood of questions. What you are experiencing is common in religious life, preparation for priesthood, and with regard to consecrated virginity --- all ecclesial vocations where one's own sense of what God is calling one to may not comport with the sense of those whose task it is to mutually discern and assist the candidate for entrance, profession and/or consecration, and/or ordination. The clash between what one yearns for and what the institutional church discerns is not the will of God can produce terrible anguish and even trauma --- though these days the honesty which obtains between the participants usually minimizes this to some degree. Still, it is never easy to be denied admission to something one badly desires and has come to believe is God's own intention and call. Speaking mainly of c 603 here, it is easy to move in a couple of directions when facing a diocese's refusal to admit one to profession. Both are reactions more than responses and the task before you or anyone in your situation is to move from reaction to response.

First, one may become bitter and reject the church or at least aspects of her theology of consecrated life. One may especially reject the whole notion of ecclesial vocations, that is, the theology that affirms some vocations cannot be discerned by the individual alone, nor may such vocations be self-assumed. We see this sometimes with persons who insist they are consecrated or Roman Catholic hermits when in fact, they are dedicated lay hermits --- in itself a significant vocation when taken with absolute seriousness. In a variation of such an approach one may denigrate the whole idea of canonical standing as a matter of unnecessary and even destructive legal formality, attack canonical hermits generally as arrogant, desiring only "status", reject the place of law in establishing stable relationships to support such vocations, etc. One may say to oneself and others that one never really desired this at all or one may simply distance oneself from one's parish or diocese, for instance. But in such cases it is important to recognize one is really suffering from a serious case of "sour grapes", deal with one's disappointment, embarrassment (because it is embarrassing to be "rejected" or dismissed), and with one's anger more positively in order to truly move on. I don't hear any of this from you, of course, but I want to alert you to the possibility and temptation for it is something that I have seen and heard happen.

A second reaction one may have or way one may go is the immediate rejection of any call to eremitical life at all. This alternative is a little different than the first one, because this conclusion might prove to be valid in time. However, this is not a conclusion one can simply jump to in one's disappointment, frustration, and anger. Instead one would need to discern with a good director whether one has gotten wrong not only the form of eremitical life one is called to at this point in time, but also whether one is perhaps called to something else entirely. In coming to a radical conclusion like this it would also be helpful to speak with diocesan personnel for a more detailed report on their own discernment of your vocation. What were their concerns? Why did they decline to admit you to profession? Did they do so because of personal deficiencies they saw in you, deficiencies in formation and preparation which could be overcome with time, or was their refusal even less personally based? (For instance, if your old and new Bishops were/are closed to diocesan hermits generally that is a very different situation than one where either of them have consecrated diocesan hermits in the past and remain open to doing so again.) These are not necessarily easy questions to ask or to hear the answers to, but they can be indispensable in further discernment.

Your diocese has suggested you continue living as you are so this suggests they do envision you living as a lay hermit. (This is not a form of official discernment or approval of this vocation in your regard, but it is suggestive nonetheless. Had they suggested you get out more, socialize, become more involved in parish activities, etc, it would be a different matter. In such cases the message is that solitude, at least at this point in time, is not particularly healthy for you or that your diocese doubts you have the life experience to live fruitfully in solitude.) Your third option, once you have garnered all the details your diocese can provide, therefore, is to trust your diocese's decision and move forward from here. Assuming they are not simply closed to the canonical vocation generally, they are saying to you that God is not calling you to be a diocesan hermit, however they are also saying that otherwise you are free to live as you feel called to do in your heart.

Especially this means you are free to make private vows (if indeed you personally feel these are truly necessary after spending time reflecting on your baptismal commitment) and dedicate yourself to God in this way. (Only God consecrates and this occurs through the mediation of the Church in perpetual public profession, etc, so this is a dedication of self which is meant to specify your baptismal commitment.) You are free to explore the vocation of the lay hermit and to discover and embrace the value of such a vocation generally, as well as for your own life and community more specifically. You are free, that is, to take the lay vocation in places few take it in the contemporary church or era and to be a pioneer of the same order of the desert Fathers and Mothers in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Even if your diocese is still open to professing (consecrating) you down the line you might want to consider the importance of taking advantage of the various freedoms you have here while discerning what directions you can take them! To the extent you are able, consider your diocese's decision a God given opportunity, not an occasion of deprivation.

Also consider what the diocese's appraisal of your own deficiencies or limitations require of you and find ways to work through these. Once you begin doing this, you are participating in active and creative discernment with God. As I have said here very often, assuming your discernment leads you to affirm an eremitical call, the church and world desperately needs dedicated lay hermits who live their baptismal consecration and identity without pretense, ambiguity, or equivocation. It is true, you will not be a "consecrated Roman Catholic hermit" in such a case, but your life will witness to the redemption that solitude can be for very many struggling and isolated persons in our society and world; further, you will be at liberty to take this in any direction God calls you to do. It seems to me that only after you have taken these steps and lived in this way for some time will you be able to say whether you personally need to approach the diocese once again down the line. Generally, the only time I suggest that moving to a new diocese is a prudent or viable option is when the current diocese is not open to professing anyone as a diocesan hermit. If your diocese has diocesan hermits (or even a single one) --- especially if your new Bishop was responsible for professing them --- then this is probably not the case where you are. You would need to ask to be certain, however.

Public vs Private Profession or Profession vs Commitment: Followup questions

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, As a lay person who has made Simple, Personal Vows to God which were witnessed by the parish priest, and as a lay person who has written and observes a personal Rule, it seems that my actions are strictly between myself and God, and that no special obligations or relationship exists between me and any official part of the Church, and in no official capacity, and that even though my vows were witnessed by the priest, I have not accomplished a "Profession". Am I correct? It would seem I am truly on my own, and not obligated to the Church in any official way, which leaves me free, but obligated to live a good and moral life and loyal to the Church. I hope to have the help of the Church, certainly Her prayers and blessings as I may have the good fortune to receive them, but that I am not in a "consecrated STATE" as far as the Church is concerned.

Thanks very much for your questions. I realize asking them indicates both understanding and substantial personal pain. I am breaking them up and placing them throughout this post, but let me try to answer in a way which brings out not only the distinctions involved between public and private profession (or, what some, more accurately, call profession vs dedication) but also the seriousness of what you have indeed committed to.

As noted in the last post, Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, defines profession as a formal, solemn, and public act by which a person undertakes a state of life, and when looked at that way, your vows are indeed a dedication but not a profession. In what I have written on this blog I have tended to a usage which distinguishes between public and private professions while implicitly linking these to differing states of life. Sister Sandra's usage in making state of life an explicit part of the definition of profession is less ambiguous and for that reason, perhaps significantly more helpful than my own in avoiding misunderstanding and the obscuring of important distinctions; still, I think we are in essential agreement. Your vows are private and that means that while they are a personally significant expression of your baptismal consecration (for you are indeed consecrated in that way), you remain in the lay state to live out that expression. As is true of any person in the church, you, as baptized, are obliged to live out the evangelical counsels in some way in that state and your vows express this explicitly. What remains true is that the Church which you help constitute both needs and expects you to live out any commitments you make with integrity and seriousness. She has affirmed that baptism constitutes a universal call to holiness and that holiness is no less exhaustive or significant than the call experienced by someone in the consecrated or ordained states.

It is true that, as you say, your private dedication of yourself via these vows does not cause you to enter the consecrated state of life and does not lead to the same kinds of legitimate (canonical) relationships an ecclesial vocation with public vows does. You do not have legitimate superiors, for instance, do not belong to a congregation or religious community by virtue of this commitment nor do you enjoy additional rights, obligations or protections which are part of such relationships in order to support the stable state of life for which they exist. While you are expected to live out your baptismal vows (the laws which bind every Catholic are indeed binding on you and hold you accountable for this) you have assumed no additional legal rights or obligations nor entered into the additional legal (canonical) relationships which obtain in public profession. However, the values you live out in those vows are personally binding on you nonetheless because they are real specifications of your baptismal consecration. Your dedication (i.e., your private vows) commits you in a serious and real way until you discern either that you are no longer called to this or until you determine you need no additional vows to live out your baptismal consecration and act to have these vows dispensed by your pastor, for instance.

The Importance of Private Commitments

[[This is an important distinction because there actually would seem to me to be a consecration of sorts present by virtue of trying to fulfill what I believe to be God's desires in my life; it would seem necessary in order to fulfill them. I am obligated to obey the Church by the wording and intent of the my (sic) vows, as much as I am obligated to fulfill my vows to God to whom I made them, and a blatant refusal or deliberate failure to do so would be a sin. I had the intent of living by the vows I took forever, but it seems the Church does not see my vows that way in spite of what I may have intended. Which makes me wonder then, what is my obligation to my Lord if having made vows with the intent of permanency and solemnity the Church does not see things that way? If I were a younger person it might be easier to resolve the issue by entering a religious order or lay institute and making profession; unfortunately, it seems that time is past.]]

Both God and the Church expect you to live out the private vows you have made as part of a significant Christian commitment, and to do so with integrity. The Church expects you to lead others in taking their own baptismal commitments with absolute seriousness as well. She also takes your private vows seriously --- which is one reason she provides for their dispensation by your pastor, Bishop, or others designated to do so in case you discern you are called to something else (c.1196), for instance. She does not simply say, "Oh, just move on --- forget about them! They are insignificant" They are not. They are significant commitments to God. However the church, who had no part in discerning the wisdom of or mediating your vows, does regard them as private commitments which can be dispensed without additional legal steps and without directly affecting your relationships with others in the church should you discern that is the right course of action. (For instance, when a religious seeks dispensation of her vows this affects others in direct and significant ways, whether they are her superiors who participate in what is often a painful process of discernment and cease to be legally responsible for her or her vocation), her community more generally (who love her and, though retaining profound friendships, lose her as a Sister in religion and important member of the community or congregation), or the church as a whole (who now welcome her as a lay person), etc.) Should you ever seek dispensation of your vows others are not similarly affected because your commitments, while personally significant, are private and made privately to God.

Even so, what does not change in all of this for you is your baptismal consecration and your responsibility to live out an exhaustive holiness accordingly in ways which are paradigmatic of and for the lay state. This IS a formal, solemn, and public sacramental consecration for you and affects many people and the life of the Church more generally. It is the power of this consecration which I believe is behind your sense that some consecration is necessary to live out your own private commitments. Your baptismal consecration grounds and empowers your living out the will of God in your life.

A larger question regarding the place of private vows for the baptized or married

Whether this applies in your specific case or not, one of the issues your questions raise is the remaining effects of a theology of religious life and vocation which effectively treated baptism as an entry level position in the church and other vocations as higher levels and more exhaustive forms of holiness. We have to encourage people to take their lay (baptismal) consecration and commitments with absolute seriousness. We have to be clear that every Christian is called to the evangelical counsels in some sense and we have to find ways to communicate that. Too often people seek to make private vows in an attempt to express their sense they are called to a self-commitment and holiness "more" exhaustive than their baptismal consecration involves.

For instance, they may make a vow of obedience as "listening" and commit to reading the Bible or listening to the Word of God in other ways when in fact these are generally things EVERY Christian is obliged to by virtue of their identities as Christians. They may make a vow of poverty in terms of a simplicity and detachment which are themselves something every Christian is obliged to by virtue of their baptism.

Sometimes, as I have mentioned before, I hear from married persons seeking to make additional vows --- usually of poverty and obedience, though sometimes also of chastity. When we talk about the matter and examine why they feel this way and what it is their marriage vows call them to in this place and time, there is usually no need for additional vows. Further, given the relationship between wife and husband there is usually no real place for vows which are private and bind only one of them. What was needed in such cases was a clearer idea of how significant and demanding are the public vows (baptism and marriage) they have already made. The significance and nature of these vows as public vows which are a means and call to achieving holiness and union with God, and in the case of marriage vows, a call to such holiness and union through this union with another, had slipped from sight. So had the need to reflect on and grow in their understanding and living out of these vows --- just as Religious routinely reflect on and grow in their their own.

The Church has contributed to this problem through the centuries. Vatican II took a decisive step away from the theology which engendered and exacerbates it. But we have a long way to go in implementing Vatican II in our lives and allowing it to guide our theologies, especially in this area. While wonderful and essential, it is not enough that lay people are moving into areas of ministry that were closed to them before. A fundamental change in our appreciation of what the lay vocation is and demands is still necessary so that people do not continue to feel they have only been called to an entry level vocation and cannot give their whole selves to God in this way.

My Own Credibility in Speaking of Valuing the Lay State (Reprised with Additional Explanation)

Originally posted in November, 2008 (Heading for the additional section is marked in bold below)

[[Doesn't your own canonical status undercut your ability to speak to the importance and witness of the non-canonical or lay hermit? Doesn't it make what you say even a bit hypocritical? You have written any number of times about the importance of canonical status/standing so how believeable are your opinions on the lay eremitical vocation? Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit instead of seeking profession and consecration according to Canon 603 if you believed as you say you do in this?]]


These questions were not raised by a hostile reader, but in my own prayer and reflection on the matter. However, I suspect that they are questions which my own status and comments might well occasion in others, so I am including them here. First. let me say that there is truth in each question: to each, except, I think, for the one about hypocrisy and the last one which asks "Why didn't you become/remain. . .", I have to answer "Yes" before I qualify or nuance my responses. With regard to the last question ["Why didn't I become/remain. . .?], let me say right up front that I do not have a complete answer at this time, but only large parts of one, and that those parts involve both positive and negative elements.

In my previous post on the importance of lay hermits I noted that I had not realized how effectively I was cutting myself off from witnessing to particular segments of our church and world. My life as a canonical hermit still speaks to these people, I know that full well, but I suspect not nearly as powerfully as had I eschewed profession and consecration under Canon 603 and embraced a vocation as a lay hermit. I would have needed to find ways to do this, but those avenues are open to anyone really. This blog is an example. On the other hand, I have experienced both sides of the fence here and am aware of the shift (in witnessing) which has occured. Thus, I think I am able to speak effectively to the importance of both lay and consecrated eremitical vocations. The point of course is that a person who is consciously and voluntarily lay and eremitical can, in some ways. do so better than I can ever do.

So what about possible hypocrisy? Well, it is true that I am unabashedly excited by and enthusiastic about the eremitical vocation which is canonical, and that personally I see a lot of reasons to seek canonical standing, especially as a diocesan hermit with its unique charism. It is also true that on this blog I have posted a lot in order to combat misconceptions about canonical status, etc. In my Rule I wrote (several years ago now) that I felt that canonical status was imperative except in the early stages of a vocation or foundation --- though my views on this have changed considerably in the meantime. Is it possible to be enthusiastic about the graces and benefits of one way of living an eremitical life without denigrating another? I sincerely hope and believe so, otherwise there is no way to be honest about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in one vocation without denigrating them in another. And despite seeing this happen often in the history of mankind with regard to different religions, etc, surely none of us believe that is necessarily the case [with different vocations]!

With the issue of canonical and non-canonical hermits I believe the Holy Spirit is working in both ways in our church and world, speaking to different segments and calling them to different responsibilities, emphases and witness. So long as the eremitical life is being led with faithfulness these differing emphases, commissions and witnesses will emerge and reveal themselves clearly. That said, I must also say that I don't believe just anyone should call themselves a hermit, and I especially don't believe that someone who simply has a bent for some degree of solitude part of the time should do so, or be allowed to do so. (Here is one of the real benefits of canonical standing and oversight: one knows, at least generally, that the term is being used accurately and that the witness being given is genuine.) Still, if someone is living a fulltime life of prayer and penance, a life centered on God in silence and solitude --- not reclusively necessarily, but really --- then they have every right to call themselves a hermit and should do so, for this too is the work and gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world.

Again, it is not that canonical hermits are "real" hermits while non-canonical hermits are "pseudo" or "wannabe" hermits. While it is true that sometimes people use the term hermit too casually (for an active life with chunks of solitude, a part-time semi-solitary existence, for instance, as in a married life where the days are spent in prayer and work while children and husband are off to school and work!) or for the wrong reasons (social awkwardness or misanthopy, the need for self-indulgent introversion or simply for creative time and space are among these) -- these folks ARE pseudo hermits or wannabe's --- when the term really applies (that is, to a LIFE OF fulltime and genuine solitude lived for and in God) it signals the "realness" or inspired nature of the vocation, and whether this is a call to eremitism of the consecrated or lay states does not matter.

And regarding the last question, "why didn't I become and remain a lay hermit?" well, I am going to [mainly] leave that for another time and more thought. The simple answer is that initially and eventually I determined I was not called to this as did the Church, but that can be evasive as well as being true. Part of the answer is that it was this context which made sense of the whole spectrum of my life and the kind of freedom needed to live this call fully and faithfully, but that too needs some explaining --- which again requires both more thought and time to write. Still, the question is important, not only for me personally, but because it is really the question every hermit must answer in some form in discerning and embracing the call not only to eremitical life, but to lay or consecrated states as the critical context for their own charism, witness, and mission. At this point I wish to say merely that whichever choice one discerns and makes, the eremitical life they are discerning and choosing is a real and significant vocation and that we must learn to esteem not only the similarities they share with their counterpart (lay or consecrated), but especially their unique gift quality and capacity to speak variously to different segments of the church and world.

Addition to the Original Post:

Why did I not become or remain a lay hermit? Why pursue a call to the consecrated state if I truly value the lay vocation? I have thought about these questions more since I posed these queries to myself and here are the elements of my answer: 1) I felt called to an ecclesial vocation, one which the Church also discerned, 2) I did so because I became aware of a particular gift or charism this vocation was to the Church and world with regard to those who were marginalized in both church and world by chronic illness, old-age, and other isolating factors. Eremitical life spoke directly to these situations and their redemption whether or not any of the persons were called to eremitical life (though I supposed some would be and wished to assist them in knowing about and even hearing this call). 3) There was a certain unfreedom I experienced personally with regard to representing this charism fully as a lay hermit despite the fact that I published about it and had come to terms with the diocese's unwillingness to profess anyone under Canon 603 for the time being. I concluded (after another @20 years) that I still needed canonical standing to put an end to this "unfreedom".

(The solution to unfreedom of this type is often the assumption of new responsibilities. So it was for me. The assumption of the rights and responsibilities associated with canonical or consecrated eremitical life freed me to live the life (and my own life of course) as fully as I felt called to do. For some, as for instance the person who writes about the taint of increased institutionalization and the constraints of that preventing her living fully in the present moment, this would not be true. The same is the case for the person who wrote most recently with regard to, "what's the big deal?" or who desires to push the meaning of words in whatever way he personally likes. It would also be true for those who (more positively I think) just want to live in solitude without more ecclesial rights and responsibilities, or who wish to imitate the lay status of the desert Abbas and Ammas.)

4) I was living the final vows I had made in 1978 and desired to do this within the context of Canon 603 in a specifically eremitical framework and with the guidance, supervision, and assistance of the Church rather than privately in a way which did not allow others to have necessary expectations with regard to these vows. It also meant being present in a way which allowed others (lay, consecrated, and clerics) to appreciate the way the Holy Spirit was working in their midst with regard to both chronic illness and eremitical life, and 5) I had become more knowledgeable about the nature and history of eremitical life as a still-vital tradition and I wanted to assume what I discerned to be my own place in that tradition in ways which were both faithful to it and yet enlarged or added to it in contemporary terms. This included wishing to bring the diocesan hermit dimension more strongly into the Camaldolese charism while allowing the Camaldolese charism to be more explicitly present in diocesan eremitical life. In both of these I had the sense of being called to be part of a tradition, creatively, in faithful dialog with it, not in unthinking or careless rejection of it as I simply "did my own thing".

On Esteeming the Lay State and the Multiplication of Vows

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why do you think lay people feel a need to make private vows rather than living their Baptismal consecration more fully? You seem to suggest there is a failure here and that private vows are being made without good enough reasons, as when you refer to substantive reasons being needed to justify more vows.]]

Good question, but complex too and one I can only start to answer. I think the reasons are several so let me point out some I am aware of.

First, there is the "objective superiority" language of Thomas which has mainly been misunderstood by non-Thomists (and some "neo-Thomists" as well), and which is largely beyond reach now in our time and culture. (It is not a matter of translating words but instead of translating language as a whole: mindsets, philosophical categories, etc and often this is simply impossible to accomplish for any but true experts in scholastic thought.) Because Thomas (et al) spoke of vocations to "states of perfection" in terms of "objective superiority" we naturally translate this into the dichotomous or competitive language of superiority/inferiority, better/worse, special/ordinary, higher/lower, perfection/imperfection and so forth. But, as far as I can see, Thomas eschewed language of better/worse, inferiority, imperfection, or higher/lower better than those who followed him and failed to understand him as well as they might have. Even so this language is no longer helpful and has entered our culture and especially our church in ways which make it hard to properly or adequately esteem either the lay state, and within that, the married state or dedicated single life. We truly need to find ways to esteem the gifts which these are, and especially the ways in which they witness to God's love and reveal God to the world, which do not buy into the "this-worldly" competitive language. Similarly we need to find ways to esteem the gifts of consecrated life, priesthood, etc without buying into all-too-worldly concepts and language of competitiveness and status (in the common sense of that term).


Secondly, I think that there is simply too little personal reflection on what is entailed in Baptism/Confirmation and the commitments made there by the laity themselves. The institutional Church tries to make up for (or better, perhaps, encourage) this in homilies, adult faith formation, the commissioning of ministers, the sprinkling rite and renewal of baptismal promises done at various points throughout the Church year at Mass but the responsibility for reflection and expression here falls directly on the laity. In the main this failure to reflect adequately is due to a failure to implement Vatican II as thoroughly as it required. Part of this means that Baptism is still seen mainly as something done to babies which washes away sin rather than ALSO and even primarily being an act of consecration which should be ratified throughout one's life in decisions every bit as momentous as those flowing from religious vows, ordination, and entrance into the ordained or consecrated states.

Sometimes I receive emails from people thinking about making private vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Occasionally these are from married persons who feel something driving them to do this. When we explore what is going on it almost always comes down to two things: 1) they have not reflected at all on what their baptismal promises (or consecration more generally!) requires of them NOW, and 2) they have not done anything similar with their marriage vows. Once they engage in this kind of reflection and find ways to renew and specify the meaning of these vows in the present moment there is rarely a need for additional vows. After all, the evangelical counsels are meant to be entered into in some form or expression by every Christian. Working out within the context of a marriage how poverty, chastity (chaste love), and obedience (a faithful hearkening to the Word and Presence of God in our lives) are to be exercised by both persons is a necessary exercise. What must be remembered though is that Religious vows are specifications of baptismal vows, and I would suggest that marriage vows are also specifications of baptismal vows. They oblige us to reflect on this foundational commitment and to specify it further in our lives.

It may not be realized by most people, but religious vows are not made and then set aside as wholly understood or exhaustively entered into on the day of profession. (Though neither do I mean they are only half-heartedly or partially entered into on this occasion!) What I mean is that vows are not only contracts or covenants which bind legally or morally; they are doorways through which one enters the world (and the Kingdom) in a new way, from a new perspective, with a new mind and heart. One spends an entire lifetime exploring what they mean and oblige to; one spends an entire lifetime conforming oneself (or being conformed) to these. Obedience at temporary profession may look very different than it looks 25 years later. It may look very different to the superior than it does to the postulant. Poverty and chastity (or conversatio morum and stability) are similar and their shape changes as the person matures spiritually and personally. Thus religious or consecrated men and women regularly renew their vows (or other commitments) publicly (in community), and they do so privately much more frequently than that. (In truth every day is a lived reflection on these vows.) Baptismal vows are the framework for living a life of discipleship and if we have not reflected on our baptismal or marriage vows for some time, we may have failed to reflect seriously on the framework or shape discipleship is meant to take in our own lives.

Thirdly then, I think we need to provide liturgical options for the renewal of baptismal and other commitments. The Easter Liturgy is wonderful for this, the rite of sprinkling and renewal of vows which stems from this and continues throughout the church year, especially when it attends Baptisms of new members, can be helpful, but it must not simply become pro forma or routine. One reason people may fail to take these commitments seriously is because individual parishes do not do so either. Today, for instance, we have parishes which fulfill the directives and honor the teaching of the Church on baptism by requiring significant preparation on the part of families and godparents. They understand the theology of baptism and treat initiation into the faith community as something of great dignity. However, we also have parishes which "make it as easy as possible" despite knowing that once baptized the child will never be seen in the church again except perhaps for the occasional wedding or funeral. We are caught between two paradigms or theologies of baptism, the first which focused almost solely on the washing away of original sin, and the second which adopts the richer vision of baptism as the Sacrament which makes of the person part of the People of God, the LAOS, from which we get the theology of the lay state. The first paradigm and acquiescence to pressure to "just baptize the kid or I will find someone who will" is a source of our failure to regard adequately vocations to the lay state because it itself fails to regard initiation into the People (laos) of God adequately.

Baptism is not a right. It is a privilege. Belonging to the People of God is a gift and privilege --- though one we ordinarily do not exclude people from. Being a member of the Body of Christ is a gift and privilege with corresponding rights and obligations. We must, as a church, give full and consistent voice to this message across the board. Insofar as this means rejecting the older paradigm of baptism and its rather mechanical approach to original sin as inadequate, we must do that --- not just intellectually but in all of our pastoral praxis. Otherwise we give double messages and people come away thinking baptism (and entrance into the lay state) are merely received passively while implying no real change in our humanity (forgetting we become a New Creation!) or ongoing maturing commitment and personal engagement. In other words, we give the impression that except for washing away the stain of original sin when we were infants (whatever THAT means to us really) they are just not all that big a deal. The result is we mistakenly come to believe it is only through OTHER VOWS, entrance into OTHER states which are solely associated with adulthood and active and mature commitment that we reach the fullness of the Christian vocation.

I have to cut this off at this point. I hope this helps as a beginning answer (for there are certainly other reasons I have not mentioned). If it raises more questions or leaves confusion, please get back to me.

"Different, Not Better"?

[[Sister, it sounds like you believe vocations to the consecrated life are better than those which are not. I know you say "different, not better" but if the rights and responsibilities are greater then doesn't that indicate the vocation is better too? I am trying to understand how distinguishing between initiation into the consecrated state is not better than remaining in the lay state. I am also trying to see how what you say is not a subtle demeaning of the lay state.]]

It is really a shame that the language of superiority and inferiority has had to take such a hold in regard to these discussions --- something that has happened throughout the history of the Church. We are still suffering from its effects. It is possible to find religious men and women and priests who affirm that the consecrated or ordained states are better or higher than the lay state because of Aquinas' analysis of the objective superiority of such vocations), but this is not what I hold nor, I think, is it what Thomas held. (My own impression when I hear this reference to "better" is that they have completely misunderstood the import of the Thomistic language here.) In any case I think that Thomas' language is almost impossible to accurately adopt today given the strongly ingrained impulse we have towards egalitarianism and our allergy to the language of superiority/inferiority -- no matter how it is nuanced -- so I prefer to speak of "different, not better" and I mean this sincerely.

The Dignity of Baptismal Consecration and the Universal Call to Holiness

When we speak of God calling some people to the lay state, some to the ordained state, others to the consecrated state, do we really want to say that he calls some to a better or "higher" vocation than others? I don't think so. Because someone is given and accepts a different set of rights and responsibilities than another do we want to suggest those rights and responsibilities are better than those of another person? I definitely don't think so. It is possible to esteem people and the vocations they have been called to without buying into the superiority/inferiority game (which again I don't think Thomas was doing himself.) It is also, therefore, possible to differentiate vocations with regard to rights, responsibilities or state without demeaning other vocations. In what I have written I have sincerely tried to do this, and in fact, my objections to "half-way" or middle states was rooted in the recognition that speaking or thinking this way fails in precisely this regard.

Why is it as soon as people feel called to an intensification of their baptismal commitment they almost automatically think in terms of requiring consecration, vows, special dress, titles, etc which supposedly do not make them lay any longer? Why not instead undertake reflection on the baptismal commitment and vows themselves and find ways to specify them in every day life? (I would note that liturgically we try to do this with the sprinkling rite where we renew our baptismal vows or with the commissioning of ministers, but the question is why isn't this truly effective?) Why is it reflection on the lay vocation is even yet generally done by priests and religious? Why is it the insistence of Vatican II on the place of the laity in the universal call to holiness has not taken hold as fully or effectively as it might have or was desired by the Council Fathers? I think in all of these ways and others we see the effect of a Church that has indeed treated the lay vocation as second or third class. The sense of needing to be called to consecrated or ordained life to really "give oneself" to God in a full and meaningful way is a left-over bit of this ecclesiastical world-view which is symptomatic of a deep-seated sense of inferiority on the part of laity generally.

Combating the Sense of Lay Inferiority: Religious Lay Aside the Habit

One of the most important reasons many religious men and women gave up the habit was to encourage the laity (and here I mean laity in the vocational sense of those in the lay state) to assume the dignity of these vocations. Religious women especially saw themselves as part of the laity (in the hierarchical rather than vocational sense of that term) and let go of dress which distinguished them in ways which contributed to the superiority/inferiority divide which was assumed so strongly before and immediately after Vatican II. The intention was not to demean or deny their own sense of belonging to the consecrated state or the dignity of that (though they are accused of this today, sometimes by the very laity meant to benefit from the act of relinquishing the habit), but to enhance the laity's sense of being called to the same kind of vocational dignity. The accent here was on affirming the universal call to holiness and encouraging those in the lay state to see themselves in terms of this very great dignity and call. Thus, religious sacrificed the signs of vocational distinction for the greater solidarity of baptismal or hierarchical equality.

I believe in some ways this was effective and broke down barriers to ministry, etc. Certainly it assisted people in valuing lay life and imagining or actually seeing themselves as genuinely called by God both to holiness and to ministry in ways similar to those called to consecrated life. In many ways the visual and emotional divide which not only distinguished but alienated and exacerbated the destructive "special vs ordinary" or "superior vs inferior" dichotomies was minimized. In other ways though it was ineffective or even counterproductive. The Church as a whole lost the sense of the presence of the vocation to the consecrated state and the divide between religious and lay was transferred over time to become (to mention one way only) the divide between "true religious" vs "quasi religious", for instance. It lost the sense that "lay" has two senses in the church and left us with the hierarchical sense alone. It also may have contributed to the sense that initiation into the consecrated state comes merely with dedication of oneself via vows of any sort beyond baptism, and obscured the distinction (not inequality!) between ecclesial and non-ecclesial vocations.

The point is that religious women generally have been at the forefront of insisting on the universal call to holiness and the very great dignity of ALL vocations and vocational states. I am not automatically placing myself in this company, but I do agree with the theology that both informs these efforts and motivated the Council Fathers at Vatican II. What all these people have seen and do see today is that Baptism and what happens there is of tremendous import and dignity. To become adopted Daughters and Sons of God when we were not these before is an almost unimaginable gift worthy of immeasurable esteem. To live and minister in the name of Christ is of similar import. To be consecrated in the Sacrament of initiation and made a part of the very Body of Christ should not be minimized or treated as a 2nd or 3rd class vocation. It is not!

I personally wear a habit, and I do so for a number of reasons which I believe are well-founded. However, there are also several reasons which would lead me to drop its use in short order. This issue of esteeming the lay state and minimizing the superior/inferior and special/ordinary divides is one of them. If I really thought the wearing of the habit at this point in time was contributing significantly to the inability of lay people to take the vocation to the lay state seriously or to believe they had to enter the consecrated state to really give themselves to God, I would likely need in conscious to let go of it. One reason I do not is because I have seen its relinquishment also create a kind of gap or lacunae in understanding the difference between consecration and dedication, or between ecclesial and non-ecclesial vocations. The sacrifice women religious made in order to bring home the Vatican II message of a universal call to holiness was a significant one but at the same time it was not completely helpful.

Different, Not Better: The Body of Christ has Many Members with Many Functions

Even so, the bottom line here is that we are told, and asked to believe, that the Body of Christ has many parts with different functions. An eye should not wish (or try) to be a hand, a hand should not wish (or try) to be a foot, etc. Nor, of course, should the eye be treated as "better" than the hand, etc. They are distinct realities and have different functions, different gifts, but each is important to the functioning of the whole and none is better than the other. The rights and responsibilities of the eye are different than those of the hand, but different here does not mean better. The pastor of my parish has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but this certainly does not mean his vocation is better than mine. Similarly the mother across the street from the church has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but this does not mean that either of our vocations is better than the other's. A lay hermit has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but again, that does not mean either vocation is better than the other. I think you see what I am trying to say with all this!