On Hermit Ministry and the Call to become God's own Prayer in our World

[[Dear Sister, I've been thinking about what you wrote about eremitical life not being selfish earlier this month. I also read the post you linked that one to. I think I understand your position but how in the world would the Church be able to distinguish between someone who is living a form of selfishness and someone who gives up using discrete gifts for the sake of a more basic message?  How does the Church at large see what hermits witness to when they have such a strong emphasis on ministering to others in active ministries? Do you see your prayer for others is an important piece of your own ministry (not sure I understand about becoming God's own prayer but I don't like the language of "prayer warrior" either)?]]

Your questions are important; thank you for them. Your first question has to do with discernment and implicitly it addresses the importance of the Church's role in governing and supervising eremitical vocations --- at least to the extent they are truly eremitical and genuinely witness to the fact that God alone is sufficient for us. It is true that superficially a selfish life and a life that instead gives up discrete gifts for the sake of this message largely look the same. Both are mainly not involved in active ministry; both are lived in a kind of separation from others. At bottom, however, I think it becomes clear that the motivation for these will differ one from the other; at the same time, when one looks deeper, it becomes clear that the first is NOT lived for the salvation of others while the second one is. You see, the second and authentically eremitical vocation is motivated by love, first of all by love of God and in and through that, by one's love of everyone and everything grounded in God; it will be marked not by selfishness but by the gift of one's time. energy, resources, dwelling place, etc (including the sacrifice of some or most all of one's specific gifts and talents) for God's own sake. It is a difficult paradox which trusts that the Gospel message turns on the power of God being made perfect in weakness or even emptiness.

My sense is that the evidence that this is a vocation of love and self-sacrifice will simply not be the case in the instance of selfishness. A diocese will, over time, be able to see that a "hermit" lives this life mainly as an expression of selflessness and isolation. They will be able to discern how and why others are living vocations of love instead. Similarly then, they will be able to discern whether this person is simply an isolated person "happy" (or deeply unhappy!) in their isolation (that is, they are not living or seeking to live eremitical solitude in order to love God and others) and who are perhaps attempting to validate this antisocial stance by achieving the standing of a religious, or whether this person/candidate has embraced a necessary separation from others in order to serve them as a hermit. (For those with chronic illnesses, and other forms of brokenness that they are working with and through with spiritual direction, etc., the Church will generally be able to see that isolation has been transformed by God into solitude with God for the sake of others and a "stricter separation from the world" than that embraced by other religious; they will be able to see that the person desiring to be recognized as a hermit will have worked towards and embraced this important redemptive distinction.) I think this is one way the Church discerns whether they are dealing with a lone, profoundly unhappy and isolated individual or whether they are dealing with an authentic eremitical vocation.

Your question about seeing can also be a question about understanding, namely, how does the Church understand what hermit's witness to when they have such a strong emphasis on ministering to others. Here I think the Church must turn to her own theology of the Cross, her own reflection on the cross of Christ and how it was that at the moment Jesus was most incapable of active ministry when he had to let go of all of his discrete gifts and talents, when, that is, he could count on nothing and no one but the power of God's love working in and through him in his abject poverty and weakness, that was his most powerful act of ministry. Jesus' death on the cross changed the whole of reality; it was not a matter of healing 1 person or 1000, or even 1,000,000's. His openness and responsiveness to God alone, his witness to the fact that God's love alone is sufficient for us and for reconciling and perfecting the whole of reality, was something he did only as his deepest, most exhaustive act of self-emptying.

My own conviction is that hermits are called to a similar degree of self-emptying. My own life and death are not going to change all of reality in the way Jesus's did, but I participate in moving that same change in Christ forward and I can certainly witness to the foundational truth that nothing at all (including isolation and the lack of gifts and talents with which one can or will serve others) will separate us from the love of God. More, even in our emptiness and incapacity we can witness to a love that is deeper than death and itself can transform all of reality. My own hope is that the Church will come in time to understand more completely that hermits are not primarily called to be prayer warriors or "power houses of prayer", for instance, or to measure their lives in terms of various active ministries, but instead, that we are called to witness in a form of white martyrdom to the Cross of Christ and the way human emptiness itself can become a Sacrament of the powerful and eternal Love-in-act that is God --- if only we are truly obedient to that Love-in-Act. This obedience (which is always motivated by love, faith, and a degree of selflessness) is what I was referring to in the first couple of paragraphs above --- the thing that distinguishes a true hermit from a lone individual whose life is marked by isolation rather than eremitical solitude.

So, in saying this, I think I have anticipated your question about being a prayer warrior vs becoming God's own prayer. Yes, I believe the assiduous prayer a hermit does is important and indispensable. However, in saying I believe the hermit (especially and paradigmatically) is meant to become God's own prayer in the world, what I mean is that in our radical self-emptying and obedience, we open ourselves to becoming the Word God speaks to the world. This word, like the Word Incarnate in Christ, will be the embodiment of God's own will, love, life, dreams, purposes, etc. When you or I pray we pour ourselves into our prayer and our prayer is an expression of who we are and yearn to become. At the same time, in prayer (and thus, in Christ) we are taken up more intimately into God's own life. God's own being, will, and "yearnings" for the whole of creation are realities we are called on to express and embody or incarnate with our own lives. When we allow this foundational transformation to occur we more fully become the new creation we were made in baptism, a new kind of language or word event; we become flesh made Word and a personal expression of the Kingdom/Reign (sovereignty) of God. In other words, while hermits (and others!) are called upon to pray assiduously, we are made more fundamentally to be God's own prayer in our world and to witness to the fact that every person is capable of and called to this.

Addendum: I realized I did not answer your question re how the church sees this vocation given her strong emphasis on active ministry. It is a really good question, perceptive and insightful. Unfortunately, despite documents and other clear statements on the importance of contemplative life, my own experience is that generally speaking, chancery personnel distrust contemplative life and especially eremitical forms of contemplative life. In part this is because everything happening there is inner --- a matter of the deepest parts of the human person alone with God --- without this necessarily spilling over into active ministry or immediate personal change (growth here is ordinarily slow and quiet); for this reason, such vocations can be difficult to deal with and seem difficult to govern by those charged with such tasks in the chancery --- especially when these persons are not contemplatives or essentially contemplative themselves.  But in part, it is because among chancery clergy and religious there is sometimes a kind of sense that contemplative prayer is relatively insignificant in comparison to active ministry. (This may well be a reason prayer itself is consistently made into a quasi-active ministry and hermits are called (or called to be) "prayer warriors" by some; this may also stem from the traditional vision of hermits battling the demonic in our world.) The notion that the hermit is called to BE someone, namely God's own prayer in our world, rather than simply being called to DO something, namely assiduous prayer and penance is not an easy theologicaL transition for some to take hold of.

It is the case that some who do not understand contemplative prayer mischaracterize and distrust it. This tends to be a more Protestant than Catholic failing but some Catholic clergy has been known to see contemplative prayer in an elitist way, and so, dismiss ordinary person's accounts that they are called to it. Also, however, given the prevalence of individualism rampant in today's society which includes experiments in cocooning and an overemphasis on electronic devices even when we are together socially,  chancery personnel are right to be suspicious of (or at least cautious about) individuals claiming to have felt they have an eremitical vocation since such vocations are actually antithetical to the individualism of the culture and meant to be prophetic in this regard. Finally, there is the simple fact that such vocations have always been statistically and spiritually rare. Church officials are, in this regard as well, rightly cautious in discerning eremitical vocations or dealing with something whose nature is so clearly paradoxical (e.g., communal in solitude, witnessing in silence, etc).

Thanks again for your questions. I sincerely hope my answer is helpful. Get back to me if it raises more questions.

On Selfishness versus Selflessness in Eremitical Life

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I wondered if you could clarify how an eremitical vocation is not a selfish vocation, particularly in light of your last post on limited ministry and having an apostolate to the eremitical life/hermitage. Thank you.]]

Thanks for your question. I have been struggling to articulate the truth of this since August 2015 or so and gradually moving towards this important point in my prayer and reflection for a lot longer than that. One of the posts I wrote prior to the last post (01. October. 2018) dealt with the distinction between retiring to a hermitage out of selfishness and doing so out of a genuine love for others; it is found here: On the Question of Selfishness versus Hiddenness Lived for Others. I would urge you to take a look at this. I think it is clearer in some ways than my last post, but it does not use the language of "apostolate", a form of structured evangelization or proclamation of the Gospel to which one is sent (or with which one is entrusted) by the Church.

You see, hermits evangelize precisely by becoming whole and holy in their hermitages and thus witnessing to the fact that every human being, no matter how poor, is called to and can attain the same authentic humanity. We say that God completes us, that God alone is sufficient for us. I think this is what Merton was speaking of when he said (paraphrase) "the primary duty of the hermit is to live in (his) hermitage without pretense in a fundamental peace (and joy)," or, that the hermit makes "fundamental claims about nature and grace" which truly gives hope to others. What Merton saw, and I think what every authentic hermit sees is that his "apostolate" was exercised precisely within the hermitage. We are sent forth (made apostles) to proclaim the Good News with our lives, but the place within which that apostolate always occurs is the hermitage through  "stricter separation from the world," and "the silence of solitude" lived and achieved there. The Church is entrusted with this vocation and is responsible for sending hermits forth into their hermitages because she believes profoundly that commissioning hermits paradoxically advances the proclamation of the Gospel in our world.

I think it is relatively easy to substitute selfishness for the unselfishness of the authentic eremitical vocation. While people are free to choose lay eremitical life, it is easier to do so selfishly when hermits are not charged (commissioned) by the church with the mission canonical hermits are charged with, when, that is, someone simply chooses solitude as the environment in which they will live their lives. Whether true or not, this choice usually seems at least somewhat selfish to those looking at the hermit's life unless there are mitigating circumstances which make solitude a necessary context for living a life of wholeness and holiness. Here is one place admission to canonical standing helps clarify the motivation and meaning of the hermit's solitude. Moreover, since the external trappings are mainly the same for each one these do not clarify whether the life lived is essentially selfish or not;  thus too, determining selfishness and unselfishness is part of what makes discernment and formation both critical, difficult, and relatively time consuming. Over time the Church will see that the hermit's life is lived for God and for others, and that the hermit will persevere in the sacrifices needed in order to do this in "the silence of solitude" or she will find that the hermit is not called to eremitical life. The Church will find that she is meant to mediate God's own "sending" or missioning a person into stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude, or she is not.

Certain things will be evident in the life of eremitical authenticity: faithfulness to one's Rule, perseverance in trust in the God who alone is sufficient for us, growth in wholeness and holiness as one undertakes one's life of prayer, personal work, lectio, and study in silence and solitude.  One's love for God, for others and for oneself will also grow; personal healing and maturation will clearly be present in an ongoing way. The capacity to securely hold onto the foundational vision of the life as one negotiates legitimate ministerial claims upon one's time and energies will gradually be revealed and strengthened. A deep happiness at being oneself as a hermit which is not the same as the superficial happiness of getting one's own way or "doing one's own thing" will be increasingly evident, and one will be entirely comfortable with the sacrifices the vocation requires because the grace of the vocation is so much greater and important to and for others.

Although not quite on topic, let me say here that the profound sense some bishops and vicars have that this vocation should not be rushed into, that formation and discernment both take time (at least five years for initial formation and discernment) are right on target. (I would suggest at least five years mutual discernment is necessary before one can be admitted to temporary profession but that this is not long enough to admit to perpetual profession unless there is significant religious formation and life experience before beginning the pursuit of profession under c 603.) In any case, it is only over time that the motivation and sacrifices which are part and parcel of the vocation become truly clear to everyone involved in the processes of discernment and formation. One of these sacrifices is active ministry except on a very limited basis; at the same time the conviction that life in the hermitage itself is our apostolate is something we will come to see clearly only in time.

The bottom line in distinguishing between selfishness and selflessness is rooted in the truth that it is a profoundly loving and ministerial act to accept the commission to become the persons God calls us to be in the silence of solitude. Because the hermit believes deeply in this paradoxical truth and embraces it wholeheartedly she will make every sacrifice including the renunciation of many discrete gifts and talents which would be tied to ministries outside the hermitage in order to live the truth of the completion and redemption  that comes to her as the fruits of eremitical life.  She will wholeheartedly embrace stricter separation from the world and life lived in and for the silence of solitude along with the other requirements of c 603 precisely because doing so will allow her own redemption and the unique proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ associated with her eremitical life. She will do so in order to witness to the power of the grace of God to transform every human poverty into the fullness of incarnational humanity. She will embrace and allow God to achieve in her life the self-emptying required to glorify God in the silence of eremitical solitude.

Moreover, she will do so for the sake of those from whom she is largely separated and to whom her life is largely hidden in order that they may also know the freedom and hope of life lived in communion with God. To fail in this is to fail to allow God to redeem one in the solitude of the hermitage; it is to fail to commit to the growth in wholeness and holiness the love of God makes possible and to live an isolated egotism rather than the silence of solitude. Beside the importance of the Church's "sending" of the hermit into "the silence of solitude," this is the reason the redemptive element is also so crucial for discerning authentic eremitical vocations.  When the hermit's eremitical life fails to reflect an experience of redemption in solitude there is simply nothing for her to witness to and she will have failed to live eremitical life successfully ---  or at least to demonstrate this was what she was called and sent to by God via the ministry of God's Church..

I sincerely hope this is helpful to you.

Defeating Godless Death: Why it could Not Happen by Divine Fiat

[[Sister, I know you might not be able to answer this until after Easter and that's okay. I can see why a lot of individual miracles would not have been enough, I think, but couldn't God have just have defeated sin and death with a word? Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead so why couldn't God not have done something similar for all of us? Thank you for your posts. I really enjoy them.]]

Thanks for your comments and questions. They are good and important ones. They arise for us especially around the Triduum. In fact, the question of what was possible for God came up in a discussion I had with a priest friend on Holy Thursday so it's pretty fresh for me. Your reference to Lazarus' being raised not only sharpens the question, but is actually also the key to answering it. You see, one of the things biblical scholars and theologians point out is that Lazarus was not resurrected in the way Jesus was. Lazarus was not raised to new or eternal life but to a mortal life in and of this world, a life which would one day end again in death. Sometimes they will point out the difference between resuscitation and resurrection in speaking of Jesus himself; the distinction works for what happened to Lazarus as well. What they are trying to point out in this is that there was something lacking in this event; the raising of Lazarus was somehow insufficient to deal definitively with death.

In Jesus' raising of Lazarus, godless death itself is not destroyed and until this happens the victory needed over sin is not accomplished in any life much less brought to completion in every life and the whole of creation. It is therefore possible to understand this particular miracle of Jesus as the climax of a history of acts of power --- healings, exorcisms, etc --- which are still insufficient to destroy godless death and death itself.  Even were Jesus to do this for every person he could have, it would simply not have been enough. Death itself must be transformed from the godless reality it is to a reality in which God is met face to face and one day, destroyed completely. This  entry into the realm of godless death (or, from another perspective, the taking up of godless death into God's own life so that it and the whole of reality is transformed and made sacramental) is the heart of what we understand as the reconciliation of the world on a cosmic level.

On a more personal but intimately related level it is important to remember that the death we die is understood theologically as a consequence of sin. There is a natural perishing which is intrinsic to the evolving, imperfect world we know. But human beings are broken and estranged by sin and this complicates the death we each will die. It is no longer a natural perishing but what I have referred to a number of times as godless death. Every time we make a choice for something other than God or for life in God, we effectively choose godless death as well. If we choose to live without God so then we choose to die without God --- and that means we choose death as emptiness without Love, without God. We not only choose it as a future reality, we build it into our lives and even into our very selves (body, etc.) so it affects every moment of our lives. Paul asks, "Who will save us from this body of death?" He is clear in his theology that the situation is more dire and intractable than a merely natural perishing. It is something from which we must  be saved.

When we are being saved from godlessness this occurs by God transforming this, and in fact the whole of historical existence with his presence. And when godlessness is a dimension of the death which dwells within us and which we ourselves loose in this world, we are speaking of a personal reality which God cannot simply destroy by fiat --- not without destroying us as well. God must be "given access" to this reality, and that access, which is achieved in a generous self-emptying motivated by love of God, must be more radical, more profound, than any sinner can manage. This is so because it can only occur through one's openness and attentiveness to God --- an openness and attentiveness which is deeper than human sinfulness, an openness to the will of God which can only be seen clearly by one whose selflessness and love are entirely uncompromised by human alienation and brokenness.

The NT word for this kind of openness is obedience; to express the radical or exhaustive quality of Jesus' own salvific obedience Paul says more;  namely, he defines it as [[obedience unto death, even death on a cross]]; Jesus' radical, exhaustive obedience, opens the way for God to enter the most godforsaken dimensions of our lives and world. But this is not a miracle he could have done "from the outside" or "without complete self-emptying" in the profoundly compassionate but still somewhat personally distanced way he healed illnesses or exorcised demons. It required he take on sinful death itself in an act of complete identification with out state and in an exhaustive helplessness and kenosis. In this way Jesus' obedience allows for "God's power [to become] perfected in weakness." In both his miracles and in his resurrection Jesus mediates the grace of God. In the miracles he has not yet relinquished the degree of agency or authority he yet possessed nor the distance from our sinful conditions or situation he entirely relinquishes on the cross.

This kind of relinquishment or self-emptying is only "learned" --- if it is ever "learned" or "achieved" in one's life --- through radical suffering. (Words are difficult at this point and in speaking about this "learning" and "achieving", "revealed" in the sense of  "being made real (realized) in space and time" may be the best word here.) The process is not automatic --- as though suffering alone produces the change; it does not. But through such suffering the person of faith gradually becomes entirely dependent on the grace of God; thus, self-emptying occurs. One moves from faith to deeper and deeper faith as human weakness is transformed and transfigured by Divine power. We have all experienced this process in our own lives in various ways and to various depths and degrees, but to remain open to God's presence and power even as one experiences God's complete absence (something I believe only Jesus has experienced) was necessary to destroy godless death. The bottom line in all of this is that God could not have destroyed godless or sinful death simply by fiat; human obedience (openness to God's power and presence) was necessary to allow God access to this essentially personal reality. In his exhaustive openness to God Jesus achieved this in and through his death by crucifixion; as a direct consequence he was raised from godless death to eternal life at the right hand of God.

And though this is a separate topic let me note that what remains is for us to be made sharers in THIS death of Jesus. Christians have had this happen through baptism where they are "baptized into (Christ's) death, and thus too, into his resurrection"; in this way we are literally made a new creation. Eternal life has broken into our temporal/historical world and transformed it utterly; we become a people of hope --- trusting God for the ultimate meaning of our lives and empowered to love God's creation into greater and greater  wholeness as we live this new creation here and now in a conscious and explicit way. This is at the heart of our vocations and (com)missioning to embody and proclaim the Good News with our lives.