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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical Secularity?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, you disagree that CV's wearing veils, embracing lives which are more like those of religious than not, etc is a more radical form of the CV life for women living in the world. How can secularity be a radical call? Why wouldn't those things indicate a more radical discipleship than secularity?]]

 I am posting a copy of a piece I already wrote, and which you may have seen (it's one of the pieces which was criticized for nitpicking and hairsplitting). The basic idea is that we ALL live a radical discipleship wherever we are called to do that. Radical means at the root; the location is far less important in determining radicality than wholeheartedness or thoroughgoingness. CV's living in the world and called to be apostles in the things of both spirit and world are called to live this radicality in the world, the saeculum. Here is the piece; if it is what raised your questions and so, actually leaves them unanswered, then please get back to me:

Personally, I don't think what is being suggested by those who seek to make c 604 into a quasi-religious vocation is a more radical way of living out consecrated virginity in the world, but instead, a less radical way. Distinctive garb and religious vows for the CV called to secularity are ways of separating oneself from the everyday world in which one is called to live out one's vocation. This is especially true of  religious obedience which frames one's freedom in ways which restrict or mitigate one's secularity, but it is true of religious poverty as well. What seems far more radical to me is living a completely secular life but as a consecrated person; in other words, it is a sacred secularity which one is called to live radically, not a vocation which is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious.

While consecration under c 604 sets one apart FOR and to God, it does NOT set one apart FROM the world. One is not meant to be OF the world in the sense 1 John uses the term so often, of course; instead one is of God and set apart FOR God, but one is absolutely called to live this vocation IN the world and in the things of the world, not in stricter separation from it as religious and hermits are called to. A passage from the homily of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins Living in the World reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world.]] (emphasis added). As I have noted in the past, NO religious has ever been told they are apostles "in the things of the world"!

Vatican II worked very hard to be sure that lay persons understood theirs was not an entry level vocation, not second class, and similarly that the secular world was not to be despised but embraced for its truest potential and transformed into (or allowed to be) the sacrament of God it was made to be. While secularism is not a good thing (this essentially asserts the secular is the ultimate value and reality), the secular itself and thus the ordinary life we call secular, as God reminds us in Genesis, are essentially VERY good and holy indeed. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called upon to live out this truth as exhaustively as possible and summon lay persons to do the same in their own state of life.

I personally can't think of a calling which is more challenging than a radical living out of one's secular vocation in a way which allows the secular to be every bit as sacred as it is meant to be. Religious are separated from aspects of secular life by their vows, and in many cases, by distinctive garb. (The vow of poverty separates them from the economic dimensions of the secular world in some ways, obedience separates them from the world of secular power and influence and, as noted above, asks them to exercise freedom differently, while consecrated celibacy separates them from many of the relationships and social obligations which are part and parcel of secular life.) They are actually prohibited from taking a full part in secular life canonically. CV's consecrated under canon 604 are not only called to take a full part in secular life, but to do so in a way which calls it to become completely and exhaustively the realm of the sovereign God. Theirs is a witness  which is at once radically holy and radically secular. I would argue anything which mitigates or compromises the sharpness of this paradox is actually less radical than the vocation calls for.

[Regarding flexibility vs making of canon 604 something it is not because there are supposed lacunae in the canon itself]: In my own life I am certainly free to discover the shape of contemporary eremitical life as our Church and world needs it. The canon that governs my life itself gives me that right and obligation by demanding a specific combination of non-negotiable elements and the Rule which the hermit herself writes. The Fathers who created this canon allowed for that freedom and flexibility, of course. However, they did not allow me to neglect or compromise the essential nature of either the eremitical or the solitary eremitical vocation in doing so. I am responsible not only for my own vocation, but for the eremitical vocation itself (and more specifically, the solitary eremitical vocation).

Thus, when the Church defines it as one of "stricter separation from the world" and (sometimes) marks that with distinctive garb and a prayer garment (cowl, etc), frames and structures it with vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, defines it more clearly with a prohibition of community life (lauras are different than cenobitical life), and with functional cloister and diocesan stability (diocesan hermits cannot move to another diocese without the permission of both current and receiving Bishops), I cannot simply relinquish all of these and turn it into a secular vocation because I might personally feel called to this in some way or because (rightfully) either a secular or cenobitical religious vocation too seem very good to me. My experimentation and discernment have definite limits because of the solitary eremitical NATURE of my vocation, no matter what the Fathers failed to say in their deliberations on establishing this vocation in the 20th Century. I suggest the same is true of canon 604.