Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (Reprised and Redacted)

Of all the feasts we celebrate, this Sunday's feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for our's is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it  because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS, and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus' freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self which must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way which subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life-possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely in order that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

Followup to "Radical Secularity?"

[[Dear Sister, yes, that was the piece I read that raised my questions. Thank you. The paragraph you added in the beginning was very helpful in clarifying things for me. But I still wonder about calling this a secular vocation. Aren't CV's required to say the Divine Office? Isn't this a requirement of religious life? How can it also be a requirement of a wholehearted or "thoroughgoing" secular vocation? It seems to me that there is some confusion built right into the vocation itself.]]

There are other posts here from awhile back explaining the secularity of the vocation in more detail so I would sugest you look at those. Check the label "sacred secularity" and that should get you to those. Regarding the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours, yes religious often say it (unless one is ordained this is a matter of proper law rather than canon law --- as canon 663.3 explains). However, the Divine Office is highly recommended for any Christian and some parishes do celebrate Morning and Evening Prayer  (Lauds and Vespers) regularly. Also, some parishes without priests use MP (Morning Prayer) as the framework for a Communion service. Additionally, some who cannot celebrate Office everyday add a sung Vespers to their Sunday services, for instance. While these practices have never caught on with the whole Church, the Divine Office IS the official prayer of the entire Church and is not set apart for Religious alone.

For this reason I would say that this is another of those areas that Consecrated Virgins are called on to model a sacred secularity for all those called to Christian Discipleship. It would be great if CV's could help make Office a regular part of the prayer life in their own parishes or dioceses, for instance. It could be done effectively with just a handful of people (just as it often is in small religious houses) and a simple format. CV's could, conceivably lead the way in finding resources, teaching the Office, etc. (Meanwhile, teaching just Night prayer (Compline) itself, which can easily be prayed alone and needs fewer resources would be a wonderful service to many who would love this particular hour to complete their day.)  I would bet that some Religious who tend to pray Office alone because their ministries demand they live apart from a convent setting, for instance, would join in regularly as well. It would be a great piece of breaking down the artificial boundaries between religious and secular (because prayer is NOT one of the legitimate boundaries) and help transform the life of the parish as well.

Be clear in all of this that secular is not synonymous with profane or irreligious. Every Christian, Secular, Religious, or Eremitical is called on to be a person of prayer. The graces attached to the vocation of consecrated virginity lived in the world make these CV's apostles of a sacred secularity and may in fact be calling them to assist the laity to discover that their own vocations are calls to an exhaustive holiness and prayerfulness. If CV's are truly called to commitments in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world a piece of this will certainly be calling all their brothers and sisters to the life of prayer of the Church in a way which breaks down unnecessary (and often all-too-worldly) boundaries and divisions.

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.

Magic Square

Just for fun. How many squares are included in the above? I got 40. (Do not count the border blogger puts around the picture!!!)

On Consecrated Virginity, "Hairsplitting" and "nitpicking"

[[Dear Sister, I see that you got hassled for "hairsplitting" and "nitpicking" in the distinctions you drew in Phatmass discussion on Consecrated Virginity of Women living in the world. Like you I believe that words have meaning and it is a sign of respect for meaning and truth to take care with language. I don't mean to ask you to repeat all you have written here about the vocation to sacred secularity which c 604 represents but I wonder if you have an explanation of why people so object to someone being clear about how the Church uses language?  With regard to c 604 and consecration why does this seem to be so do you think? Why is the secularity of the vocation such an issue? Also, why do people seem to need to say "My consecration is better than yours!!"?]]

Yes, I did get in a bit of  difficulty for making sure folks were using a basic vocabulary correctly. (One person even suggested Jesus would be weeping over all this hairsplitting! I agree he is likely sighing in forebearance, but not because of my concern over significant nuances.) For instance, one person said CV's made vows to their Bishops. I pointed out not only that CV's do not make vows at all, but that all vows are made to God alone, not to human beings. When someone complained that after all this was not heresy (and so, she implied, not all THAT important) I pointed out that it could be heresy and was, at the very least, blasphemy since making vows TO a person rather than in their hands arrogates to them a dignity which is due God alone. The content and dynamics of a vow of obedience would be quite different if one was vowing this TO a person rather than doing so in a way which commits BOTH persons to discern together what the will of God would be in any given situation. I also spoke of the distinction between receiving and witnessing a vow, and I pointed out that Vatican II assiduously kept the distinction between consecration (an act of God) and dedication (the human side of the commitment) so that we should not speak of consecrating ourselves to God, but of dedicating ourselves.

So, why are folks so careless with language, and more, so upset when one insists that words have meanings and that in canon law and theology people are very careful about nuances? Good question. I am sure simple ignorance is a big part of this. We aren't always used to using language accurately and in this world of instant electronic contact where letters replace words and acronyms replace actual sentences, taking care to actually learn and respect the nuances of usage or to reflect on the importance of these is becoming less and less common.  Unfortunately, another piece of this ignorance is an unawareness of the significant implications of usage. For instance, as noted above there is a BIG difference in living the content of promises made to a person and living the content of vows made to God. Vows bind both the subject and the superior in an ecclesial relationship as mutual discerners of God's will, and does so explicitly. It also makes clear that this is not blind obedience and that while the two persons are not peers, an individual, for significant reasons, may indeed disagree with a superior's judgment and be truly obedient to God nonetheless. Similarly there is a big difference between a legitimate superior receiving one's vows (an act done in the name of the church and resulting in legal relationships and obligations) and simply witnessing them (not done in the name of the Church , etc.) or between either eschewing (or embracing) secularism and eschewing (or embracing) a secular vocation.

But where vocations come into play being accurate is threatening to some. For those still wed to the notion that a lay vocation is an entry-level vocation and "lower" than a supposedly "higher" vocation like "consecrated" life, to point out that specifications of baptismal commitments with private vows are acts of dedication, not consecration or that these leave the person in the lay state, is something which threatens their view of themselves and others. Here the Church has simply done a very poor job in effectively teaching Vatican II's universal call to holiness, catechizing on the nature of Baptism, or on being clear how exhaustive the discipleship demanded of EVERY Christian is --- especially in light of a past Tradition that seemed to speak of things rather differently and which has never been adequately translated for contemporary church life.


With regard to c 604 and secularity we run into the same problems, and they all come to a head in this vocation's charism and importance. There are several problems: 1) people don't distinguish between the secular and secularism, though these are two very different things. Secularism treats the secular as the ultimate reality determining their actions and values; often they even worship it. Secularity, on the other hand, treats the everyday world of space and time (saeculum) as the potential sacrament of God's incarnational presence, honoring it appropriately as mediatory and charisma (gift); 2) people still distinguish a secular vocation as "lower" than a religious vocation despite the fact that both represent calls to exhaustive holiness, one a call lived in the world, and the second a call marked by degrees of separation from the world. (Thus the second has distinctive garb, and vows which qualify one's relationship to the central worldly dimensions of wealth, power, and relationships where the former does not.) 3) there remains a tendency to equate secularity with the profane (that which is "outside the temple"), and thus to denigrate it while equating consecrated life with the sacred (that which is of or within the Temple.)

When women consecrated to the sacred secularity of canon 604 argue against this secularity they tend to be unable to embrace the paradox here and continue to try and stress one element (sacredness or secularity) over the other. Thus, if one is consecrated the conclusion is they can't be secular and if one is secular the conclusion is one cannot be living a consecrated life (that is, in the consecrated state of life). But, the Incarnation modeled by Jesus tells us this is exactly wrong and so does what authoritative writers (including a Pope or two) have written about the vocation to consecrated virginity of women living in the world. It is hard to let go of the either/or, higher/lower mindsets so typical of the world's ways of evaluating things and to adopt the ways of the Reign of God. (None of us are far from being the disciples clamoring to know who is higher or who would be sitting at Jesus' right hand!) And yet, letting go of these ways of valuing reality is precisely an aspect of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world that is its truest charism or gift to the Church and World. It is in regard to this Kingdom message that CV's are apostles and prophets with a countercultural truth.

There is two further reasons this is all so difficult: 4) we are actually asking CV's under c 604 to adopt another theological context for understanding the eschatological nature of their vocations. If heaven is a  merely otherworldly reality (what is sometimes referred to as pie in the sky by and by) then it is true there is no reason to accept the call to be apostles of a Kingdom which interpenetrates this one and transfigures it into the Sacrament of God's presence. (For that matter there is little reason to invest in this world at all, whether in ministry, medicine, politics, education, or anything else.) But to be truly meaningful canon 604 requires CV's to recognize and embrace the truth that Paul, John,  and the early Church more generally spoke of heaven or eternal life in terms of the reconciliation and transformation of the saeculum in a way which looks forward to God one day being ALL in ALL. That is a huge theological step away from what so many believe today about heaven or the secular and a very demanding theological context to ask CV's to embrace and be clear about with their lives. Even so, it is a fundamental part of the theological context which undergirds the paradoxical sacred secularity of the call to consecrated virginity and allows it to be precisely the kind of gift our world yearns for so desperately.

The vocation is easily misunderstood and distorted without or apart from this context. After all, what the world does NOT need is another vocation which seems to say the secular cannot be embraced as the place God is made fully manifest, a vocation in which some dimension of the incarnational God we call Emmanuel is embarrassing or scandalous, a vocation which fails to embrace a thoroughgoing secularity vividly proclaiming the truth of Vatican II's universal call to holiness.

And this raises the final related reason all this is so difficult: 5) this is a "new" (recovered) vocation in search of its truest meaning after having been partly subverted by cloistered life and disappearing altogether in the 12th Century. The original consecrated virgins as a whole were not proto-nuns. They were secular women consecrated to serve the Church in every sphere of life and this vocation continued into the 1100's. But for centuries the only consecrated virgins have been cloistered nuns in solemn vows. With the promulgation of c 604 the Church has recovered the secular vocation which is to stand side by side the cloistered vocation in equal dignity. Unfortunately, the church and world have not yet come to understand or esteem this vocation properly, and neither have some CV's. Thus, some women consecrated under c 604 see themselves as quasi-nuns rather than secular women who are also consecrated.

The upshot of this is the vocation is usually defined in terms of what it is not rather than what it is (it is not religious life, these women are not nuns, do not have vows, are not called Sister, are not secular in the "strong sense", are not laity, etc). Such a vocation does not speak positively or prophetically to anyone. It is still in search of itself, and still struggling for recognition equal to that given to nuns, Sisters, canonical hermits, etc. I sincerely believe that until CV's consecrated under c 604 wholeheartedly adopt the SACRED SECULARITY of their vocations this struggle will continue and so will the vocation's inability to speak to anyone effectively (pastorally) much less prophetically.

As for your last question, why is there such a need for people to say essentially that, "My conse-cration is better (more lasting or eternal, more spousal, more God-given, etc) than yours"?  I guess everything I have spoken of up until this point is a piece of the answer, but the more general response would need to be, "Sin." Human sin is the reason for this. Sometimes it is evident as a lack of humility or desire for status along with a failure (or refusal) to see that every consecration, from Baptism onward, is an eternal act of God and a unique gift to the recipient, to the Church, and to the world more generally; but it is also true that in treating some vocations as superior and others as inferior the entire church has colluded in this situation. It is understandable that a person who believes they are called to an exhaustive discipleship and holiness would not believe an "entry level" vocation is sufficient.

Much of the time however, the answer to your question really has to do with our inability to think paradoxically --- another symptom of human sinfulness or estrangement from God, I would suggest. In fact, I would argue that our disregard or disdain for language and nuances of meaning is similarly rooted; so too is the  anti-intellectualism which seems to believe that someone who is trained to take these things seriously and honor truth in this way, is merely saying they are "better" than the next person. We do tend to judge what gifts of God we will accept and which we will not; anti-intellectualism clearly rejects certain gifts out of a false humility, a superficial sense of equality, and more importantly perhaps, a lack of appreciation or gratitude for truth.

I hope this is helpful.

Come and See!

 During the weeks after Christmas, the Church reads Johannine literature. Essentially this consists in John's reprise of the story of creation but now from the vantage point of preparing us for the recreation of everything in Christ. Thus, we hear the prologue to John's Gospel (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. . .the Word was made flesh . . . all that came to be came to be through him. . .) and then a series of readings which, for John correspond to seven days. On the sixth day John speaks of John the Baptist and the fact that he points beyond himself to the One who is greater and will baptize with the Spirit. When Jesus comes on the scene John affirms him as the Lamb of God --- with the richness and variety of meanings that accompany that term. John's disciples then turn from John Bp to Jesus and seek to come to know him. The new Era ("eternal life") begins in this way.

They ask him where he lives --- and the word for lives is the same word used in other Johannine literature meaning remain, reside, persevere, endure, and so forth. In the readings from Luke the accent was on hospitality and especially on offering God hospitality. Today's reading shifts this to Jesus' offering hospitality to those who are curious about him: "Come and see!" Come and see where I live; come and see where I truly rest,; come and see in whom I abide; come and see who I really am. Once the potential disciples have done this and spent some hours with Jesus they come back to find others and proclaim, "We have found the Messiah!" Their confession of faith is not the exhaustive one John will report they make later on, but it is a start and clearly they see that Jesus' offers something that goes beyond anything John the Baptist offered them.

Each of us has been baptized into Christ's death and resurrection. We share the new life, and are citizens of the New Era he inaugurated. But how many of us can say we have responded to Jesus' invitation to "Come and See" with any real focus or perseverance? Jesus has offered us each a unique form of hospitality. We know it when we come to Mass, hear the Word, sit in silence with one another, eat and drink the Eucharistic Bread and Wine, and sing of our joys and sorrows in the accompanying hymns and prayers. But for how many of us is home a place where we allow Jesus to say to us, "Come and see" or offer Him hospitality? What I have in mind here is allowing our homes to be a place where significant prayer and Scripture reading has a place or where we occasionally read the latest book on Jesus or something related to Him.

I haven't recommended too many books here, and none recently --- though I read a lot of them. However, I am going to recommend a couple here --- books I think will help give readers a chance to "Come and see!" The first is Jose Pagola's, Jesus, An Historical Approximation; the second is Gerhard Lohfink's, Jesus of Nazareth, What He Wanted, Who He Was; and the third is Pagola's, The Way Opened Up by Jesus, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.  Pagola is a new author for me and he was enthusiastically recommended by a visiting priest recently. He also has a book on the Sunday readings for this year which is good for those who want to use these lections as the heart of their lectio each week.  I am especially enjoying his book on Jesus. Whether we are accepting Jesus' offer of hospitality or offering him our own, we need to spend SOME time in this kind of reading.  To really "Come and See" means allowing our minds and hearts to be opened to a new vision of things, to a vision of Jesus our own limited experience may not provide. Pagola's and Lohfink's books will help do this.

Happy New Year!!!

[[The Japanese have a centuries old ritual Waraiko they use to greet a new year and to celebrate birthdays. The ritual consists of giving three hearty belly laughs! The first robust laugh is of gratitude for the previous year just ended. The second hearty laugh is in gratitude for being given a new year of life to enjoy. The third is a really full-bodied belly laugh, since it is to blow the dust off your mind, heart, and soul? Dust? The dust of habit and routine that slowly accumulates like all dust, causing the soul to lose the luster of its youthful vitality.]] by Edward Hay, Chasing Joy

[[May the God who brings life out of death, meaning out of the senseless, healing out of brokenness, light out of darkness, hope out of despair, and belonging out of lostness, touch our lives this coming year in the ways we each need. May he love us into fullness of existence and transform us into authentic and truly passionate lovers in (and of) Christ. May he bless the time we each have (by) turning chronos to kairos and bringing everything to fullness and perfection in himself. 

May we be attentive to him in all the times and ways we need to be, allowing the ordinary moments of everyday life to be recognized for what they are in him ---opportunities for the triumph of grace in our world. And may God bless each of us who journey together and touch one another in such diverse ways, whether within our families, monasteries and congregations, parishes and dioceses, or via internet connections like blogs and message boards!]] Sister Laurel, January 1, 2010.

Christmas 2012

An Advent wreathe is transformed into a symbol of the Light of Christ. All good wishes for a wonderful Christmastide! May your own life be a source of Christ's own light in and for an often-darkened world.

Alleluia! Hodie Christus Natus Est!! (Reprised)

The scandal of the incarnation is one of the themes we neglect at Christmastime or, at best, allude to only indirectly. Nor is there anything wrong with that. We live through the struggles of our lives in light of the moments of hope and joy our faith provides and there is nothing wrong with focusing on the wonder and joy of the birth of our savior. There is nothing wrong with sentimentality nor with all the light and glitter and sound of our Christmas preparations and celebrations. For a brief time we allow the joy of the mystery of Christmas to predominate. We focus on the gift God has given, and the gift we ourselves are meant to become in light of this very special nativity.

Among other things we look closely in the week prior to Christmas at the series of "yesses" that were required for this birth to come to realization, the barreness that was brought to fruitfulness in the power of the Holy Spirit. We add to this Zechariah's muteness which culminates in a word of prophecy and a canticle of praise, along (on Christmas day) with the book of Hebrews' summary of all the partial ways God has spoken himself to us; we then set all of these off against the Prologue to John's Gospel with its majestic affirmation of the Word made flesh and God revealed exhaustively to US. The humbleness of the birth is a piece of all this, of course, but the scandal, the offense of such humbleness in the creator God's revelation of self is something we neglect, not least because we see all this with eyes of faith --- eyes which suspend the disbelief of rationality temporarily so that we can see instead the beauty and wonder which are also there. The real challenge of course is to hold both truths, scandal and beauty, together in a sacramental paradox.

And so I have tried to do in this symbol of the season. This year my Christmas tree combines both the wonder and the scandal of the incarnation, the humbleness of Jesus' estate in human terms, and the beauty of a world transformed with the eyes of love. Through the coming week the readings are serious (Steven's martyrdom and the massacre of the holy innocents (so terribly difficult and poignant this year especially), a warning about choosing "the world," and so forth) for darkness is still very real and resents and seeks to threaten and color our joy. Yet, all this is contextualized within the Christmas proclamation that darkness has been unable to quench the divine light that has come into our world, and the inarticulate groaning which often marks this existence has been brought to a new and joy-filled articulateness in the incarnate Word. Everything, we believe, can become sacramental; everything a symbol of God's light and life amongst us; everything a song of joy and meaning! And so too with this fragile "Charlie Brown" tree.

All good wishes for a wonderful Christmastide for all who read here, and to all of your families. Today the heavens are not silent. Today they sing: Alleluia, Alleluia!! Hodie Christus Natus Est! Alleluia!

Fourth Sunday of Advent: On Offering God Hospitality

Jump for Joy  by Eisbacher

Today's Gospel is the same as we read on Friday: Mary travels in haste to visit her kinswoman Elizabeth and both women benefit from the meeting which culminates in John's leaping in his mother's womb and prophetic speech by both women. The first of these is Elizabeth's proclamation that Mary is the Mother of Elizabeth's Lord and the second is Mary's canticle, the Magnificat. Ordinarily homilists focus on Mary in this Gospel lection but I think the focus is at least as strongly on Elizabeth and also on the place the meeting of the two women has in allowing them both to negotiate the great mystery which has taken hold of their lives. Both are called on to offer God hospitality in unique ways, both are asked to participate in God's mysterious plan for his creation despite not wholly understanding this call and it is in their coming together that the trusting fiats they both made to this assumes a greater clarity for them both.

Luke's two volumes (Luke-Acts) are actually full of instances where people come together and in their meeting or conversation with one another come to a fuller awareness of what God is doing in their lives. We see this on the road to Emmaus where disciples talk about the Scriptures in an attempt to come to terms with Jesus' scandalous death on a cross and the end of all their hopes. They are joined by another person who questions them about their conversation and grief. When they pause for a meal they recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread and their entire world is turned on its head. That which was senseless is on its way to making a profound sense which will ground the existence of the church. Peter is struggling with the issue of eating with the uncircumcised; he comes together with Cornelius, a Centurion with real faith in Christ. In this meeting Peter is confirmed in his sense that in light of Christ no foods are unclean and eating with Gentiles is Eucharistic. There are a number of other such meetings where partial perception and clarity are enhanced. Even the Council of Jerusalem is a more developed instance of the same phenomenon.

Elizabeth and Mary come together as women both touched in significant ways by the mystery of God. They have trusted God but are yet unclear regarding the greater mystery or how this experience fits into the larger story of Israel's redemption. They are both in need of one another and especially of the perception and wisdom the other can bring to the situation so that they can truly offer God and God's plan all the space and time these require. Hospitality, especially giving God hospitality, takes many forms, but one of the most important involves coming together to talk about how God is active in our lives in the hope of coming to a greater and more life giving perspective.

And yet, during this Christmas season, when we each generously gift others and offer hospitality in  many practiced and wonderful ways, how often do we truly speak of how God is working in our own lives? Even within our parishes our discussions with others rarely alludes to God in any direct way --- and yet, isn't God as active in our lives as he was in Mary's and Elizabeth's? Does he not bring us to new life in significant ways each and every day? We each offer God hospitality in a variety of ways: reading Scripture, personal prayer, participation at Mass, and serving others in need. But merely talking about God's activity in our own lives is something we are reticent about. Sometimes this has to do with a timidity about casting pearls before those who will trample them underfoot or dismiss them without understanding. Sometimes it has to do with our reticence to put the other person in an awkward position. Often the reasons are justified. But not always.

During the season celebrating God's great gift of self to us in Christ, when we hear occasional reminders to keep Christ in Christmas and seek to practice an openness and hospitality worthy of People of God, let's try to speak a little more openly of God's activity in our lives. This is the way we come to clarity and hope, the way the Church comes to be, the way prophetic speech and action like those of Elizabeth and Zechariah are birthed, the way canticles of joy like Mary's Magnificat come to be.

"Grieving Our Lost Children," In Memoriam for those killed at Newtown, CT

Last week I wrote there were no words for the horrific tragedy at Newtown, CT. Today I discovered a prayer from Walter Brueggemann, a noted Old Testament scholar, which was apparently written after the "last" school shooting our country experienced.

I wanted to share it here because there is a terrible poignancy this year to our celebration of Christmas. The prayer is taken from Prayers For a Privileged People, Walter Brueggemann, Abingdon Press.


Another brutality,
another school killing,
another grief beyond telling . . .
and loss . . .
           in Colorado,
           in Wisconsin,
           among the Amish
           in Virginia.
           Where next?

We are reduced to weeping silence,
     even as we breed a violent culture,
     even as we kill the sons and daughters of
                         our "enemies,"
     even as we fail to live and cherish and respect
          the forgotten of our common life.

There is no joy among us as we empty out schoolhouses;
there is no health among us as we move in fear and
         bottomless anxiety;
there is little hope among us as we fall helpless before
     the gunshot and the shriek and the blood and the panic;
we pray to you only because we we do not know what else to do.
     So we pray. move powerfully in our body politic,
          move us toward peaceableness
                         that does not want to hurt or to kill,
          move us toward justice
                         that the troubled and forgotten may know mercy,
          move us toward forgiveness that we
                         may escape the trap of revenge.

Empower us to turn our weapons to acts of mercy,
       to turn our missiles to gestures of friendship,
       to turn our bombs to policies of reconciliation;
and while we are turning,
       hear our sadness,
       our loss,
       our bitterness.

We dare to pray our needfulness to you
      because you have been there on that
      gray Friday,
      and watched your own Son be murdered
                           for "reasons of state."

Good God, do Easter!
       Here among these families,
        here and in all our places of brutality.
Move our Easter grief now . . .
        without too much innocence ---
         to your Sunday joy.
We pray in the one crucified and risen
         who is our Lord and Savior

Magnificat: On the Song Which IS the Hermit (Reprise)

Today's readings include the Gospel of Luke and Mary's Magnificat. Many of the characters in Luke's version of the Gospel story move from muteness, barrenness, fear, and confusion to prophetic speech and songs. In fact the move to canticles and prophetic speech is a sign of faith and the person's fulfillment in their vocations and humanity. Parrhesia or boldness of speech is the primary form of true discipleship, the result of the faith and hope which is the disciple's while the Christ is God's Word Incarnate. In light of all this, and also because of what I have written recently about the heart of the hermit, I wanted to reprise a post I put up here several years ago (2007) just a couple of months after my perpetual eremitical profession: Magnificat: On the Song which IS the Hermit. Of course, we are all called to share this vocation to incarnate the breath and word of God, but I think it especially describes the life and vocation of the hermit and particularly the paradoxical charism canon 603 refers to as the silence of solitude. I think this is the experience Mary knew and Luke captured so very well in today's Gospel.

                                            * * * * * *

Theologians often think of the human being as a "word event," that is, we are responses to the words and being of others, crafted and shaped by those words and persons and creating ourselves (or being created) in response to reality around us. We can wander lost through the world, unformed and unknown, we can even impinge on others' lives without the dynamic of dialogue, or address and response, but it is only in response to another person's address that we actually have a personal place to stand, or that we come to be the persons we CAN be. More fundamentally, theologians recognize that we are each the answer or response to a divine word of address and summons spoken in the very core of our being. We speak of this reality variously: "God calls us by name to be"; "we have a vocation or call to authentic humanity"; "the human heart is, by definition, a theological reality and the place where God is active and effectively present in the core of our being", etc.

Of course, the definitive image of authentic humanity is Christ, Divine Word-made-flesh. Theologians reflect that each of us are called to be "Word made flesh" --- though not as definitively as that incarnation accomplished in the Christ Event, still with coherence and cogency, articulateness, truth, and power. Throughout our lives the incarnational word we are is shaped and formed, redacted and composed, in response to the Name or summons God speaks in the core of our being, and which ALSO comes to us (or is sympathetically sounded in us) in a variety of forms and intensities from without in the Scriptures, Sacraments, other people, nature, etc. And of course, it is also distorted and falsified by our own sinfulness, and by our defensive responses to the sinfulness and influence of others in our lives. While we are called to be joyful and coherent embodiments of the Word of God incarnated in our world, we are as often cries of anguish, snarls of anger, sobs of pain, and the lies of insecurity and defensiveness which so lead to the falsification of our being.

Ordinarily, of course, the responsive composition we each are is a mixture of true and false, real and unreal, coherent and incoherent, articulate and inarticulate, anguished and joyful. Only in Christ are we rendered more and more the response we are MEANT to be. And yet, deep within us God speaks the Name we are to embody, the vocational summons we are to incarnate in all of its uniqueness AS our own lives in this world. It is an unceasing, unremitting hallowing right at the core of who we are, and when we are truly in touch with this and truly responsive we become the Word event which God wills us to be. If, as Fr Robert Hale, OSB Cam, once remarked, it is true that "God sustains us as a singer sustains a note," then we are each called to become a song, a particular fiat witnessing to the grace (that is, the powerful presence) of God in our lives. God is the breath which sustains us moment by moment, and we are the song which embodies this breath.

The hermit's existence is paradigmatic of this reality. She really is called to be the song at the heart of the church. Birthed in silence and solitude, shaped by obedience to the Word and breath of God, exercised in the singing of psalms daily --the regular chanting or recitation of the divine Office, the reading of scripture both aloud and in silence, held in the heart of God and steeped in the formative rests of contemplative prayer and shaped by the stories of all those persons she holds in her own heart, the hermit moves day by day towards becoming the articulate and coherent expression of God's creative providence we recognize as a magnificat.

Of course, gestation and birth are together demanding, painful, and messy businesses. So is the composition of a truly responsive life. Those cries of anguish, snarls of anger, defensive lies, and sobs of pain we ALSO ARE, don't simply "go away" of themselves without the hard work of recognition and repentance. Healing, sanctification, and verification (making whole and true) is God's work in us, but it requires and involves our active cooperation. It is this dynamic that makes of the eremitical silence, solitude, prayer, and penance a therapeutic crucible or editor's desk where we are --- sometimes ruthlessly --- revised, redacted, and recreated. Evenso, at bottom eremitical life (indeed ALL christian life!) is a joy-filled reality; we incarnate the merciful love of God which heals and sanctifies, enlivens and sustains. We become a coherent articulation or expression of the breath and word of God spoken both in the core of ourselves, and in so many ways in our church and world. We ARE the songs which God sings in the heart of his church, magnificats of God's love and mercy sounding in (and out of) the silence of solitude.

Can one be Taught or Trained to be a Hermit?

[[ Dear Sister, I read your post on stopgap vocations and went to the website mentioned there. I was struck by a number of things on the latest blog entry but the following was especially so in light of your post. This group apparently seeks to find ways to allow individuals to become hermits if they have some interest in doing so and they have an eye towards setting up a novitiate eventually --- which I assume means creating a community. In the meantime they are trying several different paths to get their members formation and consecration as hermits though this is clearly not their first choice of vocation.

One of these apparently was to send one of their members who would eventually be the novice mistress to a consecrated hermit in order to learn how to hermit which she would then teach to the others. That never happened it seems. Another plan is to send the individuals to their diocesan chanceries to seek consecrated hermits who can help them become hermits and then seek consecration in their dioceses. I think you are correct that this is using canon canon 603 as a stopgap way to get people professed, but what also strikes me about it is how little understanding there is of how one actually becomes a hermit. Can one actually go to a diocesan hermit and be taught or trained to be a hermit?]]

Thanks for the question. There is both a simple answer and a not-so-simple answer to your question. The simple answer is no, to the extent we are dealing with a genuine vocation, one cannot simply be taught or trained to be a hermit. Hermits are FORMED and they are formed in solitude, silence, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the things which are resistant to Christ. They are formed most specifically in an ongoing relationship with God which dominates and orders everything else in their lives so that their lives witness to the truth that God alone is enough. Further and more fundamentally, even before hermits are formed they are CALLED. Formation is always the way we shape, educate, and train someone who is called by God to live in this way. Unless one is called no amount of training or education will make one a hermit --- certainly not, that is, as the Church uses the term.

Remember that the call to eremitical solitude is a call both to human wholeness and holiness; only very few human beings are truly called to achieve this goal in solitude. "Interest" in pursuing an eremitical life as a way to get consecrated when a cenobitical project fell through is emphatically not the same thing as pursuing eremitical solitude because one feels profoundly called to the completion that is theirs in God and very far from responding to a call in which one will be made both whole and holy in solitude. One can certainly be taught to keep a horarium, to pray in the ways a hermit prays, and if one has the temperament one can learn to tolerate and even like silence and solitude, even long term silence and solitude; however, by themselves this does not make the person a hermit. It may only make them relatively pious and isolated; and it may still mean they are only about pursuing their own goals, not those God has for them or for those for whom they live. One key difference I think is the heart created by and for the silence of solitude. One called and formed as a hermit develops the heart of a hermit in and for the silence of solitude --- a heart with which, as one friend reminded me, we hear the anguished cry of the world, and a heart which makes us God's own prayer. For the hermit this heart thrives in and expresses the silence of solitude even when the hermit ministers or otherwise shares in community. That is truly a rare vocation.

The idea that someone could go to a diocesan hermit (or, even worse, correspond with them), get a few lessons on being a hermit, and then come back and train people in that is completely ludicrous to me. If that person were willing to BECOME a hermit (and if said diocesan hermit actually could allow -- or get permission to allow -- her the space and time for that), then we are looking at a commitment of years and even then, the "student" might well find she is not called to this, and certainly not to living it as a solitary hermit elsewhere for the whole of her life. Along with this, of course, there is the idea of placing a non-hermit who is not a religious, has never lived the vows, and has herself not been formed as a religious or educated in the theology or spirituality of eremitical or religious life in charge of forming others on the basis of a few "lessons" from a diocesan hermit. No hermit I know would even pretend to be able to do such a thing. It is not surprising this all never came to be, but it is also fortunate it did not.

Another thing that makes the answer more complicated is that of course it IS possible for candidates for profession and consecration under canon 603 to gain from education and training from already-perpetually-professed hermits. Perhaps more important though is long term formation in monastic or eremitical silence. A network I belong to (Network of Diocesan Hermits) is sometimes asked to assist such candidates by their dioceses. We mentor such candidates and try to help them with the more typical difficulties and obstacles to living the life. However, there are some pretty steep limits in this assistance. We do not do spiritual direction, nor do we pretend to have a formation program for hermits. We do not -- nor, despite our experience living the life or various expertises in spirituality, spiritual direction, and theology, do we --- generally feel ourselves capable of creating one.

Further, the person must be verified by their dioceses to be a good candidate for profession and consecration under canon 603. This means that they have already been screened to some extent, are not in the first blush of conversion, and show some promise of being a suitable candidate. (It does NOT necessarily mean the diocese is tending toward professing them at this point in time, nor that they ever will be professed.) They must be participating in regular spiritual direction and meeting regularly with diocesan personnel. (Both the candidate and the diocese needs to be invested in  the discernment and formation processes.) It remains very clear to the professed hermits that hermits are made in solitude, and more specifically, in the environment and for the purpose specified by canon 603. If one is not called to this vocation there is very little we can do to "make" them a hermit. Because of this it sometimes happens that the work tends to strip away the mask of eremitism which really hides the face of isolation and individualism or shows us a situation where canon 603 is being used as a stopgap approach to profession and consecration.

I also have read the blog article you refer to and am glad of the chance to answer your question. Thanks for posing it. The ignorance and misunderstanding regarding eremitical life evident there are not unusual and they come up here fairly often, but usually without the hubris involved in the project you referred to. Eremitical vocations tend to be strange to us and counterintuitive given the importance of society in creating whole human beings. They really must be treated reverently as a true mystery --- as any vocation must. To treat them as something which can be manufactured by those without real understanding (or by those with understanding) is something I feel VERY strongly about. So again, thanks for your question.

The meaning of the term "Stopgap vocations"

As a result of a recent  and simplistic mischaracterization of my position on another blog (Cloister Outreach), I wanted to clarify what I mean when I object to using Canon 603 as a "stop-gap vocation" and why that is. Let me be clear that I do not object to hermits becoming cenobites at some point in their religious lives. If a hermit feels genuinely called to do that at some point after discerning and living an eremitical life in good faith for some time, then well and good. But that is not what the term stopgap vocation implies nor is it the situation I have been concerned with.

The term stopgap means just what it says, something is being used to stop (close) the gap which exists between an immediate situation and  the ordinary options which exist to address or resolve the situation. An emergency tracheotomy is a stopgap solution to a more lasting and ordinary solution to the problem of respiratory problems due to blockage of the airway, for instance. Taping two pieces of broken eyeglass frames together is a stopgap solution to the problem of broken spectacles until one can either get the frames repaired or buy new ones. Employing untrained and incompetent people to fill security posts at the airport in a time of increased fear and terrorist threat is a stopgap solution. In the area of vocations when someone seeks to live a cenobitical (that is, a communal) life and to be publicly professed and consecrated as a cenobitical religious but have a number of mishaps in making this happen, turning to canon 603 to get themselves publicly professed and consecrated is a stopgap solution to the problem --- especially if they are doing so with an eye towards becoming a community when that becomes feasible in financial and other ways down the line. It is also an abuse of canon 603 which is meant to govern, profess and consecrate those who have seriously discerned a LIFE vocation to solitary diocesan eremitical life. Beyond this it is dishonest and COULD actually be a fraudulent act depending on circumstances.

Another example (and one which is ordinarily much less sinister but still requires caution) would be someone who is forced to leave religious life because of health issues and who seeks to use canon 603 to continue in public vows and consecration without actually ALSO and SUBSEQUENTLY discerning a true vocation to eremitical solitude. (As I have said many times, eremitical solitude is more than simply living a pious life alone and the call to eremitical solitude must be discerned separately from a call to ordinary monastic solitude or from one's own coming to terms with such loss.)  Similar but once again more sinister examples involve those who have failed at community life but who still want to be "Sisters" or "wear a habit",  those who have failed at life (work, relationships, schooling, individuation in general) and who are looking for a socially acceptable and even estimable way to validate that, and so forth. For many, canon 603 seems to offer a solution to their quandary. Again, however, in each of these cases (except perhaps that of the person who has been forced to leave religious life by illness -- a situation which requires extra caution and discernment) Canon 603 is being misused and the entire idea of a LIFE vocation with solemn commitments and consecration is being betrayed.

If one attempts to use Canon 603, which is geared to SOLITARY eremitical vocations and their protection and governance, to get someone consecrated so that they can THEREAFTER form a community of hermits and skip all of the necessary canonical steps to approval as an institute of consecrated life, this is using Canon 603 as a stopgap solution to the problem. Not only is this a betrayal of the Canon itself, but it is a betrayal of the charism or gift quality the vocation to solitary eremitical life brings to the Church and World. (Please see other posts on the charism of the vocation, or on "the silence of solitude as charism" and "the redemption of isolation" for an understanding of what I mean here.)

At the beginning of the history of Canons 603 and 604 some provinces (the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, etc) refused to profess and/or consecrate anyone according to canons 603 and 604 (consecrated virgins living in the world). They rightly worried that these canons could be used as fallback options or that they really indicated a merely fallback "vocation" for those who failed at religious life and they did not want that. Abuses can and have occurred with c 603 and 604 but the value of these canons and the vocations they govern cannot simply be denied as a result. Even so I know of a couple of other dioceses who have joined LA in its boycott of such vocations precisely because of such abuses. Of course, authentic vocations are also a reality and the Church recognizes this. Unfortunately, the misuse of canon 603, for instance, by those seeking to use it as a stopgap means to consecration could continue to be the basis for greater and greater caution in this regard and even to a functional or virtual suppression of its use. It is really imperative pastorally as well as theologically and spiritually that we do not allow such abuses and misuses to occur.

In any case, I hope my usage is clear, and the nature of my concerns regarding the importance of this abuse are demonstrated in the above, however briefly that may be.

Writing a Rule of Life, Negotiating the Tensions between tradition and the contemporary situation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, when you write about writing a Rule of Life you speak of needing to draw from or even "subsume" the Rule under a larger "vital" Rule like that of St Benedict. You explain that most of us are not spiritual geniuses capable of writing a Rule which challenges to sufficient growth. At the same time you are clear that the hermit must write her own Rule and that it must be more than a list of things to do and not do. You don't like the idea of a hermit simply copying a Rule nor do you think someone should write the hermit's Rule of Life for them.

What I am wondering is if there isn't a conflict between some of these things. For instance, if we are not spiritual geniuses and need to subsume any Rule we write under a larger living Rule, why not simply adopt that one? Or why not allow someone else to write the Rule for us? Wouldn't it be safer spiritually? There have been times when the Church demanded new communities adopt already-established Rules. Doesn't canon 603's norm that the hermit write her own Rule fly in the face of the wisdom behind that decision? ]] [redacted]

What really terrific questions! You have clearly read everything I have written on this (meager though it is!) and thought about it along with some pertinent Church history I never mentioned. In responding I suppose the first thing I would suggest is that conflict is not the right word, but yes, I agree completely that there is tension between what we read in other Rules, what we live and write ourselves, and also between that and the larger Rule under which we might choose to subsume the Rule we write. The process of becoming able to write and then writing a Rule is complex. The work MUST be our own in some really deep and essential way --- and that will include the deficiencies and weaknesses in our own spirituality and lives which must be grown beyond with the help of spiritual leaders who surpass our own wisdom in every way. It is only in dialogue with these others (and other Rules) that we can truly find our own voice and, more importantly, the will of God which shapes the way we will live our vocations.

As with any dialogue there is the danger we will lose (or simply give away) our own voice, distrust our own perceptions and wisdom or our own experiences and sensibilities. On the other hand, there is the danger that we will not really engage the "other" in this dialogue but merely carry on a self-centered monologue. But a true conversation and this specific dialogue is essential; it is the way tradition is honored and extended in new ways and into new situations. It is the way genuine charisms are discovered and incarnated and mission fruitfully embodied and fulfilled. Dialogue of this sort has always been important. When we look at the relationship of canon law and proper law in religious life, or the similar relationship between the Rule and the congregation's constitutions we are looking at a dialogue. At every point the need to negotiate the tensions between these, to honor tradition and the universally valid and the new historical situation which also mediates God's call and will is a central piece of living our vocations --- whether we are contemplatives, ministerial or apostolic religious, hermits, lay persons, or priests.

Canon 603 requires the hermit write her own Rule because it requires the hermit be an active participant in the dialogue between contemporary eremitism and the long history of Christian (and other) eremitical life. As I have said before, no one can do this for her; it is part of being a diocesan hermit publicly professed under Canon 603. In a very real way, it is a key element in claiming this unique vocation for oneself and for the contemporary Church.

My limited sense of the reasons for the Church's practice of requiring the adoption of already-existing Rules by new congregations or commun-ities is that this was intended to limit the spread of heretical practices and beliefs within religious congregations.  There is some wisdom in this, especially when the proper law of the congregations can allow for necessary flexibility and adaptations in praxis and mission. What this means is that the dialogue mentioned above was and often still is carried out in this particular way in religious congregations. But, when it is authentic, eremitical life has always been more individual without being individualistic. In some ways each hermit, especially when they are solitary hermits as opposed to those belonging to a congregation of semi-eremites, is analogous to the founder of a congregation, the one in whom the tension between traditional and contemporary is specifically negotiated. The Rule they write and live by is not meant for a community but for an individual and a great deal of what characterizes cenobitical Rules and the spirituality of their founders simply will not apply to them in any meaningful way.

Thus, Canon 603 calls for each hermit to take on this task of  1) negotiating the tensions mentioned above and 2) writing a viable Rule themselves which is the expression of their ongoing commitment to this task. Living such a life may not be free of risk, but it is certainly the task every solitary hermit must embrace or cease to be solitary hermits. Similarly, then, the Rule the hermit writes is not free of risk either; one may lose one's voice entirely or fall into mere idiosyncrasy and individualism. When this happens the Rule one writes will either not be adequate to live an eremitical life or at least to live one's OWN eremitical life, but despite these risks, writing a Rule is the natural expression and codification of the dialogue the hermit is negotiating. Of course, several things can help minimize the risk involved including subsuming this personal Rule under an established Rule, submitting to the supervision and input of Bishops, canonists, other hermits, and delegates, and reading widely in the history of eremitical life are some of these, but at the same time care must always be taken that these steps do not short-circuit or betray the dialogue the hermit is called to negotiate and embody in her daily response to her call. After all, in a very general sense, this is part of the gift she brings to the Church and World and a piece of the challenge with which she confronts every Christian seeking to live the Gospel in contemporary life.

In Memoriam: Newtown Children and Faculty

 Of course there are no words. We stand in silent solidarity with those who have been struck by this unspeakable tragedy. In our own prayer we entrust all of these lives to our great and merciful God who comes and entrusts himself to us as a helpless child. We pray that that same God --- who knows very well what it is to have a Son senselessly murdered at the hands of the angry and fearful --- will touch, heal, and, where needed, change the hearts of those involved in and touched by such atrocities.

Cloister Outreach - Caveat Emptor, Once again

Dear Sister Laurel,
I wanted to thank you for your posts regarding Cloister Outreach (CO) on the Phatmass Phorum recently. I don't know if you are aware of it but CO put up an explanation of the situation you described in 2010  after contacting the Diocese of Charlotte to check on the claims made by the "foundress" of CO. It tells a very different story than the one you posted and claims you violated the privacy of the hermit-canonist you contacted in an attempt to undermine the Cloisterite Hermits' Foundation. The explanation reads:

[[Gemma, Cloister Outreach coordinator, had been handling the "legal" part of the Cloisterite Hermits, to include interactions with the canonist. Because of this, we thought that the local ordinary was aware of the project. However, due to Gemma's autism, and the complexities involved with the language of canonical legalities, she (Gemma) did not understand a particular phrase used as meaning that the canonist had separated herself from the project. This was entirely Gemma's fault--not due to stupidity, but due to autistic deficit.

As a result, the Cloisterite Hermits had persevered in the development of their charism (entirely legal under canon law), thinking the canonist had still been retained. Critics went so far as to contact the canonist and posting her information online--thus violating her privacy which we had fought to maintain, as per her request--in an attempt to undermine the Cloisterite Hermits' foundation. Due to the information that we were working with at the time, we were under the impression that the Cloisterite Hermits were a work-in-progress known to the diocese. Now that we know the actual situation, the websites will be amended to reflect such.]] Is there anything in your March 2010 story that needs to be amended in light of this?

Thanks for the question. The issue of Cloisters Outreach continues to crop up from time to time and I get questions about the projects occasionally --- usually because they mention using canon 603 or "becoming diocesan hermits", and similar things. I have tended not to respond despite accusations of defamation, libel, malicious intent, etc though these are either incoherent or groundless. I think two things need to be clarified in light of these public comments. First, in the conversation an associate had with the canonist (Sister Sheila Richards, ESA) Sister made it clear that her own conversations with Gemma (not the person's real name) involved Gemma's own vocation, not projects of CO, and further, that as soon as those few conversations threatened to go further afield, Sister Sheila broke off communication. It also should be noted that at the very first stages of such a project it is premature to be having complex legal conversations. No one yet knows what, if anything, will come of the person's idea. This means that there were no conversations regarding legal complexities using a language of canonical legalities and especially no single phrase meaning the Sister had "separated herself from the project." She, as she herself made clear, had never been involved in the project in the first place.

Second, the claims being made all over the internet did not say simply that the Cloisterite Hermits were a project KNOWN to the Diocese of Charlotte though that too was certainly wondered about. The claims stated that CO had the SUPPORT of the Bishop,  diocesan supervision, and that Cloisters Outreach, especially the eremitical expression, was being guided by Sister Sheila "every step of the way." As you may recall,when questions were asked, folks were urged by Gemma herself to contact the diocese directly with their questions. We simply did that. Twice --- in case an error had been made the first time.

Thirdly, Sister Sheila is both a canonist and a diocesan hermit who works for the Diocese of Charlotte. In each of these roles she is a public person with commensurate rights, obligations, and responsibilities. Given some of the stuff coming out of CO with regard to eremitical life, formation, spirituality, use of canon 603, etc, questions were being raised about her competence and prudence. Now, it is true CO never mentioned her name but one really has to ask 1) how many diocesan hermits are there in the US? (Fewer than 60 or so) 2) How many are canonists? (we are in very low single digit numbers now), and 3) how many of those work for the Diocese of Charlotte? (The answer is just one and her name is listed on the Diocesan Website as both canonist and hermit.) ANYONE could have identified Sister with about 20 seconds worth of googling on the basis of the information provided by Gemma's own posts so that hardly argues CO was bound to maintain her privacy or that I (et al) was the one who violated that bond! Even so, we spoke with Sister Sheila directly, and, given the questions raised about her role in CO and her competence and prudence, as well as for the issue of transparency (which has been singularly lacking with regard to Cloisters Outreach) thought it was important to name the persons with whom we had spoken.

Fourthly, were we trying to undermine the eremitical project connected with CO? Not really, but the answer also depends on the nature of the project. What we were really trying to do was be sure that people asked sufficient questions and got straightforward answers, if not from Gemma, then from the Diocese she had implicated in her projects. These needed to be answers that comported with the answers given to us by the Diocese of Charlotte. Beyond this CO's spirituality and theology needs to be assured as well as their formation programs, etc. These are important elements which must be vetted (and led) by competent people. Finally, there are options or (in the latter case) a specific avenue for individuals to become either lay or consecrated hermits in today's Church; there is no need for the kinds of things CO offers in this regard and in some ways association with Cloisters Outreach could actually prove a hindrance to those discerning a call to canon 603 profession/consecration. So, to the extent CO's eremitical expression seems built on sand rather than rock, it is true that I was not adverse to pouring a little water on the sand and letting nature take her course. After all, to the degree the foundation was sound, then nothing would have been harmed at all and they might even have been helped by the confirmation. So no, there was no attempt to undermine the foundation. There was, however, a definite effort to establish the truth and demand that CO stand on that truth and no where else.

One final comment. While I am sorry for anyone with a condition which makes his or her ability to participate in discussions of the complex canonical issues involved in founding a religious congregation difficult or impossible, it seems imprudent then that they would be the ones in charge of such a task. At the very least such a person should have had someone who was not similarly impaired along with them for such discussions (and, presuming any really took place, certainly after the first one!). It seems to me that such a person should also let the canonist know that they are handicapped in this specific way and, as far as possible, require things to be stated in ordinary language. My own experience with canonists, limited though it is, (1 Bishop, 2 Vicars for Religious, 1 friend) is that they are VERY good in explaining canonical matters in straightforward language; I even have the sense that they enjoy doing so (after all, they enjoy canon law and this, as it is in theology or any other field, is a sign of their true expertise). I don't personally believe any heavily technical/canonical discussions took place, but even if they did does failing to take prudent steps to be sure these discussions were fully understood argue for such a person's competence to lead such a project?

Nothing, as far as I am aware, in the original article needs to be changed. It was a simple statement of fact. I said at the time that I would be more than happy to publish more if those facts changed, but no one notified me of changes (they did make charges of defamation, libel, and claimed serious misunderstandings had taken place, and so forth, so I know they saw the post). However, the comments in the post you sent do require some response. I hope this has helped.

The LandFILL Harmonic

Landfill Harmonic film teaser from Landfill Harmonic on Vimeo.

This is another of those truly inspiring stories friends send my way. This one came from a violist in the orchestra I play in. Some may question the existence of God, but the creative drive towards transcendence and life comes out in us in innumerable ways. Music and the need to make music is one of those. I was most struck by the comment that a violin in these places is worth more than a house. Of course, houses are very poor affairs in these parts, but the comment still challenges us to attend to how we determine and honor the genuine riches in our lives.