Canon 603 and Some Misconceptions

[[Sister Laurel, what does it mean to call canon 603 a "proviso"? Here is the passage [from something I read online] that has me confused, [[What is cited in The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the proviso of CL603, and by virtue and fact of the specific vows required of each state of life in the Church, should suffice to explain why consecrated Catholic hermits (and also the consecrated virgins and widows) are part of the Consecrated Life of the Church--although they can have originally derived from the Hierarchy or the Laity.  Likewise, consecrated Catholic hermits (virgins, widows, religious brothers and sisters) are not representative nor part of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, as in Holy Orders of priests and bishops.]] I am also confused by the following [also from something I read online] [[The Catholic aspiring to the consecrated state of life as an eremite, must then fulfill the requirements in profession of vows and live in accordance with the cited specifics in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of the institutes of the consecrated life of the Church.And, if the aspiring hermit requests and a bishop agrees, then to fulfill the additional provisions of Canon Law 603.]]

I can understand why you are confused. There are several problems with the first passage cited. First Canon 603 is not a "proviso". It is not a conditional statement or stipulation attached to an agreement. It is a norm which, by itself alone, provides for and defines a form of consecrated life lived in law and in the name of the Church. I don't know why anyone would refer to c 603 in this way unless 1) she does not understand the word proviso, or 2) she is trying to make of c 603 a conditional option added to a larger binding contract or set of statutes which then may or may not be used by a diocese at their discretion. In such a case she is simply mistaken in this. Granted, canon 603 is a Canon in the larger code of canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps it could bear the name "provision" since it provides for a singular form of consecrated life (though this fails to capture the normative nature of a canon) however, it does not have a conditional or provisional character. So, I understand and share your confusion with such a characterization. I think the poster's mistaken meaning is made clear in problem # 6 below.

The second area of difficulty is the division of the People of God into Lay and Hierarchy. The proper terms are ordinarily laity and clerics or laity and clergy or even lay persons and ordained. Though the entire Church is hierarchical we also technically refer to the hierarchy of the Church as the clergy from Deacon to Bishops and higher. When we refer to the consecrated state of life or "consecrated life" however, which can be drawn from either laity or clergy, the Church is very careful to point out that this does not constitute part of the hierarchical structure of the Church; this is important because once not so long ago our Mass prayers referred to priests, religious, and laity as though there were three castes and religious were part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. This contributed to the highly problematical notion that lay life was an "entry level" vocation and religious (or consecrated) life was a 'higher' vocation with priests being even higher.

Today we note that the term lay has two distinct senses, 1) a hierarchical one in which laity includes all baptized who are not clerics (this also implies all religious and consecrated persons who are likewise not also clerics), and 2) a vocational one in which those in the lay state are contrasted with both religious (those publicly professed), consecrated persons (those in the consecrated state of life), and the clergy (the ordained). So, for instance, vocationally speaking I am a religious and member of the consecrated rather than the lay state of life. Hierarchically speaking, however, I am a lay person. My pastor, for instance, is also a religious and member of the consecrated state of life vocationally speaking. Hierarchically speaking, however, he is a cleric or priest. Lay hermits (those with private vows or even without them) are lay in both the vocational and hierarchical senses of the term. This is why in sec 873ff the CCC notes, "The term "laity" is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church."

The third problem is that the Catholic Church does not presently have consecrated widows who belong to the consecrated state of life or the "consecrated life" in the Church. While this vocation existed in the ancient Church and Pope John Paul II wrote about it hoping it would be included in canon law to be made part of Church life once again as a public and ecclesial vocation, and while some Bishops have accepted the dedication of widows and are required to be open to "new forms of consecrated life" (c 605 requires this), Canon 605 also states that any new form of consecrated life must be ratified by the Vatican (the Pope). In the case of a vocation to consecrated widowhood this has not been done. It therefore does not represent a form of consecrated life in the Church today though there are significant hopes that one day this will change.

The fourth problem is with the reference to Catholic Hermits or other members of the Consecrated state not being representative of nor part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as are priests and Bishops. This sentence is confusing because it can be read two ways: 1) Consecrated Life is not representative of the hierarchy or 2) Consecrated Life is not representative of the Church nor is it part of the hierarchy. While the consecrated state of life does not constitute part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, those in the consecrated state are certainly representative of the Church herself. They are specifically commissioned to live out the various forms of consecrated life in a representative way in the name of the Church. Thus they are Catholic religious or Catholic hermits. Lay persons live the lay state similarly which is why they may call themselves Catholics or Catholic laity. The lay state is entrusted to them when they are consecrated in baptism and they are commissioned through the Sacraments of initiation to live it well. This means every member of the Church is representative of the Church in some way --- though I agree, they are not all of the hierarchy. Some are representative of the clerical state (Catholic priests and deacons). Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and Pope represent the hierarchy proper while all are part of the Laos tou Theou. Unfortunately, it sounds like the poster you cited could be arguing a form of clericalism which says only clergy represent the Church!


The fifth problem comes in your second citation and has already been written about in a previous post here. The term "institute" refers to a religious community or congregation of some sort, not to a legal norm, requirement, principle, or statute. Consecrated life has three basic forms, community life (both ministerial and contemplative in a variety of institutes), solitary eremitical life (c 603), and consecrated virginity lived in the world (c 604).

The sixth problem is related to problem #1 above. As noted above, Canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" appended to these other supposed "institutes" and requirements. It is the ONLY way in which a person can become a solitary member of the consecrated eremitical state of life and thus live that life in the name of the Church. If one wants to become a consecrated hermit without joining a congregation it MUST be through this canon. There is NO OTHER way. Neither oneself nor one's diocese can choose another option (say, private vows) nor treat this canon as optional or "provisional" and still allow one to enter the solitary consecrated eremitical state. This is what makes canon 603 so very unique; it extends the category "religious" and thus, the possibility of public vows and consecration to a person without any link to an institute of consecrated life. (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746, p. 55 on c 603.2)

The seventh problem is also related to treating Canon 603 as a set of "additional requirements" but more specifically suggesting these are added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other requirements or "institutes" of the Catholic Church. While the CCC is an important compendium of the teaching and life of the Church designed to give every Catholic a basic sense of what the Church believes and teaches as well as how her members live this faith, in regard to the consecrated eremitical life it is more descriptive than prescriptive. For hermits belonging to Institutes of Consecrated Life what is prescriptive of their life (what prescribes how they are to live while extending commensurate rights and marking their ecclesial obligations) is law, namely, canon law and the Institute's own proper law (her constitutions, statutes and Rule).

For the solitary hermit consecrated under canon 603 what is prescriptive of her life is similar: Canon law (especially c 603 but other canons as well), and her approved Rule (given a formal Bishop's declaration of approval). The Rule, which the hermit writes herself, serves as the c 603 hermit's own "proper law" while Canon 603 in particular especially represents universal law in her life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes dimensions of such lives but is not binding in the same way universal and proper law are. In fact, some parts of the CCC (like paragraphs 920-921) must be read in light of the Code of Canon Law (as well as the Catechism's own glossary), not the other way around! To put the Catechism in a more primary place and add c 603 as a "proviso" or an additional, conditional requirement, for instance, is to completely misunderstand the nature of the CCC, its relation to Canon Law in these matters, and especially then, the vocation to solitary consecrated eremitical life and the role of c 603 in that life.

Thanks again for your questions. They were excellent. For the time being I am going to distance myself from the continuing list of misconceptions being posted on the blog you have cited. Not only is it Lent, but I have some other writing, another project, and one other question to complete which means I won't be able to get back to you again for several days in case you have further questions; (it may be Saturday or later before I can do this). Besides, this matter of the distinction between lay hermits and hermits consecrated under canon 603 really has been explained here many times in one way and another, several times quite recently, and I am feeling a tiring and kind of sad futility in trying to clarify or even occasionally correct what may, at least for some persons who blog about this, really be a willful distortion and refusal to hear.

You see, it is one thing when a single critical  and canonically obscure or complex word is misunderstood here and there or when there is legitimate and honest disagreement between knowledgeable people; it is another when entire texts are wrested from their ecclesial context and twisted in a thoroughgoing way to conform to an entrenched delusional system. Your own question made me aware that perhaps the situation I was addressing was more the latter than the former so I am grateful you posed it for that reason too. The first kind of situation can and should be dealt with through discussion; both persons come away ahead then. The second cannot. While I feel strongly that canon 603 needs to be better understood, and more strongly that folks not be misled, it is that second kind of situation from which I need to distance myself.

Meanwhile, your own questions and those of any reader here are something I am happy to continue responding to --- though from now on it may be without the passages they cite. Thus, I encourage you to please feel free to check older posts under the appropriate labels if questions remain or are raised in the meantime.

Followup Questions: The Meaning of "Institutes" and other things

[[Hi Sister, so when c 603 says, "Besides institutes [not the institutes] of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life," she is specifically recognizing solitary hermits who are publicly professed to be religious? Is this part of the reason c 603 hermits are not allowed to form into communities? Do some people fail to recognize c 603 hermits as religious? Is it usual for communities to call themselves institutes? It is not a terminology I am familiar with and the blog you referred [readers] to seems to understand "institutes" as meaning some kind of statute or law or something. She misquotes the canon with "Besides "the institutes" of consecrated life. . ." and also writes, "CL603 has some additional requirements beyond what all consecrated Catholic hermits must live per the institutes of the Catholic Church," and "all Catholic hermits must profess the three evangelical counsels according to the institutes of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." [Also] why if we are all consecrated does the phrase "consecrated life" or "consecrated religious" only refer to those with public commitments?]]

Really excellent questions! Yes, when canon 603 speaks in this way it is outlining the specific new canonical reality known more commonly today as the solitary consecrated or diocesan hermit. In this canon the Church is saying, as commentators made clear in the Handbook on Canons 573-746, that for the first time hermits with no ties to a congregation or institute are to be considered religious. These hermits have entered the consecrated state of life through profession (which is defined by the church as the making of public vows) whether they come from the lay or clerical states; they live according to an approved Rule of Life and under the supervision of the Bishop who is their legitimate superior. Other canons will apply to their lives therefore, but c 603 defines the central or "constitutive" elements of the solitary canonical eremitical life.

In other words, canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" added to other "institutes" of the Catholic Church (I agree this does sound as if the person you are citing believes "institutes" are like statutes to which the elements of c 603 have been added but the use is unclear; unfortunately the error is made less ambiguous in a later post where she mistakenly writes, "The two previous posts cited the appropriate institutes and laws. . ." so it seems to me this blogger is possibly confusing the term "statutes" with the term "institutes"). In any case c 603 is instead a new canon defining a new though also very ancient form of consecrated life for the first time ever in universal law, namely the solitary diocesan eremitical life which stands side by side with Institutes (communities) of consecrated life. Religious who are publicly professed under other canons (CIC, 573-746) and their institute's proper law are not bound by canon 603 at all. Nor are lay hermits though they may well find it instructive and helpful in structuring their own lives .

You see, persons desiring to enter a semi-erem-itical institute were already able to do that apart from this canon while those desiring to create actual communities (groups with common Rule, common superior, common constitutions, common habit and finances, etc) will find the processes by which they can do so also exist apart from canon 603. As you rightly point out, canon 603 is not meant for the establishment of institutes or communities in this sense; lauras (colonies of already-professed diocesan hermits) can be formed so long as they do not rise to the level of an institute or community. In such lauras the hermits will retain their own Rule, their financial independence, and so forth while accommodating and contributing to the needs of the group as is reasonable. Individuals professed as members of an institute do not retain their vows should the institute dissolve or be suppressed --- though transfer to another institute is possible. Hermits professed under c 603 retain their vows and obligations should a laura dissolve or be suppressed. They cannot transfer these to an institute. Thus, they must retain the elements of c 603 (their own Rule, etc) as individually worked out even when they form a laura. (cf posts under label, canon 603 Lauras vs Communities) By the way, canon 607.2 defines an institute this way: [[ A religious institute is a society in which, in accordance with their own law, the members pronounce public vows and live a fraternal life in common. The vows are either perpetual or temporary; if the latter, they are to be renewed when the time elapses.]] Thus c 603 hermits are solitary hermits who exist as religious beside (as well as and alongside members of) institutes of consecrated life.

It tends, as far as I am aware, to be the case that the term "institute" shows up in official documents like consti-tutions and things. Most of us have never heard anyone ask a religious, "What institute do you belong to?" We are used to hearing and using terms like community, congregation, or order for instance. But institute is a universal term which allows canon law to speak of the conditions which bind every canonically founded group or community in the Church without getting bogged down in their differences. It also has the value of indicating this is a reality founded by human beings with an institutional structure as well as a charismatic nature. I don't know much more about the history of the term than that. In any case, in c 603, the reference, "Besides institutes of consecrated life. . ." does not mean besides other canons or statutes referring to consecrated life. It means besides (along with) congregations or communities (etc) of religious, the Church now recognizes diocesan hermits or anchorites in law.

While every baptized person in the Church is consecrated in baptism, relatively few enter what is called the consecrated state of life. This means that the person takes on additional legal and moral rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism. Today we refer to those consecrated in baptism as laity because in baptism they are consecrated as part of the Laos tou Theou or "People of God". To say one is part of the laity is an incredibly important statement which identifies a commission of tremendous significance. This is not merely an "entrance level" vocation. The "consecrated state of life" or "consecrated life" is a reality one enters first by the combination of self-dedication (profession) and Divine consecration and through these, by taking on additional public (legitimate or canonical) rights and obligations through public profession and/or consecration. This is not a "step up" from baptismal consecration if "step up" means "superior to". Instead it is a public specification of one's baptismal commitment centered on a specific and "second" consecration by God in which one is enabled to respond to the specific grace of this way of living within the People of God or Laos tou Theou.

To speak of lay hermits is to speak of those living the eremitical life by virtue of their baptismal consecration alone either with or without private vows. To speak of a consecrated hermit is to speak of those who have thereafter entered the consecrated state of life through public profession and this new or second consecration (which is solemnly celebrated only with perpetual profession). As I have said a number of times here, the consecrated hermit is also referred to by the terms "Catholic Hermit" because s/he is explicitly commissioned by the Church to live the eremitical life in the name of the Church, or "diocesan hermit" because his/her legitimate superior is the diocesan Bishop. While she of course still belongs to the Laos and is laity in one sense (hierarchically speaking she is not a cleric so she is lay), vocationally speaking she is also a "religious" or "consecrated person" as a lay person with private vows alone would not be.

(By the way, I don't know anyone who currently denies c 603 hermits are religious. As noted above, canonists in the Handbook on Canons 573-746 make it clear that canon 603 extends the use of this designation to those without a connection to an institute. When canon 603 was first promulgated hermits professed accordingly were distinguished from religious hermits, that is from hermits belonging to communities or institutes of consecrated life; one would read canonists who said "canon 603 hermits are not religious", but over time usage has changed and greater clarity has emerged on this issue by virtue of analysis of all the canons which apply to c 603 life and the similarity of this form of vowed life to that of all religious.)

Because those in the consecrated state of life are commissioned to live a specific form of life (eremitical, religious, consecrated virginity) in the name of the Church and because this is associated with specific public rights, obligations, and expectations on the part of the whole People of God (and the world!), the term "consecrated life" tends to be reserved for these forms of life alone (also cf CCC paragraph 944, [[The life consecrated to God is characterized by public profession of the evangelical counsels. . .in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.]].

Concerns about the Story of the Vincentians in Syria?

[[Update, Tuesday, 10. March.2015: I noted today that, after several days of silence, comments regarding the kidnapping and threatened murder of the Vincentians --- priests, religious, associates, and their wives and children --- are now being added to the original report on the Vincentian site. I consider that this along with a second report linked in those comments serve to verify the truth of the story.  There are, however, still no further details, no clarifications, no expansions. ]]

[[Dear Sister why has there been no more news on the story of the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the kidnappings in Syria? Are you concerned about the truth of the report?]]

Thanks for the question. The original post can be found here Horrific News From Syria, or just by scrolling down a couple of posts. I don't know why there has been no more news though perhaps it is an expression of prudent caution. I was concerned with the truth of the report within 24 hours of my own post because there was almost nothing else in the news. That was especially true since disinformation meant to inflame emotions and biases would serve ISIS's purposes. In any case, the only other post on this was on the Vincentian site. That continues to be true. I have checked the original site each day; the original post has not been removed, retracted, corrected, or clarified. When asked if there was any more news the only response has been there is NO additional news and that was the response of the priest who first posted the story. No additional comments have been added either.

These facts lead me to continue to believe the story is true and that the Vincentians have chosen to maintain silence in the matter. For instance, it would have been quite simple (and imperative) to report everyone is safe and the original story was mistaken if that were the case. We would all have simply rejoiced at that and let the rest go! If the site had been hacked and the report was fraudulent that too could have been easily remedied. It would have also been an important cautionary experience. At the same time I have not been asked to remove or retract my own posts. Should someone from the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, the Vatican, or my own diocesan Chancery request that, for instance, I would comply in half a heartbeat.

Until there is a correction, confirmation, or an update on the status of the people reported kidnapped and threatened with murder we must continue to pray and not allow our faith to be played off against authentic Islam. As already noted, we cannot allow ourselves to fall into hatred; at the same time we must renew our own baptismal commitments as People of the Cross of Christ. There are many Christians who are living in danger in the Middle East today. They have been deprived of homes, possessions, family, work, school, and the means to support themselves. They have lost precious worship spaces and seen the symbols of their faith demeaned, defaced, and destroyed. In a number of posts over the past year I have provided updates on Dominican Sisters in Iraq who have been in desperate circumstances. They have lost older Sisters due to stress and hardship and they have professed several young Sisters who as juniors have been thrown into vowed life and fulltime ministry under the most difficult conditions imaginable. Their story (the story of all these Christians in fact) is difficult, frightening, and also inspiring. They all need our prayers and our assistance.

What's the Big Deal?

 [[Dear Sister, why is it so important to make clear that there is a difference between consecrated hermits or canon 603 hermits and lay hermits? There is one person [cf., A Catholic Hermit] who claims to be writing for hermits who wish to be consecrated religious hermits by making private vows. She says, "This nothing hermit has also reflected and been reminded to encourage all aspiring Catholic hermits, to keep in mind we are consecrated religious eremitics called to live and keep our valid private vows. Regardless which of the now two Church-approved paths (privately or since 1983 publicly expressed vows), we ought prayerfully live daily and nightly the three evangelical counsels, and all else asked of hermits, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church."  Shouldn't she just be allowed to do this? I mean what does it matter? What harm can it do? They would still be hermits.]] (emphasis added)

Because I have already explained the difference between private and public vows in other posts here I really don't want to do that again.  It seems though that some of this is still unclear. The central issue is not merely about whether or not vows are expressed privately or publicly. In fact that is not the issue at all since private vows can be made in front of many people and public vows can be made in relative secret if the need exists. To continue to insist or imply this is the essential difference between public and private vows, as the person you have cited does, is to perpetuate a distortion of the truth. Instead the central issue is whether vows lead to new legitimate rights and obligations or not. What is at issue when we speak of private versus public vows is whether they establish the person in a public vocation or instead represent a private commitment. In other words, in distinguishing these two forms of vows the Church is concerned with whether or not, through the mediation of the Church, the person is initiated into another state of life (religious and/or consecrated life) for which they are publicly (that is, both morally and legally) responsible.

The person you are citing (who does read this blog, by the way) does and is certainly entirely free to disagree with what I write about many things, but in this matter, I am not merely expressing my own opinion. What I have explained is simply factual and centers on the way the Church herself uses the terms "consecrated hermits", "professed religious", "profession", and so forth". What the Catechism of the Catholic Church writes about "consecrated Life" and hermits has to be understood in light of the glossary which provides definitions of fundamental terms that might otherwise be misunderstood (cf especially "vows", and "consecrated life) ; the definitions there make it clear that paragraphs 920-921 which fall under the heading "consecrated life" refer specifically to those entering the consecrated state of life as solitary hermits, not to lay hermits. These hermits always make their commitment via public profession but they may not always use vows of the evangelical counsels to do so. Some may use "other sacred bonds" to make their profession. Some may use the classic monastic vows (stability, conversion of life (which includes poverty and chastity), and obedience rather than the more typically Franciscan triad. Since 1983 these publicly professed solitary hermits exist as religious besides (along with) already recognized institutes of consecrated life.

I have also explained that there are three paths in the Church today to pursue eremitical life, not two: 1) publicly professed and consecrated life in a community (that is, an institute) of hermits (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Sisters of Bethlehem, etc); this "semi-eremitic" option has existed for more than twelve centuries, 2) consecrated life under canon 603 (solitary diocesan eremitical life); this establishes in universal law what many dioceses anticipated and allowed through the authority of the local Bishop throughout Church history; these hermits are solitary hermits and are not professed as part of an institute of religious life (the Church's term for a congregation, community, or Order); finally there is 3) lay eremitical life (extant in the church since the 4C). The first two of these require public vows (which can be made without any notoriety, especially in countries where the person would be persecuted if their profession and/or consecration were known) and they establish the hermit in a public vocation no matter the hiddenness of the life, The third is a private commitment (even if made in public before hundreds of people) and does not change the person's state of life. If they were a lay person (in the vocational sense) before these vows, then despite the unquestioned validity of the (private) vows, they remain lay persons afterward. (Similarly, if they were clerics they remain clerics and if already religious they remain religious.) No change in one's state of life is involved in private vows.

Because the canonical rights and obligations of these forms of eremitical life differ despite the fact that they are each truly eremitical it is important that people seeking to live this life be able to make a wise and accurately informed discernment on which of these is truly what fits one's own vocation. Some people have absolutely no desire to live their vocations in the name of the Church, some have no interest in representing or extending a living tradition in the contemporary world, many have no desire to have their lives supervised by the church or to live under superiors or with regard to canon law; others refuse to jump through the hoops necessary to become publicly professed and consecrated hermits, and some simply are not able to do these things in a representative and credible way, for whatever reason.

What's the Big Deal with Distortions of the Truth?

This is not the first time I have been asked, "What's the harm?" What you are asking, whether you realize it or not is, "What's the big deal with allowing distortions of the truth?" You are also asking, "What harm can living a life (or encouraging others to live a life) of pretense do?" You see, so long as the way to becoming a consecrated or Catholic hermit in the Catholic Church is invariably through public profession and (with perpetual profession) consecration overseen and mediated by the Church, the person you cited is perpetuating a falsehood. So long as initiation into the consecrated and religious states of life is ALWAYS mediated by the church in a public act and represents an ecclesial vocation, the person you referenced is living and fostering a lie.

Moreover, so long as this person is distorting language and texts to read in ways the Church did not intend simply because she believes she has the right to her opinion on the meaning of these same terms and texts and then writes that her individualistic understanding and praxis can be considered appropriate for others, she has crossed the line into a seductive fraud --- a fraud which she hopes and encourages other vulnerable persons to adopt while unaware of the truth. The point is the notion that someone can become a consecrated religious hermit or a "professed religious" or a "Catholic Hermit" merely by making private vows is simply not true. When this notion is perpetuated, and especially when it is done by someone falsely claiming to be a Catholic Hermit, that is a hermit living her life in the name of the Church, it can mislead others and hurt them, just as believing in and acting on lies often hurts those who have done so --- except that here the Church has been nominally and wrongly implicated in the lie.

We are sensitive today to people acting in the name of the Church committing crimes, hypocrisy, immorality of all sorts. And rightly so. When someone appends Catholic to their vocation, workplace, project, or whatever, the Church herself can be smeared by anything offensive associated with that enterprise; for that reason she has a say in whether their use of the characterization Catholic is acceptable or not. That is why the Church has legislated in Canon Law that no one will use the name Catholic without explicit permission from the appropriate authority. It is why we sometimes see online radio or TV stations deprived of the name Catholic by the local Bishop. If a Catholic priest does something seriously wrong then the Church herself is besmirched; if a Catholic theologian writes against the resurrection then the Church herself is implicated in his/her actions because s/he acted in her name and she is responsible for the mission that allows this theologian to call him/herself a "Catholic Theologian". The same is true with Catholic monks, nuns, religious sisters, brothers, and hermits. All of these have been publicly commissioned to live their lives in the name of the Church. All of them are supervised by the Church and are specifically answerable to the entire Church. Moreover, they are careful of hypocrisy in their own lives and sensitive to frauds within their ranks; they are equally sensitive to more overt frauds pretending to be religious living and acting in the name of the Church.

So, my answer to your first question is no, the person you cited should not simply be allowed to encourage others to pursue or live a lie without at least an attempt to correct the falsehoods and distortions she perpetuates. She should especially not be allowed to do so while claiming the credentials, "professed religious", "consecrated hermit," "consecrated religious", or "Catholic hermit." To do this is to potentially distort peoples' discernment processes with false information. It is at least potentially, to waste months and even years of their lives in following a lie. It is to set these people up for marginalization and rejection. It is to encourage them to be seen as incredible, as frauds, or even as deluded persons, or as those who could not pursue an eremitical vocation in the usual ways and so, made something up instead. It is to lead them to believe the Church herself sees them as consecrated religious when this is not true. More, it is to encourage them to deny the very vocation God may be calling them to, namely lay eremitical life. In an age of the Church which is recovering a strong sense of the significance of baptismal consecration and lay life of all sorts it is seriously misguided to encourage others who are, vocationally speaking, lay persons to think of themselves as consecrated and professed religious. Because this person's understanding of the eremitical vocation (cited in your question) doesn't even recognize the existence of lay hermits, it implicitly says that being a lay person is not really good enough even though the person decides either not to pursue or is not discerned to have another vocation which is entered through a public commitment besides baptism.

Similarly, others who have a vocation to consecrated eremitical life might never even pursue it because they think they are already living it. A life given over to such a foundational pretense, though it might instead have been one of significant ecclesial witness, could be unlikely thereafter ever to be admitted to such a position of trust by the Church. Similarly, catering to someone's desperation to be allowed to live a religious life or "to belong" or "have a niche in the Church" or whatever it is that drives them to embrace these kinds of fictions will prevent them from dealing maturely and effectively with the roots of their need. It is simply not charitable to encourage people to embrace and live a lie. It is neither charitable to them nor to those to whom they seek to minister. It is not respectful of them or their real vocations. It is not respectful to the truth or the God of Truth who gifts us with both lay and consecrated vocations; nor is it respectful of the Church which is responsible for mediating these varied gifts through baptism and the public professions and consecration of those called to live them in credible and pastorally responsible ways.

They Would Still Be Hermits:

You write that they would be hermits anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. With private vows this is less certain. I have said before that because many self-defined lay hermits are not supervised, may not be formed in the life or committed to ongoing formation, may have insufficient direction and knowledge, etc., they may simply be living a pious life alone --- a life that differs very little if at all from that of others who live alone and pray before meals and bed. In such a case calling themselves hermits perpetuates a destructive fiction which makes the vocation itself incredible.

Even more problematical are those lay hermits who mistake isolation for solitude or whose spirituality is a thinly veiled "celebration" of self-hatred, bitterness, and rejection of God's good creation in the name of a misunderstood notion of fleeing or hating "the world". Some aspiring "hermits" I have spoken to spend hours watching TV, others use the designation "hermit" as an excuse to spend their days painting or writing or just kicking back, etc. (Many true hermits ALSO write or paint, etc. I am not referring to these! They are hermits (or monks and nuns) first of all and their writing or painting is integrated into this, not vice versa.) Others simply want the garb or the title or desire a way to "belong" in the Church they have already been baptized in. While it is sad when a person cannot accept themselves or a lay vocation, none of these things mean the person is called to be a hermit much less do they make the person a hermit, lay or otherwise.

At the same time however, I know several lay hermits who are paradigms of the eremitical vocation. I expect there are many more. These hermits inspire and challenge me. At least two of them were religious and received their formation, both initial and ongoing, over a period of years. The others spent time studying theology, spirituality, and prepared themselves for significant ministerial roles in the Church before discerning a call to eremitical solitude. Each of these meets regularly with a director and has done so for years. Each is integrally connected to the Church, whether through a parish, monastery, or retreat house. Each of them knows firsthand what it means to be a hermit and how this differs from being simply a lone pious person. Each of them understands themselves as part of a profound and ancient tradition and feel responsible for continuing that in our contemporary world. Because I know these individuals and because I know many people, including a number of isolated elderly, or chronically ill persons who would be wonderful hermits if they only knew the vocation is a vital and contemporary one, I value the lay eremitical vocation and its potential. But I am not unrealistic about its limitations or challenges. As with many things, these limitations may allow exceptional individuals to succeed beautifully while the rest of us need the help and challenge associated with public standing, but equally, they may merely lead to an exceptional failure.

Credibility is the Bottom Line:

My sincerest desire is that I never have to write about the distortion of language involved when lay hermits call themselves consecrated religious, "Catholic Hermits" or "professed religious" again. But unfortunately, so long as people are blogging this way, people who do not know the language very well are going to be seduced by the prospect of avoiding the hoops canonical hermits must negotiate or the scrutiny and constraints they must embrace and still call themselves "consecrated religious hermits." When these same writers submit that canon 603 is a departure from and even a betrayal of the eremitical tradition, then from time to time I will probably continue to get questions from their readers --- and I will probably need to respond yet again.

Canonical hermits, whether professed in community or as solitary hermits under c 603, and whether they come from the laity or the clergy make significant sacrifices in order that their lives are credible representations of a living eremitical tradition and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The constraints on their lives --- canon law, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, commitment to regular and competent spiritual direction, ongoing formation, and public vows --- as well as their commitment to the life giving sources of the Church (Scripture, Sacraments, etc) are all traditional necessities they have freely embraced to be sure their lives are credible and lived with integrity. For most of us these things are also sources of great joy, graced resources which help nurture the maturity and fruitfulness of lives consecrated by God and commissioned in the name of the Church. Even so, for someone to forego all of these and still claim the name "Catholic Hermit" even while ignoring and distorting the way the Church herself uses this term is offensive and dishonest. It is also the very essence of the self-centered and individualistic worldliness which the consecrated hermit is publicly committed to reject with her entire life.

Horrific News From Syria: Another Reminder of Why We Are People of the Cross

I received the following notification from a friend. She wondered if I might write a blog piece on it. I admit I am left entirely speechless by the horror described and threatened. While I sincerely hope this story is not true, at the same time I plead for readers' prayers not only for any innocent victims but for each of us to renew our Baptismal commitments to witness to the fact that in Christ: 
 

[[For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.]]

After all, this was one of our Mass readings on the very day these brothers and sisters in the Faith are reported to have been taken.

[[Special prayer request:
We have all been horrified by the news coming from Syria. As you know our Vincentian Family is spread across the world. We just got the following prayer request from one of our Vincentian Priests:

From the Vincentian Curia in Rome...
From Sister Monique, via Filles de la Charité, PARIS
Via, John Freund, CM Vincentian Website

Late Sunday afternoon on 1 March 2015, I received a message from M. Francoise, a delegate of the International Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and I managed to reach her by telephone. She was leaving for Paris, and collapsed at the news she had just received: members of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul in Syria were kidnapped, along with their wives and children. The children were isolated and put into cages. Adults who do not deny their faith will be decapitated, and their children burned alive in the cages. M. Francoise had been in regular contact with several of them before all this occurred. She asked me to transmit the news and make a fervent appeal for prayers for these people, and all who are held hostage.

Let us remain fervently united in prayer, and have as our intention the welfare of all brothers and sisters in our Christian faith who are being held hostage.]]

It is especially important to remember that ISIS is intent on inflaming hatred and escalating tensions between Christianity and Islam. We cannot treat ISIS as though it is genuine representative of Islam. We cannot allow this story, how ever true it might be, to manipulate us into betraying our own faith and falling into hatred. Prayer is the only recourse we really have here and the only response which is appropriate.  See also: We Are People of the Cross 1 and We Are People of the Cross 2

Private Vows and the Lay Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, how do I make private vows to become a consecrated religious hermit without joining a community?]]

Hi there. Thanks for writing. I am also  including someone else's question below this one since the subject is related. I think there is some confusion in your own question. To become a consecrated religious hermit (that is, a hermit in the consecrated state of life), you cannot do so with private vows. You see because this is an ecclesial vocation you must do so through the formal (and canonical) mediation of the Church. You can only do this via a public profession.This requires 1) a petition to your diocese followed by  2) a mutual discernment process if your diocese sees you as a good candidate; then, if admitted to profession by your Bishop it will mean 3) public vows received by and Divine consecration mediated by the Church. The key here is public profession and consecration (which only comes with perpetual public vows) made in the hands of the local Bishop. The consecrated hermit is publicly commissioned by the Church in the person of the local Bishop to live her life in the name of the Church. She is literally then a Catholic hermit (not simply a Catholic AND a Hermit) and (after perpetual vows) a consecrated religious. Thus it always involves a public commitment and solemn consecration. You might consider this after living as a lay hermit for some time, especially if you live private vows for some time and work out a workable Rule of Life.

If you wish, on the other hand, simply to live as a lay hermit (not publicly professed and consecrated) and eventually make private vows you are free to do that by virtue of your baptism, but there is no formal procedure for doing so. Remember this would be an entirely private commitment. To make such a commitment in a meaningful way your life as a hermit really requires regular spiritual direction and you need to have lived as a lay hermit for some time (at least a couple of years would not be unreasonable to expect) before even considering making private vows. Until you and your director believe you both need and are really ready for these you should prepare by considering what your baptismal commitment requires of you in more specific terms.

Renewing and Specifying one's Baptismal Commitment as Either an Alternative or Preparatory Step to Private vows:

(Please note my opinion on using any setting during Mass has changed. Please read my explanation of this in Reexamining an Earlier Suggestion)

For instance, you may find they require you to live the evangelical counsels in some way and you will want to shape a commitment including these expressed in a way which really fits your life. Your baptismal commitment requires a sound prayer life as well so you will want to spell out what this means for you. The same is true of silence, solitude, and penance. Being a disciple of Christ requires some degree of all of these and you can specify what you feel yourself called to at this point in your life as someone already committed and consecrated in baptism but without entering the consecrated state of life. Your pastor could certainly help you to work out a brief ritual where you renew and specify your baptismal commitment in terms of lay eremitical life.

It seems to me (with a lot of caveats!!) that if this was what you decided to do you could renew your own baptismal commitment and further specify that commitment during Mass within the context of the parishioners' own general renewal of baptismal vows. This is the ONLY situation in which I would suggest such vows might conceivably occur during Mass --- that is, as part of a renewal of baptismal vows. Such a commitment would have to make clear in a very explicit way that this is a lay commitment and that you are not assuming any additional canonical rights or obligations such as are associated with religious life, but if this could be done, it could be quite a lovely and meaningful commitment. It could also be of immense value to your parish and even beyond parish boundaries. Your parish would know you as a lay (but not a consecrated or Catholic) hermit and you would have some chance to share what that means with them. Some, especially the elderly and chronically ill, might want to do something similar; the difference this could make in their lives could be immense.

(Again, I have rethought this position although I continue to wish for ways to celebrate lay eremitical lives within the parish. I believe the Church is absolutely correct in not witnessing the vows of a lay hermit during Mass. Because of this ambiguity, I have kept the post up rather than simply removing it.)

At the same time you would model the lesson that we need to think about and make concrete the kinds of demands our Baptismal vows require of each of us. That is rarely done, I think, and it is important; often we do not need additional vows but we do need to specify and commit to the ways our baptismal promises are meant to be lived here and now. In preparing for this step what you will actually be doing is constructing an informal Rule of Life which covers prayer, penance, evangelical counsels, silence, solitude, lectio, and other essentials in the hermit's life. Over time you will probably want to rework or even rewrite this. Though it may take you some time to do this, and especially to do it while truly living as a lay hermit with the aid of your director, working in this way can prepare you for meaningful private vows as well as strengthening your baptismal commitment itself. However, let me be very clear, if there was the slightest doubt or the least impression given that this was not a specification of an entirely lay vocation and NOT entrance into the consecrated state of life, the vows should not occur at Mass. It may be that this cannot occur without misleading others. If that seems likely then this idea would not work and needs to be relegated to the trash heap.

If You Decide to Make Private Vows

If and when your director agrees with you on your own need and readiness for a temporary private dedication as a lay hermit (say, for a period of three years or so) she can witness these for you at any time. Your pastor can also witness these. As already indicated, the Church does not celebrate private vows at Mass because she does not wish these to be confused with public vows which are associated with ecclesial vocations lived in the name of the Church. These are also associated with legitimate superiors and (with perpetual vows) with entrance into the consecrated state, as well as with other legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations.

Because private vows are undertaken as a private (as opposed to public or canonical) commitment, they do not lead to any additional rights or obligations not already associated with Baptism. This is another reason they ordinarily take place apart from Mass. (If your pastor agrees, for instance, you might well make them after Mass though which would allow some friends and family and interested parishioners to attend and witness this private dedication.) At the end of the duration of these vows (three years or whatever you have chosen) you will need to discern whether or not you are being called to make this commitment a perpetual one or perhaps approach your diocese with a petition to become a consecrated Catholic or diocesan hermit. (Private vows can still be dispensed at any time by your pastor and others as well without any formal paperwork; if you were admitted to public profession private vows would also cease to be binding as soon as you made public vows.)

Getting Ahead of Ourselves:

But this is getting a bit ahead of things. Again, you will need to live as a hermit in a focused and conscious way while under regular spiritual direction for at least a couple of years before you can really meaningfully consider such a private dedication. (This might differ if you have already lived as a religious and been through formation with a canonical group.) Remember that even if you have been living alone for a while this is not necessarily the same as living an eremitical life. When you understand the difference on the basis of your own experience and can articulate this for your director you may be close to readiness for private vows. In this I recommend you listen carefully to your director and her reservations or concerns; then discern what that means for you and work on whatever it requires. The same for your pastor if you desire him to witness such a dedication. (The preparation for public profession is much longer (at least five years before first vows) and commensurately more demanding in terms of discernment --- which is undertaken with the diocese, not merely on one's own.)

The Problem of Language:

There has been a lot of confusing use of language by some lay hermits today. Your own question conveyed some confusion about terminology which you may have gotten from some of these persons, a couple of whom have several blogs. While you may not be interested in this particularly, your question is an opportunity to address this problem. Especially, it is time to remind  readers of how the Church  uses various terms. After all, when a person calls herself a Catholic Hermit, but is not using that term in the way the Catholic Church does it is at least incoherent and sort of an absurd practice. The basic principle is simple: we enter states of life through the Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, and Orders) and through public profession and/or consecration (Religious life, consecrated eremitism, and Consecrated Virginity). There is no other way. Each initiation into a new state of life is mediated to us by the Church in a public and graced juridical act.  Private vows never initiate us into a new state of life. Neither does any consecration (dedication) of self. Only consecration by God received in a public rite mediated by the Church does this. This is part of the reason we call such vocations ecclesial vocations.

For instance, a consecrated person is one who is in the consecrated state of life. She has been consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church and except in the case of consecrated virgins, has made public vows (or other sacred bonds for some c 603 hermits), these involve additional canonical rights and obligations as well as the formal and legal relationships required to fulfill these. Thus people who have entered the religious or consecrated states of life have legitimate superiors and public (canonical) vows of obedience. The same is true of the term consecrated religious or just religious; the church uses these terms to refer to a publicly professed and ecclesially consecrated person who exists in the consecrated and religious states of life. Consecrated  and Religious life always imply the public assumption of additional legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism.

Consecrating oneself to God is rightly called dedication; it is not the same as being consecrated BY God through the mediation of the church. When one 'consecrates' oneself to God (dedicates is absolutely the preferred term for this act) one does not enter the consecrated state of life. The Church does not call consecrating oneself  "consecrated life" because there is not change in state of life. A hermit who consecrated (dedicated) herself to God is not a consecrated hermit; she remains a lay hermit who is privately dedicated. This means not every Catholic living as a hermit is a Catholic hermit nor are they consecrated. If one is living the life and is commissioned to do so in the name of the Church in the hands of a legitimate superior, then and only then is one considered a Catholic hermit. For a lay Catholic living as a hermit under private vows, she remains and is called a lay hermit because she lives her eremitical life under or according to the very same canonical rights and obligations which came to her with baptism into the lay state.

[[Sister Laurel, if I have doubts about whether someone is a Catholic Hermit or not is there a question I should ask which will give me an answer the person can't waffle about or dance around?]]

 I am adding this question which I received a few days ago because much of what I have just said  provides an explanation of my answer. My first inclination was to say the critical question is, "Have you been  publicly professed and commissioned to live as a hermit in the name of the Church?" A friend pointed out that a person intent on dancing around the question might still be able to do it or might just lie. She suggested the bottom line question regarding whether someone is a Catholic Hermit  or a consecrated religious should be: "Who is your legitimate superior?" A similar question (a kind of corollary)  is "In whose hands did you make your public profession?"

For diocesan hermits the answer to either question will be their Bishop, a specific Bishop with a name! (It will not be the person's spiritual director, even if that director is a priest and it will especially not be a director in a different diocese! A delegate may serve as a quasi superior but will do so on behalf of the Bishop and diocese.) For a hermit belonging to a canonical community it will be the superior of her house or of the congregation. If you are really concerned about the standing of someone claiming to be a Catholic Hermit or a consecrated hermit/religious then ask them about their legitimate superior. No one responsible for a public and ecclesial vocation will hesitate to answer explicitly. Meanwhile, if this is an additional step you feel is important to take you can contact the person's diocesan chancery. Diocesan hermits' chanceries will generally verify that a person is a publicly professed and consecrated hermit in good standing and may even include the hermit's date of perpetual profession in their response to your query. They will not provide any information beyond these basic facts.

Also the consecrated hermit will ordinarily be given a document identifying them as a consecrated hermit in the diocese on the occasion of their perpetual profession and consecration. It will be signed by the Bishop in whose hands the hermit was professed, the Vicar for Religious or ecclesiastical notary and sealed with the diocesan seal. It is equivalent to a Sacramental certificate and while hermits don't have any obligation to show these on demand to any casual questioner they are official documents which indicate the hermit's canonical standing and underscore the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.

The Lord's Prayer: Concerning Ourselves With God's Own Life and Plans (Reprised)

Today's Gospel includes Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer. As we continue to focus on the basic themes of Lent it is only appropriate that the Church looks at what prayer is and reminds us of Jesus' own instruction in it --- what was primary and what followed naturally. In Lent one of the things we attempt to do is die to self in ways which make us more open to God's presence, God's Word, God's own hallowing of his name within us and in our world. We fast in ways which help us set aside our more superficial needs; we open ourselves to the love of God which we allow ourselves to savor so that we might be profoundly nourished and God's own will be done, God's own life be fulfilled in and with us. Our Lenten journey reminds us that genuine spirituality is forgetful of self, that it "gets out of the way" and lays aside self-consciousness. In today's gospel, Jesus (via Matt) provides a model of prayer which assists in this. It is a model of prayer in which we concern ourselves first and last with God's own needs, and with being there FOR HIM! We know it as the Lord's Prayer

In the first three petitions (and the invocation itself, though that is a topic for another time!) we concern ourselves with God's very self (holiness and name refer to God's own self, not to mere characteristics or tags); we ask that he might be powerfully present in our world (because both name and the hallowing here refers to a powerful presence which creates and recreates whatever it is allowed to touch and make holy). With the second petition especially, we open ourselves to God's sovereignty, that is, to God's very selfhood and life as it is shared with his creation. God assumes a position of sovereignty over that creation when his life is truly shared and that creation achieves genuine freedom in the process, but the reign or kingdom of God refers to God's own life once again --- this time as a covenantal or mutual reality. And, with the third petition in particular, we open ourselves to the will of God --- to the future and shape of a reality which is ordered by his sovereignty and fulfilled by his presence.

Now, it is true that God possesses what is called aseity. That is, he is completely self-sufficient and in need of nothing and no one. But that is only one part of the paradox that stands at the heart of our faith. The other side of the paradox is that our God is One who has determined to need us; from the beginning, indeed, from all eternity, God has chosen not to remain alone. He creates all that is outside himself and he summons it (continuing the process of creation) to greater and greater levels of complexity until from within this creation comes One who will be his true counterpart and partner in creation. At bottom this is a call to share in God's very life. In fact, it is the ground of an existence which can only be fulfilled when it shares in the Divine life and God himself becomes all in all!

All of Scripture attests to this basic dynamic, whether cast in terms of creation or covenant. All of Scripture is about God's determination to share his very life with us, and his creation's capacity in the Spirit to issue forth in, or become his own unique counterpart in the fulfillment of this plan. When God's plan is fulfilled, when his very life is shared to the extent he wills, everything he creates reaches fulfillment as well, but it is the human vocation in particular to allow this to become real in space and time. And after all, isn't this what prayer is truly all about: allowing God's plans to be realized in his creation; cooperating with his Spirit in ways which let his own life be made PERSONALLY real here and now so that EVERYTHING acquires fullness or completion (perfection) of life in God?

Unfortunately, one of the most pernicious problems I run into, whether in myself or in my work as a spiritual director is the occasional inability to "get out of the way" of the Spirit or to "forget self" in prayer. Prayer seems always to be about us, our problems, our sinfulness, our needs and concerns in ways which sometimes contribute to our own self-centeredness. While I am NOT suggesting we neglect this side of things in our prayer, I am suggesting that there are ways to pray these concerns which are NOT self-centered. (Note, the key here is in praying these concerns rather than merely praying about these concerns. Sometimes we have to silence conversation about concerns and simply live them in our prayer as we give our whole selves to God for his own sake.) I think this is part of what Jesus is getting at in today's gospel when he reminds us that God knows what we need before we ask him! It is certainly mirrored in the form of the Lord's prayer and the priority of the invocation and petitions. If we open ourselves humbly to God in prayer, the sinfulness, needs, concerns, etc will be part of that but the focus will not be on these.

Because of this, one of the most significant questions we can ask ourselves in checking in on our prayer occasionally is, "what kind of experience was this for God?" Ordinarily this puts a full stop to the sometimes-problematical self-centered focus and chatter about ME in prayer which can occur and puts the focus back where Jesus clearly lived it himself --- on God and the way in which God wills to be present to and for us. What today's Gospel gives us in this model of prayer is a sense that contrary to much popular thought and practice otherwise, prayer is really the way we give or set aside our lives for another, namely, for God and his own Selfhood and destiny. And while it is absolutely true that in the process of giving ourselves over to God's own purposes our own hearts will rightly be opened up, poured out, and our own needs met (as Isaiah reminds us in the first reading, God's Word will not return to him void!), prayer is first of all something we are empowered to do for God's own sake!

The Cross: Revelation of a Humility that Stands in Spite of Humiliation

[[Dear Sister, when we look at the cross I don't think your distinction between humiliation and humility holds. Jesus suffers all kind of humiliation and is humbled. He shows real humility as a result of his humiliation.]] (cp. From Humiliation to Humility: Resting in the Gaze of God)

Thanks for your comment. I get what you are saying: it is in being humiliated that Jesus shows great humility, right? At the same time you are saying, I think, that humiliation leads to humility. In this you have actually put your finger on one of the most destructive confusions and interpretations of the cross ever imagined. You see, while I would agree that Jesus shows incredible humility in the midst of great humiliation, where we seem to disagree is that his humility is a result of his humiliation. Remember that Jesus possesses great humility throughout his life. He possesses it in spite of temptation, trial, and in spite of humiliation. Humiliation leads to or results in shame; humility, on the other hand, is a form of graced dignity.

Jesus knows who he is in light of God's love, "You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased", and he holds onto that sense of identity, that dignity we know as humility even in the midst of shaming torture and crucifixion. When others are betraying him, abandoning him, and trying him for blasphemy and betrayal of the God he knows as Abba, that is when others are shaming him, Jesus counters all of this by holding onto who he knows himself to be in the light of God's love.

It is important in reflecting on the cross that we distinguish between the judgment and activities of a sinful body-and-soul-murdering mankind and what is of God. The humiliation and arena of shame is created by human beings who see Jesus' incredibly wonderful works and deem him demonic and blasphemous. When they raise a person up it is to the heights of degradation and shame. But at that same point God sees most clearly his beloved Son, loving and obedient even unto death on a cross. From THAT vantage point what is revealed to us, what empowers Jesus even in his dying, is the epitome of humility --- a transcendent dignity which is perfected in weakness.

Again then, when you look at the cross and find humiliation you can trace that to the soul-killing judgment of men and women and to their murderous "execution of judgment." As I wrote recently, God NEVER humiliates. NEVER! Human beings lift or hold us up to shame. God raises to humility. When you look at the cross and find genuine humility you must trace that to the graced knowledge of self that comes ultimately from God. It would be an incredibly destructive reading of the events of the cross to see humiliation as the cause of humility. Humility is the incredible dignity Jesus possesses in spite of the shaming humiliation human judgment subjected him to.

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

From Humiliation to Humility: Resting in the Gaze of God

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I was intrigued by something you said in your post on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, namely, that our senses of worthiness and unworthiness are not even present until after shame enters the picture. If that is so then what are we to make of all the writing in spirituality that stresses our unworthiness of God's love or the extensive literature on humility that associates it with the sense of being "nothing" or with practices of humiliation? A lot of this was written by saints and spiritually gifted people. Is your observation about worthiness and unworthiness based on the readings from Genesis alone or does it comes from other places too?]]

Several really great questions! Let me give them a shot and then perhaps you can help me follow up on them or clarify what I say with further questions, comments, and so forth. Because shame is such a central experience it truly stands at the center of sinful existence (the life of the false self) and is critical to understanding redeemed existence (the life of the true self). It colors the way we see all of reality and that means our spirituality as well. In fact, this way of seeing and relating to God lies at the heart of all religious thinking and behavior.

But the texts from Genesis tell us that this is not the way we are meant to see ourselves or reality. It is not the way we are meant to relate to God or to others. Instead, we are reminded that "originally" there was a kind of innocence where we knew ourselves ONLY as God himself sees us. We acted naturally in gratitude to and friendship with God. After the Fall human beings came to see themselves differently. It is the vision of estrangement and shame. This new way of seeing is the real blindness we hear of in the New Testament --- the blindness that causes us to lead one another into the pit without ever being aware we are doing so. Especially then, it is the blindness that allows religious leaders whose lives are often dominated by and lived in terms of categories like worthiness and unworthiness to do this.

Religious Language as Shame Based and Problematical

The language of worthiness and unworthiness has been enshrined in our religious language and praxis. This only makes sense, especially in cultures that find it difficult to deal with paradox. We are each of us sinners who have rejected God's gratuitous love. Doesn't this make us unworthy of it? In human terms which sees everything as either/or, yes, it does. This is also one of the significant ways we stress the fact that God's love is given as unmerited gift. But at the same time this language is theologically incoherent. It falls short when used to speak of our relationship with God precisely because it is the language associated with the state of sin. It causes us to ask the wrong questions (self-centered questions!) and, even worse, to answer them in terms of our own shame. We think, "surely a just God cannot simply disregard our sinfulness" and the conclusion we come to ordinarily plays Divine justice off against Divine mercy. We just can't easily think or speak of a justice which is done in mercy, a mercy which does justice. The same thing happens with God's love. Aware that we are sinners we think we must be unworthy of God's love --- forgetting that it is by loving that God does justice and sets all things right. At the same time we know God's love (or any authentic love!) is not something we are worthy of. Love is not earned or merited. It is a free gift, the very essence of grace.

Our usual ways of thinking and speaking are singularly inadequate here and cause us to believe, "If not worthy then unworthy; if not unworthy then worthy". These ways of thinking and speaking work for many things but not for God or our relationship with God. God is incommensurate with our non-paradoxical categories of thought and speech. He is especially incommensurate with the categories of a fallen humanity pervaded by guilt and shame and yet, these are the categories with and within which we mainly perceive, reflect on, and speak about reality. In some ways, then, it is our religious language which is most especially problematical. And this is truest when we try to accept the complete gratuitousness and justice-creating nature of God's love.

The Cross and the Revelation of the Paradox that Redeems

It is this entire way of seeing and speaking of reality, this life of the false self, that the cross of Christ first confuses with its paradoxes, then disallows with its judgment, and finally frees us from by the remaking of our minds and hearts. The cross opens the way of faith to us and frees us from our tendencies to religiosity; it proclaims we can trust God's unconditional love and know ourselves once again ONLY in light of his love and delight in us. It is entirely antithetical to the language of worthiness and unworthiness. In fact, it reveals these to be absurd when dealing with the love of God. Instead we must come to rest in paradox, the paradox which left Paul speechless with its apparent consequences: "Am I saying we should sin all the more so that grace may abound all the more? Heaven forbid!" But Paul could not and never did answer the question in the either/or terms given. That only led to absurdity. The only alternative for Paul or for us is the paradoxical reality revealed on the cross.

On the cross the worst shame imaginable is revealed to be the greatest dignity, the most apparent godlessness is revealed to be the human face and glory of Divinity. These are made to be the place God's love is most fully revealed. In light of all this the categories of worthiness or unworthiness must be relinquished for the categories of paradox and especially for the language of gratitude or ingratitude --- ways of thinking and speaking which not only reflect the inadequacy of the language they replace, but which can assess guilt without so easily leading to shame. Gratitude, what Bro David Steindl-Rast identifies as the heart of prayer, can be cultivated as we learn to respond to God's grace, as, that is, we learn to trust an entirely new way of seeing ourselves and all others and else in light of a Divine gaze that does nothing but delight in us.

This means that, while the tendency to speak in terms of us as nothing and God as ALL is motivated by an admirable need to do justice to God's majesty and love, it is, tragically, also tainted by the sin, guilt, and shame we also know so intimately.  It is ironic but true that in spite of our sin we do not do justice to God's greatness by diminishing ourselves even or especially in self-judgment. That is the way of the false self and we do not magnify God by speaking in this way. Saying we are nothing merely reaffirms an untruth --- the untruth which is a reflection of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is the same "truth" that leads to shame and all the consequences of a shame-based life and is less about humility than it is about humiliation. God is ineffably great and he has created us with an equally inconceivable dignity. We may and do act against that dignity and betray the love of our Creator, but the truth remains that we are the image of God, the ones he loves with an everlasting love, the ones he delights in nonetheless. God's love includes us; God takes us up in his own life and invites us to stand in (his) love in a way which transcends either worthiness or unworthiness. Humility means knowing ourselves in this way, not as "nothing" or in comparison with God or with anyone else.

Contemplative prayer and the Gaze of God:

My own sense of all this comes from several places. The first is the texts from Genesis, especially the importance given in those to the gaze of God or to being looked on by God vs being ashamed and hiding from God's gaze. That helps me understand the difference between the true and false selves. The focus on shame and the symptoms of shame (or the defensive attempts to avoid or mitigate these) helps me understand the development of the false self --- the self we are asked to die to in last Friday's Gospel lection. The second and more theologically fundamental source is the theology of the cross. The cross is clear that what we see and judge as shameful is not, that what we call humility means being lifted up by God even in the midst of degradation, and moreover, that even in the midst of the worst we do to one another God loves and forgives us. I'll need to fill this out in future posts. The third and most personal source is my own experience of contemplative prayer where, in spite of my sinfulness (my alienation from self and God), I rest in the gaze of God and know myself to be loved and entirely delighted in. While not every prayer period involves an explicit experience of God gazing at and delighting in me (most do not), the most seminal of these do or have involved such an experience. I have written about one of these here in the past and continue to find it an amazing source of revelation.

In that prayer I experienced God looking at me in great delight as I "heard" how glad he was that I was "finally" here. I had absolutely no sense of worthiness or unworthiness, simply that of being a delight to God and loved in an exhaustive way. The entire focus of that prayer was on God and the kind of experience prayer (time with me in this case) was for him. At another point, I experienced Christ gazing at me with delight and love as we danced. I was aware at the same time that every person was loved in the same way; I have noted this here before but without reflecting specifically on the place of the Divine gaze in raising me to humility. In more usual prayer periods I simply rest in God's presence and sight. I allow him, as best I am able,  access to my heart, including those places of darkness and distortion caused by my own sin, guilt, woundedness, and shame. Ordinarily I think in terms of letting God touch and heal those places, but because of that seminal prayer experience I also use the image of being gazed at by God and being seen for who I truly am. That "seeing", like God's speech is an effective, real-making, creative act. As I entrust myself to God I become more and more the one God knows me truly to be.

What continues to be most important about that prayer experience is the focus on God and what God "experiences", sees, communicates. In all of that there was simply no room for my own feelings of worthiness or unworthiness. These were simply irrelevant to the relationship and intimacy we shared. Similarly important was the sense that God loved every person in the very same way. There was no room for elitism or arrogance nor for the shame in which these and so many other things are rooted. I could not think of my own sinfulness or brokenness; I did not come with armfuls of academic achievements, published articles, or professional successes nor was this a concern. I came with myself alone and my entire awareness was filled with a sense of God's love for me and every other person existing; there was simply no room for anything else.

Over time a commitment to contemplative prayer allows God's gaze to conform me to the truth I am most deeply, most really. Especially it is God's loving gaze which heals me of any shame or sense of inadequacy that might hold me in bondage and allows my true self to emerge. Over time I relinquish the vision of reality of the false self and embrace that of the true self. I let go of my tendency to judge "good and evil". Over time God heals my blindness and, in contrast to what happened after the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, my eyes are truly opened! This means not only being raised from humiliation to humility but being converted from self-consciousness to genuine self-awareness. In the remaking of my mind and heart these changes are a portrait of what it means to move from guilt and shame to grace.

So, again, the sources of my conviction about the calculus of worthiness and unworthiness and the transformative and healing power of God's' gaze comes from several places including: 1) Scripture (OT and NT), Theology (especially Jesus' own teaching and the theologies of the cross of Paul and Mark as well as the paradoxical theology of glorification in shame of John's gospel), 2) the work of sociologists and psychologists on shame as the "master emotion", and 3) contemplative prayer. I suspect that another source is my Franciscanism (especially St Clare's reflections on the mirror of the self God's gaze represents) but this is something I will have to look at further.