05 January 2021
A Contemplative Moment: The Winter of Listening
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 3:55 AM
Labels: A Contemplative Moment, David Whyte, The House of Belonging
29 December 2020
Introducing "Junior", Stillsong's Resident Gargoyle
[[Hi Sister, I was looking at the pictures of your hermitage and I wondered about the grey thing in the foreground of one of the pictures. What is it? I hope you had a good Christmas and a Happy New Year!!]]
I think you mean "Junior" a small gargoyle I have had now for more than 25 years. He was part of a duo of gargoyles --- Mother and Son and he was made to sit on his Mom's knee. During that period I was fascinated with gargoyles and loved both the size and the "age" of Junior.I bought him singly and was glad that was possible because the pair was just too expensive for me; he has lived on my desk or bookshelves for all these years since. As gargoyles go I think he is pretty adorable. Occasionally I have looked for his "Mom" to see if I could afford her now, but have been unable to locate her. (To be honest, given her size and the size of the two of them together I doubt I would have a place for her/them, but I have looked nonetheless.)Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! I hope these holidays and all of the holidays within the octave of Christmas are fruitful for you. Junior sends you a friendly growl!
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 1:36 AM
25 December 2020
Christmas at Stillsong 2020 (Reprise with tweaks)
Hi there yourself, and thanks for your questions. I don't get a lot of them from students your age so it is terrific you decided to write. You know I also like people and I like to talk but it is true that I am an introvert. By that I mean that I am a person whose energy comes from quiet activities done alone more than from being with other people. I enjoy being with other people but it also tires me out and I need time alone to kind of recharge my "inner batteries." (The other kind of person is someone we call an extrovert, and they get their energy from being with people and even from partying; spending too much time alone is what leaves them feeling kind of wiped out or "needing others".)
But you see I know that I live alone (really, with God!) for an important reason. My life says to others (at least I really hope it does!) that even if we are alone God is there too and that Presence changes everything. It is one of the things we celebrate at Christmas -- that our God is Emmanuel or God-with-us in a very special sense. Our relationship with God is part of being truly human; in fact, it is the thing which makes us truly human. Because of that witnessing to this relationship is a very important mission for any human being. More, I know that God loves me without limit or condition and that when I answer love with the gift of my own self God is truly delighted --- just like your being present with your family delights them. For these reasons the time I spend in solitude is not usually hard for me even during holidays like Christmas. If I were always thinking things like, "I should be with family" or "I should not be alone; it's not right," then I might make myself feel really empty and miserable. Instead I celebrate what Christmas is all about with the One who made it possible 2000 years ago and who makes it real now in my own life too --- just as I am called to do.
Do I get Christmas presents? Yes, as I noted briefly above, I do. This year I am especially aware that my life is the greatest present I could be given; I celebrated that yesterday as I met with my Director and it is something I am journaling about as well. One of the things I love about Christmas is that God reveals himself in all of our stories as someone who brings life out of barrenness (like he did with Elizabeth) or where God makes people who have been frightened, grieving, or were mute into people whose lives are songs of great meaning and joy (like we hear about with Zechariah or Mary)! But I also get Christmas presents in the sense you mean. Those come from friends, family, and even from my parish or organizations in the parish. One gift this year was a small oil lamp with Christmas greenery inside it. It is really lovely and goes well with Christmas decorations.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 1:32 PM
20 December 2020
Fourth Sunday of Advent: Vulnerability by David Whyte (Reprised)
Throughout the Gospel of Mark Jesus' invariable title for himself is Son of Man which can be translated as "Son of Humanity" or even "the Human One". One of the things Mark is concerned to show his readers is that Jesus reveals the nature of authentic humanity. Jesus is the One in whom humanity is exhaustively transparent to God. This is one way of seeing how it is he can reveal both the nature of humanity and divinity at the same time. At the heart of this double and paradoxical revelation stands the critical and peculiar openness to God and to all God wills which we know as obedience and also, a radical vulnerability. We see this in the creche and we see the same openness in the events of the cross. One of the most wonderful pieces I have read on the nature of vulnerability and its centrality to authentic humanity is the following piece by David Whyte:
[[Vulnerability is not a weakness, a passing indisposition, or something we can arrange to do without, vulnerability is the underlying, ever present abiding undercurrent of our natural state. To run from vulnerability is to run from the essence of our nature, the attempt to be invulnerable is the vain attempt to become someone we are not and most especially, to close off our understanding of the grief of others. More seriously, in refusing our vulnerability we refuse the help needed at every turn of our existence and immobilize the essential, tidal and conversational foundations of our identity.
To have a temporary, isolated sense of power over all events and circumstances, is a lovely illusionary privilege and perhaps the prime and most beautifully constructed conceit of being human and especially of being youthfully human, but it is a privilege that must be surrendered with that same youth, with ill health, with accident, with the loss of loved ones who do not share our untouchable powers; powers eventually and most emphatically given up as we approach our last breath.
The only choice we have as we mature is how we inhabit our vulnerability, how we become larger and more courageous and more compassionate through our intimacy with disappearance, our choice is to inhabit vulnerability as generous citizens of loss, robustly and fully, or conversely, as misers and complainers, reluctant and fearful , always at the gates of existence, but never bravely and completely attempting to enter, never wanting to risk ourselves, never walking fully through the door. (from Consolations: The Solace, Nourishment, and Underlying Meaning of everyday Words)]]
In Christ authentic humanity becomes a reality in our world and in him it becomes a possibility for us as well. It is truly a humanity which does not "fall short" of the dignity to which we are called by God. (Remember hamartia which is translated "sin," literally means, "to miss the mark" and the mark we actually miss is, as noted in recent posts, that of realizing our call to be imago dei and becoming imago christi.) The birth of Jesus marks the coming of this new possibility into our world. As we approach the Feast of the Nativity may we each recommit ourselves to the vulnerability which allows us not only to say yes to God in the way Mary did, but also to grow in the grace and stature of an authentic and self-emptying humanity as did Jesus.
Best wishes and prayers for a wonderful last week of Advent and a fruitful Christmas! Sister Laurel, Er Dio.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 12:31 AM
Labels: Advent, David Whyte, Fourth Sunday of Advent, Vulnerability
14 December 2020
Laetare Sunday: Embracing Stricter Separation from the World as a Way of Rejoicing in our call to Authentic Humanity
In speaking of "guarding the heart" and "preparing the way of the Lord" Clarke referred to being careful of or avoiding anything causing us to lose sight of who we truly are. What struck me most about this was that it is a very good way to speak of what canon 603 calls, "stricter separation from the world". Ordinarily I define "the world" in the sense used by the canon in terms of anything "which resists or is antithetical to God in Christ (or to the love of God)" but this notion that "the world" could also be defined in terms of "anything causing us to lose sight of who we truly are" and are called to be was new to me. I have certainly approached this insight but never really saw or articulated it so directly before. What I came to see regarding what canon 603's stricter separation from the world requires of us is that it serves our focused journeying toward the realization of our truest selves and that it is primarily a positive element in the canon and in the spiritual life in so far as it helps prevent us from losing sight of who we really are. Also, of course, in and of itself stricter separation from the world can and inevitably will be misunderstood without this correlative and primary focus on the true or authentic self which God summons into being at each moment of our lives.
Father Clarke's presentation began with Mary Oliver's poem, "The Journey", which set the tone and key of the entire presentation:Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 2:13 PM
Labels: Authentic Freedom, Authentic humanity, Canon 603, Laetare Sunday, Stricter separation from the world, vocation to authentic humanity
12 December 2020
Our Lady of Guadalupe: Believing in a God Who Lifts Up the Lowly (Reprise)
Fifty years ago at Vatican II the messiest, most passionate, and often "dirtiest" fighting to occur during the council took place during discussions of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Out of nearly 2400 bishops the fight was divided almost exactly evenly between two factions, those nicknamed the maximalists and those nicknamed the minimalists. Both factions were concerned with honoring the greatness of Mary in our faith but their strategies in this were very different from one another. The maximalists wanted the council to declare Mary Mediatrix of all Graces and to proclaim this as a new dogma in the Church --- never mind that the thrust of the Council was not toward the definition of new dogmas. They wanted the council to write a separate document on Mary, one which effectively made her superior to the Church.
The minimalists also wanted to honor Mary, but they wanted to do so by speaking of her within the document on the Church. They desired a more Scriptural approach to the person and place of Mary which honored the dogmatic truth that Christ is the One unique Mediator between God and mankind. The Church would be spoken of as Mother and Virgin, for instance, and Mary would be seen as a type of the Church.
The minimalist position won the day (had only 20 Bishops voted differently it would have been another matter) and so, in Lumen Gentium after the Church Fathers wrote about the Mystery of the Church, Church as People of God, the hierarchical nature of the Church, the Laity, the universal call to holiness, Religious, and the Church as a Pilgrim people, they wrote eloquently about Our Lady in chapter VIII. Mary is highly honored in this Constitution --- as it says in today's responsorial psalm, she is, after all, "the highest honor of our race", but for this very reason the Church Fathers spoke of her clearly as within the Church, within the Communion of Saints, within the Pilgrim People of God, not as a rival to Christ or part of the Godhead, but as one who serves God in Christ as a model of faithfulness.
It is always difficult, I think, to believe and honor the Christmas truth we are preparing during Advent to celebrate, namely, that our God is most fully revealed to us in the ordinary things of life. We are a Sacramental faith rooted in the God who, for instance, comes to us himself in bread and wine, cleanses and recreates us entirely with water, and strengthens and heals us with oil. Especially at this time of the liturgical year we are challenged to remember and celebrate the God who turns a human face to us, who comes to us in weakness, lowliness and even a kind of dependence on the "yes" we are invited to say, the One who is made most fully real and exhaustively known in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Advent is a time when we prepare ourselves to see the very face of God in the poor, the broken, the helpless, and those without status of any kind. After all, that is what the Christmas Feast of the Nativity is all about.
I think this is one of the lessons today's Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe teaches most vividly. We all know the more superficial story. Briefly, in 1531 Juan Diego, an Indian Christian encountered a beautiful Lady on the hill of Tepeyac; she told him to ask the Bishop to build a church there. The Bishop refused and required a sign of the authenticity of Juan Diego's vision. Diego returned home to find his uncle dying. He set out again to fetch a doctor and avoided the hill where he had first met the woman and went around it instead --- he did not want to be distracted from his mission! But the Lady came down to him, heard his story about his uncle, reassured him his uncle would be well, and told him then to go to the top of the hill and pick the flowers he found there. Diego did so, gathered them in his tilma or mantle, and went again to the Bishop. Juan poured out his story to him and he also poured the flowers out onto the floor. Only then did he and the Bishop see a miraculous image of the Lady of Tepeyac hill there on the tilma itself.
But there was a deeper story. Remember that Juan Diego's people were an essen-tially subjugated people. The faith they were forced to adopt by missionaries was geared toward the salvation of souls but not to what we would recognize as the redemption of persons or the conversion and transformation of oppressive structures and institutions. It was more a faith enforced by fear than love, one whose whose central figure was a man crucified because an infinitely offended God purportedly willed it in payment for our sins. Meanwhile the symbols of that faith, its central figures, leaders and saints, were visibly European; they spoke and were worshipped in European languages, were dressed in European clothes, were portrayed with European features, etc. At best it was hard to relate to; it's loving God was apparently contradictory and remote. At worst it was incomprehensible and dehumanizing. Moreover, with the "evangelizers" who had forcibly deprived the Indians of their own gods and religion came diseases the Indians had never experienced. They were dying of plagues formerly unknown to them, working as slaves for the institutional and patriarchal Church, and had been deprived of the human dignity they had formerly known.
It was into this situation that Mary directly entered when she appeared on Tepeyak hill, the center of the indigenous peoples' worship of the goddess Tonantzin, the "goddess of sustenance". The image of the Lady was remarkable in so many ways. The fact of it, of course, was a marvel (as were the healing of Diego's uncle, the December roses Diego picked and poured out onto the Bishop's floor or the creation and persistence of her image on Diego's tilma), but even more so was the fact that she had the face of a mixed race (Indian or Mestiza) woman, spoke in Diego's own language, was pregnant, and was dressed in native dress. And here was the greatest miracle associated with OL of Guadalupe: in every way through this appearance the grace of God gave dignity to the Indian people. They were no longer third or fourth class people but persons who could truly believe they genuinely imaged the Christian God. The appearance was the beginning of a new Church in the Americas, no longer a merely European Church, but one where Mary's Magnificat was re-enacted so that ALL were called to truly image God and proclaim the Gospel. One commentator wrote that, [[Juan Diego and millions after him are transformed from crushed, self-defacing and silenced persons into confident, self-assured and joyful messengers and artisans of God's plan for America.]] (Virgilio Elizondo, Guadalupe and the New Evangelization)
Here too then, in the truly unexpected and even unacceptable place, our God turns a human face to those seeking him. He comes to us in weakness and lowliness as one of the truly marginalized. In the process we see clearly once again the God of Jesus Christ who scatters the proud in their conceit, unseats the mighty from their positions of power, and lifts up the lowly. During this season of Advent Our Lady of Guadalupe calls us especially to be watchful. God is working to do this new and powerful thing among us --- just as he did in the 1st Century, just as he did in the 16th, just as he always does when we give him our own fiat.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 8:43 PM
06 December 2020
Second Sunday of Advent: Embracing Sabbath and the "Way" of Jesus
Additionally, last Sunday as part of the first Sunday of Advent I prayed with the ecclesial community of a couple of friends of mine who celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary during the week and who renewed their vows last Sunday. As part of the celebration they asked me if I wanted to renew my own vows and I did. As part of doing that I had to compose a renewal formula which led me to thinking once again about the term "stricter separation from the world" and how I would say that for a community who would be likely to misunderstand the canonical phrase in terms of a rejection of God's good creation. I borrowed the overall structure of the formula from that of the Sisters of the Holy Family, and for the c 603 elements of my commitment, including "stricter separation from the world," I promised to: "devote myself to the service of God and all God holds precious in stricter separation from anything resistant or antithetical to God's love, in the silence of solitude, and in assiduous prayer and penance."
In both of these activities what canon 603 calls "stricter separation from the world" played an important role. Sabbath itself is a way of standing aside from "the world" which often holds us bound by its values and perspectives, its way of viewing God, ourselves, and others, while making commodities of them (cf., Walter Brueggemann, Sabbath as Resistance); it is a way of resting in God and both being and becoming the ones we are called to be in God. It is a symbol of freedom and is given to us as gift and responsibility in the Decalogue, the charter of freedom and covenant in the OT. but this freedom plays off against the bondage of something canon 603 calls "the world" --- again, that which is resistant or antithetical to God's love.Pharaoh's Egypt was, for Israel, the very epitome of "the world" canon 603 calls me to separate myself from more strictly. The Jewish people were made to toil endlessly without even time to pray or worship. When they sought the time and space to worship their God, they were punished and the toil they were made subject to became even more demanding, even less fulfillable, and even more dehumanizing. Hours were long, food and time for rest short. Relationships deteriorated as did the Jews' own sense of their own dignity. Their behavior likewise deteriorated then and they fell into the kinds of things we expect among the dehumanized and starving: unhealthy competitiveness, theft, covetousness, dishonesty, murder, the failure to honor one's inheritance as one born with infinite dignity or to honor others in the same way, etc. In short, this bondage and dehumanization marked by endless toil and insufficiency was incapable of putting God first, resting in God's love, and loving oneself and others in God as a natural consequence. Israel became bond to an ethic of idolatry (for this was the Pharaoh's system and Pharaoh was a divine figure) and dehumanization --- an ethic resistant and even antithetical to God's love. (These two elements, idolatry and dehumanization, always go together.)
What I recognized is that quite often today we buy into the same bondage and the same forms of dehumanization. We buy into "the world" and in fact, we build that same "world" and our own self-definition upon it. We do this in the form of a system that makes commodities of us all--- objects which can be bought and sold, used and disposed of as easily as one would do to a shirt or pair of pants. We become workaholics whose value is tied up with what we do rather than who we are, or shopaholics who fail to be in touch with the really new (kainetes) God is doing in our lives every day and substitute the merely new in time (neos) --- something which has to be replaced almost as soon as we have purchased it, or we become those who treat others in the same way through competitiveness, elitism, classism, an unhealthy capitalism, etc etc. What we are called to instead is the way of Jesus, the way of the Kingdom of God, the way which honors and delights in God's good creation but is also the world of Sabbath and the Ten Commandments, the world of the Great Commandment -- that is, the world of the love of God and all that God holds precious.
When I renewed my vows to live as a diocesan hermit under canon 603 last weekend, it was the all-too-common but destructive meaning of "the world" I rejected and the "way of Jesus" I embraced again more intensely. As we enter more fully into Advent what I want to suggest is that this is the same commitment the Church and God are asking of each us --- not as hermits perhaps, but as those who recognize the Kingdom of God in our midst at the same time. I would encourage you to look carefully just as I am doing, at the way the canon 603 sense of "the world" plays a defining role in your own life, and that you build in real Sabbath rest where you allow yourself to rest in God and be just who he had made and calls you to be.
Separate yourself more strictly from that false and idolatrous world. Let go of the consumerism, competition, division, striving to achieve (including religious striving(!), and all of the other "-isms" that so represent the idols of our day, and try to do this in a focused or dedicated way for at least one entire day each week. After all, this is what the fourth commandment requires of us. Reject Pharaoh's ethic of ceaseless toil and embrace Jesus' ethic of God's gratuitous (and ultimately unearnable) love. Embrace "the great equalizer" of Sabbath which allows everyone and everything to rest and be the ones God calls them to be, the world of genuine respect for all of creation, and of loving collaboration and unity in the Love of God. I believe it will change the season for you and help it be what it is meant to be, but also, over time, it can change family life, life in our faith communities, and even the larger world in which we live.Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 2:50 PM
Labels: contemporary idols, Pharoah's ethic vs the ethic of the Kingdom of God, Sabbath -- embracing for Advent, Second Sunday of Advent
25 November 2020
Reappraising the Disciples' Failure to "Get it"
I am probably not done with this piece, and I know it is not done with me (that is, God is certainly not done with me nor is Mark!), However, I have heard from several people who have worried a bit that I have not written much in the last month so I will at least put this much up this morning and redact it as I need to. In the meantime, please know I am very well. Please stay safe and keep others safe as well. For all in the US, Happy Thanksgiving; in some ways we have new reasons to cherish this fragile but very real democratic republic. May all of us, from whatever country, accept the need for solitude and the possibility of celebrating "together alone" during this pandemic. That is certainly something eremitical life witnesses to!!
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 10:13 AM
Labels: Disciples' Failure to "get it", Doubt and Faith, Faith and Doubt, God of Surprises, Gospel of Mark, Mystery, paradoxical God
03 November 2020
Thanks and Why Did You Reprise the Piece on Solace?
Many thanks for your comments and questions. Yes, David Whyte is a really wonderful writer and what he has to say is rooted in a deep wisdom which is only gained through experience. I think you will love his book; I have posted several passages (definitions) from it over the years and it confirms for me that quite often we need to spend more time thinking about the words we use too blithely or facilely. Consolation (and/or solace) are among these.
For instance, in spirituality people speak of experiencing consolations and usually they mean by that that somehow God did something "pleasant" or pleasurable for them in prayer, and sometimes they will mean that something that happened in prayer eased their pain and made them feel better. Thus, they will speak of "sweet consolations" and play these off against "bitter desolations" --- where desolations are unpleasant and, at least momentarily, make one feel worse. But in Ignatian spirituality these words are not so easily defined in this sort of black and white way. Instead, what Ignatius meant by a consolation was anything that helps us grow closer to God (and our deepest selves), and desolation is anything which does the opposite. A consolation in this sense might be immensely painful; it might entail serious struggle and various lesser forms of death (or even death itself), while a desolation might be deceptively pleasant when in reality it draws us away from God, and so, away from the very source of life and meaning which is the ground of real happiness or beatitude. David Whyte's piece on solace understands the complex dynamics of these words and captures them very very well.
So why did I reprise this piece? In the Scripture class I am teaching on the Gospel of Mark we had finished the first half of the Gospel, the portion that includes Jesus' non-stop "campaign" through Galilee and environs, his seemingly unceasing miracles, exorcisms, teaching, and his calling and missioning of his disciples/Apostles. This is the story Mark tells in a breathless way, much as an excited 4 year old might recount the story of Christmas morning or a beginning writer just discovering conjunctions might link sentences together with "and" after "and" after "and". This section concludes with Jesus' transfiguration and Peter's compromised profession of Jesus as the Christ or anointed One of God and Jesus' instruction on his death. As Jesus and his disciples move towards Jerusalem and the cross, the first story of the second half of the Gospel (Mark 9:14-29) is Jesus' last recounted exorcism, the healing of the boy with epilepsy which occurs against the backdrop of the disciples' failure to do this and the boy's Father's request to Jesus to heal his son if he can.To look for solace is to learn to ask fiercer and more exquisitely pointed questions, questions that reshape our identities and our bodies and our relation to others. Standing in loss but not overwhelmed by it we become useful and generous and compassionate and even amusing companions for others. But solace also asks us very direct and forceful questions. Firstly, how will you bear the inevitable that is coming to you? And how will you endure it through the years? And above all, how will you shape a life equal to and as beautiful and as astonishing as a world that can birth you, bring you into the light, and then just as you are beginning to understand it, take you away?
A second reason had to do with several conversations I had with a writer for the New York Times. (More about this later.) We were talking about eremitical life and the place of solitude in a truly human life, but also, yes, there were links to the pandemic and the added dimensions of solitude so frequently forced upon people as a result. Especially, we were talking about what is possible and necessary then with regard to solitude, not only for hermits, but for every human being. I had written some about the place of struggle and even of suffering in growing in one's capacity for compassion and had cited Douglas John Hall's God and Human Suffering where he says:[[The question therefore becomes: How can one at the same time acquire sufficient honesty about what needs to be faced, and sufficient hope that facing it would make a difference, to engage in altering the course of our present world towards life and not death?]] a page later he observes that acknowledging suffering is not enough. What is also required is [[ the trust that something --- the life process or Providence or God --- something “enduring,” as Isaiah put it, is able to take into itself all that does not endure, even things that are not, and give them a future that infinitely transcends the bleak promise of their past.]]
Eremitical solitude combines all the elements needed for sufficient honesty about "what needs to be faced" with a defining orientation to God and God's Providence; together these provide significant hope in the midst of suffering in a way which is profoundly consoling. Above all I recognize my own eremitical life as motivated by the desire and sense of a call that, by virtue of the grace of God, can [[shape a life equal to and as beautiful and as astonishing as a world that can birth (me), and bring (me) into the light.]] So this too was on my mind and in my heart, and David Whyte's piece on Solace helped clarify and contextualize all of this for me personally. However, yes, I certainly believed it would speak to readers during this time.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 11:27 PM
Labels: canonical eremitical life, chronic illness -- living with, David Whyte, enforced solitude, Solace, solitude
30 October 2020
A Contemplative Moment: Solace (reprised from May 2016)
Solace
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 5:01 AM
Labels: A Contemplative Moment, David Whyte, Solace
29 October 2020
Questions on Open Commensality or "Open Table Fellowship"
I realize that admitting everyone to Eucharist because the Eucharist is special is counterintuitive. We ordinarily believe that something is special when only some are allowed to participate in or partake of it, when it is reserved for some elite or other. In fact, one of the ways we define specialness in our world (and let's be clear it is a worldly definition) is by limiting access in this way. If something is available to everyone then, by definition, it ceases to be special and becomes common. When we realize that this is the deeply engrained way we think and run our world, we also begin to understand how radically Christianity undercuts our normal worldview. It says instead that the most precious realities we know are meant for everyone, not for an elite few. It says that in fact, in a world where things are measured according to whether or not they are common or a limited edition with limited access, and where a person's value is measured in part by how much access they can afford or otherwise earn or merit, what is truly rare is something where access (and thus, the love of the community in Christ) is available to all without price. Wasn't this part of the meaning of the Incarnation? Wasn't it what Jesus himself modeled for us --- even when he was badly treated or the disciples tried to fend people off and prevented them from touching him? Isn't it the reason Jesus' life and death tore asunder the veil between the sacred and profane, heaven and earth? Isn't it at the heart of our theologies of grace and redemption?
In fact, I believe that this kind of access to the Sacrament is a piece of valuing it appropriately. I believe that allowing such access must be complemented by treating the Eucharist with as much reverence as we can at all times (something we can certainly improve on in most parishes), by making sure our ministers act out of this reverence and model it for others, and so forth, but I believe both of these elements are part of treating the Sacrament as the most truly Sacred reality we have ---along with the Word of God, the other Sacraments and Church herself. Similarly, I believe we each demonstrate our sense of being both called and chosen not by excluding others but by inviting them to participate in the Communion which enlivens and empowers us. More, we do this because in this way we proclaim the Sacrament a gift we can never merit ourselves and therefore, can never exclude others from if they sincerely wish to participate.
As far as admitting public sinners to the Eucharist I believe part of the problem has been separating our universal identities as sinners from our ability to receive the Eucharist. Our focus instead has been, perhaps, too much on "being in the state of grace." If we were to make it clear that we welcome public sinners to join all the rest of us sinners in receiving the gift which empowers repentance (as , by the way, our prayers before Communion proclaim when they say, "Lord, I am not worthy. . ."), the Eucharist could no longer be used by those in good standing to brand others.
While I believe we ought to treat the Eucharist with the utmost reverence, I do not believe that allowing sinners to approach the Lord's table constitutes sacrilege unless they are approaching in order to consciously thumb their nose at the Faith we hold. And in such a case the injury is being done to themselves, not to Jesus. God risks in loving us. We take the same risk in loving others in this way. As I understand it, allowing sinners to approach the table to foster reconciliation and build unity is the reason we were gifted with Eucharist. Too, I am reminded that in the NT it is Jesus' holiness which is "contagious" and makes holy, not the other way around. Jesus is never made unclean by consorting with sinners, touching the sick or dying, breaking kashrut, and so forth.
What about eating and drinking unworthily (1 Cor 11), especially since we universally proclaim our unworthiness before Communion? It's an important question of course, but what did Paul mean by that? What was the situation in Corinth? Remember that everyone including the socially well-off were bringing food and drink to the meal. The poor brought less, the rich more and there were inequalities and divisions in the actual meal. Also Paul had been trying to hammer home the notion that in Christ there are no distinctions; there may be different gifts but they are from the same Spirit in the same Body. The Corinthians had bought instead into the notion that some gifts were special, others less so, some were called to a greater spiritual life or holiness than others who were supposedly called to or gifted with less. Unfortunately those with greater social advantages mistook these for spiritual gifts as well. Their celebration of the Eucharist reflected all of these distortions of the Gospel. Any interpretation of what Paul means by eating and drinking unworthily must bear this in mind.
Thus, I think Paul's reference to eating and drinking unworthily actually involved his judgment on elitism and the practice of giving a greater share in the Eucharistic meal to some than that given to the poor and those considered "less spiritually gifted". At the same time then, neither do I think he meant approaching the Eucharist as though we ARE worthy, as though we DO merit such a great gift, as though we believe reception indicates our relationship with God is "just fine thank you very much" and in fact, is better than our neighbor's, is ever acceptable! Those who receive a gift no one can merit can only do so unworthily if they ignore, forget, or otherwise refuse to claim their identity as sinners who in no sense can EVER merit this great gift. Personally I think this is a far bigger and more insidious problem with our Eucharistic praxis today. Paul was speaking of those who disdain the meaning of the Sacrament in an elitist and divisive way. This was what Paul might have considered "public sin" in his communities.
Similarly since Paul was concerned with a Church some of whom had denied Jesus' resurrection they may have doubted they receive Christ's very Self in this Sacrament. Today people may receive because they are making some political or similar point with their reception. In other words, they are using the Sacrament for their own agenda, not making themselves open to God's! Let me also be clear about one thing though. If a person believes in her heart of hearts that receiving is wrong, then it is wrong and receiving would be a sin, potentially a very grave sin. The sin here is that the person acts against conscience; it would remain wrong even if she were really in the state of grace otherwise.
When we are dealing with such a great gift as the Eucharist we are going to run into problems (or at least tensions) in regulating its celebration and reception. I personally believe that the greater problems fall on the side of self-righteousness or complacency. I believe it is more pernicious and problematical to allow folks to believe they actually DO merit Eucharist in some sense because they are "in the state of grace" or can make a fidelity oath than it is to cultivate the sense of our prayer, "O Lord I am not worthy. . ." and open Communion to those who are thought to be (or even those who really are) public sinners.
The idea, of course, is to let everyone have a sense that what we do here is, to some extent, different than what we do elsewhere, that it is weighty and, for instance, requires gestures we use nowhere else, gestures, etc that are done thoughtfully and with reverence. If we can do this we can provide a context which opens Eucharist to public sinners (and to us less-public sinners!) which can empower conversion. Especially we can make it clear that this Sacrament is special precisely because it is meant for every person, not for an elite. This is the countercultural or "anti-world" lesson we really need to teach in our Christian praxis and worship.
Finally, let me answer your questions about heresy, etc. What I have said here about admitting public sinners is not heretical. It pertains to discipline, not to doctrine or dogma. Further, I have fully honored and supported the Church's theology of the Eucharist in what I have written here. I argue as I do BECAUSE I believe fully in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as well as in the proclaimed Word, assembly, and priest. As for my hermitage the Eucharist is reserved here for only two reasons: 1) for my own needs because of the demands of eremitical solitude, and 2) because occasionally someone in the immediate neighborhood (part of this parish) may need someone to bring them Eucharist if they are ill. If my pastor were to say Mass here, especially on a special day or feast, it is possible a couple of others could also attend (though not while on lockdown!), but my own celebrations of Communion here are private. Even my diocesan delegates do not ordinarily receive Communion with me here. I assume my Bishop is aware of the contents of my Rule, that he occasionally reads this blog, and I know that I am appropriately trusted to be duly reverent of and responsible for the (reservation of) the Eucharist entrusted to me. More than that I cannot say.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 7:36 PM
Labels: eucharist - reservation of, Eucharist and Open Table fellowship, Living With and In the Eucharistic Presence
22 October 2020
What Do You Make of a Diocese Closed to Considering Professing Diocesan Hermits?
Hi there, and thanks for your concern and for the question. All is well here, though there are some ways I have not been able to get together with people and that really is a source of strain. I apologize that I do not recognize your email address. Perhaps you could jog my memory some re what we have discussed in the past; that would be helpful to me.
Similarly, it could be that they have received a considerable number of inquiries and petitions to be admitted to vows under canon 603 and found none of these were really hermits nor interested in becoming hermits. (Here is one place the distinction between being a lone individual and being a hermit is critically important. It is also a reason some dioceses have run into problems after they have admitted persons to profession.) I know that in my own diocese I was told they received on average, one request per month by persons seeking to become diocesan hermits even in the years since my own perpetual profession (this was around the time the person I was speaking to assumed office of Vicar for Religious). This was about five or six years ago and that meant the diocese had dealt with 8-10 years of at least a dozen petitions or inquiries per year and "none of these had gotten as far as (I myself) had".
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 9:03 AM
Labels: dioceses not open to c 603 usage
20 October 2020
Are Canon 603 Hermits "Religious"?
[[Dear Sister, are canon 603 hermits considered religious?]]
I have answered this question on the blog before so you might look for it in other places here, but the answer to your question is yes, c 603 hermits are considered religious. In the Handbook on Canons 573-746 and in the section on “Norms Common to Institutes of Consecrated Life” looking at canon 603 specifically, canonist Ellen O’Hara, CSJ writes, [[The term “religious” now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relationship to an institute.]]
One can argue the case on the basis of the public profession made, the stable state of life entered, the title hermits are allowed to adopt, post-nomial initials bishops approve, and the other canons which also apply to the c 603 hermit that they have entered the religious state. This is particularly true since religious come together in communities because they are called to chastity in celibacy, religious poverty and obedience, not the other way around. Community life supports and elaborates the more original call to live the vows along with a call to specific mission and charism; one does not make vows because one is called first to live in community. That is, the call to chastity in celibacy is an actual gift and call; it is not embraced merely because it is helpful to life in community or to the community's ministry.
Hermits’ need for community support is addressed in the next sentence of the chapter when O’Hara says; [[Groups [of hermits] could use the category of associations of the faithful to have ecclesiastical identity if they wish.]] In this way canonists recognize the character of solitary hermits as religious and at the same time honor the requirement (cf commentators on c 603) that c 603 not be used for communities of hermits.
Posted by Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er. Dio. at 11:09 PM
Labels: c 603 hermits as Religious