Picking Up Where We Left off: Questions on Profession, Single Vows, Etc.

(Picked up from last post) [[I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your patience. The last post was going to be long and the topic was important of itself so I wanted to address these questions separately.  The vows made in an act of profession are 1) public, and 2) made to God. The larger act is profession which is primarily one's self-gift to God; vows are one of the ways and for most religious (except c 603 hermits who may use other sacred bonds), the only recognized way to structure such a self gift. Even so, in the individual's making and church's reception of this profession the individual assumes new public rights and obligations, a new title, and a new state in life (with temporary vows one becomes a religious and with the act of perpetual or definitive profession which includes a solemn prayer of consecration instead of a simple blessing, one becomes a consecrated person).  So the act of profession is about the total gift of oneself to God and accepting God's own consecration of oneself through the mediation of the Church. The vows are the ordinary means by which we express and structure this self gift in terms of power, wealth, and relationships but they are not the whole of the act of profession. Another aspect of this self gift for the c603 hermit is the Rule one writes as an expression of how one envisions and will live out this eremitical life. (In Religious institutes Rules, Constitutions, and Statutes serve in this way and are implied in the act of profession.) 

Such a Rule comes from one's lived experience of a long dialogue (and one's already established contemplative existence) with God in the silence of solitude. It includes (or at least implies) one's own sense of eremitical life and acceptance of a place within the tradition of hermit life within the church. For this reason there are values in this Rule which may or may not fall directly under one's vows of (religious) poverty, chastity, and (religious) obedience, but to which one is bound nonetheless. So, for instance, "stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance", "the silence of solitude", (in other words, a contemplative life where one is sent or missioned into the hermitage rather than out to the world around one), a sense that one has been commissioned to live all of these things in the name of the Church and is responsible for doing so in a way which edifies and may even console, heal, and empower others --- none of these things of themselves fall neatly under any one of the vows but they are all informed by the vows and will themselves impact the vows. Again, profession is an act which is larger than acts of avowal alone.

Differences between religious profession and commitments of secular priests:

One of the reasons the vows of the evangelical counsels are so important to an act of profession is their ability to symbolize (in the strongest sense) the all-encompassing nature of what is occurring in this act. While they themselves -- though a defining part, even the heart of the act of profession -- are not identical with it, they are unique in their power to to illuminate the nature of the entire act of profession. In looking at the difference between the vows of profession and the commitments made by secular priests, the first thing we must see that is true of the vows associated with profession is that they are made to God, not to one's bishop. 

Immediately, in saying this we can see that a vow of obedience made to God involves the responsibility to listen and open oneself to God in ALL the ways God comes to us (including through the care and requirements of legitimate superiors), all the ways God makes a claim upon us and invites us to life in and with God himself. It includes a responsibility to remain open, attentive, and responsive to all the ways God calls us to become persons who loves as God loves because God empowers us in that way. A promise of obedience to one's  bishop is a much narrower act whose scope and purpose is more limited than the vows associated with religious profession. (Please note well that secular or diocesan priests make promises of obedience and celibacy to their bishop; they do not make vows to God in these matters. Again, neither of these promises, as rich and significant as they may be, is identical to the vows of chastity and obedience religious make in the act of profession)

What this means when making secular priests into canonical hermits in particular, is that the profession of the Evangelical Counsels required by c603 must be made in its entirety. One cannot take promises to one's bishop and substitute these for vows or other sacred bonds made to God in an act of profession and consider this a valid profession. The acts differ from one another in both content and scope. Additionally, in the case you were referring to the priest says he made a "vow of simplicity". However, a profession of the Evangelical Counsels requires a vow or other sacred bond of (religious) poverty. Religious poverty has significant meaning in terms of one's relationship to wealth and material goods but even more fundamentally, it is rooted in, reflects, and is a commitment to utter dependence upon God. 

When this is borne in mind, we have to ask what it means to make a vow of simplicity. It certainly does not speak immediately or necessarily of a religious or eremitical dependence upon God alone. It may have nothing to do with religious poverty per se for it is possible to live a simple but luxurious lifestyle, nor does a vow of simplicity necessarily indicate a life that images the poor Christ. The main point, however is that simplicity is not one of the Evangelical Counsels structuring part of an act of profession under c 603. When such a vow is combined with promises made to a bishop rather than to God in the hands of one's bishop in a mix and match attempt at authentic eremitical commitment, one simply is not speaking about a religious profession nor one involving the Evangelical Counsels as required by c 603.

Canon 603 Used as a Stopgap Rather than as Recognition of a True Eremitical Vocation?

[[Dear Sister, in light of your last post,  would you consider someone describing themselves as a "sort of monk-missionary" and their place of abode a "hermitage" to be a hermit? Also, if a priest had a history of difficulties with his bishop and parish ministry, does it make sense for his bishop to admit him to profession under c 603? (I know of a pretty public case where this happened and the bishop outlined the difficulties in a public letter and then admitted the priest to profession just 5 months later! That does not make sense to me!! Neither does saying: [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life. Isn't a hermit a contemplative no matter what limited ministry they undertake? Aren't they supposed to have discerned a contemplative vocation before they discern an eremitical one?)  

I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me save the ones on profession as compared to avowal for another time. Your note on the priest's self-description makes me think we are speaking of the same rather sensational case. One of the reasons for a careful and relatively long discernment and formation process is to make sure the person really is a hermit, understands herself this way, and is comfortable identifying herself with this descriptor before the Church professes and consecrates her as a canonical hermit under c 603. Using the "hermit" label isn't initially easy for most of us. That is not only because of the rarity of such vocations and the need to work out the shape of such callings in our own lives, but also because of all of the stereotypes associated with the life and all of the nutcases similarly associated with this designation. 

It takes time for one to come to understand c 603 and the solitary eremitical vocation, and even more time before candidates are ready to assume a constructive, faithful, and creative place in the eremitical tradition of the Church. They must see themselves truly as a hermit before they can be allowed to embrace the specific rights, obligations, and legitimate expectations others have of those who are hermits in the consecrated state. Only at such a point would such a person be ready for profession (including temporary profession). What I mean when I say they must see themselves in this way is that they must resonate in their deepest core/self with the term "hermit" and know that God has called them to such a life and especially, that they will not be using c 603 as a stopgap solution for other reasons.

By the time one is professed either one is a hermit or one is not. What I mean here is that either one's profession represents the true self-gift of a hermit (even a novice hermit) or it is a lie. One is not, for instance, a "kind of monk/missionary", or a "sort of a contemplative", or "a kind of loner"; one is (or should be) a hermit and one is entrusting oneself to God to continue making one ever more profoundly into the hermit one knows oneself to be by the grace of God's call. If one begins one's professed eremitical life thinking one is a "sort of monk/missionary" rather than a hermit, (especially if this is the truth of the matter) one can and will grow into more of a "sort of monk/missionary" --- one who is neither this nor that, and certainly not more deeply into life as a hermit. Canonical profession and consecration as a hermit demands that one consciously represents an expression of a particular vocation with a rich and significant history. One may not (will not!!) be a perfect hermit, but one must honestly know one's deepest, truest self by this term.

This, by the way, does not mean one's eremitical life is identical to that of another's but it does mean that one lives a recognizable expression of canon 603 even when there are individual variations involving prayer, limited apostolic ministry, and spirituality more generally. Neither does it mean that one is not growing into one's eremitical vocation. One may be a novice hermit or a potential candidate for profession, and one may be a mature hermit involved in limited ministry within one's parish, for instance, but one is still growing as a hermit in one's core identity. It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit. For one to describe oneself as a sort of "monk/missionary" is the self-description of someone who is not yet and may never become a hermit --- whether or not c 603 has been utilized.

Let me say too that as soon as I hear this kind of designation by someone whose Rule of Life has been approved by their bishop, I have to wonder what is going on. When the supposed hermit writes just 2 years before profession under c 603, [["That [improvement of my Mother's illness] was my indication that I was ready to move on to either religious life or [life] as a diocesan hermit or to take an[other] assignment [as a parish priest],". . . But no assignment came]], the use of c 603 sounds like a way of getting out of a difficult situation, not the mature discernment of a true vocation, much less one ready for profession and consecration, but simply another secular priest's "assignment". Thus, what is being described could be fraud at worst (or ignorance at best). In either case, the canon is being abused by the putative "hermit" and ultimately by his bishop for some reason other than what it is meant for. Whatever is vocationally true in this specific case, to misuse c. 603 in this way is disedifying at best and even scandalous at a time when the Church, and especially the episcopacy, is increasingly being looked to for a capacity to image the humble God of truth and scrutinized for abject failures to do so.

In the case you referenced your facts are correct. The letter outlining an apparently rebellious priest who cannot serve in parish ministry, who (according to his Abp's letter) will not show up for meetings with his superiors, and who 'bad mouths' that same bishop and his staff for being unjust, condoning illegal acts, etc., was written just 5 months before the same priest was reportedly professed as a diocesan hermit. (Yes, I checked with the diocese to be sure of the priest's status under c 603 and they provided his profession date.) Moreover, this "hermit's" Rule was only approved temporarily (for one year) in 2020, which means the priest in question was professed without an approved Rule, and perhaps, therefore, without having lived an eremitical Rule for several years before being professed. 

I too noted where this priest wrote recently; [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life.]] You are entirely correct in your objections to this comment; it is not an eremitical life he is describing nor does he seem committed to maturing in one. The usual and necessary pattern of growth into eremitical life is to first become a contemplative, then develop into a contemplative craving greater solitude and silence, and only then, if one discerns this is the way the call to the silence of solitude must be lived, does one move even more deeply into this reality as a hermit --- all of which happens long before one petitions to be admitted to even temporary profession under c 603. I continue to think that this priest and perhaps his bishop thought that as long as he was already a diocesan priest all he had to do was become a hermit in some limited  or nominal sense and could be professed under canon 603, making him a diocesan (priest) hermit and giving him some superficial but merely apparent grounds for not fitting into parish ministry or diocesan life.

Summary:

Tom Leppard, see posts

From what I have read by both the man and his bishop I continue to think this is the case because NO ONE was busy living canon 603, coming to understand it deeply, or discerning the vocation or ascertaining the adequate formation of a diocesan hermit. What the bishop, for instance, was busy doing was struggling to find assignments for this priest when folks kept sending him back to his diocese; the priest, for his part, was demanding to be assigned somewhere or to something including religious institutes or eremitical life under c 603! For awhile this priest identified himself as a diocesan priest hermit. On the diocesan clergy role where the man's assignment is ordinarily given, this priest's name is now followed by "Diocesan Hermit." Treating c 603 as something one can "assign" an intractable priest to would make sense of the lack of discernment, lack of adequate formation or understanding of canon 603, etc. 

If I am correct and this had merely been treated as a bishop's assignment with an abbreviated "profession" (if I can use that term) consisting of a vow of simplicity (whatever this means!) merely added to a priest's already extant promises of celibacy and obedience to his bishop could also make a weird and limited sense --- though not in terms of canon 603 or the profession required by the Rite of Religious Profession ordinarily used in this regard! And all of this would indicate that neither the bishop nor the priest involved were treating an eremitical vocation under canon 603 as a serious vocation. Everything published on the situation makes it seem that c 603 and eremitical life itself was merely seen as a canonical slot from which a difficult or troublesome priest could carry on as before, free from parish responsibilities with a new standing in law and (perhaps) with a somewhat more contemplative dimension to his active life. It seems to have been a way to accommodate an abject individualism which is exactly contrary to solitary eremitical life. 

This is the only way I could make sense of the time frames and things I read from those involved. It also appears there was more arm twisting or extortion in all of this than I have discussed here, but the bottom line for me is that c 603 appears to have been abused in this case and whatever putative profession was made is disedifying for that reason and may well be invalid. Had I been able to find any article by the priest's diocese explaining the vocation, the longer than usual discernment and formation which it requires, the admittance to profession, and something of the reasons this priest felt called to pursue this, the situation might have seemed differently to me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any celebration and explanation of such a significant public event. (If anyone knows of such, please send it on and I will correct this post as appropriate.)

Questions on Priests Transitioning to Eremitical Life Under c 603

[[Sister Laurel, how common is it for dioceses to profess diocesan priests as hermits? Are they expected to go through the same process of discernment and formation as anyone else, or are they given a kind of special entre to profession/consecration because of their priestly vows? (I am thinking here of a kind of shortcut or abbreviated profession like adding a vow of "simplicity" to the vows already made as a priest.) If you were looking at a priest candidate for c 603 profession what would you be looking for? Thanks]]

Thanks for the questions. I have omitted the questions on a particular priest and diocese for the moment. I believe the case you raise is significant and I will try to answer your questions, but I wanted to go with these more general questions first. It is always tragic when there is a disedifying use of (or refusal to use) c 603 by bishops who really may not understand either the canon, its history, or solitary eremitical life itself, particularly when they use it to shoehorn someone into this vocational option despite their manifest lack of suitability, preparation, and discernment, but it does happen. So, let me answer the above questions first, at least until I have done what I can to ascertain the facts in the specific case you raised. Some of these repeat responses I have given others in the past so be sure and check past posts as well.

It is not common for dioceses to profess secular priests, especially younger ones, under canon 603. There are several reasons. First, during seminary training a significant program of pastoral work and discernment is undertaken. By the time one reaches the point of readiness for ordination everyone is pretty clear that the young man is called to an active apostolate whether or not he has a contemplative bent or not.  in light of this there must be really significant signs of a different vocation to change the young priest's heart and mind on the matter and those of his bishop, et al; this will take a similarly significant time to reveal itself and even then all kinds of steps will be taken to help ease the young priest's dis-ease with his parish assignments. 

After all the time, energy, and expense, spent in the original discernment and formation processes no prudent bishop or priest is going to jump (or allow a priest to jump) into life as a hermit, much less profession and consecration under c 603, nor should the Office of Consecrated Life allow a precipitous move from active priestly ministry to consecrated eremitical life. It is not fair to anyone involved in such a case, nor is it an appropriate use of the canon. Moreover, it is offensive to dioceses and diocesan hermits who have spent the requisite time and energy in truly discerning hundreds of such vocations since the canon was published in 1983 --- just as it is unjust and offensive to those who petitioned in good faith for admission to profession and consecration and, for whatever good reasons, were eventually refused.

Generally speaking, then, yes, a priest candidate will undergo the same formation and discernment process as anyone else in preparation for admission to a life of the evangelical counsels lived in the silence of solitude. After all, as I have pointed out a number of times over the years, this is a uniquely significant and rare vocation, and very few, relatively speaking, are called to human wholeness and holiness in such a vocation. It deserves care and attentiveness by all concerned. Secular priests with promises of obedience to their bishops will need to prepare for a vow of religious obedience to God in the hands of their bishops and anyone the bishop delegates to serve in this way. Similarly c 603 requires profession of the Evangelical Counsels including religious poverty and chastity in celibacy. In my understanding of these vows they are richer, grounded differently in different realities, and thus require a different preparation than do, for instance, the commitment to the discipline of celibacy or a life given over to some form of "simplicity". 

If you are asking whether a vow of religious poverty could simply be added to the commitments of celibacy and obedience made by secular (diocesan) priests, my sense is no, canon 603 and the Rite of Religious Profession used for Canon 603 professions require public vows (or other sacred bonds) made to God of the Evangelical Counsels. These are not identical to the commitments (promises) made by secular priests to their bishops. Remember that the three evangelical counsels together make up the lion's share of an organic profession or self-gift to God; they must be similarly grounded in a love which demands that God and God's Kingdom be primary in matters of wealth, relationships, and power (thus, religious poverty, chastity in celibacy, and religious obedience).  Also, it is important to remember that profession itself is a broader act than the making of vows, as central as vows may be to the act of profession. This means that one does not reduce it to the making of vows and certainly not to an act in which one adds a single vow to other varying commitments; profession is an exhaustive and  ecclesial act of self-gift which, when definitive (or perpetual), will also include God's consecration of the person.

You ask what I would be looking for as I assessed a priest candidate for c 603 consecration. In light of what I have already said, I would be looking for a contemplative who had been successful in his active ministry as a parish priest but who had developed as a contemplative over a period of years. I would look for someone who, again for a period of years (at least 7-10), had developed a life given over to substantial silence and solitude and who had discovered an undeniable call to eremitical life rooted at every point in the charism of what c 603 calls "the silence of solitude". 

I would look for a priest who had worked with a spiritual director regularly and over a period of years to develop a life of prayer nourished in this context and always calling him back to it in ways which led everyone who knew him to recognize a potential hermit -- not because he could not live his priestly vocation and active ministry, but because these things had absolutely required what is for him this form of deeper love and were ultimately fulfilled and perhaps transcended in it. (For any hermit engaged in limited ministry I would always look for the ministry to be rooted in the silence of solitude and lead the hermit back to it in an integral way; the silence of solitude always needs to be primary and the lifestyle contemplative. A "hermitage" is not merely a base of operations from which to launch an essentially active lifestyle, nor is it to be used as a way of controlling (or appeasing) problematical priests who simply "don't fit" in parish ministry or the diocesan culture. 

Despite, or maybe precisely because a hermit's life is characterized by its "stricter separation from the world" (which does not merely refer to the world outside the hermitage per se), hermitages are not escapist; they are a paradoxical and profoundly loving way of engaging in and on behalf of the life of the diocese and parish. I would argue that priests who may ultimately discern with the church that they are being called to life under c 603 must demonstrate a long history of loving both parish and diocesan life while struggling to love it more deeply from a contemplative perspective. 

Thus, I would look for a priest whose greatest success in his vocation to a priestly apostolate was the evolution of his love of God, self, and others into the solitude of authentic eremitical life, not into some ideological excuse or individualistic isolation. After all, his very life in the silence of solitude must itself be a prayer; it must itself be a ministry --- indeed, the hermit's primary ministry and the ground and source of any other limited ministry. It must be a witness to all but especially to the marginalized left isolated by life's circumstances that such life can be redeemed by God's love and transformed into the wholeness, personal quies, and communion hermits know as "the silence of solitude". It ordinarily takes careful and long discernment and formation to be sure enough of such a vocation to admit one to consecration under c 603; for priests already publicly called and ordained to an active apostolate at least as great care should be taken as for any other candidate for consecration.

Feast of Saint Romuald (Reprise)

 

Romuald Receives the Gift of Tears,
Br Emmaus O'Herlihy, OSB (Glenstal)

Congratulations to all Camaldolese and Prayers! Tomorrow, June 19th is the the feast day of the founder of the Camaldolese Congregations! We remember the anniversary of solemn profession of many Camaldolese as well as the birthday of the Prior of New Camaldoli, Dom Cyprian Consiglio.

Ego Vobis, Vos Mihi: "I am yours, you are mine"

Saint Romuald has a special place in my heart for two reasons. First he went around Italy bringing isolated hermits together or at least under the Rule of Benedict --- something I found personally to resonate with my own need to seek canonical standing and to subsume my personal Rule of Life under a larger, more profound, and living tradition or Rule; secondly, he gave us a form of eremitical life which is uniquely suited to the diocesan hermit. St Romuald's unique gift (charism) to the church involved what is called a "threefold good", that is, the blending of the solitary and communal forms of monastic life (the eremitical and the cenobitical), along with the third good of evangelization or witness -- which literally meant (and means) spending one's life for others in the power and proclamation of the Gospel.

Stillsong Hermitage

So often people (mis)understand the eremitical life as antithetical to communal life, to community itself, and opposed as well to witness or evangelization. As I have noted many times here they mistake individualism and isolation for eremitical solitude. Romuald modeled an eremitism which balances the eremitical call to physical solitude and a  to God alone with community and outreach to the world to proclaim the Gospel. I think this is part of truly understanding the communal and ecclesial dimensions which are always present in true solitude. The Camaldolese vocation is essentially eremitic, but because the solitary dimension or vocation is so clearly rooted in what the Camaldolese call "The Privilege of Love" it therefore naturally has a profound and pervasive communal dimension which inevitably spills out in witness. Michael Downey describes it this way in the introduction to The Privilege of Love:

Theirs is a rich heritage, unique in the Church. This particular form of life makes provision for the deep human need for solitude as well as for the life shared alongside others in pursuit of a noble purpose. But because their life is ordered to a threefold good, the discipline of solitude and the rigors of community living are in no sense isolationist or self-serving. Rather both of these goods are intended to widen the heart in service of the third good: The Camaldolese bears witness to the superabundance of God's love as the self, others, and every living creature are brought into fuller communion in the one love.

Monte Corona Camaldolese

The Benedictine Camaldolese live this by having both cenobitical and eremitical expressions wherein there is a strong component of hospitality. The Monte Corona Camaldolese which are more associated with the reform of Paul Giustiniani have only the eremitical expression which they live in lauras --- much as the Benedictine Camaldolese live the eremitical expression.

In any case, the Benedictine Camaldolese charism and way of life seems to me to be particularly well-suited to the vocation of the diocesan hermit since she is called to live for God alone, but in a way which ALSO specifically calls her to give her life in love and generous service to others, particularly her parish and diocese. While this service and gift of self ordinarily takes the form of solitary prayer which witnesses to the foundational relationship with God we each and all of us share, it may also involve other, though limited, ministry within the parish including limited hospitality --- or even the outreach of a hermit from her hermitage through the vehicle of a blog!

In my experience the Camaldolese accent in my life supports and encourages the fact that even as a hermit (or maybe especially as a hermit!) a diocesan hermit is an integral part of her parish community and is loved and nourished by them just as she loves and nourishes them! As Prior General Bernardino Cozarini, OSB Cam, once described the Holy Hermitage in Tuscany (the house from which all Camaldolese originate in one way and another), "It is a small place. But it opens up to a universal space." Certainly this is true of all Camaldolese houses and it is true of Stillsong Hermitage as a diocesan hermitage as well.

The Privilege of Love

For those wishing to read about the Camaldolese there is a really fine collection of essays on Camaldolese Benedictine Spirituality which was noted above. It is written by OSB Camaldolese monks, nuns and oblates. It is entitled aptly enough, The Privilege of Love and includes topics such as, "Koinonia: The Privilege of Love", "Golden Solitude," "Psychological Investigations and Implications for Living Alone Together," "An Image of the Praying Church: Camaldolese Liturgical Spirituality," "A Wild Bird with God in the Center: The Hermit in Community," and a number of others. It also includes a fine bibliography "for the study of Camaldolese history and spirituality."

Romuald's Brief Rule:

And for those who are not really familiar with Romuald, here is the brief Rule he formulated for monks, nuns, and oblates. It is the only thing we actually have from his own hand and is appropriate for any person seeking an approach to some degree of solitude in their lives or to prayer more generally. ("Psalms" may be translated as "Scripture".)

Sit in your cell as in paradise. Put the whole world behind you and forget it. Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish. The path you must follow is in the Psalms — never leave it. If you have just come to the monastery, and in spite of your good will you cannot accomplish what you want, take every opportunity you can to sing the Psalms in your heart and to understand them with your mind. And if your mind wanders as you read, do not give up; hurry back and apply your mind to the words once more. Realize above all that you are in God's presence, and stand there with the attitude of one who stands before the emperor. Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes and eats nothing but what his mother brings him.

Violence at the Heart of Christianity?

[[Dear Sister, I read a comment on a book that said Jesus' death on the cross represents a sanctioning of violence right at the heart of Christianity. Is that true do you think? I've read several books that suggest that Jesus' death validates violence like in domestic abuse. Is there some way to avoid this conclusion?]]

Thanks for your questions. In the theology of the cross I have presented here over the past years, I hope it is clear that I don't accept that either conclusion is the case. If we were to argue that God wills the torturous death of his Son without nuance or careful delineation then I think the folks making these kinds of comments or drawing these conclusions would be correct, but since I believe we must tease apart what was and what was not the will of God in Jesus' passion and death, and since I believe Jesus' torture was not the will of God but the will and actions of sinful humanity doing their worst, I also believe we can avoid sanctioning violence at the heart of Christianity. Please note that suffering does exist at the heart of Christianity, but it is not the will of God, nor is it some form of punishment for sin; it is instead what is meant to be redeemed and is redeemed as Jesus makes it his own for our sake. My basic point in several posts here has been that what God wills, especially as Jesus prays in discernment in the Garden of Gethsemane, is a life lived with integrity in obedience (openness, responsiveness) to the will of God --- the will to fullness of life and love mediated through Jesus' vocation as "a man for others".

What is especially redemptive in Jesus' suffering and death in light of the violence which does seem to stand right at the heart of God's battle with sin and evil, is the fact that God in Christ makes these ordinarily isolating and shameful realities his own and in doing so transforms them from places of degradation and shame into potential places of grace and blessing. There is judgment here, but it does not fall on Jesus. Instead, it falls on those who torture and kill him, those in positions of power who diminish and degrade with violence. Because Jesus takes these things on, what were symbols of failure, weakness, and inhumanity become instead symbols (not mere signs!) of the very presence of God and so too, of an incredibly revelatory humanity lived with integrity in communion with God.

Clearly, I believe it is possible to avoid the conclusions you set forth in your questions. Violence is not sanctioned at the heart of Christianity because Christology is about how God deals with the reality of violence and human power structures which torment the helpless and impoverish the weak. God takes human violence on by making it part of his own life; however, God also overturns and condemns it by bringing a victory out of even the worst that humans can and do to one another. In other words, God says no to violence and exploitation as he says an unconditional yes to those who are the victims of such realities, and also to the perpetrators of such violence. God always says no to sin and evil, but God also always says yes to the persons touched by these things.

Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ: Celebrating Power Made Perfect in Weakness (Reprise)

 [[Dear Sister, if a person is chronically ill then isn't their illness a sign that "the world" of sin and death are still operating in [i.e., dominating] their lives?  . . . I have always thought that to become a religious one needed to be in good health. Has that also changed with canon 603? I don't mean that someone has to be perfect to become a nun or hermit but shouldn't they at least be in good health? Wouldn't that say more about the "heavenliness" of their vocation than illness? ]] (Concatenation of queries posed in several emails)

As I read these various questions one image kept recurring to me, namely, that of Thomas reaching out to touch the wounds of the risen Christ. I also kept thinking of a line from a homily my pastor (John Kasper, OSFS) gave about 7 years ago which focused on Carravagio's painting of this image; the line was,  "There's Another World in There!" It was taken in part from the artist and writer Jan Richardson's reflections on this painting and on the nature of the Incarnation. Richardson wrote:

[[The gospel writers want to make sure we know that the risen Christ was no ghost, no ethereal spirit. He was flesh and blood. He ate. He still, as Thomas discovered, wore the wounds of crucifixion. That Christ’s flesh remained broken, even in his resurrection, serves as a powerful reminder that his intimate familiarity and solidarity with us, with our human condition, did not end with his death. . . Perhaps that’s what is so striking about Caravaggio’s painting: it stuns us with the awareness of how deeply Christ was, and is, joined with us. The wounds of the risen Christ are not a prison: they are a passage. Thomas’ hand in Christ’s side is not some bizarre, morbid probe: it is a  union, and a reminder that in taking flesh, Christ wed himself to us.]] Living into the Resurrection

Into the Wound, Jan L Richardson

My response then must really begin with a series of questions to you. Are the Risen Christ's wounds a sign that sin and death are still "operating in" him or are they a sign that God has been victorious over these --- and victorious not via an act of force but through one of radical vulnerability and compassion? Are his wounds really a passage to "another world" or are they signs of his bondage to and defeat by the one which contends with him and the Love he represents? Do you believe that our world is at least potentially sacramental or that heaven (eternal life in the sovereign love of God) and this world interpenetrate one another as a result of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection or are they entirely separate from and opposed to one another? Even as I ask these questions I am aware that they may be answered in more than one way. In our own lives too, we may find that the wounds and scars of illness and brokenness witness more to the world of sin and death than they do to that of redemption and eternal life. They may represent a prison more than they represent a passage to another world.

Or not.

When I write about discerning an eremitical vocation and the importance of the critical transition that must be made from being a lone pious person living physical silence and solitude to essentially being a hermit living "the silence of solitude," I am speaking of a person who has moved from the prison of illness to illness as passage to another world through the redemptive grace of God. We cannot empower or accomplish such a transition ourselves. The transfiguration of our lives is the work of God. At the same time, the scars of our lives will remain precisely as an invitation to others to see the power of God at work in our weakness and in God's own kenosis (self-emptying). These scars become Sacraments of God's powerful presence in our lives, vivid witnesses to the One who loves us in our brokenness and yet works continuously to bring life, wholeness, and meaning out of death, brokenness, and absurdity.

To become a hermit (especially to be publicly professed as a Catholic hermit) someone suffering from chronic illness has to have made this transition. Their lives may involve suffering but the suffering has become a sacrament which attests less to itself  (and certainly not to an obsession with pain) but to the God who is a Creator-redeemer God. What you tend to see as an obstacle to living a meaningful, profoundly prophetic, religious or eremitical life seems to me to be a symbol of the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It also seems to me to remind us of the nature of "heavenliness" in light of the Ascension. Remember that one side of the salvation event we call the Christ is God's descent so that our world may be redeemed and entirely transformed into a new creation. But the other side of this Event is the Ascension where God takes wounded and scarred humanity --- and even death itself --- up into his own life, thus changing the very nature of heaven (the sovereign life of God shared with others) in the process.

Far from being an inadequate witness to "heavenliness" our wounds can be the most perfect witness to God's sovereign life shared with us. Our God has embraced the wounds and scars of the world as his very own and not been demeaned, much less destroyed in the process. Conversely, for Christians, the marks of the crucifixion, as well therefore as our own illnesses, weaknesses and various forms of brokenness, are (or are meant to become) the quintessential symbols of a heaven (life in the very Life of God) which embraces our own lives and world to make them new. When this transformation occurs in the life of a chronically ill individual seeking to live eremitical life it is the difference between a life of one imprisoned in physical isolation, silence, and solitude, to that of one which breathes and sings "the silence of solitude." It is this song, this prayer, this Magnificat that Canon 603 describes so well and consecrated life in all its forms itself represents.

Bowl patched with Gold

We Christians do not hide our woundedness then. We are not ashamed at the way life has marked and marred, bent and broken, spindled and mutilated us. But neither are woundedness or brokenness themselves the things we witness to. Instead it is the Sacrament God has made of our lives, the Love that does justice and makes whole that is the source of our beauty and our boasting. Jan Richardson also reminds us of this truth when she recalls Sue Bender's observations on seeing a mended Japanese bowl. [[“The image of that bowl,” she writes, “made a lasting impression. Instead of trying to hide the flaws, the cracks were emphasized — filled with silver. The bowl was even more precious after it had been mended.”]]  So too with our own lives: as Paul also said, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing power will be of God and not from ourselves."  (2 Cor 4:7) It is the mended cracks, the wounds which were once prisons, the shards of a broken life on their way to being reconstituted entirely by the grace of God which reveal the very presence of heaven to those we meet.

Revisiting a Criticism of the Misuse of the term "canonical obedience"

[[Dear Sister, a while ago you wrote a blog article on "canonical obedience" in response to the first part of the following quotation. [The person upset by my professed eremitic vows' inclusion of canonical obedience did not fully understand; perhaps the meaning and intent was confused with canonical approval of hermits by one's specific diocese bishop re. Canon Law 603. I, of course, was not singling out that particular canon law. (At the time, neither I nor my spiritual director were even aware of this relatively recent Catholic "law".) I tend to think, live, perceive and write more expansively and inclusively. My profession of vows includes obedience to all canon laws to the best of my ability. I strive to obey them as I strive to obey civil laws. But most of all, I need to focus on the Law of God which the Living Word specifies is love!] I think you should have considered the person's position beginning with, "I, of course,  was not singling out that particular canon law. . ." which you seem not to have quoted. The person you criticized was not writing about canon 603 but her own vow of obedience to all canon law and even more importantly to the law of God. I think you should retract what you wrote and apologize for quoting her out of context!]] 

You are correct that in January of 2017, I wrote a post about the incoherence of a private vow of what the poster called, "canonical obedience": The Incoherence of Vowing Canonical Obedience. I also wrote a follow-up post in February 2017: Another Look. In both of those posts I wrote about why it is that calling private vows of obedience "canonical obedience" makes no sense. The general gist of these pieces is this: 

1. Only in public vows does one makes a canonical vow of obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior (that is, only in this way does one make a public vow binding in law). This means the vow is received by the Church by someone acting in her name. Yes, one becomes canonically responsible for living the canons which affect her new state in life, especially via the public vow of obedience, but the term canonical obedience does not primarily mean "being obedient to canons." It refers to a new state in life which includes new canonical responsibilities to which one will be open, attentive, and responsive to God according to a vow of obedience and one's Rule of Life (or Constitutions and Statutes); 
2.  private vows, which are considered "non-canonical" vows, do not involve either a change in state of life or the related conveying and embracing of additional canonical rights and obligations beyond those of any baptized person; this is because a private vow is an entirely private act. The obedience owed to God, the Church, and her code of Canon law in a private vow is the same as that which obtains for any baptized person. No more, no less. There is no legitimate superior, for instance, in such a case, nor is there a Rule, Constitutions, or Statutes to which one is canonically bound in obedience. Again, a private vow of obedience obliges to the same obedience any baptized person owes to God and the Church by virtue of their baptism. While psychologically and spiritually helpful, perhaps, they are an important making explicit of one's baptismal responsibilities. Nothing new in terms of canonical responsibility is added, however.

The bottom line in all of this is that the term "canonical obedience" (to the extent we can use this term at all) implies a public vow of obedience made by someone entering or already in a canonical (public) state of life (religious, consecrated, ordained)  and so, a vow that is received by the Church, and which therefore binds canonically via legitimate superiors. It does not mean a private vow made to "keep canons," whether one or many. It seemed to me the original poster was trying to give her private vows a different weight or character by misusing the term "canonical obedience." In any case, the use of the term "canonical' with regard to a private vow of obedience is incoherent. It substitutes an idiosyncratic usage for that of the Church in order to indicate or imply something untrue about a person's private vows. It does not hang or hold together properly -- the very meaning of the term incoherent.

There is nothing in any of that that requires or calls for a retraction. As for quoting this poster out of context, I don't believe I have done that, but if you can demonstrate how I did so I am happy to respond with an apology. While I did not literally quote as much as you did, my responses referenced the author's entire post and responded directly to the sentence you believe I did not consider. As far as I can see, nothing was taken out of context. So, please let me thank you for your concern; I hope you will understand why, at this point, I cannot accommodate your request.

Pentecost: A Tale of Two Kingdoms

One of the problems I see most often with Christianity is its domestication (not to be confused with domestic churches!!), a kind of blunting of its prophetic and counter cultural character. It is one thing to be comfortable with our faith, to live it gently in every part of our lives and to be a source of quiet challenge and consolation because we have been wholly changed by it. It is entirely another to add it to our lives and identities as a merely superficial "spiritual component" which we refuse to allow not only to shake the very foundations of all we know but also to transform us in all we are and do. 

Even more problematical --- and I admit to being sensitive to this because I am a hermit called to "stricter separation from the world" --- is a kind of self-centered spirituality which focuses on our own supposed holiness or perfection but calls for turning away from a world which undoubtedly needs and yearns for the love only God's powerful Spirit makes possible in us. Clearly today's Festal readings celebrate something very different than the sort of bland, powerless, pastorally ineffective, merely nominal Christianity we may embrace --- or the self-centered spirituality we sometimes espouse --- in the name of "contemplation" and  "contemptus mundi". Listen again to the shaking experience of the powerful Spirit that birthed the Church which Luke recounts in Acts: 

Roaring sounds filling the whole space, tongues of fire coming to rest above each person, a power of language which communicates (creates) incredible unity and destroys division --- this is a picture of a new and incredible creation, a new and awesome world in which the structures of power are turned on their heads and those who were outsiders --- the sick and poor, the outcast and sinners, those with no status and only the stamp of shame marking their lives --- are kissed with divinity and revealed to be God's very own Temples. The imagery of this reading is profound. For instance, in the world of this time coins were stamped with Caesar's picture and above his head was the image of a tongue of fire. Fire was a symbol of life and potency; it was linked to the heavens (stars, comets, etc). The tongue of fire was a way of indicating the Emperor's divinity.  Similarly, the capacity for speech, the fact that one has been given or has a voice, is a sign of power, standing, and authority.

And so Luke says of us. The Spirit of the Father and Son has come upon us. Tongues of Fire mark us as do tongues potentially capable of speaking a word of ultimate comfort to anyone anywhere. We have been made a Royal People, Temples of the Holy Spirit and called to live and act with a new authority, an authority and status which is greater than any Caesar. As I have noted before, this is not mere poetry, though it is certainly wonderfully poetic. On this Feast we open ourselves to the Spirit who transforms us quite literally into images of God, literal Temples of God's prophetic presence in our world, literal exemplars of a consoling love-doing-justice and a fiery, earth-shaking holiness which both transcends and undercuts every authority and status in our world that pretends to divinity or ultimacy. We ARE the Body of Christ, expressions of the one in whom godless death has been destroyed, expressions of the One in whom one day all sin and death will be replaced by eternal life. In Christ we are embodiments and mediators of the Word which destroys divisions and summons creation to reconciliation and unity; in us the Spirit of God loves our world into wholeness.

You can see that there is something really dangerous about today's Feast. What we celebrate is dangerous to a Caesar oppressing most of the known world with his taxation and arbitrary exercise of power depending on keeping subjects powerless and without choice or voice; it is dangerous if you are called to live out this gift of God's own Spirit as a prophetic presence in the very same world which kills prophets and executed God's Anointed One as a shameful criminal --- a traitor or seditionist and blasphemer. Witnesses to the risen Christ and the Kingdom of God are liable, of course, to  martyrdom of all sorts. That is the very nature of the word, "martyr", and it is what yesterday's gospel lection referred to when it promised Peter that in his maturity he would be led where he did not really desire to go. But it is also dangerous to those who prefer a more domesticated and timid "Christianity", one that does not upset the status quo or demand the overthrow of all of one's vision, values, and the redefinition of one's entire purpose in life; it is dangerous if you care too much about what people think of you or you desire a faith which is consoling but undemanding --- a faith centered on what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace". At least it is dangerous when one opens oneself, even slightly, to the Spirit celebrated in this Feast.

We live in a world where two Kingdoms vie against each other. One is marked by oppression, a lack of freedom --- except for the privileged few who hold positions of wealth and influence --- and is marred by the domination of sin and death. It is a world where the poor, ill, aged, and otherwise powerless are essentially voiceless. In this world Caesars of all sorts have been sovereign or pretended to sovereignty. The other Kingdom, the Kingdom which signals the eventual and inevitable end of the first one is the Kingdom (Dominion) of God. It has come among us first in God's quiet self-emptying and in the smallness of an infant, the generosity, compassion, and ultimately, the weakness, suffering and sinful death of a Jewish man in a Roman world. Today it comes to us as a powerful wind which shakes and disorients even as it grounds and reorients us in the love of God. Today it comes to us as the power of love that does justice and sets all things to right.

 It is not easy to admit that insofar as we are truly human we have been kissed by a Divinity which invites us to a divine/human union that completes us, makes us whole, and results in a fruitfulness we associate with all similar "marriages". It is not easy to give our hearts so completely or embrace a dignity which is entirely the gift of another. Far easier to keep our hearts divided and ambiguous. But today's Feast calls us to truly open ourselves to this union, to accept that our lives are marked and transformed by tongues of fire and the shaking, stormy Spirit of prophets. After all, this is Pentecost and through us God truly will renew the face of the earth.

On Stricter Separation From the World as a Call to Love the World into Wholeness

[[Sister Laurel, I was asked where the "stricter" in "stricter separation from the world," comes from in canon 603.  Does it mean stricter than cloistered communities, stricter than other religious, stricter than other forms of consecrated life generally? I also was thinking about the idea of "the world" in the phrase in the canon. Doesn't this involve a kind of judgment (judgmentalism) on the world around the hermit? Because I take seriously the admonition not to judge others I wonder if Jesus would have condemned such an approach to something God created and Jesus  made new through his death and resurrection. Can you speak to this? ]]

In my understanding, the reference to "stricter separation from the world" in canon 603 is an intensification of c 607.3. That section of canon 607 reads: "The public witness to be rendered by religious to Christ and to the Church entails a separation from the world proper to the character and purpose of each institute." [Emphasis added]  Generally speaking hermits living under c 603 are called and obliged to live a separation which is stricter than that of other religious. Hermit's vows (or other sacred bonds) will qualify their relationship with the world in terms of wealth, relationships, and power (poverty, chastity, and obedience) but will, in conjunction with their Rule of life and the other requirements of canon 603, do so even more strictly than those of other religious. In particular, the hermit's ministry or apostolate will be very different because in the main it is a matter of being sent into the hermitage* in the ministry of prayer and not out in active ministry. I don't think it means more strictly than cloistered religious, however, because hermits are self-supporting and responsible for interfacing with her local, parish, and diocesan communities --- and even with the more extended support community I mentioned in a previous post.

I don't think the requirement regarding stricter separation from the world is a form of judgmentalism but it does require significant discernment on what, when, and how one will give one's heart to things -- first to God and then to all that is precious to God. Stricter separation from "the world" is meant to allow one to love and/or be loved by God in a way which leads to conversion and sanctification -- that is to authentic humanity -- and in light of that, to love all that God loves in a similar way. 

It is always important to remember, I think, that "the world" in canon 603 does not mean "everything outside the hermitage door" -- nor does it exclude dimensions of the hermitage itself as though "the world" is not present there as well. "The world" is a collection of attitudes, values, perspectives, and priorities which live in a hermit's heart just as they live in the hearts of others. Perhaps these have been more or less changed through the context of the silence of solitude and, more importantly, through assiduous prayer and penance, but they remain deeply inculcated and closing the hermitage door, especially when done while naively believing one has shut "the world" out, merely makes the hermitage an outpost of "the world".

As noted in earlier posts, The Handbook on Canons 573-746, notes that "the world" refers to "that which is not redeemed or open to the salvific action of Christ". I have added other dimensions to this definition: 'anything which promises fulfillment apart from Christ," for instance. Thomas Merton  warns against hypostasizing "the world" and sees it in terms of illusion which should be unmasked; it is that which has become a lie and which needs to be seen for what it is.** (see below) We do that when we see all of reality with the eyes of God, and that means seeing all of reality with the eyes of love, just as I noted in my homily for the Solemnity of Ascension.  What it does not mean is God's good creation generally. For that reason, the hermit does not reject the world outside the hermitage, nor even that which is antithetical to Christ. Instead her silence and solitude (i.e., her life with and in God) allows her to see things as they are and to help love them into wholeness. Stricter separation from the world is done for the sake of the hermit's capacity to see clearly and to love truly and deeply. This includes learning to see herself clearly and learning to love herself rightly and profoundly. 

So again, no, I don't think stricter separation from the world represents a form of judgmentalism any more than a physician's diagnosis in order to treat a disorder represents a form of judgmentalism. For the hermit, stricter separation from the world, means disentangling ourselves from all kinds of forms of enmeshment so we may see properly and love profoundly into wholeness. This is what I meant when I said it required significant discernment on what, how, and when we would give our hearts to things. I hope this is clear. So much spiritual writing treats "the world" as anything outside the hermitage, convent, or monastery doors or walls. But this is just careless and dangerous thinking. It neglects the very real dimensions of the human heart which are worldly and on which one cannot simply shut the hermitage door; it also neglects the Great Commandment of love and the profound relationship a hermit (for instance) must have with the world around the hermitage, especially in the silence of solitude -- as paradoxical as that sounds.

I agree with you that Jesus would condemn many writings that speak of "the world" as though it is a distinct objective thing outside a religious house. Especially I agree that Jesus would condemn any way of seeing God's good creation which ignores the victory of the cross over sin and death and over the powers and principalities of this world. We are challenged every day not to ignore "the world" but to see it clearly, to transform it with love, and thereby to eventually win its allegiance to Christ -- even if that allegiance is anonymous. Love provides the kind of unmasking which humbles without humiliating; it raises reality to its true dignity, and it allows the deep meaning possessed by reality to come through without idolizing this world or dimensions of it. It provides the lens through which we can see things truly and value them rightly. I think Jesus saw reality in this way and we who profess that we are in and of him, must be able to demonstrate that we have the capacity to see reality in the same way. 

Hermits separate ourselves more strictly from the larger world in order to cultivate this way of seeing, this way of loving. We do it so that we can be remade into a dimension of the heart of the Church; where others who share in the love of God in Christ are meant to be Jesus' hands and feet, hermits stand hidden and yet present as a representation of Jesus' own sacred heart. Once we think of ourselves in this way, stricter separation from the world will never again mean a sterile, much less judgmental, disengagement from the world. Instead it will be a new and paradoxical way of being engaged so the world may truly be and become all God calls it to be. Stricter separation from "the world" is about love for the world of God's great and creative goodness; it is not about "contemptus mundi" except to the degree we reject the ways the world itself has been falsified by human idolatry. It is this falsification (and the distorted human heart that created it) that must be unmasked, and this, it seems to me (and to Thomas Merton, I think) is the work of the hermit and her hermitage. 

_____________________________________________

* The phrase "sent into the hermitage" instead of out into active ministry is borrowed with permission from Sister Anunziata Grace, a diocesan hermit for the Diocese of Knoxville. During a conversation we had several years ago she spoke this way and I found it particularly revelatory of the nature of the hermit's commission.

** And for anyone who has seriously entered into the medieval Christian. . . conception of contemptus mundi [hatred for or of the world],. . .it will be evident that this means not the rejection of a reality, but the unmasking of an illusion. The world as pure object is not there. it is not a reality outside us for which we exist. . . It is only in assuming full responsibility for our world, for our lives, and for ourselves that we can be said to live really for God." Thomas Merton, Contemplation in a World of Action.

Homily for the Solemnity of the Ascension: Seeing Our New Creation With the Eyes of God (Reprise)

In one of the Star Trek Next Generation episodes, Commander Geordi La Forge and Ensign Ro Larren are caught in a transporter accident. While returning to the ship, a surge of power or radiation causes them "materialize" back on the Enterprise in a way where they cannot be seen or heard. The transporter pad looks empty; they seem to have been lost. Neither can they interact in their usual way with the ordinary world of space and time; for instance, they can walk through walls, reach through control panels or other "solid" objects, and stand between two people who are conversing without being perceived. The dimension of reality Geordi and Ro now inhabit interpenetrates the other more everyday world of space and time, interfaces with it in some way without being identical with it. In other words, their new existence is both continuous and discontinuous with their old existence; Geordi and Ro are both present and absent at the same time. In Star Trek parlance this new way of being embodied is called, ”phased” -- because it is a presence slightly “out of phase with our own”. While their friends believe that Geordi and Ro are gone forever and begin to grieve, Geordi and Ro are still vitally present and they leave signs of this presence everywhere --- if only these can be recognized and their friends empowered to see them as they are.


Especially, I think this story helps us begin to imagine and think about what has been so important during all the readings we have heard during this Easter Season and is celebrated in a new and even more mysterious way with the feast of the Ascension. In these stories Jesus is present in a way which is both like and unlike, continuous and discontinuous with, normal existence; it is a presence which can be described as, and even mistaken for absence. Today’s first reading from Acts describes a difficult and demanding “departure” or “absence” but one which has the disciples misguidedly looking up into the skies --- something the angels upbraid them for. Meanwhile, the consoling and hope-filled word we are left with at the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel conveys the promise of an abiding presence which will never leave us. Jesus affirms, [[And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.]] In these readings, absence and Presence are held together in a strange tension.

We know that Resurrection itself represented the coming of something new, a new kind of expanded or less limited incarnation, a new embodied presence or materiality where Jesus can be encountered and recognized with the eyes of faith. What is made clear time and again as Jesus picnicked on the beach with his disciples, invited them to touch him, or even when he warns Mary of Magdala not to cling to him in this form, is that his resurrection is bodily. Yes, it is different from the kind of materiality Jesus had before his death. He is no longer mortal and so we are told he walks through walls and breaches locked doors or otherwise comes and goes without anyone seeing how. The gospel writers want us to understand that Jesus was not merely "raised" in our minds and hearts (though we will certainly find him there!); neither is the risen Jesus disembodied spirit or a naked immortal soul. Finally, he has not relinquished his humanity. God has raised the human Jesus to a new bodily life which is both earthly and heavenly.

Only in Luke’s version of the story is Ascension spoken of directly or treated as a separate event occurring 40 days after the resurrection. (Mark's Gospel originally ended short of the Ascension story.) Here Luke shifts our attention from Jesus’ continuing earthly but mysterious presence to his having been “taken up bodily into heaven”. But how can this be? We might be forgiven for thinking that surely the Star Trek story is easier to believe than this fantastical and incredible tale on which we base our lives! So, what is Luke doing here? What are we really celebrating on this feast?

What Luke and his original readers knew was that in the Scriptures, "Heaven” is a careful Semitic way of speaking about God’s own self --- just as the presence of clouds in today’s reading from Acts refers to the mysteriousness of God’s presence. Heaven is not a remote location in space one can locate with the proper astrometric instruments and coordinates; nor are unbelieving cosmonauts and hard-nosed empiricists the only ones to make such a mistake. After all, as we hear today, even the disciples need to have their attention drawn away from searching the skies and brought back to earth where Jesus will truly be found! Heaven refers to God’s own life shared with others.


Luke is telling the story in a way which helps us see that in Christ God has not only conquered death, but (he) has made room for humanity itself (and in fact, for all of creation) within (his) own Divine life. Christ is the “first fruits” of this new way of existing where heaven (Divine Life) and earth (created life) now interpenetrate one another. God is present in our world of space and time now in a way he could not have been apart from Jesus’ openness and responsiveness (what the Scriptures call his “obedience”), and Jesus is present in a way he could not be without existing in God. Jesus’ own ministry among us continues as more and more, Jesus draws us each and all into that same Divine life in the power of the Holy Spirit of the Father and Son.


St John uses the puzzling language of mutual indwelling to describe this reality: "The Father is in me and I am in him" . . ." we know that we abide in him and he is in us." When theologians in both Western and Eastern churches speak of this whole dynamic, their summary is paradoxical and shocking: [[God became human so that humans might become gods]]. And as one contemporary Bible scholar puts the matter, “We who are baptized into Christ's death are citizens of heaven colonizing the earth.” As such, we are also called on to develop the eyes of faith that allow us to see this new world as it is shot through with the promise of fullness. Some of us experienced what this means just this week.

On Wednesday evening Bro Mickey McGrath, osfs, gave us a virtual tour of his Camden ‘hood by sharing the work he had drawn and painted from Holy Week onward during his own sheltering in place. Many of us got a chance to see through his eyes, that is, through the eyes of faith and love. What Bro Mickey showed us was not an idealized Camden without violence, poverty, suffering or struggle; those were all present. But through his eyes we saw the greenhouse cathedral of a neighborhood garden, the communion lines  and eucharistic Presence of the community food pantry, the way of the cross of a crippled man as he limped up the street, a broken and bold statue of Mary standing as a symbol of perseverance and hope despite everything, and another more contemporary version made even more beautiful by a prostitute's gift of a single flower. And everywhere reality that could have been accurately drawn in harsh tones of pain and struggle were more accurately shown awash with life, beauty, and hope splashed in colors of brilliant orange and purple, gold and green, --- the colors of life, royalty, holiness, newness, and potential. 

Today’s Feast is not so much about the departure or absence of Jesus as it is his new transfigured, universal, and even cosmic presence which in turn transforms everything it touches with the life of God. The world we live in is not the one that existed before Jesus’ death, and resurrection. Heaven and earth now interpenetrate one another in a way which may sound suspiciously to some like bad science fiction. We know its truth, however, whenever we can see this New Creation with the eyes of faith and love --- that is, whenever we can see ourselves and the world around us with the very eyes of God. It is the only way we will become disciples ourselves --- or truly make disciples of all nations.