Followup Questions, Experience of the desert vs desert experience

[[Hi Sister. You have written that hermit life is flexible, but at the same time you seem to want to rule out part-time hermits. You also distinguish between desert experiences and experiences in the desert. I sort of get what you are saying here but I am not sure I see the importance.]]

Yes, eremitical life is flexible, that is each individual hermit needs to work out her own needs for sacraments, work, prayer, study, rest and recreation. She also needs to work out when and where community can be part of her days, what kind, and how it is she compensates for or balances this. Further, hermits who are "night persons" may use a somewhat different horarium than a hermit who is not a night person, and this is true even if one lives in a Laura of hermits. However, there remain certain elements in each hermit's life which are non-negotiable: stricter separation from the world, a LIFE of silence and solitude (and more, the silence OF solitude), assiduous prayer and penance. While she is not a recluse (usually at least), she IS a SOLITARY (something which BY DEFINITION conflicts with the notion of being married, by the way).

The significance of the distinction between an experience of the desert and a desert experience might be clearer, so let me try to make that so. Suppose a person goes into the desert with all her camping equipment, her RV, cell phone, TV, Stereo, etc. She drives into the desert and noticing the beginnings of a rise in temperature, cranks up the AC immediately; when she arrives at her destination she finds a suitable campground with amenities, and plugs in the RV. She sets out her chair and begins to sense the vastness of the place, the feeling of the air, the hugeness of the horizon, and her own insignificance in all of this. She takes a walk and for a while these impressions continue to speak to her in some way, but it is an uncomfortable experience. So, she takes out her iPod and turns it on to a favorite tune, one she listens to all the time at home. Immediately, the desert fades somewhat, the memories of home and all that is familiar resurface. She is still alone, but She has opted out of the desert experience, at least for the time being. Later, when she has eaten and the cold has set in and the fire died down, she spends a little more time looking at stars she never sees at home, but before long this too becomes a bit overwhelming and she feels somewhat uneasy, though she cannot put her finger on why that is. Besides, she thinks, there are animals preying about now, and bugs everywhere, so she goes into the RV shuts the door on her surroundings, takes a shower, climbs into a warm and comfy bed, turns on the TV set and forgets about all the desert itself. Soon she is asleep. Once again, she has opted out of the desert experience (and to some extent even out of an experience of the desert).

Note that despite the fact that she is alone and God is all around as well as within in no way is she really alone with God. While she begins to experience the awesomeness of the desert and also what calls to her there (the feelings of uneasiness or discomfort), she refuses to listen to these and distracts herself in various ways. She insulates herself from the desert experience, distances herself from her feelings and does not listen to God either within her heart or without. SO, there is physical solitude (there is no other living person around), but it is hardly an experience of solitude, much less eremitical solitude.

Imagine instead though that she arrives in a small car with cooking gear, sleeping bag, hiking gear and sturdy clothes, a journal, lantern, a book of psalms, and a New Testament. She sets up camp, sits quietly until the awesomeness of the setting touches her, and meditatively reads an account of Jesus in the desert while being sure to stay in touch with the sense of the awesomeness of her surroundings, and also her own solitude with God as she does so. Feeling a bit uneasy and restless, she puts on a jacket, gets a canteen, a compass and a bit to eat for later and sets out on a hike during which she drinks in her surroundings and continues to let the feelings that began to arise in camp intensify and speak to her. When she returns to camp, she chants a psalm, sits quietly meditating and attending to all that happens; then she pulls out her journal and begins to write. Later she prays again, lights a fire and cooks some dinner. She cleans up, watches the stars with God, considers the animals that are out there just beyond the light and warmth of the fire, prays in thanksgiving, but also with a sense of her insignificance and in supplication, slowly rereads the text on Jesus in the desert, commits herself into God's hands and climbs into her tent and sleeping bag to sleep. The next day will look very much the same except that the silence and solitude will continue to work on her heart and uncover darkness, fears, insecurities, difficult memories, and some joys she has lost touch with. She will deal with them in just the same way, and go to sleep to prepare for another day which will also look very much the same as those preceding it. There is nothing here to distract her from all of this. As her supplies dwindle she will use them even more sparingly and she will plan for a trip to a store to replenish what she needs. When she returns, she will settle in once again, and continue as before.

In the first situation I described, what I tried to show was the difference between a greatly moderated or mitigated experience of the desert (for it could have been vastly richer and more intense) and a desert experience itself . In the second the accent was on a desert experience per se, though clearly the woman involved also experienced the desert itself in a greatly less-mitigated and more intense way than in the first scenario. (Note that this experience was also mitigated, however. The woman had sufficient clothes, shelter, food, water, etc, so as not to feel completely at the mercy of the elements and God's mercy.) Despite the necessary overlap there can be a vast difference between the two, and between the types of solitude experienced. In the first scenario the woman was physically alone but hardly experiencing an inner solitude. Instead she resisted this and distracted herself from it at every turn. In the second there is both physical and inner solitude. It is a desert experience, an experience where she really does have to deal with the loneliness, the dangers, the inner demons and insecurities with nothing but herself and God. Her other life is far away; she has not brought it with her, and except for her car, her journal, books, and few clothes there is little to remind her of it. When she is reminded, it is with a keenness that affirms for her just how much she has left behind, how alone she is with God, how little resources OTHERWISE she really has at hand, and she deals with this in prayer/journaling.

The differences between the two pictures are important because one is eremitical and the other is not; one is an example of desert spirituality and in this case, solitary desert spirituality, while the other is not --- despite the fact that the person is alone. I hope this helps in drawing out the distinction and also pointing up its significance. If it does not help enough, or raises more questions please get back to me.

Part-time Hermits? Objections?

[[Dear Sister, you have objections to "part-time" hermits. You also are emphatic that the word hermit should not be used for just anyone. Can you please say more about your objections?]]


I am not sure how much more I can say about this topic, but yes, I will be happy to explain what I have written up until now. First, the use of the term hermit for just anyone: apparently there is something intriguing to people about the idea of being a hermit but what is focused on is the physical solitude, and not the underlying motivations for the life, the community or ecclesial aspect, nor that this is a contemplative life rooted in a relationship with God and all that he cherishes. What the hermit says with her life is that God alone is sufficient for us, and I mean that in two senses: 1) we are made for communion with and in him and all else (including all other relationships) is a piece of this, and 2) if we live with and for God alone, as hermits do, then that provides all we need for authentic human maturity and psychological well-being. Thus, hermits in their solitude affirm the first statement with their lives: God alone is sufficient for us, and they witness to others that the same is true for them. Of course others may also witness to this and be very far from being hermits. Every Christian, in fact, is called to make this statement with their lives, no matter their state of life. But hermits really accent the second statement, and no one else does so in the same way. It is what makes their lives eremitical: they live with and for God alone in a more literal sense (others are a significant piece of this because the hermit cherishes what/whomever is cherished by God), and that is sufficient for them and their achievement of human maturity and psychological well-being.

While the first aspect mentioned is critical to the quality of the eremitical life, it is this latter aspect of the eremitical vocation which makes it truly eremitical. The hermit vocation is the vocation of a SOLITARY, not merely an introvert or loner (indeed, the hermit may be neither of these), not someone who has a bit of physical solitude on the weekends or when the spouse and children leave the house for a few hours, but a true solitary --- one who has given her life, body and soul to God and witnesses to what life with God alone can be. Hermits are those persons who live with, in, and from God alone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While their love for God, and his for them will spill over and touch and include others, there should be no doubt that the primary environment of their lives is both the physical and inner solitude peculiar to the hermit. There should be no doubt that their inner and outer lives consciously reflect an accepted identity as a hermit.

So, why is all this important? Why can't a mother who prays while others are out of the house call herself a hermit, and why shouldn't she? Why can't a person who goes off to solitude on the weekends call himself a hermit, and why shouldn't he? I may have used the term "truth in advertizing" before somewhere in these blog posts, but let me use it again. The first reason these persons cannot call themselves hermits has to do with truth in advertizing. They ought not call themselves hermits because they simply are NOT living contemplative lives in solitude (each word in this phrase is important to the definition of a hermit). The second reason is related and has to do with witness. Hermits are the ones in the Church who say with their lives that it is possible to live ALONE with God for the whole of their lives and that their lives are meaningful, and in fact, that one may come to human wholeness and holiness in this way. They say that while this is a rare vocation, the person who finds herself in physical solitude and cut off from others for whatever reason: illness, bereavement, etc, has a life which is still infinitely precious and significant, and can continue to grow or develop into greater and greater fruitfulness --- an almost unimaginable fruitfulness in fact. The hermit witnesses to this truth even if the person can no longer work, has lost friends whose lives move at a different speed and rhythm, or struggles with illness which seems to dehumanize and cut off all human possibilities for growth or life, because these things are merely one side of the equation; God's grace is the other, and the hermit witnesses to what is possible when human weakness and limitations are joined by the grace of God.

The hermit's life therefore speaks in a special way to these people, people who will not have a husband (wife) and children returning at the end of the day, people who cannot spend their days cleaning FOR husband and children or planning outings, or shopping for them, people who have no one to comfort them in their pain and no breaks in the continuing solitude of their situation. The numbers of persons who live like this today are phenomenal, and someone calling themselves a hermit when they no more live a solitary life without respite is insulting and insensitive not only to authentic hermits who do live healthy and truly solitary lives, but to those living in the unnatural solitudes of illness, bereavement, old age, abandonment, etc, without choice or options otherwise.

These reasons all have to do with the witness value of the eremitical life, but we need to look at the reasons which have simply to do with the nature and quality of the hermit life itself even apart from witness value --- and again, it is a matter of truth in advertizing. By definition eremitical life is solitary life, that is, life lived in, with, for and from God ALONE. Solitude (inner and outer) does its work over time, it develops, grows, changes the human heart only over time and in physical solitude. Consistency is necessary, and consistency here means long term ongoing physical solitude. This is not necessarily the same as complete reclusion, but to call oneself a hermit when one simply spends a few hours a day alone, but waits for the return of husband and children, or when one works with others all week (even if one never speaks to them), and then goes camping or fishing alone on the weekend is analogous to someone calling herself a mother because she baby sits several days a week a few hours in the morning and afternoon. I suspect any mothers reading this would merely laugh at how ridiculous such an idea is. The same is true when hermits hear of people who build a little solitude into their lives calling themselves hermits. We both know "these people don't have a clue" --- not about real motherhood and its unceasing demands and concerns, or about giving one's life (one's whole life) for these others, nor about solitude or what it means to live as a solitary, and certainly not about what it means to be thrust back on God as the sole source of strength and meaning in one's life --- the essence of Christian eremitism.

A few days of solitude is usually welcome for most people: time to rest, read, pray, reflect, and even then the first 24-48 hours might be very difficult as silence challenges them initially. A few hours of solitude a day can also be quite welcome, and can be used fruitfully for prayer, rest, chores, etc, but in each case the solitude is temporary and one does not need to deal with the dark parts of the human heart, with the demons which inhabit our personal worlds. These things can be put off, and may not even appear because after all, the solitude is only partial. As noted above, one is not completely thrust back upon God alone to make sense of one's life, one is not faced with ALL OF ONE'S SELF AND LIFE in an environment where it MUST be faced. Distractions one has left behind (TV, work, relationships, etc) may not fill the hours of solitude themselves, but they wait in the wings moderating the solitude, either because someone is coming home at the end of the day, or because one can return to one's REAL world if one just guts this relatively brief period of solitude out. One's life makes sense APART from solitude: marriage, children, work, etc, and solitude itself may be the real distraction (even prayer can be a distraction!).

The point here is that such part-time solitude is relative, and also that it is neither as deep nor as intense nor as all-claiming and challenging as is genuine eremitical solitude. A trip to the desert is simply not truly a desert experience if one arrives in one's RV and drives away at the end of the day or week, even if one hikes out for a few hours each day. One may experience the desert to some extent in this way, but it is not truly a desert experience. (That could be had if one hiked out a few miles and then realized one had forgotten one's compass, lunch and canteen and would need to spend the night out alone without food or shelter, for instance. THEN one begins to sense the difference between an experience of the desert and a desert experience.) You see the distinction I think. Similarly then, one may experience solitude without ever coming close to solitary experience, without ever being a solitary.

But this is not true of the hermit. Her life makes sense within solitude, as a solitary because her life says that these things are an essential function of her relationship to God and living with and for God alone. Her experience of solitude is a desert experience. It is in solitude that she comes to grapple with the darknesses of her own heart, with the demons that do indeed inhabit this desert in which she lives. Yes, there can be occasional distractions (a direction client, Mass (I use the term distraction here only to the extent this is not a solitary experience), an orchestra rehearsal, an occasional dinner with friends), but unlike the person whose "solitude" is merely part time, whose children return to tell about their days, whose husband comes home to eat together and share the same bed, the hermit's solitude always beckons, at meals, at bedtime, while one does laundry or cooks for oneself alone. Every activity, and even the distractions merely point to her solitary existence. She knows she cannot justify that existence with motherhood or marriage, or even with productive work. Prayer cannot be just an important aspect of her life, much less a pleasant distraction from her usual activities. It must be THE work of her life (the work of God in her), her very lifeblood which sustains her without question. Either her life makes ultimate sense in and through her solitude because God has called her to this WITH and in HIM, or it is the greatest and most tragic absurdity a person can devise. This is the risk the hermit takes in faith and the desert is the place this is lived out.

I think there is still a great deal to say here (especially since I have not spoken of semi-eremitism), and I had not expected that, but hopefully I have begun to answer your questions. We ought not allow just anyone to call themselves hermits because doing so empties the term of meaning. It strips away the boundaries which definitions set up. Definitions are drawn on the basis of experience, they are not arbitrary. There are many many people who live lives with some degree of time alone to pray. Every person actually fits (or should fit) this picture in one way or another. Do we call all these people hermits? Of course not, no more than we call teenagers who babysit regularly Mothers. These people have time for solitude and should take it, but they do not live solitary lives with all that means. On the other hand there are many people in our world living true desert experiences already who could find the word hermit gives meaning to lives that otherwise seem to have none in worldly terms, but that cannot happen if the word hermit is emptied of meaning by dilettantes.

How Credible are my statements on the Importance of the Lay Eremitical Vocation?

[[Doesn't your own Canonical Status undercut your ability to speak to the importance and witness of the non-canonical or lay hermit? Doesn't it make what you say even a bit hypocritical? You have written any number of times about the importance of canonical status/standing so how believeable are your opinions on the lay eremitical vocation? Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit instead of seeking profession and consecration according to Canon 603 if you believed as you say you do in this?]]

These questions were not raised by a hostile reader, but in my own prayer and reflection on the matter. However, I suspect that they are questions which my own status and comments might well occasion in others, so I am including them here. First. let me say that there is truth in each question: to each, except, I think, for the one about hypocrisy and the last one which asks "Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit?" which does not allow a brief answer. Apart from the exceptions I have to answer these answer positively while I deny hypocrisy. With regard to the last question, let me say right up front that I do not have a complete answer at this time, but only large parts of one, and that those parts involve both positive and negative elements. (Note that this answer was completed in another post. Please check posts including the label "lay hermits".)

In my previous post on the importance of lay hermits (hermits living this life while in the lay state vocationally speaking) I noted that I had not realized how effectively I was cutting myself off from witnessing to particular segments of our church and world. My life as a canonical hermit still speaks to these people, I know that full well, but I suspect not nearly as powerfully as had I eschewed profession and consecration under Canon 603 and embraced a vocation as a lay hermit. I would have needed to find ways to do this, but those avenues are open to anyone really. This blog is an example. On the other hand, I have experienced both sides of the fence here and am aware of the shift (in witnessing) which has occured. Thus, I think I am able to speak effectively to the importance of both the lay and the consecrated (state) eremitical vocations. The point of course is that a person who is consciously and voluntarily lay and eremitical can, in some ways. do so better than I can ever do.

So what about possible hypocrisy? Well, it is true that I am unabashedly excited by and enthusiastic about the eremitical vocation which is canonical, and that personally I see a lot of reasons to seek canonical standing, especially as a diocesan hermit with its unique charism. It is also true that on this blog I have posted a lot in order to combat misconceptions about canonical status, etc. In my Rule I wrote (several years ago now) that I felt that canonical status was imperative except in the early stages of a vocation or foundation --- though my views on this have changed considerably in the meantime. Is it possible to be enthusiastic about the graces and benefits of one way of living an eremitical life without denigrating another? I sincerely hope and believe so, otherwise there is no way to be honest about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in one vocation without denigrating them in another. And despite seeing this happen often in the history of mankind with regard to different religions, etc, surely none of us believe that is necessarily the case!

With the issue of canonical and non-canonical hermits I believe the Holy Spirit is working in both ways in our church and world, speaking to different segments and calling them to different responsibilities, emphases and witness. So long as the eremitical life is being led with faithfulness these differing emphases, commissions and witnesses will emerge and reveal themselves clearly. That said, I must also say that I don't believe just anyone should call themselves a hermit, and I especially don't believe that someone who simply has a bent for some degree of solitude part of the time should do so, or be allowed to do so. (Here is one of the real benefits of canonical standing and oversight: one knows, at least generally, that the term is being used accurately and that the witness being given is genuine.) Still, if someone is living a fulltime life of prayer and penance, a life centered on God in silence and solitude --- not reclusively necessarily, but really --- then they have every right to call themselves a hermit and should do so, for this too is the work and gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world.

Again, it is not that canonical hermits are "real" hermits while non-canonical hermits are "pseudo" or "wannabe" hermits. While it is true that sometimes people use the term hermit too casually (for an active life with chunks of solitude, a part-time semi-solitary existence, for instance, as in a married life where the days are spent in prayer and work while children and husband are off to school and work!) or for the wrong reasons (social awkwardness or misanthopy, the need for self-indulgent introversion or simply for creative time and space are among these) -- these folks ARE pseudo hermits or wannabe's --- when the term really applies (that is, to a LIFE OF fulltime and genuine solitude lived for and in God) it signals the "realness" or inspired nature of the vocation, and whether this is a call to eremitism of the consecrated or lay states does not matter.

And regarding the last question, "why didn't I become and remain a lay hermit?" well, I am going to leave that for another time and more thought. The simple answer is that initially and eventually I determined I was not called to this as did the Church, but that can be evasive as well as being true. Part of the answer is that it was this context which made sense of the whole spectrum of my life and the kind of freedom needed to live this call fully and faithfully, but that too needs some explaining --- which again requires both more thought and time to write. Still, the question is important, not only for me personally, but because it is really the question every hermit must answer in some form in discerning and embracing the call not only to eremitical life, but to lay or consecrated states as the critical context for their own charism, witness, and mission. At this point I wish to say merely that whichever choice one discerns and makes, the eremitical life they are discerning and choosing is a real and significant vocation and that we must learn to esteem not only the similarities they share with their counterpart (lay or consecrated), but especially their unique gift quality and capacity to speak variously to different segments of the church and world.

On the Importance of Lay Hermits and the Lay Hermit Vocation

I know I have written a lot in this blog about the significance of the call to diocesan eremitism and about the theology of the vocation to the consecrated state, the importance of canonical status, etc. Thus, while I believe strongly in the importance of the lay vocation, it is not always one which I can convincingly argue for as a diocesan hermit myself. However, the truth is that in our church and world, the majority of hermits will always be lay or "non-canonical" hermits, not those called to consecrated life (i.e., the consecrated STATE of life), but called to a dedication of self rooted in their baptismal consecration and every bit as real and demanding.

Because I belong to a listserve of those interested in becoming hermits, or in aspects of the life for other reasons, the whole question of approaching dioceses for admision to canonical profession and consecration comes up often. In the last few days however I received letters from 1) a priest who had decided NOT to seek canonical "recognition" because of something I had written (I put the word recognition in quotes because it needs to be seriously qualified to be used), and 2) a woman living as a hermit who had found some of what I had said on this matter helpful; she may seek canonical approval and standing, but then again, she may not. Both reminded me that the lay hermit has really significant witnesss and encouragement to give to this world, and to our church as well. Because of this, I wanted to post some of what I wrote recently in response about the lay hermit vocation. It is similar to a post I put up recently on the notion of becoming living temples of the Holy Spirit/God. The letter I am responding to is included in italics and emboldened. I have not included the entire text here.

[[May God Bless you for your wonderful replies. I can not tell you how much you have helped me in this understanding of different, yes, but yet not. How often I have read this law, and so often lost some part, an important part of its beauty and grace and open call to us all so inclined to give our lives in holy consecration and celebration of God with us in the ordinary of life now.
In my own part of the country there is little understanding of Canon Law 603. I have been living my life as one of the "non"s for some time, several years - ten years with spiritual direction and a rule of life, waiting on the Lord for the "recognition" from the church ( I have not made "final vows, in the wake of scandals and finance problems and illnesses we have gone through a few Bishops in our post in very recent years and those who have come are not as familiar with this calling as it would be in your country.

Well, don't be too sure there is a huge familiarity in the US either! There is some, certainly, but Bishops remain hesitant and some are suspicious. My own journey to perpetual eremitical profession (I was already finally professed otherwise) took almost 25 years precisely because my (former) Bishop had reasons to back off from professing ANYONE under Canon 603. Thus, Vicars accepted candidates -- only later (several years down the line) to learn there would be no professions. Others on this list have similar stories in terms of length of time (17 years, etc.) to perpetual profession. There remain dioceses that either have never had strong candidates or who continue to have no experience of the Canon for other reasons -- including a refusal to use the canon at all.

It is quite common to hear stories from persons approaching dioceses wishing to be professed as diocesan hermits who are told, "just go off and live in solitude; that is all you need" or who run up against Vicars who neither understand nor see the importance of the life. I think it is a huge responsibility for a Bishop to take on a person in the way Canon 603 envisions (not that it is an onerous one though!), and many seem resistant to this for one reason and another as well. Anyway, what some of us have found is that dioceses across the board need education, resources, and assistance in understanding the vocation and how Canon 603 plays out on the ground. It is more unusual to find a Bishop open to Canon 603 and willing to accept responsibility for diocesan hermits than not.

[[However, I have a very close relative who is "recognized" and this has been a great support to me and my own journey. I know too my own efforts to authentically live this call and service has encouraged her too...she often considers herself an urban hermit - one who lives in an urban area ( there really is no official title as such is there?) where as, I live in a very rural and secluded area. There have been times I have felt real persecution by those who were "really consecrated". I have been told that I was a "pseudo-hermit" and "not real", or not deserving of the same benefits and graces of this special call.]]

One of the things hermits generally know is that whether canonical or non-canonical, consecrated or lay, the eremitical life is a significant one which speaks in different ways to different segments of the church and world. The Church wants so much to truly esteem the lay vocation today and eremitical life lived apart from Canon 603 is one of the really significant ways the Holy Spirit is working in our church today. The notion that someone who is not Canon 603 is not a ""real hermit" or is "pseudo" is plain nonsense and must be combatted. One of the ways that will happen is if people get on with living eremitical lives without worrying about consecration and profession or the legal rights and responsibilities which come from these things. Some will discover they actually require the canonical standing and structure -- and are called to take on the added responsibilities of this state, but others --- MOST others --- will begin to discover the mission and vocation to lay eremitical life which is capable of speaking so poignantly to a world in need of this witness. Whether canonical or non-canonical the call is real and significant. I personally think it is important to know that experientially BEFORE one approaches a diocese for admission to public profession, and that requires time.

I also am an urban hermit. It is a term I first heard used by Thomas Merton when he reflected on the need for hermits in the unnatural solitudes of the cities. However, there were a kind of hermits in the Medieval Church in Italy known as urbani, so the term is not novel with Merton. It is an historical term, not merely a neologism, therefore, a designation which contrasted with hermits living in other situations. Evenso, the idea of urban hermits is one which some hermits reject because the idea of wilderness is being defined so differently than they are used to. However, I cannot tell you the number of ill and elderly who live lives of what could well become eremitical silence and solitude in these places (eremitical, that is, instead of isolated) --- eremitical vocations we have only just begun to recognize and understand.

For these people in particular, people who have no choice about physical solitude or leaving it for weekends, etc, the witness we hermits each give is that such unnatural physical and emotional solitudes can be redeemed and become true oases in the desert. That is, what is physical and emotional isolation can be transformed into genuine eremitical solitude. And, while I am consecrated under Canon 603 and very glad of it, I realize that it is the lay hermit who would witness more powerfully for these people. Yes, I have things to say with my life to such people because of my own circumstances, but in some ways my consecration ALSO distances me from the witness I could give them, for they know they will never seek such standing in Law (they do not FEEL CALLED TO THIS) even while they yearn to know that the lay vocation they are living right now is ultimately meaningful. A cloud of lay hermits in the church could do that and I pray that it happens in the 21st century as it did in the 3rd and 4th (etc), or the 10th and 11th C.!!

We need laity living eremitical solitude faithfully to speak in the ways only they can. It is SO very important, and actually not something I realized I would be definitively distancing myself from in various ways until after it had happened. In any case, hermits are hermits, and whether consecrated (made part of the consecrated state by God through his Church) or lay, both are real, both are significant and inspired, both speak to our world and church in their own ways. Part of the problem is that we really still are suffering from the failure to esteem the lay vocation. We misunderstand the notion of states of perfection and refer to some vocations per se as higher than others --- again misunderstanding and misconstruing what SHOULD REALLY be meant by such feeble and dangerous language. The Church has not completely managed to free herself from this tendency, or from associating the notion of status with higher and lower levels of contribution to the life of the Body of Christ and to the world. If we do manage to free ourselves from these things I predict it will be non-canonical or lay hermits who are pivotal in the achievement. But that means, at the very least, refusing to buy into the notion that Canon 603 eremiticism is better or more genuine than non-canon 603 eremiticism. It is different in its responsibilities and witness, but not better.

[[I thought it was a strange mentality to have towards others, it was wounding and hurtful to me and for a number of years I considered not living this call on my heart for fear of their words being true and I was not worthy to be mimicking others in such a way or worse, that I was offending in some way Our Holy Mother Church by my actions!. Your words are surely Spirit led, especially in these times of changes and concerns, where there sometimes seems to be more church closings than vocations.]]

There seem to be more church closings than new RELIGIOUS vocations, which is what I know you meant, but vocations per se? Not at all. Again, as I posted a few days ago, we are so used to associating the term vocation with religious vocations or vocations to the priesthood that we do not adequately esteem what it means to be called to LAY life. And again, apart from Vatican II, the Church hierarchy has not always been helpful in correcting or rectifying this lack. Instead she has underscored it and we are reaping the harvest of that as we speak. She has also contributed to the mistaken idea that only religious with vows of celibacy, etc., REALLY live lives of prayer, of wholehearted generosity and self-gift. Most of us are called to lay vocations, and that means most hermits as well. It would be wonderful to see the widespread recognition that this is a HUGELY significant vocation and to watch it flourish.

Many thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me. Continue to take hold of your eremitical vocation and see where the Holy Spirit leads. The need for hermits in our contemporary world cannot be overstated but only a few of these will be called to the consecrated state of life. After all, that is not really where the need is most outstanding, I think. Wherever the Spirit leads it is to a REAL vocation and REAL eremitism. There is no doubt about that.

Sincerely,
Sister Laurel, Er Dio
Stillsong Hermitage

Questions on your Rule of Life. It is Missing!

[[Hi Sister O'Neal. I have been reading your blog regularly for some time and I was looking for some of the older posts you had put up from your own Rule of Life. I can't locate them though. Did I mistakenly miss them? I have been writing a Rule and wanted to compare what I have with yours.]]



LOL! I have been waiting for someone to complain (or ask anyway) about the missing posts! Over the past year I have received a number of requests for assistance in writing a personal Plan or Rule of Life. Several of these (three quite recent and not counting your question) were from serious candidates for Canon 603 profession. In the meantime I have worked on a couple of serious revisions of my own Rule which still need to be incorporated and approved by my Bishop, and I also am working on a project which would provide an eremitical Rule and essays on aspects of the contents -- sort of a Rule and Commentary -- as a model for those interested in writing and living their own, for whatever the reason. (As noted in other posts, many could benefit from writing such a Rule, and my own Rule has been used by non-hermit seniors who live alone and deal with many of the dynamics of the hermit.) In discussing the project with my diocesan delegate about a month ago we talked about publishing a kind of "how to" book on writing a Rule, and while I could not do that precise thing I could address some of the issues involved which hermit candidates should consider in undertaking the writing of a Rule. That is the project on hand and I am pretty excited about it.

Because of this project, and my hope to publish my own Rule as a piece of it, along with concern about giving too much assistance to folks , I have removed my own Rule from this site for the time being. While I want to assist people in writing Rules, I am completely convinced of the messy but undeniable wisdom of the person muddling through until they come up with their own Rule, and that includes doing as many drafts as it takes to come to clarity on what they are living and why. Writing is a creative act --- we all know this. But what some may not understand, especially if they do not spend much time writing, is that writing is also an act where we come to know things which were hitherto unclear or even completely unknown. We write to learn, not simply to share what we already know.

Further, as I noted in a couple of earlier posts, it remains the case that dioceses look to the quality and content of the Rule to assist in discernment of a vocation to diocesan (C 603) eremitical life. Now, I know that my rule of life gets lots of hits by readers as does the key phrase "writing a Rule of Life" and I suspect some will miss these posts. Hopefully I can restore them when the project is finished or largely completed. I am hoping to do this in several months. For now, I am sorry for the inconvenience and offer my thanks for your patience. In the meantime, if you have specific questions or are struggling with some particular issue, feel free to write me about it. If I can help, I will be happy to do so.

Questions On Stricter Separation from the World

I received the following questions by email and have decided to answer the followup ones here. The initial exchange is also included to provide context.

[[I have read a little on your website and I am curious about your interpretation of "stricter separation" in Canon 603. There is a lot of discussion among eremites as well as non eremites. Do you feel that the concept of what one might call "traditional eremitic life" is not possible to live in this century in terms of stricter separation? Just questions that have cropped up over time.]]

I am afraid, you will need to define your terms better for me to answer you. . . . What is "traditional stricter separation" to your mind? I find the term actually has had many legitimate variations and degrees over the centuries, so if you have a particular idea you need to spell that out. I believe that eremitical life is completely possible in most of its traditional forms (Stylites is one form that is probably less possible or even desirable today though certain ecoactivists still embrace it in order to save stands of trees), however, the way one defines "world" in the phrase "stricter separation from the world" is, as it was in the day and counsel of St Isaac of Nineveh, something that requires definition, otherwise, we will actually misunderstand the nature of eremitical life, including completely reclusive eremitical life --- and note that while the Canon can include reclusion, it does not need to mean this. What it DOES mean has to be determined by the individual hermit, her Bishop, director, delegate, and the Holy Spirit. This is where it becomes important to know the legitimate variations in the way eremitical silence and solitude has been lived out through the last 19 centuries in particular.

[[ What I am asking is how does one understand the mind of the church when it comes to the term "stricter separation as used in Canon 603. Can one live that "stricter separation" as understood by the church in the 21st Century. Somehow one's own interpretation of this canon law can reflect a great deal of confusion as to what eremitic life is about as understood through the centuries. Do Bishops and those whose counsel they would seek (to determine a candidate for this life) truly understand the vocation as understood in the mind of the church? For instance, if a bishop were to seek the counsel of a religious of the diocese regarding the rule and plan of life. Let us say one who does not understand what the mind of the church is in this regard - then the rule and plan of life might be accepted based on the necessary canonical wording, but not necessarily the charism of the life. We have in our diocese a sister hermit who basically promised to live the life and was received by the Bishop with no rule or plan of life, which is the second part of the canon. Eremitic life as experienced through the centuries and I speak of solitaries, not
lauras, seems to be more specific in terms of its tradition than what I see in this day and time. Hence the question.]]

First, remember that Canon 603 is only 25 years old. It was included in the Revised Code of Canon Law in October 1983 and had never been part of any previous code. (In fact, the eremitical life per se was never included in the Code as far as I know. Eremitical life, if it was provided for at all, was provided for in proper law, that is, in the Rule and Constitutions of individual orders and Congregations). The point here is that we are not speaking about a canon which may have become anachronistic over time therefore, but something meant to accommodate the experience of the church precisely as she neared the 21st century and sought to provide for hermits in contemporary terms. As far as the mind of the Church goes, it is up to the Bishops, canonists, hermits themselves and their directors all listening to the Holy Spirit to determine together what stricter separation from the world will and will not mean in each case. There is no single established meaning although there are certainly recognized parameters which excludes part-time or casual eremitism. Bishops are primarily responsible for discerning the presence of such vocations in their dioceses. Had the Church as a whole meant absolute reclusion, she would have said so in the canon. However, she did not.

Instead she used a relative term, "stricter separation" rather than "strict separation" or "absolute separation" and again, she is guided by the entire history of eremitical and monastic life in her understanding of this. Had she envisioned such a vocation for those who were not required to work at all to sustain themselves, she would have said so, and made provisions for the church supporting her hermits. And of course, she has done neither. In any case, in this matter, one understands the mind of the church precisely by listening to her Bishops. After all, it is significant that the responsibility for discernment of new forms of consecrated life (C 605) is placed directly in the hands of Bishops and immediately following both Canons 603 and 604, which were included in Canon law only for the first time in 1983. THIS is the mind of the Church on this matter and I suspect most Bishops meet their responsibility well.

As for canonical wording, there is, so far as I know, no fixed canonical wording required for a hermit's Rule. (There are fixed elements for the vow formulae but even then the candidate writes her own vows and this is a different matter.) Yes, canonists pass on the document to be sure it meets certain standards, but a number of others (Vicars, vocation directors, spiritual directors, priors and prioresses, etc) do the same and it is a completely individual document. No one gives the candidate a list of formulae to include or even a list of elements which should be addressed. Because of this, and especially because the Rule is so completely individual, the rule can be used to primarily guide discernment of the vocation. The Bishop's approval is the final and incredibly important step in a rather long process of discernment and evaluation, and the least part of that is vetting the Rule for canonical muster. Far more important is the Rule's capacity to reflect and nurture the nature and quality of the person's eremitical life. Thus, it is possbile for a Rule to be judged acceptable for purposes of the Canon at the same time a candidate is not admitted to profession. The contrary is also true. While Vicars, et al, meet and generally speak regularly with the candidate after she has become a serious candidate, it is the Rule itself which ordinarily serves as a definitive element in discernment.

Again, the charism of eremitical life can be reflected and lived out in a variety of ways. This has been true throughout the history of the Church and it remains so now. As I noted in my earlier response, the eremitical tradition is quite varied and that includes, but is not limited to solitary hermits. St Romuald would be a good example of this. The same is true of St Francis, as well as of hermits who became Popes, etc. etc. The hermit vocation has never been a one size fits all kind of thing eventhough the broad strokes are the same. There are standards for physical solitude without which a person will not even be considered a serious candidate, but what true eremitical solitude consists in, again, Bishops themselves determine by speaking to other Bishops re their own experience in the matter, to established (canonical) Congregations like the Camaldolese, diocesan hermits and their delegates, as well as by steeping themselves in the history of eremitical life in the past and present. Solitude is also a matter of the heart, and how a hermit defines "stricter separation" will be apt to change and develop over time based on what is required for the individual to maintain THIS solitude. Remember that eremitical life is a living reality, hence Bishops will be careful but also open to forms which differ in small ways from others but which share the same broad strokes. Again though, it is up to Bishops to determine what is the mind of the Church in these matters. More strongly put, it is up to Bishops to establish the mind of the Church over time and with experience, for they are the ones seeing, discerning, and guiding these vocations. Rome's understanding of these matters will depend on her Bishops' experience and wisdom.

By the way, please be aware that asking a diocesan hermit about the possibility of living "traditional" stricter separation from the world according to the mind of the church is a lot like asking a consecrated virgin today if it is possible to live such a life of chaste espousal to Christ in the 21st century according to the mind of the church. I would bind myself to neither (consecrated celibacy nor stricter separation from the world) if I thought that either was impossible, or that I was not living according to the mind of the church, nor would any of the hermits I personally know. The obvious answer is "Of course it is possible! Hermits, including myself, are doing it as we speak." Again, this is why I asked you what you meant by "traditional stricter separation" from the world.

Finally, regarding the Sister in your Diocese, I personally have never heard of a Bishop simply disregarding the requirements of the Canon in the way you describe. It would astonish me if it were truly the case. The Canon binds BOTH hermit and her Bishop in a mutual relationship; it would be more than a bit empty if there were no Rule guiding BOTH of them in this enterprise. Now, if the Sister is living as a hermit but NOT under Canon 603 it would be another form of eremitical story. (The Church recognizes both non-canonical and canonical hermits as valid forms of the life; only the latter requires a Rule which is approved by the person's Bishop. That said, to my mind, only an idiot would try to live such a life WITHOUT any Rule at all. That is begging for trouble.) With regard to the general situation you describe, there are other possibilities as well. For instance, this Sister could have been professed in community and be living as a hermit now while remaining part of her community or even transitioning to profession as a SOLITARY hermit under canon 603. Further, if she has been accepted as a candidate for eventual profession under Canon 603 but not yet written a Rule it would be a different and more understandable matter. There are a number of possibilities here which completely respect the provisions and requirements of the canon. Without more information it would be imprudent at best to criticize your Bishop in this regard.

Called to be a Living Temple of God

There is an online conversation about the new Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland, and it falls about the way one might expect: Traditionalists hate it, call it Protestant, non-Catholic, castigate it for lacking Catholic symbolism, gothic sensibilities, altar rails, bell towers, etc ad infinitum et ad nauseam. This morning one person (in a more generous comment) called it "nice but plain" and it got me to thinking about what is actually missing from this Cathedral in the pictures these folks are looking at (because almost none of them have actually SEEN the new Cathedral first hand). With the help of today's readings I got a good kick in the pants (it's a jeans and work tunic kind of day!!) re what is the crucial element that Cathedral itself calls for and needs so clearly.

It was an obvious answer. What is missing is the ASSEMBLY, the coming together of the "called ones" who will make up the living stones of the living Temple. Because when the assembly is present, the Cathedral pulses with a life which is palpable; it is what it is meant to be at these times. Now don't get me wrong. The Cathedral is beautiful in any case. Its symbolism is rich and clear and more traditional or truly Catholic one could not get. It is alive with light and living water (the image of the Christ of majesty is created second by second by the light that enters the cathedral through minute holes, and the baptismal font has the water contantly moving), and of course, there is also the reserved Eucharist. But this cathedral is not a museum; it is a worship space, and despite its inherent beauty and symbolism, it is built so that it is really only complete and completely alive when it is filled with worshipping Christians. The Cathedral of Christ the Light is wonderful, but it, in its own way, steps back and serves the more important reality: the Temple of living stones which are Christ "brought to full stature" as Paul's letter to the Ephesians puts the matter.

For some time the term "vocation" was something the church, at least in practice, associated solely with religious and clergy. We all remember this and may see signs of it today. In fact, bits of this way of thinking and viewing things may still reside in our own hearts and prevent us from taking our lives as seriously as God does (and as he desires we do as well!). To "have a vocation" meant to be called to religious or priestly life. Nothing else was honored with the term "vocation" --- not marriage, not single life. Vocations were understood as wonderful things, to be highly esteemed, but only a relative few were thus called by God. The result was inevitable: those NOT called to religious life or priesthood came to see their own lives as less important or significant in God's eyes. They were taught that religious life is a "higher vocation" (a misunderstanding of the idea of relative "states of perfection") and naturally, they heard in their heart of hearts that their own vocation (if they could even apply that word effectively!) was "lower" or second class.

Today's readings cut the heart out of such a practice and undergird the changes that were achieved at Vatican II in this regard. Each of us is called by NAME to be --- that is, simply to be is a response to a call of God --- and more, each of us is called to be part of the very inner life of God --- called to take a place within his very life even as we allow him to reside more and more fully within us and fill our own lives with being and light. It does not matter whether we are religious, hermits, priests, or laity; each of us is called to be this living temple of God and living stones in the larger Temple which is the People of God. Awareness of this tremendous dignity and challenge is at the root of all truly prayerful and faithful living. It leaves no room for thinking of oneself or one's vocation as second class --- nor for thinking that one's vocation is "higher" than another's.

As the first reading from Ephesians affirms: "You are no longer strangers or sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God. . .[through Christ you are being built into a structure which] is held together and grows into a Temple sacred in the Lord; in Him you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

Imagine being a temple of the Spirit! The place where the Holy Spirit dwells in our world! Imagine really being people of prayer, not because we undertake an activity called prayer once or even several times a day, but because the Word speaks and the Spirit breathes in us in a way which MAKES us God's own prayers --- for remember, prayer is not what we do, but what God does in us. If it sounds astounding, it should, and yet, it is our everyday vocation, our call to be genuinely human, to be a dialogue between this world and God --- for that is what authentic humanity really is. Religious or eremitical life, priesthood or laity, marriage, single life, or consecrated virginity are all simply paths to this universal vocation. All of this is what Paul is referring to when he speaks of us as living stones or temples of the Holy Spirit. So imagine saying this living stone, this temple of the Holy Spirit is a first class stone, and this one is second class! Doesn't really work, does it?

The new Cathedral of Christ the Light, like any cathedral is the diocesan mother church, the seat of the Bishop. But to be complete, to be perfected in its structure and purpose it must be filled with praying people, people who are and are becoming PRAYER -- living stones in a living Temple with Christ as the capstone. If this new cathedral's symbolism of mediating the light and reality of the risen Christ between heaven and earth is to really be SYMBOLIC (which is to be more than a sign, afterall!) it must be filled with people who have themselves become dialogues between this world and God and who come together to celebrate the fact and, especially, the God who makes it continually possible. So, if the Cathedral of Christ the Light is "nice but plain" without its assembly of living stones, then that is as it should be. For, beautiful as the new cathedral is, it is a vehicle for something even more awesome --- the vocation of Christians, both individually and corporately, to realize their call to be the dwelling place of God and to be taken up into his own life at the same time, the vocation to be living stones in a Temple which will outlast (and outclass!) ANY Cathedral.

Big Sur Hermitage Safe and Monks return

Update, 27, October: The monks returned to New Camaldoli Hermitage on Saturday (October 25). At this time they expect that guests (even those just passing through and not staying overnight) will be allowed to come to the Hermitage next Friday (October 31, Halloween). Right now there is still a lot of heavy equipment on the Hermitage driveway that would make it difficult for guests to come in and for the firefighers to move the equipment around.

The Chalk Fire update posted on Inciweb this morning is apparently the last update that will be posted...that clearly means that the work is really limited to mopping up and catching a few small hotspots.

Update, 26 October: Sorry, no more recent new news about the Hermitage. However, in this case I am assuming no news is good news and that it means the projected reopening for this weekend came off without a hitch. I will be on retreat for this week (beginning this evening) and will be posting here on the blog, but I may not be in contact with others who can give me information. We'll see. Certainly if I hear anything contrary to the supposed good news I will post it here.



(23, October, 2008) More prayers are requested for the Big Sur Hermitage. The monks have evacuated but the latest news is the fire is closer to the hermitage than it has been in 50 years of fires, and is actually burning parts of the monks' property. The winds are uncertain and this adds to the danger. The fire had been almost completely contained (83%) but with the winds and change in humidity the story is different now.

A core group of monks remain at the monastery but it is uncertain how long that will be either. Others are at St Clare's retreat house in Soquel and several are at Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley. All are safe but concerned about the Hermitage.

Camaldolese Hermitage Evacuated: Chalk Fire

The following information on the evacuation of New Camaldoli Hermitage was posted on the Oblate list. The Chalk fire has been burning for some weeks, but the danger of evacuation became serious just recently. Please pray for the monks and the hermitage itself. Contributions would also be welcomed not only because the Hermitage was closed for part of the Summer due to another serious fire and evacuation and lost a great deal in ordinary and necessary revenue from retreatants, but because they will be closed to guests for another week or so now and again lose revenue.



[[New Camaldoli Hermitage was evacuated Friday 10/18 because of the threat posed by the increased activity of the Chalk Fire which has been burning south of the Hermitage since the end of September. While a week ago the fire seemed to almost entirely contained, on Thursday 10/16 the fire jumped some lines on the northern edge and hot spots were now detected in Limekiln State park located next to the Hermitage. Xasauan Today has the MODIS satellite image from Friday afternoon which anyone can view at http://xasauantoday.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chalk10-17pm.jpg. The monks are staying at St. Clare’s Retreat House in Soquel, near Santa Cruz (where they stayed in July during the earlier evacuation).

The most recent message recorded by Fr. Isaiah, the guestmaster, indicates that the Hermitage will be closed to guests at least until the weekend of October 24-26, although he also said that it is quite possible the monks will still be evacuated at that time. He did state that the monks were optimistic that the structures at the Hermitage would be protected. Four monks have remained behind at the Hermitage to work with firefighters, as well as about a half dozen of the workers employed by the community. Gordon, who is at the Hermitage, sent the following to Big Sur Kate on Sunday morning (10/19) which she posted on her blog (bigsurkate.wordpress.com):

“There are four monks remaining and about six workers including my son who chose an interesting time to come visit from Seattle. We all have faith that the hermitage will remain intact. There is good dozer line protecting us. Depending on who you ask word is that they may do a backburn from the [?] but it is not clear at least to me if/when that will happen. From within the monastery grounds we can’t see the fire. It’s just over the E/NE edge of the bowl we live in.”

The Sunday evening update (8 pm PDT on 10/19) stated:

“The firing operation which started about noon today was successful. Crews started from the dozer line approximately 2 miles north of the New Camaldoli Hermitage and burned south along the dozer line. As of this afternoon the firing had almost reached the Hermitage. Crews will continue with the firing operation into this evening as long as there is still opportunity to burn. Crews supported by helicopters and air tankers worked to hold the ridge NW of Twin Peak parallel with the Carizzo Trail. In the Limekiln State Park area, the fire is backing down slowly.

Tonight crews will continue to hold and support the firing operations. Structure protection continues in Limeklin State Park and the Hermitage. Cool temperatures and good relative humidity with light winds should result in minimal perimeter growth. Along the coast, below 1,500 ft. the marine layer will continue to be temperatures cool and moist throughout the night.”

And Big Sur Kate (who lives on a ridge south of the Hermitage and has been providing amazing first hand information for the 24 days that the Chalk Fire has burned) wrote on her blog yesterday (Sunda 10/19)“I am no fire expert, by any means, but what I witnessed today, the burn-out operation north east of the Hermitage really looked good today.”]]

Continuing in Galatians, Lections for Friday 27th Week of Ordinary Time

Today and yesterday the readings from Galatians provide the real heart of Paul's arguments. Yesterday Paul called the Galatians idiots (foolish, stupid, blind and deaf) and asked if they had been bewitched. This is no mean accusation in a world populated by demons and, as Paul sees the matter, either under the power of the Gospel (which means graced and free), OR under the power of that which is anti-God. Paul's questions are incredibly shocking, and calculated for just that purpose. As Jesus' parables are meant to disorient and reorient at fundamental levels Paul's use of really harsh characterizations and either/or thinking is meant to do the same. So many times we forget that with regard to the Gospel it really IS a matter of grace OR sin, commitment to God OR commitment to that which is contrary to God, Faith OR Faithlessness, and both Paul and Jesus remind us that fundamentally our lives can ONLY be oriented one way OR the other. As I have said before, there is no neutral stance from which we can live our lives, no safe dispassionate place from which we can approach reality. We are committed to God in Christ with all that means, OR WE ARE NOT. As today's Gospel tells us, "those who are not with me are against me, those who do not gather with me scatter."

In today's reading from Galatians Paul lays out his most fundamental insight: Christ was condemned (cursed or adjudged Godless) by the LAW. And yet, as Paul's experience of the Risen Christ clearly signified, this "Godless blasphemer" was vindicated by God and raised from the dead (from Godlessness and non-being). Either the Jews (including Paul himself) were correct and Jesus was rightly condemned and crucified under the Law (which was correctly applied!), OR they had to reevaluate the place of Law and look again at what God had done in this man Jesus. Paul's theology is clear that God is working in the ultimately weak and "godless" to reveal himself exhaustively. He KNOWS the Law was correctly, that is legally, applied, and that all that Jesus did and stood for cried out for this application. He does NOT doubt that the Law was correctly applied, nor does he think that people simply made a mistake in applying it. Rather, he sees clearly that LAW is unable to cope with what God was doing in Christ; Law falls short here (hamartia, central NT term for sin = to fall short, remember) and, in conjunction with human sinfulness, becomes the very curse it accused Jesus of being.

This is the essential reason Paul does not allow for a Gospel buttressed by Law. The good news he proclaims is the gospel where God's love goes beyond anything the Law can either bring about or legislate; it goes beyond anything human beings could imagine, much less codify. It is an imperfect and transitional form of Divine wisdom which is pedagogical or instructive (and excellent for the immature!), but which is transcended by what God is doing in his Christ, for what God is doing there is remaking human beings into a new creation, a creation where Law actually holds us back from genuinely ethical behavior. (Remember the Gospel reading on the good Samaritan!) So when Paul points out that the Gospel saves, he really means the Gospel proclaimed to us transforms our very being when it is heard, and that transformation results in a higher ethic (way of being human) than Law itself could ever legislate or even express. To combine Law and Gosepl is to compromise the very truth of the Gospel which is the good news of ultimately responsible freedom --- that is the outworking of God's empowered new creation. Either there IS a new creation in the CRUCIFIED Christ or there is NOT. Either the Law is still the way we are truly human, or it is not. To straddle the line here and build on a Gospel buttressed by Law is to deny what God was doing in Christ. Paul sees that clearly, as does the Church. That is especially clear in her choice of Gospel passages today with Luke's reference to the returning demons who come to reoccupy the once cleaned out home.

As noted above, both lections today are about the notion that with regard to the Gospel there is no room for compromise. We either build our lives on it OR on some other (and antithetical) reality. (Even Law becomes antithetical here.) Luke is especially clear here, but the remoteness of the image may puzzle us rather than make this point clear. What is all this stuff about demons being cast out and then returning with others to make the original dwelling even more unfit than originally? It all has to do with neutral stances and their impossibility when God and his Gospel are at issue. What Luke knows is that the human heart can be cleansed of that which defiles it (and these things are ALWAYS matters of our own commitment), but that if one does not replace these commitments with a genuine commitment to God and his Christ, then they will be replaced by something far worse than the original defilement.

With regard to Paul and the issue of the Law, this is probably pretty clear. Before Christ it was possible to rightly understand the Law as the ultimate wisdom and gift of God. It was not perfect (though some Jews clearly forgot this!) but it was absolutely the most exhaustive way available to give oneself to God and one's neighbor despite its limitations. But after Christ, a new wisdom (power perfected in weakness) and a better way, a more perfect and exhaustively and authentically human way existed to return oneself to God and give oneself to one's neighbors was established. It was a different wisdom and way too because it did not allow one to define neighbors in terms of those who kept the law vs those who did not, nor did it allow one to put matters of legal responsibility first (like avoiding defilement in order to serve in the Temple rather than ministering to a person fallen to bandits). It demanded a new way of seeing reality and a new heart as well. One either committed to this new way of being human, this quite literal new creation, or one did not. If one did not, and, say, one recommited oneself to the Law, then one not only adopted the more imperfect ethic, but has rejected the new person one had been remade into and all that implied with regard to Christ and God.

Moreover, since one had been remade and then failed to make the necessary commitment to this new way of being, Luke knew that one would commit oneself to something far less worthy. The human heart abhors a vacuum, so once it is freed FOR this new humanity, a commitment to something will follow. IF it is to the Law instead of God's new gift -- a new creation and the freedom of the Christian, then Law becomes an idol and a heart that was newly configured witnesses against its very self. I suppose it is a lot like a drug house being cleaned up in order to be a sign to the whole neighborhood of commitment to a new way of existence, new possibilities, new hope, new life. If the house is allowed to remain vacant after being cleansed and renewed then squatters will reoccupy it and what it becomes is a worse defilement than what originally existed. If we allow God to remake our hearts, to open them and ready them for the relatedness and commitment which is part of being truly human and then fail to commit fully to him IN HIS Gospel (and his Christ), SOMETHING and someone ELSE will SURELY take their place.

For Paul, this is the story of Law vs Gospel. There is still more to say about all this (I have not even begun to talk about conditonal vs unconditioned love and salvation by grace, for instance), and more to read in Galatians, but this was the focus of today's readings especially.

Introduction to Galatians: A look at the Pauline Lections for this week and the next

This week and part of next we are reading Galatians and I have to say it is one of my favorite letters, not simply because it is Paul at his most passionate and biting, but because it is here we see one of the greatest bits of evidence that the Church came only over time to understand the Gospel and its implications; further, because it gives us a sense that church documents do not have to be studies in compromise when the truth is at stake I find it tremendously refreshing.

Galatians is the story of a man fighting for the truth of the Gospel, a truth he knew deeply and which came to him from his experience of the risen Christ. This experience led him to understand that Jesus was truly the Son of God and God's own messiah or anointed one. It was an understanding that so completely conflicted with his former pharisaical wisdom and position, especially his rightful persecution of the Church apparently idolizing a crucified man, that it overturned everything he held dear --- not least his own love of the Law and emphasis on the need to show one is a member of the covenant people by being circumcised. For Paul, it took real courage not to compromise and accept a Law-laced Gospel, not to insist that Gentile Christians also become Jews to be the REAL covenant people, but despite his love for the his own Tradition he came to see that indeed, God was doing something really new in Christ -- even while it was consistent with the best of the Jewish Tradition.

There are so many lessons for us today in this short book that it is one of those that make me thank God it was included in the Canon. Certainly life in the church would have been much easier without it: No condemnations of Peter's hypocrisy, no examples of letting go of long-held God-given gifts (Traditions) so that God could do something new, no sustained examples of genuine conversion and apostleship despite not being among the original twelve, no sharp indictment of law and its opposition to the freedom (and spirit-breathed responsibility) of the Christian, no examples of actually going against what Jesus himself APPARENTLY held onto as necessary for the time being (circumcision!)!! (Consider this last carefully because the NT certainly does not indicate Jesus ever exempted anyone from circumcision, nor was he himself exempted --- and yet, here we have Paul arguing that maintaining the practice is insufficiently sensitive to and even undermines the truth of the Gospel! For those who argue, "Had Jesus wanted x (or not wanted x), he would have DONE x (or not done x)," Galatians is a wonderful kick in the backside.) The resurrection did indeed turn things on their heads, and cultural truths as well as God-given tradtions fell in the process. And thanks be to God this is the case, for there would be no truly catholic church had this not been the case, merely a Jewish sect stamped with a need and capacity to do great good but also marked by a kind of separateness and righteousness open to the relative few.

Yesterday's readings were a great combination: the introduction to Galatians where Paul covers briefly (and sometimes merely implicitly) all the accusations made against him and states what is at stake in the Gospel he has preached, and the Lukan version of the parable of the good Samaritan. In the Gospel from Luke we see that two men doing their duty according to the Law avoid what looks like (and could well be) a dead man. The Law demanded they not defile themselves in this way, and further, that they take care of their temple duties. Hence, they passed by the injured man. Yes, the Law allowed for intervening in life and death situations, but it also leaves a lot of room for casuistry: note the scholar of the Law's final question to Jesus: "who is my neighbor?" Jesus' own ethic leaves no room for such casuistry: the one who loves even the least as God loves has discovered who is the real neighbor, and has acted as one himself. There is nothing more important than this love, no piety which is more demanding. This is a love that law cannot legislate and is dependent upon a freedom law does not give or (sometimes) even allow. It is an extravagant love that calls for no compromises beyond the canny shrewdness of the Samaritan's generosity. What Paul will be arguing to the Church in Galatia this week and the next is precisely this point: The Gospel gives is the freedom of Christ, a deeply responsible freedom which far exceeds the freedom of the Law. We combine it with Law at our own peril, but most significantly at the peril of the Gospel itself.

For now, let me make one point clear which was at the heart of things for Paul: if Christ has really been raised from the dead and vindicated by God, then nothing could go unchanged or without reevaluation. The Law especially and its place in the life and piety of Jews and Gentiles could not go unchallenged, for it was according to the Law that Jesus was crucified as a blasphemer and stigmatized as Godless. It was according to the Law that Paul persecuted Jewish Christians. It is either Law OR Gospel for Paul, because he knew that either Jesus is the risen Christ killed by the Law, or what was done to him was not only legal but the correct way to deal with a blasphemer. Galatians is largely the story of what happens when Paul, as the result of his experience of the Risen Christ, sees this clearly and others do not, but instead try to compromise between Law and Gospel.

I will try to post several more times this week (and next) looking at the daily lections and the challenges posed by Paul's letter to the Galatians. For now let me encourage readers to really spend some time rereading it in the next ten days. If you are looking for a readable and inexpensive but good commentary to use with it try NT (Tom) Wright's Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians. James Dunn's The Theology of the Letter to the Galatians is also quite good, and Sacra Pagina's volume on Galatians is excellent, of course. For readability though, Tom Wright's books are nearly unbeatable.

Feast of St Francis of Assisi

My God and My All! Deus Meus et Omnia! All good wishes to my Franciscan Sisters and Brothers on this patronal feast! I hope it is a day filled with Franciscan joy and simplicity and that this ancient Franciscan motto echoes in your hearts. In today's world we need more than ever a commitment to Franciscan values, not least a commitment to treasure God's creation in a way which fosters ecological health. Genesis tells us we are stewards of this creation and it is a role we need to take seriously. Francis reminds us of this commission of ours, not least by putting God first in everything. (It is difficult to exploit the earth in the name of consumerism when we put God first, and in fact, allow him to be our God and our All!)

Another theme of Francis's was the rebuilding of the Church and he came to know that it was only as each of us embraced a life of genuine holiness that the Church would be the living temple of God it was meant to be. Having just come from the dedication of our new cathedral and then reading a series of comments by those who denounce everything about it as "protestantized", ugly, etc ad nauseam --- all without ever seeing the place --- I know that the church needs rebuilding. We are a divided household, so it is appropriate that we begin lections on Monday from Paul's letter to the church in Galatia where he takes on those who try to substitute a law-laced Gospel which require Gentile Christians to become practicing Jews as though baptism needs be supplemented by circumcision and the church is to be composed of two classes of Christians, the traditional (circumcized) remnant and the gentiles who lack in externals what the law requires --- nevermind the state of their heart or the truth of their adoption by God. As Paul knew, THIS was the true blasphemy.

But both Paul and Francis knew that if they truly put God and his Christ first what would be built up was a new family, a new creation, undivided and of a single heart. So, in a broken world, and an ailing church, let us learn from these two "fools for Christ" and rebuild in Christ a living temple of unity and love. Again, all good wishes to my Franciscan Sisters and Brothers! I am off to read Chesterton's biography of St Francis, I think.

Petitionary and Intercessory Prayer: Forming the Communion of Saints

The following questions were raised on a listserve by someone looking for answers there and in other places; she is someone struggling with basic and very significant questions of faith. The ones given below deserve some attention, mainly because petitionary and intercessory prayer are difficult for most of us, and because looking at them can be instructive on prayer in general.

[[Most of my prayers are either "me" prayers (God, help me out here, or What a gorgeous morning--way to go), or "formula" prayers (Our Father, Hail Mary, etc). And for the most part, all of my prayers occur in solitude or in the context of liturgy at church. Outside of those types and locations of prayer, I'm uncomfortable, self-conscious, even skeptical. . .When others ask me to pray for them, I do, and occasionally I'll pray for others without being asked, but I have trouble with it. First off, I don't understand intercessory prayer, how it works. Will God only help someone if he's asked to in prayer? If I don't pray for someone, will God say, in effect, Well, no one is praying for Fred, so I guess he's on his own?

And if I do pray for someone, what exactly am I supposed to be asking God for? And what about prayers that are ignored? You can tell me that in that last case, the prayer wasn't ignored, that the answer was "no", but if the answer is no, then the prayer was pretty much useless, at least in terms of outcome for the person prayed for. What if I pray that so-and-so is healed, but that isn't what God thinks is best? And if I simply pray that God's will be done in someone's life, it seems to me a pointless prayer. Isn't God's will going to be done in that person's life regardless of what I pray? . . .Can someone give me their take on intercessory prayer, and how it works? ]]

Pretty common questions aren't they? I think we need to look at the role of asking questions and what happens there in order to understand intercessory prayer. Also, we need to look at the meaning of the admonition that "whatever we ask in Christ's name" will be done for us. After that, it make sense to look at some of the standard objections raised about intercessory prayer, whether raised above or in other places.

What does it mean to ask for something? A look at the Questions we are and pose:

So, first, what does it mean to ask someone for something? what happens in the asking? Is there more than the simple transaction of information involved and why is it especially important in prayer? Again and again I have written in this blog that human beings are relational in nature. God speaks and we ourselves and all we embody are the response. We look for and need this Word to bring us to this point of response. In other terms we ourselves are the question and God is the answer. We are incomplete without him just as a question is incomplete without a response, and especially an adequate response which demonstrates the meaning of the question as it answers it. (Have you ever had a teacher or professor who took a question of yours and answered it in a way which made you realize the question was far more profound than you thought it was? This is what I mean here. God does this with our lives drawing out the depths of meaning embodied there bringing them to articulation.)

Of course, it is also possible to receive an answer which convinces one of her stupidity and worthlessness, an inadequate answer which takes advantage of one's vulnerability, an answer which demeans and denigrates and points more to the failure of the teacher than to the student's own capacities. Still, questions are gateways to transcendence, and a good teacher (or a good parent, for instance) will answer them in a way which unlocks many of the hidden meanings or facets they contain or imply. She or he will unmask the real depths of the question and demonstrate its capacity for mediating mystery in all of its various depths. In so doing she will also affirm the capacity for meaning and transcendence which is the questioner herself.

Questions imply vulnerability and an openness to transcendence then. They are acts in which we risk ourselves and our further growth. They are the way in which we move beyond where we stand at the moment. (Two examples point up this capacity: first consider a time when you didn't know enough to even ask a question; you may have felt helpless, confused, and stuck --- and rightly so. Questions are the normal way we move into the future. Secondly, consider the little child whose questions are incessant. S/he is experiencing a veritable explosion of transcendence and growth, and questions are the means to this.) Further, questions are the way in which we open ourselves not simply to more information, but to the possibility of being heard where we are deficient and taken seriously as human beings. They are the way in which we reveal our own deepest and unmet needs, inadequacies, limitations and aloneness.

When we ask questions on behalf of someone we care about, we join our own faith and vulnerability to their's and on their behalf. We make sure that they are not alone in their neediness, and further, that our own faith and vulnerability can be of service to them giving them a place to stand which might not be available to them otherwise. In particular they acquire a conscious place in our own relationship with God (that is WE consciously include them in this relationship) which therefore changes our own relationships with God and the other. If they know of our prayer then their own relationship with God may also be changed. When we ask questions of God, particularly when we lay our truest needs before him we bring ourselves and give at least tacit permission for him to be the reply we need in what ever way he perceives is required and wills to be.

It is interesting to me that questions imply both knowledge and ignorance. We must know enough to ask the question, but at the same time we must require more information or knowledge in a way which makes a question necessary. In other words knowledge makes a question possible, but ignorance or lack makes a question necessary; questions are always rooted in both. Being and non being, sufficiency and need, immanence and transcendence, all of these make up the ambiguous reality we know as questions. They make us up as well. Is it any wonder theologians reflect on the human being as a question? Learning to honestly pose the questions we are (and in fact, to pose aspects of the questions others are) is an important part of all prayer.

Praying in the Name of Jesus: What does and doesn't this mean?

A number of months ago I told a story about a young girl who had attended an Evangelical summer camp. Included in the out takes were justaposed two tremendously ironic images. The first was of the camp director pontificating about the evils of Harry Potter, magic and especially the notion of spells and incantations. The second one was of a young girl who had just been taught to ask for anything at all in the name of Jesus, being assured that she would receive that. The girl was bowling and had just thrown a rather hopeless ball that was heading for the gutter rather than the pins. So, she began jumping up and down yelling, "In the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus, GO STRAIGHT!!!" In other words, this young girl was giving a perfect example of INCANTATION; she was doing as taught, but what she had been taught was not invocation as Scripture asks and empowers us to undertake; it was not faith but magic. In short it was a way of making void the Word of the Lord, and had nothing to do with authentic prayer.

How often do we tack the formula "we ask this in the name of Jesus (etc)" onto the end of our prayers as the magic key which will be sure we are heard? Because this tends to be a formulaic addition to all our prayers (and for Catholics, something which precedes all of our prayers as well) we might forget the deeper reality it points to. We might forget what it actually means. Name and person in Jesus' day, culture, and language are identical realities; the Jews did not have a concept of person per se, but they did have that of Name. To pray in the name of God is to pray in the person and power of God. It is to undertake prayer under the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit. It is to pray as Christ prayed and to become in our prayer part of who Christ was and is yet. What is imperative to remember here then is what Christ was about: his entire life was meant to implicate God into every facet and dimension of human life so that nothing separated his creation from him and would be brought to fulfillment/perfection in him. Our own prayer is ALWAYS meant to be a participation in this process, a participation in this BEING of Christ, this INCARNATION of God.

Thus, when we are told that whatever we pray for in the Name of Jesus will be granted, it qualifies our prayers quite a bit. While it may narrow what we ask for (we will not likely pray for a million dollars, or the newest electronic toy if we pray in the power and presence of Christ), it also challenges (and empowers) us to pray as Christ prayed and opens an entire world of prayer to us that would not be opened if our prayer remained self-centered and undertaken on our own power. The same narrowing and broadening happens when we realize that God himself is the answer to EVERY prayer, and that is especially true of every prayer undertaken in Jesus' name. The things we ask for are always secondary to the gift of God's own self: healing ALWAYS comes with the presence of God, even if it is not the specific form of healing we seek. Completion, security, consolation, joy, peace ALWAYS come with the presence of God, nor do they come to us without God's presence. Thus, it is not that God gives us these things apart from himself. It is that he gives us himself and we mark that gift by looking at these signs of that presence.

By the way, I suspect that some prayers "fail" because they are petitions for certain things but NOT for God himself. I can imagine some prayers asking for healing, or well-being, or security, or consolation from grief, etc, but at least implicitly the person is NOT asking for God himself. I can imagine the entire prayer (if the person was completely honest) sounding like: "God give me freedom from pain, but please don't give me yourself; I am not looking for that! I'm not ready for that!!" Ordinarily we don't express the negative portions of our petitions, but I think we ought to; they reveal another part of our hearts that we often ignore or deny. In any case, such prayers are simply not sufficiently open, nor are they sufficiently humble or generous, and yet, they still can be the work of the Holy Spirit and shine a light into the dark parts of our hearts thus serving to open us to the answer we really require --- God himself.

Back to the Questions Asked

So, with this background, how would I answer the questions posed regarding intercessory prayer? The first ones were: [[First off, I don't understand intercessory prayer, how it works. Will God only help someone if he's asked to in prayer? If I don't pray for someone, will God say, in effect, Well, no one is praying for Fred, so I guess he's on his own? ]]

And the answer to these is no, God is working constantly to bring his creation to fulfillment and completion. He does not WAIT for our prayer to start working. He does not leave us alone even in the depths of our sin. Our prayer, to the extent it is genuine, is a result of his working not only around us, but in our very hearts. Our prayers are indications of openness, of vulnerability and need; they are signs of love, whether of others, ourselves, life, or God and his Kingdom. And, as noted above, they may also be signs of what we are actually closed to. In all these things they remain the work of the Holy Spirit shaping and empowering us.

The second group of questions went as follows: [[And if I do pray for someone, what exactly am I supposed to be asking God for? And what about prayers that are ignored? You can tell me that in that last case, the prayer wasn't ignored, that the answer was "no", but if the answer is no, then the prayer was pretty much useless, at least in terms of outcome for the person prayed for. What if I pray that so-and-so is healed, but that isn't what God thinks is best? And if I simply pray that God's will be done in someone's life, it seems to me a pointless prayer. Isn't God's will going to be done in that person's life regardless of what I pray?]]

I guess my best answer to these is first, we pray for the person themselves, not for this or that thing, but for THEM. Then, yes, we pray for their needs, both those we are aware of and those we are not, but again, only as a piece of praying for THEM, for the persons they are called to be. Finally, we pray that God might do what he wills to do. We pray that God might REALLY be God, THEIR GOD and our own. (In saying this I mean that we ask that God be powerfully and effectively present in our lives in ways which allow his will to be Father, Creator and Redeemer to be fulfilled.) In all these things we admit that we do not know what is best for the person, nor do we know God's will (except generally that he wills to love them and be present to them in a communion which will give eternal life and bring creation to completion). We trust that our petitions are important for the risk, vulnerability, and love they indicate even if they are completely off-base in what they specifically request. We trust that even then they help bring about the Communion of Saints; even then they join us and God to others and ourselves in new and deepening ways; even then they help in the completion of Christ's mission, and this is true even when they seem not to have been answered.

In fact, God's will may NOT be done in a person's life without us and our prayer. It is not automatic. Partly that is because our prayer, love, and communion is PART of what God wills for them. He wills that we love others in this way, and that each of us are enfolded in a web of prayer grounded in and inspired by him. But partly it is because neither can God simply force himself on us or those we love. Openings must be granted to him and this is precisely what intercessory and petitionary prayers do even while they are also empowered by the Holy Spirit. When I try to understand petitionary and intercessory prayer myself I know, for instance, that in participating in the prayer chain in my parish, while I certainly pray all the specific requests that come to me and am overjoyed when someone is healed, etc, I am often more impressed with the community that is formed with each and every act of sharing, vulnerability, concern, love, risk, and support. Someone's pain may not be relieved in the way they or I and others hoped or conceived, but their place in the Communion of Saints has deepened, and the parish community as such becomes more the Reign of God here on earth --- just as it should be. Specific petitions are not unimportant, of course, but they are an essential part of a larger picture and pattern which must always be borne in mind.

Well, this is pretty long and still probably inadequate. I hope some aspects of it are helpful though to those trying to understand petitionary or intecessory prayer.