Follow-up on Part-time Eremitical Life

Well, I've riled some feathers in responding to questions about the "Saturday-only" hermit. Mainly, I think I have been misheard or misunderstood so I am going to post the comments received and try once again to make clear what I am and am not saying.

[[For heaven's sake, the life of the monastic or hermit is not holy orders. I don't think you have the right to claim that if one's particular vocation in that mileau (sic) is not precisely what has developed heretofore (or, considering how canon law develops, which flavor or style of the life 'won out' over others) that they ought to go back and reconsider their baptismal vows. My goodness, what an uncharitable remark. My mother is a Ph.D. in nursing; is she a better nurse than a first year? She'd be the first to tell me, after 45 years in nursing, it depends on the nurse. All of your arguments in your responding post seem to follow the fallacy that more time in service or more closely aligned with a particular mode of canon law makes one a better hermit. Bah. Is my close friend, a Jesuit of 50 years a better priest than the newest member? Is a Saturday only theologian better than a 7-day-per-week theologian (frankly a closer analogy since neither involve a sacrament)?]]

I am honestly not sure what I said that was uncharitable in suggesting that anyone in the lay state (or for that matter anyone in any state) reconsider their baptismal promises and commitments. The situation I was addressing was this: there is a failure throughout the church to esteem the lay state, to see it as possessing the dignity it does. What has happened over time and for a number of reasons (including the clericalization of the church) is that when adults desire to make adult commitments to and in Christ they look not first to their baptismal promises (or even to their marriage vows) and to specifiying those vows as needed at this point in time, but automatically to the idea of multiplying vows (and so making private or public vows) as the only form of adult commitment possible besides ordination. Sometimes these even conflict with marriage vows as when married people seek to make vows of celibacy.)

Further, because the Church has consistently given the impression or explicitly stated because of a misreading of Thomas that the laity are in an inferior state of vocation, those who really desire to live the fullness of discipleship have come to believe it will only be possible for priests, nuns, brothers, sisters, monks, hermits, and consecrated virgins --- and not as lay persons. But this is untrue. Vatican II was clear about this. The lay state is part of a universal call to holiness, an adult and exhaustive form of holiness which glorifies God every bit as much as any other vocation or state of life. How it is uncharitable to ask people to START here, and if they are in the lay state to take responsibility for that and for the call to holiness and the dignity of this vocation, I really can't see. This has nothing to do with hermits or non-hermits. It is a problem in the church as a whole, and a quite serious one. We have hundreds of thousands of lay people who believe their vocations are second-class or juvenile and less exhaustive forms of discipleship than those of nuns, brothers, priests, etc. They live and are pained everyday by the sense that their call from/by God is an inferior one. I have simply said this is not the case. The Church has emphatically said this is not the case. So I don't see this as uncharitable but charitable.

I do not know why the discussion morphed into terms of better/worse or younger/older either. I have tried assiduously to reject characterizations framed in terms of better and worse. For instance, I have written time and again that consecrated hermits are no better than lay hermits, but rather that the rights and obligations they have in the Church because of their canonical standing are different. Again, I think we are seeing in your comments the deeply entrenched holdover from the misapplied scholastic language of "objective superiority". That is especially true of your comment that neither monastic nor eremitical lives are holy orders or matters of a Sacrament -- as though that makes them less significant. It does not. For certain, the better/worse language did not come from my posts because in regard to vocations and states of life I reject it absolutely. Thomas also rejected this language and so he drew careful arguments noting that an objectively superior state of life does NOT mean a subjectively better or more holy Christian. Today, the solution needs to be formulated differently than Thomas did; the various states of life are different from one another, with different rights, obligations, and responsibilities, but none are better than the others. Each one is rooted in a call by God and is invested with infinite worth and dignity. Again, different, not better.

Regarding younger/older and experienced/in-experienced, there is no doubt that we all grow into our vocations. Those who wish to be hermits may begin by building in silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world. In and of itself this does not make them a hermit. At some point solitude herself MAY open the door to these people and a change takes place if they accept the invitation to enter. In such a case they are no longer solitary persons grappling with the individual elements of the canon or life. Instead, they are hermits in a fundamental sense now living the silence of solitude and allowing (or learning to further allow) everything else to flow from and support that life. Once the door has been opened and one has walked through it in response, growth continues (or should continue). Meanwhile, the central reality of these persons' lives -- the silence of solitude which is a short hand reference to union with God and the quies that flows from it --- will call for greater external silences, stricter separation from the world, etc. Again, not better or worse, but different!

[[And please, Sister, let's not use the straw man fallacy. Comparing a person's Saturday only eremitc life with a saturday only state of motherhood is pathetic. Sorry, it is. Do I need to spll (sic) it out? If one has committed one's heart to a solitary life as best as they are able, but it involves work outside the home, what is that to you? A mother and spouse have an entirely other promise--of course they don't get (much) time off. The point is that I am and many are pushing the meaning of words and of particular callings. You are not, and neither is canon law, the first or last word on what constitutes an eremitic life. You certainly are the last word on what it constitutes to you and those of your persusion or particular charism, but that's it. Period. Don't lay down roadbloacks to others. The fact that is that there IS a groundswell, a grass-roots movement of folks, in the married or other secular states looking for a deeper commitment to their spiritual development, with expression in their lifestyle and self-styling--they are allowed to use old words in new ways. Especially when they don't impinge on the nature of the sacramental forms.

I think the analogy holds. If a person babysits a child once a week, that does not make her a Mother no matter how badly she would like to be one. If a person lives an eremitical or desert day once a week, this does not make her a hermit or desert dweller no matter how much she would like to think it does. The illustrations can be multiplied: if a person leads a Communion Service once a week (or even several days a week) on his pastor's day(s) off, this does not make him a priest or pastor (though he may be very priestly and pastoral). If a person prays contemplatively once a week this does not make them a contemplative. A person who spends a day a week at a monastery or enclosed in their own house is not necessarily a monk or nun who lives a cloistered life. It is simply not appropriate or accurate to speak of a Saturday-only eremitical LIFE as you have done --- unless you are speaking about a hermit who is actually failing to live her call to a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and separation from the world, etc. Here the distinction another diocesan hermit once drew might be helpful: many people are called upon to build in elements of eremitical spirituality in their lives, but this does not make them hermits nor argue that they are called to eremitical life per se. Put another way we could say that some people's lives have an eremitical flavor or cast without being eremitical lives.

You can and probably should feel free to push the meaning of words all you like, but in doing so you need to beware of emptying them of meaning altogether and making them incapable of communicating anything substantive. You should also not be surprised however when the onus of demonstrating the legitimacy of your usage falls directly on you. Whether we like it or not, the Church has a normative understanding of what constitutes eremitical life. Those of us who live that from the inside know the wisdom of this definition. We know from the inside what the struggles and joys of FULL-TIME silence of solitude, etc, mean -- as opposed to a single desert day a week -- for instance. There is simply no comparison. Both are good, but they are also not the same thing, and they require different names as a result. The Church's normative statement (Canon 603) has been formulated in a way which ensures certain non-negotiable and foundational elements even while it allows flexibility and diversity in expression. You are mistaken then if you believe canon law is not open to newness in this regard, and you are certainly mistaken if you say that I am not. However, to push words in ways where they may mean anything one would like is simply to ensure they mean nothing at all.

As I have written now a number of times, a hermit who needs to work outside the hermitage on a part-time basis is not ideal but this can still be made to work on a case by case basis. However, someone who needs to work FULL-TIME, especially outside the hermitage has, I sincerely believe, ceased in essential ways to live the fundamental elements which define the life. Meanwhile, back to the Saturday-only example which is even more troublesome:  one day a week of contemplative prayer, silence and solitude is NOT an eremitical LIFE. It is a wonderful and helpful thing, but it is not what Canon 603 (or the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the whole eremitical tradition) recognizes as an eremitical LIFE. The reason this is important is because the Church recognizes eremitical life as she discerns it is to be defined as a pastoral gift to the Church and world. (See  below.)

[[So, I think we should just agree to disagree. I guess it comes down to who is the more accepting here? What is the most compassionate response? For that matter, why don't you go back and consider your own baptismal vows---why weren't they enough? What makes your life intrinsically 'other' than other's? It doesn't sound very nice the other way, does it?]]

While we may agree to disagree, there is a distinction between being genuinely accepting and merely being uncritical and uncaring of meaning or truth. Compassion requires that we be truly loving, and it is not loving to allow a person to live a lie, or to empty meaningful terms of content when that content is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and World. Canon 603 is such a gift. It defines the nature of eremitical life in a world and at a time when dislocation, isolation, alienation, and the search for meaning in our isolation and alienation are rampant. Even so, it is a canon which allows for great diversity even while (and perhaps because) it clearly spells out foundational, or non-negotiable elements comprising authentic solitary eremitical life. It is the entire vision of eremitical life which it provides us which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to both the Church and world.

I will repeat my main point from the other post because this is the true answer to "What is it to you?" above as well. FULL-TIME hermits who have allowed isolation and marginality to be redeemed and thus transformed into the "Silence of solitude," can speak effectively to all those persons in our parishes, dioceses, neighborhoods and world who CANNOT leave their situations for time off one day a week -- those who are chronically ill, disabled, the isolated elderly, impoverished, etc. Hermits' lives are compassionate answers to many of the most significant questions these myriads of people have and are. These people need to know that their aloneness is not a sign of the senselessness of life or abandonment by God, but the ground out of which God can call them to the silence of solitude and union with himself. I don't think a person who is busy, engaged, working, socializing 5-6 days a week, and then takes a day for silence, solitude, and contemplative prayer can effectively serve in this way. Hermits, whether lay or consecrated, who live the terms of Canon 603 with the whole of their lives CAN minister to these people in a way I believe no one else can do quite as fully or effectively. I believe this ministry is part of the charism of eremitical life and a reason the life (not the avocation) is growing today. It is certainly a reason eremitical spirituality is growing today, but again, embracing elements of this spirituality does not make one a hermit anymore than my own embracing of elements of Ignatian spirituality makes me a Jesuit.

Finally then, on the question regarding my own call to something other than the lay state. This is not a new question and I have written on it before two years ago or so, so please check that out. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: My credibility regarding the Importance of the Lay Vocation My own discernment of this took several extended periods of time, and my discernment of a call to consecrated eremitical life rather than lay eremitical life took about 25 years. In answering that call finally (with perpetual profession and consecration) I did so because I felt called to accept rights and responsibilities that did not flow from baptismal commitments, but from a different call as well: I was called (both subjectively and objectively) to consecrated celibacy and a nuptial or spousal relationship with Christ, and I was called to witness to that publicly with a form of love which was more eschatological and universal than otherwise. I was called to be obedient in a way which specified my usual call to obedience with a legitimate superior, the elements of Canon Law, the Church's definition of eremitical life, etc, and again, I was called to do that publicly. The same is true of poverty. I felt called to a degree and kind of poverty which does not automatically flow from the baptismal or lay state. I found I needed this commitment to live freely what I felt called to.

But let me be clear, I did indeed live my baptismal commitments fully before this and I realized that I might well never be admitted to the consecrated state as a hermit if the Church did not agree that this was God's own Call for me AND FOR THE CHURCH. (In that case, I would need to come to terms with the idea that perhaps I had not discerned properly). In fact the Church DID agree, and mediated God's own call, my response and profession, and God's consecration to me. Had the Church said no, I would have remained in the lay state, a lay hermit, and tried to live this full-time life in a way which glorified God and gave honor to the lay state. It would have been a different life, one where I would still be doing much of what I am doing now, but with different rights and responsibilities in terms of the Church. (I need to say here that the fact that I DID come to terms with living as a lay hermit is important to who I am today as diocesan hermit and allows me to esteem lay eremitical life better than I think some do. It also allows me to appreciate the differences between the two forms of eremitical call. So again, as I well know --- these are not to be seen in terms of better or second-best, but different.)

Those different rights and responsibilities include the living out of Canon 603 with the whole of my life in as faithful a way as I can. Part of the responsibility means learning more and more about the forms and fundamentals of the eremitical life over the past @2000 years of Church life and why they are included in the canon. It means standing in that tradition and taking it on in ways which allow it to speak to the contemporary world. It does not mean emptying the term of meaning or trying to apply new senses to it before I understand from WITHIN the life and have thus accepted a personal responsibility for it. "Hermit" is not a word without history or meaning, and while the application of this meaning can certainly vary, like most things we need to accept the basic meaning and live it before we start jettisoning bits in the name of some sort of individual liberty.

I hope this clarifies some points of misunderstanding.

Feast of Christ the King: Looking at the Baptismal Call

It was hard not to think again of the issue of esteem for vocations to the lay state as I listened to the proclamation of today's second reading from Paul's Letter to the Colossians. It was especially hard not to do so as we approach Thanksgiving and celebrate the gift of citizenship in this country and the freedom it brings. All the more so should this be a day which allows us to call to mind our citizenship in the Kingdom where Christ is sovereign and the freedom and responsibilities which stem from THAT identity! Here are the words that called all this to mind for me: "Brothers and sisters: Let us give thanks to the Father, who has made you fit to share in the inheritance of the holy ones in light. He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin." In these words and those that follow (a very early hymn about Jesus as the image of the invisible God) we bring to a degree of culmination all the things we have come to share in more fully this liturgical year and we do so with gratitude.

Brothers and sisters, adopted daughters and sons of God in Christ, inheritors of the Kingdom of God that exists proleptically right here and right now in our world, those who truly image God in Christ and who recognize all of this as what it means to belong to the Laos (People) of God --- that is who we have been CALLED by God to be --- and who we are (hopefully) grateful to be --- for God's own sake, for our own, and for the sake of the Church and World. We would be none of these things without baptism. They are all implied by belonging to the lay state. In fact, they define what the lay state IS. Forgiveness of sin? Yes of course, but a forgiveness that makes us one with God through his Son and sets us apart from the rest of the world in a consecration we are called to honor.

Today in the liturgy and through the rest of the coming week we have some time to further recognize Christ as sovereign in our lives. More, we have a bit of time to invite him to become truly sovereign in our lives, time to claim the gift of Baptism more fully, time to esteem this charisma of God which is the foundation of our Christian existence, time to renew our baptismal promises and to reflect on how they oblige us to live in this world at this time now that we are adults and mature Christians. Next week we begin the liturgical year anew, so we look back this week at all the ways we have grown and failed to grow, all the ways we are grateful to God for his gifts, all the ways we have overlooked them as well.

In this regard we may find ourselves feeling a great deal of empathy for the thief who hangs next to Jesus dying and who finds in him hope for being remembered by God. In Luke's day God's remembering was not simply a kind of notional calling to mind -- akin to figuring out where we put the car keys, for instance. In Luke's world, and especially in the Semitic world, for God to remember meant for him to give life to something by holding it in his mind and heart. Remembering was very literally an act of holding in existence and in Christ holding in existence (com-prehending) was to do so in a uniquely intimate and comprehensive way which makes whole and coherent once again (as today's second reading reminds us, "He is before all things and in him all things hold together/cohere.") When, during Good Friday services we sing with this very thief, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom" we affirm him as sovereign or King and we recall the gift he gave us at baptism as we were plunged into his death and raised up with him to new life: we are the ones who were called and have been re-called; we are those who were broken and even lost and are now re-membered; we are the ones whose lives were once senseless but through baptism have been made coherent, meaningful, part of the very People (laos) of God whom he regards as uniquely precious and will never forget or let taste decay.

In these last days before the new Church and liturgical year begins please let us take the time to reflect on the meaning of our baptism (and our confirmation) and the promises that were made there: the renunciations and the affirmations or professions. This is no beginner's identity, no second class citizenship or childhood vocation, no half-hearted or pro forma adoption on God's part. Let us make sure we, no matter our vocation, both believe and embody the truth of all of this in our world! For God's grace and assistance in this for all of us, I especially pray this year.

On Esteeming the Lay State and the Multiplication of Vows

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why do you think lay people feel a need to make private vows rather than living their Baptismal consecration more fully? You seem to suggest there is a failure here and that private vows are being made without good enough reasons, as when you refer to substantive reasons being needed to justify more vows.]]

Good question, but complex too and one I can only start to answer. I think the reasons are several so let me point out some I am aware of.

First, there is the "objective superiority" language of Thomas which has mainly been misunderstood by non-Thomists (and some "neo-Thomists" as well), and which is largely beyond reach now in our time and culture. (It is not a matter of translating words but instead of translating language as a whole: mindsets, philosophical categories, etc and often this is simply impossible to accomplish for any but true experts in scholastic thought.) Because Thomas (et al) spoke of vocations to "states of perfection" in terms of "objective superiority" we naturally translate this into the dichotomous or competitive language of superiority/inferiority, better/worse, special/ordinary, higher/lower, perfection/imperfection and so forth. But, as far as I can see, Thomas eschewed language of better/worse, inferiority, imperfection, or higher/lower better than those who followed him and failed to understand him as well as they might have. Even so this language is no longer helpful and has entered our culture and especially our church in ways which make it hard to properly or adequately esteem either the lay state, and within that, the married state or dedicated single life. We truly need to find ways to esteem the gifts which these are, and especially the ways in which they witness to God's love and reveal God to the world, which do not buy into the "this-worldly" competitive language. Similarly we need to find ways to esteem the gifts of consecrated life, priesthood, etc without buying into all-too-worldly concepts and language of competitiveness and status (in the common sense of that term).


Secondly, I think that there is simply too little personal reflection on what is entailed in Baptism/Confirmation and the commitments made there by the laity themselves. The institutional Church tries to make up for (or better, perhaps, encourage) this in homilies, adult faith formation, the commissioning of ministers, the sprinkling rite and renewal of baptismal promises done at various points throughout the Church year at Mass but the responsibility for reflection and expression here falls directly on the laity. In the main this failure to reflect adequately is due to a failure to implement Vatican II as thoroughly as it required. Part of this means that Baptism is still seen mainly as something done to babies which washes away sin rather than ALSO and even primarily being an act of consecration which should be ratified throughout one's life in decisions every bit as momentous as those flowing from religious vows, ordination, and entrance into the ordained or consecrated states.

Sometimes I receive emails from people thinking about making private vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Occasionally these are from married persons who feel something driving them to do this. When we explore what is going on it almost always comes down to two things: 1) they have not reflected at all on what their baptismal promises (or consecration more generally!) requires of them NOW, and 2) they have not done anything similar with their marriage vows. Once they engage in this kind of reflection and find ways to renew and specify the meaning of these vows in the present moment there is rarely a need for additional vows. After all, the evangelical counsels are meant to be entered into in some form or expression by every Christian. Working out within the context of a marriage how poverty, chastity (chaste love), and obedience (a faithful hearkening to the Word and Presence of God in our lives) are to be exercised by both persons is a necessary exercise. What must be remembered though is that Religious vows are specifications of baptismal vows, and I would suggest that marriage vows are also specifications of baptismal vows. They oblige us to reflect on this foundational commitment and to specify it further in our lives.

It may not be realized by most people, but religious vows are not made and then set aside as wholly understood or exhaustively entered into on the day of profession. (Though neither do I mean they are only half-heartedly or partially entered into on this occasion!) What I mean is that vows are not only contracts or covenants which bind legally or morally; they are doorways through which one enters the world (and the Kingdom) in a new way, from a new perspective, with a new mind and heart. One spends an entire lifetime exploring what they mean and oblige to; one spends an entire lifetime conforming oneself (or being conformed) to these. Obedience at temporary profession may look very different than it looks 25 years later. It may look very different to the superior than it does to the postulant. Poverty and chastity (or conversatio morum and stability) are similar and their shape changes as the person matures spiritually and personally. Thus religious or consecrated men and women regularly renew their vows (or other commitments) publicly (in community), and they do so privately much more frequently than that. (In truth every day is a lived reflection on these vows.) Baptismal vows are the framework for living a life of discipleship and if we have not reflected on our baptismal or marriage vows for some time, we may have failed to reflect seriously on the framework or shape discipleship is meant to take in our own lives.

Thirdly then, I think we need to provide liturgical options for the renewal of baptismal and other commitments. The Easter Liturgy is wonderful for this, the rite of sprinkling and renewal of vows which stems from this and continues throughout the church year, especially when it attends Baptisms of new members, can be helpful, but it must not simply become pro forma or routine. One reason people may fail to take these commitments seriously is because individual parishes do not do so either. Today, for instance, we have parishes which fulfill the directives and honor the teaching of the Church on baptism by requiring significant preparation on the part of families and godparents. They understand the theology of baptism and treat initiation into the faith community as something of great dignity. However, we also have parishes which "make it as easy as possible" despite knowing that once baptized the child will never be seen in the church again except perhaps for the occasional wedding or funeral. We are caught between two paradigms or theologies of baptism, the first which focused almost solely on the washing away of original sin, and the second which adopts the richer vision of baptism as the Sacrament which makes of the person part of the People of God, the LAOS, from which we get the theology of the lay state. The first paradigm and acquiescence to pressure to "just baptize the kid or I will find someone who will" is a source of our failure to regard adequately vocations to the lay state because it itself fails to regard initiation into the People (laos) of God adequately.

Baptism is not a right. It is a privilege. Belonging to the People of God is a gift and privilege --- though one we ordinarily do not exclude people from. Being a member of the Body of Christ is a gift and privilege with corresponding rights and obligations. We must, as a church, give full and consistent voice to this message across the board. Insofar as this means rejecting the older paradigm of baptism and its rather mechanical approach to original sin as inadequate, we must do that --- not just intellectually but in all of our pastoral praxis. Otherwise we give double messages and people come away thinking baptism (and entrance into the lay state) are merely received passively while implying no real change in our humanity (forgetting we become a New Creation!) or ongoing maturing commitment and personal engagement. In other words, we give the impression that except for washing away the stain of original sin when we were infants (whatever THAT means to us really) they are just not all that big a deal. The result is we mistakenly come to believe it is only through OTHER VOWS, entrance into OTHER states which are solely associated with adulthood and active and mature commitment that we reach the fullness of the Christian vocation.

I have to cut this off at this point. I hope this helps as a beginning answer (for there are certainly other reasons I have not mentioned). If it raises more questions or leaves confusion, please get back to me.

Part-time work, Hermitage Soup Kitchens, etc

[[Sister thank you for your posts regarding the part-time hermits. I remember reading a story about a hermit who stays with her mom.. I think it's very unusual. But do you think "hermit ministries" or works could be done at the hermitage. Would that deviate from the meaning of the name "hermit"? For example running a soup kitchen at the hermitage, or offering spiritual direction. Also I would like to ask how to address diocesan hermits. What other names could we call people like you? Could it be "professed hermit" "canonical hermit" and "vowed hermit"?]]

Working in the hermitage (or even part time outside it) is not a problem generally. The issue in my other post was full-time work. All hermits work to some extent. Not only do they need to support themselves, but work is simply a part of the dignity of the human being and is is surely a part of a contemplative life. The ideal solution is to work within the hermitage itself but that is not always possible. Further, some hermits are asked to do limited ministry in their parishes, and this too is fine within reason even though it is not usually stipended. Spiritual direction is a time-honored way of supporting oneself but there are many, many others which are fine.

The soup kitchen idea is interesting but I wonder both at the amount of work it would take and the degree of privacy it requires giving up. Ordinarily, while hermitages are places of hospitality, the degree of this is limited and done in ways which allows the hermit to maintain her privacy. So, with that idea I would need to know more about the logistics. My general sense is that a hermitage is not meant to be a soup kitchen and offering hospitality needs to be done on another level than a soup kitchen requires. This is especially so since such a hermitage (or the soup kitchen) would probably be an urban reality so there is likely no way to set up part of the property to be the soup kitchen while leaving the hermitage itself untouched on another part of the property. If a Bishop or diocese was looking for someone to open or run a soup kitchen, a diocesan hermit is certainly not the person they should be looking at for that. Again though, it is a matter of logistics and a very small and limited operation could be made to work (though I wonder how the hermit would support herself doing so).

Diocesan hermits are usually addressed as Sister or Brother. They are called diocesan or canon 603 hermits because their vows are made directly in the hands of the diocesan Bishop under Canon 603 as solitary hermits. For this reason they are bound to a particular diocese (rather than to a community or monastery) unless and until they should transfer that "stability" with the permission of both Bishops involved in the move. (A diocesan or Canon 603 hermit needs the permission of the Bishop of the diocese she proposes to move to as well as her own (current) Bishop if she chooses to move to another diocese and wishes to remain a diocesan hermit.) While it is true they are professed or vowed, consecrated, and canonical, it is the case that religious hermits (canonical hermits living in a community of hermits) are these things as well. Thus, the descriptors "diocesan" or "Canon 603" hermits seems to work best if we are distinguishing these hermits from others, but are also the most inclusive terms we have. The terms you suggested all work however, as does "solitary hermit" (or solitary consecrated hermit), but again, "Diocesan" or "Canon 603" include these other terms as well.

I hope this helps.

Nadine Brown: Disobedient, etc?? Followup Question

For those coming to this page, please also see: Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: In Memoriam, Nadine Brown

[[Dear Sr Laurel, I hope you have seen the statement put out by Mother Nadine Brown about how the Archdiocese treated her and the other Hermit Intercessors before the suppression. They brought in sheriffs, ousted superiors and councilors, refused to allow Mother to leave Omaha even to go on retreat elsewhere, and forced her off the main property with very little warning. I am sure it would make you sorry you suggested she has been disobedient and cause you to rethink whether you believe the Archbishop has really been unusually generous.]]

Thanks for your questions or comments. I was sent the statement while away on a trip back East, yes. I read it briefly then and couldn't make much sense of it. I returned last night however and read the statement a couple more times along with the original report by former intercessors. I think I understand what Nadine Brown is reporting happened. Let me recount what I heard from Nadine Brown's report combined with the other one --- a combination of the two reports. There is a little "pulling and tugging" as I make sense of things as I write so I see things through more than one lens as I come to clarity (or what I think is clarity) on all this.

First Nadine Brown was asked to resign from both her directorship of the HIOL and from the civil board. This she did and she signed a statement of resignation for each which the Archdiocese had gotten ready beforehand. (Let me note here that if Brown had no sense that this was going to happen beforehand it would have been very traumatic and she would not have fully processed all it meant in merely signing the papers. It would have been traumatic in any case and she is to be commended for this act of selflessness or obedience before any other conclusions are drawn.) The next morning the Archbishop himself came to the community and announced the resignations. He appointed a trustee for the community and that trustee accepted the resignations of all the councilors and current superiors of the women's formation houses, etc. Within a day or two those who had held office and lived in formator's houses were asked to move out of formation houses and into some of the nearby homes also owned by the HIOL or IOL, Inc. Their car keys were also surrendered (I am assuming the cars belonged to the the formation houses and the HIOL could give the keys to whomever needed them.) So far this seems fairly straightforward to me though it could certainly point to factions developing.

Then it gets a bit wonky (read "confused and hard to understand"). For instance, Brown states that a number of the sisters and a brother informed the trustee and new superiors that they had decided to take sabbaticals. Here it sounds like they decided they could not go along with the new arrangements and took time to decide the matter. Perhaps though they just needed time apart to process the changes and to allow others to do the same. Brown is not clear whether these 10 people were the former superiors and council members or not but it does sound like it. If that is true, then it does seem to change the complexion of the whole situation in light of the announcement to their superiors (note it is not a matter of them requesting, but rather informing their superiors) that they will be taking sabbaticals. Of course, again, there is the need to take time to process the transition occurring so the announcements per se may be understandable and not particularly sinister (that is not a matter of disobedience or recalcitrance). However, in reading between the lines it seems to me that factions are definitely forming.

I had to read the older newspaper report to make further sense of Brown's most recent statement, especially of the denial of her request that she be allowed to make retreat elsewhere, or leave the Archdiocese, and even then I have not been wholly successful. Clearly, however, something critical happened between October 2nd and the morning of October 4th to precipitate more desperate action or provisions than had seemed necessary to that point. Here is what other former HIOLs said about that period:

[[But on the morning of Sunday, Oct. 3 — two days after Brown's resignation was announced — people close to her began taking steps signaling that they would not comply with the archbishop, the three former Intercessors said. A board member and a man she identified as her lawyer walked into a house the Intercessors owned on a neighboring street and announced that they were there for the association's assets, Neuhoff said. She said they took computers and files with financial and personal records from the house. Then people began carrying boxes out of the main house on the Intercessors campus, including in the middle of the night. That was confusing and frightening, the three said. The three called police and archdiocesan officials. They were told that the civil corporation had the legal right to move its property. The corporation changed the locks on the Intercessors' homes and asked for their car keys, Nolte said. It was becoming obvious, he said, that the faction close to Brown would not budge. He said the situation became more tense in the two weeks that followed, culminating with Friday's suppression and the archbishop's offer of sanctuary at the retreat.]]

Note that until this point it has seemed that the only taking of car keys was a piece of taking over leadership of the community and ensuring that things would continue smoothly. But here it is the IOL, Inc which is taking car keys, changing locks, etc, and Nadine Brown seems to be part of that. The Archdiocese actually affirms the corporation's rights to do so, so it seems clear that the Archdiocese was not instigating the taking of keys, etc earlier. From my own reading of both accounts I hear the Archdiocese trying to take steps which would preserve the community intact and allow it to have a genuine future. What seems necessary for that to happen was a change of leadership, and especially having Nadine Brown step down from all leadership roles. (It also seems to have meant disassociation from the civil board as it was then constituted so when I refer to Nadine Brown at this point I also mean the board she aligned herself with.)

What made no sense to me initially from Brown's account is the prohibition about leaving the Archdiocese. Her account made it sound unreasonable and punitive. If definite factions formed and there was a struggle over resources I can absolutely understand requiring Nadine Brown and the others to move off the Bellwether campus and into outlying houses. But the prohibition re leaving the Archdiocese or making retreat elsewhere simply requires greater explanation in order to make sense. I can imagine Brown going to other groups (of associates or companions) and whether she wanted to or not, carrying the problems of factionalizing, etc into other dioceses. Whether she purposely or consciously contributed to this or not she is a personality around whom others gravitate. It is also possible she was simply prohibited from travelling or making retreat while things were up in the air --- not least because the community needed her and the others on board to move ahead in a healthy way. This is the reading I prefer, the interpretation which makes the most sense I believe. I would think the new superiors (and the Archdiocese) wanted to move forward WITH Brown and not to cause a complete schism in the community. If I am at all correct in my reading of things, refusal of permission for leaving the archdiocese or making retreat make sense (which I believe was really a request that she not leave) --- and were not at all punitive or unreasonable.

Now, regarding the question of disobedience. Contrary to what you believe I said, I wrote earlier that I had no idea whether or not Nadine Brown had been disobedient or was being disobedient. I still do not. At this point (post suppression) she is clearly a lay person without private vows and no commitments beyond her baptismal ones. She is thus obligated as any lay person is with regard to the Archbishop. We should therefore be careful about leveling charges of disobedience! However, when I look over the pattern that emerges from the accounts of actions taken by Brown and the 10 or eleven that followed her prior to the suppression I can't say "obedience" is precisely the word that comes to mind. Clearly she did as the Archbishop required in relinquishing her position, but beyond that the situation is opaque because she had and retains influence over the group that went their own way. For these reasons neither humility and docility are words that come readily to mind either --- especially  on the part of this group as a whole. Of course, I need to remind people (and myself!!) that they may well apply in ways we simply cannot see. The fact is we do NOT know the whole story yet, from EITHER side of things. One thing I know firsthand is disobedience is not always easy to define from outside a situation; there are sometimes competing voices or mediations of God's voice and preferencing these can result in what merely appears to be actual disobedience. This difficulty of defining what is happening from the outside is even truer of humility which is a form of truthfulness and integrity, not one of obsequiousness. Think how many times St Paul has been accused of arrogance when in fact he was serving the Gospel of God and boasting in the Lord.

It is true that at this point in time it does appear that Brown has chosen the lay board and the original IOL, Inc over the the Archdiocese and its governance. It also seems that the 10 or so members that stayed on the Bellwether property have done the same. In other words, they seem to have chosen not to obey (or said they could not do so in conscience) and have left to resume private lives, but this is not the same as disobedience. However, should the small group act in ways or set up ministries at this point which go against what the Archbishop-as-pastor (as opposed to Archbishop-as-legitimate-superior) specifically requests and desires for his diocese, the situation could very well become one of actual disobedience or rebellion just as it would for any other lay person. The obligations of the laity are not the same as those bound to legitimate superiors by public vow (which is why lay persons ordinarily do not make even private vows of obedience), but real obedience (a considerate and open hearkening to), respect for, and cooperation with are owed pastors in the Church nonetheless.

Finally regarding the Archbishop's generosity: I have heard nothing yet which causes me to reevaluate my conclusions on this. I don't think Nadine Brown's latest account was clear really. I thought it tended to make the Archdiocese the bad guys and to whitewash the civil board, but again, we don't have all the facts. Even so I continue to think Archbishop Lucas has acted with great generosity with regard to the former HIOL's who remain together in the dormitory, and I understand the reasons for the visitation and I think (in a general way) for the suppression. Besides reminding you and others that the Archbishop acted completely within his scope in suppressing the group --- and could have done so at any time for any good reason --- I can't say more than this.

Saturday (or Part-time) Hermits Once Again: What's the Big Deal??

[[ I agree that full-time work is incompatible with the EXPRESSION of the eremetic life. The only caveat is that many folks are called to it but just can't swing it financially. As for them, their options are a monastic expression or simply a 'non-canonical' (if I'm saying that correctly) expression of their vocation without worrying about whether they are recognized by the Diocese/Bishop or not. I really don't understand the hang up about this. If you are able to be a hermit on Saturday only, want to wear a habit--go for it! I don't understand all the angst. Why do we look to some imprimatur from Mother Church for our vocations? The church has room for all of us. Just go out and live your life and stop worrying whether you are fitting under a particular canon or not. Mon Dieu! Are we Pharisees? Go out and preach the gospel in whatever way you must---whether or not there is an example for it---and, of course, if you dig down far enough, there are always champions of the church that have faced the same circumstances and made it work. ]]

Thanks for your comments. Let me be clear that when I write about eremitical vocations I almost always clarify them with terms like "diocesan", "Lay", or "religious", and sometimes as semi-eremitical as well. In the post you are commenting about I referred to diocesan hermits but I need not have. In this case I can't agree with you about "If they are able to be a hermit on Saturdays only, want to wear a habit, then go for it" (etc). What you have just described is not a hermit of any expression. It is a person taking a day off and playing dress-up in the process.


Someone who says it is possible to be a hermit only on Saturdays and that such a person should just wear a habit, call themselves a hermit, and just generally "go for it," does not understand the idea of an ecclesial vocation generally nor the idea of what a hermit truly is specifically. (Another alternative is persons who speak this way are really poking fun at my posts, and I certainly don't think that is the case here.) It is possible I am simply misunderstanding the point which is that everyone needs silence and solitude in their lives and taking off time on Saturdays to devote to this is a good thing. If this is what you are saying, then I agree but I would point out you are not really speaking about a person being a hermit.)

But let me be completely honest about how I hear your comments: what you have said seems to me to be analogous to saying to a woman, "If you want to be a mother and can only take care of children on Saturdays, then by all means do that! Change out of your business clothes, babysit a child (even your own!) on Saturdays, and feel free to call yourself a mother." Or perhaps the analogy to marriage would work here: "You want to be married but can only manage to do that on Saturdays? Well, put on the ring, grab the guy, make life vows (or not) and "go for it." Hermits are people who live eremitical LIVES for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Yes, there are different expressions of this, but they are expressions of something specifically meaningful and responsible in terms of a life commitment, not expressions of nothing (or just anything at all).

As for angst over whether the Church gives her approval or not, here the expression of eremitical life does matter. A person who wishes to live as a hermit without any of the specific rights or obligations of canonical standing can certainly do so in the lay or non-canonical senses. As I have written before, baptism itself gives such persons the right to do so and no further discernment or approval of the Church is required. This has certain limitations of course (including no right to publicly wear the habit, which is an ecclesial symbol), but it also has a different level of freedom with regard to others' legitimate expectations and so forth.

However, for diocesan, or religious eremitical life --- ecclesial vocations which the church herself is involved in nurturing, mediating, and governing --- then the Church's formal participation and approval is necessary at every point. This is because in these instances the hermit cannot discern such a vocation alone and lives her eremitical life in the name of the Church. She represents the eremitical vocation (and becomes responsible for personally continuing a long tradition) in a public and canonical (legal and normative) way. In none of these cases would a person just going off and "being a hermit on Saturdays ONLY" actually be a hermit. The only thing they would truly be doing as far as I can see is emptying the term of meaning and trivializing the lives of those who DO live full-time lives of assiduous prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world in the the silence of solitude --- especially those who have been publicly entrusted with and assumed all the rights and obligations which are part of such an ecclesial vocation.

You see, it is not merely a matter of "fitting under" a canon or finding one I fit under. It is a matter of discovering a vocation to eremitical life and then allowing one's life to be molded into a complete response to that. Beyond this initial determination, one would then need to discern whether one is called to do so in the consecrated state or not. If not, then one lives as a lay hermit. If so, then one is speaking not of a merely individual vocation, but an ecclesial one, and one would prepare to embrace this fully. If one then discerns a vocation to diocesan eremitical life rather than religious eremitical life one seeks profession under Canon 603 and in doing so, is both invested with and assumes all the rights and obligations which attach to to such a life. No one is forced to do this, but if they do, if the Church decides they are genuinely called to this and if such persons are admitted to profession in this way, then yes indeed, the Canon does define and govern their lives (as do a number of other Canons as well). Living the life with integrity means respecting and exploring this every day in every way, as the saying goes.

Why All the Angst?? The Pastoral Import of Canonical Standing

But, as you ask, why all the angst? I've written about this before under the idea of necessary expec-tations and charism, but let me draw out a picture of "why the angst?!" Let's take the two examples of eremitical life outlined in your own email and mine: 1) a person takes off on Saturdays for some prayer time, dons a habit, and calls himself a hermit even adopting the title "Brother." (What he does the rest of the week, exemplary or apostolic as it may be, I have no clue, nor does anyone else.) He then goes forth to proclaim the Gospel as he can. 2) a person lives the silence of solitude (and the rest of the elements of Canon 603) on a full time basis. She publicly vows her entire life to God (and so, to all those he cherishes) and is consecrated in a way which signals the grace to live this life. She is invested with the habit and given the right to the title Sister by the Church who recognizes the meaningfulness and import of these things. She then goes out to proclaim the Gospel within this context. Both persons identify themselves as hermits, one is a lay person and one is consecrated. One does so according to his own understanding of the term, the other according to the Church's understanding and traditional meaning of the term.

Meanwhile, their parishes have a large number of chronically ill and frail elderly on fixed incomes, most of whom are isolated from the parish as a whole or the surrounding communities in significant ways: none of them can work, few of them can drive or get away from their situations on a weekend, and none of them can take a day (or even an hour) off from their state of chronic illness or frail elderliness. What they do know is that they might be called to lives of prayer and solitude, lives which represent a kind of counter-cultural witness even. They are looking for someone who can proclaim the Gospel to them in a way which is specifically helpful in their situations. They think (and their pastor agrees),  that surely a hermit will be able to witness in a way which helps us makes sense of lives of poverty and isolation, whose witness will assist in negotiating the transition from isolation to solitude, who can reminds them that a life of physical, financial, and personal poverty can still be rich in God alone and all God makes possible.

So which hermit should the pastor call on to assist these parishioners in this? Which hermit should he call on as a true representative of desert spirituality? Which hermit has accepted freely and fully all the dimensions of the eremitical life which allows him/her to witness truthfully and EFFECTIVELY to these poeple? Which hermit knows intimately the struggles of full-time solitude or silence? Which one has dealt with these and does so day in and day out along with all the other demons which attack the solitary person from within our own hearts or from the surrounding competitive, workaholic, productive and consumerist world? Which one will be able to effectively proclaim the Gospel to these people? (And NB, I could have contrasted the Saturday-only hermit with any full-time lay hermit and most of the points would have been the same here.)

You see, going out and preaching the Gospel is not merely a matter of proclaiming a canned text or message to people one does not know. It is not a matter of proclaiming the unconditional love of God without applying that in the way one knows it intimately oneself AND in the way people NEED to hear it. Instead proclaiming the Gospel means proclaiming with one's life the TRUTH of the way God has worked and is working in it so that others might find hope and meaning in that. As St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary." Proclaiming the Gospel, I would suggest, also does not allow for pretense and the "hermit" in the situation you described appears to be all about pretense --- at least with regard to calling himself a hermit, donning a habit, etc. He cannot relate particularly to the situation these people are in or the good news they really need to hear. He does not live full-time solitude nor has he assumed any of the rights or responsibilities of such a life (the habit in the scenario you described is little more than a costume he takes up to play a role on weekends.) And yet, the habit and titles (Brother as well as hermit) give these people the right to expect he WILL BE ABLE to speak to their situation in a helpful way from his own life experience. They have the right to expect these things to mean something --- not least a counter-cultural life of total dependence on God lived on the margins of society in the silence of solitude.

This is why all the angst over Canonical standing. Such standing generally indicates the acceptance of rights and obligations by those who are discerned to have such a call, etc. It is not because we are Pharisees, but because law often serves love. It does so in this case. By the way, I would personally disagree that many people are called to diocesan eremitical life but just can't swing it financially. I do agree that those who are able-bodied and need to work full time are not called to diocesan eremitical life at this point in time, but then, as you say, they can enter a religious eremitical community --- something which is NOT ordinarily open to those who are disabled or chronically ill. Regarding the other points you bring up, benefactors, etc, I will hold those for another time.

All my best.

Diocesan Hermits and Full-time Work

[[Dear Sister Laurel, in writing about the former Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb you gave an example of a woman who was professed as a diocesan hermit who works full-time and uses Saturdays for quiet and contemplative prayer. You said she was admirable as a woman and Sister but was not a hermit. Yet diocesan hermits have to support themselves so what happens to someone who must work full time? Do dioceses ordinarily profess such persons? Should they?]]

This is an important and very neuralgic complex of questions for diocesan hermits, not only because the question of self-support in the contemporary world introduces a lot of tension into each life that desires full-time solitude, but because we don't all agree on the answer. It is one of the general areas of question that comes up most often in the contributions from readers: What forms of work are allowed a hermit? What is too much? What happens if a person has to work more than their Bishop will allow in order to still profess them? Do they have an eremitical vocation or not? How about the related question, if a person really desires a life of solitude but must work full time to support themselves, especially outside the hermitage, should they be professed as a diocesan hermit? This last question echoes your own so I want to focus on this in particular. The next couple of paragraphs explains the background of my conclusion on whether such people should be professed as diocesan hermits or not.


There is no doubt there is an inescapable tension between an eremitical contemplative life lived in "the silence of solitude," and the requirement that hermits support themselves. My own sense is that some resolutions of this tension are legitimate and some are not. Some are consistent with the vocation itself and some simply are not. Some will even mean more persons are professed, but perhaps live and model less authentic eremitical lives as a result, while other solutions will mean just the opposite, namely, fewer professions and more authentic eremitical lives generally. These last two assertions are true because all of these solutions have implications for the solitary eremitical vocation itself and especially will either reflect respect for the general good and credibility of the vocation or fail to do so.

I have written in the past about the flexibility of this vocation. At the same time I have written about versions of "eremitical" life which I do not think are valid and which empty certain central or essential elements of meaning. For instance, I believe the vocation requires an openness to the possibility that God is calling (or might well call) one to complete reclusion. "The silence of solitude" allows for this and may demand it. For this reason among others I have rejected the idea of married hermits, especially professed under Canon 603. Even if the person is never called to reclusion they ARE called to the silence of solitude and union with God which is the heart of this element and of the solitary vocation itself. They cultivate this relationship primarily. Marriage simply seems incompatible with this essential element of the canon (and of course, with a vow of chastity or celibate love).

I have also written critically about the notion of part time "hermits" --- people who build in a bit of solitude on the weekend, for instance, but engage in full-time active ministry or work the rest of their week, and concluded this was not eremitical life and made a mockery of hermits living full-time eremitism with all that means in terms of struggles, growth in solitude, etc, just as it did for those persons who are caught up in the unnatural solitudes of this world and cannot escape their chronic illness, bereavement, prison cells, age, etc for even a weekend here and there. Theirs are not eremitical lives, but it is only full-time eremitical lives which will speak to them about the redemption of their isolation and the ability to live with very little except God. It is authentic eremitical lives which will give hope where "part-time" and pseudo-eremitical lives or the lives of those who are simply dilettantes will not.

Remember that Canon 603 defines a full-time eremitical LIFE which is lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. It it is therefore a gift to and from God to his world only insofar as it is lived with integrity and fidelity. The canon spells out the essential or foundational elements of the life. They are not negotiable, not suggestions regarding things which should be included to this degree or that. They are the defining elements of the whole of one's existence, meaning that when one hears a person is a diocesan hermit they should see a life characterized by these foundational elements, namely, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the evangelical counsels, and one's OWN Rule of life lived under the supervision of one's Bishop and those he delegates to assist in this.

Most dioceses recognize that Canon 603, flexible though it is, is not infinitely so. Certain practices empty the canon of meaning including those I mentioned above (part time "eremitical life", married "eremitical" life) and the need to work (whether outside or inside the hermitage) on a full-time basis to support oneself. While those who work inside the hermitage (art, writing, spiritual direction, writing icons, etc, etc) may be able to sustain more work than someone working outside the hermitage, the vocation is still a contemplative one lived in the silence of solitude and it seems to me that full time work is simply incompatible with this. For instance, my own schedule allows for several hours each afternoon which can be used for work or errands, the occasional nap, or any combination of these. I can also use about an hour and a half some evenings for clients if that is really necessary, but the simple fact is the normal activities of an eremitical life do not allow for a full-time work schedule: liturgical prayer (Office, Mass, etc), personal prayer (Silent prayer or meditation, etc), Lectio Divina, study, and writing (personal) take up the majority of the day --- and so they should!

To answer your questions more directly, most dioceses I know of do not allow the profession of persons needing to work full-time in order to support themselves. They recognize that the two things are wholly incompatible. Canon 603 is not about people who desire silence or solitude but either cannot or do not live it --- whatever the reasons for this inability or failure. It is about those who actually feel called to AND embrace a LIFE of the silence of solitude. Some dioceses refuse to profess people who must work at all outside the hermitage and wait until this situation has changed. While I think these cases should be reviewed and perhaps very cautiously allowed on a case by case basis, I also think the Bishops involved in them have a better sense of the meaning of Canon 603 than those who profess persons who must work full-time. They also show a genuine concern for the vocation itself, its integrity and meaning, and they seek to preserve that as the gift it is. It is this concern with the vocation itself even if this should mean fewer actual professions which should be taken seriously by every diocese and Bishop.

There are reasons the solitary eremitical vocation is rare and the fact that most people need to work full time to live is simply one of them. I sincerely believe we really do need to accept the fact that eremitical life is a full-time enterprise and that those persons who must work full-time to support themselves simply are not called to it -- at least not at this point in time in their lives. Again, this is my opinion and not all diocesan hermits agree. However, I think if we take seriously the gift which the eremitical life is to the Church and world, a gift or charism which is specifically defined, I would argue, in terms of the silence of solitude, then it makes it much easier to see why full-time work (and especially that undertaken outside the hermitage) is simply incompatible with Canon 603 life and profession.

"Different, Not Better"?

[[Sister, it sounds like you believe vocations to the consecrated life are better than those which are not. I know you say "different, not better" but if the rights and responsibilities are greater then doesn't that indicate the vocation is better too? I am trying to understand how distinguishing between initiation into the consecrated state is not better than remaining in the lay state. I am also trying to see how what you say is not a subtle demeaning of the lay state.]]

It is really a shame that the language of superiority and inferiority has had to take such a hold in regard to these discussions --- something that has happened throughout the history of the Church. We are still suffering from its effects. It is possible to find religious men and women and priests who affirm that the consecrated or ordained states are better or higher than the lay state because of Aquinas' analysis of the objective superiority of such vocations), but this is not what I hold nor, I think, is it what Thomas held. (My own impression when I hear this reference to "better" is that they have completely misunderstood the import of the Thomistic language here.) In any case I think that Thomas' language is almost impossible to accurately adopt today given the strongly ingrained impulse we have towards egalitarianism and our allergy to the language of superiority/inferiority -- no matter how it is nuanced -- so I prefer to speak of "different, not better" and I mean this sincerely.

The Dignity of Baptismal Consecration and the Universal Call to Holiness

When we speak of God calling some people to the lay state, some to the ordained state, others to the consecrated state, do we really want to say that he calls some to a better or "higher" vocation than others? I don't think so. Because someone is given and accepts a different set of rights and responsibilities than another do we want to suggest those rights and responsibilities are better than those of another person? I definitely don't think so. It is possible to esteem people and the vocations they have been called to without buying into the superiority/inferiority game (which again I don't think Thomas was doing himself.) It is also, therefore, possible to differentiate vocations with regard to rights, responsibilities or state without demeaning other vocations. In what I have written I have sincerely tried to do this, and in fact, my objections to "half-way" or middle states was rooted in the recognition that speaking or thinking this way fails in precisely this regard.

Why is it as soon as people feel called to an intensification of their baptismal commitment they almost automatically think in terms of requiring consecration, vows, special dress, titles, etc which supposedly do not make them lay any longer? Why not instead undertake reflection on the baptismal commitment and vows themselves and find ways to specify them in every day life? (I would note that liturgically we try to do this with the sprinkling rite where we renew our baptismal vows or with the commissioning of ministers, but the question is why isn't this truly effective?) Why is it reflection on the lay vocation is even yet generally done by priests and religious? Why is it the insistence of Vatican II on the place of the laity in the universal call to holiness has not taken hold as fully or effectively as it might have or was desired by the Council Fathers? I think in all of these ways and others we see the effect of a Church that has indeed treated the lay vocation as second or third class. The sense of needing to be called to consecrated or ordained life to really "give oneself" to God in a full and meaningful way is a left-over bit of this ecclesiastical world-view which is symptomatic of a deep-seated sense of inferiority on the part of laity generally.

Combating the Sense of Lay Inferiority: Religious Lay Aside the Habit

One of the most important reasons many religious men and women gave up the habit was to encourage the laity (and here I mean laity in the vocational sense of those in the lay state) to assume the dignity of these vocations. Religious women especially saw themselves as part of the laity (in the hierarchical rather than vocational sense of that term) and let go of dress which distinguished them in ways which contributed to the superiority/inferiority divide which was assumed so strongly before and immediately after Vatican II. The intention was not to demean or deny their own sense of belonging to the consecrated state or the dignity of that (though they are accused of this today, sometimes by the very laity meant to benefit from the act of relinquishing the habit), but to enhance the laity's sense of being called to the same kind of vocational dignity. The accent here was on affirming the universal call to holiness and encouraging those in the lay state to see themselves in terms of this very great dignity and call. Thus, religious sacrificed the signs of vocational distinction for the greater solidarity of baptismal or hierarchical equality.

I believe in some ways this was effective and broke down barriers to ministry, etc. Certainly it assisted people in valuing lay life and imagining or actually seeing themselves as genuinely called by God both to holiness and to ministry in ways similar to those called to consecrated life. In many ways the visual and emotional divide which not only distinguished but alienated and exacerbated the destructive "special vs ordinary" or "superior vs inferior" dichotomies was minimized. In other ways though it was ineffective or even counterproductive. The Church as a whole lost the sense of the presence of the vocation to the consecrated state and the divide between religious and lay was transferred over time to become (to mention one way only) the divide between "true religious" vs "quasi religious", for instance. It lost the sense that "lay" has two senses in the church and left us with the hierarchical sense alone. It also may have contributed to the sense that initiation into the consecrated state comes merely with dedication of oneself via vows of any sort beyond baptism, and obscured the distinction (not inequality!) between ecclesial and non-ecclesial vocations.

The point is that religious women generally have been at the forefront of insisting on the universal call to holiness and the very great dignity of ALL vocations and vocational states. I am not automatically placing myself in this company, but I do agree with the theology that both informs these efforts and motivated the Council Fathers at Vatican II. What all these people have seen and do see today is that Baptism and what happens there is of tremendous import and dignity. To become adopted Daughters and Sons of God when we were not these before is an almost unimaginable gift worthy of immeasurable esteem. To live and minister in the name of Christ is of similar import. To be consecrated in the Sacrament of initiation and made a part of the very Body of Christ should not be minimized or treated as a 2nd or 3rd class vocation. It is not!

I personally wear a habit, and I do so for a number of reasons which I believe are well-founded. However, there are also several reasons which would lead me to drop its use in short order. This issue of esteeming the lay state and minimizing the superior/inferior and special/ordinary divides is one of them. If I really thought the wearing of the habit at this point in time was contributing significantly to the inability of lay people to take the vocation to the lay state seriously or to believe they had to enter the consecrated state to really give themselves to God, I would likely need in conscious to let go of it. One reason I do not is because I have seen its relinquishment also create a kind of gap or lacunae in understanding the difference between consecration and dedication, or between ecclesial and non-ecclesial vocations. The sacrifice women religious made in order to bring home the Vatican II message of a universal call to holiness was a significant one but at the same time it was not completely helpful.

Different, Not Better: The Body of Christ has Many Members with Many Functions

Even so, the bottom line here is that we are told, and asked to believe, that the Body of Christ has many parts with different functions. An eye should not wish (or try) to be a hand, a hand should not wish (or try) to be a foot, etc. Nor, of course, should the eye be treated as "better" than the hand, etc. They are distinct realities and have different functions, different gifts, but each is important to the functioning of the whole and none is better than the other. The rights and responsibilities of the eye are different than those of the hand, but different here does not mean better. The pastor of my parish has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but this certainly does not mean his vocation is better than mine. Similarly the mother across the street from the church has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but this does not mean that either of our vocations is better than the other's. A lay hermit has different rights and responsibilities than I do, but again, that does not mean either vocation is better than the other. I think you see what I am trying to say with all this!

Concern with Canon Law: Just Overly Conservative, Legalistic, Limited, or Something far More?

[[Dear Sister, is your concern with canonical standing coming from something more than a conservative and legalistic tendency? What is wrong with something not being recognized in Canon Law? It seems to me that the Holy Spirit will work wherever he wills.]]


Thanks very much for the question. Sometimes we speak about Canon Law as a necessary evil, and we give the impression that those who regard canonical standing (standing in law) must merely be taken with superficialities, legalisms, or simply be rigid personalities or inflexible in their approach to reality, etc. Because of the apparent opposition between Law and Gospel in much of the NT the idea of law can be degraded even further. But, Canon Law is essential in many ways and in regard to the questions we have been discussing, namely admission to the consecrated state and the nature of ecclesial vocations, law is really critical. This is because it protects the very vocations we are concerned with and makes sure they are nurtured and appropriately discerned, mediated, realized, and governed.

With regard to the question of admission to the consecrated state, since this admission involves the direct action of the Church herself in a way which affects the way she is constituted, Canon law clarifies how and when this is (currently) done in the Church and implies therefore, how it is not. This is absolutely not meant to limit the Holy Spirit re the way she works in the Church, but it does set clear requirements regarding what we are SURE of in regard to ecclesial vocations. Ecclesial vocations are those vocations which, by definition, cannot be discerned by the person alone. More importantly God's own call is, at least in part, mediated by the institutional Church and this only occurs in given situations and circumstances. Ecclesial vocations are not simply individual vocations but rather are part of the patrimony of the Church with public rights and responsibilities to act in the name of the Church. I wrote earlier about the necessary expectations people are allowed to have of those with public vows/consecration. We must take that dimension of these vocations very seriously, and we must be careful in encouraging or even allowing people to have similar expectations with regard to those who have not actually been initiated (professed/consecrated) into the state of life which allows or even demands these.

What is critical to understand in the posts I have put up is that consecration (entrance into the consecrated state) is not something one does with oneself; it is not a way of disposing of or gifting oneself with regard to God or the Church even though it will contain this element as well. Despite the common and misleading use of the term in sentences like, "I consecrate my whole life to the Sacred Heart", the term "consecrate" refers to God's' own action, often mediated through the authoritative agency of members of the Church, but even so to God's own "being God" and doing what only God can do in this particular instance. As mentioned in earlier posts, the appropriate term for something human beings do here with their own lives is dedicare, to dedicate, and there are various similar terms which refer to this particular dimension of the complete action of public profession and consecration. As I have said before, in and of themselves these acts of dedication (private vows, promises, etc) indicate a significant gift, but they do NOT indicate that God working through his Church has initiated the person into a new way or state of being even if it is assumed this gift of self has been accepted.

Thus, in such vocations the Church typically demands significant discernment and periods of formation, not merely to see if the person is serious about all this or is capable of undertaking it, but additionally to see if this is the way God is working in her life AND IN THE LIFE OF HIS CHURCH more generally through this vocation itself. It also is meant to see if indeed the one requesting admission to vows and consecration shows a pattern of consistent fidelity to that action of God over a period of time, and allows them the time and experience to build such a pattern. And so, for instance, in a public testimony for a diocesan hermit, the diocese may publish a statement regarding the fact of public profession of perpetual vows which says: [[This testifies to the fact that our sister ___________, Hermit of the Diocese of ________, having demonstrated persistent fidelity to the presence of God in her life and to the directives of church leadership, made her perpetual profession as a canonical hermit according to the prescriptions of Canon 603. . .]] The notion of persistent faithfulness (to both God and Church leadership) is also important because during perpetual profession what is mediated to the hermit in a new and irrevocable way is God's own and eternal (ongoing) call-as-ecclesial reality in all its dimensions. The Church as a whole has a right to expect this kind of fidelity in one making perpetual public profession.



The reference to canonical standing, and the prescriptions of law (C 603 in this case) mark a new situation of something more than personal dedication. This is not merely the conclusion of a long period of personal discernment and formation or preparation; it is the beginning of something new, something more complete or definitive than the hermit has known heretofore --- even with temporary profession which is marked by new rights and responsibilities in law. Hence the use of the prostration and the Litany of the Saints calling upon the whole Church, living and dead to witness and participate in what God does through her this day. No one, not candidate, church, or world remains the same in light of this act on the part of God, his Church, and the individual whose gift of self he accepts, and whom he publicly claims and gifts with himself in a new way in return.

To summarize then, the Church discerns when, where, and how this tremendous change in the state of things happens because this is an ecclesial vocation. She legislates the matter to protect all the elements which seem fundamental to the mediation of God's own call and his consecration of the individual in a way which creates the right to necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church and world. She legislates the matter to indicate the gravity of what happens, and the very public nature of it all. She legislates it so that it becomes normative and paradigmatic of the way God has been found to act with regard to the consecrated state in his Church and to invite others to aspire to hearing his call, dedicating their lives similarly, living for others in a way which clearly says one's life is not really one's own any longer --- not only in terms of God, but in terms of the Church and even the larger world. The Church is open to new forms of consecrated life and encourages her Bishops to be aware of potential instances in this regard. So, significant as the recognized ways of entering the consecrated state are, the Church is not using Canon Law to indicate rigidity or inflexibility --- even of the legalistic variety. Instead Canon Law here is used to signal not only the person's gift of self, but God's gift to the Church --- namely, the gift of call and consecration, of vocation and state of life.

I have written in the past about vocations to solitude and, as Thomas Merton puts the matter, how it is that solitude "herself" must open the door to the person wishing to be a hermit. Unless this happens, no matter what the person does, how s/he gives him/herself over to the silence and solitude in his/her life, there will be a difference between this life and that of the one who has walked through the door which solitude herself opened to him/her. (Again, not better nor worse, but different.) The situation with the consecrated state is similar. God calls each of us to dedicate ourselves to him. Even so, he does not open the door to the consecrated state to everyone any more than he opens the door to any other state of life to everyone. In the case of ecclesial vocations, however, the definitive opening of this door happens through the effective mediation of the Church when legitimate authorities act in the Name of the Church rather than through an individual's dedication of self alone.

So, in this case Canon Law is an important way of preserving elements of the theology of consecrated life we might otherwise fail to recognize, neglect, or even forget. Attention to it is a way of honoring one specific way God is at work in his church and world --- hallowing and consecrating parts of it as the fulfillment of the Incarnation is realized in space and time. My own appreciation of this theology is rooted in the fact that it does not focus on the person's own dedication of self exclusively or even primarily --- not even when appropriately seen as response to Grace, but on God's own action of empowerment, reception, and consecration which is authoritatively mediated through God's Church. While this does not mean that God is constrained to work in this way ONLY, it does indicate a long-recognized (that is, long-discerned) dimension which is foundational to the theology of consecrated life and does greater justice to it and the God it seeks to glorify than those which omit this.

Dedicare vs Consecrare, Half-way States, and Related Questions

Dear Sr. Laurel, I want to commend you, first of all, for your most erudite and intelligent posts, esp. regarding the "Intercessors of the Lamb" and all that has gone on. Fabulous! However. I have become very heavy of heart in reading your commentary on the status of "Public Associations of the Faithful". I have a copy of Fr. Gambari's book stating that those in Public Associations of the Faithful, while not belonging to an Institute of Consecrated Life, do indeed live a consecrated life, within the framework of a Public Association; they are considered to be consecrated "theologically" while not "canonically", as members of an Institute of Consecrated Life, acknowledged by the Church.

For those of us who have made vows, under the diocesan bishop, in an Association of the Faithful, Public, there is a "midway" point; it is not considered to be 'public' in the same way as a diocesan institute, a diocesan hermit, nor in the case of a consecrated virgin consecrated by a bishop (realizing that this is not a "vowed" state, but a consecrated state); Fr. Gambari makes it clear that those in this situation are considered "consecrated persons" but not those in an institute of consecrated life.

I think you may be too rigid in your definition of what consecrated life entails. From my understanding, a man or woman may make consecration to the evangelical counsels under a bishop without belonging to an institute of consecrated life, while not belonging to either the order of hermits nor of consecrated virgins. There is a "half-way"...of diocesan oblates....those men or women who would make consecration to the evangelical counsels at the service of a Diocese under a bishop who would not belong to an institute of consecrated life nor any of the ancient orders. I'm just bringing this to your attention. You are doing great work in making these matters known. Please do not take this as a criticism of what you have said. I am just offering this to you as further information. ]]

Dear Father,
I can understand your concerns and the depth of your feelings here. I actually know them first hand from both sides of the dedicare/consecrare distinction. The theological dimension of any significant form of dedication or commitment should be recognized and esteemed. Again, as I have said before, there is nothing insignificant about lay life, nor about private or non-canonical vows. (And by private vows I mean any vows the Church herself does not regard as public and which do not bind in LAW or create necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church as public vows do. The latter is also true of non-canonical vows made by members of non-canonical communities.) There is no doubt that there is a serious moral and theological dimension to EVERY vow, resolution, act of personal dedication, etc. Fr Gambari's work MAY be attempting to do justice to that dimension, as well as looking at the diverse ways the Spirit moves in the Church. I don't know (the book is out of print and I have not read it).

But I do know that Vatican II worked mightily to reverse elitist trends and get the laity to embrace their part in the universal call to holiness. If, beyond the vows and promises associated with the sacraments of initiation, laity feel called and wish to make commitments which specify their baptismal consecration, and if they truly require these to live their baptismal commitments fully (the reasons here would need to be substantial for additional vows or promises), then those commitments should be regarded. However, this does not mean these commitments are synonymous with initiation into the consecrated state of life any more than it means Baptism per se signifies entry into this particular state. Nor should it mean this. Were this to happen we simply would continue to foster the sense that lay life is not a significant calling to holiness, that is, it is not, in and of itself, special or capable of representing an exhaustive form of discipleship. I am afraid all this talk of "middle" or "half-way" states makes me feel that the realization of the mandate of Vatican II in regard to the laity is still very far away --- and I say this as a theologian, not as a canonist, for I am emphatically NOT the latter.

Let me respond to one of the specific examples you gave, and also note that in doing so I have consulted with a canonist on some of what I am saying here. I will start with the issue of diocesan oblates. I have never heard of such a thing so it sounds like a local practice. It is unclear from your description whether these are individuals or a group of people. At this point, let me assume it refers to individuals who may be akin to what is sometimes called a "diocesan sister". In such a case we would be speaking about a potentially new form of consecrated life not yet recognized in Canon Law, similar to the male equivalent to consecrated virgins perhaps -- which some would like to see recognized as a new form of consecrated life. While a Bishop may (and in fact is encouraged to) discern "new forms of Consecrated Life" these forms must, according to Canon Law (c 605) be ratified by the Apostolic See before being considered new forms of consecrated life. (The authority to do this is specifically reserved to the Holy See who amends Canon Law with a Motu Proprio. Bishops may not do so on their own. On the other hand, Institutes of Consecrated Life MAY be erected by a Bishop when the Apostolic See is consulted but this requires a formal Bishop's decree.)

In such cases the titles, etc which are associated with the consecrated state MAY be extended to individuals or groups while the Church discerns the nature of the vocation at hand but unless and until the Church mediates God's own call to enter the consecrated state of life to the person through public profession, the individuals themselves still remain in the lay state. Their dedication of themselves to God is a significant specification of their baptismal vows nonetheless. Legitimate and valuable speculation about "theological consecration," (or what I have heard referred to as "passive consecration" as opposed to "active consecration") and reflection on the moral dimension of personal dedication to God may occur among theologians and canonists, but this cannot and ought not be confused with what is identified by the Church at this point in time as entrance into the consecrated state of life. In terms of Canon Law there is indeed an anomaly with regard to secular institutes (which have semi-public vows), but here members remain lay (or ordained). They do not enter the consecrated state of life.

Once again, the rule (exceptions mentioned below are cc 603-604) is that the consecrated state is entered by public vows (which means more than that these vows are made in public even if witnessed by the Bishop). Public vows are RECEIVED (not simply witnessed by someone) in the Name of the Church and are canonical vows which bind legally in ways private vows do not. (So, for instance, as part of the vow formula of public profession and consecration, and with the person's hands in the Bishop's own, a sentence like the following will be included: "I ask you, Bishop_______, as Bishop of the Diocese of_______*** to accept my vows in the name of the Church and to grant me your blessing. May the Word of God which I touch with my hand today be my life and my inspiration, this I pray.") Except for the anomaly already mentioned all other vows, no matter the venue in which they are made or who is present, are private.

*** (N.B This part of the formula may refer to the legitimate superior with authority to act in the name of the Church who may not be (and usually is not) the Bishop. However, the person MUST have the authority and the intention of receiving public vows in the name of the Church.)

Theological and Canonical speculation and reflection may lead eventually to changes in Universal Law and to the Church publicly affirming new forms and expressions of consecrated life. However, as it stands now the distinction between entering the consecrated state through profession AND the mediation of God's own consecration of the person, and remaining in the lay state with significant dedication of one's life to God even through the use of private vows, is linked to public vows except in two cases. These are, consecrated virgins (no vows at all) and those relatively unusual diocesan hermits making their public commitment through sacred bonds other than vows. These stable forms of life are both specifically recognized and provided for in Canon Law and their associated rites of profession or consecration are public in the canonical or ecclesial sense of that word. At this point in time there are no other exceptions, no other new and stable forms of consecrated life recognized by the Church. As the CCC affirms after noting that every person is called to live the evangelical counsels (par 915): [[It is the profession of these counsels within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.]]

Given the confusion and even concern caused by the (sometimes indiscriminate and injudicious) use of habits by the HIOL and triggered by their suppression, not to mention the thousands of cases of people calling themselves "consecrated" while adding "though privately," mistaking private vows for public ones because they are witnessed by a priest during Mass despite the fact that these do not bind in Law in the same way public vows do, adopting religious garb on their own initiative, etc, and especially given the very clear and assiduously maintained distinction between dedicare and consecrare in the documents of Vatican II, I believe the CCC and Canon Law leave no wiggle room for half-way states in this specific regard. I strongly believe we should use the second Vatican Council's language here and respect the distinction it clearly maintained, just as we should work harder on assisting everyone to truly and seriously regard the place of the lay state in the universal call to holiness and as a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world.

While the proliferation of associations and institutes which desire to be institutes of consecrated life MAY represent the work of the Holy Spirit with regard to potential and diverse expressions of consecrated life, they may also (or instead) be a piece of the Church's heritage of failure to esteem lay life adequately and its propensity to make the lay state a kind of second or third-class reality in the Church. Only through mutual discernment will this be determined and groups either remain lay or be publicly recognized as part of and their members be initiated into the consecrated state; until and unless this discernment occurs the positing of half-way or middle states (which supposedly represent neither the lay nor the consecrated state) seems detrimental to the challenge of adequately regarding lay life. It is theologically problematical, canonically unjustified, and, it seems to me, does an injustice to both the lay and consecrated states. I do promise to read more about this (especially if I can find a copy of Gambari's book) and consult further with the canonist I mentioned. In the meantime, many thanks for your email.

Which of You Would Not? The Parable of the Woman and the Lost Coin

>


Today's Gospel is one of those which causes ambivalence for me on several levels. In Luke 15:1-10 Jesus is faced by Pharisees who grumble because Jesus eats with sinners and tax collectors. They have a point. How, they ask, are we to maintain the purity or integrity of the People of God if we allow the unclean or active sinners to join in our table fellowship? The Pharisees have their eyes on one version of "the big picture" and their approach to reality is a defensive one. Preserve the larger reality even if it means that individuals are treated as expendable or less precious. This is classic pragmatism, the greatest good for the greatest number!

Luke's own community is facing some of the same issues. Persecutions have led to defections and the nascent Church needs to determine how they will treat these people who, after all, are members of their own families and friends. How will Luke's communities be Church in such a situation? How should they feel about and act towards those who have betrayed them and Christ? In some ways we tend to face the same questions even today. Consider Eucharist. We wish to prevent defilement of the Eucharist and have it witness to unity, both completely appropriate concerns, and so, we do not allow certain people to receive the Sacrament even if they desire it, even if they wish to participate as fully as possible in our table fellowship. If Paul's language from the first reading was applied here, this whole approach to reality, this way of seeing the "big picture" would be called "the flesh". In monastic life it is called "worldly." In everyday parlance we call it "common sense" or being practical or reasonable.

Answering Jesus' Question: The Old Big Picture

It is into this situation that Jesus tells several parables about the lost. Each is effectively prefaced or bracketed by the rhetorical question "Which of you would not?" We know what the answer SHOULD be, the answer Jesus believes is natural, the answer which makes Jesus' question rhetorical. This answer commits us to extravagant and even apparently imprudent actions on behalf of the lost. But how often do we really answer the question honestly (if of course we pause to truly answer it at all)? Consider the situation: if Jesus said, There are 100 sheep in the desert, all in danger of wandering off, dying of thirst, starving or being set upon by predators without their shepherd. One wanders away. Which of you would NOT go after it for as long as it takes and at whatever cost?" How many of us would enthusiastically wave our hands in affirmation that indeed we would act just that way? I suspect if we were to lose such a sheep we would be more inclined to write it off as expendable, part of the acceptable risk of doing business in a dangerous world, a sad but sustainable loss.

And if Jesus were to say to us, "A woman lost one of ten similar and ordinary coins. She was frantic to find it it was so precious to her. She swept the whole house, lit all the lights, turned over the furniture, and when she found it she threw a huge party for family and friends. Which of you would not do similarly?" How many of us could really say we would naturally feel or act as she did? Granted, we might look as hard as we could for a while, but throwing a huge and expensive party when it is found? How likely would THAT be? How foolish would THAT look? So, when Jesus says, "which of you would not?" it is more likely most of us would have to raise our hands to say, "Not me!" than would nod in happy agreement with him. Most of the time we live in a world of different values than this, the world of common sense, expendable goods, and sustainable loss. Our hearts and minds are not really geared in the same way Jesus' are. We don't see or evaluate things in quite the same way usually. Again, as Paul puts it, ours is ordinarily the perspective of the flesh not of the spirit.

So Jesus, consummate psychologist that he is, tells us these parables to disorient us and shake us loose enough from our usual way of seeing, thinking and feeling to allow us to choose another way. He seeks to inspire a change in our minds and hearts, to convince us that this is the way GOD approaches the smallest bit of reality, and certainly, he seeks to help us feel the urgency and pathos the loss of a single person to sin is to God. He wants us to know a God who searches for us with great urgency because we are never expendable to him, never a "sustainable loss." But something is missing for contemporary readers in these parables because they really do not compel in the the way they compelled Jesus' hearers. (Here is another source of my ambivalence.) And I think the parable of the woman with the lost coin is the key to renewed hearing.

The Significance of the Lost Coin

Most commentators focus on the fact that the coin might have been a drachma or a denarius. In either case it would have equaled a day's wages or a bit more. Thus, its worth is established: large but not inestimable. But there is another way of reading this parable -- far more challenging and also more inspiring. Consider that when a woman was married she was ordinarily given a gift of a headdress into which was woven or sewn 10 coins. The headdress with the coins (usually a gift of her father) was to be worn in public at all times and was a symbol of the woman's faithfulness to her husband and marriage, to her people, and to the covenant and God Himself. Should a coin be lost, her husband had the right to conclude she had been unfaithful. Should she actually be unfaithful, her husband could remove a coin and send her out to public shame and disgrace. What was at stake here was not simply a day's wages, but the honor of Israel, the integrity of the covenant, and of course, the woman's very life itself! Consider her search for the coin then in this light! Can we feel the pathos? Are we convinced of the value of what has been lost? Does the urgency of what is at risk clutch at our stomachs and our hearts? Do we feel a compassion and desire to help her in her search, or, if the coin is found, to rejoice with her and help her throw a party the likes of which the neighborhood has not seen? If so, Jesus' parable has done the larger part of its job.

Moved to a New Answer? The New Big Picture

If so, we know a little of what God feels and wishes us to feel in regard to the meanest sinner. Not least, we know a fraction of what God feels in our own regard and for nothing we have done, created, achieved, etc. Simply because he is God and we are his own. If so, we have, at least briefly, felt and seen as the Spirit inspires us to see and feel. The worldly calculus of expendable goods and sustainable losses has been short circuited for the moment and we have adopted the world view of Christ. This single sinner, this meanest person is not just a coin, an expendable fraction of the whole, any longer. S/he is a symbol of God's completely gratuitous love and sovereignty, his unceasing faithfulness and stewardship, his very nature as God --- and s/he is a symbol of our share in all of that and how well we assume these things in our own lives.

Discipleship is about allowing God to BE God in time and space. It is about mediating God's own presence into those places of sin and death human beings choose to take into themselves where God cannot go by simple fiat. It is about making God present where he wills to be present. It is about protecting HIS INTEGRITY as it is experienced by others because he has entrusted a part in that to us. As Paul tells us in the first lection, we ARE the Circumcision; we ARE the covenant. What affects us affects God and vice versa. This means accepting a very different BIG picture than that of the Pharisees, or than which tempted Luke's community. It means accepting the non-commonsense view that we preserve the church, the very Body of Christ, by seeking out and treating as infinitely precious and God's own each individual life, not by focusing on the 99 who are relatively safe. So, let us consider how well God loves us; consider the woman with the lost coin and the urgency of her quest. Consider our own approach to table fellowship (i.e., to life) with the lost. How now do we answer Jesus' question, "Which of you would not. . .?"