Questions on the Theology of the Cross

As we approach Holy Week and the Triduum I am beginning to get some questions about the theology of the cross, etc. Here is an email I received from a long-time friend.

[[Dear Laurel, I feel sort of negative about the crucifix and communion. Here are the reasons: I know the church teaches that Christ died for our sins, but the crucifix also represents a very violent and bloody act. What kind of example is that to set in front of our already troubled youth? I know the church teaches that communion is the body and blood of Christ, but the idea of drinking human blood and eating human flesh seems very savage and cannibalistic to me. Again this seems like sick thinking to me. What can you say about this? Now that I have had my say, how are you and what is going on in your life? Love and Peace,]]

Hi there!
Regarding your questions: It is important to remember that in the events of the cross the violence and evil done were human acts (or, more accurately, literally inhuman acts unworthy of God or humankind). They tell us what happens when the sacred (and truly human) is put into our sinful hands. Part of the redemption God achieves on the cross is the redemption of our horrific treatment of one another and of God himself. Part of it is the redemption of our inhumanity and the making possible of authentic humanity in Christ.

Secondly, it is important to remember that Jesus' physical and psychological suffering per se was not salvific. What was salvific was that in the midst of this terrible suffering, injustice, shame, failure of mission, and betrayal, he remained open to God (the One he called Abba) and to whatever God would bring out of it. The word we use for this openness and responsiveness is "obedience". It does NOT mean that God willed Jesus' torture by venal, cruel, ambitious, and frightened human beings. What God DID will, however, was to enter into all of the moments and moods of human life including sinfulness and death so that he could redeem and transform them with his presence. Jesus allows God to do that by remaining open to him even in such extremity. (He does not shut down, nor does he try to assume control, for instance.)

Neither is Jesus' death by itself salvific. Again, even in death and beyond natural death in what the NT calls "godless" or "eternal death" Jesus remained open to what God would bring out of this. Because he did, God was able to enter into these godless realms and for that reason they no longer are signs of God's absence. Instead, because of Christ obedience unto "death, even death on a cross" as Paul puts it, even in sin and death we will meet God face to face and God will bring life not only out of the unexpected place but the unacceptable place --- the place where human reason says God should never be found.

God never changes his mind about us. He loves us --- actively, passionately, without reserve. (He IS love-in-act; this creative, dynamic, unceasing love is God's very nature!) What God changes through the events of the cross is reality itself. Unless once we are face to face with God we actually choose eternity without God there is no longer sinful or godless death. Even should we choose this I think it will mean we choose an eternity facing  a Love we have been offered without reserve, but which we have definitively refused. (It is hard for me to think of a worse situation than to be locked inside one's own hatefulness while faced with a Love which frees and gives eternal life.)  What we have to teach our youth is exactly what Paul says in Romans 8: neither life nor death nor powers nor principalities, nor heights nor depths, etc etc will EVER separate us from the love of God. God has made sure that he is present in even the unacceptable place (in this case, the realms which are properly called godless); he has assured the truth of what Paul asserts in Romans 8 and it is Jesus' openness and responsiveness to God in the face of human evil of unimaginable lengths and depths that spurred Paul's profession of faith.

One other note: The NT speaks of divine wrath. This does not mean anger in the sense we know it ourselves. It means something akin to a tough love that allows the consequences of our choices to catch up to us. God respects our choices even if he does not respect WHAT we choose. He allows the consequences of our choices to catch up with us. However, at the same time, if we choose sin and death (knowing we cannot fully conceive what we are choosing in this way), he makes sure we will find him even there. 

The Church has never asserted a single interpretation of the cross nor a normative theology of the Cross. Unfortunately what we hear too often is Anselm's interpretation. Anselm's world was a feudal one where notions of shame and honor were driving forces. Thus he saw God as infinitely offended by human sin and wrote that an infinite price had to be paid for God's honor to be regained. Further, that price had to be paid by a human being since human beings had caused the infinite offense while only someone divine COULD do so. The biggest problem though was that he saw God as needing to be reconciled. This is exactly the opposite of what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:19: [[God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.]] In other words, it is the world which needs to be reconciled to God; in Christ God brings everything home to itself and to himself. He sets all things right. This is the nature of divine justice. He asserts his rights or sovereignty over a broken creation by letting nothing stand between us and his creative love (himself). It is not God's honor that needs to be appeased but a broken and estranged world that needs to be healed and made one with God (the ground of existence and meaning). That is what happens through Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection. In Christ God takes the worst human beings can do and brings divine wholeness and life out of it.

2) Regarding Communion: The Church does not and has never taught that Jesus is PHYSICALLY present in the Eucharist. In order to speak about the Real presence she uses the terms real, true, and substantial. She does so to avoid crude physicalisms like those we sometime hear associated with private visions, etc --- things like munching on toenails and the like. Further, the Church teaches that the Eucharistic presence is the presence of the Risen Christ not Jesus of Nazareth per se, and so, this involves a resurrected body/self which, though really present and consistent with the historical Jesus, is not subject to the conditions of space and time. In the NT the Gospel writers speak of the Risen Xt as walking though walls or being in two places at once (Road to Emmaus and Galilee, for instance) or of eating fish in order to be able to convey all of these things. The Risen presence is real, true, and substantial but NOT physical in the sense cannibalism (or munching on toenails) requires. It is a transcendent presence, a mysterious presence, not a strictly historical one. 

I hope this helps.

"The Music We Are" by Rumi

In thanksgiving for the gift of a new friend who leaves tomorrow morning for the upper Midwest.  Bob gave me a collection of poems by Rumi as part of his leave-taking. I have written here a number of times about the songs we are, and especially about the song that is the hermit, so that this poem seemed  a perfect way to mark my own appreciation of the past few weeks --- and the nearing of Easter! Deo Gratias!!!

Did you hear that Winter is over?

The basil and carnation cannot control their laughter.

The nightingale back from his wandering,

has been made singing master over all the birds.

The trees reach out their congratulations.

The soul goes dancing through the king's doorway.

Anemones blush because they have seen the rose naked.

Spring, the only fair judge, walks in the courtroom,

and several December thieves steal away.

Last year's miracles will soon be forgotten. 

New creatures whirl in from non-existence,

galaxies scattered around their feet.

Have you met them?

Do you hear the bud of Jesus crooning in the cradle?

A single narcissus flower has been appointed

Inspector of Kingdoms. A feast is set.

Listen. The wind is pouring wine.

Love used to hide inside images. No more,

the orchard hangs out its lanterns.

The dead come stumbling by in shrouds.

Nothing can stay bound or be imprisoned.

You say, End this poem here, and wait for what is next.

I will. Poems are rough notations for the music we are.

From Rumi, The Big Red Book, Coleman Barks 

Fourth Sunday of Lent: The Parable of the Merciful Father (reprise)

Commentators tend to name today's Gospel parable after the Merciful Father, because he is central to all the scenes (even when the younger Son is in a far off place, the Father waits silently, implicitly, in the wings). We should notice it is his foolish generosity that predominates, so in this sense, he too is prodigal. Perhaps then we should call this the parable of the Prodigal Father. The younger son squanders his inheritance, but the Father is also (in common terms and in terms of Jewish Law) foolish in giving him the inheritance, the "substance" (literally, the ousias) of his own life and that of Israel. His younger Son treats him as dead (a sin against the Commandment to honor Father and Mother) and still this Father looks for every chance to receive him back.

When the younger son comes to his senses, rehearses his terms for coming home ("I will confess and be received back not as a Son, but as a servant,"), his Father, watching for his return, eagerly runs to meet him in spite of the offense represented in such an act, forestalls his confession, brings his Son into the center of the village (the only way to bring him home really when homes were organized at the center of larger circles) thus rendering everything unclean according to the law; he clothes him in the garb of Sonship and authority, kills the fatted calf and throws a welcome home party --- all heedless of the requirements of the law, matters of ritual impurity or repentance, etc. Meanwhile, the dutiful older son keeps the letter of the law of sonship but transgresses its essence or "spirit" and also treats his Father with dishonor. He is grudging, resentful, angry, blind, and petty in failing to recognize what is right before him all the time. He too is prodigal, allowing his authentic Sonship to die day by day as he assumes a more superficial role instead. And yet, the Father reassures him that what is the Father's is the Son's and what is the Son's is the Father's (which makes the Father literally an "ignorant man" in terms of the Law, an "am-haretz"). Contrary to the wisdom of the law, he continues to invite him into the celebration, a celebration of new life and meaning. He continues to treat him as a Son.

The theme of Law versus Gospel comes up strongly in this and other readings this week, though at first we may fail to recognize this. Paul recognizes the Law is a gift of God but without the power to move us to act as Sons and Daughters of God in the way Gospel does. When coupled with human sinfulness it can --- whether blatantly or insidiously --- be terribly destructive. How often as Christians do we act in ways which are allowed (or apparently commanded) by law but which are not really appropriate to Daughters and Sons of an infinitely merciful Father who is always waiting for our return, always looking for us to make the slightest responsive gesture in recognition of his presence, to "come to our senses", so that he can run to us and enfold us in the sumptuous garb of Daughterhood or Sonship? How often is our daily practice of our faith dutiful, and grudging but little more? How often do we act competitively or in resentment over others whose vocation is different than our own, whose place in the church (or the world of business, commerce, and society, for that matter) seems to witness to greater love from God? How often do we quietly despair over the seeming lack of worth of our lives in comparison to that of others? Whether we recognize it or not these attitudes are those of people motivated by law, not gospel. They are the attitudes of measurement and judgment, not of incommensurate love and generosity.

At the beginning of Lent we heard the fundamental choice of and in all choices put before us, "Choose life not death." Today that choice is sharpened and the subtle forms of death we often choose are set in relief: will we be Daughters and Sons of an infinitely and foolishly Merciful Father --- those who truly see and accept a love that is beyond our wildest imaginings and love others similarly, or, will we be prodigals in the pejorative sense, servants of duty, those who only accept the limited love we believe we have coming to us and who approach others competitively, suspiciously and without generosity? Will we be those whose notions of justice constrain God and our ability to choose the life he sets before us, or will we be those who are forgiven to the awesome degree and extent God is willing and capable of forgiving? Will we allow ourselves to be welcomed into a new life --- a life of celebration and joy, but also a life of greater generosity, responsibility, and God-given identity, or will we simply make do with the original prodigality of either the life of the younger or elder son? After all, both live dissipated lives in this parable: one flagrantly so, and one in quiet resentment, slavish dutifulness, and unfulfillment.

The choice before those living the latter kind of Christian life is no less significant, no less one of conversion than the choice set before the younger son. His return may be more dramatic, but that of the elder son demands as great a conversion. He must move from a quiet, embittered, exile where he cynically identifies himself as a slave rather than a free man or (even less) a Son. His own vision of his life and worth, his true identity, are little different than those of the younger son who returns home rehearsing terms of servility rather than sonship. The parable of the merciful Father puts before us two visions of life, and two main versions of prodigality; it thus captures the two basic meanings of prodigal: wasteful and/or lavish. There is the prodigality of the sons who allow the substance of their lives and identities to either be cast carelessly or slip silently away in mere dutifulness, the prodigality of those who lose their truest selves even as they grasp at wealth, adventure, duty, role, or other forms of security and "fulfillment". And there is the prodigality of the Father who loves and spends himself generously without limit or condition. In other words, there is death and there is life, law and gospel. Both stand before us ready to be embraced. Which form of prodigality will we choose? For indeed, the banquet hall is ready for us and the Father stands waiting at this very moment, ring, robe, and sandals in hand.

Followup Question: Resistant to Canon 603 in one's Heart of Hearts

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I am shocked that anyone who feels the way the person does in the post about Bishops requesting they become a canon 603 hermit would even consider such a thing. But aren't there stories about superiors asking people to do things like this despite their not wanting to? True, they don't happen so much anymore but I know I have heard some. What would happen if the person became convinced that God was calling her to this because her Bishop asked her to accept profession?]] (cf, Sickened by being Called)

Hi there yourself! Of course it is very unlikely today that a Bishop would do as you describe. Most dioceses have at least a handful of people who really desire to be professed in this way and a Bishop would be far more likely to discern a true vocation from among these before he would turn to someone who speaks about the vocation itself in such negative terms or who truly feels sickened by the thought of being professed in this way and personally having such a vocation. To be frank, were a Bishop to act in this way it would be a slap in the face of those who deeply desire such profession and have presented themselves in good faith for discernment with the diocese only to be deemed unsuited for an extended discernment process or for admission to profession itself.

It would be insulting to those dioceses who have professed candidates in good faith or to diocesan hermits who both love their vocation and are committed to canon 603 as a legitimate and significant instance of the development of such. Further, it would not be the healthiest thing for the person being professed and could well lead to a failed vocation, compromised conscience judgments, and thus too, to actual sin. Finally, it would set a terribly destructive precedent regarding how discernment takes place, how we gauge the presence of a vocation, how the Holy Spirit works in these matters, how we conceive of authentic obedience or the theology of grace, and a number of other issues including the question of the validity and edifying quality of such a "commitment" or the vows used to embrace it. So let's be clear that on any number of grounds, spiritual, theological, pastoral, and canonical, Bishops and their curia would generally find such an arrangement completely inappropriate and even offensive.

A Change of Mind and Heart?

But your question shifts things a bit. What if the person truly became convinced she should do this because of the Bishop's desire to profess her?  In such a case SOME of the problems would drop away or at least be diminished. For instance, we would not need to be as concerned about the validity of the vows, of creating a disedifying situation for the diocese, nor so much about potentially creating or colluding in a situation where the individual could be compromising or violating her own conscience judgments. But to really be sure of the truth of her conviction, other things would also have to change. The individual would need to accept whole-heartedly that the vocation was the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church; she would need to esteem it and its developing nature. She would need to reject the idea that any variations present generally indicate an abuse of the canon and come to clarity that variability from diocese to diocese may well indicate the result of the Church's response to the Holy Spirit.

She would need a correlative change of heart as well. She would really need to be convinced that this was the way God was calling her personally to achieve human wholeness and holiness. She could not only not be "sickened" by the vocation but would probably need to evidence some personal enthusiasm for and imagination regarding its place in and possibilities for fruitfully addressing the contemporary church and world. In other words she would need to appreciate the gift or charismatic nature of the vocation both personally and generally. Flowing from this she would likely need to demonstrate a sense of responsibility, gratitude,  joy, and freedom at being called to this. Finally, she would absolutely need to give every evidence that she believed all of this in her heart of hearts and was truly desirous of committing her whole self  for the rest of her life to God in this way and to the vocation itself as an inspired way of serving the Church and the world. In other words, she would need to give evidence that petitioning for admittance to profession as a diocesan hermit was an act of profound discernment and obedience, not simply a matter of doing what someone else thought was a good idea --- even if that person is the Bishop of the diocese.

Discernment and Obedience in the Past and Now

Yes, there are many stories about people taking on tasks because others desired it. There are numerous stories about superiors desiring something and  "subjects" accepting this as the will of God. More, we have had people accepting roles as Priors, Abbots, Abbesses, Bishoprics and even the papacy for reasons they thought constituted signs of the will of God while also admitting grave reservations about the truth or prudence of such a thing. Just recently in light of Benedict XVI's resignation we remembered the story of Celestine V, a hermit who was convinced to become Pope but who resigned his office within just a few months for the good of the Church. Despite doubts, Celestine had accepted the will of the non-conclave electors putting an end to a two year process of election. Good came from Celestine's election AND his resignation, but it seems that the deeper doubts and desires proved to be the truer pointers to or signs of the will of God in Celestine's life --- at least in the long term! Too often in the history of the Church obedience was defined in terms of doing what one was told and discernment was simply treated as synonymous with "hearing what the superior desired."

Today we recognize that discernment is a complex or at least demanding process of hearkening (listening and responding) to the presence and will of God; in ecclesial vocations (Religious life, ordination, consecrated virginity, diocesan eremitical life) it is truly a mutual process where the Bishop and his staff listen carefully to the candidate, to those who know the candidate well including psychologists, physicians, pastors, directors, to their own minds and hearts, to God and his Church (tradition and history) while the candidate listens carefully to God, to her own mind and heart, to the Church (especially on the tradition and history of her proposed vocation), and to those she is working with at the chancery. Obedience too is not a simple matter of merely "doing what one is told". Because it is a serious form of  hearkening to the voice of God one needs to truly honor all the ways that voice comes to us. In a profession of vows there must be a sense that every person actively involved in coming to this has listened attentively and is responding to the voice of God in this situation. Otherwise the result will not be edifying (it will not build up the Church in love --- much less the Kingdom!) and may even become a scandal.

Clarifying an Argument

[[ Sister O'Neal,  I didn't understand your explanation about skipping the nuptial language and imagery from the rite of profession for nuns. Couldn't it be that the reason for skipping it if the nuns are going to become consecrated virgins is because they will become brides of Christ when they are consecrated. This does seem like moving from engagement to marriage. But you said it means just the opposite. Can you explain it to me again?]]

First, let's be clear that the Church has never held that in religious profession Sisters or nuns merely become engaged to Christ or that there is not a genuine espousal in the original Semitic sense. Keeping that in mind let's temporarily hold onto the crude hypothesis put forward by some CV's that some are "engaged" and others are "married" just to explore the importance of omitting the spousal language, imagery, symbolism and the prayer of consecration as the Church requires for a woman participating in both rites (Perpetual Religious Profession and Consecrated Virginity). As I will argue below, you are correct that persons become espoused when they are consecrated. It is for that reason the Rite of Perpetual profession omits this when the consecration of virgins is to be received as well as the Rite of  (Solemn or Perpetual) Profession.

My argument went something like this:

1) if the meaning of the spousal imagery, language, and symbolism in the Rite of Profession is essentially different than in the Rite of Consecration of Virginity, that is, if it means engagement in the first rite and marriage in the second (as one CV's argument would imply), why should anyone omit these things from the first Rite? Quite the contrary: if these elements are the means to becoming engaged in the first Rite and married in the second, and one is moving from engagement to marriage, these things should be retained

2) Similarly, if a Religious "consecrates herself" in the Rite of Profession, but is consecrated by God in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins, and if the two prayers of consecration or solemn blessing are therefore different in meaning and significance, then why shouldn't they be repeated in the two Rites? Omitting them from the first Rite for someone receiving/participating in both Rites only makes sense if their meaning is essentially the same. Otherwise the Church's concern with duplicating these portions of the Rites is unwarranted. There are theological reasons for confirming Religious do not "consecrate themselves" but this underscores those.

3) Espousal only occurs once, and for this reason the Church omits all associated spousal language, imagery, and symbolism from the first Rite (Solemn Profession) ONLY if the nun is going to also participate in the Rite of the consecration of virginity. The dynamic of dedication and consecration which forms a whole is only "completed" in the two Rites together when a nun is ALSO receiving the consecration of virgins.

4) Similarly, it is because the language, imagery, and symbolism is part of effecting and marking the same espousal that the Church includes it  in the Rite of Solemn profession for those NOT receiving the consecration of virginity. Likewise the prayer of solemn blessing or consecration (also an effective or performative language event) is used in profession for those NOT participating in the Rite of Consecration of virginity because such a consecration is received only once. In other words the act of mediation of God's consecration of the person by the Church symbolized in the prayer, even when the two Rites are separated in time, is only accomplished ONCE for each nun but it MUST be completed in one Rite or the other because the nun does not consecrate herself.

5) What differs (or can differ) is not the basic spousal bond, but the graces, charism and commission attached to the two vocations. My sense is that ordinarily the consecration of virginity makes more explicit the spousal bond but this may not always be so. What emphatically would NOT happen in a monastery of nuns for instance would be some being "engaged" to Christ and others actually "married" to him. In all cases, whether through the consecration of the rite of religious profession or the addition of consecration of virginity the Sisters are espoused to Christ.

 I hope this is helpful.

Called to Canon 603 and yet "sickened" by Canon 603 eremitical life?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, are hermits called to profession by their parishes or Bishops? I guess I am asking if a person could feel adverse to becoming a canon 603 hermit but be called to it by parish, diocese, or Bishop? I heard someone calling herself [name omitted] suggest this. She doesn't think canonical status is a good thing and says she is even sickened by it. She says she believes it will not and should not last as an option because of all the abuses by Bishops and hermits, but also that she would be willing to accept it if her Bishop said he wanted this. Her point is that there are graces for the church and for the hermit which come from public profession so she is open to these graces.]] (redacted)

If I understand your first question, the answer is no, this is not the way things work with regard to this (or any!) vocation and especially not ecclesial vocations. While a diocesan hermit is called forth from her faith community by representatives of the Church on behalf of God and the entire Church during the Rite of Religious Profession, and while both hermit candidate and Church are involved in a serious mutual discernment process up through this point (and beyond it if the vows being made are temporary), this is not like a community discerning that perhaps someone from their midst should serve as deacon and then assisting and supporting them in going through the training and formal discernment process, for instance. Still, please note that even in such cases the person must themselves truly discern the vocation and the Church still may or may not concur. This means they must see its value, believe profoundly it is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Church and world, and also feel certain in their heart of hearts that God is calling them personally to this. Only when this is the case is it really possible for the Church hierarchy to truly discern the truth of this for this diocese and at this point in time.

Remember that when we are called to a vocation and especially to an ecclesial vocation like Religious life, ordination, or consecrated virginity we take on not only our own personal vocations but a place in the living tradition of that vocation itself. I honestly don't see how someone who actually felt "sickened" by the vocation itself, who thought it would and should die out, or who was merely undertaking it because they were asked to do so could represent it authentically. Surely we could not say this was the Holy Spirit's work in their lives because they simply have no love for any of this, not for the vocation, not for the way the Holy Spirit is working through this specific vocation, not for those others who do feel so called, and not for the unique gift the vocation represents and which those representing it are called to live with heart, mind, body, and soul.

The underlying question here is the nature of true obedience which is at the heart of all genuine discernment. While all of those vowed to obedience will be asked to do things from time to time they may not fully agree with, they simply cannot go against their heart of hearts and still be truly obedient to the will of God in their own lives. Obedience is not merely about "doing what one is told"; it is about listening intently to the voice of God in one's life and acting on that. A major part of that is surely listening to one's own deepest convictions. More, doing what one is told and simply disregarding or denying the contrary voice of one's own heart is not authentic discernment either although it has sometimes been mistaken for this. In the case you have described, presuming the person is actually in honest dialogue with the Bishop (or diocese) about this, both the Bishop (or his representatives) and the candidate are called to listen intently together to determine the will of God in this diocese and in the life of this person.

On the graces attached to public profession:

Yes, there are graces attached to public profession. But these are not something that can be externalized, concretized, or reified, and then piled into a basket to be showered on the candidate (or others) like rice after a wedding. The graces are not extrinsic to the actual call/response itself. In other words if the Church is not mediating a true call and the hermit is not responding to one the profession will not be the grace-filled event it is meant to be. Grace always has to do with the powerful presence of God and in the act of public profession this powerful presence is unleashed in the heart of the hermit and in the life of the Church as well. Thus, we see the hermit becoming more herself, experiencing a freedom she may have only opaquely sensed was possible, and otherwise bearing fruit in many different ways in her own life, the life of the parish and diocese, with regard to this vocation, etc.

In the ecclesial and personal act of profession the person commits her entire self to God and therefore, to her vocation, to the church in Christ, and as a result God is able to work in her life in ways which are not generally possible apart from such a commitment. Another way of saying this is that in making a whole-hearted commitment, the person opens herself to the active and powerful presence of God in ways she has longed and been called to do. Of course this will bear fruit. But what a different picture of profession stems from the situation described in your question! The idea that a person who did not truly feel called, is sickened by the vocation itself, is acting on someone else's desires and not those of her own heart simply does not comport with the idea of authentic profession; it will hardly be a grace-filled occasion in the way one truly called experiences it or the way a Church depending upon authentic discernment of the will of God at every level experiences it.


Abuses by Bishops and Hermits:

As a reader of this blog you are probably aware  I have no great sympathy for actual misuses and abuses of canon 603. I have written about several that have occurred over the last three decades as well as tendencies which can lead to actual abuses or misuses. I have also written about the consequences of such misuse or abuse. Still, it is not the case that this is common. Far more often we are merely dealing with a learning curve with both Bishops and hermits coming to greater experiential understanding not only about the eremitical vocation but to its shape and significance for the contemporary Church and society at large. Canon 603, as I have written, balances non-negotiable or essential elements which have been present throughout the history of eremitical life with a Rule written by the hermit herself which allows her to shape these elements faithfully but personally according to her own authentic discernment of God's call in her life. This is PART of the nature of the call itself and a piece of what public profession requires of the hermit, how ever she determines she is meant to do this.

The variations we see in canon 603 hermits (age limits, habits or none, titles or no titles, vows or other sacred bonds, location of hermitage, horarium, differences in ministries apart from prayer alone, level of participation in parish life, and a number of other things) are mainly a function of the healthy interplay of these two dimensions of the canon as hermits, their Bishops, delegates, pastors, Vicars, and others discern what the Holy Spirit is calling them and the Church to in regard to canon 603. Remember that there are very few rules or laws in place about the use of canon 603 beyond the content of the canon itself. There is no sense that this is changing and I think that is a good thing. However, general experience and prudence figures into all of this in significant degrees. Thus, for instance, we generally find this is a second half of life vocation and though there is no rule about this, the Church will assess the wisdom of professing younger vocations as solitary hermits on a case by case basis. (Ordinarily they do better to try their vocations in an eremitical or monastic community.) Errors may occur in this and in other things, but this does not necessarily mean anything has been misused or abused, much less that variation means abuse is rampant.

It is when the actual nature of the life defined in the canon, or the essential elements themselves are disregarded that we get actual abuses. So, a canon meant to govern solitary eremitical vocations should not legitimately be used to create communities and skip the canonical process already established for that; a life of full-time ministry outside the hermitage with contemplative prayer on Saturdays should not use canon 603 simply because there is no other canon available to profess individuals; persons who have been unsuited to religious life, or who have failed in other life endeavors, nor those who live alone ought not automatically be assumed to be called to canon 603 profession much less be admitted to this. While individuals may seek to use the canon in these and other illegitimate ways, at the level of the chancery itself my own sense is that in the main canonists and Bishops do not often allow these persons to be professed and Vicars or Vocation personnel do not entertain such petitions. Exceptions are problematical, no doubt, and they must be addressed, but they are still exceptions.

Bottom Line:

I don't personally believe any Bishop would actually ask a person who felt the way this person says she feels about canon 603 eremitical life to even consider becoming a diocesan hermit --- at least not if she is honest with him. Clearly there are a number of significant reasons for this. It may be that speaking this way allows someone to temporize and thus deal in increasingly effective ways with some sort of disappointment that she is not called to this or deal with the fact that her diocese will actually not profess her. But whatever the reason, I think her expectations and approach are, at best, unrealistic and misleading regarding the nature of vocation, discernment, obedience, public profession and the graces and import of public profession within the church.

Should our Focus be ONLY on what makes vocations distinct from one another?

[[Dear Sister, if espousal to Christ is an icon of the Church it seems to me that married couples would also serve in this way. But if this is true, then how does the witness they give differ from that of religious and consecrated virgins? I am trying to understand what distinguishes these vocations. If EVERYONE'S vocation represents an instance of the spousal bond with Christ, then doesn't the vocation of the CV lose its distinctiveness? You quoted one CV a few weeks back who said if the vocation didn't have its own mission and identity she hoped it would simply be suppressed. Doesn't your theology empty this vocation of distinctness? Doesn't it lead to the very situation this CV outlined?]]

First let me quote the passage you are referring to just so it will be available: [[ I often think that it will be good if CV lives its own ancient charism like the virgin-martyrs in today's world . But if it is called to modify its charism and embrace what other vocations like secular inst and laity already are called to live, then I personally would prefer if CV is totally suppressed by the Church or used as a ceremony or rite available to all vocations of consecrated life but not as a vocation with its own identity and mission.]]

Regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, it is true that it represents an icon of the Church and of the spousal bond with Christ shared by everyone in the Church. Remember that Pope Benedict wrote: [[This means that Christ and the Church are one body in the sense in which man and woman are one flesh, that is, in such a way that in their indissoluble spiritual-bodily union, they nonetheless remain unconfused and unmingled. The Church does not simply become Christ, she is ever the handmaid whom he lovingly raises to be his Bride and who seeks his face throughout these latter days.]] (Called to Communion) While Benedict was writing here in part to establish the Trinitarian nature of espousal it follows clearly that married couples are icons of the Church as spouse or Bride of Christ. Further, it is important to note that both males and females serve in this way.

Again, all of the vocations mentioned serve as icons of the Church as Bride of Christ, and some symbolize mainly the this-worldly character of that identity. Thus the Sacrament of Matrimony. Others point to the eschatological nature of this identity; that is, some point to a union with Christ which is eternal and which is the perfection or fulfillment of any this-worldly reality. They point to a spousal bond which is present proleptically here and now in the midst of the worldly reality we know so well but whose fullness and perfection is identified as heaven or "the Kingdom" --- the realm where God is truly all in all and no one is given in marriage. Religious vocations and the vocation of consecrated virginity are examples of this latter witness with CV's called upon to make this imagery and reality explicitly present in the "things of the spirit and the things of the world". For Religious the spousal bond is the presupposition to and foundation for everything else they are and do but for most it is usually less explicit in their ministry, charisms, or commissions than in those of CV's. In any case, the question is not one of distinctiveness so much as it is of significance or meaningfulness I think. CV's are called to make explicit a call shared by all Christians.

Every vocation reminds us of dimensions of what we are ALL called to. There is NO vocation which is merely distinct or meant to point to the specialness of the one called. In other words there will always be overlaps in the nature of each vocation because each one images and witnesses to Christ and the Trinity. Ordained priesthood makes explicit and paradigmatic dimensions of the priesthood of all believers and the call to be Christ for others as Christ was given for others. Similarly Religious life makes explicit and paradigmatic lives of prayer, service, and the evangelical counsels rooted in a spousal relationship with Christ all are called to in some way. Consecrated virgins are called to make explicit the spousal bond every Christian is called to and to live out the gifts of spousal, maternal, and virginal love which are the perfection of every act of Christian ministry and care; some (those living in the world) are called to do so in a way which summons anyone living a secular life to such authentically human ways of being. Others do so as persons separated from "the world" by vows and cloister and also call all to authentically human being.

While the things that distinguish vocations from one another are important, focus on them need not blind us to the deep similarities and foundations they share. Only as we are aware of and honor these can we truly esteem the one who is their source rather than the one who is gifted by him. Vocations' diversity and special charisma are important because the Body has different functions and needs but there is a universality about these as well.  For instance, every life can and should witness to the nature and place of solitude in the redemption of isolation but few can do so as effectively as hermits. This is part of the gift all eremitical lives are to the whole church and world --- not because only hermits are called to authentic solitude, but because we ALL are. 

Beyond this, lay hermits may be able to speak more powerfully about this to many people who will never have standing of any kind than will a diocesan hermit who has been given standing in law. On the other hand, the diocesan hermit may (and only may) be able to witness more effectively to others about the history of the eremitical vocation in the church as well as to its ecclesial nature and its normative characteristics and significance by virtue of her standing in law.  Though there are meaningful differences, the two vocations are essentially the same; where they differ is in graces, charisms, and mission. It would be a terrible mistake to argue that these qualitative differences are necessarily the same as differences in essence. The challenge is to honor BOTH commonalities and differences. The result of failing in this is elitism and an inability to truly witness in the ways the Church calls on us to do. Remember that martyrdom refers to witnessing with one's life to the love of God for us in Christ. That love is a covenantal or spousal love offered to all and meant to turn this world and its values on their heads.

Are male Religious Espoused to Christ?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, do you think male religious are also espoused to Christ in the same way female Religious are? Isn't it significant that the consecration of Virgins is ONLY allowed for women? Doesn't this suggest that it is not the same as the consecration of Religious?]]

This is certainly an important series of questions.  My answers begin with the fact that traditionally male Religious HAVE been thought to be espoused to Christ as Bridegroom in a way similar to female religious though this has most often been much less explicit or emphasized than it has for women --- especially recently. Still, it is an outgrowth of the insight that everyone baptized in the Church is called to spousal union with Christ and the eschatological realization of that covenantal relationship. Male Religious have traditionally represented paradigms of this just as female religious do. (To see strong examples we have only to look at the writing of men like St John of the Cross, Origen, Bernard, et al) In the current Rite of Religious Profession for Men, the spousal language and imagery has been significantly toned down so that it tends to use language and imagery like "union with Christ," "remaining unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom of God", "being one with Christ in the bonds of love", "whole-hearted service to God and to God's People", being an "eschatological sign (or icon)," etc. Here it seems to me that we are still very definitely dealing with the foundational union with or espousal to Christ here.  The language is somewhat different (though John of the Cross would recognize it in an instant as bridal or nuptial) and it seems to me the graces and charisms associated with the person's expression of this espousal generally differ even more significantly than amongst women religious.

I am also not sure how much of this diminishing of spousal imagery is merely cultural or driven by a reluctance to speak in terms which may be considered "effeminate" --- though I suspect this is a big piece of it because much of the language  in the Rite has to do with stereotypically "male" virtues or characteristics. I think it is undisputed that men experience their sexuality (and also their commitment to celibacy) differently than women do and this is reflected in the language and symbolism of the Rite. Further, some parts of the Church have tended today to move further away from Paul's "neither male nor female" theology of Galatians or his affirmation of 2 Cor 11:2** made to the entire assembly, and may, as a result, be tending (or at least seeming to tend) to treat the profession of men as fundamentally different than that of women today. Still, this does not mean it is fundamentally different; what it more likely indicates, despite its clarity to me, is the obscuring of a dimension of religious profession and its loss to explicit expression and thus, perhaps even to imagination. This would be a development which I consider unfortunate.

This tendency is exacerbated today by the linking of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins to women only, sometimes with commentators mistakenly asserting that it is the female counterpart of male ordination where females marry Christ and males image Christ or serve as alter Christus. This kind of sexual fundamentalism is a betrayal of the Tradition, and contrasts crudely with the baptismal faith Paul articulated in Gal 3:28, however. Still, the Church has spoken of her openness to creating a similar Rite to the Consecration of Virgins for males (these certainly existed in the early church though in smaller numbers), so perhaps we will see the development of a Rite which 1) recovers the mystical tradition of espousal or betrothal to Christ for males living secular lives and 2) makes this spousal imagery explicit once again in a way which summons the entire Church to assume the truth of Paul's eschatological affirmation: "I have betrothed you to one husband to present you as the chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor 11:2). The nuptial or spousal imagery will NOT speak to or resonate with everyone, nor will everyone be called to the same affective and contemplative experience or praxis (i.e., there will be qualitative differences), but just as everyone is called to union with Christ, opening this language and imagery more explicitly to men living secular lives might help every Christian understand why Paul writes as he does as it assists us all to imagine the profound depths and extent of the relationship with Christ we all ARE called to.

Again, I don't think there is an essential difference between the consecration of virgins living in the world and that of Religious. (Qualitative differences and essential differences are not necessarily the same thing.) We must be careful not to use the Rite of Consecration in this way for this way leads to all kinds of problems with elitism, as well as asserting a kind of sexual fundamentalism which is contrary to the Gospel, etc. What it does open up to us is the notion that union with Christ is a universal call and that spousal language and imagery is a rich resource the entire Church can benefit from whether we are speaking of persons leading secular or religious lives and whether we are speaking of males or females. I can see such a development helping us in combating the very things misuse fosters. For instance it would be helpful for men to understand that contemplative experiences of espousal and union are not effeminate but profoundly human. It would be helpful for the whole Church to learn that mystical union or betrothal has never been ONLY the preserve of  Religious and especially not of Women Religious, but instead is a way of symbolizing the call of the entire Church and the nature of the entire Church's eschatological hope.

** "I have betrothed you to one husband to present you as the chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor 11:2)

All are Sons in Christ

[[Dear Sister, recently you said that the language of Sonship is not sexist. Sure sounds like it is to me! Do you also disagree with the use of inclusive language?]]

Hi there. I think you are referring to a post I put up around the first Sunday of Lent about each of us being Baptized into Jesus' Sonship. In that post I said that being called Sons (as it occurs in the Scriptures) was not sexist because, as Paul makes VERY clear, in Christ there is neither male nor female. As I thought about this usage, then, it occurred to me that far from being sexist it was anti-sexist and that it spoke powerfully in a counter cultural way -- certainly it did so in Jesus' day -- of a fundamental equality between men and women and what was achieved at baptism. I think this was underscored for me recently, though in terms much cruder than those of  Paul and Jesus, as I read a book about Virgins in the early Church (Church Fathers, Independent Virgins). There virgins given entirely to Christ were seen to have relinquished all of the "deficiencies" of women --- mainly having to do with sex. St Perpetua even had a dream on the eve of her trip to the arena in which she was clad as a gladiator and fought against other gladiators rather then against beasts.

In other words, virgins were seen as "men" in Christ and as a result served in many of the ways men did. As the book makes clear, citing Isidore of Seville [[. . .the word femina comes from the Greek derived from the force of fire because her concupiscence is very passionate: women are more libindinous than men.]] or, as Jerome warned, [[It is not the harlot, or the adulteress who is spoken of, but woman's love in general is accused of being ever insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need; it enervates a man's mind, and engrosses all thought except for the passion which it feeds.]] Women were blamed simply for being women. While sexuality did not define manliness it did define womanliness. Further, men were considered spiritual whereas women were primarily carnal. The solution? A dedication to Christ in which women renounced those things that characterized them as women. As Jerome summarizes: [[. . .as long as woman is for birth and children, she is different from men as body is from soul. But if she wishes to serve Christ more than the world, then she will cease to be a woman and will be called man.]] Moving back again from the backwards and insulting notions of feminine sexuality just noted, the bottom line especially in Pauline theology is that in Christ we are all Sons of God, and thus, heirs --- with all that means for ANY Son and heir. The Scriptures do not speak only to or about men; they speak a truth in which gender is transcended in baptism into Christ's death and resurrection.

Today, of course, we do try to do justice to this bottom-line-truth without buying into the crude anthropology of Jerome, Ambrose, Isidore, etc. Thus we speak of all of us being Sons and Daughters of God in Christ. We need inclusive language in part because today the Church has moved away from Paul's own theology of Gal 3:28 as well as from the insights of the early Church Fathers that, cruder elements aside, identity in Christ allowed one to transcend one's gender and serve in ways only men would have been allowed to at the time. Women have been alienated as a result of sexism and inclusive language assists in overcoming that alienation. Thus, I believe that inclusive language is necessary and helpful. However, I think that in the Biblical texts, the use of Sonship, and more, the title "Son" for ALL Christians can be a leveling language which itself says NO MORE divisions of role or office based on gender! Such usage underscores the equality of men and women in Christ in ways inclusive language actually cannot do nearly as effectively. We have treated it as a sexist expression and I believe that perhaps in this particular case we ought not do that. Instead we should allow (and in fact, call) the Church to seriously grapple with the fact that it strongly signals that in Christ we are ALL adopted Sons and heirs and that in Christ "there is neither male nor female". I wonder if inclusive language has not sometimes actually diffused this challenge and call at the same time it has carried it forward.

One thing is key: we must see Christ as the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON and the rest of us participating in this Sonship in light only of Baptism. All Sonship (all life in Christ) then is derivative and linked to participation in Jesus' own relationship with God. When we look at a Baptized Christian we are to see a person with all the rights and obligations of Sonship in light of JESUS' identity. None of this is based on Gender. When looked at from this perspective, to call all baptized Christians "Son" is anti-sexist and serves to level arbitrary distinctions in service based on gender. Once I would have bristled at being called a "Son"; now, in light of the past few weeks, I can see myself standing strong in my own womanhood and holding a banner proclaiming exactly this identity in Christ to those who would trivialize and obscure the paradoxical and counter cultural truth Paul affirmed in Galatians. "In Christ I am a Son and heir!" Let us learn to honor that in every way.

The Feast of the Transfiguration and the Story of the Invisible Gorilla (Reprised)

Although today's Gospel is Luke's version of the Transfiguration, I am reprising a post I put up in August looking at Matthew's version of the story. I am hoping to get a reflection finished using Luke's and focusing especially on prayer and Lent but, for now, this is what I have. I hope it is helpful. The painting, Transfiguration, is by Lewis Bowman.

**********************

Have you ever been walking along a well-known road and suddenly had a bed of flowers take on a vividness which takes your breath away? Similarly, have you ever been walking along or sitting quietly outside when a breeze rustles some leaves above your head and you were struck by an image of the Spirit moving through the world? How about suddenly being struck by the tremendous compassion of someone you know well, or seeing their smile in a new way and coming to see them in a whole new light  because of this? I have had all of these happen, and, in the face of God's constant presence, what is in some ways more striking is how infrequent such peak or revelatory moments are.

Scientists tell us we see only a fraction of what goes on all around us. It depends upon our expectations.  In an experiment with six volunteers divided into two teams in either white or black shirts, observers were asked to concentrate on the number of passes of a basketball that occurred as players wove in and out around one another. In the midst of this activity a woman in a gorilla suit strolls through, stands there for a moment, thumps her chest, and moves on. At the end of the experiment observers were asked two questions: 1) how many passes were there, and 2) did  you see the gorilla? Fewer than 50% saw the gorilla.  Expectations drive perception and can produce blindness. Even more shocking, these scientists tell us that even when we are confronted with the truth we are more likely to insist on our own "knowledge" and justify decisions we have made on the basis of blindness and ignorance. We routinely overestimate our own knowledge and fail to see how much we really do NOT know.

For the past two weeks we have been reading the central chapter of  Matthew's Gospel --- the chapter that stands right smack in the middle of his version of the Good News. It is Matt's collection of Jesus' parables --- the stories Jesus tells to help break us open and free us from the common expectations, perspectives, and wisdom we hang onto so securely so that we might commit to the Kingdom of God and the vision of reality it involves. Throughout this collection of parables Jesus takes the common, too-well-known, often underestimated and unappreciated bits of reality which are right at the heart of his hearers' lives. He uses them to reveal the extraordinary God who is also right there in front of his hearers. Stories of tiny seeds, apparently completely invisible once they have been tossed about by a prodigal sower, clay made into works of great artistry and function, weeds and wheat which reveal a discerning love and judgment which involves the careful and sensitive harvesting of the true and genuine --- all of these and more have given us the space and time to suspend our usual ways of seeing and empower us to adopt the new eyes and hearts of those who dwell within the Kingdom of God.

It was the recognition of the unique authority with which Jesus taught, the power of his parables in particular which shifted the focus from the stories to the storyteller in the Gospel passage we heard last Friday. Jesus' family and neighbors did not miss the unique nature of Jesus' parables; these parables differ in kind from anything in Jewish literature and had a singular power which went beyond the usual significant power of narrative. They saw this clearly. But they also refused to believe the God who revealed himself in the commonplace reality they saw right in front of them. Despite the authority they could not deny they chose to see only the one they expected to see; they decided they saw only  the son of Mary, the son of Joseph and "took offense at him." Their minds and hearts were closed to who Jesus really was and the God he revealed.  Similarly, Jesus' disciples too could not really accept an anointed one who would have to suffer and die. Peter especially refuses to accept this.

It is in the face of these situations that we hear today's Gospel of the Transfiguration. Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up on a mountain apart. He takes them away from the world they know (or believe they know) so well, away from peers, away from their ordinary perspective,  and he invites them to see who he really is. In the Gospel of Luke Jesus' is at prayer --- attending to the most fundamental relationship of his life --- when the Transfiguration occurs. Matthew does not structure his account in the same way. Instead he shows Jesus as the one whose life is a profound dialogue with God's law and prophets, who is in fact the culmination and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, the culmination of the Divine-Human dialogue we call covenant. He is God-with-us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place. This is what the disciples see --- not so much a foretelling of Jesus' future glory as the reality which stands right in front of them ---to the extent they have the eyes to see with! The important change in this story is not in Jesus' objective appearance, but in the hearts and eyes of his disciples.

For most of us, such an event would freeze us in our tracks with awe. But not Peter! He outlines a project to reprise the Feast of Tabernacles right here and now. In this story Peter reminds me some of those folks (myself included!) who want so desperately to hang onto amazing prayer experiences --- but in doing so, fail to appreciate them fully or live from them! He is, in some ways, a kind of lovable but misguided buffoon ready to build booths for Moses, Elijah and Jesus, consistent with his tradition while neglecting the newness and personal challenge of what has been revealed. In some way Matt does not spell out explicitly, Peter has still missed the point. That he has seen Jesus clearly is wonderful, of course; but it is not enough. And in the midst of Peter's well-meaning activism comes God's voice, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!" In my reflection on this reading this last weekend, I heard something more: "Peter! Sit down! Shut up! You have finally seen him clearly. This is my beloved Son! Now Listen to him!!!"

The lesson could not be clearer, I think. In this day where the Church is conflicted and some authority seems incredible, we must take the time to see what is right in front of us. We must listen to the One who comes to us in the Scriptures and Sacraments, the One who speaks to us through Bishops and all believers. We must really be the People of God, the "hearers of the Word" who know how to listen and are obedient in the way God summons us to be. This is true whether we are God's lowliest hermit or one of the Vicars of Christ who govern our dioceses and college of Bishops. Genuine authority coupled with true obedience empowers new life, new vision, new perspectives and reverence for the ordinary reality God makes Sacramental. There is a humility involved in all of this. It is the humility of the truly wise, the truly knowing person. We must be able to recognize how very little we see, how unwilling we are to be converted to the perspective of the Kingdom, how easily we justify our blindness and deafness with our supposed knowledge, and how even our well-intentioned activism can prevent us from seeing and hearing the unexpected, sometimes scandalous God standing there right in the middle of our reality.

Misunderstandings Revisited

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I wrote you the post about CV's as brides and religious as engaged and about your not esteeming the CV vocation and calling it secular because of that. I think you understood my questions. Could you please answer them for me? Is this direct enough? I don't understand what you mean by "passive aggressive nonsense." Thank you.]]

First, thanks for trying again. I appreciate the fact that you dropped the assumptions you were making about my motivations and attitudes. Thank you for that.

 According to the post I put up a couple of weeks ago, the questions I outlined were as follows: [[ 1) Are CV's Brides of Christ in a sense different from Religious women and should they be esteemed for that identity? (In your post I think this boils down to the elitist, "Shouldn't we esteem them because they have been chosen for such a special identity?") 2) Am I reacting negatively to CV's living in the world either because they are REALLY Brides and I am "only engaged" to Christ (assuming this is even the case), or because I don't care for the bridal or spousal imagery attached to both vocations? and, 3) have I actually somehow said that the vocation of the CV living in the world is not wonderful and worthy of recognition because I consider it a secular vocation?]] I also want to briefly add something about Religious tending the eschew the spousal imagery and identification because your post referred to that.

First, is there a difference between CV's as Brides of Christ and Religious as Brides of Christ? Are they Brides or espoused in a different sense from one another?  Is one a Bride and the other not? To begin with then, I think we have to understand that the spousal language and imagery in both the Rite of Consecration and the Rite of (Perpetual) Religious Profession is strong and rooted in Baptism. Both speak of Christ as the person's only Bridegroom and there is no sense given that one reference is metaphorical while the other is literal. Further, both rites include a prayer of consecration and the giving of a ring; there are other elements of the rite which have specifically nuptial significance as well. Thus, in the case of nuns ALSO being consecrated as virgins all of these specific elements are omitted from the Rite of Perpetual profession so that they are not duplicated. (cf. Rites, v. II, Chapter III, Consecration to a Life of Virginity, par 7.) This signals to me that the spousal nature of these elements is explicit and identical in both Rites. Were they different in significance duplication would not be a problem and the Church's caution about doing so would be unnecessary. (This is especially true were the spousal elements to indicate "engagement to Christ" in the (prior) Rite of Perpetual Religious Profession and actual marriage in the (subsequent) Rite of Consecration of Virginity, as one CV has mistakenly argued in her blog.)

From all of this two things seem clear to me then. First, the Church does not allow a duplication of consecrations (thus, there is ONLY one prayer of solemn blessing or consecration used, even when the two Rites are separated in time) which suggests they do not differ essentially. Neither, then, does she treat the Religious' profession of solemn vows as the equivalent of the prayer of consecration as though "Religious consecrate themselves" with the vow formula itself. She clearly expects the effective (mediatory) prayer of consecration to be included in some way which "completes" the dual movement we identify as dedication/consecration in the Rite of  Perpetual Profession itself --- whether with the additional use of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins or without it.  Thus, if the nun is not receiving the consecration of virgins, the prayer of solemn blessing or consecration (the meaning is the same for these terms) as well as the giving of the ring, and all of the nuptial language throughout the Rite, are definitely used during her liturgy of solemn/perpetual profession. Secondly then, it seems clear to me that the nuptial imagery and language are similarly significant and essential  in both Rites;  for that reason, while they are not to be duplicated, neither are they to be ultimately omitted; that is, they are only omitted temporarily in anticipation of their use in the additional Rite when it is used.

Because of this I would have to argue there is no essential  or fundamental difference in the senses in which Religious and CV's are espoused to Christ. Where there may be some qualitative differences however, are in the graces and charisms of the two vocations --- at least in the directness and explicitness of these. For instance, it is the call of CV's to live out the graces of spousal, maternal, and virginal love and to do so recognizably and explicitly. The CV is graced in ways which allow these forms of love to be specifically fruitful in her life and, I would think, explicit in her ministry; doing so is the distinct gift she brings the Church and world --- but not because she is wed to Christ and Religious are not. In living these forms of love out explicitly she serves not only as an icon of the Church (which is Bride of Christ) but of the generosity of Mary in regard to God and those he loves, as well as a witness to the Kingdom of God in which we each and all live in unbroken union with God so that no one will be given in marriage.

Religious are also called to live out spousal, maternal, and, if not also virginal, then celibate love. (In the early Church the term virginity did NOT refer only or even primarily to physical intactness. Instead it referred to a kind of wholeness and undividedness of person which allowed the virgin to dispose of herself according to her own free choice. Note well that we still call St Perpetua a virgin martyr despite her marriage and childbearing.) Throughout the history of religious life the vow one made was one of viginity and the spousal theme was "elaborately developed" (Schneiders, Selling All, 121). The recovery of the Rite of consecration of virgins living in the world does not change this part of the Church's Tradition nor does it deprive Religious Profession of this character. Rather, it extends it explicitly into the secular realm and underscores the value of physical virginity (as well as purity of heart) in a sex-saturated world. Today we find that despite this history most Religious today prefer the language of chasity or consecrated celibacy and tend to accent remaining "unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom" rather than "marriage to Christ"  in part because this accent expresses their availability and the charism of their vocation better than the term marriage.)

Even so, as Sister Sandra Schneiders writes: [[The life option expressed by profession is the commitment to love Jesus Christ totally, absolutely and forever, and to express and embody that love (which is the calling, of course, of all the baptized) in the complete and exclusive self-gift of consecrated celibacy (which is not the calling of all the baptized).]] and again, [[The commitment to religious life is a commitment to a person, Jesus Christ, in irrevocable love expressed in a particular form, namely, lifelong consecrated celibacy analogous to marriage, which is a commitment to the spouse in irrevocable love expressed in the particular form of lifelong and total monogamy. This commitment is a total self-gift that has an absolute priority in one's life and begins with no qualifications or loopholes or "ifs" and "only ifs". ]].

Thus, Religious too are graced in ways which make their relationship/union with Christ primary and model Mary's own obedience and fecundity. They too live lives which are icons of the Church's relationship with Christ the Bridegroom (the Rite of Religious Profession makes this clear). However, ordinarily they are commissioned to live these graces out differently and oftentimes less explicitly than CV's. (Obviously some Religious feel called to live these out in more explicit ways than others so this is not a distinction carved in stone. It is merely generally so.) Still,  the bottom line seems to me to be that CV's living in the world are called to live these graces out in a life of eschatological secularity while Religious are not. Again, I have to say both Religious and CV's are similarly espoused to the Christ as Bridegroom but the variety of graces, commissions, and charisms attached to this foundational identity differ.


Your second question is based on a misconception I already addressed both above and in the earlier post. It is NOT THE CASE that Religious are "engaged" while CV's are "really married." Certainly the Church has NEVER held this to be so. It may be based on a misunderstanding of the two stages of Jewish marriage in which betrothal means marriage already. (cf other posts on this.) Beyond this, my own relationship with Christ is subjectively nuptial, that is, I experience myself completed by Christ both as a person generally and as a woman more specifically in a relationship which has a singular (or, better, what seems to me to be an amazing or literally awesome) mutuality about it. This relationship is presupposed in all I am and do. So no, no sour grapes here.

However, what is also the case is that I do not feel any call to identify myself primarily or publicly as a "Bride of Christ". Instead, despite the fact that this status is both objectively and subjectively real for and precious to me, I feel a call to allow this to be foundational to my identity but to remain mainly implicit in my vocation.  What is explicit is my call to solitary eremitical life, the life of the vows, and my service to the Church and world through these. There is nothing I do or am that is not profoundly affected and qualified  by my nuptial relationship with Christ or the graces of spousal, maternal, and virginal love which stem from and accompany it (some, I think, more than others and at different times of course), but I do not feel called to identify these graces explicitly or publicly as the essence of my vocation nor are they the specific or explicit gift or charism I am called on to bring the Church and World.  For my own vocation they are ordinarily an entirely private intimacy I share with God alone. So, once again, no sour grapes here.

Regarding your third question, I have absolutely NOT suggested that the vocation of the CV living in the world is somehow unworthy by referring to its secularity.  As I have noted before, I sincerely believe that it is ONLY in accepting this vocation's secularity that it can be properly understood and esteemed by the entire People of God. Otherwise it can come across to people as half-baked ("why didn't you go 'all the way' and become a nun?") badly motivated, ("is this just for nun wannabe's who were unsuited to religious life or who simply were unable to embrace  a call to sexual intimacy and "real" marriage?") or anachronistic ("Why is reprising this vocation important for the contemporary Church? It seems irrelevant and a step backwards.").

I also sincerely believe that the vocation is esteemed by the Church (though it remains less than understood by the majority of Catholics whose only or at least primary experience of consecrated life is Religious life) and the only thing which could turn it into a second class vocation is the belated imposition of requirements which make the vocation quasi but not fully Religious and which therefore, minimizes, mitigates, or even wholly rejects its secularity. Doing this would ensure the vocation continues to be misunderstood as half-hearted or half-baked and invite seeing it as a stopgap or fallback vocation  just as some (e.g., the LA Province) were originally concerned would be the case.

P.S., there are several significant reasons Religious generally eschew the spousal imagery so long exclusively associated with their vocations. (Obviously for some this imagery is as central and explicit as it is for the CV living in the world.) All of these reasons are significant, but for the time being I want to leave this matter with the reason I mentioned above, namely, the sense that linguistically the phrase "unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom" better expresses their availability and call to a non-exclusive love for all of God's own than does the term "Bride of Christ." I am not arguing whether this is the case or not; I am merely stating a well-established general sense of the matter among contemporary women Religious.

Feast of the Chair of Peter

Tomorrow is the Feast of the Chair of Peter and there have probably not been many occasions to reflect on the Primacy of Peter which are as significant as this one. Four elements in particular confirm this opinion for me.

First, there is Vatican II and its focus on collegiality which was meant to contextualize and correct any notion of primacy which might separate Peter from the College of Bishops or make the Bishops mere "branch managers" with the Pope as CEO.  During this 50th anniversary year of the Council, we must remember this.

Second, there is John Paul II's encyclical Ut Unum Sint --- an encyclical which put Christian Unity ahead of uniformity and called upon the Church to help him reform the papacy/curia and the way these routinely did business.

Third, just last week we were presented with the resignation of Benedict explicitly offered for the good of the Church. Through this act of humility he reminded us that the papacy is a demanding ministry requiring expertise, skill, and stamina, not the role of a monarchical figurehead, the focus for a personality cult, nor an honorary ecclesiastical post necessarily held for life. Benedict, like his predecessor in Ut Unum Sint, acted to signal that the papacy was not necessarily exercised in the same way in every age, and in fact called us to let go of the notion that "business as usual" is synonymous with living Tradition. 

Fourth, we as Church are called on to reflect on the primacy of Peter and the way Jesus called on it to be exercised in light of the coming conclave to elect a new Pope. He (and those who elect him) will, we pray, take the Gospel passage we are looking at tomorrow as well as the reading from 1 Peter with absolute seriousness. After all, we all have ideas of what we would like and, more, what we truly need a Pope to be. In tomorrow's readings we are given a brief summary of Jesus' and the early Church's ideas of what is necessary for fulfilling the Petrine ministry.

Three things are particularly striking for me: 1) the absolute primacy of Peter's faith in Jesus as Christ and Son of God. This faith, this ability to entrust all Peter is to Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, and which itself is explicitly noted to be the result of God's grace, is the source of the authority Peter is invested with. If Peter is Vicar of Christ (as all Bishops are) it is first of all in light of the centrality of Jesus in his life and the degree to which he truly sees reality as Jesus Christ did/does. All of Peter's vision and courage come from this faith. It is the reality which will prevent Peter's primatial ministry from being distorted into an entirely worldly reality like the emperorship's of Caesar, et al. It is, in fact, the ONLY thing which makes such an incredible commission possible or reasonable in our world and the only thing which ensures the gates of the netherworld (including that realm's embodiment in human person, structures, and institutions) will not prevail against it.

Peter's faith fails only when he ceases to trust in the One who, by the power of God, he has come to know Jesus to be. It fails (and has failed in his successors in history) to the extent he allows fear and human weakness to make something else (e.g., the power of the Sanhedrin and the Roman Emperor, or the approval of James and his peers) his functional Lord. It succeeds or has the ascendancy whenever Peter allows Jesus to be God's anointed One and Son in Word and Deed and exercises the keys entrusted to him --- beginning with his own acceptance of the Risen Lord, his forgiveness of Peter's sinfulness and betrayal of Jesus, and continuing on with Paul's significant correction of his meal practice and instruction on freedom from the Law and the scandal of the Cross. As an integral part of this faith then, the NT demonstrates that Peter succeeds  in his pastorate only to the degree he allows his himself to be challenged by and to grow in his own obedience to others, including the "least of the apostles and untimely born" like Paul or the Churches whose lives of faith Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and others (including many women) witness to. Peter is called to faith in Jesus Christ and to the openness and responsiveness this faith makes possible. It should not be a surprise then, nor go unsaid that the next Pope needs to be a man of profound and personal faith in Christ with ALL that implies.


Thus, also striking is 2) the pastoral nature of Peter's commission. It is so important that the flock of God's Pilgrim People not be left without a visible, living, breathing shepherd who effectively symbolizes God's abiding presence with us. (We especially need to remember that in these days of dwindling priests and closing parishes; these (and any number of other significant crises) signal a tremendous failure in Peter's ministry as shepherd and calls for the Church to find fresh and effective ways to deal with the fact that so many in the People of God are going unfed and unled. We truly have to admit that wolves which were supposed to act as sheep dogs and shepherds have gotten to the flock, but also that many are starving or wandering bereft and alone for lack of creative and pastoral care that seeks them out and provides for their needs. When Jesus speaks of the true shepherd he does not speak of  the one proposing to get by with a "leaner meaner flock" but the one who, at the risk of much, creatively, flexibly, and faithfully searches out even the least and the lost and brings them home.)

Though it is foundational, faith is not enough. Peter had to learn to open his mind and heart to an ecclesia which was truly universal and quite diverse precisely for this reason. He had to come to an understanding of God's will which seemed to break all the rules of religion as he knew it; he came to know first hand a divine reign which turned the order of this world on its head, and which was both foolishness to the educated and a scandal to good religious folks of his day. He had to develop humility, docility, and the abilities to collaborate, empower, and confront at appropriate times and in varied situations. Peter failed when he caved into peer pressure (e.g., James and his group of Judaizers) or failed to see things in a new way in light of the Cross, his experience of the resurrected Christ, and his sincere hearkening to the needs of the People and the wisdom of theologians like Paul. As tomorrow's responsorial psalm implies, the Petrine Primacy is a great gift to the Church. However, it is a demanding ministry which must combine personal faith with the ability to PASTOR effectively, empathetically, and collegially if the Church is to continue living indefectibly in the truth and power of the Gospel.

3) Finally, I am struck by the incredibly far-reaching nature of this commission and mandate Jesus gives Peter and I have to ask myself how it came to be narrowed down or limited to the interpretation/translation, "whose sins you forgive will be forgiven and who sins you retain will be retained?" Of course sins are included here, but the text reads "what ever" you retain or loose. It does NOT say, " whatever you bind or loose with the exception of x or y".  In short, while it is not a mandate for recklessness or "whatever goes", it outlines an authority limited by the reality and Gospel of Jesus Christ themselves. While Peter's life and ministry is constrained at every turn by true faith in Jesus Christ, they are also freed by the Gospel for a love that does justice in both new as well as traditional ways despite the immense shifts in perspective and even  reform of ecclesial structures this might entail in each and every period of history. This commission seems to me to be the basis of an historically sensitive papacy capable of responding in fresh ways to the signs and needs of the times precisely because of its rootedness in the Risen Christ.

When Christ promises Peter that this is Christ's own Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it we come back to that foundational, ecclesial AND personal faith which must underscore the also-necessary courage, skill, and prudence required of a true pastor. It is a risky thing to truly respond to the needs of the times while honoring a living Tradition. Mistakes will be made --- though the really catastrophic errors will come (as in the Middle Ages) because of a papacy/curia which feared and missed the opportunity for real reform or who fails to be truly collaborative. The Church requires a Pope with profound faith, pastoral knowledge, skills, and a shepherd's heart, along with a sense both of the wide-reaching scope of his mandate and the REAL limitations which constrain it. In the days and weeks to come that is the kind of Pope I will be praying for.