Followup on Hermits and Home Visits (Critical questions)

[[Dear Sr,  How can it be edifying to your family if they are not Catholic if you are unfaithful to your Rule during home visits?? Its not that I think you shouldn't see your  family sometimes but I don't think the Carthusians get to go home for visits. They are the real deal. Can't your family visit you where you are?. . . I guess I wonder why do hermits need to go away to visit family and friends anyway?. . . You are vowed to a life of constant prayer and penance like the Carthusians.. . . And what about stricter separation from the world??]]

Wow, where to begin? I am not going to answer every specific question but I will give you enough to draw sound conclusions about where I stand on these things. Thus, I guess the place to start is with a post I put up about hermits and "vacations." That can be found here: Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Hermits and Vacations but what is most important about it is probably a text taken from Cassian's Conferences which demonstrates both that there is nothing new in your own objections nor anything novel in my own need for (or practice of) time away from the hermitage and its stricter rhythms. As I cited there:

[[IT is said that the blessed John, while he was gently stroking a partridge with his hands suddenly saw a philosopher approaching him in the garb of a hunter, who was astonished that a man of so great fame and reputation should demean himself to such paltry and trivial amusements, and said: "Can you be that John, whose great and famous reputation attracted me also with the greatest desire for your acquaintance? Why then do you occupy yourself with such poor amusements?" To whom the blessed John replied: "What is it," said he, "that you are carrying in your hand?" The other replied: "a bow. "And why," said he, "do you not always carry it everywhere bent?" To whom the other replied: "It would not do, for the force of its stiffness would be relaxed by its being continually bent, and it would be lessened and destroyed, and when the time came for it to send stouter arrows after some beast, its stiffness would be lost by the excessive and continuous strain. and it would be impossible for the more powerful bolts to be shot." "And, my lad," said the blessed John, "do not let this slight and short relaxation of my mind disturb you, as unless it sometimes relieved and relaxed the rigour of its purpose by some recreation, the spirit would lose its spring owing to the unbroken strain, and would be unable when need required, implicitly to follow what was right."]] John Cassian, Conferences. Conference of Abbot Abraham, chapter XXI, but cf. chapter XX of the same book which is also very helpful in this matter.

While it is true that John was speaking of a very brief time away from his eremitical discipline (if, indeed, this was even considered time away; he seems simply to have been taking a quiet moment like I might with my cat) he raises the question of a hermit determining what is necessary for her to remain in good shape in terms of this very discipline. (The story would be equally effective if used to illustrate the principle of judging from exterior appearances.) Remember that eremitical life is intense and focused on growing in authentic holiness. Much of a day is spent in prayer and penance and that often means in doing battle with the demons of one's own heart. In other words personal growth work is demanding and tiring. One cannot keep focused on it without these kinds of breaks or changes in one's focus. Beyond this, eremitical life demands hospitality and often this ministry to others takes a form in which they are loved as they need to be loved. In my own life this ordinarily takes the form of spiritual direction. This too is intense --- though it is usually as nourishing as it is challenging. Still, every truly spiritual life demands what is often called "holy leisure"  or it really will cease to be capable of perceiving or responding adequately to its source.

After all, we are each called to discern what the Holy Spirit calls us to in changing circumstances and fresh situations. A Rule is immensely helpful in this,  but in my opinion, it really cannot spell everything out. Instead it often serves a person more like a banister on a stairway ---  helpful when the climb gets tiring or too steep, protecting us and keeping us from stepping off the treads or falling, and giving us something to hold onto as we move forward in the darkness of night, but it is not the stairway itself.  I do continue to live my Rule, or more accurately maybe, the eremitical life it defines on home visits or on visits with friends but the usual horarium is suspended.

What is Edifying to my Family and Friends?

To be very blunt, I don't think it would be at all "edifying" or upbuilding for members of my family to see me as a self-righteous prig who was incapable of loving, taking delight in them and time with them, or who is prevented from being able to be truly being present to them on a home visit. (Better one forego any visits than play the hermit during one.) For that matter I don't think my delegate, my pastor, other parishioners, the Vicar for Religious or my Bishop would find that particularly edifying either. I'm pretty sure God wouldn't care much for that arrangement! In a word, I find it offensive and pretentious. What you seem to me to be missing is that a home visit doesn't mean simply blowing off one's vocation or one's commitment to it. It means living it in different ways so the usual framework (banister or trellis) doesn't get in the way of those who want some significant share in the person WITH the vocation. In some ways I see my more usual schedule and eremitical praxis as preparing me for and being tested for its soundness by these moments, not preventing them.

Also, it is here the distinction between playing a role as a hermit and living an eremitical life becomes sharpest and most important. It is in these moments that I (and others) see most clearly the hermit I have become --- not because I do a lot of stereotypically "hermit things" or keep a detailed hermit schedule, but because at these times when the banister is removed  I live these days with the heart of a hermit for whom communion with God is an everyday reality and the silence of solitude brings something new and unexpected to my family and friends as well -- someone joyful, more whole and more loving, someone they could not have experienced in this way so clearly apart from her life as a hermit. To use another image, when a plant is given a trellis to help it grow straight and strong, removing the trellis --- at least temporarily --- can show us how strong the plant is becoming. More, it can subject the plant to new and necessary stresses and pressures which allow it to grow even stronger and more independent. Plants need this time just as they need the trellis. But most importantly these times can show us who the hermit really is and allow us each and all to take delight in one another and who God has made us.

I think it is THIS that will be edifying and even inspiring to my family (and friends) and this which will speak powerfully to them about the God I want them to know as I know him. (I accept that they know him in their own ways as well, by the way). I hope this makes some sense to you. You see, I am not trying to sell my family on eremitical life or even on the Catholic faith (though I would love for them to discover it as a way to Christ and abundant life for themselves); I want them to know the God who makes all things new and heals us of all brokenness and inhumanity. The only way that happens is by knowing the person I become in light of that God. THAT is what will be really edifying to them or to anyone.

On Carthusians, Camaldolese, and Stricter Separation from the World:

Carthusians are not the only species of the genus "hermit" to exist and I am not a Carthusian. I am Camaldolese in my spirituality and for that reason my life reflects (and I hope will do so more and more) the threefold good of Camaldolese life: solitude, community, and evangelization or martyrdom (witness). Each of these is a dimension of what is sometimes called "The Privilege of Love." All hermits who live the silence of solitude on a daily basis are the "real deal" and I would suggest that is something you need to get your mind and heart around despite your preferences for the form of eremitical life lived by the Carthusians.

Still, let me remind you, Carthusians, who are bound by cloister in ways diocesan hermits are not, have guest houses as part of their monastery and families may come there to stay to see their son/daughter or brother/sister (etc) 2 days per year. I don't have that kind of  accommodations available. Neither, unfortunately, do I see my family that often (though it would be entirely permitted). The real point however is that home visits or visits by one's family are allowed and universally seen as an important part of healthy eremitical life; they are important for the family as well. As noted above, hermitage life is not one of  "peace and quiet"  if by that one means a life where one simply kicks back and does nothing or is completely taken up with rest and recreational activities (again in the common sense of those terms).

Finally, regarding stricter separation from the world I would ask that you check the labels both below and to the right. I have written a good bit about this in the past and I am not going to repeat it here. The posts you are asking about also touched on this. I will point out that when I suggest a hermit (or anyone else) can structure home visits in a way which is best and most lifegiving for everyone that can be considered a form of "stricter separation" --- especially when "world" is seen in terms of that which is destructive, resistant to life and truth, etc. It is not its usual meaning but it comports with this nonetheless.

Visiting Family and Friends: Followup Question

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for your piece on visiting family and friends. One online hermit writes of a home visit that was very difficult because she had to stifle spiritual conversation, skip Mass for two days, which "took its toll" and generally communicate with people that had been "acclimated to the world." She missed the life of the hermitage with its silence and stillness and was anxious and unable to relax. But she also spoke of needing her family to accept her and being unable to fit in or be the person her family wanted her to be. By the end of the trip she sort of had an emotional meltdown. Is this typical for hermits? ]]

Perhaps these things are typical for her because of unique circumstances. They are not typical for me or for other hermits I know --- though families may very well neither understand nor accept a hermit's life. More about this below because this set of questions raises serious issues and difficulties for those responding to this rare and oft-misunderstood vocation --- though to be honest I don't think they are any more serious than many religious face with their own families.  We don't only discuss spiritual matters anyway --- at least not explicitly, and such discussions with family are actually pretty rare I think. That can certainly be bittersweet and even cause serious pain on some levels but by itself it should not prevent profound sharing or cause excessive anxiety.

Of course, leaving the hermitage for any extended period of time causes some stress. I personally miss my hermitage, my own prayer space, prayer bench (sometimes I bring this along!), and the horarium I follow; I also miss Mass to some extent, but I don't attend Mass daily anyway and sometimes may not get to the parish Church or chapel for a couple of weeks at a time --- particularly if I am unwell. Spending time with others in another place over the course of several days is demanding for me, not only because I am a hermit and happy in solitude, but because I am an introvert and not really comfortable with much small talk. However,  none of this changes anything I wrote in the previous post. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Family Visits.

Not my blood family but. . .

During those visits I am generally with people I love, doing things I also enjoy doing (and often getting to do or see things I have always wanted to do or see), talking about things I enjoy talking (and hearing!) about --- and sometimes, talking and hearing about things I do not enjoy at all. God is present in all of this and certainly in these people. Grace is present therefore along with a whole host of challenging, consoling, and nurturing experiences. I have certainly had difficult visits with my family in the past but to be anxious, unable to relax or to have an emotional meltdown because of a few days away from the hermitage seems pretty extreme to me.  As noted, I also reject the unnuanced or dichotomous thinking that says "they are the world" and I am not or, in this case, "they are acclimated to the world" and "I am not so acclimated".  As much as I might like to think my hermitage is not an outpost of "the world" (and it is true that it is less this than it might easily be) and despite the fact that I have lived as a hermit for a number of years (@28) I find this kind of dichotomous characterization to be untrue and destructive.

I think a lot of unnecessary tension can result from such a perspective. One tends to see oneself as constantly assaulted by "the world" and must stand in a resistant and defensive mode. Now, it is true too that a hermit will not always participate in every activity some families choose to engage in. Some conversations will not be edifying to anyone and a hermit might well decide she cannot support them, much less participate. Other times she merely needs to shift the perspective or refocus things a bit. But generally one will be able to participate in the visit and benefit from it while others do as well. However, if one is about "playing a role" this too is a source of unnecessary and destructive tension. You see, if one truly IS a hermit without pretense and remains a hermit in ANY situation, that is if one is simply oneself in this way, the stress level is much lower. One is oneself and while one may need to avoid certain situations or conversations, one is not in a defensive mode nor is one constantly needing to calculate "what would a hermit do?" One might well ask oneself, "What am I to do in this situation?" or "Does my Rule help me in any way in this situation?" but these questions are not asked about some abstract entity called "hermits" and do not involve merely playing a role.

One other element might well be important here and that is the distinction between "fitting in" and belonging. I would be wary of "trying to fit in" and rest in one's belonging. This is, I think, a variation on "being oneself." What I mean is that one is part of a family; one belongs to this family in ways that might be wholly unconscious as well as the ways one can readily articulate. Belonging to a family is a deep and ineradicable reality even when  not everyone wants or is able to admit it; fitting in is, in some ways, more superficial and based on similarities, acts of accommodation which may not be rooted in love, etc. It may even involve compromising one's integrity. Meanwhile, we can see from other situations that one may work "to fit in" while one will never really "belong". On the other hand, one who truly belongs and rests in that may subsequently be able to fit in a bit better without straining to do so; they will be able to relax more than if they are struggling to fit in. In any case, when one is secure in the fact that one belongs one can communicate with the group to which one truly belongs; one can be truly present to them and love them even if one is also very different in significant ways.

But what happens when a family does not understand or accept one's vocation? What happens when there is actual antipathy for the vocation, one's faith, or even for oneself? First of all this is usually a good reason not to insist on keeping one's horarium on a home visit, referring to oneself as a hermit, playing a role (including that of non-hermit), etc but, as implied above, it may well be that simply being oneself is not enough to disarm antipathy and difficulties on a home visit. In such cases, a hermit can certainly decide to forego home visits, limit them significantly in length, visit with individual family members as seems to work out best, etc. One is not required to make home visits if they are really destructive for everyone involved.

On Family Visits and Visits with Friends

[[Dear Sister,
      When you visit your family or stay with friends do you keep the same horarium you do in the hermitage? Do you only talk about spiritual things? I am trying to live as a hermit but I am finding it very difficult to keep my mind on God when I go out with friends or visit my family. I think maybe I should cut off relationships as part of separating myself from the world or when I am with friends I should either be silent or only talk about spiritual things. What do you think? What would you do?. . .(Some questions held for later)]]

Thanks for your questions. (I have held the questions about the frequency of home visits or visits with friends until later.) That said, I am not sure where to begin really. Probably many of the things I have written about in the past years are indirect answers to your questions so I would urge you to look through the list of labels and see what strikes you as related. Meanwhile, the first answer that comes to mind is, "You must be yourself." Wherever you are and with whomever, you MUST be yourself, not someone playing hermit, but whoever you are with whatever spirituality is central to your life without affectation or pretense. You must be genuinely loving, truly available,  and attuned to the needs, desires, and boundaries of those you are with. Let me try to explain what I mean.


When I visit with my family I am a hermit visiting with her family. I am there so we have (an unfortunately rare) time with each other and really quality time as much as that is possible. My family (and most friends for that matter) do not know what being a hermit means in day to day terms and of course, if there are questions, curiosity, concerns, we will talk about these. But I am there as Laurel, not as Sister Laurel (though my sister, who is not Catholic, affectionately calls me "Sis") and though we will talk about work and daily life (my sister's AND my own for instance) I do not impose my own religious practices on the visit. However, that does not mean the visit is not profoundly spiritual in significant ways. It does not mean I cease (as best I can) to pray the visit or that the time we spend together is not holy time. It is all of these things no matter what we do together. Meals are special (for instance, my sister --- who, unlike myself, is a good cook --- tends to cook the things she remembers me loving growing up as well as things she loves herself and loves to make). We talk about the past and the present because of these things and the sharing can be wide-ranging.

I think of Eucharist a lot when I visit my Sister and the words eucharistein (thanks-giving, gratitude) and anamnesis (recalling to living presence) predominate for me. Do we talk about God? Not by name usually, but we talk about life and love and wholeness and brokenness and hope and disappointment and a host of other things which are part of life in and in search of God. The wisdom of Benedictinism is, in part, that it focuses us on seeking God, and doing so in ordinary life. One does not have to use the word God to be dealing with spirituality and the Divine. In fact, it is often more revealing of the authenticity of one's spirituality if one does not need to.

Regarding my horarium, I generally count the strict obligation to that suspended, but of course I tend to wake at the same time I usually do (even when I have gone to bed late!) and will often pray in the early morning hours, journal, etc. At the same time, if I sleep in, that is fine too. Again, I am there visiting my family and for that reason I do what serves my well-being and that of my family. When I visit with friends all of this holds true there too. With some we talk about theology and God more explicitly. With some we regularly say grace or attend Mass together or pray evening prayer, for instance. With others we do not do any of these things. If I have a need for some time alone whether for rest or some prayer I take that (and so do they!). The same is true when I visit my sister, for instance.

Bearing in mind what I said about Benedict-inism and also calling to mind the sacra-mentality of all of creation, I should note that my family and friends are not "the world" and I do not cut myself off from them because of a requirement of "stricter separation from the world." I limit contacts with others because I am called to the silence of solitude. Dimensions of their lives and hearts are worldly just as dimensions of my own are also more or less "worldly," but more generally they reveal God to me --- if only I have eyes to see!

Here is where drawing a black and white line between hermitage and "world" can also be particularly damaging. What would be worldly in the situations you have asked about however are selfishness or rigidity or inaccessibility or affectation for instance. Insisting we only talk about God or "spiritual things" would, paradoxically, be "worldly" and destructive (or at least disedifying) as would any inability to discern God's presence in the genuinely human relationships and interactions we are called to as family. Remaining silent and letting others talk as a general principle simply because "one is a hermit" seems to me to be particularly pretentious and self-centered --- particularly "worldly" and to be eschewed. Assuming these people are genuinely friends who care about us as much as we do about them, refusing to go out to dinner when it is something our friends love to do (and something we would truly enjoy as well), not allowing them to show us the world they love and delight in (and failing to take appropriate delight in it too), spending hours apart in prayer (unless this was time everyone desired) and generally refusing to really enter into and contribute to a special time together --- all because one is "a hermit" --- could be particularly unloving and ungracious.

At the same time I am not suggesting one be dishonest about one's faith --- merely that one be low key about it unless others are clearly comfortable relating in the same terms and "language". In other words, be yourself and use the "language" folks are comfortable speaking. If they want this kind of "language lesson" no problem. But don't insist on speaking "Religious" in such a situation if the language the others are comfortable with is "Secular."  God talk "translates" very well into meaning and beauty and struggle and love and life, etc; if we are not comfortable with this, we may find we are not truly comfortable with the self-emptying, incarnate God of Jesus Christ. I think this notion that the real God can be spoken of in many different ways which are still truly Christocentric is the idea behind Paul speaking of being all things to all persons. It is certainly part of the reason St Francis said to "proclaim the Gospel; use words if necessary".

For me the bottom line is that we be ourselves and the things which really make a hermit who she is as a person are always with her motivating, enlivening, and empowering her. I would encourage you to let, or better, trust that those things which make us who we are do that even if it is in a different language or a different key than you usually "sing" yourself in. Your family and friends should not be seeing, much less have to be relating to someone playing a role but instead to the PERSON you are. One hopes that is a loving, patient, warm person with a good sense of humor and some of the deep wisdom that comes from faith and a contemplative life, but whoever it is with whatever gifts or foibles, that is who you are being called to be WITH and FOR them.

I hope this is helpful.

Canon 603 as a Way to Correct Abuses?

Dear Sister, are you aware that there are different versions of the origins of canon 603 out there on the internet? One version I read recently said, [[The Canon lawyer discussed Canon 603, of 1983 and explained it was a revision of the 1917 Canon regarding eremitic life. He said that laws are created due to abuses and also because of desire by some to have "official stamp" of approval. Perhaps there have been those, he pointed out, who said they were going to live a life of stricter separation from the world or in prayer and fasting, but did not. The law provides for the Bishop to step in and correct the abuses, if the hermit has been publicly avowed, and those vows received by the Bishop. 


He said it is a legality, of publicly approving the hermit in the name of the Church, of it being of public record, regardless of how many were actually at the profession of vows. He said that may be just the hermit and the Bishop. But it is done in the name of the Church, with the Bishop saying he receives the vows on behalf of the Church. As for vows being made publicly but not received by the Bishop, that could not be in the name of the Church. This is what must be made clear, for this was the stumbling point. In St. Colette's time, she made vows publicly, and she was generally known as the anchorite, and her life exemplified this. Now, a person would not be seen as a hermit in the name of the Church. The public aspect today is that of the law, of the Bishop receiving the vows in the name of the Church, on behalf of the Church.]] So, who's right, you or the canonist?

Hi there,
      yes, I am very much aware of some of the misinformation available out there on the internet. I have actually responded to questions about this very passage in the past. You can find it here: canon-603-misunderstandings-of-origins-and-nature.html. Because your own question is repetitive, I am answering it again here partly because I am trying to learn to do internal links (and I especially apologize to regular readers for the repetition if this experiment fails!).

      Generally, what I discuss in that post is that I think the canonist is correct about the way some canons generally come to be as a response to abuses, but in this case (assuming the lay hermit quoting him has done so accurately) he is simply wrong. Not only is he mistaken about the history of the vocation by speaking as though canon 603 is a revision of an already-existing canon and by omitting any mention of Bp Remi De Roo or Vatican II (cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Visibility and Betrayal of the c 603 Vocation under section, "The Heart of the Matter) but he has not thought out this notion of bringing hermits under control by granting them canonical standing.  You see, this latter makes no sense for hermits who are privately dedicated; why give them standing in law when leaving them without standing actually significantly limits the impact of any abuses they may have embraced? (The positive affects of such a life are a different matter!) Such hermits are relatively few and far between. The contemporary Church is not overrun with them or with hermits of ANY stripe! Were this the case then indeed, the Church might want to create a canon regulating them. However, we still have to ask, if they are not canonically consecrated, what kinds of abuses could they possibly be committing? They have not accepted the public/canonical rights and obligations of the life (including a detailed Rule of Life and responsibility to superiors and community) so what could they be abusing?

      After all, without canonical standing the person is living a private vocation as hermit; they are not Catholic Hermits, and nothing they do as a hermit per se is done in the name of the church. A lay hermit might be eccentric or an adherent of a strange theology and spirituality. As baptized Catholics some of this might become a matter of concern to Church authorities who have the right to act appropriately in their regard, but this would occur because this person is a baptized Catholic, not because they are a lay hermit.  Of course one would hope that such hermits live their lives well in an edifying way, but their commitments are private matters and to be frank, they can be as eccentric or strange in their spiritualities as they like without significant impact on the ecclesial eremitical life itself. Let me give you an example. Recently another diocesan hermit sent me a story from his own area about a "hermit" (a person who lived in solitude) who stole regularly to allow himself to live. We both agreed that this guy gives hermits a bad name. However, at the same time this person in no way reflects on the eremitical vocation in the Church and diocesan hermits do not feel he reflects on their calls. He DOES represent part of a host of stereotypes diocesan hermits have to combat with their lives though.


      Of course it is hard to imagine the contemporary Church giving such a person canonical standing to correct his abuses!!! However, were the Church to do so by professing him publicly as a Catholic hermit, then indeed, everything he does would reflect on the vocation and his diocese. Moreover had this been a diocesan hermit the church would need to take action to correct his abuses --- and in serious circumstances like this she would most likely do so by dispensing him from his vows and removing his canonical standing as a hermit. So again, my answer to your question is that assuming this canonist was correctly quoted, he is incorrect. The Church does not give canonical standing only to immediately remove it again as a censure. She does not extend canonical rights and obligations to a small group of persons to gain control over miscreants. Canonical standing is a gift to the individual and to the Church insofar as it helps nurture and protect authentic eremitical vocations; that is the real bottom line here. The history of Canon 603 attests to this gift-quality as the origin of this vocation.

I hope this is helpful to you!

Eremitical Life: Ecclesiality vs Individualistic Devotional Acts

[[Dear Sister Laurel, in your post on reservation of Eucharist you used the term "ecclesial" with regard to an "ecclesial vocation" differently than I have heard you do in the past. You therefore also seemed to me to be saying that the reservation of Eucharist functioned ecclesially for canonical hermits and CV's and anti-ecclesially for anyone taking Eucharist home as part of an individualistic devotional act. Can you say more about these two aspects of your post? Thank you.]]

Really excellent points and question! I think you must be referring first of all to my comment that the Eucharist must never become detached or separated off from the communal event which gives it meaning and that CV's and canonical hermits are generally sufficiently cognizant of the "ecclesiality" of their vocation to be aware of this danger. Please see Reservation of Eucharist by Hermits. (In the rest of this post I will speak only of canonical hermits, not CV's.) I think you are correct that I have not spoken of "ecclesial vocations" in quite this sense before although I believe it has been implicit in what I have said in the past. It has also been more explicitly approached in posts on the increased institutionalization of the eremitical vocation, the theology of Peter Damian and the nature of the hermit as "ecclesiola", and so forth. It is probably St Peter Damian's theology that most influences me here. As I wrote before while quoting him:

[[. . . Hermits know him best for a few of his letters, but especially #28, "Dominus Vobiscum". Written to Leo of Sitria, letter #28 explores the relation of the hermit to the whole church and speaks of a solitary as an ecclesiola, or little church. Damian had been asked if it was proper to recite lines like "The Lord Be With you" when the hermit was the only one present at liturgy. The result was this letter which explains how the church is wholly present in all of her members, both together and individually. He writes:

The Church of Christ is united in all her parts by the bond of love, so that she is both one in many members and mystically whole in each member. And so we see that the entire universal Church is correctly called the one and only bride of Christ, while each chosen soul, by virtue of the sacramental mysteries, is considered fully the Church. . . .From all the aforementioned it is clear that, because the whole Church can be found in one individual person and the Church itself is called a virgin, Holy Church is both one in all its members and complete in each of them. It is truly simple among many through the unity of faith and multiple in each individual through the bond of love and various charismatic gifts, because all are from one and all are one.

 . . . Because of this unity Damian notes that he sees no harm in a hermit alone in cell saying things which are said by the gathered Church. In this reflection Damian establishes the communal nature of the solitary vocation and forever condemns the notion that hermits are isolated persons.. . .]]

What this leads to is the notion that the hermit's hermitage or cell is an extension of the gathered Church and that whatever the hermit does there is meant to be this as well whether that is prayer or penance or work or even recreation. Mealtimes are meant to be reminders of Eucharist and are eaten prayerfully and with God and all those grounded in God. Everything that one does is meant to be prayed and that means it is meant to be empowered by God and undertaken mindfully in God's presence and for God's purposes.

It is a very challenging vocation in this sense and this is one of the reasons I wrote that mediocrity is the greatest danger to the hermit. In this context mediocrity means more specifically compartmentalizing one's life so that SOME things are prayed and other things are not; some things are specifically ecclesial (extensions of the reality of the gathered church) and other things are not and sometimes are, regrettably, even meant to be a respite from ecclesiality.  When I think about my vocation in this sense, a sense that corresponds to "praying always" or "being God's own prayer" I am also aware of how short of this goal and call I routinely fall. When I wrote that mediocrity is the greatest danger to the hermit or spoke of that in the podcast I did for A Nun's Life I was approaching this idea but hadn't really arrived yet. What I knew deep down was there was an all or nothing quality about eremitical life and for that reason mediocrity or "half-heartedness" (and here I mean the giving of only part of myself and praying only parts of my life) was an ever-present danger.


 In any case I also wrote here once that Abp Vigneron commented during the homily for my perpetual eremitical profession that I was "giving my home over to" this call and that it was only later that I realized how exactly right that was. The hermitage is literally an extension of my parish and diocesan (and universal!) church, as Peter Damian would have put it, an ecclesiola or "little church." It is not a place to be individualistic (though it IS a place to be truly individual with and in God) and when individualism creeps into things both the hermitage and my life ceases to be what it is meant to be. For this reason the reservation of the Eucharist here is undertaken  as a commissioned and ecclesial act and it is one that symbolizes (and challenges me to realize in every action and moment) the difference between a private home and a hermitage. It calls for a constant meditation on what it means to live in the Eucharistic presence but especially NOT as an instance of privatistic or individualistic devotion.  For this reason also you are exactly right when you say that reservation of Eucharist here is an ecclesial act rather than an anti-ecclesial act where one takes Eucharist home with them without being commissioned or even permitted to do so.

I have only just begun to explore this sense of ecclesiality in a conscious way, but I can see that it defines my sense of ecclesial vocation in ways I had not even imagined.  I have written a lot here in the past about ecclesial vocations partly because my first experience of appreciation for that concept changed everything for me. It was one of those earth-shaking insights I finally "got". When I write about canonical rights and obligations, canonical standing, or the relationships which obtain from these, I am trying (and not entirely succeeding myself) to go beyond what some perceive as legalism and point to this deeper reality of "ecclesiality". This is so because canon law points to this deeper ecclesial reality and is meant to protect and nurture it. Probably this is also a piece of why I get so irritated when some lay hermits disparage the place of canonical standing or law as one of merely "formal approval," "technicalities",  or even outright "legalism". They seem not to have a clue how it is canons (which are related to the Latin regula or Rule and serve as norms or measures of actions) actually function here or the way canon law serves to foster ecclesiality. Given the tension between individuality and individualism in eremitical life today (and in society as a whole!) I am freshly convinced of the providential nature of canon 603 and the role of Bp Remi De Roo in intervening at Vatican II as he did.

I do hope that this response is sort of helpful. I suspect (not least because of all the tangents I have been tempted to pursue in answering your question) that I will be writing about this topic in one way and another for a long time to come.

Is Faith opposed to Charity?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I shall be thankful if you can clarify the following. Does dogmatic faith in any way promote Christian charity? Reading Luke's parable of the good Samaritan I get a feeling that Jesus was primarily concerned with charity and less with faith. 

In the parable we find two persons who are given credentials of faith-- one is a priest and the other a Levite. Both however are personifications of inhuman callousness and exclusiveness.The Samaritan on the other hand has neither faith nor dogma(Jesus does not even mention whether he is a believer or not).Samaritan however has a human element and conscience that is responsive to the sufferings of others. I am inclined to believe that the more one thinks of faith , the more exclusive one becomes. Moreover the more emphasis church gives to dogmatic faith, the more it thinks of organisational cohesiveness, organisational uniformity,preservation of hierarchy and less about Jesus Christ who always thought of the human element.From what I have read about church history ,I feel that whenever the Church was concerned with dogma and faith there were instances of excesses at times lapsing into drastic inhuman measures like forced conversions ,inquisition and burning at the stakes.

So the question is , don't you think that the terms faith and charity pull in opposite directions making a Christian feel rather uncomfortable - faith pulls towards exclusiveness, rigidity,blind loyalty to the dogma and organisation hampering concern for individuals; and charity pulls towards inclusiveness ,concern for the feelings of others and universal philanthropy that transcends organisations and beliefs. I had asked a few questions in the past and received very convincing replies from you. Hence this question.]]

Interesting question. Thanks for sending it on to me. You use the term "dogmatic faith" by which I think you mean faith in doctrine or dogma and you contrast that with charity. You then conclude that Jesus was about charity but not faith when in fact I think you mean Jesus fostered love and was unconcerned with dogma or doctrine. You also link concern with doctrine or dogma with inhuman abuses (which you call faith) and note that charity seems to pull in the opposite direction. My problem here is that the way you are using the term "faith" is neither Biblical nor theologically rich enough; it is far too narrow a notion to call "faith" and might better be called belief. (Thus, though this is both necessarily and unfortunately a bit too simplistic, you might consider that we believe in content --- which doctrines and dogmas are ---  while we have faith in persons or living realities like God, or friends.)

It seems to me that narrowing the term in the way you have so that it refers only to adherence to or concern with doctrine is precisely the problem you want to avoid, and precisely the reason there have been problems in the history of faith like those you mention. Instead you need to recover a broader, richer, and more Scriptural sense of the term faith --- a sense which includes appropriate honoring of content (which we call doctrine and dogma) while not making that the be all and end all of the reality of faith. (Doctrine and dogma have a place in mature faith, but dogmatism and all that goes with that does not!)

The most fundamental meaning of the term faith is a responsive (or obedient) trust. (cf Rom 10:11, Phil 1:29, Gal 2:16) To have faith means to entrust oneself to another. Once one has done that a number of things will happen. If the person (or God) is worthy of that trust we will find that we become more fully human, that we grow in our capacity to love others without condition, that we become holier people (another way of saying the previous two things), etc. We become persons of confidence, courage and hope, marked by that person's affect on us in light of our having entrusted ourselves to them. Remember all the times in the Gospels that we hear Jesus saying to someone who trusted him, "Go, your faith has made you whole, " or something similar. Thus, far from being antithetical to charity, faith leads directly TO charity. It empowers love as the other person's love moves us beyond ourselves and out to others (or back to community which illness, etc may have deprived us of). In other words faith creates the capacity for community; it does not, when genuine, lead to exclusivism. Similarly it leads to the capacity for compassion precisely because when faith is well-founded it leads to the situation of being loved and loving; compassion is never exclusionary.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan those who fail in compassion are not seen as men of genuine faith --- though they hold fast to the letter of the law; the Good Samaritan, who falls outside the Law and is despised by men of the law, is one who fulfills the law more fully than either of the others. He is a man who trusts God and acts out of that trust. He is capable of real compassion and freedom to do other (and more) than the letter of the law calls for because of his relationship with God (I argue this is implicit in the parable). In some ways authentic faith means putting people before principles and that is what we hear in this parable. It is a classic law vs gospel text.

Finally, faith (and here I mean faith in God, faith in its most proper sense) will have other dimensions including the doctrinal because faith has a content. (If I trust and love God I am going to believe certain things about God.) It is a complex reality which rightly affects and involves every part of the human being (heart, mind, will, etc) at the same time in what Tillich calls "a centered act" of the whole person. It is for that reason we have seen problems in the history of the Church whenever one dimension of this reality is cut off from or given a mistaken priority over other dimensions --- something which is inappropriate both to faith itself and to the one called to have faith. Still, the bottom line, it seems to me, is that we are called to have faith IN God as well as believing all kinds of things ABOUT God. This faith (responsive trust) IN God is more foundational than beliefs ABOUT God --- even when the doctrinal part of things comes first in our experience. (That is, we are usually taught things ABOUT God before we are introduced to the idea of entrusting ourselves TO this God and  this is often done in order to induce us to or otherwise justify such trust --- but entrusting ourselves is more foundational for a life of authentic humanity or faith.

I hope this is helpful.

On the Reservation of Eucharist by Hermits

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I saw a "privately professed and consecrated" hermit's video on YouTube. Is it true that non-canonical hermits can have tabernacles and reserve the Eucharist in their own places and that Bishops have allowed it? . . . Can I get permission as a lay hermit or can I move where it is allowed? ]] (Redacted: often-asked questions were omitted)

I would be VERY surprised to hear that ANY Bishop(s) has or have allowed non-canonical hermits to do this; to be perfectly frank, I think this person may have some (or all) of her facts wrong or even be simply making something up to justify (or obscure) what the Church would consider a seriously illicit matter. It is unusual in the extreme to allow any individual to reserve Eucharist in his/her own home; when this happens it is done as an extension of canon 934  for canonical hermits and consecrated virgins ONLY because of the nature of their vocations and standing in law.

Even so, it is not done automatically. One's own Bishop MUST give permission according to the requirements of canon law and with appropriate supervision. In the situations you refer to I think one would have to ask why a Bishop would allow this for a lay person if he is also unwilling to admit them to profession as a canon 603 hermit where they assume the necessary legal and moral rights and obligations associated with such permission. (By the way, if the person has freely chosen not to become a canonical hermit, then they have also chosen to forego the rights and obligations or responsibilities associated with this standing in law, and this will include the possibility of reservation of Eucharist in their own hermitage.) Once again we are faced with the reality that canonical standing under canon 603 is associated with rights AND obligations which hermits and Bishops honor. In light of this I have to say that this lay hermit's assertions simply do not compute for me.

Further, in such practice there is tension between the Church's theology of the reserved Eucharist and the necessary connection with the ACT of consecration which must be adequately preserved or honored. What I mean by this is that we are aware of Christ becoming present in the proclaimed Word, in the praying assembly (who also give themselves to God and are in turn consecrated by God to be freely broken and poured out for others) and in the presiding priest, as well as in the consecration of bread and wine during Mass. The Presence of Christ is always a living, dynamic reality realized in relationship and in the community's celebration of the Gospel. With the disciples on the road to Emmaus we recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread because he becomes truly present in the breaking of the bread and all that implies. Reservation of Eucharist (which is primarily meant to nourish the sick and isolated who cannot attend physically with the fruits of communal worship and belonging) is never to become detached from an integral connection with this communal event; there is some danger that it will, especially when individuals are allowed to have tabernacles in their own places. (Actually this is a significant danger wherever the reserved Eucharist is seen as somehow separated from the Eucharistic celebration.) Canonical hermits and consecrated Virgins are usually aware of this danger and are generally significantly attuned to the ecclesiality of their vocations. However it becomes especially acute and may cross the line into actual sacrilege particularly when the reservation is undertaken without permission or oversight as an individualistic or privatistic act.

Certain cautions are taken by the church to be sure this does not happen when the extensions (to CV's and Canonical hermits) mentioned above are made: 1) Mass is ordinarily said at least occasionally at the place of reservation (Canon law prefers twice monthly), or 2) when this is not possible (and it is often not) reserved hosts are regularly refreshed after a Eucharistic celebration with the parish community so that the integral connection to Mass itself and the local community of faith is clearly maintained. (We speak of the Real Presence remaining so long as the elements retain the "sensible qualities" of bread and wine and are unadulterated; in a similar way perhaps (just a thought) we have to think of the Real Presence remaining only so long as there is a living or vital connection with the celebration of Mass itself); this practice also helps maintain the hermit's connection with the specific commission given at the end of Mass, 3) only those who are answerable in law to ecclesiastical superiors (those who have responded to the call to ecclesial vocations) are allowed to reserve the Eucharist and must to do so according to the requirements of canon law (cc 934-941). Otherwise, it is simply too easy for people to slip into superstitious, individualistic devotional, or otherwise irreverent practices, not to mention bad or distorted theologies of the Eucharist and Eucharistic spirituality.

Personally, I would discourage you from even thinking about looking for a Bishop who allows such things as a lay hermit reserving Eucharist in her own home --- not least because I honestly doubt they exist any more than Bishops exist who allow lay persons generally to take Eucharist home with them for reservation no matter how personally reverent or pious these persons are. (Remember that even for EEMs bringing Eucharist to those who are sick, guidelines generally prohibit or strongly discourage stops between the Mass and the home being visited as well as they tend to prohibit taking the Eucharist home with one. Unless one is doing so for a sick family member this would ordinarily be a violation of the trust placed in one when one was commissioned as a minister to the sick and could itself rise to the level of sacrilege. Such actions tend to break or trivialize the integral connection with the communal celebration of the Eucharist and the commission to go forth which concludes the Mass.)

Moving to another diocese seems an even worse idea to me and is certainly something I would discourage. You would do far better developing a strong and sound Eucharistic spirituality within the limits which apply to you in the Church. Remember too that lay hermits generally are self-described and there is nothing preventing any person living alone from calling themselves a lay hermit. While I do not necessarily mean that you fall into that category, you must realize that there is nothing at all that assures the Church of the nature and quality of what is purported to be an eremitical life, the silence of solitude which is characteristic of such a life, the soundness of the spirituality, theology, prayer life, etc of a privately dedicated self-described hermit.

This might well be problematical sometimes even with diocesan hermits but at least with canonical hermits there is a Rule of Life they are legally as well as morally responsible for honoring and that necessarily entails regular meetings with directors and delegates as well as their Bishop. The canonical hermit is publicly responsible for living out her canonical commitments and the tensions between physical solitude and community which are part of the life; her canonical commitments reflect, specify, and nurture her ecclesiality. While no one can see into the hermitage (that is, Religious in community are more aware of the lives of those living with them than friends and neighbors of hermits), regular contact with those helping supervise her life serves to help ensure she is responsive or obedient to these commitments with a care which is edifying to the whole church. More importantly, unless one has in some way been publicly commissioned by the Church in a way which makes (or seeks to make) reservation of the Eucharist in one's own hermitage a true extension of the Church's worship one will, by definition, be abusing matters and betraying the very nature of Eucharist. The bottom line is that Eucharist, including Eucharist reserved in tabernacles, is not an individualistic devotional but always and everywhere a communal reality --- even (or especially!) in the solitude of a hermit's cell where it constantly reminds her of the ecclesial nature of her vocation. Canon Law and various guidelines are meant to ensure this is maintained and honored.

New Secretary of CICLSAL: Story and Blog Comment

by Gerard O’Connell
Rome
LA STAMPA

In his first significant appointment to the Roman Curia, Pope Francis has taken the highly unusual step of naming the actual head of a religious order, Father Jose Rodriguez Carballo, as Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated life and the Societies of Apostolic Life (formerly known as ‘The Congregation for Religious’).

When the Pope chose him, the 59-year old Spanish priest was Minister General or head of the largest group of the Franciscan family – the Order of Friars Minor (OFM), which has some 15,000 friars in 113 countries. He was first elected to that post in 2003, and re-elected for another six-year term in 2009 as head of an order that is contracting in Western Europe and North America, holding steady in Latin America, and gaining vocations in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

The Vatican broke the news of Father Carballo’s appointment on April 6, and said Pope Francis has raised him to the rank of archbishop. Born in Lodoselo, Spain in 1953, Carballo did his early studies in schools run by the Franciscans in that country and, in 1973, was sent to do biblical studies in Jerusalem. After being ordained priest in Jerusalem in 1977, he gained degrees in Biblical Theology in the Holy City and a further degree in Sacred Scripture from Rome’s Biblical Institute. In the following years he held increasingly high posts of responsibility in the Franciscan order in Spain and, in 2003, was elected Master General of the worldwide order.

He was one of the main concelebrants, together with the Father General of the Jesuits, Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, at the mass for the inauguration of the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis on March 19. He succeeds the American Archbishop Joseph Tobin who had also been head of a religious order – the Redemptorists. Unlike Carballo, however, the American had already finished his term as head of his order more than a year before Benedict XVI appointed him to the Vatican Congregation in August 2010. Two years later, however, in October 2012, the Pope took the surprising decision to reassign him to the USA as archbishop of Indianapolis.

In his new role as the second highest official in the Vatican congregation that oversees the life and work of some 900,000 consecrated men and women in religious orders and communities worldwide, Fr Carballo will work closely with the Brazilian Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, who has led this important office since 4 January 2011.

The Spaniard will bring his rich international experience as head of a major religious order to his new post of responsibility. Together with Cardinal Braz de Aviz, he is expected to play a key role in working to overcome and heal the tensions between the Vatican, and in particular the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and the leadership of the umbrella organization of some 59,000 American women religious – the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

In April 2012, the CDF issued a highly critical doctrinal assessment of the situation of the LCWR, accusing them of taking positions that undermine Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality and of promoting “certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” In the light of that report, Pope Benedict appointed the US Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle to supervise the reform of the LCWR within five years. . . .
_________________________________________________________

Blog Comment: 

Of course it goes without saying that women Religious in the US are hopeful for a more honest hearing from (and more transparent discussion with)  the CDF than seems to have been accorded the LCWR thus far. One of the central problems has been communication. The LCWR sends representatives each year to the Vatican to meet with various Offices and also meet with the US Nuncio in the US. Despite repeated assurances that Rome had no questions or required no clarifications the highly critical doctrinal assessment was actually released during the time of one of these meetings in Rome.

At least as proble-matical is the fact that the Leadership Conference is neither a theological nor catechetical organization and does NOT take stances which are contrary to church teaching; at the same time however, it is not the LCWR's place to do the work of teaching the faith, either to member congregations, or to the Church and world more generally. That task is more rightly reserved to the Bishops. For this reason some of the reform being outlined seems to run contrary to the very nature of LCWR while other criticisms are simply too vague to be meaningful. (Please see Sister Mary Hughes' talk to the US Press Club, also in this blog for a more detailed discussion of this. Check label "Sister Mary Hughes, OP")

At this point no one can say what will happen to the doctrinal assessment and the mandate given to ABp Peter Sartain or Bishops Blair and Paprocki to oversee the reform of the group. However, it probably DOES bode well for eventual effective resolution that Francis has appointed a Religious who understands Religious life intimately from within, but who is also is the General Superior of the provinces of  Franciscan men in the US who publicly supported the LCWR (cf post under label, LCWR). Whatever happens with the LCWR situation it remains a good thing to have another Religious succeed Fr Tobin's too-short tenure in this role. Women Religious continue to pray for a just resolution to the situation while they move forward in their ministries. Meanwhile, Francis begins by appointing a man who clearly had no curial ambitions. That in itself is a refreshing shift in Roman appointments.

Annunciation of the Lord (Moved to April 8th from March 25 because of Holy Week)

I wonder what the annunciation of Jesus' conception was really like factually, what the angel's message (that is, God's own message) sounded like and how it came to Mary. I imagine the months that would have passed without Mary having a period and her anxiety about what might be wrong, and then a subtle sign here, an ambiguous symptom there, and eventually the full realization of the inexplicable fact that she was pregnant! That would have been a shock, of course, but even then it would have taken some time for the bone deep fear to register: "I have not been intimate with a man! I can be killed for this!" while only over more time comes the even deeper sense that God had overshadowed her and that she need not be afraid. God was doing something completely new and would stand by Mary just as he promised when he revealed himself originally to Moses as: "I will be who I will be," --- and "I will be present to you, never leaving you bereft or barren."

In the work I do with people in spiritual direction, one of the tools I ask clients to use sometimes is dialogue. The idea is to externalize and make explicit in writing the disparate voices we carry within us: it may be a conversation between the voice of reason and the voice of fear, or the voice of stubbornness or that of impulsivity and our wiser, more flexible selves who speak to and with one another at these times so that this existence may have a future marked by wholeness, holiness, and new life. As individuals become adept at doing these dialogues, they may even discover themselves echoing or revealing at one moment the very voice of God which dwells in the deepest, most real, parts of their heart as they simultaneously bring their most profound needs and fears to the conversation. Almost invariably these kinds of dialogues bring strength and healing, integration and faith. When I hear today's Gospel story I hear it as this kind of internal dialogue between the frightened, bewildered Mary and the deepest, truest, part of herself which is God's Word and Spirit calling her beyond all she has known before but in harmony with her people's covenant traditions and promises.

This is the way faith comes to most of us, the way we come to know and hear the voice of God in our lives. For most of us the Word of God dwells within us and only gradually steps out of the background in response to our fears, confusion, and needs as we ponder them in our hearts --- just as Mary did her entire life, but especially at times like this. In the midst of turmoil, of events which turn life plans on their heads and shatter dreams, there in our midst will be the God of Moses and Mary and Jesus reminding us, "I will overshadow you; depend on me, say yes to this, open yourself to my promise and perspective and we will bring life and meaning out of this; together we will make a gift of this tragedy for you and for the whole world! We will bring to birth a Word the world needs so desperately to hear: Be not afraid for I am with you. Be not afraid for you are precious to me."

Annunciations happen to us every day: small moments that signal the advent of a new opportunity to embody Christ and gift him to others. Perhaps many are missed and fewer are heeded as Mary heeded her own and gave her fiat to the change which would make something entirely new of her life, her tradition, and her world. But Mary's story is very much our own story as well, and the coming Feast of Christ's nativity is meant to refer to his being born of us as well. The world into which he will be brought will not love him really --- not if he is the Jesus our Scriptures and our creeds proclaim. But our own fiat will be accompanied by the reassuring voice of God: "I will overshadow you and accompany you. Our stories are joined now, inextricably wed as I say yes to you and you say yes to me. Together we create the future. Salvation will be born from this union. Be not afraid!"

Thomas Called Didymus, What's his "Doubt" REALLY all about?

Today's Gospel focuses on the appearances of Jesus to the disciples, and one of the lessons one should draw from these stories is that we are indeed dealing with bodily resurrection, but therefore, with a kind of bodiliness which transcends the corporeality we know here and now. It is very clear that Jesus' presence among his disciples is not simply a spiritual one, in other words, and that part of Christian hope is the hope that we as embodied persons will come to perfection beyond the limits of death. It is not just our souls which are meant to be part of the new heaven and earth, but our whole selves, body and soul.

The scenario with Thomas continues this theme, but is contextualized (or de-contextualized and taken out of the early community's intense struggle to accept a crucified messiah!) in a way which most often leads homilists to focus on the whole dynamic of faith with seeing, and faith despite not having seen. It also makes doubt the same as unbelief and plays these off against faith, as though faith cannot also be served by doubt. But doubt and unbelief are decidedly NOT the same things. We rarely see Thomas as the one whose doubt (or, I think more accurately, whose demands!) SERVES true faith, and yet, that is what today's Gospel is about. Meanwhile, Thomas also tends to get a bad rap as the one who was separated from the community and doubted what he had not seen with his own eyes. The corollary here is the belief that Thomas will not simply listen to his brother and sister disciples and believe that the Lord has appeared to or visited them. But I think there is something far more significant going on in Thomas' proclamation that unless he sees the wounds inflicted on Jesus in the crucifixion and even puts his fingers in the very nail holes, he will not believe.

What I think the story about Thomas wants to make very clear is that we Christians believe in a crucified Christ, and that the resurrection was God's act of validation of Jesus as scandalously and ignominiously Crucified. I think Thomas knows on some level anyway, that insofar as the resurrection really occurred, it does not nullify what was achieved on the cross. Instead it renders permanently valid what was revealed (made manifest and made real) there. In other words, Thomas knows if the resurrection is really God's validation of Jesus' life and establishes him as God's Christ, the Lord he will meet is the one permanently established and marked as the crucified One. The crucifixion was not some great misunderstanding which could be wiped away by resurrection. Instead it was an integral part of the revelation of the nature of truly human and truly divine existence. Whether it is the Divine life, authentic human existence, or sinful human life --- all are marked and revealed in one way or another by the signs of Jesus' cross. For instance, ours is a God who has journeyed to the very darkest, godless places or realms human sin produces, and has become Lord of even those places. He does not disdain them even now but is marked by them and will journey with us there --- whether we are open to him doing so or not --- because Jesus has implicated God there and through his passion he has allowed God to be eternally marked with the wounds of an exhaustive kenosis.

Another piece of this is that Jesus is, as Paul tells us, the end of the Law and it was Law that crucified him. The nail holes and wounds in Jesus' side and head -- indeed every laceration which marked him -- are a sign of legal execution -- both in terms of Jewish and Roman law. We cannot forget this, and Thomas' insistence that he really be dealing with the Crucified One reminds us vividly of this fact as well. The Jewish and Roman leaders did not crucify Jesus because they misunderstood him, but because they understood all-too-clearly both Jesus and the immense power he wielded in his weakness and poverty. They understood that he could turn the values of this world, its notions of power, authority, and more, on their heads. They knew that he could foment profound revolution (religious and otherwise) wherever he had followers. They chose to crucify him not only to put an end to his life, but to demonstrate he was a fraud who could not possibly have come from God; they chose to crucify him to terrify those who might follow him into all the places discipleship might really lead them --- especially those places of human power and influence associated with religion and politics. The marks of the cross are a judgment (krisis) on this whole reality.

There are many gods and even partial or fragmentary manifestations of the real God available to us today, and so there were to Thomas and his brethren in those first days and weeks following the crucifixion of Jesus. When Thomas made his declaration about what he would and would not believe, none but one of these were crucified Gods or would be worthy of being believed in if they were associated with such shame and godlessness. Thomas knew how very easy it would be for his brother and sister disciples to latch onto one of these, or even to fall back on entirely traditional notions in reaction to the terribly devastating disappointment and shame of Jesus' crucifixion. He knew, I think, how easy it might be to call the crucifixion and all it symbolized a terrible misunderstanding which God simply reversed or wiped away with the resurrection -- a distasteful chapter on which God has simply turned the page. Thomas knew that false prophets showed up all the time. He knew that a God who is distant and all-powerful is much easier to believe in (and follow) than one who walks with us even in our sinfulness or who empties himself to become subject to the powers of sin and death --- especially in the awful scandal and ignominy of the cross --- and one who expects us to do essentially the same.

In other words, Thomas' doubt (or, what is sometimes seen as outright unbelief) may have had less to do with the FACT of a resurrection, than it was a profound insight that had to do with his concern that the disciples, in their desperation, guilt, and the immense social pressure they faced, had truly met and clung to the real Lord, the crucified One. In this way their own discipleship will come to be marked by the signs of the cross as they preach, suffer, and serve in the name (and so, in the paradoxical power) of THIS crucified Lord and no other. Only he could inspire them; only he could sustain them; only he could accompany them wherever true discipleship led them.

Paul said, "I want to know Christ crucified and only Christ crucified" because only this Christ had transformed sinful, godless reality with his presence, only this Christ had redeemed even the realms of sin and death by remaining open to God even within these realities. Only this Christ would journey with us to the unexpected and unacceptable places, and in fact, only he would meet us there with the promise and presence of a God who would bring life out of them. Thomas, I believe, knew precisely what Paul would soon proclaim himself, and it is this, I think, which stands behind his insistence to see the wounds and put his fingers in the very nail holes. He wanted to be sure his brethren were putting their faith in the crucified One, the one who turned everything upside down and relativized every other picture of God we might believe in. He became the great doubter because of this, but I suspect instead, he was the most astute theologian among the original Apostles. He, like Paul, wanted to know Christ Crucified and ONLY Christ Crucified.

We should not trivialize Thomas' witness by transforming him into a run of the mill empiricist and doubter (though doubting is an important piece of growth in faith) much less into one who actually refused to believe!! Instead we should imitate his insistence on "seeing the wounds" of Jesus in every version of him proclaimed to us; we are called upon to be followers of the Crucified Lord, and no other. Every version of God we meet should be closely examined for nail holes, and the lance wound. Every one should be checked for signs that this God is capable of and generous enough to assume such suffering on behalf of a creation he would reconcile and make whole. Only then do we know this IS the God proclaimed in the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, the only one worthy of being followed even into the darkest reaches of human sin and death, the only One who meets us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place, the only one who loves us with an eternal love from which nothing can separate us.

Vocations vs Vocational Paths

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, You wrote that vocational paths change but the call to authentic humanity does not. That's very different than what I was taught as a child. The Sisters told me that everyone was chosen for a particular state of life and that to miss one's call could have dire consequences. I thought this was church teaching.]]

No, it is not church teaching but it is one interpretation of the doctrine (and Scriptural datum) that each life is an obedient response (made up of innumerable obedient responses to and disobedient rejections of) the call or klesis of God. It was the interpretation probably made most well known by St Alphonsus Liguori. My own sense is that this idea is not only theologically difficult to sustain but that pastorally it can be and has often been downright destructive. Too many times people live their entire lives thinking they have "missed" their vocation because they married instead of becoming a religious or a priest (or vice versa!) etc. When this happens the ramifications are huge and wide-ranging, from quiet (or not-so quiet) despair to resentment to overcompensation to leaving the faith altogether and a thousand other things besides --- all of which affect many people besides the one whose vocation it is.

It also has contributed to faulty notions of discernment --- as though discernment is about figuring out a hidden puzzle entitled "What God wills for me!" It's sometimes approached as though there is only a single valid answer and if one misses the mark then one has missed any chance of happiness or holiness. A corollary would be that what God wills for x is sometimes better than what God wills for y --- as though God calls some to second-class vocations, etc. Moreover, one can begin to think that perhaps God has decided what one's vocation will be even if one does not care for the "choice" God has made for them! One might want (and be well-suited) to be College professor but come somehow to believe God has "chosen" the vocation of hermit for them instead --- and done so from the beginning! The result then can be frustration, resentment, and a life lived less well or in a less wholehearted and freely embraced partnership with God than otherwise.

So, I approach the question of vocations differently and I think, more adequately from the standpoint of pastoral theology (and of  Scripture and systematics as well). My sense is that God calls every person to a full and exhaustive humanity, to an authentic existence with, in, and through Godself and that this call is something which is mediated to us in innumerable ways at every point of our lives. The responses we make and actually become will allow for -- and even more or less require --- certain vocational pathways as most suitable for their fulfillment. Still, vocational paths can and do change, not only with the choices we make or fail to make, but with changes in our circumstances, growth, healing, and other factors.

What does not change is the continually proffered invitation (or summons!) to authentic humanity or abundant life which is given by God at every moment. God's invitation here is always creative, and always brings all of the elements of our lives together in fulfilling ways which will glorify God and serve others; it is precisely for this reason that paths to the fulfillment of one's fundamental vocation to authentic humanity can change. Meanwhile, in this view, discernment ceases to be a matter of trying to figure out God's hidden puzzle or of trying to find the single way of life chosen for us from eternity and instead becomes a matter of answering how best to become the persons we feel called to be with God and for others at any given moment --- though also with a view towards overarching paths toward this end.

To summarize then,  the Vocation (I think of it as vocation with a capital V) never changes and cannot be "missed" except to the degree it is avoided or rejected at each moment and over a lifetime. One is called to authentic humanity, to collaborate with God in the creation and perfection of something unique and awesome. This call is ALWAYS present as part of one's very being. The vocational pathways one chooses as major ways to respond to this "Vocation" are another matter and may change over a lifetime, particularly as major life circumstances change due to tragedy, illness, failure, sin, and so forth. Each is associated with grace for the one called and for those she will serve but they remain secondary to the primary call to authentic humanity.

I hope this is helpful.

Difficult Questions When Dioceses Decline to Profess

[[Sister Laurel, I desire with all my heart to give my life and love to God and God's Church as a diocesan hermit, but my diocese will not agree to profess me. I am certain being a canonical hermit is the will of God but the diocese doesn't want me. Why would they reject me and my desire this way? It wouldn't really hurt anyone or anything to let me make vows and live alone in my hermitage. I am so devastated and confused!!]] (Used by specific request.)



Hi there,
I know, to some extent, how badly you may desire this, and I also know (again to some limited extent) how it feels to be told that there will be no profession. I cannot presume to know the specific reasons your diocese decided not to admit you to profession and consecration as a diocesan hermit, but the general reason presumably has to do with their discernment that you do not have this particular vocation, at least not at this time. I do not know what you were told specifically, but if questions remain regarding the reasons for this decision, I would certainly suggest you ask whomever you dealt with at your chancery for details of their determination. This can help you come to terms with the decision and the meaning it has for you personally. Despite what I just said about their decision's presumable reason, some reasons will reflect on you personally or your vocation itself, while others may not do so at all.

For instance, if your diocese does not have diocesan hermits, it may be they are not open to professing anyone at this point. The same could be true if they have professed individuals in the past and run into problems with those hermits. Such reasons would not reflect on you particularly and might not really challenge your own discernment in this matter. On the other hand, and also not reflecting too much on your own discernment here, it may be that there is something lacking in your formation or preparation which you can remedy. For instance, perhaps you need more time living as a lay hermit as a period of discernment, or greater grounding in the vows, theology of eremitical life, etc. Perhaps you have not worked regularly with a competent spiritual director long enough or need other initially formative experience still (formation is life-long but there is a degree which must be achieved before one's diocese will be able to see you as someone truly called to a life of the silence of solitude, much less a good candidate for profession). All of these kinds of things are remediable; they are also essential elements of the life itself so going about taking care of them is important to living an eremitical life --- whether you are to eventually be professed or not.

Some decisions are more personally oriented but are still not rejections of you yourself. For instance, the diocese might want to see you doing personal or inner work they feel is necessary before you or anyone can be publicly professed. And too, there is the very real possibility that your diocese simply has determined you yourself are not truly called in this way by God for any number of reasons, despite your own conviction otherwise. Such a determination would require you to try to get your own mind and heart around the decision and move on in whatever way you can do that. If you should decide to request an explanation, you should be sure you are prepared to hear the true basis for the decision, but knowing the reasons for the decision can assist you in further discernment regarding precisely where and to what God is calling you.

I strongly encourage you to NOT see this decision as a personal rejection of your life and your love, as you put it. The diocese has not rejected you, but instead they have determined this particular vocational path is not where God is calling you at this point in time. In ecclesial vocations an individual alone CANNOT discern such a vocation with certainty. We can feel very sure ourselves, but until and unless the Church mediates this call to us, we cannot say with any certainty that we have this calling. This is different from a call to marriage, for instance, which is up to the individual persons to discern, or from other lay vocations where the individual does the same. An ecclesial vocation gives the person the right and responsibility to live this out in the name of the Church. It is a public vocation with mutual rights and responsibilities, not a private one which the Church simply recognizes in some way but then leaves completely alone as a private undertaking.

Another part of this that is not too well understood by most Catholics, then, is that the Church is responsible for protecting and nurturing the eremitical vocation itself, not just the individual's call. The vocation itself is entrusted to her, and not only to an individual. Related to this is the fact that hermits do not live their lives for themselves alone. Even in their essential hiddenness the hermit's life impacts others, is meant for the salvation of others and the praise of God. For these reasons too the Church has to be sure that the persons they admit to public profession are truly called to this by God. In fact, everyone in the Church has a right to certain expectations of those who are publicly professed and/or consecrated.

This is especially true of the hermit's parish and diocese by the way -- even though the vocation is an essentially hidden one. After all, it is still one where the person must proclaim the Gospel with her life. (Hermits do interact with their parishes and dioceses, but I suspect that even if the only time fellow parishioners see us is at Sunday Mass, they will be able to tell whether we live and love our vocations and the God who is their source.) We cannot live out vocations we are not called to, and we certainly cannot do so whole-heartedly or joyfully --- much as we might desire to do so --- for living them out well and joyfully is a function of grace, not simply a matter of our own will and effort. For all these reasons the Church must be convinced the person has such a call and shows the capacity to live it out with integrity and faithfulness in a way which gives evidence that God is clearly at work in her, making whole and sanctifying.

Perhaps God is calling you to lay eremitical life. It is and has been a significant vocation now and through history -- and is in every way a gift to the Church and world. The desert Abbas and Ammas are the lay forerunners of most of the hermits that have ever lived in the Church. (Religious hermits are a clear minority in this history, and diocesan hermits are hardly 30 years old.) Another possibility is that perhaps God desires you to use this period of solitude as a transitional one in which you can do some of the personal work we all ordinarily have trouble finding time and space for. Moving through an extended period of solitude to greater wholeness and apostolic activity is a quite usual and significant part of desert spirituality; it would not be surprising for this to be the case and it could be truly edifying for the Church as a whole. What is without doubt is that God is calling you to follow him. He does not reject us or our love. He does not spurn any offer to give ourselves to and for him. Even when the Church makes mistakes in her own discernment (though I am not suggesting this either is or is not the case here), God continues to call us to greater generosity and faithfulness, and also greater creativity and perseverance. Vocational paths change, the call to full and authentic humanity in union with God does not.

I hope some of this helps more than it adds to your pain. I wish you the best in coming to terms with this decision and what it means for you in the future. I also hope your continuing work with your spiritual director supports and assists you in this whole process of transition and continuing discernment.