Personal Questions

[[Dear Sister Laurel, in your own eremitical life which piece of your spiritual practice is most important? Is it contemplative prayer, Office, Lectio Divina, writing, or something else? When you look back at the past years since solemn profession what has been most formative for you? How about before those years? Have you changed much as a hermit? (I know that last question might be a little bit too personal but I am interested. Feel free not to answer this of course.)]]

Thanks for the questions. There are three elements of my daily life which are difficult to tease apart completely and so, difficult to weight above or below the others. Those three are Scripture, quiet prayer, and writing. You see, although I spend discrete periods of time in lectio as well as journaling and other writing, of its very nature lectio segues into quiet prayer and writing and then back again into quiet prayer and back yet again to Scripture/lectio, etc. In other words, my lectio is incomplete or partial without the time I spend writing, my writing is incomplete without quiet prayer, and quiet prayer tends to need to spill over into writing and other things just as it drives me back into Scripture. (Note that all of these presuppose and call for the silence of solitude so I am not speaking of it as a discrete element --- though I well could.) Scripture is a living reality for me, a genuine ("Real") presence of God which touches and both calls for and nourishes many other things, but especially writing and quiet prayer.

Bearing that in mind I guess I would have to say it is my own silent grappling with Scripture (which means listening to it in silence, reflecting on it, praying it, writing about it and even working to proclaim it) that has been the most formative experience since perpetual profession (2007). There I hear the Word of God and it truly challenges, heals and transforms me. Quiet prayer is often wonderful (actually it is mostly wonderful --- not in terms of extraordinary experiences but in terms of simply sitting quietly with and in God) but I am also aware at those times how very much Scripture informs those periods. The same is true of writing; I learn a great deal while writing but I am also aware that I can do none of it without the constant impetus and support of Scripture. I am not sure what element I would name for the years prior to perpetual profession. The same three elements were present but there was a good deal less writing and less Scripture as well. There was more theology per se (academic theology) and quiet prayer was very important so perhaps I would name that.

Have I changed much as a hermit? My first impulse is to say, "I sure hope so!" but really my answer is yes. Quite literally I have grown into this vocation in a way I could not have imagined before experiencing it. Sometimes we go about doing all the things we are committed to doing, and in that way we are the persons we are meant to be. Someone who teaches is a teacher, but it is possible to say "I am a teacher" without that affirmation ever touching the core of who one is. Someone who lives the life of a hermit is a hermit but it is possible to do this without ever "achieving" the heart of a hermit. Someone who lives the life of a religious is a religious, but similarly, it is possible to do this without having one's heart shaped into that of a religious. If one is very fortunate one will find that through the grace of God one has had one's own heart shaped and molded into the heart of a hermit and/or the heart of a religious, and not merely that this is something one is moving towards or deeply desiring. I am not really sure how to better describe what I mean here.

Concretely it means I am happier than I have ever been, and freer as well. It means I love more and better, that I am better able to be silent and lay aside my own agendas or needs in order to truly listen. (It means I have fewer agendas for that matter!) It means that I am aware of the energy of grace moving through me, that even when I am ill or tired I am secure in who I am in Christ and especially in terms of canon 603 and religious life. It means I feel a responsibility for this vocation, not merely for my own call, and that, as a result, my writing reflects both greater depth, heart, and a proprietariness which is not defensive but is instead rooted in identity, intimate understanding, and personal security in that. Several years ago I put the matter of vocation to a friend for whom I was trying to describe the difference between a presentation on the eremitical life I had done pre-profession and one I had done post-profession this way, "I have come to "own" this vocation" --- not in the sense that it is a possession I can do with what I will, but in the sense that I am living it, not merely desiring to live it or hoping and trying to live it. Whatever I do I do as a hermit. Saying that would not have been possible in my earlier years of living as a hermit. It would not have even been possible on the day of perpetual profession.

While this of course means I must still live my Rule (one must be nourished to live this life and the daily structures, discipline, and elements of canon 603 are essential to that and to allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to and move us), it also means that they are a living reality and an extension of my truest self now much more than they are an externally imposed framework which I try to keep. This is true even though my Rule was originally written with a focus on a structure which truly fed me, not simply on filling it with things to do or not do. When I answered your question about which element was most important, that became even clearer to me. Once I would have not been able to describe these as being so integrally intertwined that they were difficult to tease apart. They would all have been more or less important, but they would not have nourished each other and called for each other as they do now. I think this reflects a greater wholeness and integrity within me and that is good to see. So, yes I have changed and grown as a hermit and in my eremitical life. I have grown in a way which makes these two things one.

I hope this is helpful and more or less what you were actually asking. If not get back to me and I will try again.

First Encyclical: Lumen Fidei

Francis' first encyclical, the most authoritative piece of teaching the Bishop of Rome generally promulgates, was published today. It is called the Light of Faith (Lumen Fidei) and was written in some collaboration with Benedict who had already done a first draft on the topic of faith as the third piece in a trilogy beginning with hope and charity. (This encyclical is, however, Francis' own and is published in his name as an exercise of his own teaching authority.) I have skimmed the text and read most of the first two chapters. There is some really lovely stuff in here. For instance, in par 13, [[Faith, tied as it is to conversion is the opposite of idolatry; it breaks with idols to turn to the living God in a personal encounter. Believing means entrusting oneself to a merciful love which always accepts and pardons, which sustains and directs our lives, and which shows its power by its ability to make straight the crooked lines of our history. Faith consists in the willingness to let ourselves be constantly transformed and renewed by God's call. Herein lies the paradox: by constantly turning towards the Lord, we discover a sure path which liberates us from the dissolution imposed upon us by idols.]]

In particular this passage reminded me of the readings from the past two weeks and some of the reflections I have written because of them, one regarding Abraham's representation of Israel moving away from idols towards greater and greater faith in the God who will be exhaustively revealed by and in Jesus Christ. The encyclical is readable or accessible, positive, pastorally edifying, and as far as I can tell very strongly focused on faith in and with Jesus Christ himself. The experience of the risen Lord and a reminder of the centrality of a personal commitment to Christ himself in any authentic life of faith informs every section of the text.  The link between faith and truth is strong and the encyclical moves away from any notion that reason is merely supplemented with faith. Instead faith is that reality which lights the way for reason and allows it to be fulfilled. Similarly reason serves faith. Rightly, they are correlative realities in this presentation. Again, I have only read part of the text but I highly recommend it!

One note on terminology. It seems clear that Francis did not compose the title page for the text which says it is from the "Supreme Pontiff" to the "Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Consecrated Persons, and the Lay Faithful." Francis refers in the first paragraphs to himself directly (and to Benedict) instead as "Successors of Peter" --- thus continuing to eschew "Pope", "Supreme Pontiff" or "Vicar of Christ" as titles which move away from collegiality. Meanwhile I have not heard Francis himself reverting to the older hierarchical notion of the church as being composed of clergy, consecrated persons, and laity before, so in this too do take the title page with a grain (or even a significant measure) of salt.

Happy Fourth of July

Only one thought occurs to me on this day, and that is that Christians have much to tell America about the nature of true freedom, even while they are grateful for a country which allows them the liberty to practice their faith pretty much as they wish and need. Too often today Freedom is thought of as the ability to do anything we want. It is the quintes-sential value of the narcissist. And yet, within Christian thought and praxis freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. It is the direct counterpart of Divine sovereignty and is other-centered. I believe our founding fathers had a keen sense of this, but today, it is a sense Americans often lack. Those of us who celebrate the freedom of Christians can help recover a sense of this necessary value by embracing it more authentically ourselves. Not least we can practice a freedom which is integrally linked to correlative obligations and exists for the sake of all; that is, it involves an obligation to be there for the other, most especially the least and poorest among us.

Meanwhile, All good wishes for the birthday of our Nation! Celebrate well in genuine Freedom!!

Follow up Questions for "Our God is not One Who Punishes Evil"

[[Dear Sister, while I appreciate some of what you have written about moving from fear to love and that God does not punish evil it seems to me the Church herself teaches the importance of fear and also says that God punishes evil. What do we do with the Act of Contrition if that is not true? Remember how it goes? "O my God,  I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen." Shouldn't we truly fear that God will find us unworthy of heaven and cast us into the tortures of hell? Otherwise, we will sin with impunity, literally, without fear of punishment..]]

LOL! I do indeed remember how it goes! However, I think the lesson it embodies is the one I have been writing about. (cf Notes From Stillsong: Ours is not a God Who Punishes Evil) It does NOT convey a spirituality of fear nor does it teach that God punishes sin. Let's look at it. First, it refers to dreading the loss of heaven (that is the loss of life with, of, and in God) and the pains of hell (again, the pain of losing the life we are made for --- life with, of, and in God). The gravity of such a loss is literally dreadful and we SHOULD experience this. However, this is not the same as living our lives in fear, and especially not fear of God.  Significantly, a reference to hell makes no mention of torture nor of God as torturer; the pains of hell are the pains of losing our place in God's own life through the choices we make for something less ultimate and less fulfilling.

It is important to note that God is never mentioned as the agent of punishment nor is his justice seen a retributive here. Evil and our choice of that which is truly unworthy of being chosen has consequences. Quite often in the OT literature, a People struggling to move beyond the notion of retributive justice while also finding ways to affirm the sovereignty of God, speaks of the consequences of evil and the choice of evil as divine punishment. It is really only when the tremendous paradox of a God who demonstrates absolute sovereignty in self-emptying and love is revealed on and through the Cross of Christ that the tension between these two tendencies is resolved in an unexpected and literally scandalous way. Jews find this a stumbling block. Greeks find it foolishness. But here we have a God who submits to evil in order to transform and redeem it. Sovereignty is revealed in kenosis. Loving into wholeness is the way God asserts his rights over (does justice to) a broken creation. Punishment, much less a divine punisher, has no place in this picture.

Secondly, however, look how the prayer proceeds; let me paraphrase it: I detest my sins because I dread the loss of my real destiny with you and might have to" live" (be dead) without you (without love) for the whole of eternity but here is the most serious thing for me: I detest my sins because they offend against your love, you who are all-good and deserving of my wholehearted loving response! This prayer moves from a motivation that is less adequate, less worthy of God to one that is far more worthy. It moves from a motivation that is self-centered to one that is truly God-centered. The prayer itself recognizes a legitimate feeling of dread but counters with something that is even more compelling, namely, the love of God (the God who IS love-in-act) and which or who is meant to be our real focus and motivation. It moves from imperfect to perfect (or at least more perfect) contrition. Thus it reprises the very same movement I mentioned in the post mentioned above, and invites us to the same purification Genesis 18 reflected. (Again, cf Notes From Stillsong: Ours is not a God Who Punishes Evil.)

You make a good point in fearing that people will act with impunity if we do away with the element of fear. I think the idea of consequences, however, is far more helpful than the idea of punishment --- which necessarily requires a punisher. We should certainly revere and be in awe of God, but personally, I think it is ALWAYS destructive of genuine faith to fear God in any way whatsoever. I simply don't see how the profound trust that is the heart of genuine faith, can co-exist with fear. Fear simply distorts everything it touches. This is one reason Jesus' gift of peace often accompanies the directive, "Be not afraid" or "Fear not!". So, we need to educate people about the consequences of sin -- including the ultimate consequence of rejecting God's love which we call hell ---. Still, at the same time, we need to help them move beyond an ethics driven by concern of consequences to a life that responds generously and selflessly to the God who offers himself and life with and in himself as the fulfillment of our truest selves. This movement, this growth in one's spiritual life and so, in one's capacity to love, is precisely what is reflected in the act of contrition.

Moving from Fear to Love: Ours is not a God Who Punishes Evil!

Today's readings speak to us in profound and very challenging ways I think. The first, which I am going to focus on here, is from Genesis 18 and recounts a dialogue between Abraham (the Father of Faith and one whose faith is counted as righteousness) and God over whether God will indeed destroy Sodom if a number of righteous people can be found there. You remember it no doubt: God has heard rumors of the tremendous evil of this city and determines he will find out for himself. If things are as bad as he has heard, then he will destroy the city and everyone therein.

Abraham, the representative of true faith, in a remarkably frank conversation with God, asks a series of questions: What if you find fifty righteous persons, will you destroy everyone? "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" (Remember that when God destroys evil innocence is also destroyed; the world, after all, is ambiguous and that is true of each and all of us as well.) How about 45? What about 30? 20? and so forth. In each case, God answers that he would not destroy the whole city if x or y righteous men were found therein, and even only 10 righteous persons are found there. But what is the author of Genesis really trying to say here? Is he revealing a God of vengeance whose justice is retributive and who punishes us for our evil? Is he revealing a God with whom we are called to bargain or remonstrate, a God who will be swayed by our superior reason,  or who may be cajoled into changing his mind if the case made is eloquent enough? Is he revealing a fickle and capricious God who is moved hither and yon like a reed blowing in the wind?

I think reading the text in this way would be a profound mistake. It would then become a variation on the idea that the God of Israel revealed in the OT is essentially different than the God of Christians, that, in fact, he is a God of vengeance where the God revealed by Jesus Christ is a God of mercy. But this story is not an attempt to paint a picture of a God of vengeance or retributive justice being reminded by a reasonable and faithful human being of “the bigger picture”! Instead I think the author is recounting the history of Israel and her own coming to know and reveal the real God; this history is captured or personified in Abraham's dialogue with God as more and more clearly he establishes that Yahweh is not the God who punishes evil (evil is its own punishment and carries its own consequences) nor the one who is wed to an abstract notion of justice which he upholds at the expense of the innocent. Instead Abraham's dialogue gradually reveals to us a God Israel herself slowly comes to know more fully only through her repeated experiences of God's faithfulness, mercy, and compassion. In this dialogue it is not God’s mind that is changed, but Abraham’s (Israel's) as, with questions of increasing wonder and disbelief, he tries to establish and plumb the depths of God’s mercy. It is a God for whom the concrete life of the least and the lost is more important than the most common and convincing principle of justice while the presence of the slightest bit of good is more compelling than a world full of evil. It is the God we come to know in authentic faith.

When we compare the OT and NT side by side what we really see are not two essentially different Gods, but many stories of the movement in history from distorted, inadequate, or partial images and faith to more adequate and fuller images of God and forms of faith; it is the movement from fragmentary, distorted, and partial revelations of a punitive God to the exhaustive revelation of the God of mercy in the Christ Event. The OT is the record of a People coming to be from members of many different cultures and religions --- and doing so as its members outgrow their original theologies and related anthropologies under the influence of repeated experiences of Yahweh's faithfulness, mercy, and compassion. The OT is a history of the progressive (and often inconsistent) purification of Israel's minds and hearts regarding who God is and what constitutes true religion. It is through this purification that they mature as God's own People and persons of true faith. In today's story especially we are listening to Israel slowly relinquish belief in the God who punishes evil and evil doers, the God whose justice is at war with (his) mercy and whose compassion conflicts with his need for retribution or vindication; she does this only in so far as she affirms her own deepest experiences of God and, in an attempt to resolve it, pushes the tension between these two "theological worlds" to the limits of her imagination and narrative capacity.

She has done this in other stories too. There is the story of the flood where retributive justice wars with compassion and eventually in an act of radical humility and self-emptying God "repents" and promises never to destroy the world in this way again. There is the story of the sacrifice of Isaac where Abraham's hand is stayed by God just as he is ready to plunge the knife into Isaac's chest, and where a different and acceptable sacrifice is provided by God. While this story foreshadows God's own gift of Jesus and Jesus' own sacrifice, it also originally served to proclaim an end to human sacrifice because the God of Israel was NOT a God who required retribution for evil. The God of Israel was different and had a different way of doing justice. He called for Israel to embrace a different religious practice so that they could know and serve him intimately as a light to the Nations. It is no wonder that idolatry looms so large in the failures outlined by Israel. The struggle between false gods and ideas of god and Israel's most profound experience of God's own actions in her life characterized her on every level of her existence --- personal, historical, individual, corporate.

In many ways this struggle and story reprises our own as well. After getting his disciples in touch with who OTHERS say that he is, it is not surprising that Jesus' most critical question to them is, "And you, who do YOU say that I am?" This tension and movement between what we have been told of God and who we actually know in light of our own experiences of his faithfulness, compassion, and mercy is a dominant thread in our own spiritual journeys as well.

In particular, letting go of our belief in the God who punishes evil (or sends evil to punish us!!!), our belief in the God who is the focus of a theology of fear in order to exhaustively embrace the God revealed on the Cross, the God who asserts his rights (i.e., does justice) by loving unconditionally, who sets everything right and fulfills it through forgiveness and mercy, is not an easy task. Everything militates against this; whether it is family history, grade school catechetics, punitive nuns, theologically unsophisticated preaching and writing on hell, judgment, or our own super egos, this is one bit of idolatry, one bit of "worldliness" or pagan theology that is hard to shake.

Our inability to really believe in the power of the love of God may be the real face of unbelief in our own lives and in our Church today. Like Israel however (and, through the exhaustive revelation of God in Christ) we can do it only by allowing  the non-punitive God who is Love-in-Act to truly be our Lord and Master. Each day we are called on to discern both who others say that God is, and who we ourselves say that he is. Each day we are called on to allow our own hearts and minds to be purified by the God of Jesus Christ as we experience him. Each day we are called on to become Christians who believe more and more firmly and completely in the loving God he reveals and no other --- not the God who punishes evil but the One who submits entirely to it himself, transforms and redeems it with his presence, and thus (in time) loves the world into wholeness.

Francis, Bishop of Rome on Living the Reality of Church

[[Dear brothers and sisters,

Today I would like briefly to refer to one more picture that helps us to illustrate the mystery of the Church: that of the temple (cf. Lumen Gentium, 6).

What does the word, ‘temple’ call to mind? It makes us think of a building, a construction. In particular, it recalls to many minds the history of the People of Israel narrated in the Old Testament. In Jerusalem, the great Temple of Solomon was the locus of the encounter with God in prayer. Within the Temple was the Ark of the Covenant, a sign of God's presence among the people, and inside the Ark were the Tablets of the Law, the manna and the rod of Aaron, a reminder that God had always been in the history of his people, had always been with them on their journey, always directed their stride – and the Temple recalls this story. We, too, when we go to the temple, must remember this story – my story – the story of each one of us – of how Jesus encountered me, of how he walked with me, how Jesus loves and blesses me.

That, which was prefigured in the ancient Temple, is realized in the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit: the Church is the “house of God”, the place of His presence, where we can find and meet the Lord, the Church is the temple in which dwells the Holy Spirit, who animates, guides and sustains her. If we ask ourselves, “Where we can meet God? Where can we enter into communion with Him through Christ? Where can we find the light of the Holy Spirit to enlighten our lives?” the answer is, “in the People of God, among us, for we are Church – among us, within the People of God, in the Church – there we shall meet Jesus, we shall meet the Holy Spirit, we shall meet the Father.

The ancient temple was built by the hands of men: they wanted to “give a home” to God, to have a visible sign of His presence among the people. With the Incarnation of the Son of God, the prophecy of Nathan to King David is fulfilled (cf. 2 Sam 7.1 to 29): it is not the king, it is not we, who are to “give a home to God,” but God Himself who “builds his house” to come and dwell among us, as St. John writes in the Prologue of his Gospel (cf. 1:14). Christ is the living Temple of the Father, and Christ himself builds His “spiritual home”, the Church, made not of stone materials, but of “living stones” – of us, our very selves. The Apostle Paul says to the Christians of Ephesus: you are “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: in whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord.(Eph 2:20-22)” How beautiful this is! We are the living stones of God, profoundly united to Christ, who is the rock of support, and among ourselves. What then, does this mean? It means that we are the Temple – the Church, but, us, living – we are Church, we are [the] living temple, and within us, when we are together, there is the Holy Spirit, who helps us grow as Church. We are not isolated, we are People of God – and this is the Church: People of God.

It is, moreover, the Holy Spirit with His gifts, who designs the variety – and this is important – what does the Holy Spirit do in our midst? He designs the variety – the variety, which is the richness of the Church and unites everything and everyone, so as to constitute a spiritual temple, in which we offer not material sacrifices, but us ourselves, our life (cf. 1 Pt 2:4-5). The Church is not a weave of things and interests, it is rather the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Temple in which God works, the Temple in which each of us with the gift of Baptism is living stone. This tells us that no one is useless in the Church – no one is useless in the Church! – and should anyone chance to say, some one of you, “Get home with you, you’re useless!” that is not true. No one is useless in the Church. We are all needed in order to build this temple. No one is secondary: “Ah, I am the most important one in the Church!” No! We are all equal in the eyes of God. But, one of you might say, “Mr. Pope, sir, you are not equal to us.” But I am just like each of you. We are all equal. We are all brothers and sisters. No one is anonymous: all form and build the Church. Nevertheless, it also invites us to reflect on the fact that the Temple wants the brick of our Christian life, that something is wanting in the beauty of the Church.

So I would like for us to ask ourselves: how do we live our being Church? We are living stones? Are we rather, so to speak, tired stones, bored, indifferent? Have any of you ever noticed how ugly a tired, bored, indifferent Christian is? It’s an ugly sight. A Christian has to be lively, joyous, he has to live this beautiful thing that is the People of God, the Church. Do we open ourselves to the Holy Spirit, so as to be an active part of our communities, or do we close in on ourselves, saying, “I have so many things to do, that’s not my job.”?

May the Lord grant us His grace, His strength, so that we can be deeply united to Christ, the cornerstone, stone of support for all of our lives and the life of the Church. Let us pray that, animated by His Spirit, we might always be living stones of the Church.]]

Feast of St Romuald (Reprise)

Romuald Receives the Gift of Tears

Congratulations to all Camaldolese this day, the feast day of the founder of the Camaldolese Congregations! Saint Romuald has a special place in my heart for two reasons. First he went around Italy bringing isolated hermits together or at least under the Rule of Benedict --- something I found personally to resonate with my own need to subsume my personal Rule of Life under a larger more profound and living tradition or Rule, and secondly, he gave us a form of eremitical life which is uniquely suited to the diocesan hermit. St Romuald's unique gift (charism) to the church involved what is called a "threefold good", that is, the blending of the solitary and communal forms of monastic life (the eremitical and the cenobitical), and the third good of evangelization or witness.

So often people (mis)understand the eremitical life as antithetical to communal life, and opposed as well to witness or evangelization. Romuald modeled an eremitism which balances the eremitical call to solitude and a commitment to God alone with community and outreach to the world to proclaim the Gospel. The vocation is essentially eremitic, but rooted in what the Camaldolese call "The Privilege of Love" and therefore it spills out in witness and has a communal dimension or component to it as well. This seems to me to be particularly well-suited to the vocation of the diocesan hermit since she is called to live for God alone, but in a way which ALSO specifically calls her to give her life in love and generous service to others, particularly her parish and diocese. While this service and gift of self ordinarily takes the form of solitary prayer, it may also involve other ministry within the parish including limited hospitality --- or the outreach of a hermit from her hermitage through the vehicle of a blog!!! So, all good wishes on this feast of Saint Romuald!!

Especially the Camaldolese celebrate today (2013) the Anniversaries of Monastic Vows of Thomas and Gabriel (49 years ago) and of Raniero and Benedict (20 years ago), and the Birthday, of Cyprian! And for those who are not really familiar with Romuald, here is the brief Rule he formulated for monks, nuns, and oblates. It is the only thing we actually have from his own hand.


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

Breeze and Buttons

We are made for love; we don't survive without it. It is a law of nature as compelling as any other we might name. That is true not just of human beings, but it is especially true of us. Love allows us to grow and thrive as nothing else is able to do. It is, in fact, the key to authentic humanity. Today I am feeling personally grateful for all those who have served to help allow me to thrive. I am certainly feeling gratitude to and for the God who holds me securely in his hands as I lay down to rest or who is unfailingly present as I "run about" my daily routine. Despite the fact that I have written about chronic illness recently, I want to be very clear that because of the steadfast love people have given me (and taught me to receive!) it is not illness that defines my life but an overflowing of love which has brought me to abundant life in Christ.

Despite scars brought from fending for himself, Breeze (who is just 10 days old) knows love and the life in him is beginning to allow him to be the frisky young foal we expect. There is abundant life in him waiting to pour out and mature and we see signs of it as he approaches his groomer to play. In the above video (which I thought was adorable and hope you will also like!), from a raft of gifts Britons sent him, Breeze, the orphaned horse selected Buttons, the four foot Teddy bear to cuddle with; he loves to do so especially when his caregivers are out of the ring temporarily.

I recall that there used to be a group of conservative Catholics who used to spell love "luv" in order to denigrate those of us who spoke regularly of God as love-in-act or who proclaimed God's unconditional love, expressed in mercy and forgiveness. Today we can find a similar cynicism in online broadcasts that condemn what they denigratingly (and inaccurately) refer to as "the Church of nice"; they seem to believe Christians actually win peoples' hearts by preaching hellfire, eternal torments, and the loss of their souls. (And who, of those who do not believe in God or find some of the parodies once (or still!) taught, would actually believe in these or find them compelling?) I am disgusted by a lot of this because time and again Jesus told us not to be afraid and reminded us repeatedly of God's faithfulness and love; he never seemed to motivate people with fear --- I believe he was surely an astute enough psychologist to know that doesn't really work. In any case it was not the message he proclaimed with his life and death. It was not the message of parables which invited people to enter the story of God's Kingdom any place they could. Instead he proclaimed this unique Kingdom, the reign of a God whose faithfulness and love (God's very self) was undisputed and would never be ultimately defeated, whose dominion would be established in the face of sinful death in all of its forms and degrees.

We are made for love. We cannot survive much less thrive without it. It is the power in our cosmos that sets all things to right, which brings a justice we can hardly imagine with our puny minds and self-centered hearts. It is a law of nature deeper and more compelling than any other. Some may denigrate it or trivialize it as "luv," label it mere sentimentality or even brand it as effeminate, but even a  young foal like Breeze is aware of it on some level just as he is coming to know the life stirring in himself as a result of it. This is the law written on our hearts and I thank God for it and for those who help it to be fulfilled in us.

Writing a Rule of Life: When Should a Diocese Request One Write a Rule?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when should one write a Rule of Life? You have written that a Rule can only be written on the basis of lived experience. If a diocese asks one to do so right away what should one do?]]

You have put your finger on one of the most problematical elements of Canon 603 and of diocese's approach to its requirements, namely, the request that someone write a Rule of Life before they are really ready to do so, that is before someone has the lived experience and education (in things like the vows, etc) to do so. As I have written here before, the actual preparation for and writing of a Rule is one of the most formative experiences a hermit will have; it is also something one can only do on the basis of ample reading, reflection, and lived experience. This is because it is not simply a list of do's and don't's but a document which codifies the vision and values of the hermit's life in their interplay with eremitical tradition and the world in which the hermit lives (cf Negotiating the Tensions between Tradition and the Contemporary Situation); a Rule is the way she ensures the environment needed for God to love her (and vice versa) in the silence of solitude as well as achieving the goal of her life which IS the silence of solitude (eremitical communion with God in service to those precious to him). Thus, it should inspire before it legislates and it should legislate only as it inspires.

At the same time the Rule is the single concrete element of canon 603 which lends itself to a diocese's directives; for this reason there is a tendency for chancery personnel to ask candidates to go and write one whether there has been time to discern whether the person has the experience to do so or not. Meanwhile, the Rule that is eventually written by a candidate will help allow the diocese to discern the quality of vocation in front of them. All of this argues that, tempting as it is to do otherwise, the directive to write a Rule should not, and in fact must not, be given prematurely. Still, the hermit candidate needs some sort of provisional Rule or set of guidelines to help her live her life, and her diocese may be seriously tempted to ask her to write A single "finished" Rule before she is really ready, so what is the solution? Part of what follows is meant for dioceses; some will apply to you more directly. I hope that all of it will help you to understand what actually goes into the writing of a Rule.

1) begin with a set of guidelines. Here I merely mean a list of those things the diocese or church more generally expects to see in the life of an authentic hermit. These may come from the diocese or from the hermit herself as a result of her own study --- whichever is more comprehensive. Obviously the elements of canon 603 will be part of this (I will not go into those here), but, for instance, the single element of assiduous prayer will imply various kinds of prayer: Liturgy of the Hours, quiet prayer, meditation, lectio divina, rosary, Mass or Communion service, adoration, chant, Taize, etc.

(N.B., Any one hermit may not use all of these forms of prayer all the time, but she should be acquainted with them and have worked with her director to determine which ones are best for her at this point in time as well, for instance, as which ones work well when she is ill, on vacation or otherwise away from the hermitage, etc). Similarly, elements included in these guidelines will likely include study, recreation, work, contact with others, retreat, desert days, parish involvement, finances, horarium, meals, hospitality, home visits or visits with friends, vacation, spiritual direction, meetings with one's delegate, ongoing education or formation, etc. These should be related to the content of the vows one proposes  eventually to make and the central elements of canon 603 so they reflect the hermit's appreciation of the values and charism (gift quality) of the life.

Over time the hermit will try a variety of forms and combinations of these elements and, with the help of her director and delegate, discover what works best for her. Each experimental version or "configuration" of these elements should be balanced and include prayer, work, study, recreation, etc. Each one should show a real understanding and living out of the elements of the canon and thus, the values and charism of solitary eremitical life. (cf. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Appreciating the Charism of Diocesan Eremitical Life) Only when she has done this and discovered which configuration best allows for her own growth in wholeness and holiness in the silence of solitude is she actually ready to write a workable Rule of Life which can be submitted to the diocese.

2) At the end of a period of 2-3 years or so  of supervised experimentation (it could take longer; is is very unlikely to take less time unless the person has already lived vowed life for some period of time) and prior to admission to temporary vows, the diocese can ask the hermit (or the hermit may decide it is time) to write a provisional Rule which will bind her legally during her period of temporary vows. It should probably be understood that with the help of the hermit's director and delegate some elements may be changed in response to changes in her life or greater discernment or clarity, but these changes must be approved or otherwise made under diocesan supervision.

Part of the process of  both discernment and formation however involves learning whether one can as well as how to really live a Rule of Life which is considered and restrictive as well as life-giving and freeing. A Rule cannot include merely what one finds amenable at this point in time; it must be capable of challenging one to grow in the discipline and spirit of the eremitical life. Though it must not do so slavishly or apart from significant dialogue with the contemporary situation, it must reflect the eremitical tradition with real integrity or it is unworthy of the name. Patience and perseverance are part of the eremitical life and one must know one is able to live these elements on a day to day basis over a period of years in a way which leads to genuine wholeness BEFORE one is admitted to vows.

3) Six-eight months before perpetual or solemn vows are anticipated, the hermit should begin writing a definitive Rule which becomes canonically binding on the day of solemn/perpetual profession and will be approved first by canonists and then with a Bishop's Decree of Approval. (This period of time is chosen to allow sufficient time for writing and also to allow the diocese time for consultation with canonists, etc, which may lead to a need for re-writing and re-consultation. The fact that one has already written a Rule prior to temporary vows should be a big help here.) Despite the definitive nature of this Rule, a diocese (or the hermit!) should not be surprised to find that in several years she wishes to revise it in some significant way -- whether that is because she has embraced new prayer forms, must accommodate illness (or health!)  in new ways, has grown in her understanding of some element of canon 603 or the charism of her life, etc.

A Rule is a working document, a text for reflection and inspiration as well as being a legislative document. Like the Sabbath it is there for the sake of the hermit's life, not the other way around. Even so, at this point, my personal experience is that the changes that are needed will tend to be less substantive than earlier and ordinarily these will reflect significant growth in one's understanding of the vocation or significantly changed circumstances like illness, etc. One is no longer finding her way with the vocation in the same way she was before temporary vows or even just before perpetual profession. In other words, the changes needed at this point are usually the result of greater maturity in the life rather than immaturity and experimentation.


Regarding your specific question, if your diocese asks you to write a Rule before you feel you are ready, discuss this with them. If you like, discuss this article or others you have read on writing a Rule. Most of the time a diocese merely wants to be sure you are living an ordered life given over to the elements of canon 603. Often the people making the request have never written a Rule themselves and do not know what is required --- again, this is the single element of the canon they can point to for a concrete result. Even so, they are usually more than willing to give you the time this project truly requires. (I have never heard of a diocese hurrying a person in this. Though prematurity in requesting a Rule is a problem, any perceived  urgency is more often of the candidate's own making.) Writing up a set of guidelines or even a provisional Rule which you do not mean to be vetted by canonists or yet shown to your Bishop for approval should be acceptable to whomever is assisting you at the diocesan level. Let them know you are growing in this and that you anticipate writing another Rule in a couple of years when you are more experienced. Personally I think they will see this as a sign that you know what you are doing (and also as an admission of awareness of your own limitations!) --- both positive signs for a diocese.

Feast of the Sacred Heart (Reprise)

We are faced today with a feast that seems sometimes to be irrelevant to contemporary life. The Feast of the Sacred Heart developed in part as a response to pre-destinationist theologies which diminished the universality of the gratuitous love of God and consigned many to perdition. But the Church's own theology of grace and freedom point directly to the reality of the human heart -- that center of the human person where God freely speaks himself and human beings respond in ways which are salvific for them and for the rest of the world. It asks us to see all  persons as constituted in this way and called to life in and of God. Today's Feast of the Sacred Heart, then, despite the shift in context, asks us to reflect again on the nature of the human heart, to the greatest danger to spiritual or authentically human life the Scriptures identify, and too, on what a contemporary devotion to the Sacred Heart might mean for us.

As I have written here before, the heart is the symbol of the center of the human person. It is a theological term which points first of all to God and to God's activity deep within us. It is not so much that we have a heart and then God comes to dwell there; it is that where God dwells within us and bears witness to himself, we have a heart. The human heart (not the cardiac muscle but the center of our personhood the Scriptures call heart) is a dialogical event where God speaks, calls, breathes, and sings us into existence and where, in one way and degree or another, we respond to become the people we are. It is therefore important that our hearts be open and flexible, that they be obedient to the Voice and love of God, and so that they be responsive in all the ways they are summoned to be.

Bearing this in mind it is no surprise that the Scriptures speak in many places about the very worst thing which could befall a human being and her spiritual life. We hear it in the following line from Ezekiel: [[If today you hear [God's] voice, harden not your hearts.]] Many things contribute to such a reaction. We know that love is risky and that it always hurts. Sometimes this hurt is akin to the mystical experience of being pierced by God's love and is a wonderful but difficult experience. Other times love wounds us in less fruitful ways: we are betrayed by friends or family, we reach out to another in love and are rejected, a billion smaller losses wound us in ways from which we cannot seem to recover. In such cases our hearts are not only wounded but become scarred, indurated, less sensitive to pain (or pleasure), stiff and relatively inflexible. They, quite literally, become "hardened" and we may be fearful and unwilling or even unable to risk further injury. When the Scriptures speak of the "hardening" of our hearts they use the very words medicine uses to speak of the result of serious and prolonged wounding: induration, sclerosis, callousedness. Such hardening is self-protective but it also locks us into a world which makes us less capable of responding to love with all of its demands and riskiness. It makes us incapable of suffering well (patiently, fruitfully), or of real selflessness, generosity, or compassion.

It is here that the symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus' is instructive and where contemporary devotion to the Sacred Heart can assist us. The Sacred Heart is clearly the place where human and divine are united in a unique way. While we are not called to Daughterhood or to Sonship in the exact same sense of Jesus' (he is "begotten" Son, we are adopted Sons --- and I use only Sons because of the prophetic, countercultural sense that term had for women in the early Church), we are meant to be expressions of a similar unity and heritage; we are meant to have God as the well spring of life and love at the center of our existence. Like the Sacred Heart our own hearts are meant to be "externalized" in a sense and transparent to others. They are meant to be wounded by love and deeply touched by the pain of others but not scarred or indurated in that woundedness; they are meant to be compassionate hearts on fire with love and poured out for others --- hearts which are marked by the cross in all of its kenotic (self-emptying) dimensions and therefore too by the joy of ever-new life. The truly human heart is a reparative heart which heals the woundedness of others and empowers them to love as well. Such hearts are hearts which love as God loves, and therefore which do justice. I think that allowing our own hearts to be remade in this way represents an authentic devotion to Jesus' Sacred Heart. There is nothing lacking in relevance or contemporaneity in that!

Be Not Afraid: Coming to Faith in a God who is already Waiting for us

Rarely are we privileged to hear such personal stories about a Pope's coming to or his vision of faith. Francis' experiences are seminal to his understanding of the way we are Church for one another and the way we come to faith ourselves. In some of the most effective catechesis I have ever heard or seen, Francis answers several questions which had been put to him. He speaks simply; he speaks profoundly; he speaks truth to power and to powerlessness, and he does all this from the heart.

Here we begin to see the key to what allows Francis to speak to the hearts of people within the Church and outside it as well. At bottom is an authentic and profound personal relationship with Jesus which leads to true witness. This is so significant for Francis that, following Paul's criticism to the Corinthians' tendency to follow Apollos or Paul, et al, rather than Jesus, in "paternal criticism" (a very gently and lovingly given paternal criticism!)  he asks the crowds to never again shout Francesco, but instead only Jesu! This missionary dynamic of letting God into one's heart and then going out to all stands at the heart of Francis' faith and the vision he has of Church.



One piece of this video which was repeated in a talk to the Italian Bishops is also significant in signaling the kinds of Church reform Francis sees as needed. Just as Israel was called by God to let go of the ritual and legal "fence" that separated her from the nations so that she might really become salt and light for the world in Christ, so Francis talks about being Church in a similar missionary key: [[A Church that does not go out, sooner or later gets sick in the vitiated atmosphere of her enclosure. It is true also that to a Church that goes out something can happen, as it can to any person who goes out to the street: to have an accident. Given this alternative, I wish to say to you frankly that I prefer a thousand times an injured Church than a sick Church. The typical illness of the shut-in Church is self-reference; to look at herself, to be bent over herself like the woman in the Gospel. It is a kind of narcissism that leads us to spiritual worldliness and to sophisticated clericalism, and then it impedes our experiencing “the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing.”]] HERE is what we are each called to live. HERE is the "new evangelization" meant to mark each Christian's life. Please take time to listen to the whole of this video!

On Variety and Unity in the Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister,
[I am writing a provisional Rule of Life and the variety of hermit lives and Rules raise some questions for me. For instance] if someone is a true Christian, and who can judge that?, and says she is a hermit, lives alone sincerely giving herself to prayer, to the heart of the world and by extension and above all, to God, what makes her less a hermit? Less "worthy" (and I know how you hate that distinction) of being called a hermit?]]

Dear Poster, Thanks for your questions! If you take a look at the content of your conditional sentence above you will see that you have laid down some very stringent requirements for recognizing someone as a hermit (although I personally would switch God and world in your sentence so that the heart of God comes first and then the heart of the world by extension). Essentially you have described what I refer to as the distinction between a person merely living alone (implicit in your post) and a desert dweller or hermit (which you actually describe explicitly):

IF someone is a true Christian

IF she consciously claims the life of a hermit (desert dweller) and lets that define her (desert spirituality)

IF she lives alone (or, in cases of real need, with a caregiver who does not get in the way of her Rule and actually allows her to live it as fully as she feels called)

IF she sincerely gives herself (not just a bit of time here or there) to prayer, (add penance, silence, solitude and the silence OF solitude).

IF she lives in the heart of God (or is genuinely committed to doing so) and by extension gives herself to the world in this way. . . (all of this I refer to especially as the silence of solitude)

The devil is in the details. What does each of these mean? What does it look like? IF a person does all these things or is committed full time to doing all these things and being defined in this sense by her relationship with God, with  the Church and the world, then I would agree she is a hermit. If not, well ---  perhaps she is fooling herself, or perhaps she is just a relatively pious person living alone, or perhaps she is not sure what the term hermit means. In any case if she is not living these and other essential elements she is probably not a hermit --- badly as she might desire to be one. Meanwhile, if these (and other) essential elements are in place, a great deal of flexibility can be accommodated by a solitary hermit or variety by a number or group of hermits.

Directors, delegates, and Bishops read the Rules hermits write for themselves, talk to them about the presence of these (or other) essential elements, and CAN make an assessment about the authenticity of the vocation in front of them; in fact, it is their job and obligation to make assessments on an ongoing basis, it is because people cannot judge the heart that there are externally verifiable non-negotiables like canon 603. It specifies a life of the silence OF solitude (which is NOT the same as silence AND solitude though it includes these), assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world (both of these have inner meanings which can be assessed), evangelical counsels, all lived under the supervision of one's Bishop in accordance with a Rule the hermit herself writes. I would argue all of these are elements which protect, nurture, and express the very conditions you yourself laid down in your conditional sentence.

Merton (his "Philosophy of Solitude," which you have mentioned as speaking to you, is one of my favorite works by the way) was fairly exceptional and in some ways had the heart of a hermit while living in the midst of his monastery. Folks like Saints Peter Damian and Romuald were also exceptional. Still, they had the hearts of hermits and as much as they could lived the silence of solitude and wrote or worked in ways which allowed others to share that or live it in their own lives. Busyness per se (another thing you mention in your email) is not the question so long as the other elements are demonstrable and defining in the person's life. Even so, some would not call any of them hermits. (Having the true heart of a hermit is significant but few start here;  even so, whether one's heart has been shaped in this way or not one must also live the life itself; the alternative is to have folks thumping themselves in the chest and proclaiming themselves hermits while feeling free to do anything they really want; that way lies canon 603 as a stopgap, not to mention serious hypocrisy and betrayal of those for whom this vocation is meant to be truly pastoral.) (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Appreciating the Charism of Diocesan Eremitical Life .)

By the way, your Rule will include in some way or other the very conditions or values you yourself have set down and the ways in which you yourself guard, nurture, and live them out. That is its purpose really. In mentioning these you have set out a vision of the eremitical life as you know it. Your Rule will guide you in living these out with integrity.

In Memoriam, Nadine Brown (1929-2013)

I am sorry to post that yesterday, Nadine Brown, formerly Mother Nadine Brown of the public association of the faithful known as the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb, died at the age of 83.  For all the questions the suppression of the HIOL raised and left unanswered, I think there is no doubt that Nadine was a faithful, courageous, woman of significant vision who served Christ, his Gospel and his Church as she discerned was best. I extend my prayers to those who knew her well, and especially to those who remained at the Bellwether campus. We trust the fundamental goal of Nadine's life has now been achieved in Christ and that her mission of intercession will continue from within the life of the Trinity. The website for the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc posted the following:

October 24, 1929 - June 3, 2013

The Lord called Mother Nadine to follow Him in a life of prayer and penance as a cloistered religious

in the Congregation of the Good Shepherd. Sixteen years later, it was discerned He was now calling

her out of the cloister, in order to bring the rich heritage of this contemplative spirituality and its

intercessory fruits to everyone, thereby offering to all Christians the means of

achieving a relationship with God which was formerly seen as the prerogative of the monk or nun.

Mother Nadine was the Foundress of Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc. and the director of
Bellwether Contemplative Formation Center, the global headquarters of a very unique ministry of providing to everyone, free of charge, the contemplative experience of the spirituality of
Jesus so that what “they have freely received they can freely give” witnessing throughout the world to His Love, His Joy, His Peace, His Presence! It is also out of this contemplative union with Jesus that His ministry of Intercession and Deliverance “continues to bear Fruit in great abundance”!

She was the spiritual mother to many and will be very missed. 

Pope Francis, On his Name and the Kind of Church he Yearns For

I know this is not a new video, but I just saw it myself and I think it is a great look at Francis, the new Bishop of Rome. I was especially moved by his gentle humor, to his references to friendship, to coming to a conclusion as to what his name would be based on "what entered [his] heart", and of course the three focuses of his papacy: the poor (being a poor church which serves the poor), peace (Francis of Assisi and the Bishop of Rome as men of peace), and reverence for creation (his own passion for this is very clear in this video).

Throughout there is the sense of Francis desiring a Church which is really a servant and steward of God and all that belongs to God; the Church he desires is not rich and triumphalistic, but the poor servant of the Gospel. Equally, there is throughout this video a sense that this is the kind of man Francis is and the kind of papacy he will provide. He shows us his heart here; I think there is no doubt is is also Christ's own heart --- the Heart we are all called to image and whose feast we will celebrate on Friday.

Feast of the Visitation

Jump for Joy  by Eisbacher

Today's Gospel is wonderfully joyfilled and encouraging: Mary travels in haste to visit her kinswoman Elizabeth and both women benefit from the meeting which culminates in John's leaping in his mother's womb and prophetic speech by both women. The first of these is Elizabeth's proclamation that Mary is the Mother of Elizabeth's Lord and the second is Mary's canticle, the Magnificat. Ordinarily homilists focus on Mary in this Gospel lection but I think the focus is at least as strongly on Elizabeth and also on the place the meeting of the two women has in allowing them both to negotiate the great mystery which has taken hold of their lives. Both are called on to offer God hospitality in unique ways; both are asked to participate in God's mysterious plan for his creation despite not wholly understanding this call and it is in their coming together that the trusting fiats they each made assume a greater clarity for them both.

Luke's two volumes (Luke-Acts) are actually full of instances where people come together and in their meeting or conversation with one another come to a fuller awareness of what God is doing in their lives. We see this on the road to Emmaus where disciples talk about the Scriptures in an attempt to come to terms with Jesus' scandalous death on a cross and the end of all their hopes. They are joined by another person who questions them about their conversation and grief. When they pause for a meal they recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread and their entire world is turned on its head. That which was senseless is on its way to making a profound sense which will ground the existence of the church. Peter is struggling with the issue of eating with the uncircumcised; he comes together with Cornelius, a Centurion with real faith in Christ. In this meeting Peter is confirmed in his sense that in light of Christ no foods are unclean and eating with Gentiles is Eucharistic. There are a number of other such meetings where partial perception and clarity are enhanced or expanded. Even the Council of Jerusalem is a more developed instance of the same phenomenon.

On Spiritual Friendship, both formal and informal:

I personally love Eisenbacher's picture above because it reminds me of one privileged expression of such spiritual friendship, namely that of spiritual direction. I can remember many meetings with my own director where there was immense surprise and joy at the sharing involved, but one time in particular stands out --- especially in light of today's Gospel. I had experienced a shift in my experience of celibacy. Where once it mainly spoke to me of dimensions of my life that would never be fulfilled (motherhood, marriage, etc), through a particular prayer experience it had come to be associated instead with espousal to Christ and my own sense of being completed and fulfilled as a woman. As I recall, when I met with my director to share about this experience, I spoke softly about it, carefully, a little bashfully --- especially at first; but I also gained strength and greater confidence in the sharing of it. (I was not uncertain as to the nature of what I had experienced, but sharing it allowed it to claim me more completely and let me claim a new sense of myself in light of it.) My director listened carefully, and only then noted that she had always prayed for such a grace for all her novices (she had been novice director for her congregation); she then excused herself and left briefly. When she returned she had a CD and CD player with her. Together we sat quietly, but joyfully and even a bit tearfully celebrating what God had done for us while we listened to John Michael Talbot's  Canticle of the Bride.

Elizabeth and Mary come together as women both touched in significant ways by the mystery of God. They have trusted God but are not yet completely clear regarding the greater mystery or how this experience fits into the larger story of Israel's redemption. They are both in need of one another and especially of the perception and wisdom the other can bring to the situation so that they can truly offer God and God's plan all the space and time these require. Hospitality, especially giving God hospitality, takes many forms, but one of the most important involves coming together to share how God is active in our lives in the hope of coming to a greater and more life giving perspective, faith, and commitment. It is in coming together in this way that we clarify, encourage, challenge and console one another. It is in coming together in this way that we become the prophetic presence in our world God calls us to be. Let us all be open to serving as friends to one another in this sense. It is an essential dimension of being Church and of the coming of the Kingdom of God.

To my pastor John,  to Bob, Bill, and all of the Oblates of St Francis De Sales as well as to all Visitation Sisters and Nuns, my very best wishes on this feastday! You are wonderful examples of such sacred friendship. I am grateful to know you.

What does it Mean to Live in the Present Moment?

[[Dear Sister, could you please write about what it means to be attentive to or "live in" the present moment? I have heard about this a lot but it is hard for me to understand. For example I need to plan for the future; does that mean I am not attentive to the present moment? Some-times I love to think about my past and the ways God has blessed me. Does this mean that I am not focused on the present moment? How could this be true? I keep thinking there must be some trick to this [idea of dwelling in or being attentive to the present moment] because the moment I feel like I am focused on the present moment that moment is gone! It reminds me of those optical illusions: when you look straight at them they slip away or turn into something else.]]

The Eternal God and Absolute Futurity

I like your sense of humor in all of this and yes, I think you are right that there is a kind of "trick" to it. Your observation on optical illusions is also very apt I think. From a theological point of view we are drawn into the future by God; God IS (the) absolute future so when we speak of being attentive to the present moment  (i.e., to the constant inbreaking of futurity) we are really speaking about living in God and allowing ourselves to be gifted by him at each moment of our lives.  Here is where I think your comment on optical illusions is especially appropriate because if we try to focus on achieving this by our own efforts, or look at time "straight on" as though it was an object somehow under our control, or if we think of the present moment as something other than the constantly renewed inbreaking of futurity we will miss our goal of attentiveness to the present moment entirely. Again, our experience of future is our share in God's own life and that is where our focus must be, not on time as separate from that. Our openness to futurity (and thus to the present moment) is a conscious share in eternal life and occurs as God draws us into it and into Godself. We can only be open to it and receive it as gift. As with the optical illusions you referred to, in part that means relaxing some and simply letting things come to us as they will.

Not too long ago I wrote about our hunger or yearning for newness and I pointed out the difference between the Greek words for newness. You may remember I spoke of kainotes or kaine as a qualitative newness which is tied to God's eternity. It differs from neos which is simply a newness in time or mere novelty (e.g., yesterday I did not own this book or this new pair of shoes, today I do). I noted that God is always new in the sense of kainotes because he is eternal and that God is eternal because he is "Living" or eternally new and makes all things new as well. cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Always Beginners and/or Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: On Divine Paradox Theology's sense of God as absolute future is directly related to all of this and too to our experience of the gift of abundant or eschatological life.

This is one reason some theologians refer to God and the Kingdom of God as "The Eternal Now" (cf some of the sermons of Paul Tillich in a book of the same name). This is part of the reason I speak of heaven as a share in God's own life or sovereignty. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: On the Feast of the Ascension Time (and the passage of time) is a dimension of our still-limited share in God's life, in the absolute future. It, especially as the inbreaking of futurity, must be continually renewed, continually received as gift until that day when God is all in all. Meanwhile our yearning for qualitative newness (kaine!) is also our yearning for the absolute future we identify as eternity; it is a yearning for the "day" (the eternal now) when our own share in the absolute future which is God's own life is fully realized.

Living in the present moment as Celebration!

All that said let me try to deal with your specific questions.  When you focus in a prayerful (i.e., an attentive and grateful) way on how God has blessed you in the past, you open yourself to God here and now and thus to future blessings and the blessings of futurity. Sometimes events of the past can constrain us and prevent openness to the future. For instance, this can happen when such events traumatize us or when we are unable to accomplish the healing of forgiveness. The past can also be merely constraining as when our relationship with it is one of mere sentimentality or when we enshrine it in forms of dead traditionalism and language. (This latter can be a serious instance of resistance to and even sin against the Holy Spirit!) But none of these are what you are describing here.

What you have described instead is a form of celebration and it seems to me that genuine celebration is always a way of living in the present moment which frees us from any enslaving constraints of the past and thus opens us to the future (or perhaps better said, marks us as open to the future, as truly drawn by and into the future). When we think of the Eucharist, for instance, it is significant that the very making present of the risen Christ in the consecration  is accompanied by Jesus' command that, "Whenever you do this remember me" (or, "do this in remembrance of me"). The rite of penance and the reading of our ancient Scriptural stories, for instance, also work in this way; they provide us a means of remembering which opens us to futurity and newness. Celebration is precisely that attitude and act of remembering which makes the past a present reality in a way which leaves us free and thus draws us into the future. This is very different from the ways the past may bind and enslave us and leave us unable to embrace the future.

You also speak of planning for the future and wonder if that means you are not being attentive to the present moment.  I think that so long as your planning does not mean being completely controlling of what will or can happen or does not refer to a lack of openness to the surprising ways life and meaning come to us you are okay. The paradox though (there is ALWAYS paradox!) is that if we do not do some planning for the future it cannot break in on us in the way it is meant to. Instead it will simply pass us by relatively untouched. We will be older, more bored by and perhaps more quietly despairing of the mere passage of time, but the future will not have broken in on us in the powerful way we know and mark with Pentecost for instance. (cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Always Beginners) Remember that the inbreaking of futurity is not simply the arrival of empty time, but the arrival of a reality filled with meaning and hope that creates genuine future; it is the arrival of the presence of God to, for, and with us. Planning ordinarily indicates our own awareness of the limitations of time, an awareness of our own limitations in truly engaging with it, and our openness to the inbreaking of absolute future. Besides the relaxation spoken of above such openness requires work (cooperation) on our own part. It also requires structure or "routine".

This is one of the reasons hermits have Rules and horaria. Our days are structured in ways which allow opportunities for the inbreaking of God's powerful presence and for celebration of this presence. There is plenty of time and actual provision for prayer, personal work (journaling, the work connected with spiritual direction, etc), and recreation (not the same as mere entertainment!). Also built into the hermit's days are different kinds of prayer, different types and degrees of silence and solitude, and different kinds of penance (practices which generally are meant to help extend and support the celebration of the present moment we call  prayer; for some the very imposition of structure or routine is a piece of eremitical penance!).

I personally disagree with hermits who have no essential structure or shape to their days and say, for instance, that they depend entirely on responding to the Holy Spirit at each moment as the Spirit determines. I suspect they are fooling themselves --- at least a lot of the time; I am afraid that more often than not, time is merely sliding by in relative unfruitfulness and unresponsiveness. (Occasional desert days where we leave the usual schedule behind are important as PART of the overall structure of the life; so is sufficient time for true monastic leisure. By the way, I am also generally skeptical of the approach of spiritual direction clients, for instance, who make no room for formal prayer periods in their days and say, "Oh I pray all the time during the day and that's what works for me.") While we cannot force the Holy Spirit with the structure we build into our days, we can assist ourselves in achieving necessary attentiveness and focus in this way; we can create opportunities for the Spirit to touch, heal, convert, and thus draw us into the future. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those hermits whose horaria are so rigid and inflexible that the Spirit is given little space to work real newness or bring them beyond where they already are.

I haven't spoken about the more mundane elements involved in living in the present moment except by way of allusion (healing of memories, the place of spiritual direction and therapy, the role of journaling, the place of detachment which helps break the bonds of enmeshment, etc.); instead in this post I have mainly spoken of the theological underpinnings of the idea of living in the present moment and intended it as a beginning.  Because of this I think it is likely this response will raise more questions for you. If so, or if I need to clarify something, please get back to me. In the meantime, the following post may also be of some help: Notes From Stillsong: A Missed Opportunity, A Moment of Judgment

Question on the Frequency of "snarky" emails I receive

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you often get nasty or "snarky" emails ("snarky" is your word) from people? Can I ask what is the worst one you have ever received? Are these emails from people you know or are they even signed? I know these questions don't have anything to do with the usual topics of this blog but you have received a few comments I thought were pretty disrespectful so I wanted to ask about it. Do they upset you or your solitude?]]

Thanks for your questions. No, I really don't get many nasty or "snarky" emails from people. Ordinarily even those folks who disagree with me respect me and I think they know I respect them too. Thus their emails reflect that and my own responses do the same. Over the years there have been a handful or so of really rude comments but nothing recently. Usually they accompany material that would be good for me to write about so I do that. Sometimes I edit the comments so they are not so inflammatory, and sometimes I have left them as they were. Occasionally I get a comment that I don't know what to do with. The "worst" one was one of these. I still have it and a version of a response I created for this blog in draft form but never published. It (sans response) reads as follows:

[[Isn't your lifestyle rather like the bible's description of women unoccupied, gadding (sic!) about other people's business? Are you not a self seeking mind enriching glutton for self that is absorbed with as well [as] employed with the constant replenishment of your favorite thing ON EARTH ... YOU? Isn't that why you are . . . judgmental and FULL of LISTS of your so-called accomplishments? NONE of which will either GET YOU TO HEAVEN or PREVENT YOU BEING SENT TO THE END OF THE TABLE? Bragging. Degrees. Criticism of others... not CHRIST like at all. A woman without regard for headship---- uncovered TEACHING and self promoting. Pictures LINE EACH PAGE of YOURSELF. Of OTHERS WHO LIVE LIKE YOU because that further validates the most sacred thing to you - YOU. You are in the business of doing nothing.]] (Other than italics, nothing is revised in printing this post.)

In this post there are several important misunderstandings of the nature of eremitical solitude and life and I will probably write about those again at some point ---I think I have already done so indirectly and I have certainly spoken of stereotypes here. Additionally I have sometimes written about the challenges of writing or participating online or about my decision not to allow comments on this blog. In the first case we sometimes see anonymity bringing out the very worst in people; it is a tremendously disappointing phenomenon. In the second case emails such as this one reinforce my sense that allowing comments makes the boundaries between this hermitage blog and those outside it too porous. This comment is meant to disparage, to wound, to hurt, to insult; it is judgmental and generally rooted in ignorance. It was indeed anonymous (unsigned) and posted under a screename I did not know; I do find that most such comments are similarly unsigned. No real surprise there I am sure.

As for whether such comments upset me or disrupt my solitude, the answer is generally no, they don't. They do surprise and sometimes dismay --- not least because ordinarily they admit of no real response and tend to be made up of a tissue of fabrications and misunderstandings. I often wonder why someone would feel they actually knew me well enough to write such things --- or whether they would write such things to their own sister or mother for instance. But why should they upset me or disturb the silence of solitude in which I live?

Remember that the silence of solitude is a communal reality created by dialogue with and in God. It is the quies which results when one is at peace with God. It is the silence of solitude that comes from two hearts being joined in love for the sake of others. Such diatribes cannot upset or disturb this kind of peace. Well-founded criticism is a different matter --- not because it seriously disturbs peace in God, but because it must be seriously addressed and CAN be upsetting in the short term. Thus, well-founded criticism helps shatter any complacency that pretends at being true hesychia. I always listen to and consider criticism. But too often with these kinds of emails that is simply another matter. In the meantime such persons as the one authoring the above comment are added to my prayers. What more can I do?