What's the Big Deal?

 [[Dear Sister, why is it so important to make clear that there is a difference between consecrated hermits or canon 603 hermits and lay hermits? There is one person [cf., A Catholic Hermit] who claims to be writing for hermits who wish to be consecrated religious hermits by making private vows. She says, "This nothing hermit has also reflected and been reminded to encourage all aspiring Catholic hermits, to keep in mind we are consecrated religious eremitics called to live and keep our valid private vows. Regardless which of the now two Church-approved paths (privately or since 1983 publicly expressed vows), we ought prayerfully live daily and nightly the three evangelical counsels, and all else asked of hermits, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church."  Shouldn't she just be allowed to do this? I mean what does it matter? What harm can it do? They would still be hermits.]] (emphasis added)

Because I have already explained the difference between private and public vows in other posts here I really don't want to do that again.  It seems though that some of this is still unclear. The central issue is not merely about whether or not vows are expressed privately or publicly. In fact that is not the issue at all since private vows can be made in front of many people and public vows can be made in relative secret if the need exists. To continue to insist or imply this is the essential difference between public and private vows, as the person you have cited does, is to perpetuate a distortion of the truth. Instead the central issue is whether vows lead to new legitimate rights and obligations or not. What is at issue when we speak of private versus public vows is whether they establish the person in a public vocation or instead represent a private commitment. In other words, in distinguishing these two forms of vows the Church is concerned with whether or not, through the mediation of the Church, the person is initiated into another state of life (religious and/or consecrated life) for which they are publicly (that is, both morally and legally) responsible.

The person you are citing (who does read this blog, by the way) does and is certainly entirely free to disagree with what I write about many things, but in this matter, I am not merely expressing my own opinion. What I have explained is simply factual and centers on the way the Church herself uses the terms "consecrated hermits", "professed religious", "profession", and so forth". What the Catechism of the Catholic Church writes about "consecrated Life" and hermits has to be understood in light of the glossary which provides definitions of fundamental terms that might otherwise be misunderstood (cf especially "vows", and "consecrated life) ; the definitions there make it clear that paragraphs 920-921 which fall under the heading "consecrated life" refer specifically to those entering the consecrated state of life as solitary hermits, not to lay hermits. These hermits always make their commitment via public profession but they may not always use vows of the evangelical counsels to do so. Some may use "other sacred bonds" to make their profession. Some may use the classic monastic vows (stability, conversion of life (which includes poverty and chastity), and obedience rather than the more typically Franciscan triad. Since 1983 these publicly professed solitary hermits exist as religious besides (along with) already recognized institutes of consecrated life.

I have also explained that there are three paths in the Church today to pursue eremitical life, not two: 1) publicly professed and consecrated life in a community (that is, an institute) of hermits (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Sisters of Bethlehem, etc); this "semi-eremitic" option has existed for more than twelve centuries, 2) consecrated life under canon 603 (solitary diocesan eremitical life); this establishes in universal law what many dioceses anticipated and allowed through the authority of the local Bishop throughout Church history; these hermits are solitary hermits and are not professed as part of an institute of religious life (the Church's term for a congregation, community, or Order); finally there is 3) lay eremitical life (extant in the church since the 4C). The first two of these require public vows (which can be made without any notoriety, especially in countries where the person would be persecuted if their profession and/or consecration were known) and they establish the hermit in a public vocation no matter the hiddenness of the life, The third is a private commitment (even if made in public before hundreds of people) and does not change the person's state of life. If they were a lay person (in the vocational sense) before these vows, then despite the unquestioned validity of the (private) vows, they remain lay persons afterward. (Similarly, if they were clerics they remain clerics and if already religious they remain religious.) No change in one's state of life is involved in private vows.

Because the canonical rights and obligations of these forms of eremitical life differ despite the fact that they are each truly eremitical it is important that people seeking to live this life be able to make a wise and accurately informed discernment on which of these is truly what fits one's own vocation. Some people have absolutely no desire to live their vocations in the name of the Church, some have no interest in representing or extending a living tradition in the contemporary world, many have no desire to have their lives supervised by the church or to live under superiors or with regard to canon law; others refuse to jump through the hoops necessary to become publicly professed and consecrated hermits, and some simply are not able to do these things in a representative and credible way, for whatever reason.

What's the Big Deal with Distortions of the Truth?

This is not the first time I have been asked, "What's the harm?" What you are asking, whether you realize it or not is, "What's the big deal with allowing distortions of the truth?" You are also asking, "What harm can living a life (or encouraging others to live a life) of pretense do?" You see, so long as the way to becoming a consecrated or Catholic hermit in the Catholic Church is invariably through public profession and (with perpetual profession) consecration overseen and mediated by the Church, the person you cited is perpetuating a falsehood. So long as initiation into the consecrated and religious states of life is ALWAYS mediated by the church in a public act and represents an ecclesial vocation, the person you referenced is living and fostering a lie.

Moreover, so long as this person is distorting language and texts to read in ways the Church did not intend simply because she believes she has the right to her opinion on the meaning of these same terms and texts and then writes that her individualistic understanding and praxis can be considered appropriate for others, she has crossed the line into a seductive fraud --- a fraud which she hopes and encourages other vulnerable persons to adopt while unaware of the truth. The point is the notion that someone can become a consecrated religious hermit or a "professed religious" or a "Catholic Hermit" merely by making private vows is simply not true. When this notion is perpetuated, and especially when it is done by someone falsely claiming to be a Catholic Hermit, that is a hermit living her life in the name of the Church, it can mislead others and hurt them, just as believing in and acting on lies often hurts those who have done so --- except that here the Church has been nominally and wrongly implicated in the lie.

We are sensitive today to people acting in the name of the Church committing crimes, hypocrisy, immorality of all sorts. And rightly so. When someone appends Catholic to their vocation, workplace, project, or whatever, the Church herself can be smeared by anything offensive associated with that enterprise; for that reason she has a say in whether their use of the characterization Catholic is acceptable or not. That is why the Church has legislated in Canon Law that no one will use the name Catholic without explicit permission from the appropriate authority. It is why we sometimes see online radio or TV stations deprived of the name Catholic by the local Bishop. If a Catholic priest does something seriously wrong then the Church herself is besmirched; if a Catholic theologian writes against the resurrection then the Church herself is implicated in his/her actions because s/he acted in her name and she is responsible for the mission that allows this theologian to call him/herself a "Catholic Theologian". The same is true with Catholic monks, nuns, religious sisters, brothers, and hermits. All of these have been publicly commissioned to live their lives in the name of the Church. All of them are supervised by the Church and are specifically answerable to the entire Church. Moreover, they are careful of hypocrisy in their own lives and sensitive to frauds within their ranks; they are equally sensitive to more overt frauds pretending to be religious living and acting in the name of the Church.

So, my answer to your first question is no, the person you cited should not simply be allowed to encourage others to pursue or live a lie without at least an attempt to correct the falsehoods and distortions she perpetuates. She should especially not be allowed to do so while claiming the credentials, "professed religious", "consecrated hermit," "consecrated religious", or "Catholic hermit." To do this is to potentially distort peoples' discernment processes with false information. It is at least potentially, to waste months and even years of their lives in following a lie. It is to set these people up for marginalization and rejection. It is to encourage them to be seen as incredible, as frauds, or even as deluded persons, or as those who could not pursue an eremitical vocation in the usual ways and so, made something up instead. It is to lead them to believe the Church herself sees them as consecrated religious when this is not true. More, it is to encourage them to deny the very vocation God may be calling them to, namely lay eremitical life. In an age of the Church which is recovering a strong sense of the significance of baptismal consecration and lay life of all sorts it is seriously misguided to encourage others who are, vocationally speaking, lay persons to think of themselves as consecrated and professed religious. Because this person's understanding of the eremitical vocation (cited in your question) doesn't even recognize the existence of lay hermits, it implicitly says that being a lay person is not really good enough even though the person decides either not to pursue or is not discerned to have another vocation which is entered through a public commitment besides baptism.

Similarly, others who have a vocation to consecrated eremitical life might never even pursue it because they think they are already living it. A life given over to such a foundational pretense, though it might instead have been one of significant ecclesial witness, could be unlikely thereafter ever to be admitted to such a position of trust by the Church. Similarly, catering to someone's desperation to be allowed to live a religious life or "to belong" or "have a niche in the Church" or whatever it is that drives them to embrace these kinds of fictions will prevent them from dealing maturely and effectively with the roots of their need. It is simply not charitable to encourage people to embrace and live a lie. It is neither charitable to them nor to those to whom they seek to minister. It is not respectful of them or their real vocations. It is not respectful to the truth or the God of Truth who gifts us with both lay and consecrated vocations; nor is it respectful of the Church which is responsible for mediating these varied gifts through baptism and the public professions and consecration of those called to live them in credible and pastorally responsible ways.

They Would Still Be Hermits:

You write that they would be hermits anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. With private vows this is less certain. I have said before that because many self-defined lay hermits are not supervised, may not be formed in the life or committed to ongoing formation, may have insufficient direction and knowledge, etc., they may simply be living a pious life alone --- a life that differs very little if at all from that of others who live alone and pray before meals and bed. In such a case calling themselves hermits perpetuates a destructive fiction which makes the vocation itself incredible.

Even more problematical are those lay hermits who mistake isolation for solitude or whose spirituality is a thinly veiled "celebration" of self-hatred, bitterness, and rejection of God's good creation in the name of a misunderstood notion of fleeing or hating "the world". Some aspiring "hermits" I have spoken to spend hours watching TV, others use the designation "hermit" as an excuse to spend their days painting or writing or just kicking back, etc. (Many true hermits ALSO write or paint, etc. I am not referring to these! They are hermits (or monks and nuns) first of all and their writing or painting is integrated into this, not vice versa.) Others simply want the garb or the title or desire a way to "belong" in the Church they have already been baptized in. While it is sad when a person cannot accept themselves or a lay vocation, none of these things mean the person is called to be a hermit much less do they make the person a hermit, lay or otherwise.

At the same time however, I know several lay hermits who are paradigms of the eremitical vocation. I expect there are many more. These hermits inspire and challenge me. At least two of them were religious and received their formation, both initial and ongoing, over a period of years. The others spent time studying theology, spirituality, and prepared themselves for significant ministerial roles in the Church before discerning a call to eremitical solitude. Each of these meets regularly with a director and has done so for years. Each is integrally connected to the Church, whether through a parish, monastery, or retreat house. Each of them knows firsthand what it means to be a hermit and how this differs from being simply a lone pious person. Each of them understands themselves as part of a profound and ancient tradition and feel responsible for continuing that in our contemporary world. Because I know these individuals and because I know many people, including a number of isolated elderly, or chronically ill persons who would be wonderful hermits if they only knew the vocation is a vital and contemporary one, I value the lay eremitical vocation and its potential. But I am not unrealistic about its limitations or challenges. As with many things, these limitations may allow exceptional individuals to succeed beautifully while the rest of us need the help and challenge associated with public standing, but equally, they may merely lead to an exceptional failure.

Credibility is the Bottom Line:

My sincerest desire is that I never have to write about the distortion of language involved when lay hermits call themselves consecrated religious, "Catholic Hermits" or "professed religious" again. But unfortunately, so long as people are blogging this way, people who do not know the language very well are going to be seduced by the prospect of avoiding the hoops canonical hermits must negotiate or the scrutiny and constraints they must embrace and still call themselves "consecrated religious hermits." When these same writers submit that canon 603 is a departure from and even a betrayal of the eremitical tradition, then from time to time I will probably continue to get questions from their readers --- and I will probably need to respond yet again.

Canonical hermits, whether professed in community or as solitary hermits under c 603, and whether they come from the laity or the clergy make significant sacrifices in order that their lives are credible representations of a living eremitical tradition and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The constraints on their lives --- canon law, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, commitment to regular and competent spiritual direction, ongoing formation, and public vows --- as well as their commitment to the life giving sources of the Church (Scripture, Sacraments, etc) are all traditional necessities they have freely embraced to be sure their lives are credible and lived with integrity. For most of us these things are also sources of great joy, graced resources which help nurture the maturity and fruitfulness of lives consecrated by God and commissioned in the name of the Church. Even so, for someone to forego all of these and still claim the name "Catholic Hermit" even while ignoring and distorting the way the Church herself uses this term is offensive and dishonest. It is also the very essence of the self-centered and individualistic worldliness which the consecrated hermit is publicly committed to reject with her entire life.

Horrific News From Syria: Another Reminder of Why We Are People of the Cross

I received the following notification from a friend. She wondered if I might write a blog piece on it. I admit I am left entirely speechless by the horror described and threatened. While I sincerely hope this story is not true, at the same time I plead for readers' prayers not only for any innocent victims but for each of us to renew our Baptismal commitments to witness to the fact that in Christ: 
 

[[For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.]]

After all, this was one of our Mass readings on the very day these brothers and sisters in the Faith are reported to have been taken.

[[Special prayer request:
We have all been horrified by the news coming from Syria. As you know our Vincentian Family is spread across the world. We just got the following prayer request from one of our Vincentian Priests:

From the Vincentian Curia in Rome...
From Sister Monique, via Filles de la Charité, PARIS
Via, John Freund, CM Vincentian Website

Late Sunday afternoon on 1 March 2015, I received a message from M. Francoise, a delegate of the International Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and I managed to reach her by telephone. She was leaving for Paris, and collapsed at the news she had just received: members of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul in Syria were kidnapped, along with their wives and children. The children were isolated and put into cages. Adults who do not deny their faith will be decapitated, and their children burned alive in the cages. M. Francoise had been in regular contact with several of them before all this occurred. She asked me to transmit the news and make a fervent appeal for prayers for these people, and all who are held hostage.

Let us remain fervently united in prayer, and have as our intention the welfare of all brothers and sisters in our Christian faith who are being held hostage.]]

It is especially important to remember that ISIS is intent on inflaming hatred and escalating tensions between Christianity and Islam. We cannot treat ISIS as though it is genuine representative of Islam. We cannot allow this story, how ever true it might be, to manipulate us into betraying our own faith and falling into hatred. Prayer is the only recourse we really have here and the only response which is appropriate.  See also: We Are People of the Cross 1 and We Are People of the Cross 2

Private Vows and the Lay Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, how do I make private vows to become a consecrated religious hermit without joining a community?]]

Hi there. Thanks for writing. I am also  including someone else's question below this one since the subject is related. I think there is some confusion in your own question. To become a consecrated religious hermit (that is, a hermit in the consecrated state of life), you cannot do so with private vows. You see because this is an ecclesial vocation you must do so through the formal (and canonical) mediation of the Church. You can only do this via a public profession.This requires 1) a petition to your diocese followed by  2) a mutual discernment process if your diocese sees you as a good candidate; then, if admitted to profession by your Bishop it will mean 3) public vows received by and Divine consecration mediated by the Church. The key here is public profession and consecration (which only comes with perpetual public vows) made in the hands of the local Bishop. The consecrated hermit is publicly commissioned by the Church in the person of the local Bishop to live her life in the name of the Church. She is literally then a Catholic hermit (not simply a Catholic AND a Hermit) and (after perpetual vows) a consecrated religious. Thus it always involves a public commitment and solemn consecration. You might consider this after living as a lay hermit for some time, especially if you live private vows for some time and work out a workable Rule of Life.

If you wish, on the other hand, simply to live as a lay hermit (not publicly professed and consecrated) and eventually make private vows you are free to do that by virtue of your baptism, but there is no formal procedure for doing so. Remember this would be an entirely private commitment. To make such a commitment in a meaningful way your life as a hermit really requires regular spiritual direction and you need to have lived as a lay hermit for some time (at least a couple of years would not be unreasonable to expect) before even considering making private vows. Until you and your director believe you both need and are really ready for these you should prepare by considering what your baptismal commitment requires of you in more specific terms.

Renewing and Specifying one's Baptismal Commitment as Either an Alternative or Preparatory Step to Private vows:

(Please note my opinion on using any setting during Mass has changed. Please read my explanation of this in Reexamining an Earlier Suggestion)

For instance, you may find they require you to live the evangelical counsels in some way and you will want to shape a commitment including these expressed in a way which really fits your life. Your baptismal commitment requires a sound prayer life as well so you will want to spell out what this means for you. The same is true of silence, solitude, and penance. Being a disciple of Christ requires some degree of all of these and you can specify what you feel yourself called to at this point in your life as someone already committed and consecrated in baptism but without entering the consecrated state of life. Your pastor could certainly help you to work out a brief ritual where you renew and specify your baptismal commitment in terms of lay eremitical life.

It seems to me (with a lot of caveats!!) that if this was what you decided to do you could renew your own baptismal commitment and further specify that commitment during Mass within the context of the parishioners' own general renewal of baptismal vows. This is the ONLY situation in which I would suggest such vows might conceivably occur during Mass --- that is, as part of a renewal of baptismal vows. Such a commitment would have to make clear in a very explicit way that this is a lay commitment and that you are not assuming any additional canonical rights or obligations such as are associated with religious life, but if this could be done, it could be quite a lovely and meaningful commitment. It could also be of immense value to your parish and even beyond parish boundaries. Your parish would know you as a lay (but not a consecrated or Catholic) hermit and you would have some chance to share what that means with them. Some, especially the elderly and chronically ill, might want to do something similar; the difference this could make in their lives could be immense.

(Again, I have rethought this position although I continue to wish for ways to celebrate lay eremitical lives within the parish. I believe the Church is absolutely correct in not witnessing the vows of a lay hermit during Mass. Because of this ambiguity, I have kept the post up rather than simply removing it.)

At the same time you would model the lesson that we need to think about and make concrete the kinds of demands our Baptismal vows require of each of us. That is rarely done, I think, and it is important; often we do not need additional vows but we do need to specify and commit to the ways our baptismal promises are meant to be lived here and now. In preparing for this step what you will actually be doing is constructing an informal Rule of Life which covers prayer, penance, evangelical counsels, silence, solitude, lectio, and other essentials in the hermit's life. Over time you will probably want to rework or even rewrite this. Though it may take you some time to do this, and especially to do it while truly living as a lay hermit with the aid of your director, working in this way can prepare you for meaningful private vows as well as strengthening your baptismal commitment itself. However, let me be very clear, if there was the slightest doubt or the least impression given that this was not a specification of an entirely lay vocation and NOT entrance into the consecrated state of life, the vows should not occur at Mass. It may be that this cannot occur without misleading others. If that seems likely then this idea would not work and needs to be relegated to the trash heap.

If You Decide to Make Private Vows

If and when your director agrees with you on your own need and readiness for a temporary private dedication as a lay hermit (say, for a period of three years or so) she can witness these for you at any time. Your pastor can also witness these. As already indicated, the Church does not celebrate private vows at Mass because she does not wish these to be confused with public vows which are associated with ecclesial vocations lived in the name of the Church. These are also associated with legitimate superiors and (with perpetual vows) with entrance into the consecrated state, as well as with other legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations.

Because private vows are undertaken as a private (as opposed to public or canonical) commitment, they do not lead to any additional rights or obligations not already associated with Baptism. This is another reason they ordinarily take place apart from Mass. (If your pastor agrees, for instance, you might well make them after Mass though which would allow some friends and family and interested parishioners to attend and witness this private dedication.) At the end of the duration of these vows (three years or whatever you have chosen) you will need to discern whether or not you are being called to make this commitment a perpetual one or perhaps approach your diocese with a petition to become a consecrated Catholic or diocesan hermit. (Private vows can still be dispensed at any time by your pastor and others as well without any formal paperwork; if you were admitted to public profession private vows would also cease to be binding as soon as you made public vows.)

Getting Ahead of Ourselves:

But this is getting a bit ahead of things. Again, you will need to live as a hermit in a focused and conscious way while under regular spiritual direction for at least a couple of years before you can really meaningfully consider such a private dedication. (This might differ if you have already lived as a religious and been through formation with a canonical group.) Remember that even if you have been living alone for a while this is not necessarily the same as living an eremitical life. When you understand the difference on the basis of your own experience and can articulate this for your director you may be close to readiness for private vows. In this I recommend you listen carefully to your director and her reservations or concerns; then discern what that means for you and work on whatever it requires. The same for your pastor if you desire him to witness such a dedication. (The preparation for public profession is much longer (at least five years before first vows) and commensurately more demanding in terms of discernment --- which is undertaken with the diocese, not merely on one's own.)

The Problem of Language:

There has been a lot of confusing use of language by some lay hermits today. Your own question conveyed some confusion about terminology which you may have gotten from some of these persons, a couple of whom have several blogs. While you may not be interested in this particularly, your question is an opportunity to address this problem. Especially, it is time to remind  readers of how the Church  uses various terms. After all, when a person calls herself a Catholic Hermit, but is not using that term in the way the Catholic Church does it is at least incoherent and sort of an absurd practice. The basic principle is simple: we enter states of life through the Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, and Orders) and through public profession and/or consecration (Religious life, consecrated eremitism, and Consecrated Virginity). There is no other way. Each initiation into a new state of life is mediated to us by the Church in a public and graced juridical act.  Private vows never initiate us into a new state of life. Neither does any consecration (dedication) of self. Only consecration by God received in a public rite mediated by the Church does this. This is part of the reason we call such vocations ecclesial vocations.

For instance, a consecrated person is one who is in the consecrated state of life. She has been consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church and except in the case of consecrated virgins, has made public vows (or other sacred bonds for some c 603 hermits), these involve additional canonical rights and obligations as well as the formal and legal relationships required to fulfill these. Thus people who have entered the religious or consecrated states of life have legitimate superiors and public (canonical) vows of obedience. The same is true of the term consecrated religious or just religious; the church uses these terms to refer to a publicly professed and ecclesially consecrated person who exists in the consecrated and religious states of life. Consecrated  and Religious life always imply the public assumption of additional legitimate (canonical) rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism.

Consecrating oneself to God is rightly called dedication; it is not the same as being consecrated BY God through the mediation of the church. When one 'consecrates' oneself to God (dedicates is absolutely the preferred term for this act) one does not enter the consecrated state of life. The Church does not call consecrating oneself  "consecrated life" because there is not change in state of life. A hermit who consecrated (dedicated) herself to God is not a consecrated hermit; she remains a lay hermit who is privately dedicated. This means not every Catholic living as a hermit is a Catholic hermit nor are they consecrated. If one is living the life and is commissioned to do so in the name of the Church in the hands of a legitimate superior, then and only then is one considered a Catholic hermit. For a lay Catholic living as a hermit under private vows, she remains and is called a lay hermit because she lives her eremitical life under or according to the very same canonical rights and obligations which came to her with baptism into the lay state.

[[Sister Laurel, if I have doubts about whether someone is a Catholic Hermit or not is there a question I should ask which will give me an answer the person can't waffle about or dance around?]]

 I am adding this question which I received a few days ago because much of what I have just said  provides an explanation of my answer. My first inclination was to say the critical question is, "Have you been  publicly professed and commissioned to live as a hermit in the name of the Church?" A friend pointed out that a person intent on dancing around the question might still be able to do it or might just lie. She suggested the bottom line question regarding whether someone is a Catholic Hermit  or a consecrated religious should be: "Who is your legitimate superior?" A similar question (a kind of corollary)  is "In whose hands did you make your public profession?"

For diocesan hermits the answer to either question will be their Bishop, a specific Bishop with a name! (It will not be the person's spiritual director, even if that director is a priest and it will especially not be a director in a different diocese! A delegate may serve as a quasi superior but will do so on behalf of the Bishop and diocese.) For a hermit belonging to a canonical community it will be the superior of her house or of the congregation. If you are really concerned about the standing of someone claiming to be a Catholic Hermit or a consecrated hermit/religious then ask them about their legitimate superior. No one responsible for a public and ecclesial vocation will hesitate to answer explicitly. Meanwhile, if this is an additional step you feel is important to take you can contact the person's diocesan chancery. Diocesan hermits' chanceries will generally verify that a person is a publicly professed and consecrated hermit in good standing and may even include the hermit's date of perpetual profession in their response to your query. They will not provide any information beyond these basic facts.

Also the consecrated hermit will ordinarily be given a document identifying them as a consecrated hermit in the diocese on the occasion of their perpetual profession and consecration. It will be signed by the Bishop in whose hands the hermit was professed, the Vicar for Religious or ecclesiastical notary and sealed with the diocesan seal. It is equivalent to a Sacramental certificate and while hermits don't have any obligation to show these on demand to any casual questioner they are official documents which indicate the hermit's canonical standing and underscore the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.

The Lord's Prayer: Concerning Ourselves With God's Own Life and Plans (Reprised)

Today's Gospel includes Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer. As we continue to focus on the basic themes of Lent it is only appropriate that the Church looks at what prayer is and reminds us of Jesus' own instruction in it --- what was primary and what followed naturally. In Lent one of the things we attempt to do is die to self in ways which make us more open to God's presence, God's Word, God's own hallowing of his name within us and in our world. We fast in ways which help us set aside our more superficial needs; we open ourselves to the love of God which we allow ourselves to savor so that we might be profoundly nourished and God's own will be done, God's own life be fulfilled in and with us. Our Lenten journey reminds us that genuine spirituality is forgetful of self, that it "gets out of the way" and lays aside self-consciousness. In today's gospel, Jesus (via Matt) provides a model of prayer which assists in this. It is a model of prayer in which we concern ourselves first and last with God's own needs, and with being there FOR HIM! We know it as the Lord's Prayer

In the first three petitions (and the invocation itself, though that is a topic for another time!) we concern ourselves with God's very self (holiness and name refer to God's own self, not to mere characteristics or tags); we ask that he might be powerfully present in our world (because both name and the hallowing here refers to a powerful presence which creates and recreates whatever it is allowed to touch and make holy). With the second petition especially, we open ourselves to God's sovereignty, that is, to God's very selfhood and life as it is shared with his creation. God assumes a position of sovereignty over that creation when his life is truly shared and that creation achieves genuine freedom in the process, but the reign or kingdom of God refers to God's own life once again --- this time as a covenantal or mutual reality. And, with the third petition in particular, we open ourselves to the will of God --- to the future and shape of a reality which is ordered by his sovereignty and fulfilled by his presence.

Now, it is true that God possesses what is called aseity. That is, he is completely self-sufficient and in need of nothing and no one. But that is only one part of the paradox that stands at the heart of our faith. The other side of the paradox is that our God is One who has determined to need us; from the beginning, indeed, from all eternity, God has chosen not to remain alone. He creates all that is outside himself and he summons it (continuing the process of creation) to greater and greater levels of complexity until from within this creation comes One who will be his true counterpart and partner in creation. At bottom this is a call to share in God's very life. In fact, it is the ground of an existence which can only be fulfilled when it shares in the Divine life and God himself becomes all in all!

All of Scripture attests to this basic dynamic, whether cast in terms of creation or covenant. All of Scripture is about God's determination to share his very life with us, and his creation's capacity in the Spirit to issue forth in, or become his own unique counterpart in the fulfillment of this plan. When God's plan is fulfilled, when his very life is shared to the extent he wills, everything he creates reaches fulfillment as well, but it is the human vocation in particular to allow this to become real in space and time. And after all, isn't this what prayer is truly all about: allowing God's plans to be realized in his creation; cooperating with his Spirit in ways which let his own life be made PERSONALLY real here and now so that EVERYTHING acquires fullness or completion (perfection) of life in God?

Unfortunately, one of the most pernicious problems I run into, whether in myself or in my work as a spiritual director is the occasional inability to "get out of the way" of the Spirit or to "forget self" in prayer. Prayer seems always to be about us, our problems, our sinfulness, our needs and concerns in ways which sometimes contribute to our own self-centeredness. While I am NOT suggesting we neglect this side of things in our prayer, I am suggesting that there are ways to pray these concerns which are NOT self-centered. (Note, the key here is in praying these concerns rather than merely praying about these concerns. Sometimes we have to silence conversation about concerns and simply live them in our prayer as we give our whole selves to God for his own sake.) I think this is part of what Jesus is getting at in today's gospel when he reminds us that God knows what we need before we ask him! It is certainly mirrored in the form of the Lord's prayer and the priority of the invocation and petitions. If we open ourselves humbly to God in prayer, the sinfulness, needs, concerns, etc will be part of that but the focus will not be on these.

Because of this, one of the most significant questions we can ask ourselves in checking in on our prayer occasionally is, "what kind of experience was this for God?" Ordinarily this puts a full stop to the sometimes-problematical self-centered focus and chatter about ME in prayer which can occur and puts the focus back where Jesus clearly lived it himself --- on God and the way in which God wills to be present to and for us. What today's Gospel gives us in this model of prayer is a sense that contrary to much popular thought and practice otherwise, prayer is really the way we give or set aside our lives for another, namely, for God and his own Selfhood and destiny. And while it is absolutely true that in the process of giving ourselves over to God's own purposes our own hearts will rightly be opened up, poured out, and our own needs met (as Isaiah reminds us in the first reading, God's Word will not return to him void!), prayer is first of all something we are empowered to do for God's own sake!

The Cross: Revelation of a Humility that Stands in Spite of Humiliation

[[Dear Sister, when we look at the cross I don't think your distinction between humiliation and humility holds. Jesus suffers all kind of humiliation and is humbled. He shows real humility as a result of his humiliation.]] (cp. From Humiliation to Humility: Resting in the Gaze of God)

Thanks for your comment. I get what you are saying: it is in being humiliated that Jesus shows great humility, right? At the same time you are saying, I think, that humiliation leads to humility. In this you have actually put your finger on one of the most destructive confusions and interpretations of the cross ever imagined. You see, while I would agree that Jesus shows incredible humility in the midst of great humiliation, where we seem to disagree is that his humility is a result of his humiliation. Remember that Jesus possesses great humility throughout his life. He possesses it in spite of temptation, trial, and in spite of humiliation. Humiliation leads to or results in shame; humility, on the other hand, is a form of graced dignity.

Jesus knows who he is in light of God's love, "You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased", and he holds onto that sense of identity, that dignity we know as humility even in the midst of shaming torture and crucifixion. When others are betraying him, abandoning him, and trying him for blasphemy and betrayal of the God he knows as Abba, that is when others are shaming him, Jesus counters all of this by holding onto who he knows himself to be in the light of God's love.

It is important in reflecting on the cross that we distinguish between the judgment and activities of a sinful body-and-soul-murdering mankind and what is of God. The humiliation and arena of shame is created by human beings who see Jesus' incredibly wonderful works and deem him demonic and blasphemous. When they raise a person up it is to the heights of degradation and shame. But at that same point God sees most clearly his beloved Son, loving and obedient even unto death on a cross. From THAT vantage point what is revealed to us, what empowers Jesus even in his dying, is the epitome of humility --- a transcendent dignity which is perfected in weakness.

Again then, when you look at the cross and find humiliation you can trace that to the soul-killing judgment of men and women and to their murderous "execution of judgment." As I wrote recently, God NEVER humiliates. NEVER! Human beings lift or hold us up to shame. God raises to humility. When you look at the cross and find genuine humility you must trace that to the graced knowledge of self that comes ultimately from God. It would be an incredibly destructive reading of the events of the cross to see humiliation as the cause of humility. Humility is the incredible dignity Jesus possesses in spite of the shaming humiliation human judgment subjected him to.

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

From Humiliation to Humility: Resting in the Gaze of God

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I was intrigued by something you said in your post on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, namely, that our senses of worthiness and unworthiness are not even present until after shame enters the picture. If that is so then what are we to make of all the writing in spirituality that stresses our unworthiness of God's love or the extensive literature on humility that associates it with the sense of being "nothing" or with practices of humiliation? A lot of this was written by saints and spiritually gifted people. Is your observation about worthiness and unworthiness based on the readings from Genesis alone or does it comes from other places too?]]

Several really great questions! Let me give them a shot and then perhaps you can help me follow up on them or clarify what I say with further questions, comments, and so forth. Because shame is such a central experience it truly stands at the center of sinful existence (the life of the false self) and is critical to understanding redeemed existence (the life of the true self). It colors the way we see all of reality and that means our spirituality as well. In fact, this way of seeing and relating to God lies at the heart of all religious thinking and behavior.

But the texts from Genesis tell us that this is not the way we are meant to see ourselves or reality. It is not the way we are meant to relate to God or to others. Instead, we are reminded that "originally" there was a kind of innocence where we knew ourselves ONLY as God himself sees us. We acted naturally in gratitude to and friendship with God. After the Fall human beings came to see themselves differently. It is the vision of estrangement and shame. This new way of seeing is the real blindness we hear of in the New Testament --- the blindness that causes us to lead one another into the pit without ever being aware we are doing so. Especially then, it is the blindness that allows religious leaders whose lives are often dominated by and lived in terms of categories like worthiness and unworthiness to do this.

Religious Language as Shame Based and Problematical

The language of worthiness and unworthiness has been enshrined in our religious language and praxis. This only makes sense, especially in cultures that find it difficult to deal with paradox. We are each of us sinners who have rejected God's gratuitous love. Doesn't this make us unworthy of it? In human terms which sees everything as either/or, yes, it does. This is also one of the significant ways we stress the fact that God's love is given as unmerited gift. But at the same time this language is theologically incoherent. It falls short when used to speak of our relationship with God precisely because it is the language associated with the state of sin. It causes us to ask the wrong questions (self-centered questions!) and, even worse, to answer them in terms of our own shame. We think, "surely a just God cannot simply disregard our sinfulness" and the conclusion we come to ordinarily plays Divine justice off against Divine mercy. We just can't easily think or speak of a justice which is done in mercy, a mercy which does justice. The same thing happens with God's love. Aware that we are sinners we think we must be unworthy of God's love --- forgetting that it is by loving that God does justice and sets all things right. At the same time we know God's love (or any authentic love!) is not something we are worthy of. Love is not earned or merited. It is a free gift, the very essence of grace.

Our usual ways of thinking and speaking are singularly inadequate here and cause us to believe, "If not worthy then unworthy; if not unworthy then worthy". These ways of thinking and speaking work for many things but not for God or our relationship with God. God is incommensurate with our non-paradoxical categories of thought and speech. He is especially incommensurate with the categories of a fallen humanity pervaded by guilt and shame and yet, these are the categories with and within which we mainly perceive, reflect on, and speak about reality. In some ways, then, it is our religious language which is most especially problematical. And this is truest when we try to accept the complete gratuitousness and justice-creating nature of God's love.

The Cross and the Revelation of the Paradox that Redeems

It is this entire way of seeing and speaking of reality, this life of the false self, that the cross of Christ first confuses with its paradoxes, then disallows with its judgment, and finally frees us from by the remaking of our minds and hearts. The cross opens the way of faith to us and frees us from our tendencies to religiosity; it proclaims we can trust God's unconditional love and know ourselves once again ONLY in light of his love and delight in us. It is entirely antithetical to the language of worthiness and unworthiness. In fact, it reveals these to be absurd when dealing with the love of God. Instead we must come to rest in paradox, the paradox which left Paul speechless with its apparent consequences: "Am I saying we should sin all the more so that grace may abound all the more? Heaven forbid!" But Paul could not and never did answer the question in the either/or terms given. That only led to absurdity. The only alternative for Paul or for us is the paradoxical reality revealed on the cross.

On the cross the worst shame imaginable is revealed to be the greatest dignity, the most apparent godlessness is revealed to be the human face and glory of Divinity. These are made to be the place God's love is most fully revealed. In light of all this the categories of worthiness or unworthiness must be relinquished for the categories of paradox and especially for the language of gratitude or ingratitude --- ways of thinking and speaking which not only reflect the inadequacy of the language they replace, but which can assess guilt without so easily leading to shame. Gratitude, what Bro David Steindl-Rast identifies as the heart of prayer, can be cultivated as we learn to respond to God's grace, as, that is, we learn to trust an entirely new way of seeing ourselves and all others and else in light of a Divine gaze that does nothing but delight in us.

This means that, while the tendency to speak in terms of us as nothing and God as ALL is motivated by an admirable need to do justice to God's majesty and love, it is, tragically, also tainted by the sin, guilt, and shame we also know so intimately.  It is ironic but true that in spite of our sin we do not do justice to God's greatness by diminishing ourselves even or especially in self-judgment. That is the way of the false self and we do not magnify God by speaking in this way. Saying we are nothing merely reaffirms an untruth --- the untruth which is a reflection of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is the same "truth" that leads to shame and all the consequences of a shame-based life and is less about humility than it is about humiliation. God is ineffably great and he has created us with an equally inconceivable dignity. We may and do act against that dignity and betray the love of our Creator, but the truth remains that we are the image of God, the ones he loves with an everlasting love, the ones he delights in nonetheless. God's love includes us; God takes us up in his own life and invites us to stand in (his) love in a way which transcends either worthiness or unworthiness. Humility means knowing ourselves in this way, not as "nothing" or in comparison with God or with anyone else.

Contemplative prayer and the Gaze of God:

My own sense of all this comes from several places. The first is the texts from Genesis, especially the importance given in those to the gaze of God or to being looked on by God vs being ashamed and hiding from God's gaze. That helps me understand the difference between the true and false selves. The focus on shame and the symptoms of shame (or the defensive attempts to avoid or mitigate these) helps me understand the development of the false self --- the self we are asked to die to in last Friday's Gospel lection. The second and more theologically fundamental source is the theology of the cross. The cross is clear that what we see and judge as shameful is not, that what we call humility means being lifted up by God even in the midst of degradation, and moreover, that even in the midst of the worst we do to one another God loves and forgives us. I'll need to fill this out in future posts. The third and most personal source is my own experience of contemplative prayer where, in spite of my sinfulness (my alienation from self and God), I rest in the gaze of God and know myself to be loved and entirely delighted in. While not every prayer period involves an explicit experience of God gazing at and delighting in me (most do not), the most seminal of these do or have involved such an experience. I have written about one of these here in the past and continue to find it an amazing source of revelation.

In that prayer I experienced God looking at me in great delight as I "heard" how glad he was that I was "finally" here. I had absolutely no sense of worthiness or unworthiness, simply that of being a delight to God and loved in an exhaustive way. The entire focus of that prayer was on God and the kind of experience prayer (time with me in this case) was for him. At another point, I experienced Christ gazing at me with delight and love as we danced. I was aware at the same time that every person was loved in the same way; I have noted this here before but without reflecting specifically on the place of the Divine gaze in raising me to humility. In more usual prayer periods I simply rest in God's presence and sight. I allow him, as best I am able,  access to my heart, including those places of darkness and distortion caused by my own sin, guilt, woundedness, and shame. Ordinarily I think in terms of letting God touch and heal those places, but because of that seminal prayer experience I also use the image of being gazed at by God and being seen for who I truly am. That "seeing", like God's speech is an effective, real-making, creative act. As I entrust myself to God I become more and more the one God knows me truly to be.

What continues to be most important about that prayer experience is the focus on God and what God "experiences", sees, communicates. In all of that there was simply no room for my own feelings of worthiness or unworthiness. These were simply irrelevant to the relationship and intimacy we shared. Similarly important was the sense that God loved every person in the very same way. There was no room for elitism or arrogance nor for the shame in which these and so many other things are rooted. I could not think of my own sinfulness or brokenness; I did not come with armfuls of academic achievements, published articles, or professional successes nor was this a concern. I came with myself alone and my entire awareness was filled with a sense of God's love for me and every other person existing; there was simply no room for anything else.

Over time a commitment to contemplative prayer allows God's gaze to conform me to the truth I am most deeply, most really. Especially it is God's loving gaze which heals me of any shame or sense of inadequacy that might hold me in bondage and allows my true self to emerge. Over time I relinquish the vision of reality of the false self and embrace that of the true self. I let go of my tendency to judge "good and evil". Over time God heals my blindness and, in contrast to what happened after the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, my eyes are truly opened! This means not only being raised from humiliation to humility but being converted from self-consciousness to genuine self-awareness. In the remaking of my mind and heart these changes are a portrait of what it means to move from guilt and shame to grace.

So, again, the sources of my conviction about the calculus of worthiness and unworthiness and the transformative and healing power of God's' gaze comes from several places including: 1) Scripture (OT and NT), Theology (especially Jesus' own teaching and the theologies of the cross of Paul and Mark as well as the paradoxical theology of glorification in shame of John's gospel), 2) the work of sociologists and psychologists on shame as the "master emotion", and 3) contemplative prayer. I suspect that another source is my Franciscanism (especially St Clare's reflections on the mirror of the self God's gaze represents) but this is something I will have to look at further.

We Are People of the Cross

Three years ago I wrote an article here supporting the idea that we Christians are People of the Cross. (cf., We Are People of the Cross). I felt strongly about my disagreement with Sister Joan Chittester's point --- though I understood what she was focusing on and completely empathized with that. But never in my wildest dreams did I think that the importance of that label would be underscored in blood and martyrdom in the way that occurred just three days ago.  On that day ISIS took 21 Coptic Christians out to the beach somewhere along the Mediterranean and beheaded them for being "People of the Cross" and People of the illusion of the Cross. We have all seen the pictures: the long row of young men in orange jump suits, each accompanied by his murderer dressed in black and masked from identification; the ISIS member brandishing his knife towards the camera; the headless torso lying in a pool of blood on the sand; the sea turned red with the blood, bodies, and separated heads of these martyrs.

Families of Martyred Christians in Egypt

On Sunday our parish celebrated several baptisms of children. In each case the parents and godparents traced the sign of the cross on the child's forehead following our pastor who had first done so --- claiming these children for Christ. It was a joyful occasion also marked by our own renewal of baptismal vows: "Do we renounce. . .?" "Do we believe. . .?" and echoes of our own initiation into the People of God, "Let your light shine. . .!" "Keep your baptismal garment unstained. . .!"

Today, on Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent, we will each have a cross traced on our own forehead in ashes and this cross will be visible for at least several hours as we move through our world identified as believers in either the greatest foolishness or the greatest wisdom the world has ever known. Remember, it was Paul, the last and in some ways, the greatest Apostle who said, "If Christ is not raised from the dead then we are the greatest fools of all!" ISIS is certainly not the first to claim the cross was the symbol of an illusion! They will not be the last to suggest Christians are deluded in their faith. But we know Christ crucified and risen, we know him intimately since through him our lives have been changed in ways only the Living God and certainly no mere illusion (or delusion) could do.

I have no doubt that ISIS believes the orange jumpsuits and beheadings are somehow degrading, scandalous, and shameful. (They, at the very least, literally represent a complete loss of face and the taking away of honor. In honor-shame cultures honor resides especially in the head.) Perhaps they see these in somewhat the same way the cross was perceived in Jesus' day. I am sure they believe death has forever separated these Christians from God's love. But in this case orange is the new white --- the white garment of men and women who have been baptized into Jesus' death and resurrection. The white garment of witnesses, martyrs, who know that our God loves us and all of creation with an everlasting love from which no guilt, no sin, no shame, no death, can separate us. The sign of that love, a love which enters into the godless depths of our own terrible alienation and shame  in order to bring us back "home" to ourselves and our God is the cross of Christ. We are People of the Cross --- marked by both the world's guilt and shame and the righteousness and hope of God's vindication.

Coptic Tattoos; Marked as People of the Cross

Today we will wear that sign both proudly and humbly, joyfully and in grief at our renewed recognition of all it can mean in a broken and often savage world; once again we wear that sign on our very flesh as we renew our commitment to repent and believe in the unconquerable Love-in-act made real for us in the depths of human shame and shamefulness on and through the cross of Christ. Today as we renew our own professions and identities as People of the Cross, we especially remember these martyrs, these brothers in the faith. They died with Christ's name on their lips; may our own lives similarly proclaim him and the God he revealed.

+Milad Makeen Zaky

+Abanub Ayad Atiya

+Maged Solaimain Shehata

+Yusuf Shukry Yunan

+Kirollos Shokry Fawzy

+Bishoy Astafanus Kamel

+Somaily Astafanus Kamel

+Malak Ibrahim Sinweet

+Tawadros Yusuf Tawadros

+Girgis Milad Sinweet

+Mina Fayez Aziz

+Hany Abdelmesih Salib

+Bishoy Adel Khalaf

+Samuel Alham Wilson

+Ezat Bishri Naseef

+Loqa Nagaty

+Gaber Munir Adly

+Esam Badir Samir

+Malak Farag Abram

+Sameh Salah Faruq

+And the martyr whose name we do not know, a “Worker from Awr village”

Faces of Honor: St Mark's Coptic Church
marks Martyrs with Crowns, Candles, and Flowers 

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Poison of Shame

As we look forward to Lent the daily readings have led us through the Genesis story of the Fall. Last week we heard the entire story as the movement from a certain kind of innocence to the disastrous consequences of "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil". Several days running portions of this narrative were repeated and teamed with NT readings in ways which underscored various aspects of the wisdom it embodied. I came away from the week understanding several things more fully and clearly than I have ever understood before. Especially, I came to understand the distinction between guilt and shame and the costly price healing shame required of our God. But also I came to understand the innocence spoken of in the stories and the terrible fall from that to the sense of either worthiness or unworthiness which distorts our ways of seeing ourselves, others, and all of creation. (see also, Their Eyes Were Opened. . .NOT!)

In the story of the Fall Adam and Eve are part of a creation which God sees as (and which therefore IS) good. Humanity (symbolized in Adam and Eve) know themselves and everything else in this light and ONLY in this light. They exist in a state of innocence, a state of essential freedom and humility. They have vocations and live those out in Divine friendship and intimacy with one another; they know themselves as God knows them, as loved and a source of delight to God. It is an incredibly responsible life untouched by thoughts of worthiness or unworthiness. (Remember, Genesis 2:25 summarizes all this by saying, Adam and Eve "were naked yet they felt no shame.") It is a life which is open to transcendence --- an openness which takes the form of obedience (an attentive responsiveness) to God and the truth he reveals. But for this reason, because an openness to transcendence stands at the heart of this life, it is also a state in which temptation is already present.

And so the narrative moves from innocence through Eve's "theologizing" as she reflects on what God has said, who he is, who she is and is meant to be --- to her complete seduction and sin. From being a person who walks humbly with God, who knows herself and all of reality only as God knows them, she distances herself from such union and begins to think about God rather than conversing with God. (It is Walter Brueggemann who points out this primordial act of theologizing in his Interpretation commentary on Genesis. It is this universal tendency to theologize (and the challenge of preparing to do theology professionally) that led to my own prayer, "God forgive us our theology, our theology perhaps most of all!")  From theologizing and temptation Eve moves to the decision to outright disobedience. She is dazzled by her new way of seeing reality and embraces it by "eating of the fruit of the tree" which is forbidden her. She trusts herself rather than God, she listens to her own "wisdom" rather than to that of God and she makes a new knowledge, a new "truth" her very own. It is a disastrous act of betrayal of God, self, and others, whose consequences will color the rest of her life and that of all of her descendents for the whole of human history.

A Vat of Blue Dye and the Inappropriate Knowledge of Good and Evil:

Consider. You are arriving early for Mass in your parish chapel looking for some quiet time with God and as you come in to sit down you find a huge vat of dark blue dye sitting in the middle of the worship space. There was a sign on the door as you entered which said you are free to do all the things you usually do to prepare for Mass, but please leave the vat of dye alone. It is good in and of itself but it is not meant for you. It will change the way you see things, set you apart, and just generally mark you as a possessor of a knowledge of good and evil which is inappropriate for you. Someone has left a small step ladder against the side of the tub; its presence is intriguing and suggestive, but its purpose is unknown. You think about the sign and examine the tub and dye. You consider what a lovely color dark blue is for you and think, "Surely this can't do so much harm as all that! Perhaps the experience would be good for me. God surely does not wish to prevent me from knowing as much as I can. After all, God made me curious! He made me to steward this world and I must experience it intimately to do that!" Slowly you climb the steps testing them for solidity, strength, and balance (are you merely pretending to legitimate curiosity and research now?). Finally, you decide to dive in and, despite the qualm in the pit of your stomach, you make the leap! At this point you have sinned and know guilt. But this is not the biggest problem by far.

When you come up out of the dye you are dismayed to find that not only is every crevice of your body stained dark blue, but that your eyeballs are too. You look around the chapel and everything looks different. Other members of the assembly arrive and two things happen: 1) they look as though they too have been stained with dye, and 2) you know they are looking at you and thinking what a sinner you are! You have begun to know shame and the influence of shame. Over the next days you get rid of the ruined clothes, scrub yourself several times and manage to remove most of the dye, but as you walk through the world you are convinced that everyone sees the remnants of blue lodged in the creases around your fingernails. You even believe that despite your clothes they can see the dye you have not managed to wash out of a few well-hidden wrinkles and crevices. You sit next to these folks at the Eucharist and you are certain they know you for the horrible sinner, the worthless person you are. Over time you come to see yourself ONLY in terms of the dye and the imagined judgments. Even more unfortunately, you come to see everyone else as less or more worthy than yourself. You imagine, in fact you are certain, that they too jumped into the vat at one time or another and have little bits of dye in hidden crevices they never let anyone see. You confess your own sin and are absolved (guilt is easily forgiven) but your shame (a much more difficult animal) remains.

You hear the Gospel story of the lepers with their bells and cries of "unclean" from today's Gospel and you think, "there I am!" When people wish you the peace of Christ or tell you how much they love you, you think, "If only they knew how stained (inadequate, unlovable, unworthy, unfixable, unforgivable, etc) I am !! But you also think, "They are as stained as I am! Who do they think they are?" You know profoundly the knowledge of good and evil which God wanted you never to know. Rather than being love-based and trusting in God's mercy, your life is shame-based. Rather than knowing the humility, the appropriate dignity of being lifted up by God's love, you know the humiliation of being cast down by what you think of yourself --- and what you believe everyone else sees and either says or would say about you if only they could see you as you "know" yourself to be. Despite the fact that the ACT of disobedience and failure to trust (the decision to leap into the vat) has long been confessed and forgiven, the shame (the touch of the blue dye) remains and the healing required is deep and extensive.

N.B.: in this section I have spoken of the vat of blue dye in terms of the consequences which occur when someone decides to jump in. The analysis of the occasioning of shame works as well when someone else has thrown us into the vat and one has no personal guilt at all. In such a case the thoughts are similar: "Everyone can see what x did to me", "Everyone will know I deserved what was done to me," "They may say they love me, but if they only knew what x did to me they'd see me for who I really am," (this is especially powerful when the one doing the injuring was a parent!) "I am sure the dye has been washed away superficially (for instance by the good life one has led in spite of their woundedness) but deep down it is still there!" "I am unworthy, unlovable, broken, unfixable," and so forth.

The Signs and Symptoms of our Need for Transformation and Healing:

I have spoken of several signs of the move to a shame-based life: 1) the shift from judging the quality of an action to judging oneself and others (the shift from guilt to shame), and 2) the shift from standing in the truth of God's love where we share the knowledge of the dignity we call humility to feeling humiliated, being cast down to this degraded state by one's judgment of self. It is significant that in the narrative of Genesis Adam and Even do not know themselves in terms of worthiness or unworthiness until AFTER they eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. That God loves them is the foundational, the defining truth of their lives until they exchange it first for guilt and then, more disastrously, for shame. (It is also significant, by the way, that psychologists see narcissism as a shame-based illness or disorder which is every bit as destructive as the horrible inferiority many know.) There is a third shift then which is central to the story of the Fall, namely, the move from self-awareness to that of self-consciousness. This shift is definitive for "eating the forbidden fruit" and is at least implicit in the other two shifts already spoken of.

Other symptoms and signs obtain as well. Fear. Fear of ourselves, of others, of revelation and exposure and so much more. A tendency to blame others, a propensity to shut ourselves away from others, to fail to risk loving, an inability to be transparent or to see others for who they are in light of God's love, a need for secrecy and an instinct to cover our guilt (the word shame has the same root as the verb "to cover"), and the tendency to overcompensate for one's perceived (and often masked) inadequacy or unworthiness by accumulating wealth, power, status, etc. God's love is the only thing that allows us to see ourselves as the same as others --- another sign of humility . Shame dictates we view them as either less worthy or more worthy than we and to do all we can to compensate one way or another. Whether we are looking at a despairing person's suicide or the narcissist's tendency to look at the poor (uneducated, etc) and say, "Who do they think they are?" we are looking at the effects of the forbidden knowledge of good and evil and the shame it brings in its wake.

Jesus, His Miracles and his Passion, the Solution to Shame:

Every healing Jesus does points beyond itself to his desire to heal the deeper and more fatal illness we know as shame. Last year I wrote that even had Jesus healed every ill person that came to him it would not have been enough.  Jesus' mission was broader and deeper than this. Jesus was not a mere miracle worker; he was the Messiah, the redeemer. Now I will add that he could have forgiven every sin ever committed, but that would not have been sufficient either. Again, his mission was the redemption and recreation of all of reality, the bringing of reality to the kind of innocence (truth) that is untroubled by shame, that knows and is known neither in terms of worthiness nor unworthiness but only itself in the light of God's love.

It is profoundly significant that the Gospel writers and Paul do not focus on the physical pain and suffering of Jesus' passion, but instead on its terrible shamefulness. While the pain he suffers is not unimportant Jesus suffers the depths of human shame, the soul murdering reality we each and all know so well. He drinks the cup of human shame to the dregs and drains the wine of isolation and alienation which separates every shame-based life from the Divine love and truth that leads to genuine freedom and fullness. He does so while remaining open to God;  through his obedience God's love,  the only solution to shame and its calculus of worthiness and unworthiness so characteristic of the fruit of the tree we should never have known, triumphs. (cf, God humbles us by Raising us Up).

Postscript:

For now I want to note that shame seems to be the missing explanatory ground of the events of the cross in almost every theologia crucis I have read. It is spoken of extensively by exegetes to illustrate what Christ himself suffered but it is not ordinarily mentioned by theologians as the cause of his condemnation,  torture, and death, nor is it usually identified as the profound universal illness that Jesus' death and his Father's subsequent vindication and resurrection of Jesus addresses. I think this is a critical deficit in our theology of the cross which is usually framed in terms of the dynamics of sin and guilt without ever mentioning shame. Given the honor-shame society which found Jesus' countercultural kingdom ministry so profoundly offensive, it is even more imperative that we understand shame rather than guilt alone as the illness he comes to heal, the scourge he comes to destroy. Paul said the sting of death is sin; we must also say clearly that the sting of sin is shame and the soul-murder it brings. Only the cross of Christ effectively addresses this whole dynamic.