Followup Questions on Obedience

[[Hi Sister, I guess I haven't really understood how obedience works, or maybe I am suffering under the influence of an older understanding of obedience. Your description of the way it works with your delegate was surprising because she seems to leave things up to you to decide. Is that really the way it is? Why then have a superior at all? Isn't obedience about dying to your own will? How can you do that if you don't have to do what you are told to do? Is what you described typical of hermits only or is it pretty much the way it is with all religious?]]

Common Misunderstandings of Religious Obedience:

I think that seeing religious obedience as a matter of "doing what one is told" is the most common misunderstanding there is in regard to this vow. It is true that, as you say, the purpose of obedience is to assist us in dying to self and embracing God's will --- not only for ourselves but for the world around us. Doing what we are told, however is not necessarily much less usually the best way to truly learn obedience. In some ways it has been part and parcel of a form of authoritarianism which has assured only that people never learn to truly discern the will of God, never allow their hearts and minds to be shaped in terms of that will, and fail to grow as individuals who can discern and implement the will of God in solitude or in those situations which are difficult, where others need their real wisdom in hearkening, and often there is no one to tell them what to do in any case. My own vow is about being truly attentive and responsive to the Word of God whenever and in whatever way that comes to me. How can I do that if obedience is merely or even mainly about "doing what I am told"?

Another common misunderstanding I think is that obedience is about the death of our own will. Obedience is certainly about its formation and transformation so that one's own will mirrors and is empowered by God's will but this is not the same thing as the death of our will. We cease to be truly human when our wills die; we can neither act to love others or ourselves in the absence of a will. What tends to be true is that the same kinds of things that harm our spirits or wound us psychologically can cripple or otherwise wound our wills. But we are called to image God in Christ and coming to do that does not occur with the abdication of the obligation to learn and be formed in Christ's likeness. Dying to my own will means learning to set myself aside for the sake of others; it means learning not only to be generous but to see others, their needs and potentials, and especially allowing the will of God to be the lens through which all of reality is perceived. To will what God wills is to want and to work towards what God wants and works towards. It is something which is divinely inspired but which requires guidance, modeling, personal healing, and concrete opportunities for discussion and discernment.

So, do I decide things myself and if so, then why have a superior at all? Yes, generally speaking I do decide things myself --- but never in a vacuum. I am responsible to God for my own life and growth in mirroring Christ. On that level of things I work with a director who keeps her finger on my spiritual pulse and assists me in discerning God's will for me personally. But I am also responsible for living an eremitical vocation in the name of the Church and this means a level of responsibility which is more than merely personal. Both my delegate and my bishop (and also my pastor even though not a legitimate superior!!) serve to remind me of the dimensions of my life beyond the narrow confines of the hermitage walls. They each in their own way serve to make me accountable 1) to other religious and for the vows and religious life itself, 2) for the desert tradition itself and canon 603 as a renewed instance of this specifically, and 3) to both the local and universal Church to whom my vocation belongs and in whose name I live it. It is common for a hermit to meet far less frequently with her bishop than with the others but even so each of these persons represent a perspective I need to see things clearly. And because I am accountable to them whether or not they ever command me to do x or y "in obedience," my awareness of the way I live my life is impacted every single day by our relationship; I think this is a good and necessary thing.

It occurs to me that perhaps it might be helpful if I posted the foundational canonical requirement for a superior, the legal norm which defines the essential nature of the superior's role: [[ Can. 618 Superiors are to exercise their power, received from God through the ministry of the Church, in a spirit of service.  Therefore, docile to the will of God in fulfilling their function, they are to govern their subjects as sons or daughters of God and, promoting the voluntary obedience of their subjects with reverence for the human person, they are to listen to them willingly and foster their common endeavor for the good of the institute and the Church, but without prejudice to the authority of superiors to decide and prescribe what must be done.]] As you can see, while the power to command in obedience is a reality, the superior's role is rooted in their own obligation to obedience, docility, and service to the Word and Will of God. They are to find ways to foster "voluntary obedience" and today most superiors have adopted this approach to the vow. Similarly there is a strong collaborative dimension here motivated by real love which remains despite the very real obligation to "decide and prescribe." That heightens my own sense of accountability all across the board.

On the Experience of Accountability:

I suspect anyone who has worked with a spiritual director knows something of what I mean here. Because we meet once every month or two with our directors we feel accountable for our prayer and the personal work we do to prepare for meetings. Spiritual directors are committed to us and we are accountable to them even when the relationship is not one of religious obedience or lived in the same way as when one lives a vow of religious obedience. Recalling Sunday's Gospel lection we can imagine those left in charge of the Master's estate acting in a way which is accountable because the Master may return at any time. What is important here is not the "threat" quality of his potential return but the sense that he remains a presence which prevents his servants from forgetting (or better, reminds them of!) who they are, who it is they serve, whose property this really is, and how they are to behave toward others. They have been entrusted with something on behalf of another; it is this which the continued reminders of potential return help keep uppermost in one's mind.

Because they are charged with responsibility for others (congregations, dioceses, etc) in ways we are not, legitimate superiors serve to call us to accountability, to remind us of perspectives which are broader than we might be tempted to remember otherwise, and of course, they are persons with whom we can and do talk so that over time our hearts and minds are truly and more deeply formed in terms of a greater love, a broader perspective than our own otherwise self-focused lives allow for. For instance, it is possible for a hermit to focus merely on her life with God and on the goal of union with God. Some justify this in credible ways. But it is also necessary for a publicly professed (i.e., consecrated) hermit to focus on these things (again) 1) for the sake of others generally, 2) for the sake of the local Church whom she serves as publicly commissioned witness, 3) for the sake of the desert tradition which the Church has also commissioned her to live as a vital and contemporary instance, 4) for the sake of the universal Church and her Gospel more generally, and 5) that she may stand as a prophetic (counter cultural) presence in a world so geared toward individualism.

All of us are accountable in our lives on a number of levels. We all have people to whom we answer in one way and another whether these are pastors, bosses, friends, directors, teachers, family, physicians, etc. When we are really fortunate these relationships are truly collaborative; they are vital and empowering relationships that challenge and inspire us to be our best selves and call us to live our commitments with ever greater maturity and integrity. Legitimate superiors serve this way for the person with public commitments to religious obedience. They allow genuine perspective and growth in that. They function to give stability to ecclesial vocations, a stability which allows for necessary change and adaptation while maintaining traditional substance. They are part of the formal and personal way in which the hermit carries on in an attentive dialogue with the larger church and world even as she lives her life in the solitude of a hermitage. Again, religious obedience is a means to a focused and very real accountability which helps protect from narrowness, selfishness, and individualism. Consider that obedience as "doing what one is told" often does precisely the opposite!!

How Typical is this Approach to Obedience?

This way of approaching obedience is common today in religious congregations and certainly among hermits (who tend to be relatively mature spiritually when they begin this life and who are not living with others in a way which requires house or congregational leadership). As I noted in an earlier post both Benedictine and Dominican spiritualities stress the NT sense of attentive listening or even hearkening (which includes the notion of appropriate response) and I am sure that is true of groups like the Trappists and Trappistines (who are Benedictine in character), the Camaldolese (similarly Benedictine), and the Franciscans (at least all those Franciscans I know). There are many other congregations for whom this approach is also true, Holy Family, Holy Names, IHM's, etc, etc. Wherever the accent is on the Gospel and on growing as mature religious who are capable of embodying the Gospel this approach is common. There is a history of infantilyzing tendencies in religious life which were mainly due to the notion of obedience as "doing what one is told" and touting the goal of the death of one's will which most everyone has now turned from as both unhealthy and counterproductive. We need mature moral agents who can be leaders in the Church and world both; it is the notion of obedience as attentive listening or hearkening which is foundational here.

I hope this helps.

Questions on Living a Vow of Obedience under c 603

[[Dear Sister, I was wondering how you live the vow of obedience. Since you are under the supervision of your Bishop and also have a delegate do they both act as superiors? Because you wrote recently that if a spiritual director tries to bind one in obedience one should look for a new and competent director, I am supposing that you don't feel bound in obedience to your director. I think it would be hard to have someone telling me what to do and when to do it. That means I think obedience could be one of the harder things I might vow if I were called to be a consecrated hermit. Is it difficult for you? Thanks.]]

Great questions! Timely too since I have just started reading an essay by Donald Goergen OP on Obedience; I am hoping to discuss it with a Dominican friend I usually have Sunday coffee with. It turns out that the Dominican view of obedience and the Benedictine view are very similar so it will be fun to do that next Sunday. (That and an essay from the LCWR 2016 Occasional Papers on Change vs Transformation are on our list to read and 'discuss'.) In any case, it is a topic I am thinking and reading about right now so I appreciate your questions. Perhaps it will help if I first post my own vow of obedience so you can see what is behind everything I say about my own living out of this vow.

[[ I acknowledge and accept that God is the author of my life and that through his Word, spoken in Jesus Christ, I have been called by name to be. I affirm that in this Word, a singular identity has been conferred upon me, a specifically ecclesial identity which I accept and for which I am forever accountable. Under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, I vow to be obedient: to be attentive and responsible to Him who is the foundation of my being, to his solitary Word of whom I am called to be an expression, and to the whole of His People to whom it is my privilege to belong and serve.]] (Received 02. September. 2007)

My vow, as you can see, is a vow to be attentive and responsible to God in Christ through the mediation of the Church. That is first of all a vow to be attentive and responsible to the Word of God in all of the ways that Word is spoken in my life. It is especially a vow to allow God in Christ to be the subjective foundation of my life just as he is truly the objective foundation; that means "binding" or committing myself to this task and privilege in concrete ways via concrete relationships.

The two persons this involves canonically are the Bishop and my delegate.They are both legitimate superiors --- though the delegate serves in this way in a sort of derivative way on behalf of my bishop and the diocese. The term sometimes used is "quasi-superior" but I am bound in obedience to be responsive to her in a "heightened" way precisely because she is formally committed to serving me and the c 603 vocation on behalf of the local Church and our bishop. The third thing my vow  involves directly is obedience to my Rule (which is itself an expression of the shape of my commitment to c 603 and the other canons which apply to the life of a solitary consecrated hermit) --- and this means I am in a relatively constant dialogue with this and c 603, with the needs of daily life, and with my spiritual director (and delegate) regarding my own attentiveness and responsiveness here.

Please note that in none of this does anyone ordinarily simply tell me what to do. Everything involves dialogue and attentive listening on everyone's part. Should my bishop or delegate tell me I must do x or y I would certainly work to understand what is being asked and why (to the extent I can or really need to understand these things), and I would do all I could to respond as "asked". (If the issue is less serious or one I can easily understand the need for I am apt to simply do it --- whatever "it" is.) Generally there would be no reason I would not comply with what is being required of me. Still, this is not the way obedience is ordinarily shaped --- even when matters are presented to me for consideration by my delegate (whose "style" differs from, say, the Vicar for Religious). What is far more typical with her are exchanges like the following (or the approach underlying them). Laurel speaking: [[Because of (x) I am going to skip liturgy for the time being.]] (Delegate --- who understands the entire situation): I support you in this (decision). Stay close to your feelings and prayer. Rest. Contact me as you need.]] or again, (Laurel speaking): [[I am unsure what to do here. I am thinking I should either x  or y.]] (Delegate): I encourage you to x . Your decision.]]  That said, she can and does insist, demand, or "command" I do x or y in certain circumstances, for instance, but this is rare indeed.

Of course I trust my delegate, her perspective, experience, and wisdom and she also  trusts me to do what is best. Obedience cannot work as it is really meant to without this mutual trust. Again, obedience is about listening carefully and deciding to act in a way which most advances the purposes of God in my life and in the coming of the Kingdom. Sometimes I know what that means in my life better than my delegate knows and other times she sees things much more clearly than I do; together we come to a sense of the best way to move forward. It is when I do not see clearly in significant ways that a specific "directive" may be given. Similarly, a specific directive may be given to assist me and to affirm a kind of confidence in me at the same time --- ironic as all that sounds. The larger issue, of course, is that human being is a task and goal as much as it is a given reality. It is in my own discernment and action, my own obedience that I am created or come to be as an attentive and responsible human being. Even when I make mistakes the process of discerning, deciding, and acting is formative in the way described. A good superior makes sure this process is carried forward in each of our lives and is not short-circuited by authoritarianism or crippled by infantilism. 

Something similar is true (or has been true) with my bishop. After a meeting in which I fill him in on what my life looks like and answer any questions he may have I might ask him if he has any concerns. The answer has tended to be no and the day to day matters which might come under my vow fall to my delegate. What I want to stress here is that obedience is the result of honesty and discernment on everyone's part. "Commanding" or "directing" in formal obedience is rarely necessary because generally speaking we are each honest with one another and because I am honest with myself and God regarding how I live my Rule or otherwise attend to the Word of God in my life. Mostly I have found that the role of legitimate superiors is supportive and clarifying. It is, as mentioned above, also rooted in a trust which is empowering, not oppressive or infantilizing. That at least is my own experience of the superior-hermit relationship whether with delegate or bishop.

Other things which come into play in the way I live my vow include the life of my parish community and the needs my pastor might express.  (The vow demands much more than simply responding to legitimate superiors.) I attend to these as I can and I respond both as I am able and as is appropriate to my place in and love for this community and to my own more foundational commitment to God in solitude. I consider these calls to responsiveness to be really important to my life as a hermit and to a life which is meant to express a commitment to obedience in an ecclesial vocation. Again, however, no one is telling me WHAT to do. Opportunities to serve in ways the community needs or may especially benefit from that are within my competence are offered to me and I may or may not be able to take advantage of them at any given time.
 
Obedience here too is again about attentiveness and responsiveness to the Word of God in Christ as it is mediated to me by concrete persons, institutions, and situations, not merely about doing what I am told to do. While I haven't mentioned explicitly my obligation to read, study, and even grapple with Scripture as an instance of my vow as well as my obligation to prayer, these two are foundational practices which are the ground of any commitment to obedience. Because these are covered in my Rule when I write of "observation of my Rule" I am also thinking of or implying these. Still it is important to be clear that it is engagement with God in prayer and in the Word of God through study, lectio, and liturgical experience that stands behind all  the obedience expressed or observed in other relationships. These, while they are mediators of the Word of God, all first of all stand under the Word of God and are subject to its values and purposes.  The bottom line here is that generally obedience is not hard for me --- though it is always challenging and rewarding!! Generally it results in real freedom --- the power to truly be myself. If you are called to religious obedience, and if you were to model your own understanding of obedience on the New Testament notion and use a Dominican or Benedictine conception, for instance, I think it would be a good deal less onerous than you imagine.

Monday's Gospel and the Hermit's Call to Hospitality

Last Monday's gospel lection was, I believe, one of the pivotal texts which explain and ground the hermit's esteem for and paradoxical sense of having a call to both solitude and hospitality. It also serves as an illustration of every Christian's need to ground ministry in prayer including solitary prayer and to allow prayer to overflow in active ministry which is a gift of self to all. The text was Matthew's story where Jesus, upon hearing of the death of John the Baptist, retires to the desert to be alone with God. He is pursued by hungry crowds --- hungry on so many levels; he is moved by pity for their needs and ministers to them. Eventually his disciples approach, remind him of the coming darkness and ask Jesus to "dismiss" the crowds so they may return to the village to obtain food for supper. Jesus says there is no need to dismiss them and asks his disciples to bring the scant provisions they have on hand to him. What follows is a Eucharistic meal. Christ feeds the crowds with bread and fishes he multiplies, but he also very clearly feeds them with himself --- abundantly; he pours himself out in this way and gives the gift of himself and the fruits of his relationship with God even when his own need for solitude (time with his Abba) may have been primary.

While Jesus' grief may have been a significant part of his turn to solitude (the texts don't actually indicate this) the evangelist clearly wants us to see this time as another instance in which Jesus' own call to minister --- to be emptied of self, to be broken open and to pour himself out for others as an expression of his unique relationship with his Father --- is discerned and acted out in the world without hesitation. For hermits for whom the demands of solitude and hospitality are inextricably wed, this lection is both encouraging and quite challenging; though they must both be observed and cannot easily be teased apart, in this lection hospitality (or active ministry) assumes apparent priority over solitude. What I think we must see, however, is that Jesus' solitary suffering (grief, loneliness) and relationship with his Father (prayer) together bring him to a compassion which is the basis of his entire ministry. It is the foundation of his complete gift of self to and for the world given without conditions or limits while it also defines the very character of this ministry. Matthew says Jesus is moved by pity for the needs of these others. At the heart of everything Jesus is and does is a compassionate, other-centered drive to mercy -- a mercy which is from and of God.

Solitude Empowers Our Paradoxical Gift of Self::

Authentic solitude empowers a kind of presence, an openness to others and their needs which our own needs do not impede much less dictate. In other words it empowers an other-centeredness which welcomes on their own terms those who come to us seeking "a word". Eremitical solitude is the context for listening and thus welcoming with one's heart. It empowers this and, at least for a time, allows one to set one's own needs and concerns aside in order to listen carefully to the mind and heart of the other who has sought us out. It is only when one has really heard these others that one can respond in a way which is truly inspired. More, really hearing the other IS the inspired response. In the literature of the Desert Fathers and Mothers hermits visited their elders in search of "a Word". What they were in search of though is not some abstract bit of eremitical wisdom, not necessarily what is most important to the elder, for instance, or the insight or principle s/he most treasures or is known for; instead they seek an answer to the questions or yearnings of their own hearts and the elder draws on his or her own experience to provide just the right "Word". "The Word" is a symbol of the seeker being truly heard.

But here is where is gets a little tricky too. Solitude prepares one to give oneself in an openness which is capable of embracing and holding the needs and even the very self of the other --- and quite often this embracing or holding (as noted with hearing above) IS the very thing the person seeking one out really needs. It is incredibly paradoxical that a hermit's solitude (time alone with God for the sake of others) prepares and even calls for hospitality --- especially such a radical hospitality --- but that is the truth which hermits have seen from the very first moment they sought God in the wilderness. When, for instance, we spend time in quiet prayer we open ourselves to God in a way which allows him free reign (and free rein!). In my own prayer I empty myself of discrete expectations, specific desires, wishes, and even hopes, and simply give over my heart and mind to God to dwell in (to know!) and to touch in whatever way God wills. This means he will plumb the depths of every thought, desire, wish, yearning, impulse, and hope I have, every potentiality, every fear and defense, every openness to life or obstacle to it. I pour out my mind and heart to God by emptying myself of these as things I ordinarily grasp so that God himself can explore and embrace them even more exhaustively with his love and mercy. I let go of these individual realities so that God may grasp and transform me. And so it is with hospitality.

When someone seeks me out they are rarely really looking for the "diocesan hermit" or the "theologian" or even the "spiritual director" --- though all of these dimensions of myself may be of help in one way and another and may also be the ostensible reason someone comes to me. Most fundamentally though they are looking for the person who may also BE these things. What I also mean in saying this is that they are not primarily seeking me out for MY sake --- so that I may BE a diocesan hermit or theologian or spiritual director, etc. They are seeking me out so that THEY may BE themselves. They are seeking a place, a sacred space created not only by the hermitage's silence but more especially by a heart and mind that are open to them and to all they need, yearn and hope for. They are seeking me out in the hope that I can truly set myself aside for the time being and make them "at home."  And some hermits or directors or other ministers may forget this; it is a tragic error when they do.

To the extent I can set myself aside so that those who seek me out may be at home, to the extent my time in solitude has prepared me rightly, to the extent I can become transparent to God rather than being about "being a hermit" or a "contemplative", or merely giving "spiritual advice" or instructing the person ABOUT God, to this extent they will be fed and nourished, held, healed, and freshly commissioned to transform the world with God's love far beyond anything I might be capable of empowering myself in any of my usual "roles" or "competencies". That is the hospitality hermits and contemplatives offer others: the hospitality of selflessness and an open heart and mind which are all transparent to God and are formed and nourished in eremitical solitude. Only then will our own competencies and specific gifts be really helpful and the specific "Words" we might be able to say to the person be truly helpful.

Monday's Gospel Text Again:

So Jesus went apart to spend time with his Abba and people sought him out; Jesus, moved with pity, ministered to them. These two impulses, to solitude and to hospitality are inextricably related in Jesus' life and in the life of contemporary hermits --- just as they are in the great commandment. Are there dangers to be avoided, confusions and misunderstandings which are common and must be corrected or avoided? Yes, absolutely --- and it is important for hermits to live disciplined lives while reflecting on and sometimes even writing about these. But solitude and hospitality are two sides of the same coin and we never have one without the other. Nor can one hand another person only one side of a coin. It is the whole coin or it is nothing at all.  Recently I read a blog post which said essentially: [[ If the folks who turn to me, even those who are concerned with how I myself am doing, don't want to hear a message from a hermit about Christianity or the spiritual insights I have gleaned from my mystical experiences, then let them leave me alone!]]

Additional comments gave me a sense that the blogger believed the people turning to Jesus were doing so for petty (merely "temporal") reasons and interrupting Jesus' prayer and solitude for a bit of trivial "conversation". In all of this I was reminded of some soup kitchens where people in real need and hungry on so many levels were  promised a meagre bowl of soup and sandwich only if they listened to a bad preacher with his pre-packaged spiel ABOUT (his version of) Jesus. And I wondered if those ministering to the folks in the soup kitchen realized what those folks really needed was a decent meal in which they encountered God in Christ as someone who shared their table and was truly vulnerable to them. Was there a minister present asking to eat with or have a cup of coffee with them in order to really be WITH and hear THEM? To make neighbors of them? To really love them as a revelation of God? Because of the soup kitchen's focus on pre-packaged messages ABOUT Jesus -- or the blogger's focus on her insights and spiritual "gifts"? I sincerely doubt it.

But the truth is if we are truly hermits (or contemplatives or Christians of whatever stripe or role) then, relatively rare though these encounters may be, it is in meeting us as persons healed and enlivened by a love which makes us truly open and vulnerable that another will meet and hear God in us, not in lectures, or "edifying accounts of mystical experiences" or a litany of spiritual principles and lessons gleaned in a selfish solitude. We meet God in the silence of solitude so that others may meet God in and through us. Even more, we meet God in the silence of solitude so that we may ALSO clearly recognize and reveal God in the other who needs us to do this. It is not the easy way; it is personally costly and thus it is neither bloodless nor without risk, but it is the way of Jesus, and the way of both monastic and eremitical solitude and hospitality.

Additional Questions on CCC paragraphs 920-921

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I was struck by something you said [a while back] about the CCC paragraphs on eremitical life. I had not realized the CCC was written for Bishops and not for the whole Church so that was striking too but what had the most impact was what you said about the paragraphs on eremitical life needing to be "adequately contextualize(d)" to be read properly. You are aware that some believe they are consecrated Catholic Hermits because the CCC put the paragraphs on eremitical life under the heading "consecrated life." Is this one of the places Bishops and Theologians would read things differently than a lay person without any background in consecrated life? What is especially confusing for me is that the CCC also says hermits don't always make vows publicly. Doesn't this mean they can make them privately? I couldn't quote you because I couldn't cut and paste the passage about reading CCC. I hope that's okay.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are similar, even identical to others I answered just recently here:.ccc-pars-914-915 and 920-921 clarifying their limits and meaning . I think you will find an answer to some of them in that post but let me answer for you personally as well. Here is the passage you referred to: [[I am commissioned and directly responsible for understanding and revealing its [canon 603's] meaning with my life. The catechism, on the other hand, was actually written for bishops, theologians, and those teaching the faith. It thus presumes a broader knowledge which can adequately contextualize and inform what the CCC says in summary fashion. It is not meant to be the final word on things --- much less on things eremitical! (In this case, for instance, par 920-921 are to be read in light of the Church's theology of consecrated life --- not the other way around.) ]]

Yes, what you described is exactly one of those places it is critical the CCC is read in terms of broader knowledge, especially the theology of consecrated life, and canon law. To do otherwise is to build a position and, potentially at least, a life on a  foundation of sand. One cannot use the CCC in a kind of proof-texting way. If one reads paragraphs 920-921 as though they mean one enters the consecrated eremitical state with private vows, what does one do with pars 914-915:  "The state of life which is constituted by the profession of the evangelical counsels, while not entering into the hierarchical structure of the Church, belongs undeniably to her life and holiness." 915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated  by and to God.

c.914 refers to profession which is not defined merely as making vows but as a broader ecclesial act of dedication and reception thereof in which one is initiated into a new state of life. It therefore refers to a PUBLIC act where one in admitted to and accepts rights and obligations commensurate with a new and public state of life. c 915 makes very clear that it is profession within a permanent state of life (perpetual profession in one's new state) recognized by the Church (meaning therefore both the state of life and the act of profession therein) that characterizes the life God consecrates to Himself through the ministry of the Church. All of this is known by every Bishop well-aware of the theology of the consecrated life; it presupposes this awareness and this theology. Even with the confusing phrase, "Without always making profession of the three evangelical counsels publicly, the hermit. . ." knowledgeable readers will know the general theology of consecrated life which is presupposed in this new state of life.

But that does bring us once again to this problematical phrase regarding "without always making profession of the three evangelical counsels publicly". Initially it sounds like it means some may make profession of the counsels privately. But as I argued in the recent post, this cannot be since profession is, by definition, a public act initiating into a new and stable state of life! If one makes private vows they have not made an act of profession; they have made an act of dedication which does not rise to the level of profession  instead --- not least because it has not been made or received in the name of the Church!! That is why, or part of the reason, I pointed out the  sentence must be referring to something else --- namely, that c 603 hermits may use sacred bonds other than vows for their profession

As noted in the earlier post, the original Latin also argues implicitly for this as does the specific context provided by the catechism itself (the heading and focus or content of the section is "Consecrated Life"). I am unclear how the English translation came to be made; it seems to be in direct contradiction to the Latin (please read the earlier post!)  but this cannot be; I have been unable to find a commentary on this passage specifically --- though there are numerous scholars who comment on the inadequacy of the CCC in other sections either in substance or because of translation problems. What I concluded was that the English translation must have been trying to accommodate an element which was different in canon 603 without opposing the original Latin text. I believe this is what explains the clumsiness of the construction. Again, the ONLY element I know of here which could explain that and maintain the original's insistence on public profession is the option to use sacred bonds other than vows. Again, as I noted in the earlier post, profession itself is still and always a public ecclesial act but c 603 hermits may not always use vows to make this profession.

A Contemplative Moment: Silence

Silence

 

is frightening, an intimation of the end, the grave yard of fixed identities. real silence puts any present understanding to shame, orphans from certainty; leads us beyond the well-known and accepted reality and confronts us with the unknown and previously unacceptable conversation about to break in upon our lives. Silence does not end skepticism but makes it irrelevant. Belief or unbelief or any previously rehearsed story meets the wind in the trees, the distant horn in the busy harbor, or the watching eye and listening ear of a puzzled loved one.

 

In silence, essence speaks to us of essence and asks for a kind of unilateral disarmament, our own essential nature slowly emerging as the defended periphery atomizes and falls apart. as the busy edge dissolves we begin to join the conversation through the portal of a present unknowing, robust vulnerability, revealing in the way we listen, a different ear, a more perceptive eye. an imagination refusing to come too early to a conclusion, and belonging to a different person than the one who first entered the quiet.

 

Out of the quiet emerges the sheer incarnational presence of the world, a presence that seems to demand a moving internal symmetry in the one breathing and listening equal to its own breathing listening elemental powers.

 

To become deeply silent is not to become still but to become tidal and seasonal, a coming and going that has its own inimitable, essential character, a story not fully told, like the background of the sea, or the rain falling or the river going on, out of sight, out of our lives. reality met on its own terms demands absolute presence, and absolute giving away, an ability to live on equal terms with the fleeting and the eternal, the hardly touchable and the fully possible, a full bodily appearance, a rested giving in and giving up; another identity braver, more generous and more here than the one looking hungrily for the easy, unearned answer.

 

by David Whyte,

Consolations, Nourishment, and Underlying

Meaning of Everyday Words

Clarifications, Part II: Verifying the Identity and Standing of Consecrated Catholic Hermits

[[What the author seems to be saying is that any Catholic can become a consecrated Catholic hermit merely by making private vows. She DOES seem to be saying canon 603 is merely an option for solitary consecrated hermits that Bishops may or may not use --- whatever they prefer. So here are my questions: if any of this is true what prevents a completely mad person who is out of touch with reality, simply can't get along with others, and has crazy ideas of God and religion from making these private vows and then calling themselves a Catholic Hermit? What prevents them from pretending to represent the Catholic Church's understanding of eremitical life? Do pastors check out people introducing themselves as "consecrated Catholic Hermits?? And where does their supposed "consecration" come from? It doesn't seem to be from God or the Church. Does the Catechism really support [corrected typo] this the way Ms McClure says it does? You haven't explained how Ms McClure goes wrong there yet have you?]]

Now that all the vocabulary and the text of the CCC is out of the way (and has established the meaning of Consecrated Life in the section Ms McClure referred to) I can answer your other questions.

One of the reasons the Church is so careful about vocations which are mediated and celebrated with public (canonical)  professions and all that goes with those is precisely to prevent the problems you envisioned and others as well. Public vocations are carefully discerned and recognized as literal gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church and World. Canonically consecrated hermits represent God's own vocational "creation" and image the Church's vision of eremitical life; thus they are responsible for continuing the desert tradition in a divinely empowered, humanly attentive, mindful and dedicated way. Moreover, they do this in the name of the Church who has discerned the vocation with them, admitted them to profession and mediated and marked their consecration by God as an act and continuing reality in which the Church shares publicly. In this way God in Christ entrusts them with this sacred and ecclesially responsible identity, charism, and mission on behalf of God and all those God holds as precious.

There are fraudulent "Catholic Hermits" out there. That's a sad but real fact. Sometimes they are just as you have described them, at least somewhat mad and out of touch with reality with crazy ideas of God, spirituality, etc. Sometimes they are entirely sane with a sound theology and spirituality but have not been able to be admitted to profession or consecration. For these persons it may simply be difficult to accept the fact that they cannot be consecrated and are asked to remain lay hermits (hermits living eremitical lives in the lay or baptismal state alone). These latter may not understand why they are not "Catholic hermits" since they are Catholic AND hermits; more, they may be WONDERFUL hermits and a gift to the Church in every way, but the truth remains --- they have not been consecrated or commissioned to live this life in the name of the Church. Unless and until they have been given and accepted this constellation of rights (and obligations) in a public (canonical) rite of profession and consecration they are not Catholic Hermits.

These latter vocations may be from God as much as any consecrated  hermit's vocation is from God. The difficulty is in knowing whether that is the case or not. Similarly these vocations may be exemplary in ways we would expect either any dedicated or consecrated vocation to be, but again, there is simply no way of knowing. The Church has had no place in discerning, forming, receiving the individual's dedication, and has no role in supervising the vocation or assuring ongoing formation. For someone to live eremitical life in the name of the Church these are just some of the things which must be squared away or provided for. There is nothing excessive in these requirements; they protect people and they protect the vocation itself. In a society and culture whose driving pulse seems to be individualism and where it would be so easy for a consummate individualist to call themselves a hermit --- and even a "Catholic Hermit" at that, precautions must be taken. Because canonical hermits represent the Church in ways a lay hermit does not one must be able to trust they are who they say they are. Otherwise people can be hurt.

Generally pastors do check on the credentials of a consecrated person showing up in their parish unless, of course, the person is already well-known and established. But yes, in the case of a consecrated solitary hermit the pastor would either ask around (other pastors, et al) or contact the diocese and be sure the hermit 1) is professed and consecrated under canon 603, and 2) is in good standing with the diocese or chancery. Diocesan hermits, as I have noted before have a certain stability of place and cannot move from the jurisdiction of their legitimate superior (local ordinary) unless the bishop of a new diocese agrees to become responsible for her and for her vows.

Most diocesan hermits possess a sealed (meaning embossed or stamped with the diocesan seal) and notarized affidavit issued at profession testifying to their canonical standing and providing the date and place of profession and consecration. (This is akin to a baptismal or other sacramental certificate and a copy is kept in the person's file at the chancery.) A pastor could easily ask to see such a document (or a hermit could simply present it as a courtesy); in its absence he might ask who the hermit's legitimate superior is --- expecting the response to be the local bishop and probably an assigned or chosen delegate. If the hermit is a member of an institute of consecrated life and is in the parish while on exclaustration, for instance, then she would again have the proper paper work to establish her bona fides for the pastor. When this is all squared away the way is open for introducing the hermit to the larger parish membership in a way which establishes the authenticity of the hermit's ecclesial identity and place in the life of the faith community. (None of this need detract from the significant role lay hermits play in the life of a faith community by the way, and they too can be identified as the lay hermits they are.)

More Questions on Developing the Heart of a Hermit

 [[ Dear Sister, have you broken off your reflections on developing the heart of a hermit or the inner work necessary for that? I was sorry and a little concerned to read your post on the suffering you are experiencing. At the same time one of the things I appreciated about it was that it didn't focus on the suffering itself. Instead it focused on the way God transforms the suffering into something more. Is that the same thing as "an experience of redemption" or of transcendence for you? ]]

Many thanks for your questions and concern. I am hoping to continue my reflections on the making of the heart of a hermit. Partly this is because of inner work I have been doing for spiritual direction (it is compelling and is directly on point), partly it is an important part of any theological reflection on the nature of the call to eremitical life --- especially in regard to the discernment and formation of canon 603 vocations --- and partly my desire to do so is in response to questions people have asked. Some of these have expressed hope that I will say more about my own experience of redemption and I am not yet certain how to handle those.

You see, when in the midst of the kind of work I have been writing about redemption is an ever-present context and promise but it is not always something one experiences in the moment. (And that is sometimes an enormous understatement!!) Still, it is really important that the hermit lives from the promise and not from the suffering alone. (The pain can give depth, poignancy, and gravitas to experiences of promise and redemption but it takes time to come through the suffering to that point. The experience of the Transcendent does not leave the suffering behind exactly; it becomes the dimension of depth I just mentioned, the reality which keeps joy real rather than some superficial bit of self-congratulation. Until this happens one is apt to be too full of self to post in a way which is genuinely edifying to anyone and I am keenly aware of that.) So, I will likely post further on the nature and need for inner work in order to actually live "the silence of solitude" in ways which can assist and even inspire others, but right at the moment I am finding my way with greater "muddle" (to use my director's description) than clarity. That, by the way, means we are doing good work together and I am proud of that, but we are (or at least I am) also in the midst of the trees when it would be more helpful for posting here to be able to see the forest instead!

One person, however, wondered if I knew Dan Schutte's song, Holy Darkness  and referred to the line about God planting his seed in the barren soil of one's loneliness. I do indeed know the song -- it has always been a favorite ---  I  loved most of the St Louis Jesuit's work but this one was special for me. In fact (as a kind of tangent) I was in graduate school at the same time the guys were there in Berkeley doing their MDiv's, etc., in the early or mid  80's; thus I heard a lot of their work at liturgies there where they performed with other students. But (back on topic!) Holy Darkness  has always been a special expression of my own life experience and (apophatic) spirituality.

Certainly it speaks profoundly about the very dynamic I was describing when I wrote of the experience of redemption that must exist at the heart of a hermit or when I wrote about emptiness and the experience of transcendence. In my own experience God does indeed plant the seed of his Word, his Love, his Presence in the barren soil of one's loneliness; for the hermit the result of that seed taking root and coming to fruition is a call to witness to the silence of solitude instead of to isolation. This transfiguration of emptiness and isolation into the fullness and communion of solitude is the very heart of the redemption a hermit experiences so yes there is transformation while suffering is given a context which makes an unimaginable sense of it. Similarly, this transfiguration is the brilliant gift God makes of her life and all of its moments and moods no matter how shadowed in darkness these might be. Thus too, at the risk of repeating myself one more time, it becomes the illuminating charism the hermit brings to the Church and World. I am gratified that some of that was evident to you in what I wrote earlier.




So here is a  version of Holy Darkness. I like John Michael Talbot's work and I very much like the illustrations used here,  but in this case I would have preferred the original version of the song. Still, as one person's questions and remarks captured, it is a profound summary of desert spirituality, especially as embodied in the life of a hermit.

CCC Pars 914-915, 920-921: Clarifying Terminology in the Catechism's section on the Consecrated State of Life (1of 2)

[[Dear Sister, I thought your piece on Mr Toad's Wild Ride was both sadly humorous and a bit more sharply critical than you usually are in your writing. I wondered at first if it was too much. And then I read the post you were referring to; I decided you were pretty restrained when I read the following:

[[I also want to emphasize that contrary to but one online blogger creating terminology and labels that simply are not at all mentioned in any Church documentation nor authorized by the Vatican or any archbishop, bishop, or other Catholic Church official, there are no such designations as "lay hermit" or "dedicated hermit" in the Catholic Church.  As you can read from the Church documents yourselves, all Catholic hermits are consecrated Catholic hermits whether or not privately or publicly professed (the latter under CL603, a fairly recently added proviso to the eremitic vocational tradition).]] (Emphasis added)

What the author seems to be saying is that any Catholic can become a consecrated Catholic hermit merely by making private vows. She DOES seem to be saying canon 603 is merely an option for solitary consecrated hermits that Bishops may or may not use --- whatever they prefer. So here are my questions: if any of this is true what prevents a completely mad person who is out of touch with reality, simply can't get along with others, and has crazy ideas of God and religion from making these private vows and then calling themselves a Catholic Hermit? What prevents them from pretending to represent the Catholic Church's understanding of eremitical life? Do pastors check out people introducing themselves as "consecrated Catholic Hermits?? And where does their supposed "consecration" come from? It doesn't seem to be from God or the Church. Does the Catechism really support [corrected typo] this the way Ms McClure says it does? You haven't explained how Ms McClure goes wrong there yet have you?]]

Response, part 1

My apologies for the sharpness of my criticism in the prior piece. It is simply that sometimes honing an argument shows great wisdom and perspicacity; other times it is an exercise in incorrigibility. My sense is that Ms McClure's hardening position falls into the second category and that is frustrating when she is pretending to tell folks how to "become a Catholic Hermit" and may seriously mislead vulnerable people. In any case your points are good ones and yes, Ms McClure is clearly arguing that any person who makes vows of the evangelical counsels, whether privately (an act of dedication which does not rise to the level of profession) or publicly (an act of personal dedication which rises to the level of profession)  become consecrated Catholic Hermits. She said so explicitly in the passage cited in my last post. She herself claims not to be a lay person any longer but instead a consecrated person in the consecrated state of life. But in doing so she seems to have omitted the Church's role in mediating such a change just as she seems to have missed the meaning of the following paragraphs (##914-915) which she herself also cited. If you don't mind, I will focus on terminology and translation in this post and answer your other questions in a second piece.

[[914 "The state of life which is constituted by the profession of the evangelical counsels, while not entering into the hierarchical structure of the Church, belongs undeniably to her life and holiness."⁴⁵³ 

915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.

Basic Vocabulary:

Your question re the CCC (and any cogent response to Ms Mc Clure's position)  depends on the meaning of these paragraphs so let me explain that it is important to understand some of the vocabulary here in the way the Church does. Remember that these paragraphs were written for bishops and other teachers of the faith with a background in the Church's theology of consecrated life, her canon law, etc. They presuppose knowledge of these and were not really written primarily for the person in the pew; thus, they can and almost invariably will be misunderstood if everyday meanings are attached where specialized theological or ecclesiastical meanings obtain or where they are otherwise read out of context.

In par 914 the text uses the terms "state of life" and  "profession." In par 915 we are reminded that while every disciple of Christ is called to live some expression of the evangelical counsels, only some are called to the profession of these within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church. In each paragraph both terms have a specialized meaning in the Church. Profession, for instance, does not mean any act of making vows but instead a very specific dedication of self ordinarily (but not always!) involving the making of vows and, because it is part of an ecclesial rite and action, initiating one into a new state of life recognized by the Church. 

In other words, it is a profession to which one is canonically (publicly) admitted via the rite of profession (and consecration) by the Church herself whether through the leadership of a religious institute (order, congregation, community) or, in the case of solitary hermits, through the permission and action of the diocesan Bishop. It therefore involves mutual discernment, a supervised formation, the formal request that one be admitted to this profession, the granting of that request by a legitimate superior, and the admission to a recognized state of life characterized by public rights and obligations assumed through the making of public vows (or other sacred bonds in some cases of c 603 hermits) in the hands of the legitimate superior and (in the case of perpetual vows) the public consecration of the person by God and mediated by the Church. Recognition by the Church means more than noting something exists; it means giving that thing, whether state and/or person (or juridical person, etc.) standing in ecclesial (canon) law.

It should also be noticed that "state of life" in this  context does not refer primarily to being a hermit, but rather to the consecrated state and that entrance into this state does not occur with the making of private vows. EVER! As I have written here MANY times that is because one has been called to and is embracing public rights and obligations which do not obtain with private vows. These canonical rights and obligations as well as the relationships which are part of them and their nurturance, and of course the fact that through profession and consecration God has set the person apart as a sacred person through the mediation of the Church, together constitute the "stable state of life" referred to here. Everything about initiation into this state is a public act of the Church --- an ecclesial act. The individual of course makes her own dedication  but she does so as part of a broader ecclesial act because the Church herself has admitted her to this, called her forth in the name of the local Church, summoned the faithful to witness it, and otherwise celebrated it in the name of God! 

Moreover, the entrance into this state of life occasioned by profession and consecration is not the end of the Church's mediation of this call or of the person's response. Because there are legal or canonical rights and obligations with which everyone directly involved is concerned, the call is mediated by the Church again and again and again every single day as the person embraces all the parts of her vocation and does so (hopefully) ever more deeply and extensively. It is mediated by legitimate superiors (Bishop and delegate) acting in the name of the Church who supervise the vocation, but also by the Church more generally as she summons the hermit to live her Rule and vows in the name of the Church within the context of the faith community and its public liturgical and social life.

Drawing Conclusions Contrary to Ms McClure's:

Thus, Ms McClure's tautological statement: [[ As you can read from the Church documents yourselves, all Catholic hermits are consecrated Catholic hermits whether or not privately or publicly professed (the latter under CL603, a fairly recently added proviso to the eremitic vocational tradition)]] could not be more mistaken. While it is obviously the case that every Catholic Hermit is a consecrated Catholic hermit, only those admitted to public profession and consecration are "Catholic Hermits" because only these have been initiated into this new state and commissioned to live this life in the name of the Church. (cf the picture in the right hand column of the commissioning prayer that was used during the granting of my cowl, for instance. This is part of the Church's own rite of (religious) profession.)  That is the purpose of all the hoopla and conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph. The Church does NOT do this lightly nor for everyone and she certainly does not allow individuals to do it themselves with completely private acts which do not bind canonically (publicly) or for which the individual may not even be suited much less called by God or God's Church. Admission to a state of life is ALWAYS a public and ecclesial act whether it is occasioned by Sacrament (baptism, marriage, and ordination), profession and consecration (Communal religious life or solitary eremitical life), or consecration (consecrated virgins living in the world).

The Catechism paragraphs on Eremitical Life (##920-921):

Paragraphs 920-921 are part of the section of the CCC entitled Consecrated Life (pars 914-933). As noted above, the section begins with a reference to baptismal consecration and establishes the consecrated STATE of life as building upon this. Similarly it establishes all persons as being called to some expression of the evangelical counsels and then moves to those in the consecrated state of life as representing a special instance of living these counsels.  Contrary to what I believed 10 years ago, This means that thereafter this section is ONLY speaking about (canonically) consecrated states of life and pars 920-921 refer ONLY to canonically consecrated hermits  --- that is, those who are initiated by the church into the public state of consecrated eremitical life. It is not speaking of lay hermits (hermits in the lay state) who make private acts of dedication, whether using vows or some other form of sacred bond. (Because the term consecration is so widely misused today it is necessary to say "publicly" or "canonically" consecrated. A private act is an act of dedication for only God can consecrate. (Vatican II maintained this usage assiduously.)

But what then about the strange phrase [["Without always professing the evangelical counsels publicly]]  First the key Latin phrase in the original is this: [[quin publice tria consilia evangelica semper profiteantur]] Which translates, [[but always professing the three evangelical counsels publicly]] This corresponds to the Church's theology of consecrated life; any profession will be a public and ecclesial act. Then where does the notion of "without always" come from in the English translation? By this I mean what is optional for the hermit if the profession itself is ALWAYS to be made publicly. There is only one thing it could be. Canon 603 allows for diocesan hermits to use "other sacred bonds" than vows" if they choose. It is the only form of consecrated life besides consecrated virgins living in the world (who do not make vows) that does. Thus, the clumsily formulated English phrase does not mean, "Without always making vows publicly" but rather, " Without always using vows to make their public profession."

Ms McClure has italicized parts of the paragraph (#920) to ensure one reads it as providing the option of private vows rather than public ones. However, the overall context (consecrated states of life) will not allow this. Neither will the original Latin text nor the Church's theology of consecrated life per se. The only option, the only "without always"  c 603 allows is that of vows or other sacred bonds; even so the profession of either will ALWAYS BE PUBLIC entailing public rights and obligations, public ecclesial relationships (legitimate superiors), and even public expectations on the part of the faithful generally.

Mr Toad's Wild Ride

 [[Dear Sister Laurel, I think "joyful hermit" is challenging what you have written about Catholic Hermits in her recent post on becoming a Catholic hermit. But she has the following in her post and I am left confused by it: [[I have written about this process previously, but the basics may be found in The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Institutes of the Church.  I am posting the requirements which are also, for those in the United States, on the website of the United States Council of Bishops.]] What are the Institutes of the Church? For that matter, what is the United States Council of Bishops? My biggest questions, however are why doesn't joyful hermit mention Canon Law and why does she call canon 603 a "recent proviso"?]] (cf: catholic hermit/how-to-become-catholic-hermit)

Well, Ms McClure is entirely free to challenge what I have written. I have a public blog and that means folks may disagree. At the same time she will recognize that her similarly public challenge  may raise questions and require a response. Personally the way she has argued, and continued to argue over the years makes me think of Mr Toad's attempts to drive a car. Ultimately it could be disastrous for herself, for the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation, and for any who pin their vocational hopes on her mistake-riddled position.

So, regarding your questions --- and let me make it clear that a number of people have raised the same significant questions with regard to this poster over the past years, some of them badly misled and disappointed in the process of following what she has written about becoming a Catholic Hermit ---  first of all, there is no such thing as the Institutes of the [Catholic] Church if by this one means a set of norms or guidelines called "institutes". They do not exist. As I understand it, once upon a time the author of the blog you referenced misread canon 603 and instead of citing it properly as [[Besides institutes of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitical or anchoritic life (Praeter vitae consecratae instituta)]] --- which means, "besides societies (Orders, Congregations, or communities) of consecrated life in canon 603 the Church recognizes solitary eremitical or anchoritic life" --- Ms McClure wrote instead, [[ In addition to THE institutes of consecrated life. . .]] and from there decided this referred to a set of norms besides (and apparently equal to and older than) those of canon law (or at least canon 603). 

Pretty much it has all been downhill from there and joyful has built an entire theory of how things work with regard to the Church's theology of consecrated life based on this misquote and a couple of other misinterpretations of paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In some ways this misquote drove the other misunderstandings.  In others it was a central piece of an ever-deepening and misleading feedback loop. Amazing what havoc the mistaken addition of a definite article can wreak!

Meanwhile, the implications of Ms McClure's misquote is the truth that while the rest of the Church recognizes the Code of Canon Law as the Church's universal law, Ms McClure (joyful hermit) apparently truly believes there is another code or set of norms which is equal to or has priority over canon law and which is called the "Institutes of the [Catholic] Church". This is the reason she can call canon 603 a "recent proviso" (meaning a conditional reality attached to something else) rather than regarding it as the law of the Church with regard to solitary consecrated Catholic Hermits. She gives priority to the supposed but fictional "Institutes" and treats the 1983 canon 603 as an alternative or conditional reality added to these. It also seems that she means these Institutes which are suppposedly written earlier than canon 603 is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was not published until 1994. Thus, she writes:

[[Canon Law 603, while more recent, is a viable, additional provision to the institutes of the Church per consecrated, eremitic life, for the Catholic man or woman discerning and/or called by God to the consecrated life of the Church as an eremitic.  For some bishops and hermits, it may be a preferred provision for various reasons, not mentioned here.]]  (Emboldening added)

But in this Ms McClure is ignoring or otherwise disregarding both the entire history of canon 603 and its significance and uniqueness. Namely, there is NO OTHER Canon on eremitical life in the Church's universal law regulating or establishing. There was none in the 1917 Code. Hermits were not mentioned. C 603 is entirely new and came from the work of Church Fathers who at Vatican II decried the lack of such legislation regarding the eremitical vocation. Consecrated vocations to solitary eremitical life MUST be consecrated according to canon 603; there is NO OTHER option in the Roman Catholic Church. If Ms McClure or other readers take(s) nothing else from this post she or they need to remember the CCC was written and published 11 years AFTER THE Revised Code of Canon Law; it CANNOT be "The Institutes" c 603 was supposedly written "in addition to" nor is the 1983 c 603 a "more recent" "additional proviso" to the 1994 Catechism paragraphs on the consecrated life.

Because Ms McClure reads the CCC in the way she does and believes it is some other normative source of law, she can and does disregard Canon Law and treats canon 603 as something some Bishops may simply prefer to something else. (Except for preferring that people make entirely private commitments in the lay state, for instance, and refusing to consecrate solitary hermits under c 603 at all, there is no option here. Bishops can't prefer some other way of consecrating solitary hermits because there isn't any other way; for Pope, Bishops, and everyone else in the Church c 603 is simply the law with regard to consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic church).

Too, because her entire position is built on the quicksand of her original misquote ("THE Institutes") and on a reading of paragraphs 920-921 of the CCC which wrests them from their essential literary, historical, ecclesial, and theological contexts Ms McClure's arguments lack cogency and her positions are groundless distortions of the truth; they cut the heart out of the vocation as ecclesial and in its place substitute an extreme  individualism --- the very antithesis of what the Church calls eremitical solitude. To then treat the CCC as though it has the legislative force of  the Code of Canon Law or is part of an entirely fictional "Institutes of the [Catholic] Church" which pre-date the revised Code is to have gone off the rails altogether --- just as Mr Toad did. My real concern is that she will lead others into the same individualistic ditch she has driven herself. When that happens the pain associated with being taken in in this way and then disabused of their delusion by pastors, chancery personnel, and even other parishioners would be likely to be significant no matter how tactfully done.

 Summary:

Ms McClure's posts on c 603 raise the following questions which, unless they can be adequately answered, point to the incoherence of her position.

1) Why does she translate c 603.1 as "In addition to THE institutes of consecrated life" rather than as "Besides institutes of consecrated life" (meaning besides societies of consecrated life) as given in the official English translation and in the original Latin?

2) If she continues to insist on the definite article in her translation I wonder why that is. Also what are these other "institutes" she refers to if not societies of consecrated life? Are they the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

3) Especially, does she mean these "institutes" are the CCC paragraphs 914-933 on consecrated life? I ask because this is the only other source she cites and she seems to give priority to it.

4) But if this is so then how can she speak of a 1983 canon which pre-dates these 1994 paragraphs as a "more recent" or an "additional proviso"? Canon 603 is 11 years older than the paragraphs of the CCC on consecrated life or par 920-921 on consecrated eremitical life and has historical as well as legislative or normative priority.

5) Since the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated with the promulgation of the 1983 Revised Code and since it did not refer to eremitical life in any case Ms McClure (aka Joyful Hermit, The Complete Hermit, Catholic Hermit, cannot mean this earlier Code represents these "institutes" can she?

Postscript: There is no US Council of Bishops. We have the USCCB, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. That is the only organization I believe Ms McClure can be referring to.

Our Prayer: Holding the World in our Hearts

Just sharing a wonderful image my delegate sent to me a couple of weeks ago. As I have written before, it is so important that the hermit's "stricter separation from the world" be about freedom FROM enmeshment which allows a very real freedom FOR compassion and genuine regard. We do not "wash our hands" of the world, nor are we called to leave it behind entirely. Rather, empowered by God's love for us experienced in solitude we love and embrace it in a new, creative, and prophetic way.

I would only change one thing about this image; For hermits and other contemplatives especially I would either add or replace the original text with [[Be Prayer for the world!!]] I say that because of Pope Francis' new Apostolic Constitution,   Vultum dei Quarare (Seeking the Face of God) On Women's Contemplative Life. There he reminds us that contemplatives are set in the heart of the Church and the world and, in their contemplative lives, are a "sign and witness of the prophecy of the Church, virgin, spouse, and mother,"  or here, [[And how great is the joy and prophecy proclaimed to the world by the silence of the cloister!]]

or yet again, [[It is not easy for the world, or at least for a large part of it, dominated by the mindset of power, wealth, and consumerism, to understand your particular vocation and your hidden mission; and yet it needs them immensely. The world needs you every bit as much as a sailor on the high seas needs a beacon to guide him to a safe haven. Be beacons to those near to you and, above all, to those far away. Be torches to guide men and women along their journey through the dark night of time. Be sentinels of the morning (cf. Is 21:11-12) heralding the dawn (cf. Lk 1:78). By your transfigured life, and with simple words pondered in silence, show us the One who is the way, and the truth and the life (cf Jn 14:6), the Lord who alone brings us fulfillment and bestows life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). Cry out to us, as Andrew did to Simon: "We have found the Lord" (Jn 1:40). Like Mary Magdalene on Easter morning, announce to us: "I have seen the Lord!" (Jn 20:18). Cherish the prophetic value of your lives of self-sacriifice. Do not be afraid to live fully the joy of evangelical life, in accordance with your charism.]]

P.S., One of the most wonderful things about this document was that on the front page, below the indication this was from the Holy See Press Office or the Symbol of the Papacy and the large note that this was embargoed until the Feast of Mary Magdalene, below all of this official hoopla stood a single word: Francis --- followed by the title of his document. Not Pope Francis, or even Francis, Bishop of Rome, and certainly not His Holiness or Vicar of Christ, etc, but simply "Francis" --- a Brother religious writing to fellow religious and Sisters in Christ --- not forgetting his role of course, but setting a tone through which the text itself could be heard. I was quite touched by this.