Catholic Sisters Week

I should have posted this earlier, but we celebrate Catholic Sisters this week as part of Women's Week. The Church we know today would be vastly different without the influence of Religious Women, their love, commitment, fidelity, compassion, and leadership. If you are in contact with Sisters this week (or, if you have been out of touch for a while), please thank them for their lives and the gift they make of them for the whole world and Church! Thanks!

From Humiliation to Humility: Resting in the Gaze of God (Reprise)

I had a brief conversation this weekend with Sister Susan Blomstad, my co-Director on the difficulties of the language of unworthiness when we speak of God. Sister Susan and I talked a lot about a number of things as we caught up with each other, and didn't get a chance to follow up on this specific topic, but it reminded me of a piece I had written several years ago I will send on to her. It is appropriate for Lent (I may have first written it during Lent), especially in light of what I wrote regarding transfiguration and authentic humanity so I am posting it again today.

[[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 that is done in mercy, a mercy that 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; 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 problematic. 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 that 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 that 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, and 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 belonging to 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 come 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.

On Transfiguration and Authentic Humanity

I am thinking about transfiguration and what the story of Jesus' transfiguration tells us. The story I have posted many times here regarding Jesus' transfiguration involves the main point that we don't see what is right in front of us; we see what we expect or are conditioned to see. Especially we don't always see the dignity of every human person or the profound potential which resides at their core. We sometimes speak of the human person as imago dei and we may recognize the vocation each one has to become imago Christi, but my sense is that most times folks don't quite know what to do with these references. How seriously are we meant to take them? Are they just a form of poetry or do they say something about the literal truth about our nature?

During Lent our focus tends to be more on the penitential, on our own sinfulness or "falling short" of the great potential and call that does exist at the core of our being than it is on that potential itself. We locate God outside of ourselves as judge, but can neglect the truth which the human heart reveals, namely that the human heart is the privileged place where God bears witness to Godself, and that the source and center of human life is divinity itself. During Lent then, while we attend to a need to do penance, to pray more regularly, and to develop the generosity of those who are loved unconditionally by God, we must not neglect the underlying conviction of the season, namely, we do these things because the person we are most truly shines like the sun and mediates the life and light of God to our world. Lenten penance is not merely about tidying up our moral lives or cleaning up the minor deficiencies or failings which mark and mar those lives; it is about getting in better touch with the incredible potential we carry within us and are called to embody exhaustively for God's sake and the sake of his entire creation.

To be a human being is to be the image of God. To be authentically human is to become imago Christi --- not as some pale reminder of a distant historical figure we admire a bit (or even love a lot), but as those who allow him to become the very shape and quality of the way we think and feel, approach and act towards our God, ourselves, and others. When the original disciples looked at Jesus they saw the Kingdom of God alive in our world; in him they saw human freedom as the counterpart of divine sovereignty and divine power made perfect (fully realized) in weakness. When we look at one another we should see the very same things. In Christ we see God, in ourselves we should see Christ. Transfiguration is at the heart of Lent, not only because conversion from sin is necessary, but because our deepest, truest selves yearn to shine through and remake us from our hearts outward. Transfiguration reveals what is truest, deepest, and lives right in front of us in every person and in ourselves all the time; it is a synonym for the conversion and reconciliation (the healing) of ourselves so that the divinity we know as "Love-in-Act," shines through and illuminates the whole. That is the essence of authentic humanity.

Second Sunday of Lent: The Transfiguration of Jesus (Reprised)

Transfiguration by Lewis Bowman

Have you ever been walking along a well-known road and suddenly had a bed of flowers take on a vividness which takes your breath away? Similarly, have you ever been walking along or sitting quietly outside when a breeze rustles some leaves above your head and you were struck by an image of the Spirit moving through the world? I have had both happen, and, in the face of God's constant presence, what is in some ways more striking is how infrequent such peak moments are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification: Are you Saying We must Deny our Suffering?

[[Dear Sister, you are not saying a person must hide or deny their illness or suffering are you? I know you read [Joyful Hermit's] blog and she seems to believe you (or maybe it's someone else she reads) are saying that one ought to hide their suffering or illness.]]

Yes, I read Joyful Hermit's blog and if she is referring to my position on the place of suffering in a hermit's witness, she seems to have seriously misread or misunderstood it. In any case, I am certainly not saying one must hide or deny their illness and suffering --- although there will assuredly be times when revealing these is not helpful and may even be harmful or destructive to the witness one is called to give. One must know (discern) when such times are and be able to act appropriately. What I have said very clearly instead, is that one's illness must not define them. It will condition or qualify everything but it cannot be allowed to dominate (note the link to lordship or sovereignty in this word). I have also said that one's illness or suffering must become transparent to the love and life of God. In part this means a hermit's illness or suffering will not obscure the witness to the life and love of God a Canon 603 hermit will give to others. In part, it means it will remain unseen and unspoken of until and unless it can serve the witness to the mercy, love, and life of God we are each called to manifest to others. And in part, it therefore means learning to witness to realities that allow us to transcend our suffering, not by leaving it behind or denying it, but by allowing it to be transfigured in light of the grace and mercy of God. Please note the distinction between sovereignty (defining) and servanthood (conditioning) in these two manifestations of illness or suffering.

We read accounts of the Risen Christ's appearance to others after Jesus' passion and death. We use images of the risen Christ on crucifixes today. Both of these are important in understanding what this learning will look like. Consider that when Jesus appeared to his disheartened and terrified disciples he was not without wounds and scars, even in his risen state. Thomas was invited to put a hand in Jesus' side. Even so, it is not the wounds and scars that dominate the picture. When we look at a crucifix with the risen Christ, the cross and all it represents is clearly present, but it does not dominate what we see or what we are called to believe. In each of these examples of Christian suffering and redemption, it is life, love, and joy that are dominant. The cross conditions everything and, as it should for Christians, it will always do so; after all, with Paul, we believe in a crucified Christ as the source of authentic life and hope. But the cross does not define who Jesus was nor who he is today as God's own Christ. In all of this, the cross is a servant of God's life and love, and it is this life and love which is dominant.

Illness is an incredibly important reality that we must learn to live with and accommodate appropriately, while not allowing it to swallow us up in the process. One of the crucial ways of doing so is by learning to live from and for the life and love of God. This is a difficult process and takes time to achieve. Anyone with a chronic illness knows the ways we learn to accommodate (and, alternately, sometimes even collude with) it. Illness limits but we anticipate these limits and the disappointments that accompany them and, unfortunately, over time we may even begin to limit ourselves. Illness does not do this; we do. Eventually, we will have a whole host of limitations associated with illness and suffering --- many of which can be unlearned and transcended. But it takes something really powerful to encourage and enable us to do this. In my experience, it is the unconditional love of God mediated to me by others as well as in prayer which makes this possible. Yes, there will be significant work in spiritual direction and perhaps even in therapy or in the kind of inner work (PRH) I have spoken of before, but more and more, one's suffering assumes the place of the cross in representations of the risen Christ --- important ("critical" -- pun intended!) but not dominant. A hermit's vocation (and there are a number of us with chronic illnesses!) is to make evident this kind of transparency to the love of God.

I do hope this helps to clarify my position for anyone for whom I failed to be clear. Let me know if it raises more questions.

On the Motivations of Those Assisting in Discernment

[[ Dear Sister, What is it that motivates someone to assist a diocese in discerning eremitical vocations? I imagine that sometimes it must be hard to have to submit to a discernment that involves someone else. One could feel judged and even dismissed couldn't they? Why is it so complicated to discern such vocations? We're speaking about hermits, after all, so why worry if the person is only going to live in a hermitage on their own? I am not meaning to dismiss such a vocation and I am sure that last sentence sounded like I was, but hermits are not involved in active ministry, are not required to live in community or harmoniously relate to others, so why is discernment such a complicated matter? I appreciate what you wrote yesterday about looking for someone who witnesses to the gospel. Maybe I just can't see how a hermit -- any hermit -- does that.]]

Difficult and good questions. I have participated in a number of discernment processes, both my own and those of others, and always, I think, they cause some anxiety. But discernment processes ordinarily occur over some time and that means that the person whose vocation is being discerned will have the chance to get to know the people involved in making decisions in their regard. When everything works well, trust builds between those involved and generally speaking, the discernment will be more or less mutual. Of course sometimes decisions have to be made before a candidate, novice, or other, is ready or can agree with the wisdom of the decision. These are very painful times for both formation personnel and for those in discernment. I think it is the case that we may not understand the pain formation personnel also experience but it would be a mistake to believe such folks are uncaring.

The idea that one is being personally judged needs to be shaken off. Ordinarily what folks are looking for is the way of life that truly is best for the person in discernment; a;so, formation/discernment personnel are specifically called to demonstrate a concern for the vocation itself. Remember that vocations (both individually and collectively) are gifts of God to the Church and larger world; we want to be sure they remain gifts of real value in this way. Vocations can't be trivialized. Eremitical life especially cannot be trivialized and discernment cannot be treated as a meaningless, pro forma, or legalistic matter; the history of hermits is too fraught with counterfeits, rebels, nutcases, and eccentrics whose lives have more to do with individualism and self-centeredness than with answering a call of God to love others and witness to the Gospel of Christ in the silence of solitude. So, the health of the person discerning and the healthy embodiment of a specific vocation which will be truly edifying to others are the primary motivations for personnel doing formation and/or discernment. Discernment is not ordinarily about personal judgments or criticism -- though in a situation where the discerner has been disingenuous or uncooperative there may be elements of personal criticism. Still, this is not what discernment is ordinarily about and it is important to remember this.

These are the foundational concerns motivating a person to assist in a process of discernment. Speaking for myself I can say that one appreciates that God is working in the Church in a unique and significant way through this vocation, that one has found great joy and wholeness in the vocation, and that because of these things one wants others to be open to the work of the Holy Spirit in this way. I want to serve God and the Church. I want to serve in the proclamation of the Gospel and one way to do this is to be sure candidates to ecclesial eremitical life demonstrate the indicia characteristic of such vocations. Moreover, I want others to know the kind of fullness of life I know, something they can know if they are truly called to this. It is clear to me that those who are not truly called, those who are inadequately or inappropriately motivated, those who cannot seem to love fully in this way, those for whom eremitical life seems to exacerbate their isolation (by which I mean not just physical solitude, but an emotional estrangement and self-absorption marked by an incapacity for compassion and community), these persons will never be truly happy as hermits. To allow such a person to live their isolation, as well as a fundamental untruth and unhappiness "in the name of the Church", would be to act in a way seriously lacking in charity which betrays the God of Life.

Your own questions about hermits not being involved in active ministry, not needing to live harmoniously in community, etc., seem to me to indicate you really do not understand the vocation or see its value, especially (as you say explicitly) in proclaiming the Gospel. That's actually not unusual and I do appreciate your honesty here, but I hope you see that the attitude your questions betray is precisely a very good reason to be sure that discernment of eremitical vocations are more rather than less carefully and competently done. You see, hermits do engage in ministry. Even when they do not do active ministry or do very little of this, their lives as hermits are ministerial per se. Hermits live alone with God for God's own sake and the sake of others. That is the nature of their vocation.

When one looks at such a life one should find relative wholeness or personal completion in God, the capacity for love and a continuing maturation in these; one should find a manifestly happy person --- not a Pollyanna-ish life (there will be suffering, of course) but one that is truly happy nonetheless, deeply comforted and enriched by God, profoundly compassionate and connected to others. Though, as Thomas Merton reminded us in word and (unfortunately) in deed, hermits are not perfect, one should still find someone whose life speaks of what we proclaim is possible when human beings live for, in, and through God. It will not be a life defined by unhappiness, isolation, self-centeredness, or something other than the love and life of God and all that is precious to God. Such radically Christian lives have witness value; they are very specifically a proclamation of the Gospel of  God in Christ which others need so badly. To be this for others is the essence of Christian ministry.

Those discerning such vocations or assisting others to discern them, will look for hermits whose very lives are (or have the clear potential for being) ministerial in this sense. At bottom discernment is an act of love and ministry which serves God and God's Church by attending to a "candidate's" capacity to love and minister in the silence of solitude simply by being her truest self.

What One Looks for When a Hermit is Chronically Ill

[[Dear Sister do you look for different things when a person is chronically ill than when they are physically well? I mean in people who want to be professed or live as hermits.]]

Great question, thanks! Generally speaking I (or those discerning such vocations) look for the same things I/we look for in any putative eremitical life. It becomes especially important though to see an essential wellness in a hermit who is chronically ill, I think. Because illness itself isolates us from others and may result in a life which is seriously cut off socially, it is critical that one shows evidence of truly being called by God to eremitical solitude, and thus, to the redemption of the isolation caused by or a consequence of chronic illness. Chronic illness and the isolation it occasions must not be mistaken for eremitical solitude or a call to this. The situation is more complex and requires significant, careful (and often lengthy) discernment,

At the same time I need to say that chronic illness should not be used as an excuse to live a mitigated eremitical life or profess and consecrate someone as a hermit. It is true that the eremitical life of one who is chronically ill will be shaped differently than the life of one who is not, and one can only do what one can do, but the central elements of canon 603, for instance, will still be lived in clear and recognizable ways. It will still be a life of assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels, a Rule the hermit writes herself, and supervision by the bishop and those he delegates to serve in this way. Chronic illness will touch (condition) everything in such an eremitical life but it will not define it nor the person called to it!! When a person is defined by their illness, when what is supposed to be a divine call and witness to Divine Life and wholeness is overshadowed by physical or mental illness and this is all the person can speak about, we can conclude the person has not (or at least not yet!) been called by God to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and her Gospel.

Over the past few years I have stressed the importance of a redemptive experience being at the heart of any authentic eremitical life. It is absolutely critical that someone already isolated from others because of illness experiences such a redemptive "moment". Characteristically we will see isolation transfigured into solitude, a solitude which is marked by community and grounded in a lifegiving relationship with God in Christ. It will also be a solitude open to the pain of others and capable of speaking a word which heals and inspires. I have known this because of my own experience with both chronic illness and eremitical life, and also because of theology and the witness of Scripture. It has also been underscored by examples of its antithesis --- examples of counterfeit hermits whose lives do not edify in the way a hermit's must. When a person and all they say and do is defined by their illness, not simply qualified or conditioned by it, when their life is mainly a plaint or paean of pain, such a person is not credible as a hermit. What must dominate in spite of very significant pain and suffering is the person's essential wholeness and happiness in God.

My own motto and guide for what I believe one should see when discerning such a vocation in oneself or in others is Paul's, [[My grace is sufficient for you, my power is perfected in weakness,]] If we are ill then the power of God's own love and holiness must shine through in a way which transfigures our illness and allows it to become transparent to this greater truth. I certainly don't mean that we must deny or hide our illness or that we cannot mention it. I have spoken here a number of times about 1) my intractable seizure disorder and chronic pain, and 2) the inner healing and growth work I am doing with my Director; but what I think is true and I hope is evident from this blog, is that significant as these things are, they do not define me. Rather it is the grace. love, and life of God that define me. (This is something most folks with chronic illness have to deal with. Paul's insights into the paradoxical nature of Christian life are very helpful here.) So, again, I personally look for the same things in a "candidate" for profession or someone seeking to become a hermit whether they are chronically ill or physically well; because a hermit serves by the witness they give to the healthy and even the redemptive nature of solitude, it becomes much more critical that essential wellness is the dominant reality when one is dealing with someone who is chronically ill.

Keeping Lent 2020

[[ Hi Sister, how do you keep Lent? Do you keep greater silence, eat differently, or do you do something else?]]

Good question and one I tend to get each year. Also, this morning I heard from another hermit who was checking in on me because she had not seen much new activity on this blog. She assumed I was keeping greater silence but was also a bit concerned. But this year is a bit different and Lent will look very different than usual. Two things have kept me busy recently and will probably continue to do so during the rest of the season. The first is the inner work I have been doing with my Director over the past 3 and 3/4 years. We have reached a new stage in this work and that will mean some work consolidating what occurred recently and over the past years, as well as assessing the inner freedom that is its consequence. In this regard I actually feel like Lent has just ended and Easter occurred last Friday -- just two days after Ash Wednesday! At this point I am a little off-balance but off-balance because of the grace of God. Almost everything looks and feels new to me. The second thing I have been busy with is Scripture. The class I have been teaching on 2 Corinthians has taken me to places I never expected theologically and personally. Pastorally it is challenging and has become a source of formation for the participants. We will continue until the week prior to Holy Week so a lot of my time will continue to be dedicated to study, prayer, and thinking about Paul and the community in Corinth --- and of course, my own class members and parish community.

One other significant thing is happening later in March and will be an important part of this Lent. I will be traveling to participate in the perpetual profession of a canon 603 hermit with whom I have been working for several years. I am hoping I can blog about this down the line and include some pictures. The profession will be held at the diocesan cathedral but will be relatively small and somewhat "private". I am also coming a few days early so the Sister being professed and I have time to spend with one another, share, tour the city, meet folks (including her family!) and just celebrate this significant transition in her life. Because of all of this I am thinking a lot about last Friday's gospel and Jesus speaking about fasting when we do not have the bridegroom with us! Sister and I are celebrating what our Beloved has done in our lives, what our work together has meant, new beginnings, and the power of the Holy Spirit. For me time spent with another hermit will mean prayer and the silence of solitude, yes, but it will allow for a lot of laughter, conversation, storytelling and shared joy. Our beloved is very much present. There will be other times I think, for more usual Lenten praxis. Also, my co-Director is going to be in the general area until the second week of March so I am hoping we will be able to get together as she travels over from her Motherhouse. I always enjoy Sister Susan (she has great stories and is a wonderful Franciscan) and there is lots to catch her up on, so in this way too my Lent is looking very differently than it ordinarily does.

Meanwhile, class will go on nonetheless as will my personal work and meetings with my Director; I have class and an appointment with Sister Marietta on the day after I return from the profession! The same is true for a Communion service that morning.  So, prayer, study, writing, and time with Scripture will continue even during the week I am away from Stillsong. While none of this may sound very Lenten it all depends on attending to the Holy Spirit in new and challenging ways. Because I already keep significant silence and times of prayer it seems to me that day by day all I can do for Lent or for every other Season is to be faithful to the One who calls me to Himself and love as he empowers me. At the same time, because I am a voracious reader and can work on several books at a time (or move through them very quickly), one very small thing I am doing is "fasting" by making sure I stay with a single book I am using for lectio for as long as needed to truly appreciate all of it. This is something I always wish I did better at so I will focus some energy on it during Lent.

On the Screening and Discernment of c 603 Vocations

[[Sister, does a bishop leave the "vetting" of a candidate for c 603 up to a third party? I thought it was up to a bishop to discern such vocations. Why would a bishop not do the discernment himself and who would such a third party be? I also wonder what a "third party" would be looking for.]]

Good questions, thank you. I have written before that in some dioceses long before a "candidate" even speaks to the bishop, she will meet with Vicars for Religious or others the diocese entrusts with initial discernment; only if these persons reach a place where they can recommend profession will the hermit meet with the bishop. At this point he will do his own discernment. That is how it worked in my own diocese. An alternative process could be the use of a trusted person to do an initial screening before the bishop meets with someone seeking to be consecrated as a diocesan hermit. It sounds like this might be what you are asking about. For instance, it could happen that the diocese involved already has canon 603 hermits and that the bishop entrusts the initial screening of a potential c 603 hermit to one of these. There are a lot of people who comes to their dioceses seeking to be admitted to profession. Some are manifestly unsuitable, some may not be canonically free for consecration, some are badly or inadequately motivated, some have no real experience at eremitical solitude, some are simply "nutcases" who could never live this life in the name of the Church. A long-professed hermit would ordinarily be able to make determinations on suitability before a person is admitted to a more structured discernment process.

In any case, the bishop does not cease to do a discernment in the matter, nor does the diocese itself. Once the initial vetting is done a longer and more careful discernment process is undertaken. This is partly because not every lone person is a hermit and because not every hermit is called to live the vocation in the name of the Church; not every experience of solitude is eremitical and not every experience of solitude may be edifying to others. Not every form of piety is edifying in the way the Church requires of hermits living the vocation in her name. It is also partly because during the period of discernment, formation is being done as well, and the  Church needs to see how the person responds to the guidance of directors, delegates, diocesan staff, pastors, and so forth. This takes time because immature responses can mimic mature responses and only over time is it clear what a person actually does with the guidance they are given. Remember, the bishop needs to discern whether professing someone in this way is good for the diocese and for solitary eremitical life itself.

The only persons I would consider a "third party" would be a diocesan hermit (or a hermit living in a congregation, as well as other religious with expertise in contemplative life and formation in religious life) who might well advise a bishop on the intrinsic health of the eremitical life they see in front of them. Such hermits don't work for the diocese and are not chancery staff, but they may well be of assistance to a diocese. The kinds of things I would personally look for when I meet with potential "candidates" for c 603 profession, assuming they have the canonical freedom to pursue such a vocation, have to do with depth and health of the eremitical life they represent.

For instance, I would want to hear some sense of and even an excitement about the place of eremitical life in the Church, a clear sense of how a hermit embodies the gospel and lives this life for the sake of others. More, I would want to hear more than, "I pray for others" in listening for a sense of these things. I would listen for someone who loves others sincerely and deeply, who manifests a spirituality which esteems others and can lift them up. I would want to hear how a person came to eremitical life and whether it is a genuinely redemptive way of life for them, or whether it is instead perhaps, a way to excuse or validate personal failure and social isolation. I would look for a profound sense of happiness and wholeness rooted in eremitical life; so few people come to human wholeness in this way -- it is rare and characteristic of genuine eremitical vocations. In other words, I look less at the mere fact of silence and solitude and more at the quality of these things in the person's life;  similarly, I look for a sense of growing (or dawning) understanding re the purpose and nature of "the silence of solitude" as charism and goal of eremitical life. I look to see if there is a sense that this central element of canon 603 is something larger than the sum of its parts. It may well be that the person is only just coming to such a sense and that is fine, but I would look for it nonetheless. I also listen to whether professing a person as a hermit will be good for the Church, for the diocese, and also for solitary eremitical life itself, but in general, I expect the bishop to make such specific decisions.

I and other hermits (and any experienced religious) would look for a sound prayer life and one where a person persevered in it over a long time. We would look for a contemplative, not only one who prays contemplatively, but whose life is marked by the characteristics of contemplation. We would look at the way a person has related to the church in the past --- how they served in parishes, how they used their gifts even in discovering a call to solitude, how they benefited from spiritual direction, and how open to growth or committed to continuing conversion they are. Beyond this I would be sure the person is self-supporting, capable of looking after themselves, and has a significant capacity for truth, and that most particularly they have the capacity for self-reflection and personal truthfulness. Without these, whatever I am looking at, it is not eremitical life; no matter how alone, how silent, how "hidden" the life I am seeing, without the capacity for self-reflection and personal truthfulness (self-honesty), the person I am meeting with is not, and is unlikely to ever be, a hermit. (N.B., I am not speaking here of the impulse some people demonstrate to write, speak, or blog about every private thing; I am speaking here about the self-reflection and loving honesty we call humility. This is both the foundation and consequence of authentic eremitical life.) In any case, a person lacking these qualities will certainly not be suitable for public profession and consecration, nor would they be able to live this life in the name of the Church.

I sincerely hope this is helpful. Some seem to believe that c 603 profession is a merely pro forma rite which does nothing more than indicate some kind of legal "approval" by the Church. But this notion is very superficial and actually inaccurate. Instead it involves the mediation of God's own consecration, the extension and assumption of rights and obligations which are undertaken for the sake of the Church and those to whom she ministers, along with the grace which makes it possible not only to live as a hermit, but to support and inspire others in their own isolation and life struggles. Profession and consecration in this vocation indicates the Church's belief that eremitical life can contribute significantly to the holiness of the Church herself and to individuals both within and outside the Church. Discernment is a significant piece of determining how the Holy Spirit is working in this vocation and wills to work in the Church and world more widely. Profession and consecration together make something real that was only potential before this. We look for those things which speak of this potential in screening as well as in discerning and forming such vocations.

Epilepsy and Ecstasy, It is All of a Piece (Reprise)

Yesterday's reading from Mark is always challenging for me. It is the story of the Father with the epileptic Son. Because of my own seizure disorder I have struggled my entire adult life with the situation described and the questions raised in Mark 9:14-29. I have struggled with injuries and memories of injuries or the sense of ever-present danger and threat Mark describes so well. For many years every day and even every hour was marked by terror because of this and I yearned to be able to embody Jesus' admonition to, "Be not afraid." I have reflected long and hard on the accusation of the age's faithlessness. Especially though I have struggled personally with the last exchange between the disciples and Jesus: [["Why could we not drive the spirit out?" He said to them, "This kind can only come out through prayer."]]

My own struggle to understand and accept my chronic illness and the things it has made both impossible and --- more importantly! --- possible in my life eventually found its summary and resolution in the words of Paul: "My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9) It underscored the importance of paradox in Christian life and especially the relationship of human poverty to Divine grace. So central was all of this to me that, as I have already noted here at other points, I used Paul's summary of the heart of an incarnational faith lived in and with Christ as the motto engraved on my perpetual (eremitical) profession ring.  I used the similar affirmation we find in the Gospel of John where Jesus responds to news of Lazareth's illness as a key text inspiring my life and therefore as a piece of the Scriptural underpinnings of my Rule, [[When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.]] But every once in a while someone captures this same dynamic and affirmation in words I have not heard before. Sometimes they do it in a way which speaks directly and powerfully to me and my own experience.

Yesterday at the end of Mass, my pastor read a brief passage from the book Unexpected News, Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes by Robert McAfee Brown. The passage was titled (not by Brown; it was part of a small anthology of reflections), "Down from the Mountaintop": [[ As soon as the 'religious experience' of the  transfiguration was over, Jesus goes down from the mountain to respond to human need, the healing of an epileptic boy. When the boy's distraught Father asks for help, Jesus does not respond, "Look, I 've just had a marvelous experience and I don't want to lose the glow." No, things are immediately earthy, human, even ugly --- for a person in an epileptic seizure is not a pretty sight. It is all of a piece --- ecstasy and epilepsy. This is what messiahship is all about: being in the midst of the poor, the sick, the helpless, those with frothing mouths. Messiahship --- just like Christian living --- is not just "mountaintop experiences" or "acts of concern for human welfare":  it is a necessary combination of the two.]]

 I am grateful to have been present for the reading of this brief reflection yesterday. It was a very powerful moment for me: affirming, shaking, a little tearful, challenging,  and consoling all at once.  Pentecost continues bestowing its unsettling and sustaining gifts of wind and fire. In the power of the Spirit and from the perspective of the Kingdom --- it is all of a piece:  Mountaintop experiences and years in the desert; a power made perfect in weakness; a  bit of human brokenness and poverty made a gift to others by the whole-making grace of God; mute isolation  transfigured into the rich communion and communicative silence of solitude; a life redeemed and enriched by love. It is all of a piece ---  epilepsy and ecstasy. I am grateful to have learned that. In fact, I am grateful to have needed and been called to learn that!

Really? "Hermits" Find Joy and Peace in Excommunication? Really??

"Excommunicated Hermits -- and their Cats -- Finally Find Peace"!! Such was one of the headlines that greeted me Friday morning as I checked out NCR online.  The story was about three hermits in the Orkney Islands of Scotland who seem to represent a Tridentine Catholicism and, for what I can tell, a fairly reactionary approach to all of modernity including things like evolution, the nature of the "deep state" and a number of other positions. Most critically they condemned Pope Francis and had taken some condemnatory positions and actions which, despite attempts at reconciliation by the bishop of their diocese, led to their formal excommunication. A couple of people emailed wondering if I had seen it; my Director brought a copy to our appointment that afternoon which she had printed out for me; she also wondered if I had seen it yet. Because I had other commitments Friday morning (viz, a Communion Service, etc), I had not had time to really process the article, nor had I been able to follow up by checking out the hermits' blog, etc.

So, what was my own take on the article? My immediate response was to bracket off the hermits themselves from the presentation of eremitical life found in this article by NCR. Since I ordinarily respect NCR and the reporting it does, my disappointment was keen and surprising. To be honest, the reporter sounded completely ignorant of the nature or place of eremitical life in the contemporary Church and this meant the NCR had embraced (or at least reflected) a notion of eremitical life driven by stereotypes rooted in eccentrics and nutcases. For instance, [[De Kerdrel and his two companions. . .were not seeking to build bridges with the world. Instead the trio was trying to escape from it. Day after day, the world evolved further away from their beliefs, casting the three out to places that (despite their isolation), in today's interconnected reality filtered through sectarian news outlets, were never remote enough.]] or again, [[ For years, the hermits moved from one island to another, never being able to find a place where they were welcome or didn't get into trouble.]] Similarly, [[ The trio resisted numerous efforts by bishops to separate them. "People always wanted to break us up,"]] and this by De Kedrel himself, [[ When they are attacking you left, right, and center, we come through it, we are still going! We're still together and we haven't gone insane!]] Quite a low bar for what constitutes healthy eremitical life in the Church!

My questions to NCR: why are you calling these people hermits? Why are you using terms like hermit monks or hermit nuns? Why when, even before excommunication, they no longer (or never) had canonical standing in the Church, are we dignifying this kind of disedifying lifestyle with the designation hermit or hermit monk and hermit nun? After all, De Kerdrel was formerly a Capuchin. But the accent needs to be on FORMERLY despite his hanging onto the habit. When the bar is set so low (for instance, living together while failing to go insane), is this really the best the NCR  could do? The reason as to "Why?" (why are you calling these people hermits, etc?) is simple, and sad, namely, these so-called hermits reflect all the stereotypes still alive and common today. But it gets worse. Claire Giangrave writes, [[On Christmas Eve, the hermits got their wish [for excommunication]. . . . Excommunication so far has been a joy for the hermits.]] and then explains, the hermits had received mountains and mountains of correspondence along with financial aid. DeKerdrel exclaims, [[Blow me down! The money is pouring in. I can't believe what is happening,]] adding that they [[certainly need it]].

Readers of this blog know the kinds of things that tend to drive me a bit crazy when we are speaking of eremitical life: 1) settling for or perpetuating stereotypes, 2) mistaking isolation for eremitical solitude in authentic eremitical life, 3)  mistaking eccentricity and bizarreness for instances of healthy eremitical life, and 4) failing to understand or represent the Church's own position on what constitutes eremitical life today. Giangrave's article does all of these, I'm afraid, and it is simply needless. There is an attempt at balance. Giangrave refers to Benedictine Hermit Mario Aguilar and his take on eremitical life. Aguilar accents the flexibility and diversity of the life, and also the fact that this life is not a selfish one. It is all accurate, but one wonders what Giangrave omitted from their phone conversation in her article. Aguilar's corrective here certainly seems too little too late. Instead Giangrave pivots to compare the Orkney excommunicates with the Celtic monks who arrived on the island in the 4C bent on reform; she may take Aguilar's accent on diversity as approval of eremitical eccentricity, heterodoxy, and bizarre uncharitable behavior.

Particularly appalling is the treatment of gays and lesbians by Kelly, one of the trio. He is said to have come up to a lesbian couple and remarked: "[the Catholic Church] used to burn people like you," --- apparently with approval. It was not an exceptional moment. Over the years, as a result of his aggressive posture towards same-sex couples, Kelly has been arrested 13 times, convicted 5, and spent @ 150 hours in prison. De Kerdrel also shared a similar attitude toward such couples. Eventually the bishop of the Diocese of Northampton asked the trio of hermits to leave the diocese. But this notion of being asked to leave what was really community after community because of offensive and disedifying behavior, and diocese after diocese is simply not the way eremitical life works in the Church. Neither is it remotely what eremitical life looks like.

It is stories like this which make me grateful for c 603 and the courage of the Church Fathers who worked toward it. However,  this canon has been extant now for 37 years and we still find parishes, priests, Catholic periodicals, etc with no idea that besides groups like the Camaldolese and Carthusians the Church has a strong and healthy vision of solitary eremitical life which is well-governed and edifying for those who know such hermits. Yes, there are still counterfeits and frauds who give the lie to what the rest of us are called to live, but eremitical life has shown itself to be an important ecclesial vocation with the capacity to speak powerfully to those whom life has isolated in various ways and to summon them to the redemption of such isolation in the experience we hermits know as solitude. I am hoping the NCR catches up a bit with history and eschews such bizarre portraits of eremitical life from now on. Especially I hope they find ways to report on a way of life that is not escapist but profoundly loving and engaged on behalf of others, a vocation which is lived in the heart of the Church and even as the very heart of an ecclesia of engagement in love and hope.

All Hermits are God's Hermits, All Vows are Made to God

[[Sister Laurel, to whom does a C 603 hermit make her vows? Do you make them to the Church or to God? Or is it to the Church on behalf of God? ]]

Thanks for the question. I know some people refer to making one's vows to the bishop, but the answer is very simple and such a characterization is incorrect. Every vow is made to God. Every vow is motivated by God first and last. Those making canonical profession make their vows "in the hands of" the local bishop which means he becomes their legitimate superior, but even so, the vows are made to God --- not to the bishop, the church, or any other created  or temporal reality. The Church mutually discerns and mediates the profession and the consecration. The hermit dedicates herself to God and the service of God's Church via vow or other sacred bond and the Church is mediator of this dedication/avowal. The bishop receives the vows and mediates God's consecration of the hermit. Again, the Church is mediator of all of this but God is the one acting to consecrate.

What God does in all of this has temporal implications and the church is the one who governs all that happens and the implications thereof. Canon Law (Universal Church Law) is meant to be sure the historical (temporal) implications are spelled out and made clear to all involved. For those whose vows are private. these vows too are made to God. The difference is that they do not have public ramifications (rights and obligations) which need to be spelled out in law (canonically). They are private commitments, but made to God no less than canonical vows are made to God. So, canonical hermits (C 603 and those who  make vows as part of their commitment in an institute of consecrated life) make vows to God on behalf of the Church and of all that is precious to God beyond the Church. Non-canonical or lay hermits make vows (or their dedication in whatever form it takes) to God on behalf of others (we hope!). One avowal is part of a public profession the other is a private act of dedication.

[[Why would someone explain they are "God's hermit" and cite Sunday's reading from 1 Corinthians on wisdom and maturity in explaining their vows as willed by God? Sounds like they were saying canonical hermits do not put God first but instead put the Church in a position of priority]]

Ah, okay, you are writing about a recent post put up by "JH". I don't know why she cited 1 Corinthians in this context. Let me suggest that perhaps she was saying she had come to greater maturity and wisdom in dropping the qualifier "illegal" from her hermit designation. Perhaps the Sunday reading had spurred her on to make what I personally believe is a wise change in what had been an ill-considered usage. However, your own take on this also has merit I think --- especially given the history of her posts about canonical standing and c 603 vocations. The bottomline here is that unless she says specifically why she used the citation she did, it will always remain unclear and uncertain as to why she added that to her post. I choose to believe she is recognizing that any making of vows, private or public, is a matter of becoming God's own hermit -- a very positive and edifying insight and motivation.