Second Sunday of Lent: On the Transfiguration and Learning to See with New Eyes (Reprise with Tweaks)

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 breathless 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. In part 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. (This observation reflects the fact that while focusing on certain things we exclude those that don't fit our focus; in the case of this test, viewers work actively to see and count the basketball passes while pushing other things out of their visual frame to help in completing the task they have been given. Unfortunately, this can become a more habitual way of looking at the world and that is not helpful.) 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 instead 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 involving 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.

Taking Offense at Jesus:

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 already-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 Jesus possessed which 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 to 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.

Learning to See with New Eyes:

In light of all of this a video I watched today was particularly helpful. A colorblind man was given Enchroma glasses --- a form of sunglasses that allows colorblind persons to see color, often for the first time in their lives. By screening out certain wavelengths of light, someone who has only seen the world in shades of brown their whole lives are finally able to see things they have never seen before; browns are transformed into yellows and reds and purples and suddenly trees look truly green and three-dimensional or the colorful fruit of these trees no longer simply blend into the same-color background. In this video the man was overwhelmed and overcome by what he had been missing; he could not speak, did not really know what to do with his hands, was "reduced" to tears. He literally did not know what to do with himself and eventually expressed it all as he hugged his wife in love and gratitude. Even in the face of this immediate miracle, more is required; it will still take regular wearing of the Enchroma glasses before the man's brain grows accustomed to this new way of seeing the world around him. Meanwhile, family members were struck with just how much they themselves may have taken for granted as everyday they moved through their own world of "ordinary" color and texture. The entire situation involved a Transfiguration almost as momentous as the one the disciples experienced in today's Gospel.

For most of us, such an event would overwhelm us with awe and gratitude as well. But not Peter --- at least it does not seem so to me! Instead, he outlines a project to reprise the Feast of Tabernacles right then and there. In this story Peter reminds me some of those folks who want so desperately to hang onto and even control amazing prayer experiences --- immediately making them the basis for some ministerial project or other; unfortunately, in doing so, they, in acting too quickly and even precipitously, fail to sit quietly with and appreciate these experiences fully or allow enough time to let them remake us and thus, learn to live from them! Peter is, in some ways, a kind of lovable but misguided buffoon ready to similarly build booths for Moses, Elijah and Jesus in a way which makes Jesus just one of an equal trio of religious patriarchs --- while neglecting the qualitative newness and personal challenge of what has been revealed and needs to be processed in personal conversion. Peter has 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 text, I heard something more: "Peter! Sit down! Shut up! This is my beloved Son! You have ears; learn to listen to him. You have eyes; learn to see him with new eyes!!!"

Like Peter, and like the colorblind man who needed wear the glasses consistently enough to allow his brain to really begin to process colors in a new way, we must take the time to see what is right in front of us and we must practice seeing in this way. We must learn to see the sacred which is present and incarnated in ordinary reality. We must learn to 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 real humility involved in all of this. It is the humility of the truly wise, the truly knowing person with real vision. We must be able to recognize and admit how very little we see, how unwilling or unable we often are to be converted to the perspective of the Kingdom Jesus and John the Baptizer both proclaimed was right "at hand" then and there! 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.

On Excommunicated Hermits and Stricter Separation from the World

[[Dear Sister Laurel, in 2020 you wrote about three hermits who had been excommunicated. In your article the reporter whose article you criticized said that the three were not trying to build bridges to the world but rather to escape from it, cf., Excommunicated Hermits. You also wrote recently that CICLSAL has produced a guidance document for c 603 hermits which says clearly that hermits are not fleeing the world and you used the word escapist. You said hermits are not escapist (cf., Purpose of Stricter Separation from the World.) I have always heard monastics speaking of fleeing the world or embracing something called "contemptus mundi" which I believe means contempt for the world. So, here's my question: do you see yourself and other c 603 hermits trying to build bridges to the world outside your hermitage? Don't you embrace a kind of "contemptus mundi" in separating yourself as you do? I want to suggest that those hermits of [in] Scotland had the right idea in fleeing from place to place. You would disagree, wouldn't you?]]

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. I have added links to the posts you refenced. I think I have answered a lot of what you ask about in the following post: Stricter Separation: Loving the World into Wholeness, so I would ask that you take a look at this post and especially, that you pay attention to the different ways the term "the world" can be used. We need to be clear that there are several different usages of the term and not confuse one for the other. For instance, the world the hermit separates herself from is not primarily the world of God's good creation; instead, it is a constellation [[of attitudes, values, perspectives, and priorities which live in a hermit's heart just as they live in the hearts of others]] and constitute a kind of widespread and typical pattern of vision and inner reality.  

In this view of things, because these patterns of values, perspectives, and attitudes are deeply inculcated within each of us, and because they are often-unconscious lenses through which we view reality, closing the hermitage door merely shuts one inside with "the world" one needs to separate oneself from more assiduously. Doing so can provide a false sense that one has done what one needs to do in "leaving the world" and this inaccurate sense may grow into or foster a kind of sense of spiritual superiority in the hermit. Additionally, it can lead to a self-centered spirituality focused merely on one's own perfection or salvation, rather than on a holiness which at every point, serves and is meant to serve the needs of a world often bereft of love and wholeness. Nothing could be more "worldly" in fact.

If you look at the behavior of the three Scottish "hermits" as outlined in the NCR article I wrote about (please note, there are other, entirely legitimate hermits in Scotland), what you find is distinctly "worldly" behavior. They have a habit of making themselves "unwelcome and getting in trouble". While supposedly more strictly separated from "the world" they engage in provocative acts of judgmentalism that are hurtful and meant to be so. While there is a legitimate prophetic or "truth-telling" dimension to eremitical life, this is not it. When their bishops (more than one apparently) have tried "numerous times" to break them up, they have resisted and eventually gotten themselves thrown out of the diocese(s). I have to tell you how rare such problems are with genuine hermits. An actual pattern of offensive and disedifying behavior in genuine hermits is even more rare. 

Other things strike me as "worldly" with regard to the three persons in the NCR article. Despite no longer having a right to wear a Capuchin habit, one of the hermits continues to do so and one wonders why. He is not witnessing to canonical eremitical standing nor an ecclesial vocation, nor to religious poverty or consecration by God --- and there are certainly poorer and simpler ways to dress. Why could he not let this go as he ought to have done when he left the congregation that extended this right to him? And then there is the glee, first at excommunication and then at the amounts of correspondence and financial aid flowing their way as a result!!! These "hermits" are not victims of the "mean old" institutional Church --- and yet they are excited to benefit from those seeing and treating them in this way! None of this sounds anything but profoundly "worldly" to me.

I am not sure I would describe my life as one of building bridges to the world around me, but I accept my responsibility to witness to that world, and also to "the world" I am to be more strictly separated from --- that constellation of attitudes, values, and perspectives which really distort the way we see and relate to God, ourselves, and God's good creation. One other element of c 603 is that this life is to be lived "for the salvation of others"; that requires engagement on behalf of God and his good creation even as it requires freedom from enmeshment in all that distorts it. There may be some tension between these two elements of the canon, but they certainly don't conflict. That is especially true as I understand that the really critical dimensions of my life, the dimensions that define me as a person and hermit, are hidden from others and that even to the extent my life is of witness value it is hidden in Christ. So, while I don't try to build bridges with the world around me in any focused or concerted way, and while there are very real and necessary limitations in my engagement with the world, that engagement is still very real and motivated by my life in Christ.

If the term "contemptus mundi" can be understood in terms of turning away from attitudes, values, and perspectives which are typical of contemporary life and serve to distort the way we see and behave toward God and God's good creation, then yes, I embrace it. In some ways I work hard to free myself from or allow myself to be healed of the woundedness which contributes to the personal and common lenses which so distort the way I/we see and relate to reality. I recognize that Christian life, and certainly eremitical life within that, is one of freedom from this kind of enmeshment. I definitely work hard to allow Christ to be primary in my life so that I can say with Paul, "I, yet not I but Christ in me. . .". Even so, "contemptus mundi" seems to me to invite misunderstanding as it is wrapped in several layers of mystifying language: a Semitic sense of the term hatred** (see below), now translated into Latin and combined with a Greek and Johannine term (mundi) with at least three significantly different senses in the Gospel writer's work. Besides the fact that c 603 does not use this phrase, I usually don't use it for this reason.

Finally, I have a strong appreciation for the Benedictine value (and vow) of stability. This means I appreciate that where I am (diocese, parish, hermitage) has all I need to grow in holiness, and I am committed to seeking God (letting God find and be present to me in all the ways God chooses to do that) here. Yes, there are good reasons sometimes to move elsewhere, but a pattern of frenetic mobility, especially if it is occasioned by getting oneself in trouble and making oneself unwelcome wherever one goes, is contrary to Benedictine stability (and several other Christian values as well)! The evolving world the Scottish trio of would-be hermits are trying to escape is the world they are called to witness to. Meanwhile, in their attitudes and values, for instance, they seem to be ever more deeply enmeshed in the world they should be more strictly separated from! A genuine hermitage in the midst of such a world is, like the Carthusian image, a still point in the midst of sin's roiling disorder. My own sense is that these three apparent misanthropes (it is hard to see what or who they actually love beyond themselves), to the extent they cannot embrace such a stability, are not seeking God, but are running from precisely the place in which he is surely to be found. I think the Incarnation tells us that.

I hope this is helpful!

** In the NT Semitism the idea of "hating," as in Luke 14:26, is a comparative term and has to be understood as "love less". When Luke says, [[If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple,]] he is saying a disciple must prefer Jesus to or love Jesus more than all these others. Perhaps an even better way to say it would be, [[You must love me first and best, and all else and all others only in and through your love for me.]] If we are given a choice, Jesus or our own life (and so forth), the choice must be for Jesus and the One who sent him. [[Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these. . .will be added unto you.]]

Choose Life (Reprise)

When I was a very young sister, I pasted the following quotation into the front of my Bible. It was written by another sister, and has been an important point of reference for me since then:

Choose life, only that and always,
and at whatever risk. . .
to let life leak out, to let it wear away by the mere
passage of time,
to withhold giving it and spending it
is to choose
nothing. (Sister H Kelly)

The readings from the Thursday after Ash Wednesday both deal with this theme, and each reminds us in its own way just how serious human life is --- and how truly perilous!! Both of them present our situation as one of life and death choices. There is nothing in the middle, no golden mean of accommodation, no place of neutrality in which we might take refuge -- or from which we can watch dispassionately without committing ourselves, no room for mediocrity (a middle way!) of any kind. On one hand lies genuine "success", on the other true failure. Both readings ask us to commit our whole selves to God in complete dependence or die. Both are clear that it is our very Selves that are at risk at every moment, but certainly at the present moment. And especially, both of them are concerned with responsive commitment of heart, mind, and body --- the "hearkening" we are each called to, and which the Scriptures calls "obedience."

The language of the Deuteronomist's sermon (Deut 30:15-20) is dramatic and uncompromising: [[ This day I set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants shall live,. . . for if you turn away your hearts and will not listen. . .you will surely perish. . .]] Luke (Lk 9:22-25) recounts Jesus' language as equally dramatic and uncompromising: [[If you would be my disciples, then take up your cross daily (that is, take up the task of creating yourselves in complete cooperation with and responsiveness to God at every moment). . .If you seek to preserve your life [that is, if you choose self-preservation, if you refuse to risk to listen or to choose an ongoing responsiveness] you will lose it, but if you lose your life for my sake, you will save it. For what does it profit a person to gain the whole world and then lose or forfeit the very self s/he was created to be?]]

I think these readings set out the clear agenda of Lent, but more than that they set before us the agenda of our entire lives. Our lives are both task and challenge. We do not come into this world fully formed or even fully human. The process of creating the self we are called to be is what we are to be about, and it is a deadly serious business. What both readings try to convey, the OT with its emphasis on Law (God's Word) and keeping that Law, and the Gospel with its emphasis on following the obedient Christ by taking up our lives day by day in response to the will of God, is the fact that moment by moment our very selves are created ONLY in dialogue with God (and in him through others, etc.). The Law of Moses is the outer symbol of the law written in our hearts, the dialogue and covenant with God that forms the very core of who we truly are as relational selves. The cross of Christ is the symbol of one who responded so exhaustively and definitively to the Word of God, that he can literally be said to have embodied or incarnated it in a unique way. It is this kind of incarnation or embodiment our very selves are meant to be. We accept this task, this challenge --- and this privilege, or we forfeit our very selves.

God is speaking us at every moment, if only we would choose to listen and accept this gift of self as gift! At the same time, both readings know that the human person is what Thomas Keating calls, "A Listening". Our Total Being, he says, is a listening. (Eyes, ears, mind, heart, and even body) --- our entire self is meant to hear and respond to the Word of God as it comes to us through and in the whole of created reality. To the degree we fail in this, to the extent we avoid the choices of an attentive and committed life, an obedient life, we will fail to become the selves we are called to be.

The purpose of Lent and Lenten practices is to help us pare down all the extraneous noise that comes to us in so many ways and become more sensitive and responsive to the Word of God spoken in our hearts and mediated to us by the world around us through heart, mind, and body. We fast so that we might become aware of, and open to, what we truly hunger for --- and of course what genuinely nourishes us. We make prayers of lament and supplication not only so we can become aware of our own deepest pain and woundedness and the healing God's presence brings, but so we can become aware of the profound pain and woundedness of our world and those around us, and then reach out to help heal them. And we do penance so our hearts may be readied for prayer and made receptive to the selfhood God bestows there. In every case, Lenten practice is meant to help us listen carefully and deeply, to live deliberately and responsively, and to make conscious, compassionate choices for life.

It is clear that the Sister who wrote the quote I pasted into my Bible all those years ago had been meditating on today's readings (or at least the one from Deuteronomy)! I still resonate with that quote. It still belongs at the front of my Bible even though the ink has bled through the contact paper protecting it, and the letters are fuzzy with age. Still, in light of today's readings I would change it slightly: to let life leak out, to let it wear away by the mere passage of time, to refuse to receive it anew moment by moment as God's gift, to withhold giving it and spending it is to refuse authentic selfhood and to choose death instead.

Let us pray then that we each might be motivated and empowered to choose life, always and everywhere --- and at whatever risk or cost. God offers this to us and to our world at every moment --- if only we will ready ourselves in him, listen, and respond as we are called to! 

Pope Requests Ash Wednesday as Day of Prayer and Fasting for Ukraine

Dear Friends,

Pope Francis is calling on the whole world to offer Ash Wednesday as a day of prayer for Ukraine. In his own words:

“I would like to appeal to everyone,

believers and non-believers alike.

Jesus taught us that the diabolical senselessness of violence is answered with

God’s weapons, with prayer and fasting.

I invite everyone to make March 2nd,

Ash Wednesday, a Day of Fasting for Peace.

I encourage believers in a special way

to dedicate themselves intensely

to prayer and fasting on that day.

May the Queen of Peace preserve the world from the madness of war.”

Below is a prayer for Ukraine which you may want to use for your daily prayer.

Know that we are united with you in this time of urgent prayer for our world.

With every blessing of this Lenten Season,

Your Carmelite Sisters

Carmel of Reno

+  +  +

A Prayer for Ukraine

God of peace and justice,

we pray for the people of Ukraine today.

We pray for peace and the laying down of weapons.

We pray for all those who fear for tomorrow,

that your Spirit of comfort would draw near to them.

We pray for those with power over war or peace,

for wisdom, discernment and compassion

to guide their decisions.

Above all, we pray for all your precious children,

at risk and in fear,

that you would hold and protect them.

We pray in the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

Amen.

Purpose of Stricter Separation from the World

I have received an email asking a question I wrote about in 2011, so I am reposting this response here. I am hoping it leads to further questions, not least, those that will help to clarify the validity of stricter separation from "the world" in an eremitical life. I am thinking about a couple of sentences in a new document from CICLSAL re c 603 I believe this begins to address: [[The hermit who distances [herself] from the world does not flee out of fear or contempt. [She] lived in the world and is called, Christianly, to seek to love it and to look at it with the eyes and the love that God revealed to us in Jesus. . .one separates oneself from the world to save it, one moves away to integrate it. The exterior become interior, the distant becomes near, the excluded is desired included. This is why separating does not mean fleeing.]] par 24 The Hermit Life Form in the Particular Church. "Guidance" CICLSAL, 2022.

[Dear Sister, what is the purpose of "stricter separation from the world" in your life? You have mentioned it as an element of hermit life, but I really don't get it. The Sisters I know are deeply involved in this world and it seems to me it is what Christ was all about. Can you help me understand?]]

Great question! I have written a little about stricter separation from the world, especially what it does and doesn't mean, so I would invite you to check out labels leading to those articles for additional thoughts. But you are correct, I have not really written about the purpose of stricter separation, nor have I spoken explicitly about the validity of this approach in spirituality --- which does indeed seem rather different from Jesus' usual way of doing things. In fact, "stricter separation from the world" was not something I would have chosen myself without circumstances which led me to understand it differently than I did as a young Sister. As your own comment suggests, at first or second glance, it hardly seems to comport with a Christian perspective which honors the incarnation and the sanctity of all creation in Christ. For me it always sounded selfish and lacking in charity --- not to mention in generosity!

It is important to remember that separation from the world means first of all separation from that which is resistant or uncongenial to Christ, and that it involves detachment from that which promises fulfillment, meaning, and hope apart from him and the God he mediates. This sense of the term "world" refers to anything which is untrue, distorted, resistant to life, to love, and to all the rest of the values which constitute life in God. But it is not God's good creation, therefore, from which we mainly separate ourselves. It is "the world" of falsehood, chaos, and meaninglessness, and this means that it is not something distinct existing merely outside of ourselves, but instead a reality which is intimately related to the darkness, woundedness, distortions, and sclerosis (hardness) of our own hearts.

Keeping this in mind, there are several reasons then for embracing stricter separation from the world. The first is that such separation distances us from the constant reinforcement of values, behaviors, expectations, and so forth which bombard us otherwise. Consider all the things we each see every day that tell us who we are and must be --- despite the fact that almost none of them are consistent with the values of the Kingdom of God! The second reason has to do with allowing ourselves the space and time --- and the silence and solitude --- to meet ourselves without all the supports, props, and distractions of "the world." It is hard to see ourselves for who we really are otherwise. Once the props are down or removed, we come to experience our own poverty. When we are not measuring (and in fact CANNOT measure) success, integrity, fruitfulness, etc., according to the terms constituting, "the world" we come face to face with what we are really all about. So, the first part of stricter separation is all about reality checks. Conversion, after all, requires confrontation with truth.

The third and most fundamental reason for stricter separation from the world is to allow the space and time needed for a meeting with God. If our hearts (and so, our very selves) are, in part, darkened, distorted, sclerosed and untrue, they are also the place where God bears witness to himself and the truth of who we are. All the elements of the eremitical life, including stricter separation, are geared towards the meeting (and eventually, union) with God which verifies (makes true), heals, and brings to fullness of life. It is in this meeting that we learn how precious we are despite our very real human poverty, here that we learn how constant and secure God's love, here that we begin to have a sense of what we are really capable of and meant for. It is in this meeting with God that we come to know genuine freedom, come to experience an imperishable hope, and are commissioned to go out to others to summon them to something similar.

There is a fourth reason for stricter separation from the world then. We must step away from the distorted perspectives and values that constitute "the world" in order to love it better. We leave it in order to be made capable of affirming the deeper truth and beauty of the world around us. We come to know everything in God and that leads us to see with God's eyes. Hermits assume a marginal place so that they may also serve a prophetic function by speaking the truth in a way that affirms the world's deepest and truest reality. It will also summon to conversion. Stricter separation from "the world" allows us to love God's world into wholeness. It is a servant of true engagement and commitment. Stricter separation from "the world" is a tool for loving the whole of God's creation; it is neither escapist nor selfish and cannot be allowed to devolve into these. Abba Evagrius said it this way, [[The monk is someone who separates himself from all so that he can be united to all.]] Treatise on Prayer #124.

But why a LIFE of stricter separation from the world? Hermits witness to separation from the world as a basic dynamic assisting us to come to the freedom that results from being the person God makes us to be. The hermit reminds us again and again of the primacy of the foundational relationship that grounds our being, and of the task of individuation it summons us to achieve on a day-by-day basis for the whole of our lives. We are made for life with God and we are made for a life loving the whole of God's creation. That requires some separation from the world and the rejection of enmeshment with it. Hermits say this particularly clearly with their lives.

In Honor of e e cummings and Saint Peter Damian: i am a little church(no great cathedral)

I have always loved e.e. cummings' poem, i am a little church, but I never knew it had been set to music. I also love Peter Damian's notion of the hermit as an ecclesiola or "little church" and was reminded of that in the post I put up for his Feast Day yesterday. Well, here the two things come together in a poem/song so very appropriate for a solitary hermit! The poem and lyrics of the song follow.

i am a little church by e. e. cummings

i am a little church(no great cathedral)
far from the splendor and squalor of hurrying cities
-i do not worry if briefer days grow briefest,
i am not sorry when sun and rain make april

my life is the life of the reaper and the sower;
my prayers are prayers of earth’s own clumsily striving
(finding and losing and laughing and crying)children
whose any sadness or joy is my grief or my gladness

around me surges a miracle of unceasing
birth and glory and death and resurrection:
over my sleeping self float flaming symbols
of hope,and i wake to a perfect patience of mountains

i am a little church(far from the frantic
world with its rapture and anguish)at peace with nature
-i do not worry if longer nights grow longest;
i am not sorry when silence becomes singing

winter by spring,i lift my diminutive spire to
merciful Him Whose only now is forever:
standing erect in the deathless truth of His presence
(welcoming humbly His light and proudly His darkness)

Feast Day of St Peter Damian (reprise with tweaks)

Today is the feast of the Camaldolese Saint, Cardinal, and Doctor of the Church, St Peter Damian. Peter Damian is generally best known for his role in the Gregorian Reform. He fought Simony and worked tirelessly for the welfare of the church as a whole. Hermits know him best for a few of his letters, but especially #28, "Dominus Vobiscum". Written to Leo of Sitria, letter #28 explores the relation of the hermit to the whole church and speaks of a solitary as an ecclesiola, or little church. Damian had been asked if it was proper to recite lines like "The Lord Be With you" when the hermit was the only one present at liturgy. The result was this letter which explains how the church is wholly present in all of her members, both together and individually. He writes:

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

Because of this unity Damian notes that he sees no harm in a hermit alone in cell saying things which are said by the gathered Church. In this reflection Damian establishes the communal nature of the solitary vocation and forever condemns the notion that hermits are isolated or "lone" persons. His comments thus have much broader implications for the nature of eremitical life than the licitness of saying certain prayers or using communal phrases in liturgy per se. In the latter part of the letter Damian not only praises the eremitical life but writes an extended encomium on the nature of the eremitical cell. The images he uses are numerous and diverse; they clearly reflect extended time spent in solitude and his own awareness of all the ways the hermitage or cell have functioned in his own life and those of other hermits. Furnace, kiln, battlefield, storehouse, workshop, arena of spiritual combat, fort and defensive edifice, [place assisting the] death of vices and kindling of virtues, Jacob's ladder, golden road, etc --- all are touched on here. 

Today I especially appreciate all the ways Peter imaged the hermitage or cell. The richness of life in cell is incredible and vast in its dimensions when one dwells with God. When I was perpetually professed (Arch)bishop Vigneron spoke about my having given my home over to God; his observation was exactly right. In the 15 plus years since, my hermitage has become the place where so much personal work has been done --- writing, inner work, spiritual direction and personal formation, prayer and lectio, struggle and suffering, growth in my ability to love and be loved, teaching, study, work and celebration --- and in all of this God has been present sharing (him)self, sustaining and inspiring me, drawing me more deeply into his own heart. There is nothing cramped or narrow about life within a hermitage because there is nothing cramped or narrow about the life with God it allows space and time for --- and which God continually opens up to us. Peter Damian's images resonate with my own experience here. They serve to underscore the classic observation of the Desert Fathers and Mothers: "Dwell (or remain) within your cell and your cell will teach you everything."

Another Look at the Affirmation that God Alone is Enough

[[Dear Sister, you know what makes no sense to me? The idea that "God Alone is enough for us"!! Think about it! No one can truly be human all alone. We need each other. Genesis itself says, "It is not good for mankind to be alone." But you write about being a hermit and that God alone is sufficient for us. I think that's not only counter-intuitive, it's just plain nonsense!! What have you got to say about that??]]

LOL!! Well, thanks for the righteous indignation; it gave me a good laugh (because I agree with you and thought "Right on!!"). Your objections are well-taken and I have already answered similar questions and objections. For that reason, I am going to put up two of these I wrote about 5 and 6 years ago (one of these was first posted 10 years ago). You may have seen them, but I think they answer your questions, at least enough to be getting on with for the present. If you have further questions or if you find this inadequate, please get back to me and I will give it another shot.

[[Because of recent posts and the phrase "God alone is enough" which I have used therein, I have been asked if this isn't misanthropic, anti-Christian, or downright isolationist --- all things I often and consistently write against. In Lent 2012 I posted the following piece which describes the meaning of this difficult affirmation. An added section (italicized) is included on the place of friendship and other significant relationships which, I hope, clarifies some of the brief comments in the original piece.

[[Hi Sister! What does it mean to say that God alone is enough? I need my family and friends and I wouldn't be the person I am without them. Does saying God Alone is Enough mean that we don't need others? Does it mean something different for you as a hermit than for me as a single teacher?]]

Wonderful questions! The phrase God Alone is Enough is an ambiguous one, meaning it has different and overlapping meanings which can also be misunderstood. So, for instance, the word "enough" can either basically mean we don't need anyone or anything else in our lives, or it can mean that God is the one reality which answers every fundamental or foundational need and completes us as persons. For most persons, the truth is that in adulthood we do not come to human wholeness apart from our relationships with other people and so it is ordinarily the case that the affirmation God alone is enough refers to the second sense: only God is sufficient to truly complete us, to empower us to the transcendence of genuine humanity, to serve as the source and ground of being and meaning in our lives.

This is especially true when one asks what the word "alone" means. Does it mean the person needs no one and nothing else besides God? Does it mean one can go one's own way motivated merely by individualism (what monastic life critically refers to as singularitas) and even a form of narcissism? Does it mean that one can dismiss the world around them as unworthy of their spirituality and live a kind of falsely "spiritualized" isolation? Or, again, does it mean that only God can answer every human need and complete us as persons? In every case, that is, for every person [whether hermit or not] it means the latter. For most people their reliance on God as the foundation of their lives will actually lead to more -- and more healthy -- personal relationships, not to fewer much less to less healthy ones. Only in the case of hermits or anchorites does it mean that the hermit relies on God alone to the significant and lifelong limitation or relative exclusion of human relationships. We do this not only because we are called to do it for ourselves and for God who desires and wills our love, but again because it witnesses in a rather vivid way to that foundational relationship which stands at the core of every person.

So yes, my sense of the meaning of this phrase may be different than yours in some ways. The two senses I have spoken of also overlap to a significant degree though. By the way, as we approach Holy Week it is important to note that the church will be looking at a related way in which "God alone is enough." What we will hear proclaimed is the fact that only God can overcome sin and death: only God is that love which is stronger than death, only God is generous enough to empty himself completely and become subject to the powers and principalities of our world so that they might also be defeated. I will write about that a bit more though in the next weeks.
 
[Please note, when I spoke above of the relative exclusion of human relationships I really mean the accent to be on [the word] relative. Hermits are not misanthropes but at the same time they limit contact with others for the sake of the witness they are called to regarding the foundational place of God in every human life. Hermits, at least in my experience,  because again they are not usually recluses or ordinarily called to reclusion, must cultivate some few but quality relationships --- friends, directors, and those who accompany them in more "professional" or formal ways --- not only because there are real limits on the number of relationships in which the hermit can actually participate if their solitude is to be real, but because at the same time one's physical solitude requires such significant, even "sacramental," relationships if it is to be the rich and nourishing environment of the heart hermits require and commit to in the name of the Church.

It is hard to describe this paradox, but it is linked to the distinction between being merely alone and living the silence of solitude. Consider that the ecclesial nature of this vocation provides a communal context for all authentic eremitical solitude; within this ecclesial context there will be the sustaining warmth, love, challenge, discipline, and consolation of the kinds of relationships I mentioned above --- limited though these will necessarily be. Each will mediate the presence and will of God in ways which supplement the way God comes to us in physical solitude and solitary prayer. Each will help shape the human heart in ways which allow it to embrace God fully -- and be more fully embraced by him -- in the rigors of solitude. They will thus also help the hermit maintain her commitment to all dimensions of the truth that "God alone is enough" for us --- but (and this is the sharpest form of the paradox) especially the solitary dimension she has freely embraced and is publicly responsible for.]

Witnessing to the Truth that God is Enough

[[Dear Sister Laurel, am I right when I say you are writing that it is not only about living alone or even the other things hermits do, but WHY they do these things that is most important? Also, I see why you say that being a solitary is not always the same as being a hermit but isn't that just a matter of externals? Don't solitaries and hermits witness to the same thing?]]

Thanks for the questions. It is always good to hear from someone grappling with what I write. It is also terrific to get a chance to clarify when I haven't been clear enough. So, let me give that a shot.

First, it is true that it is WHY hermits do what they do that is most important, but it is also the case that what they do and why they do it are inextricably wed. What I mean is that they are called to witness to Christ's redemption precisely by living as they do. If they live in some other way, the witness they give is a different one. Let's say that the witness one is meant to give is that redemption in Christ empowers one to give one's life in service to others, that it allows one to let go of other ways of validating one's life and simply give one's life for those Christ loves. If this is the case, then one must live a life geared to ministering to others. All kinds of active ministries are possible and many different living arrangements will support and contribute to this witness.  At the same time, if one wishes to witness effectively or credibly to the redemptive power of the Christ Event one cannot live in a way which contradicts that witness.

So, let's say that because of the message of the Cross one believes that God redeems and makes infinitely meaningful the life of one who is responsive to God's grace even when they are otherwise incapable of anything else, even when the discrete gifts they have been given have been lost or made unusable, even when their weakness or sinfulness or failure is their main or only other contribution to the situation. How would this person live in order to proclaim this message? Again, there are many ways, but it seems to me that one of these is more radical than all the others, namely, eremitical life.

Traditionally it has been said that the essential proclamation of the hermit's life is that "God alone is enough." When we unpack this statement it is a restatement of the message of the cross: God can and DOES complete us as human beings, only the God of Jesus Christ can and does  redeem us, only that same God can and does make infinitely meaningful and fruitful those lives which have been marked and marred by death and senselessness in all its forms; only God can make freely and sacrificially loving those lives that have been isolated, reviled, rejected, and betrayed at every turn. Only God can make a gift of our lives when the circumstances of life and our denial of or collusion with those circumstances have made of them all that I described above.  Only such a God can and will still the scream of anguish one becomes or transforms the muteness and emptiness of a failed and relatively loveless life without God into a jubilant canticle empowered by an inexhaustible Love-in-Act. Only the God of Jesus Christ raises the demeaned, absurd, and alienated inhumanity of a sinful and godless autonomy to New Life which is essentially "theonomous".

Moreover, the statement "God alone is enough" implies the corollary that such a God is worth entrusting our entire lives to. It says the Gospel of this God is worth giving our entire lives for. This God and his Gospel are worth letting go of all worldly possibilities, relinquishing every discrete gift and talent, every potentiality we may possess EXCEPT for hearts and lives which are open to being completed and transfigured by him in his Christ. Entrusting our lives in this way is the essence of faith. In Christ when we are empty we are full, when weak powerful, when we seem most alone we exist in communion with God and all that is grounded in God, when silenced and mute our lives can and will sing with the grace and justice of heaven. When every prop is kicked out or otherwise relinquished, God alone is enough.

This paradox is the radical form of the gospel truth which animated and flowed from Christ's own profound obedience unto death --- especially death on a cross. Similarly, it is the paradox which stands at the heart of the hermit's vocation that she must (and can really only) witness to as radically as she is called to do in the silence of solitude. For this reason, canon 603 defines a desert spirituality which seeks not only to define a contemplative life given over to God in prayer, but in which the externals of one's life reprise the loneliness, muteness, weakness, and incapacity, of the cross of Christ. Again, the obedience, that is, the openness and responsiveness to God we cultivate in the personal poverty, asceticism, silence, and solitude of the desert is transfigured into the silence of solitude, the joy-filled quies of rest, stillness, and eternal life in God. THAT is the witness of the hermit's life and it is important that the externals correspond and contribute to this witness.

A Final Note on the Noun Solitary:

A solitary in the sense Anglicans use the term with regard to canon 14.3 may not live a desert spirituality. I am sure they each do witness to the redemption achieved in Christ but most apparently do not feel called to live as hermits or need to witness to the paradox of the cross with the same radicalness.** Nor, of course, is there anything wrong with that so long as the two terms are not used interchangeably. The Anglican Church recognizes solitary or "single religious" who do not need to be hermits. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand, does not; thus, in her tradition solitaries tend to be hermits who are part of a coenobitical community but who live in cells apart from the others. Grimlaicus' Rule for Solitaries was written for just such hermit monks. Thus too, when Roman Catholicism speaks of solitary hermits, she may now also mean diocesan hermits professed and consecrated under canon 603, hermits who are not part of a monastic or eremitical community. These might be considered solitaries, but most use the terms hermit or anchorite as reflected in canon 603.

 **N.B., especially in this context radical does not mean better; instead, it implies a kind of fundamental truth and simplicity. It is important to remember that throughout the earliest history of the Church the fact that hermits did not engage in active ministry nor live in community led to the inevitable question of how loving and how Christian such a solitary vocation could be considered. Within the Body of Christ there are many members and, as a recent Sunday lection reminded us, they are all important to the functioning of the whole.

Hermits are spoken of as existing at the heart of the Church. Sometimes this is meant to refer to their prayer and there is certainly profound truth in this --- especially so long as we understand prayer to be the work God does within each of us in our poverty. ([[In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.]] Rom 8:26) And of course prayer would also be the language of the silence of solitude, the unique charism of eremitical life but that eschatological quies to which we are all called and from which all legitimate ministry itself flows. To witness to this basic and universal foundation and call is an act of love hermits commit to on behalf of the entire body of Christ --- another reason to insist on the ecclesial nature of such a vocation. What sense would it make otherwise?

Called to Contemplative Life and Mystical Prayer? What next?

Dear Sister Laurel, I believe I might be called to contemplative life and mystical prayer. Is that possible? I mean in today's day and age I don't hear about either of these much, especially the latter. I wonder how I should go about responding to this call (these calls?). Is it even possible today? Do I need to become a hermit to do this? Can I marry? (I am not sure if I even want to marry, but I don't think I want to be a hermit.) I hope you can point me in the right direction here. Thanks!!

Thanks for these questions. First, yes, though I don't know anything more about you than your questions indicate, it is entirely possible that you are called to contemplative life and mystical prayer. While we don't hear a lot about mystical prayer today, it does exist and (if you know the right people!!) is a vital stream in the contemplative tradition today. Our church stresses apostolic ministry today more than contemplative life and most folks will find themselves involved in active ministry with prayer lives that support them in this. Some of these, especially religious women and men, however (the group I know best perhaps), develop strong contemplative prayer lives to anchor their active ministries and more, to fulfill their vows and vocation as religious. Many of these I think, especially as they age and "retire", allow themselves to focus on developing their contemplative prayer and some of these (perhaps a significant number even) will move through the various stages of prayer Teresa of Avila, for instance, outlined. Their prayer becomes profoundly mystical as God draws them ever deeper into His own life and heart. And then, of course, some of us are hermits!!

Since you asked, however, no, you don't need to be a hermit for this (though I personally find it a natural context for growth in contemplative life and mystical prayer), and while I think you could well be married, I personally believe it might be difficult to manage both loves at once. Again, this is a personal opinion; I am not sure about this since I know women religious who manage their community and ministerial commitments just fine, along with some significant friendships, even as they pursue the deepening of contemplative and mystical prayer lives. My one suggestion to you is that you find a good spiritual director with whom you can work regularly. S/he should be essentially contemplative and knowledgeable about working with contemplatives at various stages of prayer, especially if mystical experiences are a part of the directee's prayer life. At the very least, s/he should be open to accompanying someone in and through such stages and expressions of deepening contemplative prayer; this requires a specialized kind of experience and learning both in prayer and in spiritual direction. Remember that mystical prayer is, first and last, about one's relationship with the Mystery we know as God (in Christ); a director should be profoundly rooted in such a relationship herself (or himself).

If there is a Carmelite Monastery near you (or relatively near), you might check with them and see if any of their Sisters or Friars do spiritual direction. Of course, other congregations will be able to assist you in this matter as well; apostolic congregations tend to nurture contemplative prayer these days as well. What is true, however, is that not every person doing spiritual direction today will have either the experience or the education and training to accompany you if you are truly called to mystical prayer. (Note that each one of us is called to union with God which implies we are each made for mystical prayer; it is not, however, easily cultivated and/or a gift easily received.) You are looking for someone who can accompany you in direction for some period of time, and who can assist you in discerning the movements of the Spirit, but especially as these are evident in invitations to greater depth and intimacy with God. Such persons would be able to accompany you even if you discover you are not called to contemplative life or mystical prayer.

To Be What One is Called to Be --- and to Become That Ever More Deeply

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote, [[It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit that one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit.]] You were writing about a situation in which someone described themselves as "sort of a monk/missionary" but not as a hermit. Is it possible to be professed under canon 603 and never genuinely become the hermit one is supposed to be? Does this happen very often? Do dioceses take care to be sure the persons they profess are hermits before profession? Is it important that they not make this mistake?]]

Good questions, but not ones I can mainly answer! It is possible to be professed under c 603 without ever truly becoming a hermit, yes (though of course this ought not be possible). Sometimes individuals seek to be professed under c 603 and known in this way but they have not, and may never, grow into the hermit they are called to become, yes. In the piece you are referring to I was writing about a priest who had had problems with his bishop (and vice versa) who sought to be established under c 603 and thus, freed from some of the constraints of his priesthood and for greater ability to follow his own values and vision of the way things ought to be. He recognized himself as "sort of a monk/missionary" but (rightly I think) could not call himself a hermit. And yet, he had sought to be professed under c 603. 

Canon 603 has sometimes been used by individuals to become religious without the constraints, challenges, or responsibilities of life in community. I think this motivation is usually kept fairly well-hidden, or at least not expressed to diocesan personnel. Dioceses have allowed this (that is, they have failed to uncover this motive in discernment) because 1) they themselves didn't know what a hermit is or, especially, what a solitary hermit is or how they are formed, and 2) they failed to see how it would matter if they professed a non-hermit. Mistakes are made for other reasons as well, even when the individual petitioning for admission to profession is sincere and well-motivated -- which happens when the person has a religious vocation but not an eremitical one. (The Episcopal Church allows for solitary religious who need not be or become hermits; the Roman Catholic Church does not.)

It is important that the church as well as candidates for profession under c 603 not make this mistake even as it becomes easier to make it, I think. Today's culture is highly individualistic, whereas paradoxically, eremitical life is not. Moreover, there is a strong current of what has come to be called "cocooning" which does not rise to the level of eremitical life, or the silence of solitude demanded by canon 603. It is more than possible for a person (and for diocesan personnel) to mistake these phenomena for the external characteristics of an eremitical vocation when they are actually contrary to such a life. There are external similarities between individualism and cocooning with stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude, of course, but at their heart they are vastly different realities. Significantly, the characteristics of c 603 mentioned are at once solitary while being essentially communal and are meant to be rooted in and to support life in communion with God, with/in God's Church, and too, with God's good creation.

It is especially important that dioceses profess actual hermits who have embraced the values of c. 603 and show evidence of being committed to living into these ever more deeply so that c 603 does not become a cuckoo's nest where a different form of life is slipped into the heart of the Church's vocation to consecrated eremitical life. As with the life of a cuckoo's egg raised in another bird's nest amongst other hatchlings, this will be destructive of the solitary eremitical vocation itself and will render it incredible to the faithful seeking to understand and honor such vocations. Canon 603 is almost 40 years old at this time and we have only begun living down the destructive stereotypes associated with eremitical life; we must not, insofar as we are truly able, use it for anything but genuine hermits. 

It becomes particularly critical that c 603 life always be genuinely eremitical for those whose aloneness requires hope that their isolation can be transformed into deep communion lest they fall into despair. As I've said before, for those who must live alone for various reasons, but who are not called to be canonical hermits (or hermits of any sort for that matter), eremitical life can witness to the completion and joy that can come with a uniquely solitary expression of community; this is made less and less possible when dioceses profess non-hermits who may never actually become hermits at all --- and, despite having been professed and consecrated, may never discover (much less witness to) the deep consolation of such a vocation because they are not truly called to it.

In the "Bishop's Decree of Approval" for my Rule of life, the decree reads [[I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life.]] I appreciate my own diocese's humility in recognizing they had done the best that they could in discerning my vocation with me, and that my Rule might not truly prove advantageous to living eremitical life. Mistakes are possible, but it is important that these be minimized and if possible, that they not be made at all, especially given the importance of eremitical witness to God as the One who completes us in a culture that mistakes individualism for individuality and cocooning for eremitical life in the community the hermit experiences as eremitical solitude.

Bishop Remi de Roo Dies at 97

Bishop Emeritus Remi de Roo

Bishop Remi de Roo, the bishop who made an intervention at Vatican II in order to have eremitical life recognized as a "state of perfection" died on February 1st at the age of 97. I was fortunate enough to meet Bishop de Roo at a presentation he, Bp John Cummins, and Ecclesiologist Massimo Faggioli gave at St Mary's College in March of 2013, and to thank him especially for his work with eremitical life --- work which led to the eventual inclusion of canon 603 in the Revised Code of Canon Law. De Roo became Bishop Protector of the group of about a dozen monk-hermits who had left their solemn vows to live as hermits, a story I have told here a number of times. (cf., Recovering Excitement over Vatican II)

When we met, Bishop de Roo asked if I had come to canon 603 life with a background in religious life --- which he seemed to expect (or at least hoped!) to be the case. I replied yes. My favorite story of that afternoon and evening, however, came when we were preparing for the celebration of Mass. De Roo (Bp Emeritus of Victoria) was concelebrating with Bishop Emeritus of Oakland, John Cummins, and as we were preparing to process in, with two Bishops and other clergy, et al., folks were holding a brief conversation about who followed whom, and who would do what, including where and when folks were stopping to bow. I was carrying the Lectionary in the procession and Bishop de Roo turned to me and said, "You are carrying the Gospel; you bow to no one!!" I will never forget that!

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord! And let perpetual light shine upon him!

The following biography was taken from Le Croix. 

Bishop Remi J. De Roo, Canada's last surviving English-speaking bishop to take part in the Second Vatican Council was a social-justice advocate and an outspoken person for change in the Catholic Church. The former bishop of Victoria died February 1 at the age of 97. Bishop De Roo was known to be outspoken on a variety of subjects -- from celibate priesthood and the ordination of women into the priesthood to unbridled capitalism.

In 1962, when he was 38, he became the world's youngest Catholic bishop and shepherded Victoria for 37 years. Bishop De Roo retired in 1999 at the mandatory retirement age of 75. When he retired, Bishop De Roo was Canada's longest-serving bishop. Archbishop J. Michael Miller of Vancouver said Bishop De Roo "will long be remembered as one of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, an ecclesial event that was a great grace for the Church.

A younger Bishop Remi de Roo

"Bishop Gary Gordon of Victoria said Bishop De Roo "was able to bring the first-hand experience of Vatican II into the lived experience of our diocese, and continued in ministry up until well into his 90s."Bishop De Roo brought to the diocese and the Church in Canada his passion for promoting "the council's desire for the Church to grow into the fullness of the people of God in dialogue with the world, especially in the realm of the social teachings of the Church," Bishop Gordon said. As bishop, De Roo visited as many of the indigenous people of his diocese as possible and maintained a close relationship with them for the rest of his life -- and was even made an honorary chief.

Bishop De Roo attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council in Rome, where he had already been for further studies and for his doctorate in sacred theology from the Angelicum University in 1952. He described attending the Vatican II sessions as "a voyage of discovery that would radically alter my whole outlook on reality" and "it was indeed a time of euphoria". Even after his retirement, Bishop De Roo continued to travel and lecture about the council which he said affected him. He referred to himself as "a pilgrim of the Second Vatican Council".

On returning to Victoria from the Council, Bishop De Roo began greater laity participation in carrying out programs for the diocese. He was a promoter of the permanent diaconate and the role of the laity as being "more than a secondary one of assistance to the clergy. "The late bishop spoke against the laypeople's tendency to look to clergy for answers to all moral and religious questions. He complained that bishops were "far too engrossed in administration" and too little concerned with pastoral problems. He also stressed the spiritual guidance of priests.

Traditional and conservative Catholics were upset with Bishop De Roo for his support for married and female priests. As an advocate for social justice, Bishop De Roo frequently called for economic justice in public policy making. In 1992 Bishop De Roo co-authored a controversial book In the Eye of the Catholic Storm with former nun Mary Jo Leddy. In 2010, The Vancouver Sun named him B.C.'s fourth most influential spiritual leader of the century for provoking a national debate in 1984 "when he accused (former prime minister) Pierre Trudeau of exacerbating the "moral crisis" of unemployment" and for "encouraging his diocese's 70,000 Catholics to experiment in worship styles and enhance the role of women."

Thanking God for Law that Serves Love!

[[ Hi again Sister Laurel! There is someone writing against you though she doesn't use your name; while I don't want to draw you into an argument I wondered what you thought about the following thesis: "The fruit in past hermits gives us guidelines by noticing their lives lived -- not any canon laws for there were none, nor . . .on some created church laws centuries after Jesus instituted his Church, never Himself speaking of laws positively except the Law of God which is the Love. All other church laws Jesus pointed out as hypocrisies and missing the point of God Himself. . ."]]

Thanks for your questions. First, I agree completely that some hermits' lives are instructive in major ways for those of us living the life today. The Desert Fathers and Mothers and many others come to mind here. On the other hand, there are many hermits throughout the centuries that have distorted eremitical witness and lived caricatures of authentic hermit life. Additionally, and to be frank, I think the thesis regarding law and Jesus' attitudes toward law represents either a very naive reading of texts or an anachronistic twisting of the Scriptures in order to take a swipe at those who support or write about c 603, or canon law more generally. I doubt I am the only one writing about c 603. 

It sounds to me like the author you cited is used to reading Scripture in a somewhat fundamentalist way, but whether that is true or not, there are some things that must be corrected. First, Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and to loose. In part that could (and over the centuries has implied) the authority to make laws to govern both the Church as a whole and individual segments of the Church. Second, Jesus never treated law per se as hypocritical. He was harsh with the Scribes and Pharisees who opposed him (not all did), but he esteemed the Law itself as a gift of God; moreover, he kept it himself, though not in a slavish way which was careless of the way it tended toward and required greater fulfillment and transcendence. 

Just a few weeks ago we heard a Gospel in which Jesus cured a leper and told him to show himself to the priests so the Law might be fulfilled. The laws that isolated the leper were meant for the good of society in a world with no answer to contagions of all sorts. The law Jesus referenced in this reading served love because it allowed the leper to be reintegrated into the society his disease had isolated him from.  Even so, while Jesus recognized Law as a good, he also recognized that people could be hypocritical and also, that laws could be interpreted or formulated and implemented in ways which were oppressive and unjust --- the precise opposite of what the Law of God actually does. So, Jesus treated law as good, a Divine Gift, but he also demanded that law serve Love -- as it was meant to do.

While I am not a canonist and tend not to be much interested in canon law except for canon 603 and the other canons which pertain directly to my vocation (I am very interested in these and what people write about them!), my sense is that these specific canons and canon law more generally were codified to function as law serving love. I think the Church generally (though not unfailingly) does the same and requires law in order to serve love effectively. I write about canon 603 precisely so it can be better understood and implemented by dioceses in a way which serves love both for and in those persons called to solitary consecrated eremitical life and for those to whom they minister in the silence of solitude.

We cannot deny that the Church is, in part, an historical reality made up of historical elements including sinful people. Our God loved historical existence enough to create it, to call it good, and to become incarnate to dwell with his People. One day the Kingdom of God will be fulfilled "on earth as it is in heaven" and law will not be necessary, but until then, until we are all perfect rather than struggling to grow in perfection, church or canon law is a gift of God meant to and capable of serving Love. For some hermits it provides a needed "space" in which authentic eremitism as an ecclesial vocation may be lived in and for the benefit of a world that itself has little space for or understanding of hermits. We can thank God for it as well as for the Decalogue and law of all sorts!!!

On Time Frames and Stages: Coenobitical vs Solitary Eremitical Life

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, you wrote that the reason for the time frames and stages in formation in coenobitic life are not the same as in eremitical life or something like that. I have a bunch of questions. What is coenobitical life? Is it the same as life in community? Are you talking about candidacy, novitiate and things like that? I wondered why eremitical life doesn't share these same reasons, they have the same stages don't they?]]

Hi there yourself! Thanks for the questions!! I appreciate your calling attention to words I use that may not be clear to readers, so thanks especially for that. Yes, you have it exactly right; coenobitical or cenobitical life refers to life in community, especially monastic life. It is the complement of the term eremitical which means a solitary desert dweller and refers to hermit life. 

Stages of Religious Life (Coenobitical context):

Now, for the time frames and stages. I'll start with the stages. You have it essentially right. The stages of religious life are candidacy (postulancy: the word is rooted in the idea the person is seeking or asking to be received into the community and comes from the Latin postulare), novitiate, juniorate, and perpetually (or solemnly) professed -- depending upon the community or congregation. These stages refer to the gradual initiation of a person into life in an institute of consecrated life and especially to the various rights and obligations thereof -- including passive and active voice in determining the way the congregation will continue to live its charism and mission. So, for instance, a candidate is not yet a member of the community and has no rights in its regard, neither passive nor active. A novice has been received formally into the community but is a complete beginner or novice in her understanding of the congregation's charism, etc; she, therefore, has quite limited rights and obligations in regard to the life of the community. 

The next stage is the juniorate, the stage of those who are temporary professed (they are identified as Junior Sisters or Juniors); in this stage Sisters (or Brothers, of course) have passive voice in congregational matters and may attend general chapters, but they may not hold office or submit or vote on proposals, etc. The final stage in formation is entered with perpetual profession (and consecration). These religious (the "Perpetually Professed") also have what is referred to as "active voice" and contribute to and vote on the decisions facing the community; these Sisters are allowed to hold office in the Leadership Council. What I have stressed here and want you to see is the fact that these stages gradually initiate a person into the life, charism, and mission of the community and ready them for responsible places in the mission, governance, and continuation (or completion) of the congregation.

The time frames which are usual today are: postulancy (6 mos to 1 year); the postulancy (or candidacy) may be extended but not by more than six mos. Novitiate; 1-2 years. One of these years is considered a "canonical year" and is lived according to canon law's strictures. There will ordinarily be no participation in ministry, but time to learn about the vows, study re the congregation and the church, and introduction to prayer and all the forms of prayer necessary in the life being embraced. The novice may take graduate level classes in theology and church history, and there will be regular spiritual direction --- usually with an outside director. If there is a second novitiate year (i.e., a year besides the canonical year), there is usually some participation in the ministry of the congregation and education continues. Often the canonical year is the second year. It is called canonical because canon law requires one year given over to what I described above. Novitiate may also be extended by (I think) not more than six months. The juniorate (time of temporary profession) can extend to six years, but (at least in contemplative monasteries) cannot be less than five years from first profession to the day when one makes perpetual profession or leaves the community.

Time Frames and Stages in Eremitical Life:

As you can see, a solitary hermit is not being initiated into common life or prepared for governance (leadership) and other active roles in a given congregation. Neither are they going to graduate school or (generally speaking) otherwise preparing for professional roles in ministry. (Some may take part in a program of formation for spiritual directors, for instance.) The stages outlined above simply don't fit as well or make the same kind of sense in the formation of solitary eremitical life. This is especially true of novitiate, I think. One may be finding ways to support oneself as a hermit, but in that case, it could be argued the person may not be a hermit living c 603 life yet and a mutual discernment process should be postponed until that arrangement is established. 

The point is that in terms of canon 603, one is either living and living more deeply into this form of eremitical life or one is not; there is really no other option. Time frames are far less meaningful here and distinct stages like candidacy and novitiate are artificially established, externally imposed and relatively meaningless. Especially unhelpful and even destructive is the arbitrary application of the time frames appropriate for coenobitical life to solitary eremitical life. Remember that c 603 is written and meant to be used for solitary eremitical life, not semi-eremitical life or life in a laura/lavra using a single Rule and forming new members --- situations where externally imposed time frames may make more sense.

With solitary eremitical life there are no easily distinguishable stages, no. When one turns up at the local chancery seeking to discern a canon 603 vocation, one must already be a hermit in some essential sense. If one is not already a hermit in some very real or essential sense and already lives the elements of the canon, approaching the diocese with such a petition is entirely premature. The period of mutual discernment with a diocese is meant to determine if a person is called to live an ecclesial vocation as a hermit, that is, is she called to live eremitical life in the consecrated state and in the name of the Church under c 603? Dioceses do not form hermits; neither do they oversee a hermit's formation although they may accompany her in her ongoing formation during the period of mutual discernment and assist her in meeting the requirements that she be ready for vows of the Evangelical Counsels, as well as that she write her own Rule of Life. 

Time frames in such cases are entirely individual and, in the process I have outlined, are better keyed to the hermit's various attempts at writing as liveable Rule which can and will eventually bind her in law. The diocesan discernment team adopting such a process would be able to use the various versions of Rule the hermit writes to assist her in understanding where her own eremitical formation needs attention and perhaps where or how the diocese can connect her with various resources she can benefit from. Additionally, the team can use the various versions of the Rule the hermit writes along with conversations with the hermit to gauge readiness for temporary and perpetual professions under c 603. Since there are other forms of eremitical life open to the hermit including lay (that is, non-canonical) hermit life as a solitary hermit, eremitical life lived in a lavra or laura, and semi-eremitical life, only a calling to solitary eremitical life under c 603 is the focus of the diocesan discernment team.

(I should point out that early on chancery personnel were sometimes reported to tell a person that they should "just go live in solitude, that this was all they needed". I disagreed with this advice fairly emphatically 15 or 16 years ago. However, my position may have changed somewhat or become more nuanced at this point. It depends on whether these dioceses asked the persons to return after some time lived this way for another conversation if the person felt the need. If the dioceses meant, "Please go live in solitude until you are made a hermit in that way with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and return to us if you believe you have an eremitical vocation as a solitary consecrated hermit under c 603; at that point we will discuss undertaking a mutual discernment process together", I believe those dioceses were on the right track. 

Remember that the Episcopal Church has c.14 which establishes individuals as solitary religious. I was once told that fewer than 10% of those professed under this canon were actually hermits. It is important that c 603 professions be used for solitary hermits with ecclesial vocations, not lone individuals, who are not and may never become hermits. The latter situation would empty c 603 of meaning and render the solitary consecrated eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church incredible or void.) This last parenthetical section underscores the rest of the discussion regarding time frames and stages in c 603 vocations. To summarize: Only once one is a solitary hermit formed by the Holy Spirit in the silence of solitude, a process that may take years, is one really ready to petition for canonical standing under c 603, and at that point the mutual discernment and formation process one enters into with a small team representing the diocese is individualized without discrete stages like candidacy, and novitiate becomes meaningful. I hope this is helpful.

**Please note, the laura/lavra referred to above envisions something like the Hermits of Bethlehem which has become more community than a colony of solitary hermits, each with their own self-written Rule. C 603 is meant for solitary hermits who must be able to support themselves and live their professions should a laura/lavra dissolve.