Second Sunday of Easter: What Was Thomas' Doubt About?

Today's Gospel focuses on the appearances of Jesus to the disciples, and one of the lessons one should draw from these stories is that we are indeed dealing with bodily resurrection, and especially, with a kind of bodiliness which transcends the corporeality we know here and now. In other words, it is very clear that Jesus' presence among his disciples is not simply a spiritual one, and that part of Christian hope is the hope that we, precisely as embodied persons, will come to perfection beyond the limits of death. It is not just our souls which are meant to be part of the new heaven and earth, but our whole selves, body and soul, (and in fact, the whole of creation is meant to be renewed)!

The scenario with Thomas continues this theme but is contextualized in a way which leads homilists to focus on the whole dynamic of faith with seeing, and faith despite not having seen. It also makes doubt the same as unbelief and plays these off against faith --- as though faith cannot also be served by doubt. But doubt and unbelief are decidedly NOT the same things. We rarely see Thomas as the one whose doubt (or whose demands!) SERVES true faith, and yet, that is what today's Gospel is about. Meanwhile, Thomas also tends to get a bad rap as the one who was separated from the community and doubted what he had not seen with his own eyes. The corollary here is often perceived to be that Thomas will not simply listen to his brother and sister disciples and believe that the Lord has appeared to or visited them. But I think there is something far more significant going on in Thomas' proclamation that unless he sees the wounds inflicted on Jesus in the crucifixion, and even puts his fingers in the very nail holes, he will not believe.

What Thomas, I think, wants to make very clear is that we Christians believe in a crucified Christ, and that the resurrection was God's act of validation of Jesus as scandalously and ignominiously Crucified. I think Thomas knows on some level anyway, that insofar as the resurrection really occurred, it does not nullify what was achieved on the cross. Instead, it renders permanently valid what was revealed (made manifest and made real) there. In other words, Thomas knows if the resurrection is really God's validation of Jesus' life and establishes him as God's Christ, the Lord he will meet is the one permanently established and marked as the crucified One. The crucifixion was not some great misunderstanding which could be wiped away by resurrection. Instead, it was an integral part of the revelation of the nature of truly human and truly divine existence. Whether it is the Divine life, authentic human existence, or sinful human life --- all are marked and revealed in one way or another by the signs of Jesus' cross. For instance, ours is a God who has journeyed to the very darkest, godless places or realms human sin produces, and has become Lord of even those places. He does not disdain them even now but is marked by them and will journey with us there --- whether we are open to him doing so or not --- because Jesus has implicated God there and marked him with the wounds of an exhaustive kenosis.

Another piece of this is that Jesus is, as Paul tells us, the end of the Law and it was Law (combined with human sinfulness) that crucified him. The nail holes and wounds in Jesus' side and head -- indeed every laceration which marked him -- are a sign of legal execution -- both in terms of Jewish and Roman law. We cannot forget this, and Thomas' insistence that he really be dealing with the Crucified One reminds us vividly of this fact as well. The Jewish and Roman leaders did not crucify Jesus because they misunderstood him, but because they understood all-too-clearly both Jesus and the immense power he wielded in his weakness and poverty. They understood that he could turn the values of this world, its notions of power, authority, etc., on their heads. They knew that he could foment profound revolution (religious and otherwise) wherever he had followers. They chose to have him crucified not only to put an end to his life, but to demonstrate he was a fraud who could not possibly have come from God; they chose to crucify (or have him crucified) to terrify those who might follow him into all the places discipleship might really lead them --- especially those places of human power and influence associated with religion and politics. The marks of the cross are a judgment (krisis) on this whole reality.

There are many gods and even very many manifestations of the real God available to us today (many partial, some more or less distorted), and so there were to Thomas and his brethren in those first days and weeks following the crucifixion of Jesus. When Thomas made his declaration about what he would and would not believe, none of these were crucified Gods or would be worthy of being believed in if they were associated with such shame and godlessness. Thomas knew how very easy it would be for his brother and sister disciples to latch onto one of these, or even to fall back on entirely traditional notions in reaction to the terribly devastating disappointment of Jesus' crucifixion. He knew, I think, how easy it might be to call the crucifixion and all it symbolized a terrible misunderstanding which God simply reversed or wiped away with the resurrection -- a distasteful chapter on which God has simply turned the page. Thomas knew that false prophets (and false "messiahs") showed up all the time. He knew that a God who is distant and all-powerful is much easier to believe in (and follow) than one who walks with us even in our sinfulness or who empties himself to become subject to the powers of sin and death, especially in the awful scandal and ignominy of the cross --- and who expects us to do essentially the same.

In other words, Thomas' doubt may have had less to do with the FACT of a resurrection, than it had to do with his concern that the disciples, in their desperation, guilt, and the immense social pressure they faced, had truly met and clung to the real Lord, the crucified One. In this way, and only in this way!) their own discipleship could and would come to be marked by the signs of the cross as they preach, suffer, and serve in the name (and so, in the paradoxical power) of THIS Lord and no other. Only he could inspire them; only he could sustain them; only he could accompany them wherever true discipleship led them.

Paul said, "I want to know Christ crucified and only Christ crucified" because only this Christ had transformed sinful, godless reality with his presence, only this Christ had redeemed even the realms of sin and death by remaining open to God even within these realities. Only this Christ would journey with us to the unexpected and unacceptable places, and in fact, only he would meet us there with the promise and presence of a God who would bring life out of them. Thomas, I believe, knew precisely what Paul would soon proclaim himself, and it is this, I think, which stands behind his insistence on seeing the wounds and putting his fingers in the very nail holes. He wanted to be sure his brethren were putting their faith in the crucified One, the one who turned everything upside down and relativized every other picture of God we might believe in. He became the great doubter because of this, but I suspect instead, he was the most astute theologian among the original Apostles. He, like Paul, wanted to know Christ Crucified and ONLY Christ Crucified.

We should not trivialize Thomas' witness by transforming him into a run of the mill empiricist and doubter (though doubting is an important piece of growth in faith)!! Instead, we should imitate his insistence: we are called upon to be followers of the Crucified God, and no other. Every version of God we meet should be closely examined for nail holes and the lance wound inflicted by the world of power and prestige. Everyone should be checked for signs that this God is capable of, as well as generous and merciful enough to assume such suffering on behalf of a creation he would reconcile and make whole. Only then do we know this IS the God proclaimed in the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, the God of Easter, the only one worthy of being followed even into the darkest reaches of human sin and death, the only One who meets us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place; only this God is the One who makes all things new by loving us with an eternal love from which nothing at all can separate us.

Follow up on Jesus' Descent into Hell: How God's Merciful Love does Justice

[[Hi Sister Laurel you wrote recently that God's mercy is the way God does justice. Could you please explain this? Does any theologian I might heard of teach this same thing?]]

Yes. Good questions. Important! As a start I am going to put up another piece I wrote several years ago including the question that prompted it. Without going into their theologies I can name off the top of my head Anselm, Barth, Karl Rahner, Thomas Aquinas, and Walter Kasper who inveigh against Augustine's older and more insufficient theology in this matter. All of these see God acting, not according to an abstract notion of justice but instead acting with a consistent justice stemming from his own nature, a nature identified in Scripture as Love and as Mercy. One book I would recommend to you if you have more than a passing interest on the topic is Walter Kasper's,  Mercy, The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life. Pope Francis recommended this. It was published in 2013.

[[Dear Sister,
how does your essay on the descent into hell take the reality of sin and death seriously? There are so many notions of Jesus' death that seem to say that what human beings do are of little consequence and which forget that the Gospels speak of God's wrath as much as they speak of God's love. Doesn't your version of things fall into this camp of contemporary theology that fails to do justice to God's justice?]]

Thanks very much for the questions. Remember that the essay I posted (cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Jesus' Descent into Hell) was an attempt to state the heart of the matter in a single page. For that reason, some aspects of it had to be cut out. (Indeed, had I been writing an article of a dozen pages much would have been inadequately covered or never mentioned!) For instance, in the first paragraph I had to edit out a reference to the fact that while God says an emphatic NO to sin, death, and all that are obstacles to his love, he always says a resounding YES to the sinners themselves. Similarly, I had to cut out any explanations of God's wrath as a function of his love, not as something in opposition to or in competition with it. I believe your questions are answered by recalling what it means for God to say NO to sin and death, to all that is ungodly, and that allies with death and godlessness. In reflecting on that NO we come face to face with the wrath of God. At the same time, it is a no, it is a wrath that is dependent on as well as an expression of the very love I wrote about in the essay already posted on the descent into hell.

God's NO is a costly one, but in the main, it is costly for God. It demands a self-emptying that takes him into the depths of inhumanity and death, into the very abyss of godlessness created by human choices to live and therefore to die without Love itself. It demands subjection to the very powers of sin and death precisely so that they might be given exhaustive play in this event and, in the process, be encompassed and transformed by Love itself. It is no small thing for God to say a final NO to sin and death. It costs Jesus the quite literal suffering of the damned, not to mention the torture of the very worst that human beings could do to him to strip him of his humanity and reduce him to nothingness. We have difficulty with this in part because the costliness is assumed by God. Our own notions of justice would like it to be costly in an ultimate way to us instead. But in this version of the atonement, the entire cost of doing justice (having mercy!) is borne by God himself. The consequences of our own sinfulness are both real, serious, and painful --- but the largest share in the consequences of our sin is taken on by God.

Perhaps we would also be more comfortable if God were simply to destroy sin and death by fiat, but in bringing even the realms or dimensions of godlessness and anti-life into subjection to Godself hasn't God done something even more wondrous? Our own notions of God destroying by fiat almost always involve God simply obliterating whatever is tainted by sin or death (and this includes human freedom if not human life itself). But here, in the events of Jesus' passion (which includes his descent into hell), we have a very unique act of harvesting, an ultimate teasing apart of the wheat from the chaff --- something we are told only God can do without destroying the wheat. 

Here God says a powerful, effective, and transforming NO to anything which opposes him in order to say a transfiguring YES to those in bondage to these powers --- those persons whom he loves with an everlasting love. Here, he does it from WITHIN the very realities of sin and godless death in a way that effectively destroys them while rescuing those subject to them. (This is the process echoed in icons such as the "harrowing of hell" or in the scant Scriptural texts which refer to Jesus proclaiming the gospel to the dead in sheol or hades.) We are speaking not so much of rescue from a physical place with such language (though I believe there are meaningful ways of this being so) as the teasing apart and harvesting of the living and true from the powers of sin and death. As a result, those who are baptized into Christ's death become a "new creation" --- literally a creation for whom death is abolished and has no real power any longer.

God's love without his wrath is meaningless or empty in the face of the realities of sin and death. Real love must take these with absolute seriousness --- and it must overcome them. On the other hand, God's wrath as a competitor to his love is a destructive and blasphemous reality because it makes of God an image of an alienated, broken, and divided humanity rather than its creator who summons it to and effects a unity and communion which transcends such estrangement. The only solution, or perhaps better said, the divine solution is the paradoxical one where wrath is exercised in a way that allows love to have the final word --- where, that is, wrath and love are expressed in a single act which says NO to sin while saying YES to the sinner, and where God's mercy for the sinner effects a cosmic justice which sets all things right. We might think of this as a single merciful command, LET THERE BE LIFE which is at once a NO to sin and death and a YES to those who require redemption from these.

In the essay I posted on Jesus' descent into hell (cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Jesus' Descent into Hell) I said that "God asserts his sovereignty (i.e., God's Lordship) precisely in refusing to allow enmity and alienation to remain as lasting realities in our lives or world." In other words, our God does divine justice (sets all things to right) precisely in having mercy on us; this is because genuine mercy will always mean the effective condemnation of anything which separates us from the Life and Love we are made for and which is God's own will.

I hope this, brief though it also is, is of some assistance to you. 

How Does Canon 603 work in terms of Validating Solitary Eremitical Vocations?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, I wondered if a bishop or another priest who said that canon 603 does not validate eremitical vocations is/are correct? You value canonical vocations to hermit life, and you also seem to value non-canonical eremitical vocations as well. What you don't seem to suggest, though, is that c 603 itself does not validate a vocation. Could you say something about this?]]

Sure, happy to do so. Let me point out that the way I would answer the question of validation depends on the meaning or sense of the term "validation" used (there are several) and also the form of eremitical life one was addressing. (Throughout this answer I will NOT be addressing so-called semi-eremitical vocations but solitary eremitical vocations.) So, for instance, if a non-canonical hermit was approaching a bishop seeking to have her vocation "validated" by the church by being admitted to canonical profession and consecration, I would be the first to point out that c 603 is not necessary to do that in this case, and that, in fact, it could not be used either to validate or to truly invalidate such a vocation.**  It is likely her bishop would do the very same thing. The call to non-canonical (or privately dedicated) eremitical life is the oldest form of eremitical life in the church and it continues to be a VALID form of eremitical life in the present as well entirely apart from c 603. (That is, c 603 does not and is not meant to replace it!!) I have said this in one way and another in my writing on eremitism for the past 17 years!!

The term validate has several different meanings, including: 1) to check or prove the validity or accuracy of (x or y), 2)  to demonstrate or support the truth or value of (v or w), 3) to make or declare legally valid, and 4) to recognize or affirm the validity or worth of a person, their feelings, or their opinions, and to cause a person to feel valued or worthwhile. I think all of these forms of validation can apply to non-canonical vocations to eremitical life without benefit or need of c 603. In other words, c 603 does not do these things for any non-canonical eremitical life. Rather, c 603 is irrelevant to the validity, value, and legal standing of the non-canonical eremitical vocation. These are established in other ways, namely, by virtue of the rights and obligations conferred in baptism itself. In baptism one is (or may be) made free and empowered by the Holy Spirit to live non-canonical eremitical life. That life is validated in living it well as a representative of the people  (laity, λαοσ) of God in the baptismal state alone. ("By their fruits, you shall know them"!!)  

But what if the Bishop or priest were speaking of an ecclesial vocation, a public and canonical vocation to live eremitical life in the name of the church? Would the answer to the question as to whether c 603 validated these vocations be the same? Here we need to say no. If a bishop/priest were speaking of these specific vocations, and claimed c 603 did not validate them, that bishop or priest would be wrong. Of course it is true that "By their fruits. . ." applies here too, but, c 603 was created and made normative precisely to validate the ecclesial vocation to solitary eremitical life at least in senses 2, 3, and 4 -- although #4 applies not to the hermit herself, but to the vocation to which she is called. Canon 603 does not apply to the validity or worth of the individual person living the life or to her opinions, etc. The value of the person is presupposed, no matter the form of eremitical life being lived. (As I have also said a number of times, I live eremitical life in the name of the church; I do not write in the name of the church, nor do I suggest that my opinions or writing about this life necessarily have the same kind of validity as the vocation does. Writing as part of the eremitical life can be a valid expression of one's canonical vocation, of course. What one writes must be validated separately.)

I think I can also argue that c 603 also generally establishes validity of any eremitical life in the church today in the first sense of the term validate above since all hermits tend to look at the central elements of the canon to discern whether or not they are living a valid form of the life (assiduously prayerful and penitential, marked by stricter separation from that which is estranged from or antithetical to Christ, marked by the silence of solitude, and lived for the salvation of others). Still, some characteristics of the canon are not lived by all hermits (supervision of bishop, Rule written by the hermit, profession of the evangelical counsels, and consecration by God mediated by the Church, for instance) so the canon only serves in a very general and informal way to validate non-canonical eremitical lives in the church.

The bottom line in all of this is pretty much what I have been saying since I began this blog almost 17 years ago. No one needs Canon 603 to validate a call to non-canonical eremitical life. Their baptism gives any person the right and freedom to follow such a call at any time in any place. No bishop can require that non-canonical hermits in his diocese seek canonical standing under c 603!!! He has no right to do so, and no really good reason either. Were he to try this he would be suppressing a valid God-given eremitical vocation in the lay state. Non-canonical eremitical life is a valid, Spirit-breathed vocation in the church, and has been since the third Century and more. However, if a person wishes and feels called to live an eremitical vocation in the name of the Church and be considered a solitary Catholic Hermit (not a solitary Catholic AND a hermit, but a Catholic Hermit!!), then yes, c 603 is used to profess, consecrate, and thus also to validate the solitary eremitical vocation lived publicly with public rights, obligations and expectations.

I sincerely hope this is clear and helpful!!

** There is one exception to this, however. Is IS possible to use c 603 to invalidate non-canonical eremitical vocations but ONLY if it is misused!! If c 603 is used as a requirement for every eremitical vocation instead of just for solitary consecrated (i.e., canonical) eremitical vocations, then it will invalidate every non-canonical vocation. Fortunately, c 603 was never meant to do this, but instead to offer the church a means to honor a gift she had lost sight and esteem for over the centuries. Every person who feels called to solitary eremitical life is free to pursue it in a non-canonical form. 

Living this vocation in the name of the Church requires a public commitment, however, and God's consecration along with other conditions constituting a stable state of life. This does not indicate a lack of humility on the canonical hermit's part, nor on the Church's. Instead, it recognizes the truly great challenge and gift such a life is to every person touched by such a call. To commit to becoming truly human in a solitary relationship between a human being and her God in the silence of solitude is almost unimaginable to most people today.  To do this as an expression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ even more so. With canonical standing, the Church assures the conditions that nurture success in this.

On the Road to Emmaus During a Pandemic: Finding New Old Ways of Being Church (reprise with update)

As we approach today’s readings I think we all have a much clearer, more vivid sense of how it is a single Event can change our entire world so that there is simply no going back to what we once knew and perhaps even took for granted. We know what it is like to have our usual assumptions and expectations upended, to have everyday routines and priorities thrown into disarray, and -- at least for the time being -- --- to have been robbed of many of the things that gave our lives value and purpose including relationships, school, work, and even forms of ministry and ways of "being Church".  (I wrote this piece during the beginning of the pandemic; today (2023), as parishes close or are melded with others, as trusted and beloved pastors retire and are replaced by others who are differently accomplished, as beloved friends move on to other parishes with better homilists (perhaps), and more adequate pastoral care of all kinds, I think what I wrote is even truer.)

We know what it means to be frightened: frightened of illness, frightened of death, frightened even of life itself, frightened for ourselves, frightened for others, frightened the virus [and other things as well!] will leave us in a world without a meaningful future. At the same time, we know the experience of "seeing with new eyes" what has been true and right in front of us all along: Family members we are, perhaps, only now spending quality time with and coming to know; friends who, in the midst of it all, are showing us new depths of compassion and caring; people we may take for granted or otherwise have marginalized --- for they have become "essential" while we are sidelined; they are "heroes" to us and we marvel at their self-sacrifice, generosity, and courage.

Retelling the Story:

Today's gospel lection is meant to speak to people in precisely our predicament. I would like to retell it in a way that, I hope, will let us hear it afresh. These disciples have experienced the arrest, brutalization, and execution of a Man whom they loved, followed, and trusted in, a man whom they thought held the key to any real future. But the One they thought was God's own anointed one and their hope for a new and meaningful world, was instead determined to be a godless and godforsaken blasphemer and  political terrorist. He was executed in the most shameful way possible --- a way which underscored the lie his life must really have been --- and his last cry from the cross was one which pleaded with the God of Israel who had apparently also abandoned him. Like us, these disciples had experienced a world-shattering loss.

On the road to Emmaus we find them disoriented and fearful as they make their way home where they will shelter in place -- in hiding from the authorities who will be coming for them as well. On the way they take some comfort from the keenness of their confusion and pain in conversation and debate --- yes, about the events in Jerusalem, but also they talk about the Jewish Scriptures and what they have taught and promised. Perhaps some of these stories, stories they have lived with and from their whole lives, can ease their grief a little and make sense of the tragedy they have just suffered.

When they meet a stranger who wonders why they are so distraught, so angry and uncertain, we can hear the edge in their response: "What!? Have you been living in a hole somewhere? Are you the only one in the entire civilized world who does not know what happened in Jerusalem?!! We were so sure he was God's. . . ; and, God forgive us, we were so wrong!! The One we thought was God's own Messiah was convicted by our own religious leaders and [shudder] crucified by the Romans. We know now therefore, he could not have been the one we hoped for. The God he supposedly "revealed" and taught us to believe in was powerless to save him; the kingdom he proclaimed, the realm of his God's putative "sovereignty", was apparently just another lie!!

A bit further along the road they continue to fill the stranger in on what he seems to have missed. We can hear their anger and their anguish: "You know, some women from our group told us Jesus was really alive (we had not seen the crucifixion ourselves), and they recounted stories of meeting angels --- Foolish Women! You know what kind of witnesses they make! When we checked out their story others from our group found only an empty tomb --- no heavenly messengers, no Jesus alive and well (or even alive and battered), not even his dead body --- just an empty tomb!! Some are saying the Romans stole the body to prevent the grave from becoming a focus for a martyr cult. Maybe it's true that the crucifixion of an apparently unbalanced Galilean peasant changed very little in the world at large --- but God help us!! Nothing at all is the same now. What are we to do??

In today's [ecclesial situation] we face a similar journey and we know the road in front of us is long. There are great difficulties and uncertainties; neither are there easy or facile answers to the questions which haunt us. Nor, on the road to Emmaus, does the stranger provide facile answers to the desperate questions the disciples there both ask and are. Instead, he continues to accompany them on their journey. He is and remains with them. He listens and continues to listen as they pour out their hearts to him: bewilderment, anger, shattered hopes, fragile faith, and sorrow,  such immense sorrow -- he receives them all. And he challenges them rather sharply, in fact, to greater faith and continuing trust. Especially he reminds them of their scriptures and the way God has worked throughout their history.

Eventually,  in a shared meal they watch and listen as he takes bread, blesses and breaks it with and for them. And in that moment, they SEE! They KNOW! The God of Jesus, the God of the Christ has been victorious over death and death-dealing powers. He has made them his own and they are irretrievably changed by his presence. Everything Jesus told them was, no, IS true!! He has been vindicated by God, and even more astonishingly, he has been raised to new life --- not at the end of time or at the end of the world --- but right here and now in the midst of human history! Heaven, the word we use for God's own life shared with others, has broken in on and is remaking the old world into a New Creation. Nothing at all can separate us from God's love -- not crucifixion, not godless death, and certainly not pandemic. In light of all this, the disciples now see with new eyes and celebrate the truth they lamented just a short time before: NOTHING AT ALL will ever be the same again.

 On Our Own Road to Emmaus Today:

During this time of finding our way on a disorienting and painful journey, and especially as we find new ways to "be Church" when ordained clergy have been made relatively ineffective, this gospel story tells us one main story: we are being accompanied by the Crucified Christ even when we fail to recognize him and it is imperative that we learn to recognize and come to know him if we are to be people of genuine Hope. One of the reasons this gospel lection is critical for us this Easter especially is because it is clear he is not only to be found in Church, nor is he recognized only in the Scriptures as they are read there, nor only in the Eucharist itself. Because ours is an incarnational God who has sundered the veil between sacred and profane, and because, similarly, our faith is a sacramental one,  the One who accompanies us -- often unrecognized -- is found in the unexpected and even in what we might deem the unacceptable place. Sister Macrina Wiederkehr, OSB, who died just last Friday**, said it this way:

(We) live in a world of theophanies.

Holiness comes wrapped in the ordinary.

There are burning bushes all around (us).

We will say more about this as the weeks of Easter go on and the parish will help provide suggestions and resources, but it is in the reading of Scripture and the breaking of bread in our own homes that we will encounter and learn to recognize the Crucified and Risen Christ. Yes, as Vatican II emphasized, we ourselves are the church, a pilgrim people finding our way in a new and transitory world, a priestly people (Laos) in and through whom God is alive and mediated to that same world [despite a significant shortage of ordained clerics]. Today's gospel asks that we return to that time when the larger faith community lived and worshipped in domestic and house churches.

Especially it asks that we make of these, places of prayer and that we become people who regularly pour out our hearts to the  God who receives us in every situation. It asks that we make our homes places where the Scriptures are read and reflected on so that our stories and those of our ancestors in faith become inextricable and God is allowed to pour himself out to us as we learn to receive him. And finally, it asks that we allow our homes to become places where the meals we eat are taken together joyfully, and attentively as we allow them to become something Eucharistic despite not being the Eucharist itself. After all, the Lord was with his disciples as they fled Jerusalem for home; He did not abandon or disdain the disciples at any point on the road to Emmaus. He will accompany us in the same way if we will only take the steps needed to encounter and recognize him! Amen.
________________________________________

**N.B., Sister Macrina Wiederkehr, OSB wrote 8 wonderful books on spirituality. One powerful theme was finding God in the ordinary and another was living in the present moment (as an ever-flowing grace empowers us to do). The quote above is taken from A Treeful of Angels. Macrina died on 24. April. 2020 of a brain tumor. Condolences to her Sisters at St Scholastica Monastery, Fort Smith, AR. She has left the home she loved to return to the one for which she most deeply yearned. Alleluia!

Inviting Others to Join me in my Eremitical Journey? Establishing a Lavra?

Dear Sister, Greetings in Christ! I was wondering if you plan on inviting women to join you in your eremitical journey? Developing a Laura perhaps. God bless]]

Interesting question. Thanks! I have given thought to (participating in) the establishment of a virtual lavra for already-professed diocesan hermits who are open and excited about supporting one another via ZOOM meetings and email contacts. We are actually in the (very casual!) process of doing that (or at least discussing doing that!) with hermits from several dioceses and countries. Personally, I would also be open to considering a lavra for other perpetually professed hermits in the Diocese of Oakland, once we have three perpetually professed hermits who might also be interested in that, and some commitment by the local church to provide adequate facilities; unfortunately, these requirements are nowhere on the horizon, so no, I have no plans at all to establish a lavra for other women to join. The most important point to remember about c 603 is that it was established to protect and nurture vocations to solitary eremitical life. 

Remember too that Diocesan hermits are professed in the hands of their local ordinaries; to move to another location (diocese) requires the bishop of that place to agree to accept responsibility for the hermits' professions if they are to move and remain diocesan hermits. Also, as I understand lavras, they are not meant as houses of formation. Under c 603 they would work well for diocesan hermits who have lived as solitary hermits for some time and who could always go back to living that way should circumstances call for them to do so.

However, because lavras are not to rise to the level of a canonical community (there are other (and legitimate) ways to establish communities canonically), as well as because most hermits are neither called nor competent to do formation work or even spiritual direction, and because solitary hermits require the support of other professed solitary hermits, it really does not make sense to open lavras to either non-professed (aspiring), or to non-hermit members. That is especially true since lavras fail or are suppressed far more often than they succeed. Further, even when they succeed, for several of the reasons mentioned above, they are established as temporary and are not meant to be self-perpetuating.

My own preference is to work with candidates for c 603 profession along with representative diocesan personnel (when available) to assist with discernment and formation leading to eventual consecration as a solitary c 603 hermit. The hermits who are considering/talking about establishing a virtual lavra include hermits one or two of us (c 603 hermits) have worked with or are now working with in their journey toward consecration. Once the individual hermit is professed and/or consecrated, we (hermits) may all support one another in eremitical life. This arrangement (working in a mentoring-type relationship similar to the elder-to-junior relationship common among the Desert Fathers and Mothers) assists the dioceses involved to actually discern such vocations, allows for one-on-one formation, and makes sure the c 603 hermit (if this is the direction discernment takes them) can live as a solitary hermit while leading to or providing options for a kind of lavra support and community. 

I do think most hermits need such support and the challenge and vision other hermits can provide, but at the same time with a vocation to solitary eremitical life it is important to protect that primary dimension of the c 603 vocation. Even where physical lavras are established, it is important that the hermit be able to support herself, maintain her own limited ministry and ways of relating to parish and other faith communities, preserve her own bank accounts, insurance coverage, and so forth. She should be able to leave the lavra whenever serious discernment affirms this is God's will. Some dioceses establish lavras and refuse to allow c 603 hermits to be admitted to profession unless they are part of the lavra. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the canon, however. Physical lavras are supportive of but not essential to the vocation. Virtual lavras may be more essential.

What is your own interest in such a project? Are you a c 603 hermit? Are you interested in joining a lavra? Becoming a hermit? Meanwhile, Happy Easter!!

He is Risen, Indeed He is Risen!!! The Message of a Woman at the Heart of the Church's Proclamation

While I first published this piece in 2016, it remains appropriate, not merely for today's Gospel, but because our Church is still struggling (or refusing to struggle) with the importance of allowing women's voices to be heard as those capable of proclaiming the Gospel with power and sensitivity to the needs of all. It is genuinely great that Pope Francis preached recently on the importance of hearing women's voices and allowing them positions of real authority in the church, but Jesus went further still. He called Mary by name and sent her to proclaim his resurrection to the male apostles. I think we must never forget that the first proclamation of the Risen Christ was a woman's message proclaimed at the very heart of the Church.

                                    * * * * *

(First published 22. July. 2016) Probably everyone is aware by now that today's commemoration of Saint Mary Magdalene is indeed a FEAST. I heard a great homily on this from my pastor last Sunday --- it was on both the raising of Mary Magdalene's liturgical celebration from a memorial to an actual feast and Pope Francis' move to create a commission to look into the historical facts regarding the ordination of women as deacons in the church. Change comes slowly in the Catholic Church --- though sometimes it swallows up the Gospel (or significant elements of the Gospel) pretty quickly as it did with last Sunday's story which was originally about Jesus' treating Mary of Bethany as a full disciple sitting at his feet just as males (and ONLY males) did. As we know, that story --- when read without sensitivity to historical context --- has been tamed to make it say instead that contemplative life was the greater good or vocation than active or ministerial life; still, once the stone has been rolled away as it is in today's Gospel, and we are able to hear the radicality of the good news and the call to apostleship, we may find the Spirit of God is irrepressible in bringing (or at least seeking to bring) about miracles.

One sign the stone is being rolled away by Pope Francis is the raising of Mary Magdalene's day to a Feast. For the entire history of the Church Mary Magdalene has been known as "Apostle to the Apostles" but mainly this has been taken in an honorific but essentially toothless way with little bite and less power to influence theology or the role of women in the Church. But raising the Magdalene's day to the level of a Feast changes all that. This is because the Feast comes with new prayers -- powerful statements of who Mary was and is for the Church, theological statements with far-reaching implications about Jesus' choices and general practice regarding women (especially calling for a careful reading of other stories of his interactions with women), a critical look at the way the early church esteemed and ministered WITH women and not merely to them --- especially as indicated in the authentic writings of Paul, and the unique primacy of Mary Magdalene over the rest of the Apostles (including even Peter) as a source of faith, witness, and evangelism.

The Church's longstanding and cherished rule in all of this is Lex Orandi, lex credendi, literally, "the law (or norm) of prayer is the law (norm) of belief", but more adequately, "As we pray, so we believe." And what is true as we examine the new readings and prayers associated with today's Feast is that the way we pray with, with regard to, and to God through the presence of Mary Magdalene has indeed changed with wide-ranging implications as noted above. The Church Fathers have written well and I wanted to look briefly at a couple of the texts they have given us for the day's Mass, namely the opening prayer and the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer.

 The Opening Prayer Reads: [[O God, whose Only Begotten Son entrusted Mary Magdalene before all others with announcing the great joy of the Resurrection, grant, we pray, that through her intercession and example we may proclaim the living Christ and come to see him reigning in your glory. Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
R. Amen.

What is striking to me here is the very clear affirmation that Mary was commissioned (entrusted) by Christ with the greatest act of evangelization anyone can undertake, namely, the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead. This is a matter of being summoned to and charged with a direct and undisputed act of preaching the one reality upon which is based everything else Christians say and do. It is the primal witness of faith and the ground of all of our teaching. It is what allows Paul to say quite bluntly, if this is false, if Jesus is not raised from the dead, then Christians are the greatest fools of all. It is this kerygma Mary is given to proclaim. Moreover, there is a primacy here. Mary Magdalene is not simply first among equals --- though to be thought of in such a way among Apostles and the successors of Apostles in the Roman Catholic Church is a mighty thing by itself --- but she was entrusted (commissioned) with this charge "before all others". There is a primacy here and the nature of that, it seems to me, especially when viewed in the context of Jesus' clearly counter cultural treatment of women, is not merely temporal; it has the potential to change the way the Church has viewed the role of women in ministry including ordained (diaconal) ministry. The Preface is as striking. It reads:

Preface of the Apostle of the Apostles

It is truly right and just,
our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God,
whose mercy is no less than His power,
to preach the Gospel to everyone, through Christ, our Lord.
In the garden He appeared to Mary Magdalene
who loved him in life, who witnessed his death on the cross,
who sought him as he lay in the tomb,
who was the first to adore him when he rose from the dead, and whose apostolic duty [office, charge, commission] was honored by the apostles, so that the good news of life might reach the ends of the earth.
And so Lord, with all the Angels and Saints,
we, too, give you thanks, as in exultation we acclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts. . . (Working Translation by Thomas Rosica CSB)

Once again, we see two things especially in the Preface: 1) the use of the term Apostle (or apostolic duty [office or charge]) used in a strong sense rather than in some weak and merely honorific sense --- this is, after all, the Preface of the Apostle of the Apostles!!! (Note how this translation brings Mary right INTO the collegio of Apostles in a way "to" may not; here she is definitely first among equals) --- and 2) a priority or kind of primacy in evangelization which the apostles themselves honored. In the preface there is a stronger sense of Mary being first among equals than in the prayer I think, but the lines stressing that Mary adored Jesus in life, witnessed his death on a cross --- something which was entirely unacceptable in ordinary society and from which the male disciples fled in terror --- and that she sought him in the dangerous and ritually unacceptable place while the rest of his disciples huddled in a room still terrified and completely dispirited, these lines make the following reference to "apostolic duty" --- which Mary also carried out in the face of general disbelief --- and thus, to Mary's temporal (but not merely temporal) primacy over the other apostles all the stronger.

Do Not Cling to Me: Another Sign the Stone has been Rolled Away

 

Part of today's gospel is the enigmatic challenge to Mary's address of Jesus as "Rabbouni" or Rabbi -- teacher. In response Jesus says, "Do not cling to me!" He then reminds Mary he has yet to ascend to his Father and her Father, his God and her God. What is going on here? Mary honors Jesus with a title of respect and great love and Jesus rebuffs and reproves her! The answer I think is that Mary identifies Jesus very specifically with Judaism and even with a specific role within Judaism. But Jesus can no longer be identified with such a narrow context. He is the Risen Christ and will soon be the ascended One whose presence, whose universality (and even his cosmic quality), will be established and freshly mediated in all sorts of unexpected and new ways. To be ascended is not to be absent but to be present as God is present --- a kind of omnipresence or ever-presence we must learn to perceive and trustingly embrace. This too is a critical part of Mary's commission or officio; she is called to proclaim this as well --- the eschatological or cosmic reality in and through which the Gospel of God's presence is opened to all the world.

Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, who is already aware that he is difficult to recognize as the Risen Christ, not to cling to old images, old certainties, narrow ways of perceiving and understanding him. He reminds her he will be present and known in new ways; he tells her not to cling to the ones she is relatively comfortable with. And he makes her, literally and truly, Apostle of and to the Apostles with a world-shattering kerygma or proclamation whose astonishing Catholicity goes beyond anything they could have imagined.

And so, it is with us and with the Church herself. On this new Feast Day, we must understand the stone has been rolled away and the Risen and Ascended Christ may be present in ways we never expected ways which challenge our intellectual certainties and theologically comfortable ways of seeing and knowing. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, as we pray so we believe. What a potentially explosive and ultimately uncontrollable rule beating at the heart of the Church's life and tradition!! The stone has been rolled away and over time our new and normative liturgical prayer will be "unpacked" by teachers and theologians and pastoral ministers of all sorts while the truth contained there will be expressed, honored, and embodied in ever-new ways by the entire Body of Christ --- if only we take Jesus' admonition seriously and cease clinging to him in ways which actually limit the power and reach of the Gospel in our world.

Like the original Apostles we are called to honor Mary Magdalene's apostleship so that the "good news of life [can] reach the ends of the earth." We pray on this Feast of St Mary Magdalene that that may really be so.

Exultet!!

Sometimes here at Stillsong I begin my Easter with the Exultet --- I will chant it even if I am attending the Vigil at my parish. It is a demanding and wonderful thing to be able to sing and I am glad God hears me!! (I am also often glad only God hears me!! I am not singing in the versions supplied here!!! A reason for added Joy!) Tonight I will join another Community (2, in fact!) where others will sing this song of Easter Praise as we move into the darkness of a Vigil illuminated by the Paschal Candle. Still, as I begin preparations for Easter it seems only right to mark this time here on this blog as well. I hope it enriches your prayer. Happy Easter!!!

 

This second Exultet is done with choir and soloist(s) in a much more modal version. I really like it a lot.

And, before anyone asks, the two spellings are both correct. Exultet was spelled without an "s" before 1920.

The Crucified God: Emmanuel Fully Revealed in the Unexpected and Even the Unacceptable Place (Reprise)

Several years ago I did a reflection for my parish. I noted that all through Advent we sing Veni, Veni, Emmanuel and pray that God will come and really reveal Godself as Emmanuel, the God who is with us. I also noted that we may not always realize the depth of meaning captured in the name Emmanuel. We may not realize the degree of solidarity with us and the whole of creation it points to. There are several reasons here. 

          + First, we tend to use Emmanuel only during Advent and Christmastide so we stop reflecting on the meaning or theological implications of the name. 

          + Secondly, we are used to thinking of a relatively impersonal God borrowed from Greek philosophy; he is omnipresent -- rather like air is present in our lives and he is impassible, incapable of suffering in any way at all. Because he is omnipresent, God seems already to be "Emmanuel" so we are unclear what is really being added to what we know (and what is now true!!) of God.  Something is similarly true because of God's impassibility which seems to make God incapable of suffering with us or feeling compassionate toward us. (We could say something similar regarding God's immutability, etc. Greek categories are inadequate for understanding a living God who wills to be Emmanuel with all that implies.) 

          +  And thirdly, we tend to forget that the word "reveal" does not only mean "to make known," but also "to make real in space and time." The eternal and transcendent God who is revealed in space and time as Emmanuel is the God who, in Christ, enters exhaustively into the most profoundly historical and personal lives and circumstances of his Creation and makes these part of his own life in the process.

Thus, just as the Incarnation of the Word of God happens over the whole of Jesus' life and death and not merely with Jesus' conception or nativity, so too does God require the entire life and death of Jesus (that is, his entire living into death) to achieve the degree of solidarity with us that makes him the Emmanuel he wills to be. There is a double "movement" involved here, the movement of descent and ascent, kenosis and theosis. Not only does God-in-Christ become implicated in the whole of human experience and the realm of human history but in that same Christ God takes the whole of the human situation and experience into Godself. We talk about this by saying that through the Christ Event heaven and earth interpenetrate one another and one day God will be all in all or, again, that "the Kingdom of God is at hand." John the Evangelist says it again and again with the language of mutual indwelling and union: "I am in him and he is in me," "he who sees me sees the one who sent me", "the Father and I are One." Paul affirms dimensions of it in Romans 8 when he exults, "Nothing [at all in heaven or on earth] can separate us from the Love of God."

And so, in Jesus' life and active ministry, the presence of God is made real in space and time in an unprecedented way --- that is, with unprecedented authority, compassion, and intimacy. He companions and heals us; he exorcises our demons, teaches, feeds, forgives and sanctifies us. He is mentor and brother and Lord. He bears our stupidities and fear, our misunderstandings, resistance, and even our hostility and betrayals. But the revelation of God as Emmanuel means much more besides; as we move into the Triduum we begin to celebrate the exhaustive revelation, the exhaustive realization of an eternally-willed solidarity with us whose extent we can hardly imagine. In Christ and especially in his passion and death God comes to us in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Three dimensions of the cross especially allow us to see the depth of solidarity with us our God embraces in Christ: failure, suffering unto death, and lostness or godforsakenness. Together they reveal our God as Emmanuel --- the one who is with us as the one from whom nothing can ever ultimately separate us because in Christ those things become part of God's own life.

Jesus comes to the cross having apparently failed in his mission and shown his God to be a fraud. (From one perspective we could say that had he succeeded completely there would have been no betrayal, no trial, no torture and no crucifixion.) Jesus had spoken truth to power all throughout his ministry. On the cross this comes to a climax and in the events of Jesus' passion, the powers and principalities of this world appear to swallow him up. But even as this occurs and Jesus embraces the weight of the world's darkness and deathliness, Jesus remains open to God and trusts in his capacity to redeem any failure; thus even failure, but especially this one, can serve the Kingdom of God. Jesus suffers to the point of death and suffers more profoundly than any person in history we can name --- not because he hurt more profoundly than others but because he was more vulnerable to it and chose to embrace that vulnerability and all the world threw at him without mitigation. Suffering per se is not salvific, but Jesus' openness and responsiveness to God (that is, his obedience) in the face of suffering is. Thus, suffering even unto death is transformed into a potential sacrament of God's presence. Finally, Jesus suffers the lostness of godforsakenness or abandonment by God --- the ultimate separation from God due to sin. This is the meaning of not just death but death on a cross. In this death Jesus again remains open (obedient) to the God who reveals himself most exhaustively as Emmanuel and takes even the lostness of sin and death into himself and makes these his own. After all, as the NT reminds us, it is the sick and lost for whom God in Christ comes.

In perhaps the most powerful passage I have ever read on the paradox of the cross of Christ, John Dwyer (my major professor until doctoral work) speaks about God's reconciling work in Jesus --- the exhaustive coming of God as Emmanuel to transform everything --- in this way:

[[Through Jesus, the broken being of the world enters the personal life of the everlasting God, and this God shares in the broken being of the world. God is eternally committed to this world, and this commitment becomes full and final in his personal presence within this weak and broken man on the cross. In him the eternal One takes our destiny upon himself --- a destiny of estrangement, separation, meaninglessness, and despair. But at this moment the emptiness and alienation that mar and mark the human situation become once and for all, in time and eternity, the ways of God. God is with this broken man in suffering and in failure, in darkness and at the edge of despair, and for this reason suffering and failure, darkness and hopelessness will never again be signs of the separation of man from God. God identifies himself with the man on the cross, and for this reason everything we think of as manifesting the absence of God will, for the rest of time, be capable of manifesting his presence --- up to and including death itself.]]

He continues,

[[Jesus is rejected and his mission fails, but God participates in this failure, so that failure itself can become a vehicle of his presence, his being here for us. Jesus is weak, but his weakness is God's own, and so weakness itself can be something to glory in. Jesus' death exposes the weakness and insecurity of our situation, but God made them his own; at the end of the road, where abandonment is total and all the props are gone, he is there. At the moment when an abyss yawns beneath the shaken foundations of the world and self, God is there in the depths, and the abyss becomes a ground. Because God was in this broken man who died on the cross, although our hold on existence is fragile, and although we walk in the shadow of death all the days of our lives, and although we live under the spell of a nameless dread against which we can do nothing, the message of the cross is good news indeed: rejoice in your fragility and weakness; rejoice even in that nameless dread because God has been there and nothing can separate you from him. It has all been conquered, not by any power in the world or in yourself, but by God. When God takes death into himself it means not the end of God but the end of death.]] Dwyer, John C., Son of Man Son of God, a New Language for Faith, p 182-183.

Violence Sanctioned at the Heart of Christianity? (Reprise)

[[Dear Sister, I read a comment on a book that said Jesus' death on the cross represents a sanctioning of violence right at the heart of Christianity. Is that true do you think? I've read several books that suggest that Jesus' death validates violence like in domestic abuse. Is there some way to avoid this conclusion?]]

Thanks for your questions. In the theology of the cross I have presented here over the past years, I hope it is clear that I don't accept that either conclusion is the case. If we were to argue that God wills the torturous death of his Son without nuance or careful delineation then I think the folks making these kinds of comments or drawing these conclusions would be correct, but since I believe we must tease apart what was and what was not the will of God in Jesus' passion and death, and since I believe Jesus' torture was not the will of God but the will and actions of sinful humanity doing their worst, I also believe we can avoid sanctioning violence at the heart of Christianity. Please note that suffering does exist at the heart of Christianity, but it is not the will of God, nor is it some form of punishment for sin; it is instead what is meant to be redeemed and is redeemed as Jesus makes it his own for our sake. My basic point in several posts here has been that what God wills, especially as Jesus prays in discernment in the Garden of Gethsemane, is a life lived with integrity in obedience (openness, responsiveness) to the will of God --- the will to fullness of life and love mediated through Jesus' vocation as "a man for others".

What is especially redemptive in Jesus' suffering and death in light of the violence which does seem to stand right at the heart of God's battle with sin and evil, is the fact that God in Christ makes these ordinarily isolating and shameful realities his own and in doing so transforms them from places of degradation and shame into potential places of grace and blessing. There is judgment here, but it does not fall on Jesus. Instead, it falls on those who torture and kill him, those in positions of power who diminish and degrade with violence. Because Jesus takes these things on, what were symbols of failure, weakness, and inhumanity become instead symbols (not mere signs!) of the very presence of God and so too, of an incredibly revelatory humanity lived with integrity in communion with God.

Clearly, I believe it is possible to avoid the conclusions you set forth in your questions. Violence is not sanctioned at the heart of Christianity because Christology is about how God deals with the reality of violence and human power structures which torment the helpless and impoverish the weak. God takes human violence on by making it part of his own life; however, God also overturns and condemns it by bringing a victory out of even the worst that humans can and do to one another. In other words, God says no to violence and exploitation as he says an unconditional yes to those who are the victims of such realities, and also to the perpetrators of such violence. God always says no to sin and evil, but God also always says yes to the persons touched by these things.

On Bishops' Supervision of Hermit Vocations and the Importance of Life Commitments

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, I have several questions about the requirement of Canon 603 that bishops supervise the life of the diocesan hermit. What does this mean? I mean that the canon reads "under the supervision of the bishop" and seems to be talking about the whole scope of the canon. So does it mean he meets regularly with the hermit and assumes an active supervisory role or that he acts in other ways to assure the hermit's well-being, and such? Also, what happens when a new bishop comes into the picture --- does he simply inherit responsibility for the hermit or can he ask the hermit to go through some vetting process all over again? I have read [someone] who believes this is important and should be implemented. What happens when a bishop chooses not to oversee the hermit's vocation, does that ever happen? What I am thinking is that the supervision of the bishop might refer just to the initial discernment and formation but not to ongoing discernment. Would you agree?]]

Thanks for the questions. I have answered some of them in the past, so please do check out the labels in the right-hand column for further information. As I read the Canon it establishes a relationship of mutual responsibility between the hermit who is to be a diocesan hermit, and the bishop of the diocese. I don't think anything else makes sense. One cannot profess and consecrate a person to eremitical life lived under the supervision of the local bishop and then allow them to go without such supervision!! However, you raise a very good question when you ask what such supervision must look like. Must it be a hand's-on direct supervision where the bishop meets annually or bi-annually with the hermit (or even more frequently if the bishop has the time and inclination), or can the job of direct supervision be placed in someone else's hands? The canon is not specific here and leaves things up to the discretion of the bishop it seems to me.

When I was petitioning for admission to (perpetual) profession, the Vicars for Religious (we had two under Bishop Vigneron) asked me to select a "delegate" who would serve as a "quasi-superior" on my behalf and on behalf of the bishop and diocese. I would be unlikely to be meeting particularly frequently with him, and they wanted to be sure both I and the diocese were served by what we tend to call today, "the ministry of authority". A canonical hermit is not a lone wolf. She is not professed and consecrated and then turned loose to do whatever she wants in whatever way she wants. She has rights and obligations she is expected to meet. Even more importantly, because of her stricter separation and significant silence and solitude, she requires someone who will come to know her well and work with her in terms of her vocation so she is genuinely a hermit living an ecclesial vocation in and towards the silence of solitude central to C 603 and any eremitical vocation. Usually, bishops are simply not the best people to fill such a role. I am more grateful than I can say to Archbishop Vigneron and to the Vicars for Religious for requiring such an arrangement prior to perpetual profession!!!

Because of this, I have only needed to meet with the bishop once a year or so. For that matter, it would likely be enough for my delegates to do so to give him an accounting of my own vocation as they see it. (I have 2 Religious Sisters who serve as co-delegates or Directors.)  Even so, bishops need to learn from their diocesan hermits and it is ideal for bishops to meet with the hermit's delegate(s) and also with the hermit approximately annually. Sometimes, however, when new bishops come into the picture things fall through the cracks. Since I first petitioned for admission to c 603 standing, my diocese has seen 5 bishops. One of these professed and consecrated me, one was merely interim and had the Vicar for Religious communicate with me, two inherited me from the bishop who professed me, and of these two, one met with me annually (more frequently if I needed to do so), and the other, though introduced to me, informed that he was my legitimate superior, and assured that the diocese had all of my contact information, has simply been less available than the others, nor have I pressed the issue. Fortunately, my co-delegates serve me and the diocese well in keeping their fingers on the pulse points of my life, calling, and work so this has not been problematical.

So, I have had bishops that assume direct responsibility for my vocation and others that supervise my vocation less directly. I think both arrangements, presuming both involve real communication with hermits and/or delegates, work well. What is not acceptable in terms of the canon and the vocation itself is for a bishop to refuse to accept any responsibility for a hermit who is publicly professed in his diocese --- and I have certainly heard stories about this kind of situation from across the country. Usually, this occurs when a new bishop is ordained or installed. Sometimes he has no experience with hermits at all and does not understand the vocation; sometimes he may not believe in the vocation itself; sometimes he seems to believe he is just too busy (and perhaps too important) to meet with a lowly hermit by him/herself and seeks to meet with any diocesan hermits present in the diocese as a group. And sometimes things just fall through the cracks (which can include the gatekeepers to the bishop's appointment calendar, etc.) 

The bottom line in all of this is that Canon 603 legislates a vocation that is to be lived under the REAL supervision of the local ordinary. If the hermit assumes rights and obligations in making profession or being consecrated under this canon, so too does ANY bishop who takes on the reins of diocesan leadership in a diocese with c 603 hermits --- no matter how he feels about c 603 or those professed accordingly! Regarding the idea that when a bishop moves on, retires, dies, etc., and a new bishop assumes leadership of the diocese, any diocesan hermit should go through the vetting typical of initial formation and discernment yet again, let me say straight out that that is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. Remember that we are dealing with the church's own theology of consecrated life and that with initiation into the consecrated state of life one is initiated into a STABLE state of life where a life commitment can grow in whatever direction and to whatever depth and extent God wills it. The situation you have described would completely vitiate any sense of stability or persistent meaningfulness in such a vocation. It would thus, also compromise one's ability to grow in it as exhaustively as one is called to do. For this one needs a truly perpetually binding commitment.

Bishops DO die; some become Archbishops and move to an Archdiocese, while others retire or ask to be moved to another diocese or Military Ordinariate (now Archdiocese). Since beginning to live as a hermit @ 1984, I personally have seen 5 bishops go and come. Should I really have been made to redo professions again and again? And what of consecration? God consecrates on the occasion of one's perpetual profession and one enters the consecrated state of life. Yes, the state can be undone, but not the consecration!! Why would we act in such a way with what is both a hardy and a fragile gift? And what about what we recognize as admission to PERPETUAL profession? Do we simply admit to temporary profession again and again and never allow the person to make a definitive or life commitment leading to God's own consecration of the person for the whole of her life??? 

Our world is changeable enough. We really do need people making various life commitments. More, we need to believe in the possibility of life commitments!! We need to be able to celebrate them in ways that really recognize their value to the church and the whole of society! I have watched Sisters dealing with the completion of their congregations' work as numbers dwindle. It is both one of the saddest and most inspiring things I have ever experienced. Day in and day out Sisters renew life commitments and pour out their lives in light of these professions. They do not say, "Wow, this is difficult, this isn't what I signed up for. At the end of the year, instead of making vows again, I will just leave for something easier"!! Other Sisters recognize the difficulty of living together with all kinds of personalities -- especially as everyone ages. Life commitments don't allow them to say, "You know, Sister x is really a pain in the behind (and well she might be!); let's ask her to go through another mutual discernment process and get her out of here when the time comes for her vows to expire." No, they have life commitments, not just to serve the church, but to love one another and to serve one another in community!! It is the quality of the commitment that keeps us going forward and growing more deeply rooted when things become difficult or take turns we never anticipated or expected.  Love requires commitments and I think to pour out one's whole heart --- one's whole being --- one requires a perpetual or definitive commitment.

There is a kind of quantum leap made between a temporary profession and a definitive, solemn, or perpetual profession, even though we always make vows with the idea that we are called to them the rest of our lives. While discernment is always part of our daily lives, we do not continue to anguish over or consider things in the way we do before making a definitive/life commitment. That has been done, usually several times before admission to perpetual profession. Once we have committed ourselves for the whole of our lives, the discernment shifts focus from some version of [[Do I or do I not truly have this vocation?]] to variations on [[What is my place in this stream of vocational tradition? How do I live this historical reality out with integrity in this time and this place?]] In community life, discernment involves questions about the direction, growth, and leadership of the congregation, the nature and shape of the congregation's charism and mission, how one is uniquely called to carry these into the world, and so forth. In eremitical life, there are similar questions regarding eremitical tradition, the nature and charism of the vocation, the important values brought to this world in this space and time, etc. Once a definitive commitment has been made, one lives into the vocation as one whose entire life has been summoned to it and given over to it and to the God who gives it to the world through us. One now knows oneself as "gift-bearer" in a way the temporarily committed simply cannot do.

With regard to hermits per se, if a bishop is leaving the diocese and the publicly professed hermit is only temporary professed, yes the incoming bishop could ask for a new discernment process; he could ask for a longer period of temporary vows --- which means he could ask the hermit renew a temporary commitment so that he might be truly sure of this vocation himself before admitting to perpetual profession. What is more likely is that the outgoing bishop will admit such a hermit to perpetual profession before he leaves, assuming the recommendations of all involved in working with the person encouraged this. If the hermit is not yet professed but it is clear as it can be that she has this vocation, then the departing bishop can admit to temporary vows. It is unlikely the incoming bishop will not listen to the people working with the candidate and their recommendation to admit to perpetual profession when the time for that comes. We act in good faith in entering into such processes of discernment and formation, and we trust that everyone will act in a similar way as the process unfolds. 

Sometimes that trust is betrayed, and sometimes mistakes are made in discernment while formation can be inadequate and require more attention. Yes. (Though formation will always continue throughout one's life.) There is a reason the Bishop's Decree of Approval/ Rule of Life said in regard to my own Rule, [[I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life.]] Yes, the remainder of the decree was entirely positive, but when dealing with Divine Vocations we can only do what we can truly do. Everything, including ongoing discernment and formation, and the deepening of the vocation, must be left in God's hands. What we know is that God calls persons to such vocations and consecrates them perpetually to his service and love. We must trust this I think, and respond as corresponding grace empowers us to do. 

I sincerely hope this is helpful.