Do You Love Me Peter? Being Made Fully Human in Dialogue with God (Reprise)

One post-Easter Gospel includes the pericope where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him. It is the first time we hear much about or from Peter since his triple denial of Christ --- his fear-driven affirmations that he did not even know the man and is certainly not a disciple of his. After each question and reply by Peter, Jesus commissions Peter to "feed my lambs, feed my sheep." 

I have written about this at least three times before and I love it more and more each time. About four or five years ago I used this text to reflect on the place of conscience in our lives and a love which transcends law. At another point I spoke about the importance of Jesus' questions and of my own difficulty with Jesus' question to Peter. Then, about three years ago at the end of school I asked the students to imagine what it feels like to have done something for which one feels there is no forgiveness possible and then to hear how an infinitely loving God deals with that. The solution is not, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have termed it, "cheap grace" --- a forgiveness without cost or consequences. Neither is it a worthless "luv" which some in the Church mistakenly disparage because they hear (they say) too many homilies about the God of Love and mercy and not enough about the God of "justice". Instead, what Jesus reveals in this lection is a merciful love which overcomes all fear and division and summons us to incredible responsibility and freedom. The center of this reading, in other words, is a love which does justice and sets all things right.

But, especially at this time in the church's life, today's Gospel also takes me to the WAY Jesus loves Peter. He addresses him directly; he asks him questions and allows him to discover an answer which stands in complete contrast to and tension with his earlier denials and the surge of emotions and complex of thoughts that prompted them. As with Peter, Jesus' very presence is a question or series of questions which have the power to call us deeper, beyond our own personal limitations and conflicts, to the core of our being. What Jesus does with Peter is engage him at a profound level of heart --- a level deeper than fear, deeper than ego, beyond defensiveness and insecurity. Jesus' presence enables dialogue at this profound level, dialogue with one's true self, with God, and with one's entire community; it is an engagement which brings healing and reveals that the capacity for dialogue is the deepest reflection of our humanity.

It is this deep place in us which is the level for authentically human decision making. When we perceive and act at this level of heart we see and act beyond the level of black and white thinking, beyond either/or judgmentalism. Here we know paradox and hold tensions together in faith and love. Here we act in authentic freedom. Jesus' dialogue with Peter points to all of this and to something more. It reminds us that loving God is not a matter of "feeling" some emotion --- though indeed it may well involve this. Instead it is something we are empowered in dialogue with the Word and Spirit of God to do which transcends even feelings; it is a response realized in deciding to serve, to give, to nourish others in spite of the things happening to us at other levels of our being.

When we reflect on this text involving a paradigmatic dialogue between Peter and Jesus we have a key to understanding the nature of all true ministry, and certainly to life and ministry in the Church. Not least we have a significant model of papacy. Of course it is a model of service, but it is one of service only to the extent it is one of true dialogue, first with God, then with oneself, and finally with all others. It is always and everywhere a matter of being engaged at the level of heart, and so, as already noted, beyond ego, fear, defensiveness, black and white thinking, judgmentalism or closed-mindedness to a place where one is comfortable with paradox. As John Paul II wrote in Ut Unum Sint, "Dialog has not only been undertaken; it is an outright necessity, one of the Church's priorities, " or again, "It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. . .any display of mutual opposition must disappear." (UUS, secs 31 and 29)

But what is true for Peter is, again, true for each of us. We must be engaged at the level of heart and act in response to the dialogue that occurs there. Because of the place of the Word of God in this process, lectio divina, the reflective reading of Scripture, must be a part of our regular praxis. So too with prayer, especially quiet prayer whose focus is listening deeply and being comfortable with that often-paradoxical truth that comes to us in silence. Our humanity is meant to be a reflection of this profound dialogue. At every moment we are meant to be a hearing of Jesus' question and the commission to serve which it implies. At every moment then we are to be the response which transcends ego, fear, division, judgmentalism, and so forth. Engagement with the Word of God enables such engagement, engagement from that place of unity and communion with God and others Jesus' questions to Peter allowed him to find and live from. My prayer today is that each of us may commit to be open to this kind of engagement. It makes of us the dialogical reality, the full realization of that New Creation which is truly "not of this world" but instead is of the Kingdom of God --- right here, right now.

Questions on Types of Hermits and Use of the term Lay Hermits

[[ Hi Sister, you usually write about 3 types of hermits. I wondered if you could explain why CICLSAL says there are 4 kinds? Also, you speak of lay hermits and you wrote about the hierarchical meaning of "lay" recently. Could you cite some official church document that speaks of lay hermits? Thank you.]]

Hi there yourself! You must be asking about the DICLSAL document, The Hermit's Way of Life in the Local Church (Ponam in Deserto Viam, Is 43:19) Guidelines. The difference between the way DICLSAL divides hermits and I do points to a significant oversight on my part really. DICLSAL includes hermits who are members of fundamentally cenobitical communities whose proper law (the law proper to the congregation itself which governs as well as canon law) allows for this option. Generally, I have overlooked this type of hermit not because they are unimportant, but because they do live eremitical lives, but under the proper law of the congregation. Discernment, resources, ministry of authority, Rule, etc., all fall under the congregational Constitutions and Statutes. In my mind it's a self-enclosed world, where one is professed as a member of a community and not as a hermit; though I am sure I have mentioned this option existing, it was this that caused me to overlook it, so thanks for reminding me of what DICLSAL lists as the four forms of eremitical life. (For readers not familiar with the document noted, the four types of hermit are:

1.  Clerical/Lay members of non-eremitical (i.e., monastic or apostolic) institutes of consecrated life living as hermits because it is an option and is regulated under proper law; (please note in this and other categories, DICLSAL has lay persons as members of an institute of consecrated life when lay is used in this hierarchical sense). In this sense of the word, one can be in the consecrated state and lay at the same time because one is not a cleric. 
2. clerical/lay members belonging to eremitic or semi-eremitic institutes of consecrated life whose lives are regulated under universal and proper law, that is under both canon and proper law.
3. clerical/lay faithful who live eremitical lives without professing the evangelical counsels, (please note that Ponans specifically affirms that all the baptized are called to live the evangelical counsels according to their own state of life, ( cf. Par 33); because of this the emphasis of the italicized and emboldened phrase falls on the word professing used in its technical or proper meaning. In this sense profession/professing always refers to a public ecclesial act and not to an act of private avowal no matter who witnesses the act); this also speaks specifically then to secular clergy and lay persons living as hermits without benefit of profession since promises to one's bishop notwithstanding, secular clergy do not profess the evangelical counsels while clergy who are members of institutes of consecrated life always do. Thus, both secular priests and lay persons who do not make public profession can live as hermits. The church recognizes this as a valid form of eremitical life.
4. clerical/lay members of the faithful professing the evangelical counsels by vows or other sacred bonds, in the hands of the local bishop, (C 603 or diocesan hermits).  [The profession of other sacred bonds is what is meant when the Catechism says without always making vows publicly. By definition, profession is always a public act, and with C 603 one need not use vows but can use other sacred bonds.]

I think it is clear just from the document you yourself referred to that hermits can be either clerical or lay members of the faithful. In all cases, DICLSAL is using the hierarchical notion of lay (i.e., anyone not in orders is laity). In the types noted above, members of institutes of consecrated life (i.e.,  religious women and men), whether eremitical, semi-eremitical, monastic or apostolic are either clerical or lay despite profession and consecration. While one could therefore refer to a lay hermit or a priest hermit, as I have done in the past for specific situations or persons, the better general solution is to refer to hermits in terms of their canonical status/standing, either non-canonical or canonical (or, alternately, non-canonical or consecrated. This would include those hermits mentioned above living their eremitical lives under the proper law of a congregation; they would be canonical religious (Benedictines, Carmelites, etc.) living legitimately as non-canonical hermits). This also avoids the confusing ambiguities of the term lay when the hierarchical sense contrasts with a vocational sense. If you want further evidence of the use of lay hermits (or hermits who embrace the evangelical counsels and remain in the lay state), please let me know.

I haven't written here much about Ponans, though folks have asked me several times about whether I had plans to do so or not. I am grateful for your questions; perhaps they will get me started doing some reflections on these important guidelines.

Please note: CICLSAL is now a Dicastery rather than a Congregation, thus the initials DICLSAL rather than CICLSAL.

If Canonical Means Normative, then Shouldn't all Hermits be Canonical?

[[ Hi Sister, if canonical means normative, then shouldn't all hermits in the church be required to live according to canon 603? I mean I know you said they don't, but shouldn't they?]]

Thanks for the question! Here is where the terms "paradigm" and "paradigmatic" may be more useful than canonical, at least initially. One strength, perhaps the strength, of Canon 603 is its ability to provide a paradigm of what it means to be a hermit in the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, it provides a model of what the church considers to be paradigmatic of such a vocation (that is, essential, characteristic, typical, worthy of following or modeling oneself after, etc). All other hermits in the church, whether canonical or non-canonical can be deemed authentic or inauthentic based on how well they live or embody the defining elements of this paradigm --- just as is true for solitary hermits bound legally by the canon. If someone wants to try to live as a hermit and wonders what is involved, c 603 will let them know that --- at least in outline form.

However, canon 603 is normative in a second sense as well; namely, it provides a way for hermits to make public commitments to the life which bind the hermit in law. It provides not just disparate elements found in every authentic eremitical life according to the church, but an ecclesial framework through which one may make a public, legally binding commitment intrinsic to and commensurate with the seriousness of the vocation defined therein. It implicates the entire church in such vocations and establishes legal and moral relationships between the hermit and her bishop and delegates, as well as more casual relationships between the hermit and the rest of the faithful in both the local and universal church. Here is where the importance of a public commitment comes to the fore.

Because the canonical commitment is public and not a private one, it can be and is binding in a way that affects (and makes the hermit deliberately and legally responsible for) the upbuilding of the church as a whole via this vocation. It allows others to have expectations of this hermit and the vocation as a whole, especially that eremitical life generally is not a means to a selfish and defensive cocooning, an expression of misdirected individualism, or the work of something other than the Holy Spirit in the Church's midst, but is healthy, life-giving, and part of the holiness of the church herself, and also that this person in this place and time has been truly called to proclaim the Gospel with her life in this unique and rare way. These characteristics are also linked to the affirmation that c 603 vocations are ecclesial vocations, belonging first to the church and only thereafter to the hermit called in this way.

Though everyone is called to live their vocations with integrity in a way that edifies, not everyone is called to take on the same public responsibilities and rights, however. Not everyone should attempt to do so. There are several paths in the church to eremitical life and many more outside the church. Only two of these are considered canonical and are seen to be both paradigmatic and legally binding on those whom God has consecrated accordingly. This "standing in law" that comes with profession helps the one called in this way to truly live the vocation in an exemplary way. It provides a specifically ecclesial context where the person can explore the depth and breadth of such a vocation and it ensures the person's commitment to doing so is carefully, consciously, and seriously made with God at the center and the wellbeing of the entire People of God in mind!

Vision before Legislation: A Livable Rule is not an Out-Sized to-Do List!!

[[Sister Laurel -- I tried writing a Rule for myself, not as a hermit because I am not one, but just for living as a Christian every day of my life. I got hung up though and it sounded more like I was making a colossal to-do list or something. I hate to-do lists because I always fail at them and they always get longer and longer and totally unfinished in every way. I think I may have a touch of OCD in this!! When I read what you write about writing a Rule or even recent posts on the canon you live under and are responsible for, it doesn't sound like your Rule or Canon 602 are like huge to-do lists. You even speak about this pattern as something beginners tend to write. Is there something about the way you look at these things which keeps you from making them into huge obstacles to living them? Thanks!]]

Thanks to you for your questions as well! I really like the way you describe the problem with your Rule as you perceive it! I am also really grateful for the way you linked Rule and Canon (603 by the way). I don't think I have ever written about the similarity between the way I approach the two of them, but you are entirely correct --- I do look at them similarly. For me, both embody a vision of eremitical life as lived in the contemporary church and world. As I have written here before, the elements of Canon 603 represent doorways to Mystery. Each doorway allows me into something of the whole life and to explore some specific dimension of it. Each one also provides a way to approach the world around me, to meditate on and understand its more important needs and yearnings. 

So, for instance, in praying with my Rule (I use it for lectio and as a kind of "workbook"), a term like stricter separation from the world (a mandatory norm of the eremitical life) can take me into the heart of God, the very essence of solitude and the summit of a warm and loving silence that sings my name and smooths the sharp edges of loneliness. It opens a world of both personal growth and challenge that comforts me and summons me to be myself to the fullest extent possible in and with God. But too, carried in the heart of God I am called back into the world by the God who would be Emmanuel. At the same time, it reminds me of all of the unnatural and inhuman experiences of silence we impose on others or have imposed on us, the cruel forms of "noise" that tear at the human heart or create what is sometimes called "soul murder", and it shows me a vision of eremitical life that stands in countercultural opposition to or tension with the world around me. It also allows me to see myself and my eremitical life as leaven affecting this same world for the better -- just as a beating heart quietly affects the entire person simply by carrying on its hidden work at the core of the organism.

Reflection on the phrase assiduous prayer and penance leads me to understand eremitical life as a form of spirituality where the hermit becomes God's own prayer in the world. Thus, I rarely understand this element of hermit life as being primarily about saying prayers or doing the ancillary kinds of things that support and nurture prayer (journaling, fasting, desert days, vigils). Instead, my reflection leads me to consider the needs of the world around me for love, for the ability to dialogue honestly, to listen deeply, and to be a vital source of the Holy Spirit at the center of it all. I tend to reflect on what things are like without God at the center and imagine what they could be whenever prayer (God's powerful and dynamic presence acting within) is made real there, and I pray for specific people and situations.

Even the way the canon is structured and composed provides material for reflection, meditation, and then, contemplation because I marvel at the way it combines necessary elements, the sine qua non of eremitical life with the individual's Rule of Life. This allows me to see more clearly the way human freedom (represented by the Rule itself since the hermit writes this on the basis of her own experience and understanding) combines with the varied constraints of life (the required elements of the canon) to produce healthy freedom and relatedness. In this, I have tended to reflect on the way the hermit models authentic freedom in opposition to undisciplined individualism and unconstrained liberty. Moreover, she does this in relative hiddenness. People speak about the freedom of the hermit. Somehow they truly recognize it despite the hiddenness and relative anonymity of the life. 

One hermit I know who is well on her way to profession and consecration under c 603, reflects on eremitical hiddenness in terms of a maternal "hidden love" that inculcates in her a compassionate solidarity with the unseen, unheard, uncounted, and uncared for in our world. For her as well, hiddenness is not primarily about things she will do or not do --- though she carefully considers such things, but about a vision of who the eremitic life calls her to be with and for others in order to effect change in (bring salvation to) our world. That she can be present with and for these others in this unique way is part of the deepest mystery of her vocation, just as it is for any hermit. The requirement that hermits lead an (either relatively or absolutely) hidden life in "stricter separation from the world" opens to this hermit the stunningly intimate and paradoxical Mystery revealed in Christ who is God-With-us.

In all of these examples the Rule codifies a vision of a meaningful life and how it is the central elements of c 603 provide the basis for a vision of the person the hermit will be and the life she will life on behalf of God's creation. There is always some attention to the do's and don'ts of the life but more fundamentally the Rule conveys who the hermit will be and the values we incarnate in order to be a significant-yet-hidden presence in our world. If you can begin to think of your own Rule in similar terms (terms that fit your own circumstances and state of life!!) I believe you will find it engages both your head and heart in profound and exciting ways that transcend the whole "to do or not to do" calculus that is so much an obstacle for you. Like contemplative life more generally, I think a Rule of Life that is truly livable for a person is one that inspires her to BE before it legislates what she will or will not DO.

Give it a try and please get back to me as you progress in your efforts. I would like to hear how you are doing with this; perhaps you can follow up with concrete examples that fit your own circumstances.

Followup Questions on "Canonical" as meaning Normative or Paradigmatic

[[Hi Sister, let me push you some on the idea of canonical as normative or meeting certain standards, okay? Are you saying that a non-canonical eremitical life is less authentic than a canonical eremitical life? I am afraid the idea of normative and not normative could be interpreted to mean perfect and imperfect, good and not-as-good, or something like that. I really hope that is not what you are saying!! How do you understand this when applied to your own life?]]

Those are really good questions and you are correct that I am not saying the things you are afraid I am saying. What I have tried to say is that some forms of eremitical life in the church have norms and standards set by the church herself, and others do not. This in turn means that if one wants to live eremitical life in the name of the Church as a Catholic Hermit, s/he must accept, embrace, and be confirmed in embracing and meeting these norms. In fact, she must show a pattern of valuing and living these norms for some time before the church admits her to a public commitment and state of life as a representative of someone living and continually striving to live more deeply, such a normative (canonical) life.

It is, again, the life itself that is established in law as normative, not the person living or proposing to live it. Still, I think we all know people who have been shaped by and embody a way of life so well, that they come to represent a normative (or perhaps paradigmatic) instance of it. This is ideal and the way truly living a vocation tends to form or shape us. In religious life, we sometimes refer to people as "Living Rules". For instance, I can think of various Benedictines or Camaldolese who are what it means to be Camaldolese or Benedictine. I know one Sister who IS Franciscanism for me and another who IS what it means BE a "Gleaner" -- the very charism of her community. To be admitted to canonical standing says, that the church trusts that one will strive to live ever more deeply into the normative (canonical) state of life to which one has been admitted. It means that one has carefully and honestly discerned this vocation with representatives of the church, entered whole-heartedly into initial and (as time approaches for perpetual profession), ongoing formation processes; it means that one understands and meets the requirements of the canons (norms) which govern the life (c 603, in the case of solitary hermits), and that one accepts responsibility for bearing this part of the church's tradition in a way that shapes her whole being and potentially, the vocation itself.

Sometimes, because I write about c 603 a lot, I have been accused of being obsessed with c 603, and of not maturing spiritually. That doesn't bother me one whit. After all,  I am a c 603 hermit and I am professed not just to live the evangelical counsels, but to live ever more deeply into the constitutive elements of the canon (or the canon's vision) itself. What else should I be so concerned with given the fact that God and his salvific will are central to the canon's very existence? As I have noted in the past, I actually am struck by the beauty of c 603's construction, and I accept that it is normative for my life; in fact, I see it as defining my life in ways that ask me to become a living embodiment of the vision of the silence of solitude the canon involves in the unique way God calls me to that. Others are called similarly; paradoxically, they will live this canon both as I do and differently than I do precisely because we both take the elements of the canon with similar seriousness. That is because we each live our relationship with God under these norms in a way that allows God to shape us individually with our whole history, personality, vision, and variety of talents, gifts, idiosyncrasies, needs, perceptions, insights, etc., under the norms of the canon and the supervision of the church.

So, I am not saying norms create uniformity, nor am I saying that a canonical (normative) vocation means the person representing that vocation is perfect or normative. Still, within reason, persons admitted to canonical profession have been deemed by those capable of determining such things, capable of understanding, valuing, and carrying out the rights and obligations they are undertaking in the name of the church; they have been seen to be sincere in their attempts to live these well over some time as part of the church's proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and, most importantly, they have been discerned to be (and truly believe they have been) called by God to do so as the way they become fully human or holy. The vocation is normative because the church has discerned it contains or is constituted by the elements necessary to constitute a way that helps shape these persons and their commitment into the persons God calls them to become. This is less about the persons themselves than  it is about the power of the vocation they are called to and their commitment to be shaped by that vocation and the God who is its source.

At the same time, there is no reason that someone embracing a non-canonical eremitical life because they are rightly convinced God has called them to this, cannot be every bit as good (or even better!) a hermit as the canonically professed hermit. Again, canonical means the vocation is normative or paradigmatic within the life of the church and all she touches; simply because something is not normative in the same way does not mean God does not use it to call outstanding hermits.

Does the Church Fail to Regard Non-Canonical Eremitical Vocations Sufficiently?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, I hope you don't mind a follow-up question from a couple of your recent posts. It has to do with lay hermits. If a lay person makes private vows of the evangelical counsels, or the other elements of c 603 would they cease being a lay person? Does the Church not regard these vocations [sufficiently], particularly if they are the oldest eremitical vocations in the church, as you have said a number of times and just recently as well?]]

You are correct that I have written about this many times over the years. One of the objections I had to the writing of someone who, until about three years ago, used to write about c 603 was that she seemed to believe if a lay person made private vows of the evangelical counsels they ceased being a lay person. Were that so, there could be no lay hermits (and perhaps no lay persons at all -- depending on how many kept the evangelical counsels as the church asks us ALL to do)!! But this can be shown to be untrue for at least two basic reasons, (1) I myself, though consecrated and perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit am still a lay person in the hierarchical sense of that term; that makes me a lay hermit since I am not a cleric (in the alternate, or vocational sense of the term lay, I am a (publicly) consecrated person, and so am a consecrated not a lay hermit). The ambiguous and confusing dual meaning of lay is one reason non-canonical hermit vs canonical hermit is a simpler and more accurate way of distinguishing the two) and (2) as noted above, every baptized person in the church is called upon to live out the evangelical counsels according to her or his own state of life! The profession of the counsels does not, of itself, initiate us into the consecrated state; that requires an act of God which occurs during the Rite of Religious Profession culminating in the solemn prayer of consecration. (We may call the entire Rite either profession or consecration as an act of synecdoche, but the making of vows and the consecration of the one making vows are two distinct but profoundly related acts occurring during the single Rite.) In the hierarchical sense of the word lay, all non-clerics, including all men and women religious, are laity.

In creating c 603 the Church was attempting to rectify a long-overdue oversight, namely, the making of the eremitical vocation a state of perfection (that is, an instance of the consecrated state of life). Bishop Remi de Roo noted that hermits had long been overlooked and he listed the good they provided for the faith of the church. Much of Vatican Council II was a matter of going back to the sources, and in this particular intervention, De Roo was serving as bishop protector of a dozen or so hermits who had had to leave their monasteries and solemn professions to be secularized in order to pursue the eremitical solitude they felt called to. Since monastic life had its roots in the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and since the apex of monastic life was also often understood as solitary union with God and the eremitical state, it made sense that secular (that is, non-religious) hermits, who, despite some eccentrics and outright nutcases were also marked by holiness and a prophetic presence in the church, should have the dignity of their lifestyles recognized by initiating them canonically into the consecrated state of life. Thus, the Church listened to Bishop De Roo and eventually, with the revision of the Code of Canon Law, published a canon for solitary hermits and allowing their initiation into the consecrated state.

Of course, not everyone who is or calls themselves a hermit seeks or is suited to consecration as a canonical hermit. The Church does not automatically admit every person to profession and consecration. I will say, however, that some of us, in accord with The Hermit's Way of Life in the Local Church** guidelines, are working to develop better processes of discernment and formation for such hermit candidates, processes which will be more individualized or tailored to the needs of each candidate and the way the Holy Spirit works in his/her case. Over time it is hoped that all dioceses will be able to use a process more like the mentoring done by Elder Abbas and Ammas in the desert and less laden with arbitrary canonical time frames and other considerations that are more suitable to cenobitical life. Canon 603 itself contains all that is needed to discern and form such vocations in a way allowing diocesan personnel to work with an experienced hermit and to journey with a "candidate" until s/he is ready for profession and later, perpetual profession and consecration,  discerns a different call, or demonstrates unsuitability for those steps instead.

Again, no one is denigrating non-canonical hermits through the ages!!  In fact, canon 603 came to be precisely because the church recognized that eremitical life was an outstanding way to holiness and throughout its history, had produced many outstanding examples of this. With canon 603, the Church honors them and, again, is simply trying to rectify a longstanding failure to regard the importance of the hermit vocation by making it possible for hermits in the lay state of life to be initiated into the consecrated state if a genuine call is mutually discerned. For those who find canon law onerous, who have no desire to undergo a several-year process of discernment and formation with others (diocesan personnel and canonical hermit mentors), who believe that the Church's mediation of one's call and response to this vocation in c 603 and its necessary structures get in the way of a "direct" relationship with God, or who perhaps are simply way more individualistic than all that allows for, the fact is that one can always become a hermit in the way people have done since the third century and earlier, namely, do it on one's own as a hermit in the lay (non-canonical) rather than the consecrated state.

The Church has provided sufficient choices here for everyone. Is God calling you to the consecrated state? Then join an institute of consecrated life or petition for admission to profession and consecration through the diocesan offices of Vicar for Religious and Bishop. If you desire to go it the longstanding way of 20 centuries of church history, the way of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, then accept that you will do it in the lay state by virtue of the freedom granted you by baptism (or baptism and the clerical state if you are in Orders). I don't think any other categories of hermit life are necessary. Meanwhile, every hermit is called to live the following terms of canon 603 in some way, shape, or form: evangelical counsels (like all Christians), assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, all lived for the salvation of the world. None of these of themselves make a lay person other than a lay person. 

One final reminder, the Church recognizes that the eremitical vocation in the consecrated state belongs first of all to the church herself and only thereafter to individual hermits. She extends the gift of initiation into the consecrated state and this ecclesial vocation only after mutual discernment and sufficient formation to be sure the individual will live the life well. Though some might well want to do this, they will fail in what they aspire to. However, the non-canonical eremitical life is still open to these persons and if they should do well at the life in that way,  they would, after a number of years, be able to request the church take another look at the case with an eye toward discernment and eventual profession and consecration.

** Ponam in deserto Viam, Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, now Dicastery for Institutes. . .Life. 

Normative vs non-Normative Vocations: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits and the Misuse of Terms Like Illegal or Illicit

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, what is an "illegal" or "illicit" hermit? In your post on April 12, 2023 you wrote about non-canonical vocation to eremitical life as ancient and of continuing value. I wondered about someone who believes his own eremitical vocation was rendered illicit or illegal because it is not a c 603 vocation. You may not understand why he would say this but it seems like he feels what was the traditional form of hermit life was made illegal when c 603 came into existence. That seems to be what he is saying.]]

Thanks for the question, but I don't know what that is. Seems to me someone asked something similar several years ago. I will need to look through some older posts to see if I can find that. If I can't locate it I will need to get more information from you. The truth, however, regarding the language of canonicity is pretty simple in the Catholic Church. A canon is a norm and when something is made canonical it means that thing, whether a collection of Scriptures, a form of life, a particular office, a set of requirements, etc., is normative according to the church's understanding of something; on the other hand, non-canonical means not normative according to the church's understanding of the thing. By virtue of baptism alone one can live an eremitical life in any way they believe is appropriate for them and feel called to do. However, one is not a Catholic Hermit because what one lives is a private matter and one doesn't live this life, nor is one called to do so, according to all of the norms (standards) governing canonical eremitical life. One does it instead by virtue of one's lay state and the freedom one has in Christ. 

In this case, one dedicates him/herself to serve God in the eremitical life. S/he may make private vows of some sort, but they will not rise to the level of religious profession, nor will they be public or canonical. Because these kinds of commitments (public, canonical) are absent, and because the canonical rights and obligations (along with the expectations granted to the faithful generally in regard to this vocation) are similarly absent, we call this kind of eremitical life non-canonical. It does NOT mean illicit or illegal nor do I know anyone who considers this to be the case. Again, it is simply not normative of ecclesial eremitical life (i.e., it is not canonical) --- though it may well represent an excellent instance of eremitical life and one any hermit can learn from. 

There are two other forms of eremitical life in the church and both involve public (canonical) profession and consecration by God mediated by the Church and are lived in the name of the Church. These are normative forms of eremitical life in the Church. Thus too, both are marked by legal or normative (canonical) rights and obligations that do not obtain in the first form of this life. Another way of saying this is to note that they are both canonical because they are forms of life marked by canonical rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism. The first is solitary eremitical life (members of which could become a lavra on a temporary basis) and the other is semi-eremitical (a canonical community or institute of hermits), where one's profession is made within the context of the institute. In both of these one makes a profession which, by the way, means more than the making of vows (an act of dedication, by the way). Sandra Schneiders, IHM, makes it clear that profession is a broader act than the simple making of vows. First it is a public act in which the individual takes on the kinds of rights and obligations mentioned above and does so as an expression and realization of a gift of God which has been entrusted to the Church and can only be mediated to one by the Church.

Secondly, then, an act of profession is an ecclesial act where the church extends to the individual the right to make such a profession, affirms them as called to live this in the name of the church, and establishes with various structures and offices a context meant to assure the gift is well-lived and continues the tradition into which the individual has been professed as a living, fruitful stream of the Holy Spirit. This differs from a private avowal which ordinarily involves no one but the individual(s) making the vows. Someone may witness such vows, but no one receives them on behalf of the church, no additional public rights nor obligations are entrusted nor taken on, no change of state occurs (there is no additional consecration by God** so one remains in the baptized state alone), and so forth. With private or non-canonical eremitical vocations vows or other forms of dedication don't even need to be made (though foregoing these might be unwise). Still, the dedication may be informal or formal (though still entirely private) --- depending on what suits the individual hermit. 

For canonical hermits profession is made in two ways, first, for solitary hermits, under c 603. When this canon is used, the profession is made to God in the hands of the local ordinary. Because we are speaking about the public assumption and entrustment of the hermit with ecclesial rights and obligations, the rite of profession (involving both profession and commissioning) is mediated by the church. The second way is to admit an individual to membership in an institute of consecrated life living eremitical life. This is familiar to us as admission into religious life and all that constitutes that. Individuals make their professions to God in the hands of the Prior(ess), Abbot (Abbess), of the order, that is in the hands of the general superior. (In both of these forms or eremitical life, perpetual or solemn profession God's consecration of the hermit is also mediated with a solemn blessing of consecration given by the bishop. Similarly, visible symbols of the new state, rights, and obligations, dedication and commission) This mediation continues throughout the entirety of the hermit's life. Hence, it involves canonical structures, an approved Rule, legitimate superiors, ecclesial requirements, etc., to allow the church to ensure this gift of consecrated life contributes to the holiness of the church.

All of this is recognized by the church in her (still relatively) new Canon 603. Here she extends to the solitary hermit who petitions and is accepted by her diocese for profession and then consecration, the standing that had been extended to religious institutes throughout the centuries. Individual dioceses had done some similar things in the late middle ages, usually in order to introduce some structure, obligations,  and responsibilities (i.e., norms) into the ranks of hermits traveling throughout the countryside, when bishops established statutes hermits had to commit to be allowed to represent themselves as hermits/anchorites or to preach and beg. But canon 603 goes further than these statutes for what c 603 does is establish the hermit in what was once called a state of perfection (now, the consecrated state) and allows a solitary hermit to be regarded as a religious despite not belonging to an institute of consecrated life. the Church did this not only to recognize the significance of the eremitical vocation, but to protect it and authentic vocations to it. 

Despite what sometimes seemed like hoards of solitary hermits (for instance, in Italy at the time of Romuald) and the number of institutes of hermits established over the centuries, very few of such institutes lived into the 20th Century and individual hermits became a rarity. Most well-known are the Camaldolese and the Carthusians, but there were also Carmelites, and some hermits within other institutes like the Trappists and Trappistines. Still, eremitical life was a rare and poorly understood vocation. After all, in the Western church, the eremitical life had almost died out. And of course, it was not so easy in the contemporary world to go off into the boonies and establish oneself as a hermit in the ways that were once possible. Moreover, our contemporary world often mistakes various other forms of life for the genuinely eremitical, including individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, agoraphobia, etc. 

Within the church herself,  contemplative life became rarer, genuine silence and solitude much harder to find, shifts in spirituality that themselves were healthy and the necessary emphasis on ministerial life threw shade on eremitical life. But monks and nuns continued to discover calls to greater solitude and silence than their life in community really allowed for. Eventually, in response, the church carved out a space for solitary hermits with c 603. The canonical requirements helped replace the institutes necessary for the Camaldolese and Carthusians, for instance. At the same time, no pre-existing forms of eremitical life were replaced by c 603. Instead, it created a new form of consecrated life. Those baptized and in the lay state could live eremitism in their lay state before c 603 and they still can! The same is true of clerics with their bishop's permission. Thus, no eremitical form of life, especially that made known by the desert Abbas and Ammas who embraced desert spirituality as laity, has been rendered illegal!!! To speak so is misleading and I consider it disedifying given the significance of non-canonical hermit vocations through the centuries. 

** Baptism represents a consecration of the baptized. When one is perpetually professed as a religious or c 603 hermit, a second consecration in the form of a solemn prayer of consecration is extended to the person making their profession. (In temporary vows, the solemn prayer of consecration is not found; instead there is a prayer of blessing.) We call this being initiated into the consecrated state of life. In this act God consecrates the person, the person does not consecrate herself to God. Instead, no matter the commonality of this language of consecrating oneself, the one making profession dedicates herself to God. Only God can consecrate, for God alone is holy and makes holy. Vatican II was very careful always to maintain the distinction between these two verbs, dedicare and consecrare (as well as similar terms).

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!