Basic Vocabulary: Status and Approval

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why would a hermit want status in the Church? I am asking about the idea of canonical status. Why would a humble hermit desire "status"? Also, why is it important to be approved by the Church as in being approved for canonical status or profession. One hermit points out these are hardly what Jesus would want so why should you want these?]]


Thanks for your questions. I'm pretty sure I have written about these terms before so please look them up under labels. Still, let me point out briefly that you seem to be using these terms in ways contrary to the way the Church uses them, especially in regard to profession and consecration as a hermit. First, status refers to a particular kind of standing in law. It does not mean status in the sense of higher social privilege, ranking, or status. Once admitted to public profession a hermit has a standing in canon law she did not have before. What this means concretely is that she has new rights and obligations in law and is commissioned to live the eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. She has "canonical standing" or is "canonical" to use a more informal term. Statum et Status are the Latin forms of the terms status or standing.

Approval, in the limited sense the Church uses this term, is given to someone who meets the Church's requirements and discernment to be admitted to profession or ordination, for instance. A person petitions to be admitted to public vows, and this is true whether one is in a congregation or whether one is a solitary hermit seeking to be professed under canon 603. (One must petition the Church in this matter; it indicates personal freedom, a genuine sense that God is calling one in this way and has done for some time, and so forth.) After the petition has been received the person may be approved for admission or denied admission to profession or profession and consecration; sometimes one petitions only at the end of a long discernment and formation process so one knows fairly well whether the petition will be granted or not). However, admission doesn't mean this person is generally approved by the Church -- though they will have been vetted as to their suitability (the usual term used to speak of character, personal habits, integrity, etc.) to make a public commitment in the Church beyond that of baptism itself.

Some vocations in the Church are called "ecclesial" because they "belong" to the Church herself, to her life of holiness, and sometimes to her hierarchical nature. These vocations must be mutually discerned. It is never enough for an individual to discern such a vocation herself. This is because the Church plays a part in mediating God's own call to the person. So, for instance, once my petition to be admitted to profession under canon 603 was granted we celebrated a Eucharist in which the Church called me forth from the assembly, questioned me regarding my readiness to accept this call, and then received my vows and extended God's consecration to me. The canonical eremitical vocation, like any religious vocation, "belongs" to the Church and she will discern, mediate God's own call to the hermit --- as well as supervise, and govern such vocations on God's behalf precisely because she regards the fact that she, not only the individual, has been entrusted with such vocations as God's own gift to the world.

Given the nature of these vocations (rare, difficult to distinguish from individualism without significant discernment and formation) and the Church's esteem for them and the God who calls those gifted with them, I actually don't think "approval" is too strong a word for determining "suitability" but since it has a much narrower sense than ordinarily, I am careful about pointing out that one is approved, for admission to profession, consecration, or ordination and that such "approval" is not more global. For instance, the Church does not approve my writing, my friendships, etc. They do approve my Rule with a Bishop's statement "(Decree) of approval" that is very clear the Church hopes it will serve the eremitical vocation well. The Rule, therefore, passed muster in terms of content and canon law but no one was sure it would serve the vocation as hoped --- not exactly unqualified "approval."

Regarding the question of humility, my answer is simple. Canonical standing provides a context for living my vocation which creates or ensures stability, accountability, integrity, and freedom. Because eremitical life is lived in the silence of solitude with God in a way which bypasses most normal (and ordinarily necessary) avenues for personal growth, community, and love of and by others (the primary ways we become who God calls us to be), the need for structure including spiritual direction and those in the ministry of authority becomes especially important. Because eremitical solitude is not individualism and is actually antithetical to individualism, in a world largely defined in terms of individualism and a license which is mistaken for authentic freedom, canonical standing and all it implies is particularly critical for the hermit with an ecclesial vocation. Accepting this requires humility where humility means a loving acceptance of the truth of oneself (and others) vis-a-vis God.

Exaltation or Triumph of the Cross (Reprise)

[[Could you write something about (Saturday's) feast of the Exaltation of the Cross? What is a truly healthy and yet deeply spiritual way to exalt the Cross in our personal lives, and in the world at large (that is, supporting those bearing their crosses while not supporting the evil that often causes the destruction and pain that our brothers and sisters are called to endure due to sinful social structures?]]

The above question which arrived by email was the result of reading some of my posts, mainly those on victim soul theology, the Pauline theology of the Cross, and some earlier ones having to do with the permissive will of God. For that reason my answer presupposes much of what I wrote in those and I will try not to be too repetitive. First of all, in answering the question, I think it is helpful to remember the alternative name of this feast, namely, the Triumph of the Cross. For me personally this is a "better" name, and yet, it is a deeply paradoxical one, just like its alternative.


(Crucifix in Ambo of Cathedral of Christ the Light; Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, or Cathedral Sunday in the Diocese of Oakland)


How many times have we heard it suggested that Christians ought not wear crosses around their necks as jewelry any more than they should wear tiny images of electric chairs, medieval racks or other symbols of torture and death? Similarly, how many times has it been said that making jewelry of the cross trivializes what happened there? There is a great deal of truth in these objections, and in similar ones! On the one hand the cross points to the slaughter by torture of hundreds of thousands of people by an oppressive state. More individually it points to the slaughter by torture of an innocent man in order to appease a rowdy religious crowd by an individual of troubled but dishonest conscience, one who put "the supposed greater good" before the innocence of this single victim.

And of course there were collaborators in this slaughter: the religious establishment, disciples who were either too cowardly to stand up for their beliefs, or those who actively betrayed this man who had loved them and called them to a life of greater abundance (and personal risk) than they had ever known before. If we are going to appreciate the triumph of the cross, if we are going to exalt it as Christians do and should, then we cannot forget this aspect of it. Especially we cannot forget that much that happened here was NOT THE WILL OF GOD, nor that generally the perpetrators were not cooperating with that will! The cross was the triumph of God over sin and sinful godless death, but it was ALSO a sinful and godless human (and societal!) act of murder by torture. (In fact one could argue it was a true divine triumph ONLY because it was also these all-too-human things.) Both aspects exist in tension with each other, as they do in ALL of God's victories in our world. It is this tension our jewelry and other crucifixes embody: they are miniature instruments of torture, yes, but also symbols of God's ultimate triumph over the powers of sin and death with which humans are so intimately entangled and complicit.

In our own lives there are crosses, burdens which are the result of societal and personal sin which we must bear responsibly and creatively. That means not only that we cannot shirk them, but also that we bear them with all the asistance that God puts into our hands. Especially it means allowing God to assist us in the carrying of this cross. To really exalt the cross of Christ is to honor all that God did with and made of the very worst that human beings could do to another human being. To exult in our own personal crosses means, at the very least, to allow God to transform them with his presence. That is the way we truly exalt the Cross: we allow it to become the way in which God enters our lives, the passion that breaks us open, makes us completely vulnerable, and urges us to embrace or let God embrace us in a way which comforts, sustains, and even transfigures the whole face of our lives.

If we are able to do this, then the Cross does indeed triumph. Suffering does not. Pain does not. Neither will our lives be defined in terms of these things despite their very real presence. What I think needs to be especially clear is that the exaltation of the cross has to do with what was made possible in light of the combination of awful and humanly engineered torment, and the grace of God. Sin abounded but grace abounded all the more. Does this mean we invite suffering so that "grace may abound all the more?" Well, Paul's clear answer to that question was, "By no means!" How about tolerating suffering when we can do something about it? What about remaining in an abusive relationship, or refusing medical treatment which would ease mental and physical pain, for instance? Do we treat these as crosses we MUST bear? Do we allow ourselves to become complicit in the abuse or the destructive effects of pain and physical or mental illness? I think the general answer is no, of course not.

That means we must look for ways to allow God's grace to triumph, while the triumph of grace ALWAYS results in greater human freedom and authentic functioning. Discerning what is necessary and what will REALLY be an exaltation of the cross in our own lives means determining and acting on the ways freedom from bondage and more authentic humanity can be achieved. Ordinarily this will mean medical treatment; or it will mean moving out of the abusive situation. In ALL cases it means remaining open to and dependent upon God and to what he desires for our lives IN SPITE of the limitations and suffering inherent in them. This is what Jesus did, and what made his cross salvific. This openness and responsiveness to God and what he will do with our lives is, as I have said many times before, what the Scriptures called obedience. Let me be clear: the will of God in ANY situation is that we remain open to him and that authentic humanity be achieved. We MUST do whatever it is that allows us to not close off to God, and to remain open to growth AS HUMAN. If our pain dehumanizes, then we must act in ways which changes that. If our lives cease to reflect the grace of God (and this means fails to be a joyfilled, free, fruitful, loving, genuinely human life) then we must act in ways which change that.

The same is true in society more generally. We must act in ways which open others TO THE GRACE OF GOD. Yes, suffering does this, but this hardly means we simply tell people to pray, grin, and bear it ---- much less allow the oppressive structures to stay in place! As the gospels tell us, "the poor you will always have with you" but this hardly means doing nothing to relieve poverty! Similarly we will always have suffering with us on this side of death, and especially the suffering that comes when human beings institutionalize their own sinful drives and actions. What is essential is that the Cross of Christ is exalted, that the Cross of Christ triumphs in our lives and society, not simply that individual crosses remain or that we exalt them (especially when they are the result of human engineering and sin)! And, as I have written before, to allow Christ's Cross to triumph is to allow the grace of God to transform all the dark and meaningless places with his presence, light and love. It is ONLY in this way that we truly "make up for what is lacking in the passion of Christ."

The paradox in Saturday's Feast is that the exaltation of the Cross implies suffering, and stresses that the cross empowers the ability to suffer well, but at the same time points to a freedom the world cannot grant --- a freedom in which we both transcend and transform suffering because of a victory Christ has won over the powers of sin and death which are built right into our lives and in the structures of this world. Thus, we cannot ever collude with the powers of this world; we must always be sure we are acting in complicity with the grace of God instead. Sometimes this means accepting the suffering that comes our way (or encouraging and supporting others in doing so of course), but never for its own sake. If our (or their) suffering does not result in greater human authenticity, greater freedom from bondage, greater joy and true peace, then it is not suffering which exalts the Cross of Christ. If it does not in some way transform and subvert the structures of this world which oppress and destroy, then it does not express the triumph of Jesus' Cross, nor are we really participating in THAT Cross in embracing our own.

I am certain I have not completely answered your question, but for now this will need to suffice. My thanks for your patience. If you have other questions which can assist me to do a better job, I would very much appreciate them. Again, thanks for your emails.

On Parishes understanding the Hermit's Vocation

[[Hi Sister Laurel, do you find your parish doesn't understand your vocation? Would you choose not to tell people you area consecrated hermit because "Catholics cannot understand this?" I read something like this recently and don't understand why Catholics would have a hard time understanding it. The blog passage I read had a priest telling the hermit not to tell people about her identity (status?) because "Catholics wouldn't understand it". Guess I already said that, but why would a parish priest say that? Couldn't he help the hermit by introducing her and talking about the vocation? Does this have something to do with the hiddenness of the vocation? How do you or your diocese make sure your diocese and parish understand your vocation?]]

Good questions and some things I will need to guess at though as I think about instances I have read about, I think they are reasonable guesses. I think in a general sense my parish recognizes that I am a contemplative woman religious. I think fewer among them really understand what being a hermit is all about, but at the same time, they are more than open to finding out about that. In the beginning of my time at the parish I gave a talk on being a hermit and I think that was helpful. In the future I would like to do another talk and combine it with a presentation on desert spirituality itself, something which could have wide appeal for anyone given its importance in developing a healthy spirituality. Most times, however, I tend to answer people's questions on a one-on-one basis-- a much more casual approach to things. I never choose not to tell people who I am because I am publicly responsible for the solitary eremitical vocation under c 603 and currently am the only diocesan hermit Oakland has or has ever known. It is who I am; I can't hide that or lie about it or pretend to something else. Most of the time I am in my hermitage so when I can be available and provide accurate information I try to do that.

Knowledgeable Parishes and parishioners:

There is no reason Catholics cannot understand having a consecrated hermit in their midst. If a priest has asked someone to refrain from telling people in the parish that they are a consecrated hermit I think it is more likely to be about them (the hermit) than it is to be about the (other) parishioners. For instance, it might well be because they are not really a consecrated hermit and the priest is attempting to protect them from the reaction of others to an announcement which would make them look foolish or delusional or something similar. Since fraud is something of a problem today with some hermits coming into parishes and presenting themselves in this way, the best way to protect the sensibilities of the parishioners and the feelings of someone misrepresenting themselves (no matter the reason for this!) is simply to say, "Oh, I wouldn't go there; don't tell people about that -- they won't get it." I suspect, therefore, it could be a face-saving device which is pastorally sensitive and protective to both the individual who is misleadingly claiming consecrated standing as well as to the members of the parish faith community who would react to this.

I just cannot imagine any other reason for such a comment by a parish priest, but especially I cannot imagine a parish priest telling a consecrated hermit, "Don't say anything; Catholics will never understand this" and meaning it literally! What many Catholics would not understand, for instance, is a person telling them someone is a consecrated hermit via private vows. Catholics may not know lots (or even anything at all) about canon 603 or eremitical life in the Church per se, but they tend to understand religious life and know that private vows do not EVER a consecrated person/religious make!  If the putative hermit has other things besides her claims to be consecrated hermit which make her seem eccentric in this way or that, the tendency to question her claims will be encouraged and magnified. The easiest way to avoid all this along with the pain and fallout which could come to the hermit and parish as a result is to ask her simply not to make her claim in the first place. "Don't tell folks you are a consecrated hermit; they won't "get" what you are claiming and you will alienate them and isolate yourself in the process!"

The Pastor's Assistance, helping the hermit fulfill her Mission:

And yes, you are exactly correct in suggesting how a parish priest or pastor would tend to proceed if they truly have a solitary consecrated hermit in their parish -- especially if that hermit will be attending Sunday and/or daily Mass at times. They would introduce the hermit (at liturgy or in the bulletin, for instance), say something about the vocation, canon 603, the place and date where the hermit was publicly professed/consecrated, and perhaps outline some of the ways the hermit will and will not participate in the life of this faith community. A pastor might well indicate the hermit would like to receive prayer requests but would prefer not to get phone calls with these, much less knocks on the hermitage door. I sometimes offer Bible study and other things so I try to indicate the best way to contact me (email) and, if a person needs to phone, hours when it is best to try and reach me or, on the other hand, to refrain from calling the hermitage.

You see, the hermit, no matter how strict her physical solitude, represents a form of ministry in the parish and the diocese; she is there for God and others, never merely for herself. This fundamental understanding of the eremitical vocation is one of the reasons hermits have always given a privileged place to hospitality should guests arrive at their hermitage. Hospitality, over the centuries, has come to mean many things but it does not cease to be a privileged reality for the hermit precisely because her vocation is lived for others; it is not individualistic or selfish. Similarly, eremitical hiddenness, as I wrote earlier, exists for the sake (and as a reflection) of other more primary values and I don't see how that would have to do with the statement you quoted anyway. (I just can't imagine a link here.) Underlying any of the central elements of canon 603 specifically or eremitical life in the Church more generally --- assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude --- is the foundational understanding that this life is lived "for the praise of God and the salvation of others (or, 'of the world')". It is up to the hermit with the aid of her bishop and parish pastor to work out how  can and will best be carried out and witnessed to in her concrete faith community while protecting and nurturing the hermit's own eremitical life in the silence of solitude.

My own diocese made sure there was a diocesan-wide newspaper article on my profession and consecration. I think that's pretty typical in dioceses around the world. Beyond this, working things out falls to me with the assistance of my Director and my pastor. Other parishes may and have asked me to do presentations on the eremitical life for them; groups within the parish or diocese may request the same. In general I am responsible for accepting or declining such invitations as I can, and I am similarly responsible for making clear when I can actually be available if I must decline. I have not found nor would I expect that my diocese plays a continuing role in educating people on my vocation beyond the publicity surrounding profession; though the diocese would be of support in this it mainly falls to me and indirectly, to my pastor.

Hiddenness as a Derivative or Subordinate Value for the Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I need you to clarify something for me. Are you saying that hiddenness is not an important value for the hermit? I think hermits make sacrifices so wouldn't remaining hidden be one of these especially when one is ill and needs medical care? Wouldn't a hermit accept the sacrifice of hiddenness and forego some kinds of contact with medical personnel? Why would it be different for someone who is privately vowed than it is for someone publicly professed?]]

Thanks for your questions. Hiddenness is a characteristic of eremitical life. It can be and often is an important value but in the eremitical life it is also a derivative one. Hermits do not make vows of hiddenness, for instance. Canon 603 does not even mention hiddenness much less make it normative. Instead solitary canonical hermits are bound to a life of "stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer", and "the silence of solitude" for the praise of God and the salvation of others. Hiddenness stems from these normative elements. It is derived from them and is a helpful description of a significant dimension of these elements; clearly the  Catechism of the Catholic Church knew this. However, this also means it is not normative in a way which allows it to supersede more fundamental values and obligations -- the obligation to live well, to take care of one's health, to be sure one's eremitical life is a witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others in ways which edify (build up), and any number of other obligations.

Think about this from the perspective of witness value. The central elements of canon 603 I mentioned are normative because of themselves they have a witness value. Assiduous prayer has meaning in itself and witnesses to the fact that God alone completes us as the covenantal people we are meant to be. Every human person is called to significant and even assiduous prayer in one form and another because every human life is meant to be completed and made true in and through the powerful presence of God's love. We are all called to allow this Presence/love to work by being attentive and open to it --- though hermits do this in a way which defines their lives in terms of prayer.

The "silence of solitude" has a fullness of meaning beyond mere silence and solitude; it points directly to the wholeness, integrity, stillness, and completeness of the life lived in and for God alone. Every human being is called to "the silence of solitude" as the goal of their lives even if they are not called to live in eremitical silence and solitude or witness to this specific wholeness and holiness with lives defined in terms of "the silence of solitude" per se. "separation from the world" is a value in and of itself because every human being is called to be separated from those things which promise fulfillment apart from God or which resist the God who comes to us in Christ. Most, however, are called to live this separation while living within the world of everyday affairs and concerns. Hermits live a stricter separation in a more intense and paradigmatic way; they do so to witness to the importance of "cleaving to God" in every person's life. But hiddenness is different. It may be a value  and will be if it serves these other values, but it may also be a disvalue. Consider what hiddenness means if it is linked to fear, escapism, a lack of integrity, or hypocrisy and dishonesty.

My canonical eremitical life is an essentially hidden one marked by assiduous prayer, study, inner work, contemplation, recreation with God for the sake of balance, wholeness, and so forth. But the hiddenness is meaningful and of witness value only because and to the extent it serves and reflects these things --- only to the extent it serves the central elements of c 603 life outlined above. If I spent my days merely watching TV or sleeping, reading, and eating bon bons etc, if, that is, I lived in ways which actually gave the lie to my eremitical commitment, my life would also be hidden but the hiddenness would actually be a disvalue and it would be destructive and disedifying to the eremitical vocation and the Church who received my commitment and consecrated me. (Please note, I am not referring to days or parts of days when illness prevents my more usual eremitical life here. I am just trying to contrast what my eremitical life is meant to be vs something it is NOT meant to be and how both of these reflect hiddenness.) Thus, again, hermits do not make vows of hiddenness nor are they called to hiddenness except as a derivative or subordinate value which serves more primary values. To reject necessary medical care or refuse to build a necessary network of folks who can assist one in case of serious illness or other need in the name of "hiddenness" is wrongheaded and, I would argue, unwise and illegitimate.

Your questions about sacrifices fit in here. Yes, eremitical life is marked by sacrifices -- as is any life which is truly given to God in all things. But note that this means it is a moral life in which objective values are discerned, prioritized, and acted upon. Hiddenness of itself is not a value which can trump a commitment to fullness of life. Were I, as a canonical hermit, to decide to forego necessary medical and/or post-surgical care (especially after I had appropriately discerned the rightness of having the surgery in the first place!), my superiors (bishop, Director/delegate) would have every right (and obligation) to question my decision and to work with me to be sure my decision was well-founded and served not just myself but the eremitical vocation I live. In something serious like this they would need to agree with the quality or soundness of my discernment or they could even require me to accept the care my physicians have said is required for good post-op recovery.

Note well, that the question of elective surgery itself is something that requires discernment; assuring sufficient assistance for a good post-operative course would be part of that. I could not agree to elective surgery as the will of God in my life unless I also could affirm that the necessary post-operative care was something I could commit to in this way.  If the surgery is not elective the necessary post-operative care is still undertaken as part of the necessary surgery itself. As you might guess, for most hermits the real sacrifice in any of this would be to accept the necessary medical care and assistance of others because we do love our physical solitude. And yet, in accepting assistance in this way the hermit witnesses to her solidarity with others even in the essential hiddenness of her life. She reminds every person that eremitical solitude (which, again, is very much more than just physical solitude) is actually a unique way of living community; she reminds us all that Love is the highest value of her life and that loving and being loved is the highest dynamic in every life --- but certainly in the life of a consecrated hermit living a solitary vocation affirming the sufficiency of God as Love-in-Act.

In light of all this the consecrated (publicly professed) hermit cannot make hiddenness an absolute value; even less can she put hiddenness above this most foundational witness -- especially when the Church will allow the mitigation of even physical solitude in order to accept appropriate care and assistance. Moreover, in a point I made in the last post, if a canonical hermit is allowed and even required to accept such mitigations, how much more so would this be true for a lay hermit whose commitment is a private one? I hope that to some degree at least this answers your question about the difference between publicly professed hermits and those with private commitments. If you feel it does not I would encourage you to read other articles on the differences between private vows and public profession, especially those dealing with the public rights, obligations and expectations which are part and parcel of any public commitment. And of course, if that is not sufficiently helpful to you, please get back to me with your questions.

On Accepting Necessary Medical Assistance and Eremitical "Hiddenness"

 [[Dear Sister, Thank you for writing about chronic illness and the ways one might need to adjust or change their prayer because of it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone write about this before. It makes sense. I always just thought you (one) prayed as always when sick and then I got on my own case if I was unable to do that! It makes a huge difference when prayer is understood as God's active presence and our openness to that presence!! I have some other questions about what happens if you are disabled for some reason. If you need special assistance for a time because of your illness are you allowed to have people come into your hermitage? Are there any limitations on medical needs or assistance which apply because of a requirement that you remain hidden from people? How about for someone living as a hermit with private vows??]]

Thanks for your comments on my earlier posts. I think we need to do a better job educating folks about praying in various situations and developing a kind of repertoire of prayer forms and resources. Also we need to be sure folks understand that prayer is God's work within us and can certainly do that if we are ill or otherwise unable to follow our Rule or horarium. God is the supreme Consoler or Comforter so when we are ill if we allow God to be with us and rest in him what more could God will or we want?

Regarding special assistance in cases of medical need --- of course I am allowed to get what help I need so long, generally speaking, as my insurance will pay for it and my physicians/other clinicians order it. If it is medically necessary there is nothing in canon 603 or my own Rule which prevents this. Were my family located close by perhaps I would expect some assistance from them if and as they were capable of it. As it stands I would ask friends in my parish and from other venues to assist me as they could. Similarly, I would pay someone to come in to do necessary work if and as I could afford to do that. The point is that even (or especially) as a canonically professed hermit the Church would expect me to do what I need in order to heal well and to live as full a life as I am capable of. I remind you that hiddenness is NOT a canonical requirement of the eremitical life. It is an important but derivative quality describing a contemplative life lived in the silence of solitude and stricter (not absolute) separation from the world. This does not mean it is unimportant, but merely that the Church does not demand or require hiddenness as a primary characteristic; were it otherwise hiddenness would be listed in the canon (legal norm) defining the essential characteristics of the vocation.

Granted, I know I wouldn't like to be dependent on assistance to the level it might actually be necessary in situations of medial need, convalescence, etc, but morally I believe I am required to accept whatever degree of assistance is necessary in order to be well enough to live my vocation fully and fruitfully. For me this acceptance would be a bit of a cross I would need to embrace for the larger perspective of my own life and vocation itself. Thus, the acceptance of assistance by others is not just a medical requirement but an ethical one; to refuse it in the name of "hiddenness" is to place a relatively vague descriptive catechism term above the canonical requirements which define the legal and substantive contents of diocesan hermits' professions in the hands and name of the Church and have priority over pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

With that in mind it strikes me that it would be even less justifiable to make "hiddenness" (whatever this word actually means --- because it is never actually defined!!) as a reason for limiting necessary medical and social assistance for the non-canonical hermit living in the freedom of the lay state. This is not to suggest private vows are not significant, but it is to reiterate they do not create public rights and obligations which might be given precedence over one's rights and obligations as a lay person. (N.B. When a Rule is approved by the c 603 hermit's bishop and canonists one of the things looked at are places where the hermit is claiming or creating obligations which might be unhealthy or disedifying; such obligations would not, generally speaking, be allowed.) Moreover, when an unforeseen situation threatening a hermit's health arises, neither the hermit's delegate/Director nor her bishop would refrain from dispensing (mitigating or allowing the hermit to mitigate) at least on a temporary basis, whatever part of the Rule is necessary to allow genuine healing and appropriate medical care.

In situations which are equivocal and require discernment and discussion, it is the canonical framework which assures necessary discussions are had and appropriate discernment is reached. My own delegate assures I have someone with whom this can occur. To suggest (or be told by a privately dedicated (or vowed) hermit) that such a hermit might be "obligated" to forego the assistance and relationships needed to allow the same care/healing as a canonical hermit -- despite the fact that s/he has no public obligations beyond those binding any other lay person --- would be to suggest or be told something that has no basis in fact, law, or reason. Instead it represents an individualistic interpretation of a too-vague catechism term, which interpretation the Church would reject as contrary to canon and moral law. Of course, such an individual might decide to cut herself off from relationships, medical assistance, family ties, etc in the name of her own understanding of eremitical life, but this is not a matter of the Church obligating her in this way or accepting a public commitment which  might so obligate her in certain circumstances.

All of this points to another situation in which the assumption of public rights and obligations occurring with Baptism or beyond this with public profession and consecration is of critical importance and distinction from a private commitment, even when using vows. When, as noted in earlier posts, we speak of a stable state of life we are speaking of a life with stable structural, legal, relational and institutional elements. In light of this post, that can be expanded to include the fact that such stable states ensure that the life being lived in the name of God and the Church is lived according to divine, moral, and canon law. When questions arise as to which obligations have precedence, for example, stable states of life will ensure the capacity and obligation for adequate consultation and discernment. In point of fact, one central characteristic of a relatively non-stable eremitical life is an individualism (including the absence of canonical obligations beyond those of baptism) which therefore may not allow and does not sufficiently require adequate medical and pastoral consultation and discernment to ensure divine and moral laws are observed in a genuinely edifying way.

A point of clarification:

Please note, in what I wrote above about relatively unstable states of life I am not referring to lay life per se; again, lay life represents a stable state of life rooted in baptism characterized by a particular freedom marked by specific rights and obligations. I was specifically referring to instances of eremitical life lived in the lay state while claiming to be obliged to the requirements of consecrated eremitical life without ecclesial initiation into the grace or the support and institutional structures of this stable state of life.

To falsely claim to be bound, for example, to the "hiddenness" of consecrated eremitical life without also being obligated to the pastoral consultation or discernment inherent in the consecrated state, and to do so in a way which prevents one from getting adequate medical care and the social assistance genuinely consecrated hermits are allowed (or even obligated) to accept by way of mitigation or exception is to betray the stability of both the lay and consecrated states of life. One cannot pretend to be bound by (or graced in a way which allows one to be bound by!) the rights and obligations of the consecrated state unless one is bound by ALL of these, including the right and obligation to be obedient to the ministry of authority embraced, authorized, and exercised by legitimate superiors or the divine and moral law these individuals help serve in the consecrated hermit's life.

Follow-up on Chronic Illness and Prayer

[[Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for  your post on chronic illness and eremitical life. I liked lots of it but especially I was touched by your comment on remembering the difference between praying all the prayers and praying always! You have described a situation in which someone learns to pray their whole lives even when they can't pray particular prayers! I presume you are not saying, though, that folks can let go of specific prayer periods altogether. You clearly do not mean this because you describe maintaining prayer periods in spite of difficulties. I wondered if you find it difficult to change the way you pray during times of more acute illness? I never quite know what to do with prayer as I transition from wellness to illness and back again. Are these changes hard for you as well? Where does the idea of praying always come into all of this for you?]]

First, you are correct that I don't ever suggest folks let go of discrete prayer periods. That is simply the quickest route to never praying at all --- or, at best, to settling for a superficial prayer life which is made up of casual "conversations" with God or asking God to take care of our needs when we become aware of them. Like any quality relationship we need to spend time allowing God access to  our hearts and minds. Omitting dedicated prayer while learning to "pray always" is like expecting to become a skilled violinist without ever using  specific and regular periods of practice!  Over time, as we learn to pray in season and out in a variety of ways, prayer becomes our usual way of approaching and apprehending reality, our usual way of opening ourselves to the world around us and its Creator God. As this attitude of obedience develops in us, as we grow more open, responsive, and loving to everything and everyone in Christ, we become God's own prayer in our world. I believe this is what the NT refers to as "praying always."

When illness prevents us from praying a discrete prayer period: the Office, quiet prayer, lectio divina, etc.,  our capacity for genuine obedience and perceiving the holiness of everything in our world can allow us to pray our illness  --- indeed to making of our suffering but also our forced quiet a Prayer motivated and empowered by the Spirit of God within us. What is essential, however, is that we live a regular life of prayer apart from our illness and also that even within our illness, to whatever extent we are able, we continue with discrete periods of prayer no matter how abbreviated or differently formatted. I am not speaking here of making everything we do into "prayer" by a simple change of name --- as though calling doing the laundry "prayer" is the same as making it prayer. When it happens that our daily chores or physical work become prayer this is a process of transfiguration where the deepest potential of the chores or work are realized because we have become people of prayer who see and do everything in light of God's own presence and empowering Spirit. I have seen (and I am certain you have too) people calling various dimensions of their life "prayer" while never finding time for prayer itself. Dealing with illness and making it into prayer requires we pray regularly and faithfully long before illness occurs. If the transfiguration I mentioned is to occur, this regular faithful prayer is a prerequisite.

The transition from wellness to illness and the necessary modifications of prayer required in these times is something I found difficult for a long time. Today that is less so and I have found several things to be key to negotiating these transitions. First, I must know what is essential to my own prayer and consider different ways to fill those essential needs.  Secondly, I must be aware of how I more ordinarily resist prayer or distract myself from the things prayer brings up within my life so I can be sure I am not unconsciously sliding into these kinds of things.  Thirdly, I need to have a strong trust in the God who prays within me and be able to be comfortable with my own weakness in this matter. The corollary here is that I must be able to discern the presence and activity of God within myself and be comfortable with acquiescing to that when I am well. The fourth element in transitioning is that I have a repertoire of prayer forms and resources which can be available to me when circumstances change. When I trust God to work within me no matter the situation and have ways to open myself to that activity negotiating transitions in prayer made necessary by illness is more easily accomplished.

Your own director (if you work with someone) can assist you in all of this, of course. If  you are not used to the changes required in prayer by illness one of the things a director can do is to encourage you that learning to pray in different circumstances is just a natural thing we all have to negotiate. Sometimes people think they should be able to pray the same way they usually do and they can beat up on themselves when this is not possible. The same thing can happen when people don't feel like praying at all. It is at these times that being able to turn everything, every concern and yearning over to God (including one's resistance or lack of desire re prayer) is helpful. If one truly prays regularly in response to the Holy Spirit, then in difficult times one can simply ask God to accompany one in whatever it is one feels well enough to do (here is where reading  novels, coloring, doing a jigsaw puzzle, etc) --- but also when one feels entirely incapable; thus these can become explicit periods of prayer and also nurture an approach to living which is really "praying always".

For me the idea of "praying always" is about being an ongoing or continuing response to the Holy Spirit; it is about being responsive to God's presence and allowing the Spirit to move and empower me in all of the moments and moods of life; I understand it as being/becoming the embodiment of the Word of God so that God speaks/sings in and through me and I am truly the image of God's glory. What this  means is that at times when I cannot pray explicitly I can trust God to be with me and I can trust that my own heart is still attentive to God and open to allowing God to be present in and through me. Paul understood the human person as a Temple or image of the glory of God. Even in the weakness and incapacity of illness we can rest in God and allow God to reside within us. This is a critical dimension of praying always.

I hope this is helpful.

Dealing With Chronic Illness as a Hermit

[[Dear Sister, you have written you have chronic illness with chronic pain. I was wondering if that gets in the way of living of living eremitical life. For example, if you have a bad spell or relapse or something what happens to your Rule? Have you ever had to deal with long-term hospitalization or surgical rehabilitation? Did that change the way you prayed?. . . Do you ever feel like a failure as a hermit or contemplative?. . . Do you ever worry that God will not be able to put up with your weaknesses or failures (or falling short)? . . . I wonder if you would ever consider seeking dispensation of your vows for any of these reasons.]]

Interesting questions. I think I have answered something like this before but I looked for it and couldn't find it. You might want to check through the list of posts (under months and years) or the labels to the right and see if you can do better. Still, let me answer this briefly. Neither illness nor the chronic pain get in the way of my eremitical life per se. Both have led me over time to consider chronic illness as a potential vocation with eremitical life as a specific instance of this. (Remember that eremitical life is a desert life with a desert spirituality and chronic illness is, by definition, a desert experience.) However, there are certainly times when there are flares of illness and when pain is more difficult to control than other times. When this is the case my horarium changes, I spend more time in bed, I am unable to do some of the limited ministry I usually undertake, I tend not to study or sing as much, and my reading choices change. What does not change is my approach to the day as one sanctified by God through prayer at intervals throughout the day, some lectio divina, and some inner work via journaling or other writing.

While morally and canonically binding, my Rule is written more in terms of gospel and less in those of law. What I mean by this is that it lays out the ways I live the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the source and ground of life, love, and meaning for me, and it does this less than it spells out things I must or must not do. It defines what makes my life healthy and whole as a contemplative and eremitical life. But in times where I am not well or where chronic illness flares up especially, I will not be able to live this without modifications. Yes, at these times the ways in which I pray will likely differ in one way and another. For instance, rather than praying the whole of any hour of the Office I am more apt to pray a single psalm with antiphons, the Lord's Prayer and a canticle, but slowly while letting myself rest in God's hands. If I miss an hour I miss an hour. When I am awake or up again I pick up what seems most important to me --- the part that draws me most, for instance or the piece missed where I am most truly at home. Sometimes I will substitute a hymn on CD or a Taize chant for structured prayer/Office and just give myself over to the music. If I miss lots of prayer periods (and unfortunately this is sometimes unavoidable), I trust that "God gives to his beloved in sleep" (Psalm 127:2) and pick up wherever I can with whatever I most need once I am awake (whether prayer, food, water, shower, sunshine, contact with my director, etc). I think during times of flareups or extra difficulties it is critically important to keep in mind the difference between "praying all the prayers" and "praying always."

My Rule is helpful in letting me move back into various rhythms of the day as I can, but even more it is helpful in reminding me of the vision I seek to live whether well or ill, namely, "My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness." I know that God is with me in every circumstance including sin and death! God accompanies me whether I am conscious of that or  capable of cooperating with him or not. So long as that is the case every moment of my life, from chronic pain, to intractable seizures and post ictal sleep, to the emotional pain and joy of inner work, to the favorite or latest Chaim Potok or Anne Perry book, can become a prayer and a source of growth in holiness. Again, prayer is the work of God within us. As for God giving up on me or some other absurd notion that somehow or other I could exhaust his patience, love, mercy, or will to accompany me well, that's the same as suggesting that my weakness might be too much for God to be the God Christ revealed! Whenever I am even tempted to give up on God in this way (not something that has happened often!), I remind myself of the following from Paul, [[ But God demonstrates his own love for us in this, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.]] (Rom 5:8) In other words, when we are at our worst God loves us and gives his very life for us.

I don't feel (and have never felt) like a failure as a hermit or contemplative but I (like anyone else I imagine) always fall short in the sense that I can always grow in my vocation/authentic humanity and prayer. Again, my Rule (and the God and Gospel that inspires it) envisions and helps empower my growth in this vocation and in communion with God and love of myself and others. Sometimes I will fail at a given task (for instance, a reflection I am supposed to give, inability to meet with a client and need to postpone sessions, etc), and sometimes I will resist what is happening in prayer or the personal formation work I am doing, but while I find these failures frustrating, this is not the same as failing as either a contemplative or a hermit. When physical pain is a problem I treat it in the ways I can (medicine, TENS, exercise, meditation) and I do what I need to do while meds are kicking in (online scrabble, coloring or painting, walking around, watching the news or other TV program or great course lecture, reading an engrossing novel, etc) --- things which are engrossing and distract from the pain while ensuring I give the meds a full time period to work as they usually do. I ordinarily cannot sit in quiet prayer at these times because I really cannot be physically still in the way that requires. Even so, whatever I do to get through these periods, I pray and entrust myself to God's care as I wait.

There are periods of time when illness dominates (and yes, I have had periods of hospitalization that extended for weeks or even several months at a time including a period of (7) experimental neurosurgical interventions --- this latter about 8 years before I became a hermit). On the whole the essential elements of my Rule remain in some form or configuration. Were I to be unable to live dimensions of my Rule for a significant period of time I would need to redact these to account for necessary changes while ensuring it remains an eremitical Rule with the same vision of such a life. (Since my Rule is drawn from my own experience it could change on the basis of my own experience --- though my vision of the nature and importance of eremitical life according to canon 603 is very unlikely to change radically; I just can't see that happening, especially because of illness/pain.)

Dispensation of vows would be unlikely to come up as an issue or option, and certainly is not something I can see myself requesting! (More likely the question of a change of vocation would come up in the beginning of a hermit's professed life, especially if there is a radical change in circumstances occurring before they have developed the heart and prayer life of a hermit.) Once these are formed, however, and the hermit has been admitted to perpetual profession and consecration, dispensation is much less likely to be something that will be considered because of illness. It is possible, however that significant illness can reveal an eremitical life which is inadequately formed and rooted in the first place. Suffering is a wonderful test of the foundation of our lives and spirituality! At this point in my life, however, I am a hermit; it is a matter of my deepest inner truth as well as outer expression and even canonical standing; this means that I have and will always live illness and pain as challenging but integral parts of eremitical life. I think all the hermits I know, but especially those with chronic illnesses, feel essentially the same way about this.

What is a Stable State of Life?

[[Hi Sister, I was reading the Catechism and canon 603 because I was trying to understand the idea of a "stable state of life" or a "stable way of living". You have said more on this --- though indirectly ---than I could find elsewhere online. Could you please define what constitutes a "stable state of life" in Roman Catholic theology? How does it apply to your life as opposed to that of a lay hermit? Thanks.]]

Great question. I don't know why I haven't ever thought to write about this; a stable (or permanent) state of life is a core element in understanding the distinction between consecrated eremitical life and lay eremitical life. I am very grateful you asked this. I checked it out online and as you said, while it was part of every accurate definition of consecrated life (including consecrated eremitical life) there isn't much written about it that I could find. So let me try to make explicit what has been implicit in my writings on this and related topics.

Stable in this context means lasting, solid, established, and (relatively) secure. The necessary noun "state" means ä fixed and permanent mode of life, established (in and by the Church) to acquire or practice a certain virtue (e.g., perfection in the Christian Life, holiness, the evangelical counsels within religious life, etc). Implicit in these definitions (and often explicit in canon law and the CCC) when the two words are combined is that such a stable state signifies an instance of a recognized way God is working in the Church, ecclesial approval and mediation of God's call, canonical standing (standing in law), appropriate oversite, support, freedom, and governance (legitimate superiors), and a formal (legitimate or canonical) commitment (say, to God via the evangelical counsels, for instance) by the one assuming the rights and obligations of the given state of life. The elements required for something to be considered a stable state of life tend toward structuring and extending to the individual life the elements necessary to truly pursue the given vocation in the name of the Church (and so, as a recognized representative of the vocation) with which the Church is entrusted. The Church recognizes several such states : Baptized or Lay, Married, Consecrated (Religious, Hermits, and Virgins), and Ordained. All require public commitments, whether Sacramental (Marriage and ordination) or via canonical profession and consecration (Religious, consecrated hermits, consecrated virgins).

When we begin to think about what makes a state of life in the Church a stable state we begin to understand why it is private vows per se never constitute the means to initiation into the consecrated state of life. They can be a significant part of the stable state of life we know as the baptized or lay state however, and they serve as significant (meaningful) specifications of one's baptismal consecration in this way. But in this case it is one's baptismal consecration into the lay state which defines one's stable state of life; private vows are expressions of that particular consecration but do not initiate one into it. Hence my references in many places to "lay hermits" --- hermits who live their vows in the baptized or lay state alone. In any case, private commitments, though often witnessed by a priest or spiritual director, are not actually received in the name of the Church or overseen by anyone in a formal or canonical way. There are no additional public rights or obligations, nor approved Rule the living out of which the Church as a whole is responsible for governing and supervising. Neither is there any process of mutual discernment by which one may be evaluated as to their capacity and suitability to assume the public rights and obligations of a given state (here I am thinking of the consecrated state), nor of methodical formation with such commitments.

 Moreover, private vows are easily dispensed precisely because of their private nature. In other words one may make private vow as a hermit (whether with serious thought or on a relative whim) one day and days later (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) decide one has made a mistake or circumstances may change which make the vows inconvenient or an obstacle to a greater or more fundamental call from God re one's lay state. The vows can be dispensed by one's pastor. Because of the lack of oversight, etc.. other problems can creep in. If the person does not decide they have made a mistake an individual living a private dedication to eremitical life, for instance, may decide to substitute their own private notions of eremitical spirituality, or live inconsistently given conditions of health, education, training, economics, etc. Even for the most sincere and well-intentioned individual, in a private commitment there is no authority to whom the individual is canonically answerable, no canonical constraints or ecclesial vision to which one has committed oneself to make sure the hermit in this case can make, has made, is keeping, and continues to (be empowered to) keep through the years an appropriate and maturing commitment which the Church herself could recognize as consistent with the eremitical tradition and as rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Canonical standing provides a context which is stable.

Remember that consecrated persons act (live this vocation) in the name of the Church (and also their founders and spiritual Tradition) and that gives the People of God their own rights and reasonable expectations about the quality of life being lived by the person who has been professed and/or consecrated. The people also have a right to turn to the person's legitimate superior if there are grounds for suggesting the vocation is being lived badly or there are scandalous or concerning circumstances involved. Of course this is true only because canonical vocations are public vocations. But think how important it is that such expectations and accountability add to the stability of genuinely consecrated vocations! Accountability itself is a central element of a stable or permanent state of life. It shapes the vocation, challenges and supports it. In a public (canonical) vocation where the vocation "belongs" first of all to the Church who is entrusted with this calling, and only secondarily to individuals called by God through the mediation of the Church, stability is a function of clear channels of authority and accountability. This does not mean these channels are heavy-handed, of course, but it does require them nonetheless.

One of the things I appreciate most about canonical standing is the way
it establishes a person (or a community) in a living tradition in a way which means there is a clear and responsible dialogue ongoing between the individual, the Church, and the spiritual tradition involved. (This is true in religious families like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappist(ine)s, Benedictines, Camaldolese, etc. and it is true in eremitical life per se.) The continuing give and take as the consecrated person is granted and assumes a defined place in the living stream of eremitical tradition is tremendously edifying. The individual is formed in a given strand of the tradition and at the same time she will shape and extend the tradition with her own life. Edward Schillebeeckx writes about this powerfully in his essay on being a Dominican in God Among Us. A life that assumes this kind of responsibility, accountability, humility, and obedience has been initiated into a stable state of life that extends both behind and after her. She has taken a place within it and lives in a conscious and recognizable dialogue with and for this traditional thread, a thread which may have existed for two thousand years and stretches into whatever future the Church has. Private commitments which of their nature are truly entirely private (as opposed to public in the technical sense I use it throughout) simply do not do this.

The Church is a complex living reality. States of life within the Church have been some of the primary ways the Gospel has and continues to be proclaimed and ministry carried out; they are capable of being flexible and responsive to the needs of the world as a whole because they are also well-founded and rooted in a living tradition. Because of their stability (again, they are mutually discerned, publicly committed, ecclesially consecrated, governed and supervised) they can represent a way of life in away which teaches and inspires. When the congregation or individual requires assistance, when congregations reach the  end of their natural life, for instance, canonical standing allows for various creative ways to be sure their life and/or charism can be handed on and, eventually, their history entrusted to archives so scholars can research them and allow their life, a response to the Holy Spirit in a variety of circumstances, to be of continuing benefit to the Church and world.

With regard to the lives of diocesan hermits or publicly professed vs privately vowed hermits I think you can see where the Church will be able to follow and assess the phenomenon of solitary eremitical life beginning in the late 20C. She will be able to look at the Rules written by c 603 hermits, interview bishops professing and supervising them, speak with their delegates, parishes, and dioceses, and just generally provide the story of professed solitary hermits since 1983 according to c 603. Both as individuals and as a group these hermits will contribute to the eremitical tradition, to assessments of what formation was helpful or inadequate, to considering what time frames were associated with successful discernment and formation of eremitical lives, to considerations re protecting the hermit's requirements for support, modes and effectiveness of supervision, the place and nature of limited ministry in the lives of these hermits, and possibly -- to some extent -- the hermits' affect on their local church communities.

We will also more easily contribute to theologies of eremitical life that allow chronic illness as a witness to the way God's power is perfected in weakness, for instance, because some number of us are chronically ill and sought out eremitical life in part because of this. Because we are professed and consecrated into a stable (and public!) state of life, the witness value of our lives will take on greater import for the Church and world. Sometimes folks decry the canonical paper trail that is attached to the profession of the diocesan hermit; others treat it as merely pro forma and relatively meaningless. But the paper trail is a witness to and even part of the stability of the hermit's life and a key to appreciating and researching eremitical tradition not only in the 20-21C but in comparison with it throughout history.

Treating Disaffected Brothers and Sisters Like Gentiles and Tax Collectors: Loving Them as We Ought (reprised)

In today's Gospel pericope (thought unit, literary unit) for the Feast of Maximillian Kolbe we hear Jesus telling folks to speak to those who have offended against God one on one and then, if that is ineffective, bring in two more brothers or sisters to talk with the person, and then, if that too is ineffective, to bring matters to the whole community --- again so the offended can be brought back into what we might call "full communion". If even that is ineffective then we are told to treat the person(s) as we treat Gentiles and tax collectors. In every homily I have ever heard about this passage this final dramatic command has been treated as justification for excommunication. Even today our homilist referred to excommunication --- though, significantly, he stressed the medicinal and loving motive for such a dire step. The entire passage is read as a logical, common-sense escalation and intervention: start one on one, try all you can, bring others in as needed, and if that doesn't work (that is, if the person remains recalcitrant) then wash your hands of him or, if stressing the medicinal nature of the act, separate yourselves from him until he comes to his senses and repents! In this reading of the text Matthew is giving us the Scriptural warrant for "tough love."

Not a warrant for "tough love":

But I was struck by a very different reading during my hearing of the Gospel this morning. We think of Jesus turning things on their heads so very often in what he says; more we think about how often he turns things on their head by what he does. With this in mind the question which first occurred to me was, "But what would this have meant in Jesus' day for disciples of this man from Nazareth, not what would it have meant for hundreds of years of Catholic Christianity!? Is the logic of this reading different, even antithetical to the logical, commonsense escalation outlined above?" And the answer I "heard" was, "Of course it is different! I am asking you to escalate your attempts to bring this person home, not to wash your hands of her. To do that I am suggesting you treat her as you might someone for whom the Gospel is a foreign word now -- someone who needs to hear it as much or more than you ever did yourself." Later I thought in a kind of jumble, "That means to treat her with even greater gentleness and care, even greater love and a different kind of intimacy. Her offense has effectively put her outside the faith community. Jesus is asking that we let ourselves be the "outsider" who stands with her where she is. He is saying we must try to speak in a language she will truly hear. Make of her a neighbor again; meet her in the far place, learn her truth before we try to teach her "ours". After all, what I and others have said thus far has either not been understood or it was not compelling for her."

While I should not have been surprised, I admit I was startled by my initial thoughts! Of course I knew that Jesus associated with tax collectors and with Gentiles. The reading with the Canaanite women last week or the week before makes it clear that Jesus even changed his mind about his own mission in light of the faith he found among Gentiles. Meanwhile, today's reading is taken from a Gospel attributed to Matthew, an Apostle who is identified as a tax collector! Shouldn't we be holding onto our seats in some anticipation while listening for Jesus – as he always does -- to say something that turns conventional wisdom and our entire ecclesiastical and spiritual world on its head?  Maybe my thoughts were not really so crazy after all and maybe those homilies I have heard for years have NOT had it right! So I looked again at the Gospel lection from today in its Matthean context. It is sandwiched between passages about humbling ourselves as children (those with no status), not being a source of stumbling and estrangement to others, searching for the one sheep that has gone astray even if it means leaving behind the 99 who have not strayed, and Peter asking how often he should forgive his brother to which Jesus says seven times seventy!

What kind of Church Jesus is Calling for:

I think Jesus is reminding us of the difference between a community which is united in and motivated by Christ's own love (a very messy business sometimes) and one which is united in and mainly concerned with discipline (not so messy, but not so fruitful or inspired either). I think too he is reminding us of a Church which is always a missionary Church, always going out to others, always seeking to reconcile the entire world in the power of the Gospel. It is not a fortress which protects its precious patrimony by shutting itself off from those who do not believe, letting them fend for themselves or simply find their own ways to the baptistry or confessional doors; instead it achieves its mission by extending its love, its Word, and even its Sacraments to those who most need them --- the alien and alienated. It is a Church that really believes we hold things as sacred best when we give them away (which is NOT the same thing as giving them up!). Meanwhile Jesus may also be saying, "If your brother or sister has not and will not hear you, perhaps you have not loved them well or effectively enough; find a new way, even a more costly way. After all, my way (the Way I am!) is not the way of conventional wisdom, it is the scandalous, foolish, and sacrificial way of the Kingdom of God!

I had always thought today's reading a "hard one" because it seemed to sanction the excommunication of brothers and sisters in Christ. But now I think it is a hard one for an entirely different reason. It gives us a Church where no one can truly be at home so long as we are not reaching out to those who have not heard the Gospel we have been entrusted with proclaiming. It is a Church of open doors and open table fellowship (open commensality) because it is a church of open and missionary hearts -- just as God's own heart, God's own essential nature, is missionary. Above all it is a church where those who truly belong are the ones who really do not belong anywhere else! We proclaim a Gospel in which we who belong to Christ through baptism are the last and those outside our communion are first and, at least potentially, the Apostles on which the Church is built.

When we treat people like Gentiles and tax collectors we treat them in exactly this way, namely, as those whose truest home is around the table with us, listening to and celebrating the Word with us, ministering to and with us as at least potential brothers and sisters in Christ! We treat them as Gentiles and tax collectors when we take the time to enter their world so that we can speak to them in a way they can truly hear, when we love them (are brothers and sisters to them) as they truly need, not only as we are comfortable doing in our own cultures and families. Paul, after all, spoke of becoming and being all things to all persons --- just as God became man for us. He was not speaking of indifferentism or saying with our lives that Christ doesn't really matter;  just the opposite in fact. He was telling us we must be Christians in this truly startling way --- persons who can and do proclaim the Gospel of a crucified and risen Christ wherever we go because we let ourselves be at home and among (potential) brothers and sisters wherever we go. We do as God did for us in Christ; we let go of the prerogatives which are ours and travel to the far place in any and all the ways we need to in order to fulfill the mission of our God to truly be all in all.

Summary, Calling for More informed and sensitive proclamation:

When the logic, drama, and tension of today's Gospel lection escalate it is to this conclusion, I think, not to a facile justification of excommunication. In this pericope Jesus does not ask us to progressively enlist more people in order to increase the force with which we strong arm those who have become alienated, much less to support us as we cut them loose if they are unconvinced and unconverted, but -- I posit -- to offer them richer, more diverse and extensive chances to be heard and to hear; he is asking that we provide increasing opportunities for them to be empowered to change their minds and hearts when we, acting alone, have failed them in this way. This is what it means to forgive; it is what it means to be commissioned as an Apostle of Christ. And if that sounds naïve, imprudent, impractical, and even impossible, I suspect Jesus' original hearers felt the same about the pericopes which form this lection's immediate context: becoming as children with no status except that given them by God, leaving the 99 to seek the single lost sheep or forgiving what is effectively a countless number of times. Certainly that's how someone writing under the name of a tax collector-turned-Apostle presents the matter.