Am I supervised by my Diocese and Questions on Spiritual Direction

[[Sister Laurel, are you supervised by your diocese? Does your delegate do this for you? If so, do you think this is an adequate model for c 603 hermits? How would you improve upon it? You are aware, aren't you that someone is arguing you are not supervised by your diocese and that you are being hypocritical and deceitful in your living out of c 603, aren't you? Also, I wondered if you were aware of a video speaking of c 603 hermits who do spiritual direction that calls them Sister Shyster and Brother Bilker when they accept fees for service or deal with the dying, except under hospice control and supervision. This person argues that hermits are not licensed therapists and should never accept pay for their work, nor should they work with the dying except under the direct supervision of hospice. See, You Tube Video. ]]

Yes, I am aware of the accusations having been made about me in regard to supervision by my diocese. I have responded to these in other posts from other questioners.  (This is the last time I will address the accusations here. I am doing so because you have asked good substantive questions rooted in and going beyond the accusations. Thanks for that!). Again, to state things plainly, the person making the accusations is simply mistaken and seems to be closed to correcting that misunderstanding or accepting as valid any arrangements bishops have requested that don't comport with her narrow way of reading c 603. There is an almost studied literalism in this person's take on supervision that results in an intransigence that refuses to hear that hers is merely one possible point of view, but certainly not the only one, nor even the most effective or workable one.  The objection to spiritual directors earning an income from their ministry is something I have also responded to in the past because there are valid differing opinions on this, but the "Sister Shyster" and "Brother Bilker" appellations are new to me and strikingly crass.

Again, I am supervised by two religious Sisters who know me well, understand this vocation, have been in formation and leadership of their own congregations or in a diocesan office, and have undertaken this role at the bishop's request. They have likewise been available to the bishop whenever he sought their opinion or assistance. I was asked to choose such a delegate in 2006, before perpetual profession in 2007, by the Vicars for Religious acting in the Bishop's name. Given that there have been four Bishops since I was finally professed and consecrated under c 603, and the consistent supervision one of these delegates has provided for me and for the diocesan Bishop whenever requested, the simple answer to your question is yes. The second Sister agreed to work as a co-delegate several years ago in case of need. She was formerly the diocese's Vicar for religious and Assistant Director of vocations when I first sought profession under c 603. I think it has been a really wise and prudent arrangement. I recommend it to other dioceses and to those with whom I work, precisely because it has been so effective and good for both the vocation and the diocese. The fact is that sometimes bishops have neither the time nor, perhaps, the expertise to supervise a hermit's vocation. When that is the case, or when other things intervene to make a bishop unable to meet with the hermit regularly, it hardly rises to the level of hypocrisy or deception on the hermit's part!

If I could improve this model in any way at all (really good question, by the way), it would be to require the local ordinary meet with both the hermit and the delegate(s) about once every three years to supplement the annual or biannual meeting he holds with the hermit. (The timing is not critical here; what is important is that the bishop meets with both the hermit and the delegate and is given a chance to discuss life under c 603 together at least every few years. This provides a chance to see different perspectives at the same time and evaluate the local church's place in the life of the hermit and hers in the life of the local Church. It also allows the hermit a chance to see herself through others' eyes; this can be especially helpful in allowing the hermit to appreciate the ways her life touches people in the local community and it may give everyone ideas of how this might be strengthened or intensified. At the same time, bishops would `come to a greater understanding of the nature and gift this vocation is to the Church. All of this has positive ramifications for the discernment and formation of future hermit candidates as well.)

Regarding spiritual direction and/or working with dying clients (directees), there are other ways to qualify to work with the dying than under the tutelage of hospice. Perhaps the person complaining about this doesn't realize that. Graduate courses in theology and Clinical Pastoral Education (and experience) tend to be one of the more standard ways, and the training there is both more extensive and intensive than hospice offers. For that matter doing spiritual direction under a supervisor (or, later, when one is more experienced, working with someone one can turn to for assistance in such matters) also allows one to learn how to accompany the client who is dying. Finally, the person one is directing ordinarily will have a choice in who she wants working with her besides the nursing staff and it is typical they pick the person who has worked with them for years.  Personally, I find that having a strong background in theology allows a director to bring things to the table hospice workers do not have ; once again, the SD and the hospice workers form something of a team along with anyone else from the place's pastoral team who might be involved.

In spiritual direction, we accompany the person on (some part of) their life journey with God. We are not pretending to be therapists (unless we also are credentialed in that way), nor do we pretend to be able to do therapy --- though quite often we will assist the directee to work through their own problems. We are people of prayer who know how to listen and help others do the same. When there is a need for therapy, some of us will, with permission, collaborate with the directee's therapist to be sure the work of direction does not interfere with the therapeutic relationship or process. I have done this several times over the years and both the therapists (psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) and I find or have found it works very well --- especially when the directee can benefit from medication for some reason. 

Do some directors accept a fee for spiritual direction? Yes, many do. Often, they charge on a sliding scale because it is one of the ways they make an income. Many directors who are consecrated are supported by their religious congregations though, of course, they support the congregation with their earnings as well. (Their salaries go to their congregations, and their needs are then provided for by the congregation.) But c 603 hermits have no congregations to support them, and while they likely empathize with the desire of other directors to give freely of what God has given freely to them, those who charge for their expertise may also recognize, that "the laborer is worthy of (her) hire". 

There are codes of ethics guiding spiritual direction and other forms of pastoral ministry or counseling and I have never known a SD who did not follow these. Labeling these persons, Sister Shyster or Brother Bilker because they supposedly don't have a license to "do therapy" (or charge fees for service) also demonstrates ignorance of both the art being practiced and the degree of training and/or education, skill, and giftedness in hearing and responding to both persons and the Holy Spirit that are ordinarily possessed by the individual director. Casting aspersions about people one does not actually know, or tarring an entire group of people (like c 603 hermits) with the same brush because one has a beef with one particular c 603 hermit (or with a diocese that refused to admit one to profession and consecration) is hardly helpful to anyone.

Again, thanks for taking the questions beyond the stale accusations!! I appreciate it!

What Does the Church Teach about Suicide?

[[Hi Sister, what does the Church teach about suicide? I am writing because of the suicide last week of a young priest who [died] by suicide. I question why no one intervened and got this priest some help?]]

Oh, I'm very sorry for the priest and his parishioners because of his death! I am especially sorry for those fellow priests and other friends of this young cleric; they know well the degree of loneliness common to parish priests in today's Church. It is all especially difficult for them at this time. Perhaps you can send me his name? He is in my prayer.

The Church's position on suicide is very different than it was when I was growing up, for instance. (I was not raised a Catholic but had friends who were and I was aware of what the Church taught during these years.) The Church considered suicide a mortal or grievous sin and refused to bury the person's body in consecrated ground. Today, the Catechism of the Catholic Church stresses, as it has traditionally done, the responsibility of the person for the stewardship of his or her life, and at the same time, she now recognizes that in most cases of suicide, the person is in a psychological state that makes them less than entirely culpable for their act. With only the exception stated in Par 2282 (cf below), the Church commends the person to the mercy of God who, in ways known only to Godself, can bring the person home to themselves and to God. (This is the meaning of salutary repentance in Par 2283.) She also allows a Mass to be celebrated and burial in a Catholic cemetery. Here are the pertinent paragraphs quoted from the CCC.

•  “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (#2280).

• 
   “Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God” (#2281).

•  “If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary cooperation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (#2282).

• “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for people who have taken their own lives” (#2283).

Is it actually known that no one tried to intervene and get help for this priest? We should not assume anything, whether negative or positive. I think it is important not only for the sake of the priest himself but also for those who truly knew and loved him. I would like to think that everyone did what they could or knew could be helpful and what this priest allowed them to do.

Because of the reference to assumptions, it is important to point out the difference between an objectively evil action (an act against the moral law) and a sin (such an act committed with clear culpability). We know that suicide is an objective evil (pars 2280 and 2281, and committing suicide makes the person responsible for committing an objectively evil act. However, circumstances, including the inner sense that has led the person to this act, can diminish or even entirely take away culpability which means that we do not know whether this act was a sin or not. That is true of all acts that transgress the moral law. If we cannot say why the person committed such an act, neither can we say they have sinned. (For example, some people speak of not wanting to be the near occasion of sin for others, and this is a good sentiment, but in fact, all these persons can know is the fact that the actions they are describing others committing are objectively good or evil, not whether those who acted thusly, have subjectively sinned. In such a case it might be better to speak of not wanting to be the near occasion of temptation.) 

Again, please send me the young priest's first name and I will keep him in prayer.

On God's Permissive Will

 [[Dear Sister, could you explain what God's permissive will is? I keep hearing "God allows such and such" as though God agreed with the thing he allowed, but that idea of permissive will makes God responsible for the evil that people do to one another, and that can't be right, can it?]]

This is a terrific question and an important one. Thanks for asking!! First of all, you are correct, the idea of God's permissive will cannot be understood in a way that either implicitly or explicitly suggests that God is necessarily in agreement with the thing being done simply because God allowed or permitted it to happen. The key idea here is that we cannot speak of the permissive will of God if by that we mean to say God desired or agreed with this particular outcome.  If God desired, agreed with, or gave explicit permission for this particular event, then we simply call it the will of God. You might be aware that I have quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer several times on this blog regarding events in our lives and the will of God. He says, [[Not everything that happens is the will of God, but inevitably, nothing that happens does so outside the will of God.]] 

Ordinarily, I hear Bonhoeffer saying that God does not will our suffering, nor does God will evil, and at the same time, he will eventually bring good out of even these realities. I think this is a way of speaking about the permissive will of God relative to God's sovereign will. The basic idea is that God's plan and sovereignty are greater than even the worst things we choose to do to ourselves, to others, or to God's creation. God is greater than all sin and evil. Paul affirmed this when he said [[Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more!]] God made us capable of choosing, which means he also created a world where sin is possible and can even come to dominate in various ways. Neither this fraught world nor the sin that dominates it is the will of God. And yet, God does not stop it; God permits it. But this permission does not mean God approves of sin or evil.

I too have heard people speak of God's permissive will as though it indicates God's approval or specific permission. Usually, it is meant to indicate God approves of something they have done because God didn't prevent it! For instance, in the name of "discernment," they will speak of something they are considering doing and feel unsure about. If God doesn't give them an out-and-out "sign" to not do the thing, they consider first that he is permitting it -- which God is!! They then argue it is okay and must have been God's will because God permitted it!! At this point, they refer to God's permissive will!! It's as though the phrase "God's permissive will" is a shorthand way of saying, "If God is permissive, then God must will whatever it is." There are many problems with this take on God's permissive will and the idea of "discernment" that propels it. Generally, it demonstrates an unformed and unsophisticated notion of discernment that depends on exterior signs from God. At the same time, it seems geared towards justifying an action one is uncomfortable about committing. In short, in adverting to God's permissive will in this way, one fails to listen to one's conscience (or to form it better) while calling upon God to give the person a sign! Meanwhile, one does all this while demeaning God in the process.

And of course, we know all too well that God permits terrible, even horrific things that one could never argue must therefore have been God's will. One of the most common in Christianity is the crucifixion of Jesus. People argue that this must have been the will of God, though they won't go so far as saying those who carried this out (or egged them on!) were doing the will of God! They also won't suggest that Judas was doing the will of God in betraying Jesus, and rightly so (though their take on God's permissive will should cause them to say Judas was doing or expediting the will of God). But Jesus' passion and death are critical instances of God's permissive will, and the truth of Bonhoeffer's quote: [[Not everything that happens is the will of God, . . .]] God did NOT will Jesus' passion and death!! He willed Jesus to act with integrity, compassion, and courage in the face of evil. And Jesus did that! It is Jesus' resurrection and Ascension that prove the second part of Bonhoeffer's maxim, [[but inevitably, nothing that happens does so outside the will of God.]] While human beings may do their worst, and while God does not prevent this, these are NOT the will of God. At the same time, God's plan and sovereignty are both larger than we can imagine and ultimately will bring justice, that is, ultimately God will set all things to rights.

You are correct that speaking as though God's permitting something means he agrees with it, makes God responsible for the evil that humankind does. God gives us the capacity to choose, as well as to learn and grow morally as well as intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. We have to trust in God's sovereignty if we are not to become completely discouraged with ourselves and the whole of humankind. This does not mean God is in total control, he is not. In creating human beings who are free to choose God or not, God limits himself. But it does mean that ultimately, the evil that we do is finite, and God's plan for a new heaven and new earth will encompass and transcend even the worst we do to ourselves and one another!

Approaching Advent: "What did you come to see?" Letting the deep Questions Surface Within Us (Reprise)

As I look forward to [Advent] I am reflecting on [various] readings . . . and the last blog piece I reposted here on "play" (cf. On the Importance of Play) for one of the things I think we need to consider during Advent and the preparation of our minds and hearts for the new thing God will do among us. Last week the Gospel reading on Friday asked two blind men if they believed that Jesus could heal their blindness. This week the question being asked is implicit but it begins Matthew 11 and continues into the pericope we read on Friday, namely, [[What did you come to see?]]

Both JBap and Jesus have been rejected by the Jewish leadership; the Pharisees and Scribes, for instance, clearly believe these two are unsuitable to be considered chosen Ones of God, either as a prophet or as God's Messiah. The question posed to this leadership at the beginning of the chapter, [[What did you come to see?]] was also answered in two ways, focusing on two possibilities, "A reed shaking in the wind?]] --- were you looking for the expected thing when traveling out in the desert wadis, or [[A man dressed in fine clothes?]] (Were you looking for the unexpected thing when you went traveling in or to desert wadi's --- and even then, were you truly open to the unexpected)? The chapter begins with the implicit observation that neither the expected nor the unexpected that the pilgrims imagined resolved their deepest hunger or needs. They were not really open to the Prophet of Prophets whom we know as John the Baptizer. And Jesus? He definitely didn't fit their expectations. Apparently, they were not ready to repent (change their minds and hearts about) or seriously come to see anyone the God of surprises might send.

When Jesus speaks to them in Friday's readings then, he compares them to children playing in the market square with their playmates; they refuse to enter into the games. Some children play the flute for their playmates, but they refuse to dance and, when the first set of children wail (taking on the adult role of professional mourner), they refuse to grieve. Ostensibly, nothing will satisfy them. Nothing, from joy to grief seems to touch them deeply. They are closed, disobedient, or hardened of heart, and refuse to give God the attentive response God calls for.  Further down the chapter this refusal is underscored as Jesus compares the Jewish leadership of Corazon and Bethsaida to Sodom and finds them in even worse shape. So what can we take from these readings?

Advent is a time of preparation, a time when we ready ourselves to see God acting in our world in a new, special, and surprising way --- a way that comes to us from beyond anything we have ever imagined. Friday's Gospel reading encourages us to pay attention and do so in a way that allows a response that is truly worthy of us and the God who comes to dwell with us in smallness, powerlessness, and homelessness. What I have said about this before is: . . . it occurs to me that the people of  "this" generation to whom Jesus spoke were seen as incapable of or entirely resistant to being themselves in response to whatever "tune" God plays or sings. It is an almost inconceivably tragic portrait of who we have become when the best analogy to that is of children who themselves resist or have actually become incapable of play! In light of this, I want to make two suggestions folks might practice in this preparation time for the celebration of Jesus' nativity. 

Approaching the Rest of Advent:

First, take time to play --- take time for serious play in something both easy and absorbing. Jesus' example of children who are incapable of playing in ways that prepare them for adult roles in the Kingdom is a devastating one. Again, there is nothing more tragic than children who cannot play, who cannot enter into the games their playmates begin and encourage them in. The Jewish theologian Martin Buber once called play "the exaltation of the possible." Adults often have had the capacity for play bred right out of themselves and this has serious consequences for their capacity to be surprised by a God who is the ground and source of the (unimaginably) possible. We have been so conditioned to work incessantly (even at recreation) and to have the answer to everything (or to Google it immediately!), that we are often incapable of the play which allows the deep questions of our lives to surface. Therefore, the first thing we need to allow ourselves the freedom to do is play in a way, perhaps, we have not done in a while. Perhaps you paint or color, or love jigsaw puzzles; maybe you used to do photography. If so, time to take these up again --- gently, not obsessively, but with a quiet focus that increases attentiveness and openness to the new and unexpected. Play!! It's important and serious work, especially in preparing for the surprising coming of God!

Secondly, while at play ask yourself the question associated with this Friday's Gospel and one of those associated with Advent in general, namely, [[What am I looking for?]] (This, along with the corollary, [[What am I being asked (or allowed) to see?]] would be wonderful questions to allow to rise within us before peering at the world through the lens of a camera, for instance. We are so apt to become aware of the unexpected and hitherto unseen at such times.) God is coming to dwell amongst us, even within us, so what are we looking for? What are we yearning for, dreaming of? What do we need this Christmas to be in light of Christ's birth amongst us?? We have taken the time to travel into the "desert" of play (and yes, it is a desert where we may well meet God, our deepest selves, and demons!), we have relinquished control and allowed the eyes of our hearts to open gently and wide in this way. It is a perfect time to consciously "live the question" as Rainer Marie Rilke once reminded a young poet. We must allow ourselves to stop and explore the question, [[what did you come to see?]] Was it merely the expected or was it the unexpected? And how will we respond if and when the God of surprises comes? Imagine this!!! Prepare yourself!! Allowing the serious yet joyful living of such questions seems to me to be part of the very essence of play --- and also of Advent!

May we each open ourselves this Advent to become people who exalt in the possible, people who play and dream, and in this way are readied to partner with God in God's unimaginable enterprise of love!

On Sharing Experiences of Mystical Prayer

[[Sister, is it common for hermits to have mystical prayer experiences? I read about one of these that you wrote about but I couldn't find others. I have had a couple of very intense and amazing prayer experiences, but I am finding it hard to share these with others! Is that why you don't write about these very much or do you not have them?]]

I don't know how common mystical prayer experiences are among hermits. Still, given the fact that hermits are contemplatives and contemplatives pray regularly, intensely, and even in a relatively pervasive way where every activity is marked by openness, attentiveness, and responsiveness to God, I would expect to see mystical prayer experiences with some regularity. This regularity is not the same as frequency, though. Because I accept that mysticism is a function of openness and attentiveness to Divine Mystery (the source of the term mystical), I also believe that those who pray regularly and seriously will have mystical experiences, though they may well be few and far between. As I understand matters, authentic mystical prayer experiences are a part or subset of contemplative prayer and associated experiences. This means that ordinarily, they come only with consistent and persistent practice, and even then, they are gratuitous --- a free gift of Godself.

I don't speak much about mystical prayer experiences because these are, 1) a very personal and intimate part of my life, 2) a gift of God who chooses to come to me in this way in specific circumstances, and 3) these are only helpful to share in limited situations. I also 4) never want to give the impression that God has created me differently from others or that God loves me more or even particularly differently than God loves others. For this reason, I cannot accept that some people are born mystics or that they have mystical experiences because God loves them in a vastly different way than he loves everyone else. Thus, I believe that God wills to give himself to every person in this way and that one needs to develop one's openness, attentiveness, and responsiveness to God in the persevering practices of prayer and penance. This also means that I believe God's truly remarkable gifts must be matched by patience, authentic humility, and discretion.

Your questions about my not speaking about mystical experiences point directly to the demand for humility and discretion.  I believe without these two qualities in particular, speaking about such experiences can morph into bragging, arrogance, and the subtle or not-so-subtle denigration of "ordinary" spirituality and "ordinary" prayer experiences or those who have not had and may not believe they are meant to have such experiences. In some people, these kinds of experiences are reported with what seems to approach a sense of entitlement! I say this because the sense of awe for such experiences, if it ever truly existed, slips away. At least it is not expressed when these experiences are spoken of by some. What comes across, unfortunately, is a privileged mindset where the entirely gratuitous ways God comes to any human person are rendered either routine or elitist.

One of the greatest gifts God gave me years ago, is the sense that I am the same as everyone else. At the same time, and paradoxically, this does not conflict with personal limitations or giftedness; instead, it contextualizes these and provides a perspective from which I can regard and either deal with or, perhaps, use them for the sake of others. This awareness of my sameness, along with my sense that it is a real grace of God, colors both my systematic and mystical theologies. It helps me to appreciate what God wills for every person; it also sensitizes me to those persons whose "prayer" experiences are (purportedly at least) always larger than life and peopled with characters and events drawn from dated hagiographies that in significant respects, and for entirely valid reasons, are less than edifying today. 

In other words, we can't blame an "increasingly secular" culture for the fact that these accounts strike others as irrelevant at best and destructive of genuine faith or even pathological at worst. Rather than being a reverent reminiscence of an intimate encounter with God that is usually most properly discussed with one's spiritual director, a very good friend, or one's confessor, this sometimes-seen practice of announcing one's mystical experiences far and wide reminds me more of a carnival barker calling attention to circus acts. Such "barking" can cause even the most genuine of experiences to seem "inauthentic" and be off-putting. In the case of mystical prayer experiences, less is definitely more. Thus, though you have certainly not described anything excessive in your own situation, I would still encourage you not to share these experiences with just anyone and everyone, tempting though that will sometimes be; when the right person, place, and time comes to share, you will recognize it. Just remember, patience, humility, and discretion!! This is the way we truly praise God and thank him for loving us so well.

Solemnity of the Kingship of Jesus

For the past 40-50 years we have been aware of a tendency to drop King from our language of God's Basilea, or Jesus' sovereignty in and over our world. A number of reasons for this change have been given: it smacks of patriarchy and is insufficiently sensitive to the egalitarian, familial nature of the order Jesus was bringing to be, we don't have Kings anymore and people don't and cannot relate to this imagery --- reasons like that. Add to this the sense that some first-rate theologians assert that a separate Solemnity dedicated to the Kingship of Christ detracts from the Ascension where Christ truly became King of heaven and earth, (Cf. NT Wright, Surprised by Hope) and we may all wonder about the importance of such a Feast.

But the results of the recent national Election in the US and the exponential growth of a brand of "Nationalism" that hijacks the name, "Christian," argue that we need to recover an authentic sense of Jesus as King and the profoundly countercultural nature of the Kingdom over which he reigns. The desire for a King so Israel could be like other countries (as well as clobber them when necessary), despite the warnings we hear in the OT, is deeply embedded in us as a dimension of our sinful, freedom-hating, license-loving nature.  Recall that Samuel warned his People,

11“These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

 Every line of Samuel's warning reiterates the selfishness of any King the Israelites would choose and stresses the fact that they would be diminished by this choice even to the degree of becoming his slaves. They would not be served or protected and enriched. On the contrary, a King would take all he needed or wanted for his own sake. Samuel is very clear that the people would be exploited and harmed by such a King. Even more importantly, perhaps, such a one, or the dreams of such a one, would and had already activated their tendencies to idolatry. None of this was an expression of exaggerated alarmism on Samuel's part, nor was the desire for a king on the part of the Judeans particularly surprising. Like us, these were sinful people looking to be free from worry, pain, threat, and struggle. They wanted to see their own nation as the strongest, most favored by God, the nation capable of destroying its enemies, and, perhaps most of all, they wanted and needed to be the beloved of a God who could and would do all of these things.

This yearning and need of the human heart to give itself over entirely to the lordship of someone or something is the point of the parable in Luke where a house is swept clean of a demon (that is, it is prepared for residency by someone worthy of it) and left empty. This is at once the human heart made for God and meant to be a Temple or Tabernacle of the Holy Spirit, and it is the place where idolatry is born instead. It will not and cannot remain empty. Thus, in Luke's account, the empty house is reoccupied, but now, by numerous demons, and it ends up in a worse condition than it was originally.  In terms of this contemporary world, Pius XI recognized the truth of what Luke had originally seen so clearly. He watched as Fascism overtook numerous countries and billions of hearts, and in response, Pius created the Solemnity of the Kingship of Jesus Christ, the Feast of Christ the King of the Universe. Pius knew a heart could not wholly give itself over to two different Lordships, nor could the tabernacle of our hearts remain empty. And so, he offered us a chance to truly reaffirm the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the One whose Kingship over heaven and earth was realized (made real) in his ascension.

Samuel outlined a picture of bondage, bondage to this world and its rulers, its values, desires, and false hope. he outlined a picture where people turned to what was not of God to do what only God could do for them. He outlined a picture of idolatry.  When Jesus came, he announced another Kingdom was at hand within this world --- within this world but not of it, a Kingdom where God comes to truly dwell with us and in doing so, transforms this world utterly with his presence.  In Christ God takes on the whole of our existence including sin and death; as a result of Jesus' resurrection and ascension, these become not signs of godlessness, but Sacraments of God's presence within a world which is not yet entirely God's own. And so, today we have significant choices, choices similar but not the same as those faced by the Israelites, or by Pilate in today's Gospel, namely, the choice between worship and idolatry. 

We look at the Scriptures and understand that this is always the choice between a Kingdom characterized by truth and one dominated by falsehood, between the Kingship of Jesus, the suffering servant, or Kingship exercised by one with no desire to serve but only to rule, and no desire to alleviate suffering or free from bondage, but only to act out vengeance in the exercise of power and to reap the spoils of all of that. This is what Samuel warned the Israelites about all those years ago. It is the choice highlighted in the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate in today's Gospel. And this month, half of our country chose the latter. Like the Israelites they wanted a very this-worldly ruler, a strongman incapable of compassion, self-denial or service of the other. It was profoundly disappointing.  

In the face of a country given over to idolatry emblazoned with the false banner of "Christian Nationalism", today we celebrate a more radical choice; we choose the Kingdom of God; we choose to demonstrate with our lives that in the face of the powers of this world, God's Kingdom of truth, love, humility, and genuine freedom is real, though as yet, only partially realized right here and right now. And so, we choose to work for that Kingdom with all of the hope and love we can muster in the power of the Holy Spirit. For the time being, petty tyrants will have their day, but Jesus is Lord and King of all Creation, and much of our present and the whole of the future belong -- or will belong -- to him.

On Why c 603 was Promulgated and Dealing with Abuses of the Canon

[[Dear Sister Laurel, it makes a huge difference whether c 603 was promulgated to deal with abuses [or] whether it was meant to recognize a vocation in a new way. I mean if c 603 was meant to recognize a vocation as a state of perfection (your term), then that's really different from establishing a canon to deal with abuses by hermits. Canon 603 does not include sanctions, does it? That argues to me that it is not meant to deal with abuses. It establishes a vocation in law, describes that vocation, and also what it means for it to be established in law, is that right? Too, should people criticize c 603 for not being used to correct failures to live the canon? I mean it's not meant for that is it? So, what happens with vocations consecrated under c 603, don't really live their Rule or live according to the canon itself?]]

Perceptive questions. Thanks! Yes, it makes a great deal of difference on WHY a canon was promulgated as to what we expect from it. If they are created to deal with abuses a couple of things will be true: 1) there will be a canonical form of life already established that needed a way to deal with abuses, and 2) the normal sanctions that apply to any form of consecrated life are insufficient. There is one narrative being put out there that c 603 was meant to deal with abuses in solitary eremitical life. The problem with that narrative is that 1) solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church had pretty much died out, 2) In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, there was no provision for solitary hermits, so there were no such vocations needing correction, much less enough to require a new canon establishing disciplinary norms, 3) lay hermits (hermits in the lay or baptismal state alone) are free to live any way they want because their vocational paths are not ordinarily established in law (their lay state itself is established in law), and 4) Without established norms that apply to a vocation, one cannot be said to be abusing or breaking those norms. Until the Church spells out what solitary eremitical life looks like in law, there simply is NO accepted normative form of this life to be abused.

You are exactly right with c 603. It is meant to establish an eremitical vocation to the consecrated state in law. It does not include sanctions. Instead, it lists elements that are essential to it. But note well, these elements are not narrowly defined, nor are they necessarily even obvious or self-evident in their meaning. Moreover, the canon includes the requirement for a Rule the hermit candidate writes herself based on her lived experience and the way God has been at work in her life. In this, she takes the individual elements and creates a tapestry of the way they are lived in her own life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is up to the diocesan team (including a c 603 mentor when possible) and bishop, to work with the person over a given period (usually the time it takes to write a really sufficient Rule) and also read and discuss the Rule with the candidate as part of their discernment and formation of this specific c 603 vocation. What I am saying here is that implementing c 603 in any diocese requires care, time, and significant investment by a diocesan staff that is willing to be educated on life under this canon just as the candidate herself is open to such a process. When this is done, the canon itself is more than sufficient to guide and govern such vocations. As I have said before, I believe the authors of c 603 may have written even better than they knew. I regularly return to the canon and my Rule to guide me in living this life more and more deeply and well.  I have heard the same from other c 603 hermits.

If someone is really not living the canon (and the others that also apply for c 603 vocations), then the diocese will take steps to correct the problems as is possible. If correction or rehabilitation is not possible, or the hermit fails to respond as her Bishop requires, then the diocese can take steps to dispense the hermit's vows. The process is appealable, and it is far more likely that a resolution will be found between the hermit, her delegate, the bishop, et al. The situation must be serious and different solutions might well be tried before a diocese decides to dispense vows. Since the hermit's delegate usually knows her/him better than the bishop does, she will likely be able to be of significant assistance in shining light on the situation and finding workable solutions. (I am convinced that few c 603 hermits actually fail to live their vocations; more often there may be a situation that prevents them from living their Rule --- illness, finances, family requirements (aging parents, etc.)) Usually, these situations are temporary and can certainly be resolved short of dispensation.

One thing I want to underline in all of this is that it takes knowledgeable people to discern 1) when a problem really exists, and 2) how serious this problem is. For instance, one person online continues to post various claims that I do not live the canon myself and that my diocese disavows responsibility for me. None of her claims are true. She makes somewhat similar accusations against other c 603 hermits, all without knowing them, their Rules of Life, the way they have written about c 603 therein, the content of their work with their superiors and others on various issues, and she does all this based on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the nature of c 603 itself. My own diocese apparently chucked the accusations in the trash, so to speak, where I believe, they truly belonged. In any case, the problem leading to action by a diocese must be real, verifiable, and serious. When this is so, the hermit's diocese will work with the hermit to achieve a creative and adequate resolution which, if at all possible, will protect this hermit's specific vocation and c 603 vocations more generally.

An Empty House is a Vulnerable House: Reprise in Preparation for the Solemnity of Christ the King

The pericope of the house exorcised of a single demon from Luke's Gospel provides some real spiritual wisdom. It also serves to illustrate Paul's own concern in what he is writing to the Church in Galatia and is especially meaningful when read within the context provided by Paul's letter to the Galatians. Remember, the passage from Luke speaks of clearing a single demon from a house; the demon then wanders around arid spaces looking for a place to inhabit. Eventually, it returns to the original dwelling and finds it all swept clean and in order, but yet uninhabited. The demon thus goes out to find seven more demons and they all move into the now clean and orderly but empty house.

The first part of the context for hearing this Gospel passage is provided by Paul's own theology and is summarized by the first lection: namely, the Law, a Divine gift, functions as a curse apart from Christ. It provides rules on the way we are required to be and persist in being, but it cannot empower us to do what it requires. The law instructs us regarding what is truly human, it can convict us of sin and point clearly to the demons that occupy our own divided hearts, but it cannot actually bring about Communion with God. The Law is important, especially as a schoolmaster preparing us for adult life in faith, but it cannot be thought to replace faith.

The second part of the context is provided by Luke's theology itself. A major theme of the Gospel is hospitality. Luke is concerned not only with our call to provide hospitality to strangers of whom we make neighbors, but with providing hospitality for God in our world, and further, with becoming ourselves God's own guests dwelling within the Kingdom of God's own sovereignty. In the stories we heard this week from Luke's Gospel hospitality figures largely, and so does law to some extent. On Monday we heard the story of Mary and Martha, both offering hospitality to Jesus. Martha adopts a kind of legal maximization and busies herself going beyond the strict requirements of the Law (to provide a single dish for the guest) and in the process, avoids actually providing the guest what he most desires --- her own hearkening (obedient) company. Mary, on the other hand, sits down at Jesus' feet and "hearkens" to him. What Martha seems to do is something Paul associates with the "curse of the law,"  namely she assumes that if x is required, 5 times x will be even better.

On Wednesday we heard the Lord's Prayer, which itself is about being taught to pray and thus 1) coming to allow God a place where he may be powerfully present in our world, and 2) becoming participants in the Kingdom of Divine Sovereignty where all dwell in communion with God and one another. What the pericope makes clear is that Law has NOT taught the disciples how to pray. Only Jesus (God's own empowering presence) can do this. On Thursday, there was the story of the importuning guest banging on his neighbor's door for bread to feed an unexpected guest. It is unclear whether or not all in this story eventually act as the Law requires them to act (the entire village is responsible for hospitality) but one can hardly praise the attitude of heart or spirit of hospitality demonstrated by (or lacking in!) the man who was sought out to supply the bread, for instance! And yesterday we heard the story of Jewish leaders who are concerned with the Law and presumably keep it faithfully as God's gift but refuse to receive Jesus as God's own presence in their lives and world. They even accuse Jesus of acting by the power of Beelzebul to cast out demons. Jesus confronts them with their inconsistency by asking what power it is by which they exorcise demons; he then tells [the] parable of the demon exorcised from the house with the house then being left uninhabited and vulnerable.

Probably very few of us are legalists in the strict sense, but how many of us tidy up our own hearts in a kind of spiritual housekeeping and fail to give those same hearts over to God to fully occupy? How many of us are intrigued by techniques and tools, workshops, etc., but resist actual prayer, that is, the giving of our lives over to God? I suspect this is a far more common problem in Christian living than legalism per se. Law of all sorts assists us in dealing with the demons that inhabit our own hearts: those of covetousness, greed, dishonor, dishonesty, anger, and so forth, but we have to go further and allow God to be powerfully present in whatever way he wishes. We have to allow our hearts to truly become Temples of the Holy Spirit. After all we are not called merely to be respectable (neat, clean, orderly, well looked after, with the right structure, facade, and all the right appointments), but to be Holy --- a new Creation, in fact. That means not merely being occupied WITH God or the concerns of his Law, but being occupied BY God in a way that transforms our hearts into God's own home.

Despite the humor involved in Luke's image of the returning demons, the image is serious. We have all seen houses that were abandoned, and especially we have seen houses owners fixed up but left unoccupied; they become dens for animals, nests for squatters of all sorts, dump sites for lazy neighbors, sources for scavengers and thieves, drug houses, and so forth. In short, they are made unfit for human (or Divine) habitation. So too with our own hearts. Law helps us clean them of all those things mentioned above, and more. But Luke's Gospel also reminds us that God in Christ stands at the door and knocks. If we don't REALLY allow him to make himself fully at home, if we allow our hearts to be less than wholly hospitable to a God who desires an exhaustive Communion with us, then other and worse demons will replace the demons already exorcised: those of ingratitude, self-righteousness, complacency, fear, works-righteousness, pride, and so forth. Houses are made to be inhabited and so is the human heart; an empty house is dangerous and vulnerable and so is an empty human heart ---no matter how orderly and respectable. Law helps us ready our hearts for Communion with God, but at some point we really do have to allow God to move in as fully as He desires and take complete "ownership".

Henri Nouwen on Loneliness

One of the most important dimensions of my own life is the transformation of isolation into genuine solitude. I do not understand solitude simply as being alone, but rather in terms of being alone with God, and therefore, through bonds of love, with all of those others God holds as precious. I believe that when Nouwen speaks of loneliness he is speaking of the experience of isolation and the transformation of this into solitude, it sounds very like the experience that stands behind what I write and understand about the silence of solitude of my own eremitical life and c 603 itself. 

Especially important for hermits, I believe, is the way Nouwen's understanding of the effects of trying to escape loneliness versus living it in the very concrete and exhaustive ways he describes leads to the redemption of that loneliness that transforms it into solitude. When folks write about the Desert Fathers and Mothers, they often note a point when the lone desert dweller's escape from urban and societal chaos and violence becomes instead, a search for something higher and greater, a search for God and the true self. I believe we are looking at the same moment as it comes to each of us whether through isolation, loneliness, or alienation; when transformed by the grace of God, we find ourselves and God (and eventually also the "other") as we come to know what c 603 calls the silence of solitude. 

I hope you enjoy this brief interview with Henri Nouwen on the notion of becoming a Wounded Healer.

On Canon 603 being "Entrenched" and "Being Approved" Under c 603

[[Sister Laurel, is it the case that c 603 has become "entrenched" and squeezed out the possibility of non-canonical hermits? If I have lived as a hermit for 15+ years, what kind of process will it take for me to become c 603 if I decide to do that? Will they just approve me and let me sign a paper or will I have to go through some sort of "discernment and formation" process? I mean I have been a hermit for more than 1.5 decades so wouldn't they just allow me to be approved as a c 603 hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have answered most of these in other articles so I ask that you read some of those for more comprehensive answers. The labels I add at the bottom of this article should lead you to further material pertinent to your questions. First of all, while the implementation of c 603 has become greater over the past 41 years, it has not become entrenched if that implies it is more valid now than it was when it was first promulgated in 1983 or if it intends to suggest it might well have been dislodged once made canonical if only no one chose the life. It is the norm for solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, once a canon like this one is promulgated it must be implemented and that will occur gradually. As I am sure you will understand, having a canon law that allows for consecrated solitary hermits, does not mean that every person that applies will or should be automatically consecrated. Moreover, having such a law means dioceses need to learn more about the vocation, and what constitutes an appropriate candidate; they need to learn about the varied forms of solitude that exist apart from eremitical solitude, and a number of other things as well if they are to prudently implement c 603. As I have written for more than a decade and a half, c 603 involves both dioceses and candidates in a fairly steep learning curve. Even so, c 603 has been the norm for eremitical life, and especially solitary eremitical life, from the day it was promulgated.

However, this also means that it is an added form of eremitical life; it does not supplant earlier forms of life that are non-canonical or lived in the lay state (the baptized state). If you should desire to continue living an eremitical life in this way, you are certainly free and welcome to do that. As a baptized Catholic, you are free to do that. If you want, you can (and I believe you should) use c 603.1 as a guide and norm for the nature of that life, but c 603.2 will not apply to you. (If you write a Rule of Life, don't expect it to be approved by your Bishop and diocese, but doing this is extremely helpful in living a healthy and faithful eremitical life. You can certainly have your spiritual director read it and help you live it.) If this is your choice, you will not be a consecrated hermit nor someone living eremitical life in the name of the Church, but you will still be living a life according to your baptismal consecration that is an exemplar for others in the Church. 

If you decide to petition for profession and consecration under c 603, and assuming that you are canonically free to do so, then yes, you will need to go through a discernment and formation process. Remember that you are not merely seeking to be "approved" by a diocesan bishop, but instead, you are petitioning to be initiated into the consecrated state of life which requires public profession and a second consecration. Just as people petition (seek, postulare) admission to religious life and profession and consecration therein, you will be doing the same with solitary eremitical life. It takes time, and so it should!! You must understand the canon, have a vision of your life that is consonant with that, write a Rule that demonstrates how you will embody this canon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, etc. All of that takes time and formation, even if you have lived as a non-canonical or lay hermit for 15 years. If the diocesan staff discern that you are a good candidate for consecration under c 603, they will approve you for a mutual discernment and formation process. This does not mean you will be admitted to profession and consecration, but it is a good step toward that.

The diocese cannot simply "approve you" in a way that makes you a c 603 hermit any more than a religious can merely transfer to c 603 standing. You must be prepared (made ready) for profession and consecration because the consecrated state is different than the lay state. It is never about merely signing a piece of paper (though there are certainly a few of those you will have to sign before your perpetual profession!). Instead, one will need to be created a canon 603 hermit by making public profession(s) and accepting the canonical obligations associated with this life. Consecration is part of the rite of perpetual profession.

After some posts from the past couple of months, let me assure you that the non-canonical or lay hermit vocation still exists in the Church and is something I believe has a greater representation than c 603. I believe, as I have said many times, there will always be more hermits in the lay or non-canonical state than there will be in the consecrated state. Let me also assure you that being "non-canonical" does NOT mean being illegal. It simply means not bound by the canons that bind consecrated ("canonical") hermits. One does remain bound by the canons applying to the laity so in that sense one is bound by canon law. Some hermits live their lives under c 603 and other canons additional to those binding a lay person. We call those hermits "canonical". Others live their lives without additional canons; we call those non-canonical. Both are legal in differing ways. Oh, one final point on something I mentioned above, namely canonical freedom: if you have been married, and if you have been divorced but without getting a decree of nullity, then you are not free canonically to take on another canonical or "life vocation". (If, on the other hand, your spouse has died, then yes, you are likely canonically free to try for c 603 standing.) Your diocese will tell you this when they see your Sacramental record.

I'm sorry to reiterate all of this, but your questions are reminiscent of someone who has heard or espoused the opposite of a lot of this, so I wanted to be sure and spell it out again.  The information on living as a hermit in the non-canonical or lay state is particularly important because it is important to understand that eremitical life can be lived in lay, consecrated and clerical states. As lay persons, we are free to live very many vocational paths, but if we want to do so in the consecrated state or do whatever it is in the name of the Church, the Church must discern and form us (or make sure we are adequately formed) in the vocation and then admit us to profession and consecration. Please note that neither have I been making any of this up since beginning this blog in 2007. I am merely exploring what the Church established the moment she promulgated c 603 in 1983. Your questions help me do that as so many others have done since my own eremitical consecration under this canon in 2007. Whichever choice you make, you are in for an adventure!! May God bless your eremitical life!

"Waiting in the Tabernacle of the Hermitage" by Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio

I am pleased to be able to post the following article from Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio. Rachel is a good friend who also "does Christology from below;" her life is focused on Jesus in the extraordinary ordinariness of hermitage life. It was a blessing to have discovered this article in The Merton Journal last night after I posted Why I do Christology from Below. Rachel gave her permission to use this article, and I am ecstatic to share it with readers here!

Waiting in the Tabernacle of the Hermitage

I am a canonical hermit, originally of the diocese of Nottingham UK (professed 2006), currently of the diocese of Hallam UK: Hermits are eclectic and catholic in nature – we each do our own thing! I write from my own experience of hermitage, though I hope there may be common themes here which will resonate more widely.

Some questions from the beginning of the penny catechism:
1. Who made you?
God made me.
2. Why did God make you?
God made me to know God, love God and serve God in this world, and to be happy with God for ever in the next.
3. To whose image and likeness did God make you?
God made me to God’s own image and likeness. 1

As we draw towards the end of this Year-of-Covid, I have been curious to notice the priorities of the Church in supporting her members and the wider populace. Within local parish communities there has been much evidence of ongoing support for each other and for the most needy, finding innovative ways to celebrate and to support. But the ecclesial headlines appear to have focused quite specifically on the re-opening of church buildings for private prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, and thenceforward for the physical participation of the faithful in the celebration of the Eucharist.

When I was consecrated as a canonical hermit, I was offered the privilege of having the Blessed Sacrament reserved within my hermitage. I gave the invitation much prayerful consideration, but eventually decided against it. My understanding and experience of hermitage is that the whole of the hermitage is sacred space; the whole of the hermitage is tabernacle, the place where the hermit meets Christ. Hermitage is, for the hermit, the sacred space of God-with-us. This understanding and experience is a step beyond the foothills of the God-is-everywhere theme of childhood lessons. This is the confidence that, by God’s grace, simply to embrace and live out my humanity in the place and circumstance I find myself, is the fullest possible expression of my relationship with God during my life on this earth.

Deep within the paragraphs of Vita Consecrata (an encyclical on the consecrated life which is adopted by canonical hermits on their profession) there is hidden a quite audacious phrase. It describes Jesus’ life on earth, his humanity, as the expression of his relationship as the Only-Begotten Son with the Father and with the Holy Spirit 2 .

Being human is 'the expression' of Christ's love within the Trinity. 

We have been taught, perhaps too often, that Jesus’s humanity is a belittling, a humbling of his deity, as if it were second-best, dragging him down to our own “wretched” state. But if we ponder the statement above prayerfully, we can perhaps begin to trust that being human is, in and from the beginning, the most perfect way that Christ participates in being God – that Christ being the Word, Christ being human is the event of God speaking; as the encyclical states, it is “the expression” of Christ’s love within the Trinity. In the desire to most fully express the love of the Trinitarian Godhead, in the Word being spoken, Christ wondrously brought about, for Christ-self, the state of being human. Christ is human first, before anybody else was even imagined, right from the beginning!

And for ourselves, being human is Christ creating us upwards into the ecstasy of the Trinity. Christ’s undiminished humanity is the ecstatic love that we, and all of creation (because it is all spoken), are invited to share in our living today. Each one of us is created in the image of Christ’s humanity – in the image of the fullness of this unbounded expression of Trinitarian love. As a hermit, I witness that I am called to make manifest Trinitarian love, through my own humanity – of Christ – in my daily life; that the call to being human in Christ, and in imitation of Jesus, makes manifest in me, too, the fullness of our relationship, in Christ, in the Trinity.

So how does that work in practice? The heartbeat of my hermitage is its sacred ordinariness. It is an experience, in silence and solitude, of total immersion in the humdrum of daily life. A hermit is one who has, perhaps, become so overwhelmed by the immensity of the privilege of sharing Jesus’ humanity that she chooses to spend her whole life contemplating the mystery and manifestation of that gift in the most simple and ordinary form of living. A hermit lives out the mystery of the Incarnation in her own body, her own blood. A hermit says, “Christ, from the beginning of time, and in the fullness of time, chose being Jesus, being human, as the best way of expressing the love of the Trinity. Living in Christ, under the action of the Holy Spirit, and totally dedicated to God who is supremely loved 3, I will now do likewise”.

Because of the relentless ordinariness of her life, there is very little of worth that can be written about a hermit and her hermitage which cannot be written about every individual and community on the earth. That participation in the mystery of Christ’s humanity in Jesus is the focused privilege of the hermitage, but it is the lodestone of every human life. The hermit inhabits the tabernacle of her hermitage, but all people wait and attend in the tabernacle of the world. Christ is close to us when we are kneeling directly in front of the Blessed Sacrament in a church, but just as close when we are sitting in the pews at the back, or standing at the boundary wall outside locked doors, or at any moment in any place when we attend inwardly to the presence of God.

Lockdown in the hermitage was not a time of greater separation, but a time of dwelling deeper within the mystery. Now, as the churches tentatively regroup and are re-inhabited, as people kneel directly in front of the tabernacle, and celebrate Eucharist together in each other’s company, we are able to express more publicly again the community which is Christ’s self-manifestation and revelation to the world. In this time of Advent, of waiting, of expectation, and from the solitude and silence of my hermitage, I like to stand with the Church and the whole of humanity, bereaved, grieving and masked, together-yet-apart before the altar of God.

God is with us.

1. Opening phrases of the penny catechism.
2. Pope John Paul II, 1996, Vita Consecrata. 18
3. Code of Canon Law: Part III Institutes of consecrated life.

 Canon 573 i

Sister Rachel's website is found at, St Cuthbert's House.

Why I do Christology "From Below"

[[Dear Sister, I have read some of this blog and I wonder when you write about the hiddenness of eremitical life if you don't disparage Jesus by referring so strongly to his humanity. Jesus was God, a Divine person, so to speak of his "ordinariness" or even his faith in God demeans him. How would you respond to that objection?]]

Great question. Thanks. I suppose my response goes back to one of the first theology classes I ever had. This was an undergraduate Introduction to New Testament and made an impression I have never left behind. The professor asked us who Jesus was or is and he let us answer in all of the ways we thought not just described, and identified Jesus,  but also how we most honored him. I said something about Jesus being the Son of God and John (Dwyer) smiled, nodded, and said, "Okay, bearing that in mind, tell me who God is!"( After all, if the best, truest, or even the highest thing we can say about Jesus is that he is the Son of God, we really should be able to say who God is apart from Jesus.)  But of course, Jesus is the One who reveals God exhaustively to us; he shows us who God is in ways that transcend any of the partial revelations we have in the Hebrew Scriptures or in other religions. Moreover, he makes the Creating, Saving God present in space and time in ways not achieved except fragmentarily in the Law, Prophets, Judges, and others. (Remember to reveal in this usage means not only making visible and making known, but also to make real in space and time.)

So, the question, I think, is really how does Jesus do that, and then, what does this mean about his humanity? First, I believe Jesus reveals both who God is and what it means to be truly human. He does both in exhaustive and definitive ways and paradoxically, he does both at the very same time. I believe that this is a major part what the Christological Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, for instance, were trying to say in the categories of that day and age. Secondly, I recognize that Christology can be done either "from above" or from below"; one (as in the Gospel of John) starts with Jesus' divinity, the other (as in the Gospel of Mark or the Letters of Paul) with Jesus' humanity. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, and each must address these if people are truly to understand who Jesus and the One he called Abba are for us. One of the weaknesses, I believe, in all Christology from above is that in starting with Jesus as God, it fails to truly "get to" much less adequately esteem Jesus' humanity; nor does it really see Jesus' humanity as a true model for our own.  I believe it also may prevent us from treating our earth with the reverence and responsible stewardship we are called to, but I will wait to make that argument.

Doing Christology (and all theology in light of this) "from below" not only shows us the depth of God's kenotic (self-emptying) love, it also reveals how truly we who are called to authentic human life fall short of or "miss the mark" of that very goal. When we do theology beginning with Jesus' humanity it is very much easier to see that to be truly human means to live in an indescribably intimate relationship with God (we cannot be truly human alone!!) and it means to become entirely transparent to the Love-in-Act of the God who wills to be Emmanuel, God-With-Us. What I have said about eremitical hiddenness and extraordinary ordinariness (cf Hiddenness and Extraordinary Ordinariness, and Essential Hiddenness) is meant to indicate that whenever our reality is allowed to become all that it is created to be, meaning whenever God is allowed to be God-With-Us in and through us, nothing at all is "ordinary", or, maybe better, the extraordinary everyday reality we so easily denigrate, demean, and diminish, is really and truly extraordinary, even sacramental. We, like Jesus, are called to make God really and truly present in this world. Jesus reveals this is the very nature of what it means to be human just as he reveals God as Emmanuel!

I realize this is not a complete answer to the implications of your questions, and certainly it is no Christological treatise, but to be honest, I just don't have the energy or the motivation to even try to write such a thing, and certainly not on this blog! I do not deny the aim of what the Christological Councils wanted to affirm about Christ and his relationship to the One he called Abba, Father; certainly I have studied these Councils (and the language they used!) but even so, I neither speak, live, nor understand reality in terms of the language (words and categories of thought and understanding) that were used in those Councils. Further, I believe that that language itself, despite the brilliance of those wielding it, fell far short ("missed the mark") and could only have fallen far short of capturing or expressing the paradoxes of the Christ Event fully and definitively revealed on the Cross! 

Now, I completely agree that all human language falls short of the heart of our faith, that Mystery that is ineffable, but in some important ways, the Greek categories of the Christological Councils made faith harder rather than easier and introduced obstacles into the way we see ourselves and the world God entrusted to us. (cf for instance, "Pebble, Peach, Pooch, Person," pp 159-168 as a critique of "the so-called "hierarchy of being" or cf.,"Nature, a Neighbor" (pp 153-158) in Elizabeth Johnson's Come Have Breakfast. Other essays in this book are also pertinent.) Semitic thought, and certainly Christianity itself, is profoundly paradoxical whereas Greek thought has a similarly profound difficulty in dealing with paradox. This means that being people of faith in God and his revelation in Jesus the Christ, sometimes calls for us to let go of certain categories of thought, and often to learn new ones** if we really want to hear and understand what the Christ Event and the NT reveals to us.

** it is not easy for those of us raised in 20-21st C Western ways of thinking to deal with paradox. To understand that Jesus' humanity best reveals the nature of transcendent Divinity, or that our God is one whose power is most perfectly revealed in weakness (2 Cor 12:9), or even that in emptying himself of his prerogatives as God, the One Jesus called Abba is most fully and perfectly Godself, all demand the ability to perceive and reflect on the paradoxical nature of ultimate reality. If you have ever tried to teach people to think in terms of paradox, you'll know how difficult this is. But consider the Beatitudes, for example, and try to make sense of them via non-paradoxical categories of thought. In this way they will tend to simply seem absurd, the foolishness of those "who cannot think rationally".