Why do we Tell These Same Stories Over and Over Again?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was wondering why we celebrate Advent. Even more, I was wondering why we celebrate the birth of Christ again and again or why we do the same thing with the other major parts of Jesus' life and death. I think Christmas works well for children and families but what about for those of us who are grown and have no families; why is it important for us to celebrate Jesus' birth year after year? It seems to me this only causes pain and encourages a naive faith. . . . Like I said, it works well for children but not for adults or those seeking an adult faith. And with Advent we actually spend weeks getting ready to take on this childish faith yet again! Is this what the Church is encouraging with seasons like Advent? I hope this is not offensive, I don't mean it to be. I just don't understand the place of telling children's stories again and again to adults. . . . I do get that Jesus was conceived, was born, lived, died, and was raised from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God. Why is it important to tell these same stories over and over though?]]

Thanks for the questions. Sorry to have only cited part of your email, but I think I have copied enough for other readers to understand your questions. My answer has several parts so I may only just begin my response here. We'll see what I can do, because they really are excellent questions and go far beyond what I was thinking of when I read your first sentence! They are especially important during Advent because they (like the season) prepare us to celebrate events that are at the heart of our faith, events that stand in the past and present, and events that also stand before us as our future.

The first reason we tell these stories then, is because, unlike many other religions, Christianity is built on historical events. Christianity does not theorize about what God is like. Instead, it reflects on the God whom Jesus revealed to us during and through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Other religions might consider God as a creator or hypothesize that God loves us, or that God judges sin and sinners, but Christianity begins with historical events and everything we say about God must be rooted in these events. We know that God has power over life and death because the events associated with the Christ Event reveal this to us. We know that God is a creator God because he is revealed as the author of both new and old creations in the Christ Event. We know that God says no to sin and yes to sinners, and so too, that God's judgment is a sort of harvesting that teases the weeds (sin, false self) and wheat (true self) apart because that is how Jesus dealt with sin and because God vindicated Jesus by raising him from death to new life. Everything we claim to know in Christianity is dependent upon the historicity of the Christ Event and whatever we claim about God, the One Jesus called Abba, we know because Jesus revealed this to us.

The second reason we tell these stories is that at our core we are storytelling people. Telling stories is our way of communicating deep truths, dreams, aspirations, reminders of who we are and what we are made for --- all of this and so much more are communicated through story. (cf., Advent Decisions: In What Story?) Our family stories provide a context for new members to truly belong more deeply; we share the most meaningful stories of our lives with those closest to us to invite and draw them more intimately into our own lives. We listen carefully to the stories others tell us because in this way they gift us with a place to stand in their own lives --- a place we could never have shared otherwise. God has offered us a place to stand in His Own story and that place is given to us when we take our own place in this ever-enlarging narrative the Church recounts for us each year throughout all of her feasts and liturgies. During Advent we prepare ourselves for hearing stories we may have heard many times before, and we prepare because at the same time we also know that we have NOT heard this year's story before and we do not want to miss anything this time around!!

The third reason we celebrate Advent and tell these stories again is because they allow us to understand what God, in Christ, has begun to do and continues to do day in and day out here among us and with our world, namely to recreate this so that heaven and earth interpenetrate one another so completely that God who is Emmanuel (God with us) will be all-in-all.  We look forward to the day when Jesus "comes again" (parousia or παρουσια, pronounced pah-roo-SEE-ah with each syllable separate from the others), and we recognize that we are in the midst of a world being remade by God with Jesus as the firstborn of this new creation. So, we celebrate Advent and all the liturgical seasons, not merely to honor the past, but to learn to think and dream in terms of what God is doing now and working toward the world he is continuing to recreate in the Spirit. We do not tell these stories again and again out of nostalgia, but because we find our truest selves in them, and too, the will of God and future of our world and entire cosmos.

And here is where the importance of really good preaching and teaching comes into play. It is up to the homilist or the good teacher to link past events with both present reality and the future that is already coming to be. What we need today are not sentimental stories fit for children alone, but rather, challenging and inspiring stories that give us something to hope in and to work towards. Whether on the macro level, the BIG story of what God is doing in and with God's creation, or the smaller level of our own personal narrative, we celebrate beginnings and newness regularly as an impetus towards growth and fulfillment. Advent serves this purpose on both of these and a number of other levels as well. It provides us with a story we can stand in as human beings in a troubled and troubling world and at the same time it reminds us that in the Christ Event God was and is doing something that affects the entire cosmos. 

In today's Gospel story, for instance, we find God taking a young girl overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so she becomes pregnant with Jesus; this young girl then marvels that nothing is impossible with God!! That this story is historical is important for our belief and for our capacity to hope, but even if this story were mythological it would convey something of the nature of God's love that only a story could convey adequately to other human beings. The power of God's love to overshadow and transform reality is something we hear about again and again in the Scriptures. The choice these stories place before us is one of hope versus despair, life versus death, meaning versus meaninglessness, and the power of love over the power of carelessness, bigotry, and hatred. Yes, the Church is encouraging us to believe in a God whose love for us results in miracles and more importantly, results in an ordinary world that is itself extraordinary with an even more extraordinary future that calls for equally extraordinary commitments to life, love, and hope from us. The stories we rehearse are not for children (though if they capture our imaginations as children that is a wonderful thing); instead, they are for adults who can commit to working for a Kingdom where Christ is sovereign and God is all in all, adults whose hope must be rooted in history in the same way it will be fulfilled.

Advent decisions: In What Story Will we Stand? (Reprise)

A while back I lost a friend I first came to know back in the early 1980’s. We met at a small local retreat house and came together regularly for workshops, retreats, spiritual direction, occasional dinners, outings together to SF, etc. Years later, when she developed Alzheimer’s, Helen continued to remember those times at the center as a watershed period of her life. It was a complete joy for both of us to step back into that time and share our memories. It was the retelling of these stories especially that allowed her to remain hopeful and faithful in the face of continuing loss and increasing limitation. She rested in these stories and retained a sense of the meaning of her life in this way. Stories can do this. During Advent, as we begin retelling our faith’s foundational cycle of stories once again, is a good time to reflect on the importance and power of story in our lives.

It wouldn’t be too strong an assertion to say that we are made for story. Weaving stories and allowing others to weave us into their stories is not just a significant need, but a profound drive within us affecting everything we are and do. Everything that is meaningful in our lives is mediated by story – so much so that scientists have concluded we are hard-wired for story. Neuroscientists have even located a part of the brain which is dedicated to spinning stories. It is linked to our ability to imagine ourselves in relation to the world around us, but it also functions to “console” us, to make sense of reality and to compensate us for the loss of personal story in some brain disorders, for instance. Sometimes I heard this at work in my friend as she filled in holes in her own memory so her own story could move forward.

Evidence that we are made for story is everywhere. Whenever we run into something we don’t understand or cannot control, something we need to hold together in a way that makes sense, we invariably weave a story around it. Whenever we yearn to move into a larger world, whenever we imagine and anticipate such a move, again we weave a story around it. Children do it with their dolls, stuffed animals, crayons, and toys of all sorts. Imagine a child explaining what has happened and whispering reassurance to her doll or stuffed animal after a natural disaster puts the whole family in an arena shelter. Watch too as she listens as that special friend cuddles her back and rehearses bits of the story the child needs to hear as it reminds her, “you are not alone, and you will not be alone”. Such stories help this child to negotiate the challenges and uncertainties of the present and move into a more viable future.

Fiction authors weave stories that change our lives in a similar way. We love to dwell in the worlds they create, especially when our everyday lives are stressful, but in entering these stories psychologists note that we also grow in real world abilities: empathy, the skills we need to tolerate being alone, and we become better at relationships and dealing with uncertainty as well. Such stories help widen our own sense of self and let us confront the “real world” with a sense of confidence and even adventure. Physicians weave stories more subtly, maybe, when they use a patient’s symptoms to determine diagnoses, treatment plans, and prognoses. Historians use story to explain the significance of events and allow us to engage with the past, present, and future when they do this well. Scientists and theologians do something similar when they spin very different but complementary and deeply true stories to explain the nature of reality.

At their very best, hearing and telling stories helps create a sacred space and healing dynamic where we can truly be ourselves and stand authentically with others in the present. When someone we love dies it is natural that we come together to tell stories, including those of Christ and the way he lived, died, and was raised. Doing so helps to knit the broken threads of our stories into something new and promising --- a new and hopeful narrative that eases grief and leads to a future marked by promise and hard-won wisdom. Couples deciding to have a new baby, and families who choose to adopt are making the tremendous choice to allow the breaking open and reshaping of their stories as they give these children a name and place to stand in their lives and even in the greater world. Therapists, priests, and spiritual directors help us to hear, claim, and tell our truest stories, especially when they are difficult or overwhelming, unworthy of us, or (at least so far) unable to have been fully processed. Especially healing is the way these “pastoral ministers of personal story” allow us to be deeply heard and to find rest in acceptance, forgiveness, and new beginnings.

So profoundly human and humanizing is our capacity and need for story that the Church’s greatest acts of worship take the form of story. Our liturgy of the Word is, of course, made up of stories that challenge, console, and inspire us as only the Word of God can do. And listen today as we recite the Creed together. It is not composed of a series of disparate beliefs or dogmas but is a coherent story in which we find meaning, hope, and peace together as a single People of God. Even the act of Consecration is accomplished by the recounting of a story we embrace and let embrace us in our great Amen of faith: “On the night before he died, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it saying, ‘This is my body. . .’ Then he took the cup, blessed it saying, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. . .’” We are asked then to reenact or retell this story with our lives, and to do so in memory of Him. In these mysterious and sacred acts of storytelling and our reception of them, the most profound potential of story is made real among us: viz., our deepest hungers and needs are met and we are made truly human as we accept a central place in God’s own life and allow God a place in ours. In so many ways our capacity for story is a blessing.

But not always! Sometimes we do get caught up in or substitute stories that are unworthy of us and therefore of God as well. When we do, we are deeply diminished. For instance, when young people opt to join a gang, they are telling themselves and their world a story of status, power, community and belonging rather than the story of relative powerlessness and emptiness they feel caught in. Or consider the kinds of stories adults who choose to have affairs tell themselves --- stories our world colludes in in every way possible, stories about a selfish notion of “Freedom” and love, eternal youth, the importance of physical attractiveness and immediate gratification.

At the same time, think about the realities these folks must deny or suppress --- things like genuine faithfulness, sacrifice, and humility, the importance of patience, generosity, and service --- and all of the other dimensions that are part of the abundant life God wills for and offers us in Christ. Substituting (or as happens in instances of abuse and neglect, being caught up and enmeshed in) partial and inadequate or distorted stories can skew our own lives and prevent us from becoming the persons God calls us to be.

And of course, today we find ourselves dealing with more than one pandemic. The first one is about COVID-19; the second one is about story-telling-gone-awry. In some ways, this is even more deadly than the first pandemic. There are all sorts of stories being told, and I am sure you have heard them ---from the notion that President Biden is a malfunctioning robot disguised to appear human, to the notion that Lizard People control our politics and feed off our emotions to the idea that our planet is controlled by an evil cult that engages in child trafficking and on and on. A tendency to conspiracy theories, false narratives, a need to blame others, and an allergy to objective truth in a world under threat seem to have nudged that part of the brain I mentioned earlier into outright lunacy in these cases. We want to shake our heads and laugh at these stories, but they are dangerous. Yet, because we are made for story, when our lives seem empty, powerless, and without hope, we will latch onto stories that feed even the worst tendencies within us at the expense of others which are more worthy of us.

It shouldn’t surprise us then that the Genesis account of humanity’s “fall from Grace” centers around the fact that, at evil’s urging, Adam and Eve swap the story they experience as they walk intimately with God --- the story about themselves, their world, and God’s place in it with them -- for another view of reality they prefer to believe. In THIS story eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (rather than knowing just the truly Good) will supposedly not bring death. In THIS story God is portrayed as petty and a liar. In this story human maturity and responsibility are exchanged for self-consciousness, fear, and a blame game that we recognize replaying in one form and another every evening on some versions of the “news.” To choose a false narrative or to be caught up by such a story in this way is the very essence of sin. It separates us from the very source of life and light, it cripples our relationships, and it weakens and even destroys our capacity for truth. Sometimes the stories we embrace and hand on as truth are a curse.

If the fact that we are hard-wired for story is both blessing and curse, then it is also the way home. You see, it is not just that we are hard-wired for story; it is that we are made, hard-wired even, for God's own story. The cycle of stories we began just 4 weeks ago says that in our lostness, God comes to us in Christ and in Christ, God works to free us from sin – the state where we miss the mark of our true humanity --- and gives us a new home – a new narrative in which we can be our real selves. Jesus frees us from the distorted, inadequate, and unworthy scripts and stories we live by. One of the ways he does this is with the powerful and uniquely engaging stories we call parables. In telling us these stories he offers us a place to stand in God’s own story, God’s own reign, as he makes our own stories his.

The word parable is made up of two Greek words, "para" (alongside of, as in parallel lines, parallel parking, paralegals, and paramedics --- lines running equidistant alongside one another and legal and medical professionals who work alongside attorneys and physicians). The second word is "balein" (to throw down).

What Jesus typically does in his parables is to throw down one set of values, a single perspective, one story or situation his hearers know well and identify with personally. They will begin spinning the story as soon as Jesus, speaking with a wholly unique authority, says "The Kingdom of God is like", and follows it with something even as brief as “A man had two sons” or “Ten lepers were coming along the road”. In this way the story (and its storyteller!) draws us in and engages our hearts and minds (and so, probably some prejudices as well!). And then, just as his hearers have settled down comfortably in this well-known story Jesus throws down a second perspective or set of values (viz., those of the Kingdom of God) which clearly clashes with the first. Because we are firmly planted in the first set of values, the first script or story, the resulting clash disorients us and throws us off balance. Being off-footed in this way means Jesus’ parables help free us from our embeddedness or enmeshment in other narratives; it creates a moment of “KRISIS” (crisis) or decision; it summons us to choose in which reality we will stand firmly, which story we will make our own. This is what Advent asks us to consider, the question that stands behind Isaiah’s invitation that we Prepare the way of the Lord

In today’s Gospel, two women, one only 12 yo and on the cusp of marriage and motherhood -- and the other beyond childbearing age and barren, have allowed their own stories to be broken open by the unfathomable mercy of God. In a culture where especially the most “pious” or religious will ostracize, ridicule, and disbelieve them, they were thrown off balance by their unexpected experience of a God who ALWAYS surprises and have regained a new balance by saying yes to allowing (him) to do something qualitatively new in and for our world. 

Their courage – and God-given fruitfulness make our world resonate with a new hope and promise. Like Mary and Elizabeth, and like my friend Helen (even in her limitations and loss) -- none of us is too young nor do we ever need to be too old to similarly accept a new and deeper place in God’s story. After all, it is the story we are made and most hunger for, the story that makes us true and whole, the Divine and ultimately, the truest Human Story we are hard-wired for --- the story in which nothing is ever lost or forgotten. This is the great conversion Advent prepares the way for – if only we can bring ourselves to say a whole-hearted "yes!" to making God’s story our own. What greater gift can we imagine or be given?

On Advent and Allowing our Lives to be Those of Constant Vigil (Reprise)

 Perhaps it is the focus of Advent with its emphasis on preparation and waiting, but I came today to see my life specifically and eremitical life more generally as one of vigil --- and continuous vigil. Whether the time in our hermitages is obviously fruitful, or marked by darkness and seeming emptiness, whether one turns to prayer with joy and enthusiasm or with resistance and depression, one waits on the Lord. One spends one's time in vigil.

Now this is ironic in some ways because despite loving prayer at night the Office of Readings which is also called "Vigils" has never been my favorite hour and in these last years, I have substituted another way of spending the time before dawn which has been very fruitful for me. The time from 4:00am to 8:00am has been one of vigil but it consists of quiet prayer, Lauds, some lectio, and writing. A Camaldolese nun mentioned her own monastery (and the one I am affiliated with as an Oblate) treating these same hours as a time of vigil and I very much liked the idea. I did not know that it would define both my day and my life, however.

There is something amazing about living in a way that is not "just" obedient (open and responsive) to the Lord, but that actively awaits him at every moment. (Yes, these are intimately related, but not always practiced that way.) The heart of Benedictine spirituality is the search for God. When candidates for Benedictine monastic life arrive at the monastery, the goal they are expected to affirm is the search for God. This is the defining characteristic of the authentic monastic life and a significant point of discerning a vocation. We can hear that phrase as emphasizing an active, even desperate attempt to find something that is missing from our lives, or we can hear it as a process of preparing ourselves to find the God who is immanent in our lives and world at every point. In the latter case, our lives become a vigil to the extent that they are transformed into something capable of perceiving and welcoming this immanent God.

Another central Benedictine value is hospitality, and there is no doubt it plays a very significant part in this perspective. While we ordinarily think of hospitality as offering a place for guests who come to the monastery or hermitage in search of something, we should extend the notion to God. All of our prayer is a way of offering hospitality to God; it is a way, that is, of giving him a personal place to stand in our lives and world. While God is omnipresent and the ground of the truly personal, he does NOT automatically have a personal place in our lives. Like someone whose name we do not know, he may impinge on our space, but until we call upon him by name and give him a place he cannot assume on his own, he will remain only impersonally there. And so, in prayer, we call upon him by name ("Abba, Father"), we carve out space and time for him, we give him permission to enter our lives and hearts and to take up more and more extensive residence there. We offer him friendship and hospitality, and we structure our lives around his presence. We continually ready ourselves and look for him just as we look for a best friend we expect at any time, and thus our lives become a vigil.

For hermits, whose whole lives are given over to God in a focused and solitary way, vigil is simply another description of the environment, goal, and gift (charism) of eremitical life we refer to as "the silence of solitude." It is also a description of who we are and the attitude with which we approach life. Those four hours before Mass or Communion in my daily horarium define the characteristic dynamic of the whole of my life --- at least when it is lived well! It is a vigil that requires the silence of solitude (i.e., external and internal silence and solitude), leads to the silence of solitude (i.e., communion with God), and gifts the world with it and all it implies. During Advent especially, the call to make something similar of our own lives is extended to every one of us in a special way.

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.