Who Do You Say that I Am? On the importance of Jesus' Questions

Tomorrow's readings focus on the promise of God's coming attached to his covenant with us and how it is that the fruit of that covenant so completely overshadows anything we expect or could have expected. When God reveals himself it is a surprise to us. In fact, God's self-revelation is a surprise that shakes us to the very foundations of our being. And yet, the coming of our God can be subtle, simple, exteriorly unimposing --- even a bit disappointing when we see it with something other than the eyes of faith.

In the first reading from Haggai, the new Temple, the place where heaven and earth literally meet, though still under construction, is disappointing for those who remember the old Temple and its glory. This new Temple, despite being unfinished, "seems like nothing in their eyes." And yet, Haggai tells the people in the name of the Lord, "take courage. . .for I am with you. . .my spirit continues in your midst. . . in a [little while] I will shake the heavens and the earth. . . all the nations (will be shaken). . . and I will fill this house with Glory. . . and give you peace." In that day the new Temple will be even more imposing than that of Solomon. We are not surprised that the language of this coming in fullness is the traditional language of cosmic upheaval, nor are we surprised at the fact that the Lord must counsel his people to patience. It is hard to believe in the fruit when all we hold in our hands is the seed, for instance.

In the Gospel Jesus has been praying in solitude, and he comes out to ask his disciples, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" The response is familiar, "John the Baptist;. . . Elijah,. . . one of the ancient Prophets arisen." And so it goes. Then Jesus asks the really pivotal question, "And you, who do you say that I am?" Peter replies, "You are the Christ of God." Jesus cautions the disciples not to tell anyone and then clarifies, the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the religious leaders of the day, be crucified and raised. Then others really will have to grapple with this question finding that old answers are inadequate and terms they thought they understood have been redefined. Only then will the real meaning of "the Christ of God" be revealed. Only then will the fullness of God's faithfulness and mercy be seen. Only then he will have been revealed on and in his own terms --- surprising, disappointing, and even as offensive as that may be to many.

At some point then, for this revelation to come to fullness, every one of us must answer the question Jesus posed to his disciples. It is certainly true that an important part of coming to faith is trusting in what the tradition tells us, trusting what those we love tells us, listening attentively to the stories they share which move us to faith, listening to the Scriptures as they challenge and inspire us similarly. It is critical that we reflect on the Scriptures which are God's Word in a special way for us. In other words, we must answer Jesus' first question as well: "Who do people say that I am?" However, mature faith is not built on mere information; it is not a matter of merely acting as though what these people have said is true --- though it usually begins here, and can be assisted by doing so in times of difficulty. Mature faith means allowing ourselves to be addressed, challenged, and changed by what we hear because we trust the one addressing us. One of the most powerful, though unpretentious, ways we are addressed by the Word of God is through Jesus' questions.

But what do we ordinarily do with Jesus' questions? For Jesus' questions, deceptively simple and unpretentious though they are, are those little seeds that can eventually bear great fruit, the tiny levers that can shift the very axis of our world, the trigger for the minor tremor that can grow and, in time, shake the foundations of everything built up in our lives and allow God to build something new and more glorious than the original Temple of Solomon. They are dynamite in small, plainly-wrapped packages. But before we can answer the question in tomorrow's gospel passage, we have to entertain it, and in my experience, Jesus's questions are the things we mainly ignore --- partly because we think they are addressed to someone else, partly because we remember the story instead, partly because we look for information (Jesus is the Christ, Peter answered the question this way, etc), and partly because on some level we are afraid of what would happen if we were pressed to let the question work in us and eventually be made to answer ourselves. In our own way, we tend to do as the Jews did with the new and unfinished Temple; we treat them as nothing --- insignificant and as things lacking in power or potential.

For instance, if I were to ask you how many questions Jesus asked, what would you answer? If I asked how many are recorded in the gospels what would you say? If I pressed harder and asked how many you could repeat, how would you do? And if I asked how many you had prayed with, journaled on, spoken to friends about, or been transformed by, what would your answers be? In the past several years I have only written about two of Jesus' questions --- two which I had prayed with, journaled about, etc. These two alone had changed my life: "Who do you say that I am?" and "Do you want to be well?" I could think of several others: "What did you go out into the desert to see?" "Could you not watch with me for one brief hour?" "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do as I command?" but I had never prayed with these, never treated them as addressed directly to me. Imagine my surprise when I found websites listing over 40 questions posed directly to those who would be his followers (not counting duplicates in other gospel accounts)!

As Rainer Marie Rilke once counseled a young poet, it is more important, in some ways, to "live the questions," than to simply be given and have the answer. Doing this uncovers unexamined assumptions and unexplored conclusions, shifts our perspective, triggers in our brains an explosion of creative and imaginative potential and power, breaks us out of psychological and cognitive ruts, reframes the way we see and feel about reality, allows us to get in touch with our deepest and truest selves and all we are and need, and can foster our capacity for empathy and attentiveness. Imagine then what Jesus' own questions can do when they are the vehicle for the Holy Spirit and the coming reign of God!! What comes from living with them is wholly incommensurate with their apparent simplicity and humbleness.

My prayer today is that we all might take a little more care with Jesus' questions and especially that we not dismiss them as the post-exilic Jews did with the new Temple beginnings. For us, these questions are precisely the place where heaven and earth meet, where judgment (harvest!) is accomplished, and where God is given a chance to work in and through us so that he might, if only we are patient, be fully revealed and his creation brought to completion.

Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: On the Importance of Jesus' Questions

Consecrated Virginity and Secularity, Some More Questions

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I still disagree with your proposal that the Consecrated Virgin is a secular in what one CV calls, "the strong sense." She (Jenna Cooper) makes clear on her blog (Sponsa Christi) that Lumen Gentium defines laity as those who have neither entered the consecrated state, nor those with Holy Orders and cites par 31. She also notes that Lumen Gentium says that secularity is peculiar to the Laity. Because of this she argues that consecrated virgins are 1) not laity, and 2) not called to a secular vocation in the strong sense of the term, but rather in order to set them off against cloistered nuns who also receive the consecration of virgins.]]

These are good points. Let's be clear however that par 31 of Lumen Gentium sets the laity off (in terms of proper spheres of ministry) against those in the religious state, not the consecrated state: [[The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church [meaning here a canonical Religious].]] The text does not read, "those who have entered the consecrated state," for instance. Once upon a time (even at Vatican II) these terms (consecrated and religious) may have been synonymous or largely so, but no longer. The same may have been true regarding the terms lay and secular (though we still have to consider secular priests as a clear exception), but, if this was ever so, it is not the case now despite the fact that the saeculum is generally a proper sphere of activity for the laity. (There are exceptions. It would not be so for lay hermits, for instance.) The Church now has forms of consecrated life which are secular, not Religious, and consecrated virginity of women living in the world (Revised CIC, 1983, c 604) is one of these. Members of secular institutes represent another.

It is true that in part the consecration of virgins under canon 604 represents a distinction from the same consecration given to nuns after solemn profession, but from what I have read, this is merely a part of the truth. It also specifies the locus of the c 604 CV's place of activity and responsibility, and it does this with the phrase "living in the world" which is buttressed by minimal or no additional formal requirements (no requirements of LOH, habit, promise of obedience, vow of poverty, etc). I also think it is significant that canon 604 follows c 603 as one of two new forms of consecrated life which itself clearly stresses "stricter separation from the world" as an essential element for the hermit. Thus, "living in the world" seems analogous to that to me (an essential element of the vocation) for the c 604 CV and is to be read in "the strong sense." (Please note, my use of "in the strong sense" is not of my own choosing or preference, but related only to your own usage.)

However, the heart of my own appreciation of the "strong sense" of this term stems from a pastoral and theological perspective, not a canonical one. In the first place, I think there is no avoiding the sense that consecrated virginity for women living in the world is a half-baked, perhaps poorly discerned and badly timed vocation without a reason for being IF it is understood as a quasi-Religious vocation and its secularity is denied, shunned, qualified, or mitigated. Consecrated virgins are used to hearing questions like, "Why didn't you go "all the way' and become a nun?" for instance. Similar questions include, "Why didn't you make a vow of poverty (or obedience)?" "Why doesn't the canon allow for or require these?" These are really good questions, and references to literally being a "Bride of Christ" --significant as that is -- hardly answers the questions or even makes sense without the corresponding call to secularity. Even if one was willing to answer these questions with some form of, "I am literally called to be a Bride of Christ," the next question has to be, "So? Why would God in Christ call anyone, much less a non-Religious to this?" "Is the Church simply multiplying vocations which call for separation from the world?" "Does she really only esteem these?" "Is the universal call to holiness something she takes seriously whether one lives that out in the world or not?" (The unpoken question here is, "How seriously are we called to take Gaudium et Spes, or the II Vatican Council's stress on the universal call to holiness?)

It seems to me it is only the secularity of the CV's living in the world which establishes this identity as truly pastorally or theologically significant and especially, as something other than a bit of precious and anachronistic poetry which no longer speaks effectively to people. It is in its secularity that being a virgin and non-Religious Spouse of Christ and icon of the Church becomes meaningful. The world needs the witness of such virginity, such all-encompassing personal commitment and fulfillment, and of the grace of motherhood which is so intimately bound up with it --- but she needs it from within the midst of the world itself. Only from within the world's very midst does it appropriately signal that Christian hope focuses not on "pie in the sky by and by," but on the transformation and transcendent fulfillment of God's good creation. Only if the vocation really means what it says, regarding "being in the world" can it serve this way.

My own deep sense then is that if one wants (feels called) to be separated from the world in some externally distinguished way (garb, etc,) then she should become a religious or hermit because that is more likely what God is calling her to. Both of these make sense and are not "half-baked" vocations in search of a raison d'etre. If, however, one wants (i.e., feels called) to be a spouse of Christ living in the world then accept that this is a paradoxical calling. By this I mean it is not a matter of compromises (for instance, because one is consecrated or set apart unto God one acts as a quasi religious part of one's time (when one is acting like a consecrated person), and lives and works in the world the rest (and supposedly, in one's secularity is not acting like one set apart unto God at these times) --- a kind of neither fish nor fowl approach). Rather it is a matter of a thoroughgoingness (precisely because in one's secularity one is consecrated and wholly set apart by and unto God in an objective way, one is free to act within and for the world on behalf of the Kingdom with a radicality others might not be able to manage). In other words, my own approach to this reality is Christian, not Greek, and it is thus not offended (scandalized) by paradox or the radicalness and exhaustiveness of the Incarnation.

One final point. I received an email from someone who has determined to seek the Consecration of Virgins for women living in the world. She also is interested in participating in politics at the state level. She wondered if that was possible, and if the two could be balanced. While I would say it is an astounding opportunity to act as leaven and apostle within such an arena, I don't know if balance is precisely the word I would use here. Instead we need people who live their consecrations exhaustively, with integrity, and as radically as they can. Imagine the baptized doing this in the political realm! What hope it would bring to our world! Imagine a woman whose life was centered on Christ, who lived an assiduous prayer life nourished by Christ in Word and Sacrament, who indeed is spouse of Christ, living all this out in sacred service as a political leader! Priests and Religious cannot do this; they are prohibited, but Canon 604 CV's are not and their very secularity, absence of vows, etc make it possible while their consecration makes it desirable and even necessary. Such a vocation as that lived under Canon 604 is not a quasi, second-class vocation in search of itself --- at least not if its secular nature is taken seriously with thoroughgoing commitment. We have heard the description that Christians are disciples called to be in the world but not of it. CV's under Canon 604 are meant to be icons or paradigms of this very Gospel counsel.

I hope this clarifies why I have argued as I have.

Picture above, St Mary Magdalene, in honor of a friend and CV who finds her identity as apostle to the Apostles inspiring and iconic.

Secular vs Secularism and Consecrated Virginity

[[Dear Sister, what is the difference between secular and secularism? When you say that a consecrated virgin is a secular it makes my stomach clench some. It just sounds so wrong. Totally!]]

Hi there! Yes, it is hard to shake off the connotations or associations with the term secular that have been inculcated for such a long time, isn't it? You sound relatively young to me in your post, but I am sure you are used to thinking of secularity as irreligious just as most folks who have been around since before Vatican II. I admit that to hear someone say "x or y is a secular," causes a similar gut reaction in me (though partly because it sounds demeaning to me). But, we really have to get beyond this because "secular" in its most general sense simply means that whatever we describe this way has to do with the world. Since "the world" is a multivalent or "tensive" symbol it is not generally a pejorative term.

It can and does refer first of all to God's good creation. After this it refers to the human world which is ambiguous --- God's good creation distorted by human sin and the powers of evil and death which is still called to reconciliation with God and the fulfillment of its deepest potentials. Only then does it refer some of the time to "that which is resistant to Christ." As I noted before then, a secular vocation means a call to live out one's discipleship within the world. In a sense the original disciples can be said to have been called to secular vocations; Mary Magdalene as apostle to the Apostles was called to a secular vocation. It is possible to argue that Jesus' own vocation to incarnate the Word of God exhaustively in every moment and mood of sinful reality was a secular vocation (though he clearly transcends any single category as well). Obviously such vocations were not irreligious or second class. They were countercultural, apostolic, and prophetic; indeed they were all profoundly Godly and sacred --- but carried out in the saeculum in a way meant to transform and bring it to a transcendent fulfillment, and for this reason, secular. Today, in a church where roles and forms of life are more differentiated than in the primitive Church, when we refer to secular vocations we mean calls to discipleship which are lived out in the normal structures, and institutions of the world in order to transform those: the political, economic, familial, corporate arenas, etc.

Secularism is a different animal though. Secularism, in the present context, refers to an ideology where the values of the world distorted by sin rather than the values of the Kingdom of God (that is, reality under the dominion of God) are the ones that defines one's life, one's way of seeing, thinking, relating, etc. It means that we look at these things as separate from God and seek to be ultimately fulfilled by them. As I wrote in another post on secularism as a disease of the heart, [[It is common to think of secularism as an inordinate esteem for the profane, something that reaches idolatrous proportions at times. But contrary to part of this analysis, I think that at its root secularism has more to do with the failure to regard reality, ALL of reality, as fundamentally sacred, as gift of God, as that which is to be honored and regarded in light of the One who grounds and gifts it. Secularism occurs precisely when we compartmentalize reality into the sacred and the profane. It occurs when we refuse or are unable to see the innate tendency [and capacity] of all things to reveal to us the God who grounds them, or to participate in and contribute to the goal of human and divine history: that God might be all in all. In short, it is a failure to take a sacramental view of reality.]]

When the Church affirms the vocation to consecrated virginity as a (consecrated) secular vocation she says it is precisely a vocation which 1) regards all of reality as potentially Sacramental, which 2) refuses to compartmentalize it in terms of sacred and profane, and which 3) works from within it to realize the world's profoundly holy potential. In this sense the consecrated virgin in the world is not only an icon of the Church, she is an icon of the world as it is called and meant to be by God.

Consecrated Virgins and Objective Standards, More Questions

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am a Consecrated Virgin and disagree with what you have written about the vocation, especially about objective standards or requirements. I believe that it is reasonable to ask CV's to do and their dioceses to require the following: 1) direct service to the church, 2) specific obligations for prayer and daily Mass, 3) poverty and obedience, 4) a significant bond with the diocese for which they were consecrated, and 5) that they be open about their vocation --- which openness may include some recognizable garb or symbol besides their rings. None of this seems too much to ask of consecrated women, especially if they are to be distinguishable from ordinary or even devout laywomen. Wouldn't you agree?]]

Well, I would agree with some parts of this and disagree with others; it all depends on what specifically each of these points means and how they are concretely expressed. There is an assumption underlying all of this and you have made it explicit in your last sentence, which I would like to note first. Namely, that Consecrated Virgins (or consecrated persons in general) are to be distinguishable from "ordinary" or even devout laypersons. My problem with that is that it seems, at best, a very short step to treating the lay vocation as the lowest vocation on a kind of "ladder" of vocations --- the kind of "entry level" vocation which is fine for the "called" but not for the "chosen". But the truth is that Lay life is, by definition, the life of the non cleric called to be adopted Sons and Daughters of God in Christ. It is rooted in a form of consecration which therefore has an intrinsic dignity and challenge to it which is both extraordinary and very demanding. While it is true that people lead nominally Christian lives which do not really measure up to the dignity of their vocation, the "ordinary" lay vocation is not ordinary at all and the "devout" layperson is merely someone living out that vocation with integrity. Considering lay vocations or lay life as a kind of "entry level" state with other vocational calls as "higher" calls would be a really serious mistake. Especially it would undercut the insight and thrust of Vatican II's recognition that the life of holiness represented by the lay life is part of a universal call to holiness and, though the shape of it may differ, is no less than any other call to holiness.

All of this shapes the way I approach your questions and, along with the particularly general nature of what you have laid out (more general than other versions of the same points I have actually read on blogs), makes me hesitant to simply agree or disagree. So, regarding your actual questions and requirements, what do I think? Let me take your points one by one.

1) direct service to the Church. The Canon which governs your life is clear that the vocation is one of service to the Church and to one's brothers and sisters. My experience of canons (limited, I admit) is that they say what they mean and mean what they say. Had the Fathers that formulated this Canon meant direct service, parochial service, they would have said so. Instead they qualified it with, and "in accordance with (in harmony with) their state." As noted in earlier posts, the consecrated virgin in the world is, by definition, called to a secular vocation, as well as an apostolic one. This means being sent into the world, not into the Temple as "vestal" virgins. Christ's Body is meant to feed and nourish the entire world, and the consecrated virgin is to do that in her unique way. I see this as a direct service to the Church, but then, my definition of Church is not merely, the "institutional Church" here. While I think consecrated virgins might well ALSO serve in ways the institutional Church requires (the symbol of virginity as a whole-hearted, loving, and countercultural gift of self would be critically important for youth in our parishes, for instance), I don't think the vocation per se should be defined only in terms of such service, especially as a full-time requirement.

2) specific obligations for prayer and daily Mass: I have already written a lot about the development of a sound Eucharistic spirituality which does not require daily Mass so I won't repeat that here, but I will talk some about requirements of prayer. The documents on this vocation encourages, but does not require, prayer of two hours of the Liturgy of the Hours. These are the same hours every person in the Church is encouraged to pray, and I think it is significant that the Church has not generally or specifically required more than this of the CV when she might easily well have done so. In some ways I would personally be fine with some form of MP and EP being made a requirement because I know many Benedictine Oblates, for instance, who, despite very active ministries and lives "in the world," do this and more and find it helpful. However, these Oblates are also monastics and called to inculcate monastic values where they live. Consecrated Virgins are not. I would also personally encourage (but not require!) some CV's to pray Night Prayer as well --- because I find it a gift myself, and critical for both ending my own day and preparing for night, sleep, death, and even the new day. But I encourage this on a case by case basis. With regard to the LOH, more than this (i.e., the full Liturgy of the Hours) seems to me to be a burden which could actually distract from the other prayer and work the consecrated virgin is called upon to do and be in the world.

Consecrated virgins (living in the world) should, of course, be women of prayer, and in point of fact, SECULAR women of prayer. Everything they do, every place they are present, every encounter, etc is meant to be a part of this prayer. They live in light of a special intimacy with Christ, but they do so in a way which calls every person to live out a similar but personal intimacy with Christ in the workplace, in their daily interactions, business dealings, families, and so forth. Will this look different than the lives of devout lay persons? Maybe, but maybe not. I would think it well might not in fact. Certainly the spousal relationship with Christ will shape everything differently than the spousal relationship of one who is married with children, and thus, has limitations the CV does not, but what this might look like is not clear to me. Still, it is a difference which the heart makes that is the measure of demonstrable differences here --- not additional external requirements re prayer. Should the consecrated virgin pray in the way, and to the extent she feels called? Yes, of course, but what is a significant prayer form for one may be unfruitful for another. Whatever the CV does to become a person of faithful and constant prayer, the distinguishing characteristic of her life will be the kind of love which stems from that prayer and with which she approaches the world.

3) poverty and obedience: One thing must be said up front here. All Christians are called to live the evangelical counsels in some sense, but this ordinarily does not mean religious poverty or religious obedience. It does not mean either of these things for a consecrated virgin living in the world either. Evangelical poverty GENERALLY means allowing Christ to be one's treasure. It means using wisely and for the good of the Kingdom whatever resources one has. It means being a good steward of the wealth of creation, and ordinarily it means, therefore, embracing a certain simplicity of life which allows ALL people to share in the world's wealth no matter their station in life. It does NOT necessarily mean one must be materially poor, however, -- and in this is the challenge which faces consecrated virgins. Unlike religious women, CV's are called upon to model the Gospel counsel of poverty in a way which speaks directly to those in the world who are truly responsible for the world's wealth and others' access to that. They are to be truly rich in Christ and witness to this precisely in the midst of the world which so needs such a witness. They will do so as corporate persons, homeowners, business owners, attorneys, civic leaders, etc etc.

With regard to obedience, the consecrated virgin is called to listen and respond to the Word of God not only in Church or their own rooms, but right in the midst of the world --- just as every person is meant to do. That listening and responding may certainly include a reflective dialogue with one's pastor, Bishop, etc in order to hear and consider one's response to the needs of parish and diocese as well, but it will not be formalized with a vow or promise to subject one's will to the will of these persons. That is characteristic of religious or eremitical obedience, but not the obedience of a CV living in the world. I think the CV's obedience will be more wide-ranging in focus than that of the Religious, then. She will (like religious women) pay careful attention to what is happening in the world, to politics, sociology, economics, etc, and respond as she hears God calling her to do, but at the same time she will do so in direct ways religious cannot always attain. Will this look differently from the obedience of devout laypersons? Perhaps. But if it does, it will be because the love which shapes her life has a somewhat different stamp than does Christ's love in the life of the devout layperson.

One caveat regarding obedience and promises or vows. I have heard many people wanting to make a vow of obedience because it seems to them to do one or all of the following: 1) mark them out as a person who is more intimately related to the institutional church; 2) mark them as someone who is more important (especially when one's legitimate superior is the Bishop) and somehow separated from the choices and responsibilities of others (lay persons) in the Church and world; 3) require a kind of subservience which can verge easily into a juvenile relationship with the world of adulthood. All of us, for instance, have had the experience of saying, at some point in our lives, "So-and-so (the boss, or professor, or whomever) wants me to report directly to him!" and we know how proud we can feel at those times. As a diocesan hermit with vows professed in the hands of the local Bishop, I have experienced the temptation associated with this myself. It is something to be eschewed! (Fortunately, competent persons who serve as legitimate superiors, delegates, etc, generally discourage these kinds of relationships and reject utterly an approach to obedience which is juvenile and blind! It is interesting to realize how universal this need to be answerable to someone is --- and how destructive it can become.) In any case, CV's wishing to make a promise of obedience to the local Bishop need to be clear re their motives and recognize that, even in the best cases, they are trying to adopt a form of religious obedience, but not the kind of obedience the world so badly needs modeled for those living in its midst.

4) A significant bond with the diocese for which they were consecrated: I honestly don't know what this means. It seems to me that CV's are surely called to be aware of the needs, dreams, potentials, and general state of their diocese and parish. They are surely called to serve those needs both parochially and in the wider world. Further, they are called upon to model such a relationship for others who might also take on such a responsibility and relationship. Is such a relationship insignificant? If this is a way of saying, "vows (or promises) of poverty and obedience" then it is a very narrow definition of the term "significant." For instance, despite the role I have in my diocese and parish, I know that there are people who are much more knowledgeable about and concerned with the needs and inner workings of these things than I am. They are an incredible gift to both parish and diocese in a way we really need. So, if you can specify more clearly what you had in mind, it would be helpful to me.

5) An openness about their vocation which may include distinguishing garb or symbol beside their ring. It is one thing to be open about one's vocation, and another to wear distinguishing garb --- especially when one's vocation is essentially secular and not to be marked off by garb which creates boundaries and separation. My understanding of the Rite of Consecration is that while it refers to the giving of the veil, this is understood to refer to a veil which is used during the consecration, and perhaps during liturgical celebrations (rather like my cowl is --- for I certainly don't wear it when I go to coffee with my friend on Sundays!). The wedding ring is a VERY significant symbol which at once marks one as committed, but also which is clearly understood and invites significant conversation. Obviously one should be open about who one is, and how one has been called, but at least a portion of this openness means openness about the secular nature of one's vocation.

It is not always easy to talk about the deepest things in one's life, especially the foundational love-relationship which defines one's existence above all others, for instance but this is what is required in Canon 604 (or any public vocation) and in the openness you allude to. To witness to a God who takes as spouse someone living in the world, working at the same kinds of jobs, facing the same economic challenges (including how to deal with personal greed and wealth), the same relational obstacles, threats, and disvalues (the objectification of women, the trivialization of sex and denigration of virginity, the notion that a woman is only complete when linked to a man, etc, etc) is a very challenging witness. It is also one that religious women (who are, by definition, marginalized from the world in ways the CV in the world is not) cannot undertake in the same way.

Thus, I honestly think CV's are called upon to do this without the protection or the facilitation which a habit, veil, or other distinguishing garb makes possible. They are espoused to Christ and the wedding ring is the sign of complete dependence upon this foundational relationship. It is, in its own way, a sign of the specific poverty appropriate to the Consecrated virgin.

I hope these answers are helpful.

P.S. I referred to the called vs the chosen in the beginning. By called I mean everyone whom God in Christ has summoned to himself. By chosen I mean all those who have indeed answered this call. I reject the notion that God calls some, and then, in another selection-like process elects others for special favor, and these are "the chosen." When Jesus says many are called but few are chosen it inevitably seems to mean the-all-composed-of-the-many are called, but of these, relatively few respond as grace enables them. There is nothing elitist in this at all -- and it is something today's Gospel seems to underscore, I think.

Consecrated Virginity and Secularity, Some Questions

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I don't see how a vocation to consecrated life can be considered secular! When I grew up "secular" was played off against "religious" and was completely negative. It was associated with sin and evil. How could a consecrated virgin be called to secular life?]]

I think this objection is a common one and it is one I anticipated. I had already decided that I was going to write about the notion of Saeculum, the related term "secular" and the vocation I referred to as consecrated (or sacred) secularity because I think that problems with this term might be at the heart of people feeling like consecrated virginity is a second-class vocation or "not as good as" that of the nun or religious sister. After all, many of us remember times when Sisters were not allowed to eat or recreate with seculars (this could include one's family). Some of us may recall being met by the dismayed concern, "But they're not (add the unstated sentiment, "God forbid!") a secular institute are they?" upon informing someone we were joining a new community, for instance. So thanks for the question; your timing was perfect.

First, then, let's look at the term "World." It has several layers of meanings. First it signifies God's good creation, then the ambiguous (essentially good but sinful) world of space and time (history) in which human beings are normally active socially, politically, and so forth, and finally, the clearly pejorative sense of that which is resistant to Christ and unredeemed by him. All of us are called to avoid becoming ensnared or enmeshed in "the world" in the last sense, but mainly we continue to love and to live in the world in the first two senses of the term and minister to "the world" understood in the third sense.

Hermits, who differ somewhat from this general rule, for instance, are bound to stricter separation from the world primarily in the sense of rejection of that which is resistant to Christ, and secondarily and in a less absolute way to a stricter separation from the ambiguous reality of human history and activity. They may also be restricted from many aspects of God's good creation, but ordinarily this is a consequence of things like poverty, stability, etc, not a rejection of this dimension of the term "world." Their ministry is one of solitary contemplative presence with all that implies, and generally they are not called to much, if any, active ministry in the world (saeculum) in this latter sense. In other words, whether consecrated or lay, hermits are not called to be seculars or to secularity (which, it should be seriously noted, is NOT the same thing as secularism!). Thus, as noted, canon 603 spells out the vocation as one marked by "stricter separation from the world."

On the other hand, most Christian ministers are called to the saeculum (that which pertains to the world) as their primary sphere of ministry and presence. They are not called to participate in that which is resistant to Christ, but they are called to minister to it nonetheless. Thus, secular or diocesan priests, who are not Religious and do not have vows of poverty, chastity or obedience, live, minister in, and are primarily committed to the everyday world; most lay persons do likewise, and Consecrated Virgins living in the world are called to do similarly. Religious men and women may minister in the world, but their lives and commitments are qualified in ways those of these others are not. One thing which should be emphatically affirmed is that lay and secular are not synonyms. Another is that a spirituality and ministry worked out in terms of the saeculum is not inferior to that worked out in the monastery (for instance). Since Vatican II and Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World) the world is appreciated as "an appropriate sphere of the dedicated apostolic involvement of the baptized." (Schneiders, Sandra IHM, Finding the Treasure, 223)

I am going to continue quoting from Sister Sandra Schneiders here, because she says so very well what needs to be heard here, especially in conjunction with the discussion on Consecrated Virgins and some of these women's desire to become quasi-religious. [[. . .because world is not a theological pejorative term despite its long history of largely negative use, secular is not a pejorative term denoting inferiority in the area of spirituality or ministerial commitment. It is a positive term expressing the choice to situate one's committed Christian faith-life and mission primarily, directly, and in an unreserved or unqualified way within the sphere of this world and this time, considered as the locus and raw material of the coming Reign of God. Religious make another choice . . . in regard to their relationship with the world. Neither choice is superior or inferior; neither is more nor less conducive to holiness or committed ministry. They are two different choices made by different Christians in response to different vocations.]]

Sister Schneiders continues:[[To situate one's faith life and mission firmly and resolutely in the world in no way suggests that this world or human history are ultimate values in one's life or the furthest horizon of one's concerns. It means that the way one chooses to serve the ultimate value, God and God's Reign. is through direct and primary involvement in the realities of the "saeculum," in family, economics, politics, social life, and all the other structures and dynamics of intrahistorical existence. . . .Secular Christians [including, I would add, Consecrated Virgins under canon 604] are precisely seculars, and it is at least arguable that only by claiming the term secular in its fully positive, postconciliar sense will we begin to appropriate the theological truth that this world and its history are not called to final destruction but to transformation in the Reign of God and that the human race is not called to escape the human race, but to transform it. The secular vocation in its proper and positive sense. . .is the primary hope for the transformation of the world in Christ.]] (Again, Schneiders, Finding the Treasure, pp 233-34.)

The bottom line in all of this is that the renewal of Consecrated Virginity as a contemporary vocation is part and parcel of the conciliar and postconciliar accent on the world as a highly proper and significant sphere of apostolic involvement. To live a consecrated life of virginity which models the same values as Mary did in Bethlehem, etc, is a tremendous call. To live as spouse of Christ in the world he loves, died for, and seeks to transform in every aspect and dimension so that it might be brought to fullness in and of God is an equally tremendous call and challenge. But it is not religious life and cannot, without betraying its very nature, adopt the trappings of religious life. At the same time it is important to remember that consecrated, lay, or ordained life can ALL be secular depending upon the sphere in which one is called to minister. To say something is secular is simply to say the world is its sphere of concern, activity, and influence. As noted above, it is not a pejorative term.

In any case, I hope this at least begins to answer your questions.

Surprised by a Hermit Writing about Consecrated Virginity

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I am surprised to see you writing about consecrated virginity. What caused you to do this?]]

Two or three reasons really. First, someone asked a question about CV's in conjunction with comments I had made regarding Eucharistic spirituality and the possibility of developing such a spirituality even if one does not attend daily Mass. Secondly, in that post I commented that I had myself thought of consecrated virginity as a "vocation in search of a job description" -- and that rather embarrassed me since I know several consecrated virgins. I was used to people (myself included) saying all the things a consecrated virgin was not, but really had not heard a positive, comprehensive, and particularly compelling statement of what the vocation was. Third, because of a reference made to some CV's desiring more general requirements in the daily life of the CV, I read some blogs by consecrated virgins and was surprised to hear what they were saying and disturbed by it as well. That led me to the USACV website and to the bibliography and links provided there, and especially to an article by Sharon Holland, IHM, entitled, Consecrated Virgins for Today's Church. That article was eye-opening and just what I needed to clarify the positive nature and content of this vocation.

The fact is that CV's are not well understood by most people in the Church, much less outside it. I find the language of "bride of Christ" beautiful, poetic, and something I personally resonate with (my own relationship with Christ is nuptial or spousal), but in general it does (or at least did) not clarify matters re CV's much for me --- and certainly not all by itself. However, the reading I did made the following connections or linked the following elements: 1) Church as Bride of Christ, 2) CV as Bride of Christ, 3) CV as icon of the Church, then 4) CV as a secular vocation, and 5) CV as a form of apostleship. When I combined all these elements I was struck by the fact that Consecrated virgins are apostles called and sent as icons of the Church into the world to witness to Christ's spousal love. They are therefore to extend the mission of the Church and live a kind of prophetic consecrated (sacred) and, indeed, virginal secularity in a sex-sodden world of rampant secularism or profane secularity. (More about what this actually implies below.) Once all the pieces were together I was blown away by what I had not understood or seen clearly about this vocation. Namely, it is significant (profoundly so) precisely in its virginal and consecrated secularity.

In other words, it is not meant to be a Religious or quasi Religious vocation. That is, it is not about being quasi Sisters or nuns though without the trappings of such lives or the benefits of community, for instance. It is instead a unique form of apostleship lived out in the world. What disturbed me in my own writing (when I congratulated friends who had been consecrated, for instance) was that I had found myself saying all the things it was not or did not mean, and could not go much beyond this, (e.g., CV's are not Sisters, do not have vows, do not wear habits, etc). While such clarifications are important, to be unable to state adequately and positively what the vocation is about pointed to a serious deficiency somewhere --- at least in my own understanding of it. In reading some CV blogs, however, I found women bemoaning the absence of these very things --- as though the vocation (or the dedication and consecration it involved) was not truly comprehensive enough or sufficiently significant in and of itself, and as though the Church promulgated Canon 604 without thinking things through adequately. That suggested the problem was not only my own lack of understanding.

I wrote about this vocation because it deserves to be understood positively, and because most CV's understand to what and where they are called. Some, however, underscore all the things it is not instead, and they do so by demanding the Church require these: prayer of all the hours of the LOH (Liturgy of the Hours), distinguishing garb besides a wedding ring (i.e., veils and clothing of certain colors and styles -- or lack thereof!), promises of obedience to one's Bishop thus making him a legitimate superior rather than a guiding Father or paternal partner, full-time work in direct Church service which makes the CV's ministry rather more parochial than the Church envisioned, I think, etc. As I thought about it it seemed to me that these demands (as proposed general requirements) undercut the very nature of the vocation and made it impossible to hear just what a radical call to apostleship it is.

I was also disturbed that no one seemed to be talking about the prophetic role of virginity itself, much less the countercultural witness virgins were called upon to make. Sex is trivialized and demeaned at every turn in our society and world. It is packaged, marketed, treated as a commodity everyone should try --- like the newest diet drink, for instance, and rendered unholy and diabolical (capable of tearing apart a world built on love, commitment, personal integrity, and the sanctity of self-gift) in the process. And yet, summoned by God through his church as apostles to this world, are consecrated virgins --- women whose consecration ring says clearly that they repudiate this denigration and trivialization while they support the values of commitment, personal integrity, and the sanctity of complete self-gift and sexuality itself. And they do not do this (act as apostles) as women separated from the world, but as consecrated women called to act as leaven within and thus, integral to the world.

Anyway, I have begun to truly understand what consecrated virginity under canon 604 is about, and I recognize even more clearly the danger of dealing with it in terms of what it is not --- whether we do that by innocently enumerating those things (though this can be helpful), or by clamoring for them as though the vocation is insufficient without them.

I hope that answers your question. All my best.

Consecrated Virgins and Increased External Requirements: A Matter of resisting the call to Sacred Secularity?

Because of my earlier posts, and because I have not been up on the conversations of those CV's desiring additional external requirements, I have been reading the blogs of Consecrated Virgins. In one of them I found a portion of a post which seems to me to justify the concerns I wrote about in my recent posts. This particular Consecrated Virgin writes:

[[However, this doesn’t change the fact that complete, radical, sacrificial self-giving is still the goal to which I long to be called! Even if I can’t ever fulfill it perfectly, I still want my vocation to be that of a total, spousal, giving of myself to Christ in every single area of my life. I desire with every fiber of my being to be called to be concretely, literally, visibly—and entirely, without reserve or exception—given over to God and the Church. But, I have never wanted to strive for this end simply because it happens to be what I feel like doing at the moment; I want to strive for it because I have been explicitly called to do so by God, speaking through His Church. And I wanted the chance to say “yes” to this call in a public, binding, permanent, and “official” way. Yet my thought is that if the Church were in fact to see consecrated virginity as being a “less total” vocation than marriage, priesthood, or religious life, then it wouldn’t actually be my vocation to give everything to Christ in a radical way. I could still try to do this on my own, of course—but in that case it would just be an aspect of my own private spirituality. My formal place in the Church wouldn’t be that of one who gives her life wholly over to God, and in that specific sense I truly wouldn’t be “as good as a nun.]] Sponsa Christi, a blog by Jenna Cooper, Consecrated Virgin (Archdiocese of New York. Jenna asked that I credit her for this citation and for any references to her blog and I am happy to do so).

What More Could One Give?

I have emboldened the sections which raise serious questions for me, and which seem to support my earlier comments. I have to say how very surprised I am by these sections. When I first encountered Ms Cooper she was not yet consecrated under canon 604. I could then well have understood all the comments about longing to be called explicitly by God through the mediation of his Church to a life of complete and sacrificial self-giving --- though I would suggest this can seem to denigrate baptismal commitments to some extent so caution is needed. I could also then well have understood dividing reality into private spirituality and public responsibilities. But Ms Cooper is NOW, a Consecrated Virgin, one who has assumed a public vocation through consecration by God and is, no matter what activity she engages in, a representative of this public consecrated state; these statements of yearning were, as far as I can tell, written post-consecration. In other words she HAS ALREADY BEEN CALLED to everything she mentions in these passages and has been called to them by the formal and public mediation of the Church. Nothing is left unchanged by such a consecration, nothing unclaimed by Christ, nothing in terms of spirituality or identity remains purely personal or private. What I (I hope mistakenly!) hear her saying is, "I was called forth and consecrated, but I long for God to call me to a deeper more extensive consecration and dedication of self than I already entered into. Canon 604's rite is inadequate for this; there must be more!"

Thus, it is also quite hard for me to understand how one can consider herself a Bride of Christ with a public vocation and believe that anything the Holy Spirit prompted her to do as part of that vocation could be considered completely private. Further, if the Holy Spirit calls a consecrated person he does so because the consecration has opened the person in particular ways to this grace. While the Church does not explicitly say to the person: "pray this way" (for instance), it is hardly possible to treat a genuine call to do so because it is part of who one truly is, as a kind of whim, as merely "something one feels like doing at the moment," and which therefore requires a new specific public commitment or permission in order to be valid. Instead the Church commissions the Consecrated Virgin to listen carefully and to discern what the Holy Spirit DOES call her to; it consecrates and commissions her precisely so that she may do this as an ecclesial person and one who is mature enough to act in the name of the Church in ways the Church has not completely envisioned in detail. This is part of the nature of the public vocation --- to explore what it means and to live it out responsibly as one discerns that one is called by God to x, y, or z and to do so without having others spell things out or give continuing specific permissions.

(By the way, I do not mean one should never check with one's delegate, Bishop, or director, etc, but, for instance, for diocesan hermits whose legitimate superior IS the Bishop, we tend to see our delegates several (4-6) times a year to let them know what and how we are doing, discuss problem areas, etc, and we see our Bishops once a year or so to fill him in on the same. (We contact him in between times if we need something significant or have some personal problem we need to put before him.) In the mean time, with the assistance of our director, we discern as we can and are relatively free to do so --- which includes the freedom to make mistakes! Our vow of obedience obliges us to this careful and continuing discernment, not to seeking permission for every new or different practice or prayer form. Our Bishops can (and do) certainly say yay or nay to some things, but ordinarily, despite vows of obedience in his hands, in my experience, the relationship does not focus on this kind of thing.)

When one is consecrated, one gives (dedicates) one's entire life (what else could the gift of virginity symbolize, by the way?) and, that gift is accepted and rendered sacred (consecrated) by God. This gift is also required to be given to others (commissioned) in service. As already noted, nothing within that life is held back at one's dedication (or profession) nor untouched by one's consecration. The usual analogy to this is baptism where the person becomes a new creation, or Eucharistic consecration where ordinary bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ --- external appearances (accidents) notwithstanding. The Church as mediator accepts the virgin's self gift in admitting her to the Rite of Consecration and consecrates her to service of God, his Church, and the world. The identity assumed is a public and ecclesial one. In general, no further call, no further new (formal) gift of self, no further validation is required. What is required is the assumption of the power of freedom in Christ, and the inspiration, creativity and courage of the Holy Spirit to explore and discover what this precise vocation calls for in terms of actual apostleship. The promise of these is given in the Rite of Consecration and the virgin commits her entire life as a vehicle for receiving and living these out.

In light of all this, I am reminded of the following text in the Rite of Consecration: [[They are to spend their time in works of penance and of mercy, in apostolic activity and in prayer, according to their state of life and spiritual gifts.]] While in the homily, it reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world. Let your light then shine before men and women, that your Father in heaven may be glorified, and his plan of making all things one in Christ come to perfection. Love everyone, especially those in need. Help the poor, care for the weak, teach the ignorant, protect the young, minister to the old, bring strength and comfort to widows and all in adversity.]] It is truly difficult to imagine a more explicit or comprehensive calling and commission!

Not a Second Class Vocation

The Church does not treat consecrated virginity as a second class vocation. Despite ignorant comments otherwise, the Church does not measure the gift of self in this vocation against the self-gift of the nun, or the diocesan hermit, or the ministerial religious, the diocesan priest, or the lay person --- whether married or dedicated single. Consecrated virgins should not do so either then. These vocations look and relate to dimensions of the institutional Church (and to the world) differently than one another, but this attests to the fact that they serve as leaven in different ways. For instance, I do not necessarily give more of my life than the privately (or the non-) vowed lay hermit, though I do so in a different way. I don't do nearly as much active ministry or work for the parish as most lay women in my parish, but that does not make my vocation second class to theirs. I do not make a vow of stability as my Camaldolese brothers and sisters do, but that does not make me committed to stability any less than they are. (Stability is a value I embrace in a number of ways even though I am not vowed to it.) Do I need to make such a vow to be truly committed to it? No. My eremitical life itself demands it and, as I have discerned this, I am expected to work that out without additional vows, etc. At the same time is stability simply a private bit of spirituality for me? No. I live it and do so as part of my public vocation. It is part of the gift eremitical life gives to church and world.

It does seem to me that one thing in particular could establish Consecrated Virginity as a second class vocation despite the fact that the Church does not regard it as such, and that is the post-consecration addition of requirements like visible garb, promises of obedience, responsibility for praying the entire Liturgy of the Hours (the documents re the vocation encourage the praying of Lauds and Vespers), full time direct Church service, and the like. If one has to legislate these kinds of things for all CV's then it suggests that the Church has been mistaken for the past 28 years and should never have consecrated anyone without them. It also suggests that, for some at least, this vocation really is still in search of itself and is uncomfortable with consecrated secularity. I know that is NOT the message we want to give, especially in a world where profane secularity and secularism are rampant and which so very desperately need apostles who speak directly and prophetically to these realities. The demand for additional requirements, separating garb, promises of obedience, and full-time direct service to (and in) the institutional church (all made in similar posts) narrows our definition of Church and ministry and limits the action of the Holy Spirit in this vocation to parochial institutions, positions, and ministries. Above all then, it seems to me, it suggests that the Church has not called sacred apostles to move out of the temple precincts and even into Cana or amongst the gentiles, when in fact, this is precisely one of the things she has done with Canon 604.

Consecrated Virgins have been given a tremendous gift and far-reaching permission (commission) to carry out their vocation in whatever way the Holy Spirit moves them. Presumably Consecrated Virgins have been given every grace in and through their consecration to do so as well without additional commitments, promises, garb, etc. It is certainly a vocation of the freedom of Christ, demanding as such freedom always is. I hope Consecrated Virgins demonstrate the adequacy and the incredible significance of their vocations in and of themselves precisely in the world where they were commissioned to serve as apostles!

More Questions: On Hermits, Consecrated Virgins, and Eucharistic Spirituality

[[Dear Sister Laurel, do you think [the version] of Eucharistic spirituality [you have written about] works for non-hermits? What do you do with the Canon that requires you to attend Mass daily --- just ignore it? Some consecrated virgins argue that daily Mass attendance is something which should be required of them as consecrated women. How would you respond to them?]]

I do think this version of Eucharistic spirituality works for non-hermits. First of all I believe that everyone is called to let Eucharist work in their lives in a way which allows all of reality to be regarded as sacramental and to bring everything to a fullness of expression of the Word of God. Further, I think that every person is called to participate in the dynamics of self-emptying and resurrection (fullness) which are at the heart of the Eucharist. This is true no matter how often a person actually participates in the celebration of the Eucharist (so long as their participation per se is serious and allowed to serve as leaven for the whole of their lives). Some people are also called to share in the specifically eremitical dynamic of the redemption of isolation and its transformation into solitude. Often these persons cannot attend Mass with any regularity, but they can still live an essentially Eucharistic spirituality which is nourished and inspired by the Eucharist nonetheless.

As for the Canon you refer to, I am assuming you mean C 719, sec 2. Please note that this reads [[The celebration of the Eucharist, daily if possible, is to be the source and strength of the whole of their [members of religious institutes] consecrated life.]] All I can note is that this refers to the celebration of the Eucharist within the community itself --- something that is often not always practical today because of the shortage of priests. It also says, "if possible." I believe, therefore, that this canon recognizes that the Eucharist may and should well be the source and strength of one's life even if daily participation in it is not possible. In fact this is the focus of the text. Thus, while I don't ignore this canon, and while I believe it applies in a general way to diocesan hermits as well as to members of religious institutes, I also recognize that it is not meant to directly address solitary eremitical life, and is not as absolute in some ways as some people seem to believe. (For instance, it does not say, "Religious MUST attend daily Mass except when prevented by illness or other serious reason.") The focus of the Canon is on allowing Eucharist to be the source and strength of the whole of one's consecrated life, not on mandatory frequency of attendance per se.

Regarding consecrated virgins, I really don't see creating a general requirement for all CV's. Consecrated virgins are a diverse group. Despite being women "living in the world" some are more contemplative than others, some more involved in ministry, some live their consecration in challenging ways amidst the professional and business communities, and others mainly within a parish community with ministry to these people, etc. Certainly they must embrace a serious Eucharistic spirituality, but that does not necessarily mean daily Mass any more than it means that for religious women or diocesan hermits. My own preference here is to be more discerning regarding those women who are consecrated as virgins living in the world (i.e., make sure they have mature prayer lives and spiritualities) and allow them to do as they personally discern they are called to in conjunction with their directors, Bishops, etc. In other words, require that they do as they discern is essential in their own case. Some will surely find that daily Mass is both possible and important; others will find it less possible, but both will find that the spirituality to which it summons them is indispensable and non-negotiable. It depends on the individual, those to whom she ministers, etc, as to what she discerns is critical for her own life and praxis at any given point or time.

I am not particularly up on the conversations of the CV's who argue that daily Mass should be made a general requirement, but I wonder if it might not reflect a need to make the vocation approximate that of women Religious and to separate CV's (or establish themselves as clearly or visibly separated) from the laity. Since consecrated virginity itself is not understood readily as a distinct or significant vocation, it may also represent, at least for some, a piece of feeling a need to have the Church spell out additional requirements which seem to validate the vocation. In some ways it has always seemed to me that reprising this calling has created a "vocation in search of a job description." It is hard for people to understand this vocation because the CV's are not religious and are also something other (though not more!) than devoted lay persons. IF the vocation has validity (and I genuinely assume it does) then it does not have this as a pseudo or quasi Religious vocation. CV's will need to establish themselves and an understanding of the nature and significance of their vocation, but this, it seems to me, will never be done if the obligations attached to their consecration and the canon which governs the life are treated as inadequate and additional requirements added after the fact. Either this vocation is genuine and has its own significant nature and charism within the church, or it does not. Multiplying required external observances does not take the place of a (perhaps!) missing charism and essential justification. Instead, to me anyway, such multiplication looks a bit defensive --- as though CV's are not comfortable with the inner justification of the vocation per se.

While it is undeniably true that vocations and especially an understanding of their implications for the life of the Church develop over time, it HAS to be noted that the Church did NOT establish attendance at daily Mass as a requirement when it published Canon 604 and it might easily have done so in 1983 understanding that this was essential to the vocation. The same is true with other things like Liturgy of the Hours, Rule of Life, distinctive garb (veil, etc), a commitment to religious obedience, etc. Was the Church naive in establishing the vocation? Did it fail to regard and legislate what was essential to it? Someone would need to seriously demonstrate this, I think, if they were to claim that certain practices were essential to the vocation itself despite not being part of canon 604.

In this and other matters it would be especially pertinent and interesting to hear what discussions were held about this canon before it was promulgated. How did other drafts read? (Canon 603 had numerous drafts; I assume the same is true of Canon 604.) How did Bishops understand the nature and significance of the vocation? Why were vows not required? Why no Rule of Life? Why no distinguishing garb? Why was the relationship with the Bishop described as unique but not in terms of his being a legitimate superior and with no provision made for a promise of obedience, for instance? It seems very significant to me, and probably illustrative of how the Bishops envisioned the vocation, that these things were NOT required given how natural doing so would have been. (We know that these things CAN be spelled out because some of them at least are spelled out for diocesan hermits in C 603. It also seems that the institutional Church generally desires external signs and explicit requirements and commitments like promises of obedience. But in this case they did not go this way. Why not?) What was the role of the CV in the early Church? How did what came to be religious life differ and why? Answers to these questions would help me to answer your question a bit more intelligently, and it seems to me that they are questions anyone arguing the need for more general requirements should be very conversant with.

In any case, to get back to your question about Eucharistic spirituality and daily Mass attendance, it seems to me that consecrated virgins are certainly called to develop and model an intense and encompassing Eucharistic spirituality, but it must be done according to each virgin's own discernment, vision, and sphere of ministry. Some virgins will model this especially for those who cannot get to daily Mass; others will model it for those who can. Some will do it for those who are more contemplative, and some will do it for those with very active lives in business and the professions, for instance. However, all (one sincerely hopes and trusts) will do so with devotion and personal integrity.

Followup Questions: On Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality

[[Dear Sister, your answer to my question divorces Eucharistic spirituality from actual participation at Holy Mass. It also makes solitude more important than Mass, which the Church teaches is the highest form of intimacy with God. We are never closer to God than we are at Holy Mass. If union with God is so important to the hermit then they should be at Mass every day. Eucharistic spirituality is about allowing Mass to be at the center of one's life and I don't think a hermit can do this if he misses it just because it is inconvenient to his solitude.]]

Thanks for following up. I feel at a bit of a loss in responding here because it seems to me that you didn't really read what I wrote about the place of solitude in the life of the hermit. Let me reiterate, hopefully more clearly, then: solitude is not merely an environment which makes prayer more possible, or which merely frees from other apostolates, etc; it is both the means and, when rightly understood, the goal of eremitical life. While Mass is surely critically important in the life of the solitary Catholic hermit, it is meant to assist her in developing a truly Eucharistic spirituality in and for eremitical solitude, where solitude is understood not simply as being alone (and certainly not as isolation!), but as being alone with/in God for others. Only if the hermit is faithful to the praxis and goal of solitude can she develop an eremitical spirituality of Eucharist which is open to others who MUST also miss Mass --- sometimes for very extended periods indeed. It is not that daily Mass is inconvenient to one's solitude --- as though solitude was simply something a hermit prefers to celebrating with the community, like sleeping in might be; it is the fact that solitude is the primary way in which the hermit grows in union with God, and the silence of solitude grows only in extended periods of solitary existence.

Thus, Eucharist is ordinarily (but not always!) present to the diocesan hermit in her hermitage precisely so she can 1) continue in solitary prayer, 2) understand and allow her prayer and her solitude itself to be communal or ecclesial, and 3) allow her life to be transformed in this solitude into bread broken and wine poured out for others --- and her hermitage to become a tabernacle of Christ's living presence within her diocese and parish. Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: On the Reservation of Eucharist by Hermits She will, of course, attend Mass regularly (though oftentimes not daily nor necessarily even weekly), and her life in the hermitage will be an expression of Eucharistic spirituality, but it will look differently at some points than it will for most faithful Catholics. In all of this it is really critical to understand that solitude is a genuine and privileged way to union with God for SOME. It requires we truly believe that God calls SOME to this (solitary) way of achieving human wholeness and sanctity (intimacy with/participation in God).

Having said that I need to disagree with some of what you have asserted. First, the Church does not teach that Mass is "the highest form of intimacy with God." As I noted on the Catholic Hermits list, while it is true that objectively Christ is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, this may not and certainly does not automatically translate into subjective intimacy with God. Would that intimacy with God merely involved participation at Mass! But it does not any more than being present at a family gathering at Christmas and partaking of their meal automatically translates into subjective intimacy with family members. It is one thing to identify Eucharist as the source and summit of spiritual life, and another to call it the highest form of intimacy. For many, this actually occurs in quiet prayer, or in their time with lectio where the Word is grappled with and allowed to address them in profound ways. So, while I agree that ideally Eucharist should be a time of great intimacy with God in Christ, your own statement goes beyond what the Church teaches here.


More importantly, I don't think I have divorced Eucharistic spirituality from actual participation at Mass. What I have tried to do is look at Eucharistic spirituality with or from a broader perspective so that while I continue to see Mass as central to such a spirituality this spirituality is not associated merely with going to Mass, with Eucharistic adoration, or even with the actual presence of reserved Eucharist, but instead is a much more demanding and extensive reality which involves the transformation of all of one's world into an essentially sacramental reality. Thus my emphasis on the notion that all meals, for instance, be seen as holy --- and even as extensions of Mass --- or that one's very living space be seen as a tabernacle of Christ's presence, or that every bit of ordinary life be approached as at least potentially revealing the presence of God in the unexpected place, and so forth. (This should be true in every Christian home even though the Eucharist is not reserved there, I would argue.) It is Eucharistic spirituality which recognizes all of this and finds that one's own weakness and brokenness can become the vehicle or medium for God's own revelation of himself in the power of love. When lives are stamped with the impress of the cross and God brings new life out of that so that one lives a new joy, gratitude, and peace the world cannot give, THAT is Eucharistic spirituality; it is the realization of everything the Mass is meant to achieve, everything the risen Christ makes possible in our world.

I am not sure what else I can say. I do believe that it is ideal to be able to combine Mass and solitude. Some solitary hermits can do so either because they are priests or because they have priests on the property of their laura (some diocesan hermits have formed these), and because Mass in these cases usually involves a good deal more silence, and separation from guests, etc, than is present during Masses in parishes. (This is absolutely not a criticism of parish Masses which build community in significant -- but less silent or contemplative -- ways.) There are undoubtedly times when, for me as a diocesan hermit, the demands and challenges of solitude suffer or are significantly blunted or attenuated from attending daily Mass, but equally there are times when solitude itself demands I celebrate Mass with my faith community. At these latter times attendance at Mass sharpens the demands and challenges of solitude. I try to be sensitive to what is necessary and willed by God at any given time, but whatever I choose, it is NEVER a matter of mere convenience or inconvenience! Instead, what I decide is inevitably at the service of the broader sense of Eucharistic spirituality I have outlined here and in the earlier post.

Please do feel free to followup if you feel I have misheard, misunderstood, or simply failed to be clear. I appreciate specific questions which seek clarification, for instance, but whatever you feel will actually foster further fruitful discussion would be welcome.

"Rolling Requiem" September 11th

This weekend we mark the tenth anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Certainly it was an event that changed our country and which we mourn. It also signals some of the most striking heroism, courage and generosity we have known in the history of our country. As I noted several months ago the orchestra I play in (Oakland Civic Orchestra) with the Oakland Symphony Chorus, will, along with orchestras and choruses across the country, be performing Mozart's Requiem Mass as part of something called a "rolling requiem" --- a tribute to September 11th and all those who lost their lives, or participated in ways which make us rightly proud. The performance in Oakland will be at 5:30 pm at the new Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland.

By the way, this is not like just other usual concerts; those attending are invited to sing along, so if you have a score or a part, bring it along and join us in singing this Mass. (This may be a sure invitation to a train wreck or three, but it should also be great fun!) If you are not in the Oakland area check around to see where the Requiem is being performed in your own area and join them!

Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality, Pointed Questions

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
How is it that hermits reflect the centrality of Eucharist in their spiritual lives if they do not attend Mass daily? I heard you remark in another context that you didn't attend Mass if solitude required otherwise. My understanding is that religious are required canonically to attend Mass daily if that is possible, and you yourself say on this blog that Eucharist is the center of everything that happens at your hermitage. So, how is it you can skip Mass just because it is more convenient to remain in solitude and still claim the title Sister and assert how central Eucharist is in your life? My other question is how do you receive Communion if there is no one there but yourself? Isn't self-communication forbidden to Catholics?]]

These topics, as you apparently are aware, came up on the Catholic Hermits list. One person there argued that hermits, like anyone else, should get to Mass as often as possible (daily!), and should not miss simply because it was "inconvenient" to one's solitude. Since, they argued, religious are required to participate at Mass in this way it makes sense that diocesan hermits are also so required. Others have argued that in today's world of easy transportation and numerous parishes people should be able to get to Mass daily one way or another and that hermits certainly should do so. Some know hermits who attend the parish Mass each day, or at least most every day and argue on that basis. My own argument was that fidelity to solitude sometimes meant not getting to daily Mass. I believe it is possible to develop a strong Eucharistic spirituality in solitude even without getting to Mass daily and that is what I want to look at in this post.

On the Place of Solitude in the Hermit's Life

However, before I say more in response to your question I need to clarify one critical point. Your comments include a misconstrual of what I said, and a misunderstanding regarding the nature of eremitical solitude. Namely, hermits do not skip Mass merely because it is inconvenient to their solitude; they do so because solitude is their full-time calling and the actual occasion, environment, and resulting quality of whatever union with God is achieved in their life. Solitude is not just a means for the hermit, but a goal as well. In this perspective, solitude (or what Canon 603 refers to as the "silence of solitude") is not a self-indulgent luxury which just happens to provide an environment for other things in the hermit's life (though external silence and physical solitude will certainly serve in this way). It is instead the reality which is achieved together with God when a hermit is faithful to (among other things) long term external silence and solitude. Thus, it is important that the hermit  maintain her faithfulness to this long term external silence and solitude. Solitude is, again, both the means to and the goal of the hermit's existence because eremitical solitude itself is a form of communal or ecclesial existence and an expression of union with God and all that is precious to God.

In saying this I mean that the hermit's life is to give witness to the union with God which is achieved in solitude as well as the "silence of solitude" which is an expression and sign of this union, and so, to the redemption of all forms of human isolation, alienation and estrangement achieved therein. They are called to come to wholeness and holiness in solitude and their witness is to the most foundational relationship present in the human being, the relationship with God who is creator and ground of all existence. In other words, although community is important to the hermit, it is primarily the koinonia (communion) of solitude that is their vocation. They are called by God through the agency of his Church to the very rare and paradoxical reality of eremitical solitude --- a form of union with God and others marked by and grounded in aloneness with the Alone. Unless we understand that solitude is not isolation, not alienation, nor a feeble excuse for the misanthrope, and certainly not a luxury for the hermit, we may believe that it conflicts with a truly Eucharistic spirituality. My argument is that it does not and that the way the hermit approaches attendance at Mass is dependent upon this way of seeing things.

Eucharistic Spirituality in General

When we speak of Eucharistic Spirituality what is it we are talking about then? And for the hermit who claims that the Eucharist is at the heart of everything that happens in the hermitage, what is she really talking about --- especially if the Mass is not (or is rarely) celebrated at the hermitage? Of course it means a spirituality focused on the Eucharist itself and the hermit will usually (not always) reserve Eucharist in her hermitage, pray in the presence of the Eucharist, celebrate Communion services (Liturgies of the Word with Communion), and so forth. But even more than this everything at the hermitage will be geared towards Christ's incarnation climaxed in his cross and resurrection. It seems to me that the focus involves two particular and interrelated processes: first, that, in a dynamic of kenosis or self-emptying, the Word is made flesh, and second, that, in a dynamic of conversion, reconciliation, and transfiguration, flesh (in the Pauline sense) is made Word. Everything that happens is meant to be an occasion of one or both of these and at the center of it all is the Presence of the Risen Christ in Word and Sacrament, reminding, summoning, challenging, nourishing, and consoling.

Eucharistic Spirituality, The Word Made Flesh

God has chosen to come to us as a human person. More than that he has chosen to be present in a power perfected in weakness (asthenia). He is present in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. He enters into sin and death, the truly or definitvely godless realities and transforms them with his presence. In other words he makes what was literally godless into sacraments of his love, his being God for and with others. For me the Eucharist is a symbol of this specific process and presence (and I mean symbol in the most intensive sense as that reality which does not merely stand for something else (that would be a sign or metaphor) but rather as something that participates in the very reality it mediates). While Mass is the place where we literally re-member all of this, where bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, where the Word of God is proclaimed with power, Eucharistic Spirituality seems to me to be that spirituality where all this is worked out in everyday life so that every meal is holy, every reality is looked at with eyes that can see God's presence there, and where one is nourished, challenged, consoled, etc, with that presence in the unexpected place and way.

Eucharistic spirituality, is a spirituality which is open to God's presence in ordinariness, not only to his presence at Mass or the more exalted moments of prayer, etc, but in the humbleness of human life generally. And for the hermit this means in the solitariness of ordinary life --- for it is in solitude that we are generally weakest, and our brokenness is most clearly revealed. My own focus in the hermitage is the transformation of ordinariness into Sacrament. This is essentially Eucharistic. Everything should serve this. Everything within the hermitage serves the Word becoming flesh, the allowing of God to dwell within, to love, minister to, and to transform with his presence. Everything becomes a matter of dying to self and rising in God, to learning obedience (hearing and responding to the Word of God) in a way which leads to purity of heart. Yes, often (though not always) Eucharist is present in the hermitage, but whether or not it is present it remains the living symbol of what everything in the hermitage can and is meant to be if given over to the purposes of eremitical life. I sincerely believe that if the hermit practices Eucharistic spirituality she recognizes that her hermitage itself is meant to be a tabernacle situated in the midst of her community and that her own life is bread broken and wine poured out for others.

Eucharistic Spirituality, Flesh Made Word

The second and interrelated process which makes up a genuinely Eucharistic spirituality focuses on what happens to the hermit --- or really, to any Christian for whom Eucharist is central --- namely, that they become a Word Event which embodies and proclaims the Gospel of God in Christ. For the hermitage to become tabernacle, for the hermit to become bread broken and wine poured out for others, the hermit herself must, over time, be transformed and transfigured.

Flesh, in the Pauline sense of the term, means the whole person, body and soul, under the sway of sin. It means being a person of divided heart, one who is enmeshed in processes and realities which are resistant to Christ. It means being less than fully human, and in terms of language, it means being distorted forms of language events which are less than a univocal hymn of praise and gratitude --- screams of pain and anguish, lies or hypocritical formulations and identity, utterances (of anger, prejudice, arrogance, indifference, selfishness, etc) which foster division, insecurity, and suffering for others, a noisy or insecure presence which cannot abide silence and is unable to listen or respond lovingly and with compassion --- all are the less than human forms of language event we are, at least at times. These are also examples of what Paul would have termed "flesh" (sarx).

In the power of the Spirit, these can be transformed, transfigured into articulate expressions of Gospel wholeness, joy, peace, hope, and challenge. That which is less than human can become authentically human; sinners are reconciled to become persons who are truly and wholly authored by God. As one steeps oneself in and seriously contends with the Word of God one is transformed into an expression of that Word. In silence and solitude flesh can become Word just as the Word becomes Flesh. All of this is genuinely Eucharistic spirituality I think, and it remains Eucharistic even if the hermit does not celebrate Eucharist with her parish community daily. For the hermit, those privileged celebrations lead back to silence while solitude and the silence of solitude prepare for the hermit's participation at Mass. But they are all part of a single spirituality in which Christ is received as guest and gift and ordinary reality is transformed into an expression of his presence. Such a spirituality is open to anyone who cannot actually get to Mass more than once a week, and sometimes less frequently.  It is inspired by the Eucharist and modeled on Eucharistic transformation, life, and hope. In fact, I suspect it may well be an instance of genuinely Eucharistic spirituality our world truly needs.

Hermits and Self-Communication

Your last question was also raised on the Catholic Hermits list. It is customary that people do not self-commu-nicate and there are very good theological reasons for this, but solitary hermits are an accepted exception. Canonists are apparently clear (according to a clarification offered on the Catholic Hermits list) that this is a unique situation which calls for such an exception to general custom and theological wisdom. It is also, it seems to me, a sign of how truly esteemed and unusual is the hermit vocation for such an exception to be made. The Church allows this exception precisely because of the importance of eremitical solitude lived in the heart of the church. I would argue that eremitical solitude, to whatever extent it is lived authentically, is essentially Eucharistic --- even when the hermit is unable to leave her hermitage to attend Mass --- and is therefore a very good reason for this singular exception to be made.

In any case, hermits should certainly be careful of their use of this permission. Their own communions must always be seen as extensions of the parish and/or diocesan liturgy, their hermitages must be understood as tabernacles of Christ's presence, and the silence of solitude must be embraced as a natural expression of communal life and love. While the hermit does not literally receive Eucharist from the hands of another during Communion services in the hermitage, she does receive this Sacrament as a gift of the parish community and so, from their hands. The communal nature of the eremitical life is constantly underscored by the presence of Eucharist in the hermitage, and the quality of being "alone with the Alone" FOR the salvation of the world is underscored in this way as well. Eremitical life is not selfish, not individualistic or privatistic, and emphatically not a matter of merely living alone -- much less doing so in whatever way one likes. The presence of Eucharist both symbolizes and so, reminds and calls us to realize this (make this real) more and more fully everyday. I should note that it is entirely reasonable to expect that should a hermit ever tend to take the Eucharist for granted or become arrogant or simply lax in her praxis and perspective, then, at least for a time, she should forego even the reservation of the Eucharist, and get to Mass more often, until she recovers her proper perspective and devotion.

Summing Things Up

For me the bottom line in all of this is that while the celebration of Eucharist is indeed the source and summit of ecclesial life --- and it certainly is that for the hermit as well --- a truly Eucharistic spirituality does NOT necessarily require that one go to Mass daily. The hermit's life will be imprinted with the cross, be emptied, broken and given to others precisely insofar as she is faithful to eremitical solitude lived in the heart of the Church. She will celebrate every day, and do so with her faith community, even when the demands of solitude mean she cannot be physically present with them at Mass. If this is not the case, then we are implicitly saying to many people who pray, suffer, and love at least as fully and well as do daily Mass  participants (or diocesan hermits!) --- but who cannot get to Mass regularly --- that they cannot be said to have or even be able to develop a truly Eucharistic spirituality. I am positive we do not want to do that, wouldn't you agree?

see also: Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: On the Reservation of Eucharist by Hermits