Hermits: Not Merely People who Live Alone but Desert Dwellers

Dear Sister, recently I read a hermit who claimed the word hermit meant one who lived alone. They said, [[The very word hermit is a label that means "solitary" in Old French, late Latin, and Greek. So perhaps the first hermit was simply someone who lived alone in a time when all other people lived together in family units, and a single person living by themselves would be unusual enough to have a word coined to describe the phenomena. Then others began to live like that first hermit, alone, or in whatever other ways that first hermit appeared, acted, and was for what purpose of being.]] Is this correct? Is it how the Church uses the word hermit? Thank you.

Solitariness is a part of the eremitical life, yes, but the word hermit (eremite) has its origins in the Greek word eremos, which means desert. An eremite (hermit) then is a desert dweller and there is much more involved in truly being a desert dweller than simply being alone. Consider what it means to live in the desert generally, and then in terms of the judeo-Christian heritage. It is in this way we come to understand what a hermit is from the Catholic perspective and how the eremitical life differs from simply being or living alone. After all, many people live alone; does this of itself make them hermits? I would say no.

Deserts and wildernesses are equivalent concepts or realities. They are places where human poverty and weakness are writ very large, where the horizon of human existence is seemingly infinite, and where the ability to be one's own source of life, to secure oneself whether physically, psychologically, or spiritually, simply and clearly doesn't exist. There is no room for delusions in the desert. Delusions kill. We know how fragile, finite, and threatened we are in such a place. In the face of such reality we ask the really huge questions implied by existence but often crowded from our vision by the comforts and distractions with which we live every day: Who am I? Why am I alive at all? How can I continue to live? How can my puny, insignificant existence really be of any meaning in the grand scheme of things? Is my life simply absurd? Should I hold onto life, should I fight for it or let go of it? Why or why not? And if I choose to live, then what is essential to that and how do I find it, supply it, or open myself to it?

These are some of the questions which well up in the wilderness in the absence of distraction and satiety. These are the questions the hermit lives out in one form and another every day of her life. But the hermit, especially the Christian hermit, also lives the answer to these found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For the Christian hermit, the wilderness/desert is also the place where the Jewish refugees from Egypt came to terms with and claimed their identity as God's own, ratified the covenant with their lives, and became Israel, the covenant partner of God. The desert is the context where the prophet John the Baptist was nurtured and called to proclaim a baptism of repentance. It is also the place where he learned clearly who he was and was empowered to proclaim the One he was not. The desert is the place where Jesus was driven by the Spirit of God's love to grapple with his newly divinely-affirmed identity as Son of God and the shape that Sonship would take in this world. Here he struggled with the temptation to misuse the gifts which were his: his power, his authority, his very identity; here he struggled with the temptation to relinquish his complete dependence upon God the Father and act autonomously. It was in the desert that in a special way Jesus claimed his own identity and embraced the values and wisdom of the Kingdom rather than the identity, values and wisdom the world affirmed and offered him.

Similarly, the desert is the place where Paul, following his Damascus experience and his initial acceptance by the primitive Christian Church spent time consolidating the changes in understanding his meeting with Christ occasioned. It was here that Paul reframed his own understanding of Law in light of the Gospel, where he worked out the meaning of Jesus' scandalous death on the cross, where he came to part of an ecclesiology which would move Christianity from being a sect of Judaism to being a universal faith. In short, in Scripture, the desert is the place where we are remade in solitary dialogue with God. It is where we do battle with the demons that dwell in our own hearts and the world around us; it is where we learn to live our own human poverty and weakness because we also live from a grace that enriches and strengthens us; it is where we learn to see our own smallness and insignificance against the infinite horizon of a God who loves us immeasurably and eternally.

More, we do these things not only for ourselves, but for what the Scriptures call the glory of God. What this means is that we do it so that God's presence and nature may be clearly revealed in our world through our lives. That is what it means in the Bible to speak of God being glorified. And of course, we do this so that others might be nourished and inspired by it; we do it so that people may find hope when there seems nothing and no one to hope in, so that people may be nourished and their thirst quenched when the landscape of their lives seems entirely barren. We do it so that the least of the least among us may discover and be affirmed in the infinite value of their lives and so even the most isolated may find that God is with them ready to transfigure isolation into solitude. Eremitical life witnesses to the essential wholeness that we are all called to in God through Christ, no matter our poverty, our weakness, or our brokenness and isolation.

The hermit's life then is not merely about living alone, but rather living alone WITH, FROM, and FOR God, and in a way which is specifically FOR others as well. That is why Canon 603 defines it in part as follows: [[Can 603 §1, Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the life of hermits or anchorites, in which the Church's faithful withdraw further from the world and devote their lives to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through the silence of solitude and through assiduous prayer and penance.]]

There is nothing unusual about people living alone today (nor in the past!). Many do so for unworthy or unavoidable reasons (selfishness, misanthropy, chronic illness, incarceration, bereavement, isolated old age, etc); some of these are --- or may be made --- even relatively pious. But very few have given their lives over to the redemptive dynamics and demands of desert living as epitomized by figures in our history like Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, the Desert Fathers and Mothers, and so forth. For this reason I have to say the person who wrote the passage you cited is inaccurate on the very nature of what a hermit is and is about. This life involves living alone --- especially when one is a diocesan or solitary hermit --- but that is part and parcel of a desert existence which is very much more as well. One must define eremitical life in these (desert) terms or miss the mark completely.

Note: some of this I spoke of relatively recently --- not least in a post for the first week of Lent : Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Driven into the Desert by the "spirit of Sonship". Folks might want to check that out as well. It is also linked to the term "desert spirituality" below.

Diocesan Hermit: a Risky Commitment?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I have wondered before - and have read a lot of your material which relates to [the question of] just why you would choose to put yourself under obedience to a bishop - since being a lay hermit wouldn't require that. From my perspective it was a very radical choice at a time in modern church history when it seems particularly risky. Don't you find it so yourself? Do you have a Bishop you see eye to eye with?]]

Thanks for the comment and questions. I have written about this a lot in the past, as you are clearly aware, but given all the things that are happening in the Church and news in the past weeks, especially regarding women religious, women theologians (or theologians more generally) there is no doubt that questions regarding my own relationship to the institutional church, especially to my diocese and local Bishop are raised afresh or with more urgency than at other times. As I prepare for an annual meeting with my Bishop precisely at a time when I stand with the women of the LCWR or reflect on my own vocation as a theologian, the question surfaces in my own mind as well --- not so much as one prompted by doubt about the wisdom of my vocational commitment, but as one which I personally must answer afresh for myself.

Your related comments about lay hermits are also well taken and, as I have written before, one of the responses one sometimes gets from lay hermits regarding the question of seeking canonical standing is that canonical standing binds the hermit too closely to the institution and curtails the freedom typical of the eremitical life. One has only to recall the example of the desert Fathers and Mothers who moved to the desert to disassociate themselves from an institutional Church they felt had compromised itself because of its Constantinian ties to the world of power, politics, and pressure. It is a valid answer for some, even relatively many of those embracing eremitical life, but not for me.

I don't want to repeat everything I have said here before except to recall that solitary life is about relatedness, first of all to God and to the proclamation that God alone is sufficient for us, and then to all that (he) regards as precious --- God's people, God's world, God's Church, etc. It is a mistake to think of a hermit as someone who lives in a sort of isolated splendor or that our lives are marked (or marred!) by alienation of whatever sort. Hermits are hermits because they are loved and love in return. The very word solitude in the Christian eremitical tradition does not simply mean being alone, but rather being alone with God and for the sake of others. The silence of solitude embraced by the hermit is not the mere absence of sound; it is the silence which occurs when one exists with and in the love of another --- the silence of completion, the quies of shalom, the hesychasm resulting from being exhaustively known and wholly accepted and regarded as precious. It is the silence of two friends sitting quietly together in grateful presence each for the other and the God (and others) that made this friendship possible.

As a hermit I am not silent (or solitary) for instance, because woundedness and pain have rendered me mute and cut off from others, but because silence and solitude are the accompaniment and context for profound speech and articulateness. Silence is part of the music of being loved completely by God; it is a piece of allowing the separate notes of one's life to sound fully, but also to be connected to one another so that noise is transformed into a composition worthy of being heard and powerful and true enough to be inspiring to others. It is an empowered silence and solitude, the silence of solitude, which finds its source in God's love and reflects relatedness to God and others at its very core. Something similar could be said of all of the elements which comprise the life described in Canon 603. The eremitical life, especially in its freedom, is one of relatedness and love in all of its dimensions.

For me, because I want to live this fully and witness to it with my life, this has meant responding to an ecclesial vocation, a call specifically and concretely mediated to me by the Church and for which I am therefore answerable in specific and concrete ways. We have all done something similar in agreeing to baptism --- though I wonder sometimes if the average person in the pew understands well enough that gifts oblige us to act out of our giftedness, and that a gift which recreates us completely requires the corresponding gift of our whole selves. Eremitical life, especially solitary eremitical life, is simply too difficult, too rare, too fragile and too threatened by the world around it as well as by dimensions of the hermit's own inner world to live without concrete limits, mediating structures, formal relationships, concrete expectations, and avenues for sharing. At the same time it is a rich and fruitful life because of its close and dedicated relationship with God; Hermits stand at the heart of the Church and say something about this rich identity but they therefore do not do so in some merely abstract way. Because of this too they require concrete limits, mediating structures, formal relationships, concrete expectations on the part of their brothers and sisters, and avenues for sharing.

I think most solitary hermits (lay or consecrated) who embrace such a life because they feel God has called them to do so belong to a parish community which supports them in their life. (Religious hermits live as part of a community which functions similarly.) Most have spiritual directors and confessors who assist them and help them be accountable for their life. For me, however, it was not simply that I felt called to live as a hermit; it was that I felt called to represent a specific vocational tradition in the church --- a tradition which I felt was very important and even redemptive especially with regard to certain segments of the population --- and which therefore could represent not only continuity with the desert Fathers/Mothers and the whole history of eremitical life, but which could suggest new instances and "applications" of it. To do this meant not only the requisite experience, theological education, and sensibilities but, again, an ecclesial vocation which was supervised, inspired, and rendered accountable by the Church in some formal and concrete way.

Regarding my vow of obedience. It is not primarily to my Bishop nor, by extension, to my delegate, but to God. Of course, this does not mean that I do not owe either my Bishop or others he delegates my obedience, but merely that they are a part --- a significant one, but a part nonetheless -- of my discerning how God is speaking to me and what he is calling for from me. It is true that because I don't belong to a congregation and, except for my delegate who can and would speak for me, I have no legitimate superior between myself and the Bishop it can sometimes seem a bit "risky." What if we disagree on something central to my life, for instance? What happens then?

My own sense of obedience means attentive listening first of all and honest and open discussion as needed to assist my discernment. I listen carefully to my Bishop, and (fortunately for me) my experience is that he listens carefully to me. He asks good questions, gives me time to answer completely, allows me to ask him questions, and answers himself. As you will have read, we meet only annually (more frequently if I need something) and in the meantime I meet with my delegate. Should something happen which has either myself or my Bishop concerned and needing to talk about it, or if he should himself require more information or assistance, my delegate is there to serve in that way as well.

No, my Bishop and I probably don't "see eye to eye" on a few things (I am not speaking of doctrinal matters here nor of our vision of the eremitical life), but we are also bound in a canonical relationship because of two distinct but related ecclesial vocations which the Church has recognized and affirmed, as well as because of the related commitments which we have made and she has accepted. We both love Christ and Christ's Church and care that the eremitical life is lived with integrity and faithfulness. At the risk of sounding self-serving, I trust and desire to trust that with the help of the Holy Spirit and for these overarching reasons we will both continue to act attentively and responsibly, as well as with charity and respect for one another in this common project. I have hope then that what risk there is is worth it --- particularly for this vocation and for the Church as a whole. I suspect that in this I am not much different from anyone with public vows.

CTSA Supports Sister Margaret Farley, RSM

I don't often talk about the task of doing theology here, though quite frequently I am engaged in it when I write about eremitical life, its nature, prophetic role, capacity to answer or assist with certain contemporary questions, and so forth, or when I deal with topics like the theology of the cross, for instance. But recently the challenging and creative place of theologians and theology in the life of the Church has been coming up everywhere with insistent regularity and today is one of those.

One of the more difficult questions for theologians and for Rome is the relationship between theologians and the Magisterium of the Church. A similarly neuralgic question, not just for these two groups, but for the rest of the church as well has to do with the difference between doing theology and catechetics, that is, the distinction between "faith seeking understanding" and teaching others what the church teaches. The relationships in these questions are complex with points of overlap and ambiguity but above all the two groups are supposed to be engaged in a constructive, collaborative relationship where both serve the truth and the source and ground of truth we call God, and where trust is evidenced even (or especially) when theologians push the envelope by engaging new questions and perspectives which call for new ways of thinking of or speaking about the truth.

In its recent condemnation of the work of Margaret Farley, RSM the conflict between doing theology and doing catechetics is especially highlighted. There is no doubt that some of Sister Farley's positions are not in accord with Church teaching. Neither is that necessarily problematical from the theologian's perspective, especially when the work is mainly academic and geared to scholars, but of course it is quite problematical from the perspective of the Magisterium --- especially if theologians and Magisterium (of Bishops) cannot work together in a way which allows complementary roles to be made clear to the rest of the Church. (In Aquinas' day we had the magisterium cathedrae pastoralis (a teaching authority "of pastors" exercised by the Bishops) and a magisterium cathedrae magisteralis (a teaching authority exercised by "professors" or, that is, a Master or Doctor of theology), Readings in Moral Theology #3. When disagreements occured the Pope might eventually intervene but sometimes he reminded both sides of the need for humility with regard to the mystery of God and forbade them from condemning one another (cf Paul V). But the situation is different today --- on many levels.)

Today the CTSA, the Catholic Theological Society of America has made a statement supporting Sister Margaret Farley's work and speaking to the distinction between theology and catechetics and so, implicitly reminding us all that theology is an ongoing search for understanding which, precisely because of the incommensurability of God's mystery, does not cease with the Church's profession of faith. (Quarens in fides quarens intellectum is a present participle and therefore indicates an ongoing project).

The statement is found below. Some might also be interested in Gaillardetz's new book, When the Magisterium Intervenes, The Magisterium and Theologians in Today's Church which deals with these points. It includes the dossier on the US Bishops' committee's investigation of Elizabeth Johnson's book, Quest for the Living God and an analysis of the relationships which exist between theologians and the Magisterium of Bishops and how each are called to carry out their responsibilities towards one another and the Tradition of the Church.

STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ON THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH’S “NOTIFICATION: REGARDING THE BOOK JUST LOVE: A FRAMEWORK FOR CHRISTIAN SEXUAL ETHICS BY SISTER MARGARET A. FARLEY, R.S.M.” (March 30, 2012)

On June 4, 2012, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a “Notification” entitled “Regarding the Book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Sister Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M.” The “Notification” judged that, in a number of respects, Professor Farley’s book presents positions on matters of sexual ethics that are contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium.

We, the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of the Catholic Theological Society of America, wish to note that Professor Farley is a highly respected member of the theological community. A former President of the CTSA and a recipient of the Society’s John Courtney Murray Award, she has devoted her life to teaching and writing on ethical issues and has done so in ways that have been reflective, measured, and wise. Her work has prompted a generation of theologians to think more deeply about the Christian meaning of personal relationships and the divine life of love that truly animates them. The judgment of the “Notification” that a number of Professor Farley’s stated positions are contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium is simply factual. In our judgment, however, Professor Farley’s purpose in her book is to raise and explore questions of keen concern to the faithful of the Church. Doing so is one very legitimate way of engaging in theological inquiry that has been practiced throughout the Catholic tradition.

The Board is especially concerned with the understanding of the task of Catholic theology presented in the “Notification.” The “Notification” risks giving the impression that there can be no constructive role in the life of the Church for works of theology that 1) give voice to the experience and concerns of ordinary believers, 2) raise questions about the persuasiveness of certain official Catholic positions, and 3) offer alternative theological frameworks as potentially helpful contributions to the authentic development of doctrine. Such an understanding of the nature of theology inappropriately conflates the distinctive tasks of catechesis and theology. With regard to the subject matter of Professor Farley’s book, it is simply a matter of fact that faithful Catholics in every corner of the Church are raising ethical questions like those Professor Farley has addressed. In raising and exploring such questions with her customary sensitivity and judiciousness, Professor Farley has invited us to engage the Catholic tradition seriously and thoughtfully.

Signed,

John E. Thiel, Ph.D.
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT
President

Susan A. Ross, Ph.D.
Loyola University
Chicago, IL
President-Elect

Richard R. Gaillardetz, Ph.D.
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA
Vice-President

Mary Ann Hinsdale, I.H.M., Ph.D.
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA
Past President

M. Theresa Moser, R.S.C.J., Ph.D.
University of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA
Secretary

Jozef D. Zalot, Ph.D
College of Mount St. Joseph
Cincinnati, OH
Treasurer

Michael E. Lee, Ph.D.
Fordham University
Bronx, NY

Kathleen McManus, O.P., Ph.D.
University of Portland
Portland, OR

Judith A. Merkle, S.N.D. de N., Ph.D.
Niagara University
Niagara, NY

Elena Procario-Foley, Ph.D.
Iona College
New Rochelle, NY

June 7, 2012

In Memoriam: Sister Mary Ann Scofield, RSM

I received the following notification today. Please join me in grieving the death of Mary Ann Scofield, RSM

Dear Sr. Laurel,

Sister Mary Ann Scofield, RSM, returned gently to God, Sunday, June 4, at about 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time in Burlingame, California, USA. She was surrounded by family, her beloved Mercy community, and the prayers of many. Being Sunday morning, perhaps she knew it was time for Mass and slipped away.

A beloved teacher, spiritual companion, mentor, and friend, Mary Ann was a founding member of Spiritual Directors International and served as the organization’s first executive coordinator in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Her deep passion for spiritual direction nurtured SDI from its humble beginnings, in her bottom desk drawer, to a global movement. Today, the global learning community of Spiritual Directors International includes more than six thousand members in six continents.

Mary Ann’s influence was global, and her impact, deeply personal. As a spiritual director, she trusted the movement of the spirit to help people claim and share their distinctive gifts with the world. In her own words: “I do believe there is a unique image of the Divine that is placed in each of us and all the activity of the Divine in us is to bring us to that true self.”

The global learning community of SDI holds, together, this time of memory and mourning. Sandra Lommasson, former chair of the SDI Coordinating Council shares: “[Mary Ann] once told me that the hardest thing of all is to truly take in how deeply, fully, unreservedly loved we are by God because it changes everything. I trust that she now soaks in that Love as a fully alive, liberated spirit dancing with her God.”

A vigil will be held for Sister Mary Ann Scofield, RSM, on June 13 at 7:00 p.m. at the Mercy Center Chapel in Burlingame. Her funeral Mass will take place on June 14 at 10:30 a.m. at the Mercy Center Chapel in Burlingame with burial and reception immediately following.

If you would like to make a contribution to the Mary Ann Scofield, RSM, International Scholarship Fund in honor of Sister Mary Ann Scofield, RSM, please follow the donation link. To share a personal story or tribute on the SDI website, visit the Tributes in Memoriam webpage. By sharing our stories, we keep Mary Ann’s legacy alive.

Franciscan Men Write Open Letter to LCWR and Members

Until recently there was a notable silence from amongst all the various expressions of support for the LCWR. That silence was among men religious (and, with a handful of notable exceptions, clergy in the church), and precisely because these men share essentially the same commitments and vision, it was a painful silence. (I recognize that men religious often have added difficulties because they are often also priests. Still, the silence was painful.) The following represents the first breach in this silence and I personally hope it will not be the last. I also personally believe these men got it just right.

They appreciate not only what the Sisters do but the way they do it. They acknowledge the prayerful, thoughtful silence that preceded the LCWR's initial response to the CDF's charges and which sets the tone for the way they will proceed in this matter; they refer to official documents which call not only for dialogue but for leaving the responsibility for ultimate decision making in the hands of councils and conferences. They rightly distinguish between "remaining silent" on issues (as for instance, I often do in this blog) and questioning church teaching, as well as between moral principles which must be held, and the application of such principles where disagreement is completely legitimate. Most importantly, they recognize that the LCWR and member congregations are carrying out the mandate of Vatican II to attend to the signs of the times and proclaim the Gospel in response, as well as that they are doing so in a responsible and faithful manner.

One key sentence, it seems to me, (and the place this document differs from the CDF's) is that the Franciscans recognize and are grateful not simply for the service women religious' give but for their discernment. They affirm they are edified by this. One of the more superficial weaknesses of the CDF's assessment was that it began with a statement of gratitude for the women's service but then proceeded to denigrate and curtail any activity which suggested adult discernment and application of that to complex problems even as it criticized the nature of their service. Statements of appreciation and gratitude sound hollow at best and disingenuous or hypocritical at worst when they are undercut by criticism which is so broad and pervasive. But the Franciscan men got it right here and their example is edifying.

It takes courage for groups of men religious to write such an affirmation of those under fire by the CDF. Unfortunately, that is also a sign that there is something terribly wrong in our church. It should NOT need to involve courage to affirms one's sisters or brothers in this way in a church which is a communion in Christ. One should not need to fear reprisals ("canonical actions" or censure), for instance, nor even consider that perhaps we will fall foul of the CDF, CICLSAL, the USCCB, et al, for speaking the truth in such a way.

The Letter

May 31, 2012

Open Letter to the United States Catholic Sisters

We, the Leadership of the Friars Minor of the United States, write today as your brothers in the vowed religious life who, like you, have great love for our Church and for the people whom we are privileged to serve. We write at a time of heightened polarization and even animosity in our nation and Church, with deep concern that the recent Vatican Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) may inadvertently fuel the current climate of division and confusion. We write, too, as a public sign of our solidarity with you as you endure this very difficult moment. We are privileged to share with you the journey of religious life. Like you, we strive in all that we do to build up the People of God.

As religious brothers in the Franciscan tradition, we are rooted in a stance of gratitude that flows from awareness of the myriad ways that God is disclosed and made manifest in the world. For us, there can be no dispute that God has been and continues to be revealed through the faithful (and often unsung) witness of religious women in the United States. Thus we note with appreciation that the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (CDF) “acknowledges with gratitude the great contributions of women Religious to the Church of the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.” We certainly know how much our service has been enriched by the many gifts you bring to these ministries.

However, your gift to the Church is not only one of service, but also one of courageous discernment. The late 20th century and the beginning of this century have been times of great social, political and cultural upheaval and change. Such contextual changes require us, as faithful members of the Church, to pose questions that at first may appear to be controversial or even unfaithful, but in fact are asked precisely so that we might live authentically the charisms we have received, even as we respond to the “signs of the times.” This is the charge that we as religious have received through the “Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life” from the Second Vatican Council and subsequent statements of the Church on religious life. We believe that your willingness to reflect on many of the questions faced by contemporary society is an expression of your determination to be faithful to the Gospel, the Church, the invitation from Vatican II and your own religious charisms. We remain thankful for and edified by your courage to engage in such reflection despite the ever-present risk of misunderstanding.

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised. The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment. Further, questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate. Finally, when there appears to be honest disagreement on the application of moral principles to public policy, it is not equivalent to questioning the authority of the Church’s magisterium. Although the Catholic moral tradition speaks of agreement regarding moral principles, it also – from the Middle Ages through today – speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles. Unfortunately, the public communications media in the U.S. may not recognize this distinction. Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition. This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation -- an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

Finally, we realize and appreciate, as we are sure do you, the proper and right role of the bishops as it is set out in Mutuae Relationes to provide leadership and guidance to religious institutions.[i] However, the same document clearly states: since it is of utmost importance that the council of major superiors collaborate diligently and in a spirit of trust with episcopal conferences, ‘it is desirable that questions having reference to both bishops and religious should be dealt with by mixed commissions consisting of bishops and major religious superiors, men or women. …Such a mixed commission should be structured in such a way that even if the right of ultimate decision making is to be always left to councils or conferences, according to the respective competencies, it can, as an organism of mutual counsel, liaison, communication, study and reflection, achieve its purpose. (#63)

We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes; however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood. We hope that our bishops will take particular care to see that the way they take action is as important as the actions themselves in serving the People of God. Otherwise, their efforts will surely be misunderstood and polarizing.

Lastly, we appreciate the approach that you at LCWR have taken to enter into a time of discernment, rather than immediately making public statements that could be construed as “opposing the bishops” after the release of the Doctrinal Assessment. The rancor and incivility of public conversation in the United States at this time make the possibility of productive dialogue more difficult to achieve. We pray that the future conversation between LCWR and CDF might provide an example to the larger world of respectful, civil dialog. Such dialog will require a degree of mutuality, trust and honesty that is absent from much of our world. We trust that you will continue your efforts to live out this principle, and we trust and pray that our bishops will do the same.

Please be assured of our on-going support, prayers, respect, and gratitude for your living example of the following of Christ in our times.

Fraternally,

Leadership of Franciscan (O.F.M.) Provinces of the United States

Assumption BVM Province
Franklin, WI, U.S.A.

Holy Name Province
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Immaculate Conception Province
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Province
Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.

Sacred Heart Province
St. Louis, MO, U.S.A.

Saint Barbara Province
Oakland, CA, U.S.A.

Saint John the Baptist Province
Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.


[1]Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes, Directives for the Mutual Relations Between Bishops and Religious in the Church, Rome, May 14, 1978

LCWR's Initial Response to the CDF Assessment

The following is the initial response of the LCWR board to the CDF's doctrinal assessment of the group which was released this morning. I am posting it here in full. My own belief is that every step of this process will need to be made as public and transparent as possible if the Church is to be truly served and further damage prevented.

For those wondering how they could support the LCWR, two things come immediately to mind besides suggestions which have been made in the past month:

1) support the travel expenses of the Sisters to Rome. Ordinarily the Sisters travel there once a year, sometimes twice, and travel expenses are (appropriately) paid for by the member congregations. Rome does not assist with such expenses. In this case, however, the whole Church needs to assist the Sisters, for it seems to me that the whole Church has much at stake here.

2) Continue to speak up for and demand transparency and clarity. If Rome understands the nature and basis of the charges against the LCWR, demand that they explain them not only to the LCWR, but to the Church at large both specifically and in sufficient detail to be convincing. If the Sisters are guilty of what the CDF has accused them (radical feminism incompatible with the Catholic faith, not spending enough time on one form of or focus in ministry when we are busy with others, loss of Christological focus, etc) I am afraid most of us (including those clerics whose ministries and lives are in Rome!) are guilty of the same or at least similar things without even knowing that is the case! If Rome feels the sanctions brought against the conference are proportionate and just, then ask --- and continue asking --- that they explain the reasons for these specific sanctions and their proportionality.

In addition, as has already been suggested a number of places, folks need to:

3) Continue to write to the Papal Nuncio in Washington DC, to the CDF (Prefect, William Cardinal Levada), to the Congregation for Religious (CICLSAL), and to ABp Peter Sartain, and Bishops Blair and Paprocki with your concerns, support, questions, and respectful disagreement or agreement. If Rome is clear that this is to be a collaborative process, then by all means, let's do whatever we can to make collaboration a reality which assists Rome to reform the church itself from top to bottom! Let us all be equally obedient and subject to God in his Word and Spirit! If Rome is clear that this process is to bring healing and greater Christian witness across the board, then let's participate in ways which help ensure that is realized.

4) Continue committing to regular prayer in support of the Sisters and the Church as a whole as we all find ways to respond adequately in this crisis. Mark specific dates (e.g., June 12th, the date when two Sisters fly back to Rome for the first time and the days which follow, etc) for special prayer periods, vigil, etc.

The Statement:

[Washington, DC] The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared. Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.

On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board’s concerns. Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report.

The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.

Follow up Questions: CMSWR and LCWR

[[Hi Sister Laurel, you wrote about the CMSWR and said.[[. . . they are not pushing the envelope in any way and are more typical of the form of religious life the Vatican approved in 1900 with Conditae a Christo and made canonical in 1917. It is a form of religious life which is definitely less prophetically oriented and more supportive of the institutional status quo. They are involved in corporate apostolates, but generally not on the margins of society with ministries to the disenfranchised where Sisters of the LCWR are often found. This allows them to live community in the sense most of us recognize as common in the early to mid 1900's but in the main not to live where the poorest of the poor actually reside and require help.]] Are you saying that such congregations are not prophetic? Are you saying that only LCWR communities ARE prophetic? Can you clarify this for me because I could not agree if you were drawing such a black and white distinction?]]

Thanks for your questions. I received several of emails on this matter. Yours was the only one that asked me to clarify what I actually said, or, in fact, actually quoted or characterized what I said accurately. For that reason, if you don't mind, I will use your questions to answer all of these. Note well that I used the phrase "less prophetically oriented". I did not say, "not prophetic", "less prophetic", nor did I say they were unfruitful or unimportant for the proclamation of the Gospel. I tried pretty hard NOT to draw things in black and white or either/or terms, and I stayed away from "conservative/ liberal" or "traditionalist/progressive" kinds of distinctions (dichotomies) and labels. That was ONE of the reasons I used only CMSWR and LCWR as designations. (The other was that the questioner used those in his/her question.)

There is no doubt that I find the LCWR group more diverse than the CMSWR, but that is, as I noted in the post you quoted, because the CMSWR itself only recognizes ONE expression of non strictly-cloistered religious life as valid while LCWR does not. Thus, LCWR has Sisters who wear habits and those who do not; they have Sisters in corporate apostolates, and those who are not, Sisters living community in corporate settings, and those who live community in other ways. The CMSWR does not. I do think the LCWR is more helpful in reflecting the nature of ministerial religious life in the US than the CMSWR, because they are more diverse and have adopted a less narrow view of religious life and view of the nature of the church which is more in line with the image emphasized by Vatican II. On the other hand, I noted very explicitly that BOTH leadership conferences are necessary for a complete picture of religious life. I did not say x is right, y is wrong, for instance. (More about this below, however.)

Now, for your specific questions. What do I mean when I say that one leadership conference is more prophetically oriented than another? I mean, as has always been the case with prophets, that they work to proclaim the Gospel or will of God in season and out, whether it is opportune or not, and whether it conflicts with the religious institutions and state which hold power at the time or not. I mean that they stand on the margins, not only with regard to those they minister to, but in terms of the institution precisely because they seek to proclaim a Gospel which threatens those in power and gets real disciples crucified by the religious and political status quo. They proclaim a Gospel which is principally concerned with the Kingdom of God, and therefore, less so with partial and proleptic expressions of that Kingdom or with simple preservation of the status quo. Wherever the Kingdom of God is truly proclaimed, as Mary's Magnificat recounts, religious and political systems are overturned along with the security, power, and insularity they necessarily foster and protect.

I mean too that such groups work for portions of the Gospel that have been forgotten or even forsaken. For instance, one comment I have heard recently decries women religious working for the good of the earth. But in fact, our own stewardship of the earth is part of the most original commission to humanity; it is, simply put, the will of God. In the New Testament, as Paul makes very clear, the message celebrated is that regarding a new Creation, a new heaven and a new earth --- not, pie in the sky by and by, but the re-making of God's creation so that heaven and earth completely interpenetrate one another and God is "All in all." Commitment to follow a God who becomes enfleshed will necessarily mean treating all that he has assumed as holy --- and that does mean the dust of the earth as well as the stuff of heaven. Literally and figuratively it is ALL star stuff.

It will mean recovering ministries and a way of doing ministry which reach(es) the marginalized --- those truly on the margins both politically and ecclesially. This in turn will mean less emphasis on large corporate apostolates and smaller targeted ministries with fewer Sisters -- and those living right with those they serve. To some extent it requires "becoming all things to all people" as Paul himself claimed was necessary to truly follow Christ, and at the same time it will mean, "having no place to lay one's head" in the sense of insulated religious preserves marked by enclosure and some sort of "convent mystique." (Habits might fit here as well.) In other words, it means searching for, finding and proclaiming God right in the midst of the situation in which the person finds him/herself and in the terms the person really NEED to hear because this is CENTRAL to a Gospel which says God came to ALL and made ALL holy in that coming.

These are SOME of the things I mean by being prophetic, and a prophetic orientation means adopting and sacrificing for the sake of this prophetic activity and identity BECAUSE it is what one discerns God is calling one to. Those who do not adopt such a perspective may simply not be called to it. They may (like Jonah) even believe it is wrong-headed and so go the other way. And in this they may be right or wrong. They may still find themselves acting as prophets in other ways, but for them it is not a full-time or overarching perspective to which other things and ways of living are subordinated. So, yes, I am saying that in general, CMSWR institutes are not prophetically oriented, nor can they be given the nature of the ecclesiology and theology of the vows they have adopted. (Other ecclesiologies and/or theologies allow for the prophetic better and sometimes even require it.) But then, there were relatively few Prophets in the OT, and relatively few exercising a formal prophetic role in the NT and subsequent Church history. There are other vocations after all.

I hope this helps. Again, thanks for the questions.

Do you Love Me Peter? On being made human in Dialogue with God

Tomorrow's gospel is the pericope where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him. It is the first time we hear much about or from Peter since his triple denial of Christ --- his fear-driven affirmations that he did not even know the man and is certainly not a disciple of his. After each question and reply by Peter, Jesus commissions Peter to "feed my lambs, feed my sheep." I have written about this at least three times before.

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

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

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

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

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

Questions on my relationship to the CDF/LCWR situation

[[Hi Sister Laurel,
are you affected by the CDF's ruling on the LCWR or do you belong to the CMSWR? Since you wear a habit I would guess the CMSWR. Do you agree the Church should discipline nuns if they are disobedient to the Church or adopt heresy? Why isn't the CMSWR in trouble? Doesn't this prove the Vatican is not just targetting women?]]

Hi yourself and thanks for the questions. As a diocesan hermit I belong to neither the CMSWR nor the LCWR. These are both leadership conferences for congregations of "active," apostolic, or ministerial religious women. As a contemplative and as someone who does not belong to a congregation I am not eligible to belong. Remember that these groups give the leadership of member congregations a way to meet so that the congregations more generally may share concerns, resources for problem solving, etc, and strengthen solidarity with one another.

Let me point out that members of the LCWR may or may not wear habits --- though most do not. That is a matter not for the LCWR to determine but for the member congregations. Further what congregations determine is written into their own proper law (which is approved by Rome, by the way) and, when a choice is allowed in that law (as it often is) individual members of the congregations do as they feel called to do. In any case, the LCWR is composed of congregations who wear habits generally and those who do not; they also therefore include congregations some of whose members wear habits while some or most do not. CMSWR is different in their stance. They require any congregation which requests membership to wear habits as a matter of course and this means they do not allow differences in proper law in this regard on the basis of ministries, witness to the universal call to holiness, etc.

However, your first question was whether I am affected by the CDF's ruling regarding the LCWR, and though I am not directly affected, I would suggest to you that everyone in the Church is at least indirectly affected. I have friends who are associated with the LCWR, but more, I am a Catholic who appreciates the evolution of religious life represented by the members of the LCWR, and respect the congregations and their members who have struggled hard and long to implement the changes demanded by Vatican II and by Popes preceding VII. I appreciate that women religious have been at the forefront of the implementation (or "reception") of Vatican II and I also perceive that any attempt to halt this reception or "reform the reform" is going to have to focus at some point on women religious belonging to congregations like those of LCWR. Beyond this I recognize that these women are part of a uniquely American phenomenon and that to some extent religious life in the US --- which has always been a frontier reality --- has looked and functioned differently than religious life in Europe up until @1900 or 1917 when canonical standing often meant changes in the way the life was lived; in many ways Vatican II signaled a return to or reclaiming of that more original phenomenon.

As for disobedience or heresy, I have seen no specifications or charges against the LCWR which rise to these levels. We ought to be careful suggesting such things when we have no facts and nothing specific. Heresy has a specific meaning which is beyond simple disagreement or dissent (which some Bishops note may be a responsible and necessary act). Recently an Archbishop wrote explaining areas of concern the CDF has with LCWR, and he noted that the LCWR had written directly to the CDF to disagree with 1) the discipline of celibate only priests, and 2) the pastoral approach to homosexuals being taken by the CDF. He decried such an act as contrary to the collaborative relationship which should exist with such an organization and the hierarchical church.

But note carefully, neither of these issues is doctrinal. Married priests have existed throughout the history of the church and exceptions are currently made for Episcopal priests who are coming into the Roman Catholic Church but who are married --- especially if they are sufficiently conservative. Mandatory celibacy is, as the Archbishop himself noted, a disciplinary matter, and therefore susceptible of change at any time. The second matter was not doctrinal either but pastoral. Both may be freely discussed and approaches disagreed with. Doing so, especially internally as the LCWR did, is hardly contrary to a collaborative relationship --- at least as I understand that word. On the other hand forbidding the honest exchange of opinions on non doctrinal issues and associated accusations certainly seems to me to be a betrayal of a collaborative relationship. I hope that Archbishop Sartain understands the term collaborative differently than his brother Archbishop.

Why isn't the CMSWR in trouble? Well, perhaps because they are not pushing the envelope in any way and are more typical of the form of religious life the Vatican approved in 1900 with Conditae a Christo and made canonical in 1917. It is a form of religious life which is definitely less prophetically oriented and more supportive of the institutional status quo. They are involved in corporate apostolates, but generally not by identifying with the margins of society through ministries to the disenfranchised where Sisters of the LCWR are often found. This allows them to live community in the sense most of us recognize as common in the early to mid 1900's but in the main not to live where (or as) the poorest of the poor actually reside and require help. It seems clear to me that the two groups are motivated by different visions of religious life and even different ecclesiologies. There should be room for both groups and both expressions of religious life and church as well for all are vowed women, all followers of Christ in consecrated life. In fact, they need each other for a complete vision of religious life. My hope is the CDF action against the LCWR does not exacerbate the division between the two groups but encourages genuine dialogue and cooperation between them.

I hope this is helpful.

Further Questions on Increased Institutionalization

Sister Laurel, is the following portrait reflective of something happening today with regard to your vocation?

 [[[Poster] has noted from internet blogs, articles and updates, that there is a growing trend among some hermits, mostly the canonical approved variety, that some through much wordage and repetition, based upon assumed authority, or even stated expertise, have begun to make regulations by setting precedence. What can evolve are rules, laws, set ways of how this or that must be done, called Precedent Law. Noticed a few Dioceses have bought into it, adopted the regulations and are imposing them. Perhaps without even knowing from whence they came. . . .

These more highly developed, highly educated clubs and club makers even create certain ways the others are initiated. They develop ceremonies, and certain clothing to be worn, or at least to have a pin to wear, and a handshake and lots of people at the ceremony. And then certain parts of the ceremony, and words said, certain words, and pledges, and then they are identified by certain letters after their names, as belonging to this or that club, and then they are to have certain body positions at certain times, and then publication of who is in the club or sorority. Everyone can know who is this or that, and some members and some clubs are very important indeed, more important than other clubs or other members of other clubs. Or in the hermit vocation? Is that what CL603 has in mind for hermits? Where did all this hoopla come from? Who is making up these rules? Is it one person, or a handful? By what authority and right?]]

Hi there. I have responded to a portion of this passage in the past, so I would recommend you look for those posts listed under "increased institutionalization" of the eremitical vocation.

However to summarize what I have said there: Diocesan eremitical life is both in continuity with and distinct from the lay eremitical life of the desert Fathers and Mothers. Because it is a form of consecrated life, and thus, a canonical or public one, it does indeed have requirements which must be met, and guidelines for admitting to profession which help ensure the one being admitted will live the life well and with perseverance. The Rite of Profession used by most dioceses is that for cenobitical religious --- though with some slight adaptations for the solitary nature of the life. Still, this Rite is canonical or normative and it includes provisions for clothing, the giving of a ring or other symbols of profession (including cowl, crucifix, Office books, etc), prescribed prayers (including the prayer of solemn consecration in the case of perpetual profession), etc. There is nothing excessive about any of this. nor anything individualistic or experimental. It is the way the Church does canonical (public) professions, the way she receives public vows and consecrates an individual to God in a particular form and state of life. The idea that some small group of hermits is making such stuff up is silly.

At the same time the canonical solitary eremitical vocation is relatively new and everyone is finding their way here. There is certainly dialogue going on regarding what is necessary to live the life well. Similarly there is concern among some diocesan hermits that the vocation itself is endangered by some professions. Despite being a flexible and highly individual vocation, Canon 603 also has normative elements which MUST be lived to be true to the life. The most important of these is "the silence of solitude" which is far more than some solitude and some silence. This is truly the defining characteristic or charism, and therefore the gift quality of the life which hermits live for the world. Thus, this element, which is part of the desert or hesychastic tradition and may not be understood automatically by Bishops or apostolic and ministerial religious, is also one which is easily transformed (and distorted) into merely external silence and solitude or into degrees of these things which are simply a bit more than most people today know in their own lives. It is hermits actually living the silence of solitude which is crafted from a life of prayer who help Bishops and candidates for profession to understand the nature and key position of this element of the canon.

The dialogue going on also sharpens our sensitivity to and rejection of stereotypes. What is the place of mental health in the eremitical life and why? Is this a vocation for the merely selfish and introverted or is it something more? What degrees of engagement with the world around them is the hermit allowed and for what reasons? And then there are simply fundamental questions which must be dealt with in every diocesan hermit's life: What formation, whether initial or ongoing, is required for this life and where does one get this? What age should a person be before becoming a solitary hermit and why? What is the difference between a hermit and a relatively pious person who merely lives alone? How does one make the necessary transition from the latter to the former? What is the role of the diocesan delegate in the hermit's life? What about the role of the diocesan Bishop? How does the diocesan hermit relate to her parish? What role do they have in allowing her to live her life well? How does she live poverty while also being required to support and provide for herself? And so forth.

All of these questions and more have to be worked out on the basis of the desert tradition and lived experience in dialogue with the institutional church. I see the dialogue as a healthy thing. Canon 603 may imply many of these but it does not spell them out. One could say that doing so is part of the vocation of the diocesan hermit today --- even as it is carried out from the solitude of the hermitage.

Finally the author you have cited refers to clubs and in a cynical way to all the trappings of secret clubs adopted by children and perhaps some adults as well --- secret handshakes, body postures, pins, post-nomial initials, positions of status or power, etc. I think most of this is nonsense. It is true that diocesan hermits use initials after their name to indicate their public vocation --- just as religious men and women indicated their standing in a congregation. Part of the reason for this is because it makes clear that consecrated life is no longer open simply to people living in community. Further, there are or have been several different umbrella groups formed to assist people interested in solitary life or diocesan hermits and those aspiring to eremitical life. My sense is they are all fairly inclusive.

I belong to the Network of Diocesan Hermits which is just what it says it is --- a network of those already professed under canon 603 from a number of countries who face issues that religious and lay hermits do not. We allow those aspiring to profession to join an associates group so they can talk with us and one another about the journey they are on. We mentor those whose dioceses request this but we do not replace spiritual directors. We do require verification from the person's diocese that they are either professed as diocesan hermits or accepted to proceed with a more official discernment of a canon 603 vocation with their diocese, but this is about all there is in terms of rules. No one who wishes to join is excluded so long as they are really diocesan hermits or accepted aspirants discerning the life. In any case we are not setting up rules about what canon 603 life must look like, etc nor would any of the members recognize the group in the cynical parody in the passage you cited.

In any case no hermit alone has much ability to shape the praxis of the church in regard to diocesan hermits. Certainly none of us imposes regulations on dioceses or does anything more than participate in an informal dialogue with the Church through the hermit's relationship with her Bishop. The whole idea that dioceses are adopting requirements set up by a few hermits is ludicrous and out of touch with the reality of how the church actually works. At the same time there is no doubt that Bishops listen to the experience of hermits and those who are in contact with them, what works, what is prudent, and the things that are not. We hermits too are concerned with precedents that are destructive of the vocation generally. However, making a point of view known and "imposing it on the church" in some way are very different things. The bottom line in all of this is that the criticism of the person you cited is NOT accurate or reflective of the situation as I know it.

Misuse of Canon 603 and Oblature with Camaldolese

I received a question as well as followup questions to another post from a second person and I wanted to post them both together. I have written in the past about the misuse or abuse of Canon 603, especially as a loophole for non-canonical communities which do not have the right to canonically (publicly) profess members. These questions relate to this issue. (There is a third question which I will post separately because, while dealing with the misuse of Canon 603, it is a very different and publicized situation.)

[[Dear Sister, I am preparing for oblature with the Camaldolese, but at the same time I am living as a hermit and would like to use Canon 603 as the way I make my vows as an oblate. Can you describe how I would go about doing this?]]

Congratulations on choosing to become a Camaldolese Oblate. I hope you will find this step fulfilling and lifefgiving. However, your question indicates some confusion about the relationship between oblature and Canon 603 vows. These two things are completely separate and distinct. While I have heard of a group of Oblates mistakenly contending Canon 603 was the "usual" way some made vows as oblate hermits (see the second question below), and while I have heard too of some who confuse these for the actual oblature commitment, both of these things are completely untrue. Canon 603 is NOT the way to make a commitment as an oblate. Oblature is. Neither is it the "usual" way oblates establish themselves as hermits. Becoming a canon 603 or diocesan hermit is different than becoming an oblate (which, by the way, itself does not involve vows), even if one wishes to live as a lay hermit while an oblate.

The two different vocations may complement one another, but they must be discerned separately. Further, in my own experience and estimation, as important as Camaldolese oblature is, diocesan eremitical vows are more extensive and intensive a commitment, more fundamental or foundational than this. Oblature is ordinarily a private lay vocation and for that reason most Benedictine communities only allow lay persons to make oblature. If an oblate decides she is also called to become a hermit s/he still needs to determine whether s/he is called to lay eremitism or diocesan eremitism and the consecrated state. This means she and the diocese she is still part of (if she is interested in becoming a diocesan hermit who is publicly vowed and consecrated) need to submit to a mutual process of discernment to see if indeed she has such a vocation. On the other hand, a diocesan hermit might find Camaldolese oblature served her well for some time, but later, that Carmelite, or Cistercian, or Franciscan spirituality did so instead. While she is publicly vowed under Canon 603 and though she might need to rewrite parts of her Rule as a result, she is perfectly free to change private commitments to a particular spirituality, etc.

In my own life it is true that my eremitism, though diocesan or canonical, is also integrally Camaldolese. I would hope that anyone who makes oblature with the Camaldolese finds that their commitment is similarly integral to the whole of their lives whether they are religious, lay, clerical, or consecrated. Still, Camaldolese oblature itself is something added to a more fundamental vocation or state of life. Per se it does not require vows, nor, as noted, even involve them. Therefore, if you have determined you want to be a diocesan hermit, and you can say you appreciate the unique charism of the diocesan hermit (meaning, among other things, that you are not pursuing profession and consecration under Canon 603 as a way of becoming part of a "Camaldolese" community of some sort), then you need to go to your Bishop (or the Vicars and vocation personel under him) and speak to him (them) about this.

[[Dear Sister, I am part of a community of Camaldolese regular oblates with a two year novitiate. At the end of these two years some make vows under Canon 603. We are a dependent sub-priory with the Monks in Big Sur, CA. (questions followed regarding the length of time necessary for formation as a hermit and about approaching the Bishop but these are not directly pertinent here)]]

I am afraid you are mistaken and operating under several false understandings. Camaldolese Oblates per se may be clerical, lay, religious or consecrated (virgins and hermits), but there is no official community of oblates associated with the Camaldolese Monks of the US that use Canon 603 as a "usual" means to eremitical profession, nor is this the proper use of Canon 603 (more about this below). Neither is there a community of oblates known as a dependent sub-priory of the Hermitage in Big Sur. To be certain of what I already believed to be the case on the basis of my own superficial knowledge of the Camaldolese constitutions, I have spoken with professed Camaldolese who in turn have spoken with the former Prior in Big Sur. Again, there is NO dependent priory (or "sub-priory"), and no community of "regular oblates" associated with Big Sur. There is a reality in the Camaldolese Constitutions called Claustral or regular oblates, but these are persons who live ON THE HERMITAGE grounds, are bound to live by the rule (regula), and are not vowed, at least not ordinarily and not as oblates. (They may be vowed AND become claustral oblates, but being professed is extrinsic or accidental to their oblature.)

In any case, again, what you describe is also, according to the canonists I have spoken with, a misuse of canon 603 which is designed for and governs solitary eremitical vocations. Canon 603 is not appropriate for those who are part of a non-canonical community when it is meant to serve as a stopgap means of getting members of such groups canonical standing. It is important to remember that the vocation of the canon 603 hermit is different than that of a religious hermit --- not in its essentials re eremitical life --- but in the requirements that such hermits are solitary (not religious who are part of a community) and therefore, that they be self-supporting, responsible for their own housing, insurance, medical care, transportation, retreat, library and educational needs, ongoing formation, spiritual direction, etc.

One must discern a vocation to this solitary eremitical form of life, a form of life where the Bishop is one's legitimate superior, where one becomes part of the consecrated state of life, where one is bound by many of the canons related to religious life as well as by canon 603, and where one's affiliation with the Camaldolese is supportive and entirely secondary to one's public profession and identity. I should also note that there is no specified novitiate period with canon 603 --- especially not one of two years because such a process of initial formation is both entirely individual and a function of time in solitude. Most Bishops will NOT profess a diocesan hermit even under temporary vows unless they have lived the life for at least five years. I think this minimum is entirely reasonable and am comfortable with individuals requiring up to 10 years or more to be admitted to perpetual profession under canon 603.

In some forms of affiliation secular or third order members (Carmelite, Franciscan, etc) make vows. In such cases one MAY NOT ALSO make canon 603 profession. One of the commitments must go and the individual must discern which one. The Camaldolese, unlike most Benedictine groups, allow oblature by religious, clergy, and consecrated persons as well as laity, but oblates DO NOT make vows as oblates. This is the reason, for instance, I can be both a diocesan hermit and an oblate. Even Camaldolese claustral oblates do not make vows, though they assuredly commit to live by the rules of the community within enclosure. The bottom line is that what you are describing is neither official Camaldolese praxis nor appropriate to Canon 603. If a diocesan hermit affiliates with a Camaldolese monastery, this does not give other oblates living as lay hermits the right as oblates to go to their Bishop and expect to be admitted to profession under canon 603 --- although they may do so as an individual discerning this specific vocation and eventually, petition on their own.

I have seen this happen once in the past in another country (geographically far from the Camaldolese Hermitage in Big Sur) and the Bishop, who apparently was led to believe he was presiding at the profession of a "Camaldolese Oblate hermit" later repudiated or reduced the vows to some degree by saying they were private and not canon 603. Though this was painful to the hermit professed, it was, I think, the best solution the Bishop could come up with since there had been a public ceremony with publicity, media coverage, etc, and therefore a lot of confusion and misrepresentation all around. (The profession was originally treated as public and used the canonical rite for such vows, but the hermit never specifically petitioned to be professed under canon 603; both she and the Bishop thought he was professing someone as part of a Camaldolese Oblate community. Thus, only later did the Bishop inform the hermit that her vows were considered private. As I understand the situation, he could, of course, have concluded the entire affair was invalid and even involved fraud had he wanted to be hard nosed about it.)

One of the most significant sources of this mess besides geographical distance from the Camaldolese Monks of the US, and the failure to check things out with them directly, was the claim that those (monks and nuns) who are publicly professed as Camaldolese were also called Oblates. Hence when someone said "I am a Camaldolese Oblate" one could easily get the impression that they were publicly professed or preparing for public profession as a monk or nun. The problem here of course is that actual Camaldolese monks and nuns do not call or refer to themselves as Oblates. Another was the assertion that the group to which the hermit belonged was a dependent house of the Camaldolese --- despite the fact that there was no such house (the oblates lived separately from one another) and that the professed Camaldolese had none. (The OSB Camaldolese constitutions allow for the establishment of dependent houses, but they require a certain number of monks or nuns in solemn vows as part of the foundation to do this. It is not something done with oblates.) In the end, however, this Bishop helped ensure that Canon 603 would be rightly used in the future and that if members of the group of oblates wished to make vows those would be private unless they truly discerned vocations as diocesan hermits and were admitted to public profession under canon 603.

The Conversion of Paul: Model for us All

Friday's reading from the Acts of the Apostles tells us of the conversion of Paul. There is no doubt this is one of the most important events in the history of the Church and certainly one of the most dramatic. Luke tells us of this event three times in this single work so it is hard to overestimate its importance. A couple of things in particular strike me about this reading this time around.

The first, and the one I will focus on in this blog post, is how radical the changes needed to be in Paul's life to really do justice to his experience of the risen Christ whom he had been persecuting, but also how conservative in the very best sense that experience also was. Tom Wright describes this dual dynamic or dialectic when he says, [[ But this seeing . . .confirmed everything Saul had been taught; it overturned everything he had been taught. The law and the prophets had come true; the law and the prophets had been torn to pieces and put back together in a totally new way. It was a new world; it was the old world made explicit. . . .it showed him that the God he had been right to serve, right to study, right to seek in prayer, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had done what he always said he would, but done it in a shocking, scandalous, horrifying way. The God who had promised to come and rescue his people had done so in person. In the person of Jesus.]]

So often I am emailed by people who would like to be hermits or who, similarly, would like to put up a sign calling their home "____ hermitage" so people "realize this is not a normal home any more," but who have not made the necessary transition to an essentially eremitical life. As I have noted before, they may or may not live alone, but they add in a little prayer, a bit of silence, a little lectio, and then continue living essentially the same lives they have always lived --- just tweaked a bit. After a day's work outside the hermitage they refer to their time at home alone in the evenings as "their eremitical time" and wonder why I or others -- including their chancery personnel -- reject the idea that they are yet really hermits.

Many people live the same kind of "Christian" lives. Their spirituality is compartmentalized and in the main their lives are untouched by the reality of the risen Christ. They pray and worship on Sundays, they say grace before meals, and perhaps before bed or on arising, but on the whole, their lives are mainly unchanged and perhaps untouched by the completely world shaking reality of the risen Christ. Sometimes we have the sense that elements of the institutional church suffer in somewhat the same way. Parts of their lives, parts of their interpretation of the Tradition they rightly hold precious have not been touched by an experience of the risen Christ and the result is an unfortunate compartmentalization in their approach to reality and a narrowness of vision with all that entails. But given the example we have from St Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, this will not do --- not for anyone claiming the name "Christian".

Following his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul took the next few years, withdrew to a desert region, and began completely reframing the tradition he deeply loved in light of his experience of the risen Christ. He completed this reframing as he engaged each of the churches he founded or preached to in their own unique pastoral circumstances and with regard to their own unique problems. In other words, an experience of world-shattering revelation through prayer, reflection, and genuinely pastoral presence and ministry became an experience of radical conversion. It was, in some ways what happens when a vat of dough is affected by yeast. No part of the dough is or can be left untouched. Similarly it is rather like what happens when one puts a picture together from all the puzzle pieces one has at hand --- but finds some have been left out. Each time a new piece is discovered and added the picture must be reformed and the place of each and all the pieces must be adjusted and reconsidered. (This is especially true with puzzles whose pieces are all the same shape and can be combined in a myriad of ways --- each of these creating a different picture as a whole.)

In such a process none of the older pieces are rendered obsolete or superfluous, but neither can they be seen any longer in their old light or from an older perspective. When one meets the risen Christ, all of the old pieces of the Tradition must be regarded from this new perspective and for Paul that required a rethinking of issues like Law, the nature of resurrection specifically and salvation more generally, the relation of Israel and the Church, Creation and Covenant and what God is attempting to effect by these, the nature of election and who God has called to this and why, the relationship of evil and grace and how ministry is truly effected --- whether by separation and ritual purity or immersion and a holiness which is contagious, the nature of the Messiah, and so forth. In other words, the old doctrinal statements and understandings are not simply swept aside as unimportant, but neither are they left unaffected nor can they be treated adequately apart from the charismatic experience of the risen Christ. Neither are the changes called for merely cosmetic then; they are radical --- reaching right to the roots. We are not merely to be thrown from whatever hobby-horse we have been riding for so long --- no matter how worthwhile. Instead there must also be a soul-deep healing or reconciliation, a bone-deep re-envisioning of all the old certainties after an experience of dazzling illumination or revelation. We, our faith, and lives which reflect and incarnate that faith must be wholly remade from the roots. Nothing else will do.

In the CDF's latest intervention with the LCWR one of the things we are seeing, I believe, is a reenactment or reprise of the clash we saw between the Pharisees and the Apostles, as well as between Paul and the nascent church of Christ. What I sincerely hope we will also see is the kind of integration Paul undertook in his own life --- the integration of this new and definitive picture piece which Paul recognized as the face of Christ with the less definitive (though critical) Tradition he loved passionately, ardently lived for, studied assiduously, and acted with integrity to hand on and protect. The majority of ministerial women religious, I sincerely believe, are in touch with the profoundly charismatic, prophetic, and even apocalyptic element represented by an experience of the risen Christ and are sincerely trying to hold that together with the Tradition the institutional or hierarchical church has handed on/entrusted to them. Some, relatively few, have failed in that or given up on the struggle to maintain this tension, but most have not and will not do so. Like Paul, they have spent years of their lives reappropriating the Tradition from the perspective of the Gospel of Jesus and their life-changing and incontrovertible experience of the risen Christ. Meanwhile, the CDF and college of Bishops are coming at the struggle from the other direction. While working hard to hand on the Tradition as they received it, they also seem to expect the Tradition to remain untouched and essentially unchanged by an encounter with the risen Christ. But ultimately this cannot be either any more than dough can be unaffected by yeast or a picture can accommodate a new and defining piece without everything being adjusted and seen in a new light.

Working out the dynamics of this clash will be terribly demanding on all involved, but it models for the whole church a dynamic which must be part of our own lives, no matter which side of the clash we initially find ourselves on. Paul is the Apostle we must look to here, the one with the courage to change everything without losing anything, the one whose experience of the scandalously crucified and risen Christ shaped entirely the way he would honor and represent the Tradition handed onto him, the one who refused to compartmentalize his faith and experience but instead allowed everything to become a new creation in Christ. The simple fact is that should our church fail in this it will cease to truly be the Church Christ called into being. Like Paul's own conversion, the RADICAL integration of our EXPERIENCE of the risen Christ at this point in time with the Tradition and with the concrete needs and yearnings of our time --- or our failure to do so --- will be one of the most significant events in the history of the church. We will either return to largely being the religion/institution of the Pharisees or become the gospel reality,, the Kingdom Jesus meant us and our world to be. Every group must play a part; none is unimportant or can be allowed to remain voiceless (much less be silenced!!) or the Gospel of Jesus Christ will fail to be proclaimed and the coming of the Kingdom which is the thoroughgoing interpenetration of heaven and earth will be hampered yet again.

CDF, LCWR, and the Gamaliel Principle

Sometimes Scripture texts seem so straightforward we don't give them a lot of thought. The insight they convey seems routine, hardly worth making a big deal over. "If it is of God, it will persist; if it is of human origin it will not," is one of these. Abstract, apparently not very compelling, hardly demanding in what it asks of us, or providing much hope really. Just, it seems, a theological conclusion we can agree with (or not) and move on from.

Unless of course you find yourself threatened with death by the traditional religious leadership while you proclaim what you understand to be the good news of God's ultimate act of vindication, justice, and mercy as the Apostles in Friday's first lection. Unless you find yourself being asked to back off, to have a little humility, and let God be the judge as the Pharisees have been asked by Gamaliel. Unless, of course, you are freshly faced with a risen Christ who suffered and died a godless death at the hands of the established religious and civil powers so that nothing whatsoever would stand in the way of the love of God. Unless, for instance, you are confronted with a portrait of tens of 1000's of lives of patient discernment, faithful sacrifice, and persistent trust in God which extends over decades and decades and which demonstrates that when something is of God it will indeed not only persist but produce immeasurable fruit as grain pressed down, shaken together and running over.

This week the incredible demands and promises of this "Gamaliel principle" were brought home to me in ways I could not have imagined a week and a half ago. Two events in particular did this. First, there was the exhibit sponsored by the LCWR, Women and Spirit, which gives a good sense of the place of women religious in the history of the United States. Here before Catholicism was established, here before there was even statehood, Sisters came to minister. Sailing in twos and threes and fours, habited and landing in swampy, humid, mosquito-ridden land, they came. Prepared originally to teach, they nursed instead; prepared to nurse they set up orphanages; always they adapted and responded to the Spirit. Seeking simply to serve they taught, nursed, invented, built, advocated for the poorest and neediest, comforted, explored, researched, etc etc. They did not fit in neat boxes --- not in terms of the country they came to, nor (though always faithful to their vows) in terms of the ways Bishops and the institutional church expected them to live their lives. ALWAYS they shattered boundaries and constraints with their service to the Gospel.

Did you Know???

Did you know, for instance that it was a nun who co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous and was the first ever to admit alcoholics to hospital or treat the problem as a disease? Were you aware that a nun invented a low cost incubator which was effective for premature neonates and was affordable to every doctor, clinic, or hospital? Did you know that the Mayo clinic owes its existence to the foresight and advocacy of a nun? She enlisted the Mayo brothers and promised to build a needed hospital if they would serve as doctors. They promised and she carried through as well. Were you aware that it was Sisters from a variety of congregations or communities that served as Civil War nurses without regard for the side the wounded were on? Did you know that Sisters have been a central presence in every epidemic the US has had, nursing, doctoring, etc, without regard for the danger to their lives? Were you aware that it was Catholic Sisters that provided the first insurance coverage for loggers or who opened the still-extant NY Foundling Asylum with $5 and an empty building?

And of course, it was religious Sisters who built the Catholic school system -- initially in response to anti-Catholicism, or who personally corresponded with Jefferson to ensure religious freedom when it was hardly accepted and seriously threatened. (Jefferson responded with a promise to do all in his power to ensure such freedom.) Sisters routinely circuit rode, acted as architects, carpenters, and construction workers. (One Sister regularly treated those needing medical care in the Territory of New Mexico and was known for the quality of the care she gave. Despite never having been to medical school she was granted a medical license!) Sisters adapted their garb, and their schedules as necessary to pursue their various missions --- and remained vowed women of prayer at the same time. Later, Sisters became attorneys, surgeons, social workers, policy makers, scientists (did you know a seminal figure in the history of the understanding of DNA was a nun?), etc. These are some of the things I remember off the top of my head. At every point in US history Sisters were present adapting from medieval patterns of enclosed life and the narrower expectations of the hierarchy in order to respond to the Holy Spirit and the needs of people --- to serve an agenda of LIFE in its broadest sense as Christians have always been called to serve.

I was aware of some of these things, but not all, and the simple fact is that at every turn I was surprised by something more Sisters had done with few resources except their faith, courage, and a sense that they were called to serve in the power of the Holy Spirit. They begged, borrowed, and above all went where there was need. They grew the Church and brought her precisely where Jesus said she was to be --- to the least of the least, the sick, those without hope, those requiring comfort and hungry for justice. The exhibit was astounding and tremendously inspiring. I was both completely blown away by it and grateful to God for these women, for the legacy they have created and continue to create, and terribly humbled by my own very small place in this history. This Friday's reading from Acts could not have been more compelling in light of the huge task and danger facing the apostles entrusted with their new message of Jesus' resurrection: if it is of God it will persist and be fruitful beyond all imagining. But of course, living in this way takes imagination, creativity, courage, persistence, intelligence, and faith. It takes a willingness to discern God's will and follow it wherever it summons us. It takes a willingness to risk everything for a conclusion or harvest one might never see. And that was what I saw celebrated in this exhibit. Women and Spirit --- an ultimately indomitable combination.

The CDF "doctrinal assessment of the LCWR"

And then on Wednesday, the CDF published its "Doctrinal Assessment" of the LCWR. If the Women and Spirit exhibit spoke of the reality of Easter and focused my mind and heart on the truth of the first part of Gamaliel's Principle, this focused me on the danger the first Apostles found themselves in. Acting in good conscience, acting to proclaim the gospel but prohibited from doing so, prohibited from acting "in the name of Jesus, " and threatened with execution. It also, of course, brought out clearly Gamaliel's intervention:"Leave these men alone! . . .if what they are doing is of man, then it will not last. You may even find that you are fighting against God!"

Gamaliel was not counselling to passivity and abdication of the Pharisees' appropriate place in overseeing the law and life of Israel, but rather to discernment and humility. Neither was he giving the Apostles a free pass to do or teach anything they wanted, but an opportunity to demonstrate whether what they were doing and teaching was of God or not. With regard to both groups Gamaliel saw clearly I think, that God is always larger than we conceive, and routinely acts in surprising and countercultural ways. He interpreted the law according to the principle, "If it is not prohibited, then it is permitted." where a large number of the pharisees he was engaging approached life from the interpretive principle, "If it is not mentioned in the law, then it is prohibited." His approach was prudent and charitable and trusted both God and human freedom, whereas the Shammaite pharisee's approach was narrow, fearful, and controlling --- leaving little scope for the Holy Spirit or the imagination or creativity required by the Apostles of the Risen Christ.

This is only the third week of the Easter season, and we are trying to get our heads and hearts freshly around the truth Gamaliel reminds us of: God indeed will ultimately win out --- but he also must be given room to work freely. Meanwhile as Jesus himself taught his disciples, it may also be the case that the "Evil One" has sown some weeds in with the wheat, but even if this is the case we cannot precipitously tear at the weeds because we will uproot the wheat as well. It takes humility to recognize that only God can adequately judge and resolve such complex situations, and wisdom to accede to Gamaliel's demands. My prayer is that the CDF and those representing them in this entire affair recognize the wisdom and profoundly Christian nature of the Gamaliel principle (it is a theological and pastoral imperative, nothing less), while the LCWR courageously and faithfully participate in what, despite current evidence to the contrary, has been publicly purported by the CDF to represent a "collaborative process." In some ways there could not be more at stake for the Church as a whole.