Eschatological Secularity, What do you mean by this?

[Dear Sister,
      thank you for answering my last question [why you are personally interested in the vocation of CV's]. You have written about CV's embracing a consecrated or sacred secularity and I understand that. But you have also begun using the term eschatological secularity. I get it has to do with the Kingdom and end times, but why do you use it here and not in reference to other vocations?]]

Sure. I am using the term specifically to qualify and connect the secularity of the vocation with the Kingdom of God in which all things will be perfected and transformed and God will be all in all. Other terms (sacred secularity, consecrated secularity) don't do so nearly as well. They carry the idea of being made a sacred person and somehow being set apart from God but what they also do too often is suggest this has to be distinct from the saeculum rather than consistently embedded in it. (N.B., embeddedness and enmeshment are not the same things!) They tend to see consecrated lives as proleptic of heaven but that is a heaven which is wholly distinct from this world and has nothing to do with interpenetrating it, transfiguring, or ultimately perfecting it into the realm it is meant to be because God is truly and wholly sovereign there.

To link secularity closely with the word eschatological seems to me to do three things: 1) it immediately indicates the locus of God's transforming, reconciling, and hallowing power and presence, namely THIS world of space and time,  2) it underscores the incredible dignity and challenge of secular vocations --- but especially the vocation of CV's living in the world, and 3) it demands that CV's reflection on the specific graces of their vocation (spousal, virginal, maternal, and apostolic love) be spelled out in terms of the needs of heaven AND the needs of earth, the needs or yearnings of the Spirit and the needs or yearnings of the world. In other words it makes clear this vocation is a very profoundly pastoral one. It also suggests that systematically this is an avenue theologians would do well to pursue in thinking through the nature and implications of this ancient AND very new vocation.

I don't use this term with other vocations because it doesn't actually fit them as well. It may come close to an aspect of what secular institutes witness to, but there we are not dealing with a consecrated state of life; members are either in the lay or ordained states depending upon their state of life when they made semi-public vows. Thus I think the paradoxical vocation I have been speaking about is most sharply indicated in the term "eschatological secularity."  As importantly, I think this term charts a course for reflecting on and living out the vocation which focuses on its RADICAL secular and ultimately pastoral nature. Last year I was truly stunned to hear a CV suggest that she could see no pastoral need for a vocation which was specifically secular. I admit I am still a bit amazed by its lack of theological or pastoral acumen or sensitivity, but I believe it is actually a very common impression held by the majority in the world who see heaven as freeing us from or as an escape from this world rather than being the ultimate state of its transfiguration and perfection in God. It certainly helps explain why these particular CV's tend to want to be recognized, not as secular, but as quasi-religious. As part of this it seems clear to me that our world is yearning for models of secularity which are sacred rather than profane and which are radically informed and transformed by the values and ideals of the Kingdom of God rather than of all that opposes God.

Thus, one of the things I found missing in some CV's statements about their vocation was any significant reflection on or explanation of either the charism or the mission of the vocation. In other words, they spent no time reflecting on or articulating the gift quality of this vocation to OTHERS or why the Holy Spirit would have brought it forward again at this point in history, nor did they do anything similar with the idea of to whom they were specifically sent and in what way or why. Clearly consecration as a virgin was a personal gift to them, but that really seemed about all --- except perhaps that it added some to persons doing volunteer work for charities and the church.

To deny a profound pastoral need for a secular vocation which was at once also and radically eschatological was the most extreme example I could point to regarding this lack. It is one thing to say "I am a Bride of Christ" or "I am consecrated and called to be an apostle" or "I am an icon of the Church as Bride of Christ", but it is something else entirely to then articulate a theology of those things which is a gift to the Church and World because it gives hope and challenges others to see the ultimate significance of their own calls and lives. My almost immediate reaction to any of these affirmations is, "So what?" and then, "Why is that important pastorally?" or "Why is that a gift of the Holy Spirit?" Others I have heard have said something dismissive like, "Well, that's nice, but [followed by a shrug of one shoulder and a quizzical look]?" To draw attention to the eschatologically secular nature of the vocation is provocative and challenges CV's to do the required reflection on the import of their uniquely qualified (consecrated) and radically secular vocations which exist for the sake of the Church and World.


 If you have read this blog apart from the posts I have written on consecrated virginity of women living in the world you know that I believe eremitical life has a tremendous charism ("the silence of solitude") which is a gift specifically to the millions and millions of socially isolated in our world who are looking and hungering for ways to redeem and transform isolation. As our societies become increasingly media-dominated the isolation grows and varies in forms and intensity while it expands in universality. The need for people who can speak to this with their lives grows exponentially. Hermits, lay or consecrated and rare as we are, are among those who speak most vividly to this situation. So are monastics more generally. Thus, at the heart of what often can seem to outsiders to be a very selfish vocation is a profound charismatic element which makes  it God's gift to a very thirsty world. Consecrated virgins MUST discover and articulate their own vision of the charismatic and, thus, the profoundly consecrated AND secular nature of their vocation. They must discover the mission they are called to embrace by God through the mediation of the Church. Otherwise, the vocation of CV's living in the world remains an irrelevant, anachronistic, and somewhat elitist bit of preciousness which speaks effectively or prophetically to no one. I believe the term "eschatological secularity" will help some CV's and theologians more generally to do this.

Sister, Why are you Personally Interested in the vocation of CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, while I appreciate what you have written about canon 604 vocations, I wonder why it is of such interest to you. You are not a CV, nor discerning a vocation to this. Why are you continuing a conversation which does not personally interest you?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this before a little more than a year ago so I would suggest you look at the posts on consecrated secularity and CV's from that time. Even so, I can summarize my concerns and interest for you. It begins with the fact that this vocation made NO sense to me either theologically or pastorally until I read Sister Sharon Holland,. IHM's essay on the place of the Consecrated Virgin in today's Church. As I wrote a year ago, before that I felt it was a reality "in search of a job description" or "raison d'etre", neither fish nor fowl --- rather like secular institutes sometimes seemed, but without the benefits of community life, vows, or a Rule of Life. It was the secularity, and especially the consecrated or eschatological secularity of the vocation which allowed its charismatic import as gift of the Holy Spirit to become theologically clear to me. Once this happened I could see this was not some half-hearted vocation for those unwilling or somehow unable to adopt the whole reality of religious life (what the LA Province called a "fallback vocation"), but instead a whole-hearted and very challenging call to a qualified (specifically, an eschatological) secularity the world is destined for. When I ask myself what allows me to understand this vocation as a gift of the Holy Spirit and to explain the vocation positively rather than in terms of what it is not, this is the primary element which allows me to do that.

So, to summarize the important elements of my PERSONAL interest:

1) Contrary to what some argue, consecrated secularity is hardly common or as natural as breathing. The Church has a long history of esteeming consecrated life but not so of secular vocations which have been seen as profane and hardly a way to holiness. This changed with Vatican II and the Church still needs a holiness which is modeled by those leading thoroughly or radically secular vocations which are ALSO radically and consciously consecrated. These vocations contrast belief in a God who ultimately makes a Sacrament of this world with secularism so we need people who embrace such vocations and make the distinction clear with their lives. I am completely committed to Vatican II and to its recovery of this  eschatologically secular vocation and the theology of a universal call to holiness.

2) Some are arguing that making this vocation a quasi-religious vocation (vows, distinctive garb, titles, post-nomial initials, etc) is actually a deepening of it and that younger CV's are thus doing this when older CV's have lived a mediocre consecrated secularity. I argue that this is instead a betrayal of the vocation as the Church clearly understands it, and that if these changes are made the vocation will cease to be meaningful, much less truly charismatic, and speak to no one. (These women will not speak to religious --- who would thus live a more radical religious life than CV's, nor would they speak to secular members of the Church who are called to embrace and witness to the Kingdom of God within the world in all of its everyday dimensions. Both the Church and the WORLD needs this  radically eschatological AND radically secular witness desperately because what VII called everyone to was an exhaustive holiness wherever their vocations were lived. This is still not well understood in terms of secularity.)

3) The arguments the Church uses are historical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, canonical, etc and because of this these reasons for calling the vocation a form of sacred secularity are interesting to and rightfully addressed by theologians. It is neither appropriate nor accurate to neglect the historical contexts pertinent to this vocation's nature and significance (Vatican II  and Centuries 1-12 especially, but also the reality of consecrated virginity as it existed BEFORE the Church hierarchy began to control it in the second century)  and then argue this is a "proto-religious" vocation or "more radical" than what women have lived for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, this is what I have heard some CV's without apparent theological, historical, or pastoral sophistication doing. (Part of this involves ignoring the variety of authoritative ways the Church teaches and only paying serious attention to de fide statements, for instance. Part of it involves suggesting a witness to sacred or eschatological secularity is not even needed by today's world. Someone with theological training and a personal acquaintance with consecrated and Religious life needs to counter these tendencies.)

4) Thus, I am concerned with this issue because the vocation was actually subverted in the past when it became associated with ONLY its religious (cloistered) expression and the original secular expression was wholly lost in 1139. This should not be allowed to happen again, especially when the vocation which reprises the original secularity of the call is only 30 years old. I am concerned with this because as a hermit I deal with world-hating (and world-demeaning) language all the time. I am in a unique position to reflect on the meaning of the term "the world" both exegetically, canonically, experientially,  and theologically and too, on the significance of secular vocations. Similarly, I am concerned with any notion of vocation which ignores the development of Vatican II and its universal call to exhaustive holiness along with the clear teaching that ALL the baptized are called to live some form of the evangelical counsels and are encouraged to pray the Liturgy of Hours.

Pastorally I have dealt often, and even regularly with the pain of those called to lay (and/or secular) vocations who mistakenly think they must make private vows to embrace a radical discipleship or aspire to authentic holiness. (Instead they need to specify the demands of their baptismal consecrations and/or marriage vows regularly. Too few have done this because they don't see Baptism as a call to radical discipleship.) It is a VERY common thing to hear lay people who are, almost by definition, usually called to secular vocations (lay hermits are different) to complain they feel called to a third class or entry-level vocation which makes them called but not really "chosen." It is similarly common to hear these same people asking the related question of whether the Church REALLY esteems secular vocations or has merely thrown them a few crumbs in revising their roles during liturgy. The theology supporting such notions is abhorrent.

5) Finally, I have the sense that SOME of the younger CV's are unclear on their own motivations in all of this. I think there is too much accent on NOT being mistaken for laity or members of secular institutes, or on separating oneself from them in visible ways. I believe some of these CV's have bought into a very worldy misunderstanding (worldly in the worst sense) of Thomas Aquinas' teaching on the objective superiority of religious vocations and that they demean or denigrate secular vocations in spite of VII or the call to a New Evangelization. I believe that some of these women are resistant to thinking paradoxically as the Gospel requires of us and therefore are fostering a way of thinking which is fundamentally Greek and pagan rather than truly Christian. I also believe that some of these women do not really understand the import or content of religious poverty or religious obedience and the very different freedom that issues from these as opposed to properly secular expressions of the evangelical counsels. Like others, I wonder why these women did not simply pursue religious life if they truly believe the secularity of the original call which persisted for more than 11 centuries side by side the religious expression was wrong or somehow immature and in need of deepening.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

A Safeway shopping trip!

I have written several times here about the nature of  waiting and the difficulty people have with regard to doing so. Well, I just got a reminder regarding new lessons in not just our difficulty in waiting, but the prevalence of our refusal to do so and what seems like a sense that we SHOULD be first in line if we can just  figure out how to beat the poor schmucks who are waiting patiently and trying to create an orderly way of proceeding or, if we can push into the line and simply disregard the puzzled (not to mention irritated) looks others are casting our way! At the same time, at least a couple of people demonstrated a real sense of fairness, personal generosity, and a willingness to accommodate others which was wonderful to see! So, what happened?

Tonight I was at Safeway and for some reasons (probably including the prevalent flu which I also have) there were very few registers open and VERY long lines. There were two philosophies at work among those jockeying to check out: 1) let's find a way to make this work fairly for everyone so we all wait equally, and 2) Give me mine and to hell with anyone else! (Yes, nuns use that kind of language when it accurately describes the situation!) Those of us in the first school figured out that a single line which split off each time a regular register came open worked VERY well for everyone. (The express registers had their own line.) Not only were we able to leave a lane open for those pushing carts through the store still, but we knew who had been there first and it shortened the waiting time for those who were both patient and courteous. Those of us in this school talked to one another, commiserated about being tired, grumpy, fluey or having appointments it looked like we would be late for (or all or none of the above!) and generally were in it together.

Those in the second school were a revelation in impatience, entitlement, discourtesy, and solitary splendor (and no, not the eremitical kind of solitary splendor hermits are called to live!). They fell within a range of ages but the majority seemed younger or were male. I admit if I had been feeling better I might merely have laughed at how assiduously they pretended NOT to have pushed into the lines in front of at least two dozen fellow-shoppers or to be invisible and wholly unrelated to any other person in the store at that point. (Watching some folks look down at something just beyond the point of their own noses for 10 minutes until they got closer to the checkout stand and seized upon a magazine to immerse themselves in instead would ordinarily cause me to at least chuckle to myself. It was reminiscent of kids I have taught who look at the toes of their shoes while saying "No S'ter" or who stand amongst their classmates while "praying", "Please don't notice me S'ter;  O PLEASE don't notice me!!" I admit that had I felt better I would probably have been more amused at the man who was told he belonged at the end of the line, headed that way looking somewhat chastened, and then circled back around and down one of the aisles and up another so he could literally interject his cart in front of the rest of our carts.  I wonder if he lives his life this way. Unfortunately, for several reasons related to my trip around the store while shopping, I suspect he does. There were a number of others who pushed in and seemed to find the floor the most interesting thing they had seen in a long time!! Maybe they really did need my sympathy instead of my partly flu-inspired antipathy.


Meanwhile the cashier I checked out with and whom I know and like asked how I was --- and I, maybe not as convincingly as usually, said, "Excellent!" When she gave me a questioning (and sharply knowing) look I noted, "Well, better than I was 2 minutes ago!" She apologized for the wait and I explained, it was not the line, or the wait. It was the people that had me a bit more grumpy than the flu had made me. (I didn't get ALL that said explicitly unfortunately.) She smiled knowingly at the word "people" and we both felt the mood lighten I think. All I could think of at that point was the Charlie Brown cartoon that says "I love humanity; it's people I can't stand!" and I hoped she wasn't thinking, "Ah, so THAT is why Sister is a hermit!" --- though I think she knows me a little better than that!

So, there were both low AND high points. Some customers actually pulled themselves out of the chaos near the registers and moved to the end of the long single line when they discovered that some of us had been waiting longer than they --- despite the fact this added at least another 10 or 15 minutes to their trip. Another checker who is a friend gave me a careful hug (I resisted because of my "condition") and a "God Bless" as well. I came away feeling good and generally inspired by the majority of folks, but sad for many others. We don't wait well; our culture tells us we shouldn't need to --- instant gratification is the norm and we "deserve" it (WHATEVER it is) after all! But in fact, the really human living we do often happens during the waiting, during the time we see what is right there in front of us right now (no, not the floor --- though I guess that's better than seeing nothing and no one), when we join WITH others and make the best of a difficult situation, when we reaffirm that we are all equals and precious in God's eyes even as we wait to move on alone. Was I grateful I had to wait tonight? No, I wasn't and I failed in charity as well. Am I grateful now? Yes, I think I truly am.

On the Importance of Scripture in a Hermit's Life

[[Hi Sister Laurel, How important is Scripture in the life of a diocesan hermit? I have never learned to appreciate Scripture very much, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me always when I try to read it. Is there something that could help me with this?]]

 Personally I feel that Scripture is essential to the life of a hermit. We are called above all to be persons who are in dialogue with the Word of God. That is really the essence of our solitude --- and the foundation of our identities as persons. The fruit of this dialogue is characterized as "the silence of solitude," which is really the charism or gift of this vocation given by God to the Church and world in such lives. My own vow of obedience describes my life as "an expression of God's Solitary Word" and binds me to attentive hearkening (listening and responding) to this Word in all the ways it comes to me, whether that is through Scripture, Sacraments, Church teaching, superiors or others. While I don't mention all of these, they are at least implicitly included, but especially Scripture itself. The vow reads:

[[I acknowledge and accept that God is the author of my life and that through his Word, spoken in Jesus Christ, I have been called by name to be. I affirm that in this Word, a singular identity has been conferred upon me, a specifically ecclesial identity which I accept and for which I am forever accountable. Under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, I vow to be obedient: to be attentive and responsible to Him who is the foundation of my being, to his solitary Word of whom I am called to be an expression, and to the whole of His People to whom it is my privilege to belong and serve.]]

Each day I read, study, and pray with Scripture. Most weeks I write at least one reflection on some Lectionary selection. Besides writing on eremitical life my blog most often includes pieces on Scripture, and if I look back over the past years, especially since I began being more active at my parish, one of the most formative dimensions of my life is an increased focus on Scripture which my pastor has encouraged and assisted with. (He has facilitated my attending several workshops on the Gospels or other dimensions of the Scriptures and we tend to share whenever we are reading something really good the other would be excited by --- or we think the other would be excited by!!) Also, where five years ago I really didn't much care for the Gospel of Luke (apart from his unique parables and Lord's Prayer), I have come to really appreciate what Luke does with Luke-Acts. Meanwhile I love more deeply Paul's epistles, the Gospel of Mark, and have become completely fascinated by Jesus as "parabler" and how his parables function to work miracles and initiate us into the Kingdom of God.  As a theologian I am exhilarated by narrative theology and its possibilities for proclaiming God's Gospel effectively. More fundamentally, as a human being I am one in whom this every day world and the Kingdom proclaimed in the Scriptures vie for sovereignty; more and more the stories of the Scriptures define who I am as God's own word event.

My point is that all of this is a function of spending time with the Scriptures day in and day out or at least on a regular basis. Your own commitment in time is as important as mine (your identity is also founded on the Word of God); it will also no doubt differ from mine and that is entirely as it should be, but one needs to be patient and persistent nonetheless.

In finding something that assists you I would suggest several different things. The first is to commit to giving this a proper chance and that means committing to maybe 1/2 hour of grappling with the Scriptures per day. Next, you need a translation of the Scriptures you can read easily and resonate with. There are a lot of good translations out there but avoid the King James, and any versions which are paraphrases (New Living Bible --- which should probably be called the New Once-living Bible since it tends to be Scripture eviscerated). Find yourself a Bible you will care about owning and will feel good about carrying with you occasionally and reading when you have the opportunity. (If you feel embarrassed about bringing a Bible with you think about that; I suspect a lot of people feel that way --- although they would not feel that way if they were carrying a burse and pyx with them containing consecrated hosts). One version of the Scriptures I am now recommending is Marcus Borg's chronological arrangement of the New Testament, The Evolution of the Word. It is rather stunning to see the "books" arranged in (as well as can be determined) the order in which they were actually written --- even when one has known the order for years because of one's studies. It is also a good translation.

Next, choose something you can read WITH Scripture (especially AFTER you have read the daily passage a few times on your own). One of the best series of books out there is by NT (Tom) Wright. Each volume is named after a different book of the Bible along with "For Everyone" --- thus Mark for Everyone, Matthew for Everyone, etc. These ARE NOT the study guides by a similar title. You can get the volumes for all four Gospels at once (6 volumes for about $70) or you can get them as you go (probably good to begin with). Wright also has several volumes out on Lenten readings (years A, B, C) and on the Sunday readings (Years A, B, and C are available singly or in a single volume). If you decided each week to ONLY focus on the Sunday readings (entirely legitimate!!!), that would be terrific and you could use these as well. Another author that has some good reflections for each Sunday of the year is Jose Pagola (Following in the Footsteps of Jesus). There are MANY other books of reflections, etc which can assist you (including small pamphlets like Magnificat) so I would suggest you speak to your pastor for his own suggestions or to others in your parish that read Scripture regularly. Alternately you can email me about what does and does not work for you and we can find something that is helpful. By the way, if you own a Kindle or similar device you can carry your Bible and other books on there easily and unobtrusively --- though it is not always as easy to access select passages.

If your parish has a Bible study program consider committing to that. (Be aware that some programs call themselves Bible study and involve no actual study or expertise in Scripture whatsoever; if your desire is to learn about Scripture you are probably looking for something which is more than a faith sharing session even while it includes this dimension.) You will need to do a bit of shopping around most likely. In any case, give some thought to these things and if you have more questions feel free to email me.

You and I and every other Christian (every other human being for that matter) are and are called to BE a dialogue with God. THAT is what makes us genuinely human and what diminishes us most profoundly when it is missing, compromised, or mitigated. One of the ways we make sure the truth of this is real in our own lives is by an assiduous engagement with Scripture. These are the stories from which we live, the characters we should know intimately, and a context which makes a different sense of our lives than do other contexts. The Church is clear that Christ's presence in the proclaimed Scriptures is as real as it is in the Eucharist; thus we have a liturgy of the Word and a liturgy of the table. Both dimensions of Mass are salvific and Sacramental.

I hope this is helpful.

We Were Called Sisters

by Joan Sauro, CSJ--of Syracuse!
http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201211/we-were-called-sister-26624
Occasionally something comes along which should be shared, but which cannot be copied, etc. Each Sister becomes part of a long and treasured tradition of Sisters which, in one way and another, she carries in her own mind, heart, and body.  This tradition inspires and empowers us; it is pieces like this one which remind us of the place Sisters have played in the life of the Church, and the place Sisters are called on to assume as the Holy Spirit prompts. I highly recommend this beautiful and poignant post by Sister Joan Sauro, CSJ. Please check it out and email the link to friends.

If Rome Encourages Habits, why Discourage them for CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, does the Church's strong desire for women religious to wear habits figure into your argument about the secularity of the vocation to consecrated virginity for women living in the world? You haven't mentioned it explicitly is why I ask.]]

Great question! I haven't mentioned this because I am not really sure it is directly pertinent or how it might be so. However, I do think it is clear that CICLSAL would like to see women religious wearing some form of distinguishing garb and living lives which are more clearly separated from the world than they are secular. Thus, your point is a good one: if Rome believes habits are necessary to indicate a consecrated (rather than religious) life, and given the clarity with which Rome has pushed for distinguishing garb for religious, it makes little sense that CV's living in the world would not be encouraged to wear distinguishing garb if their vocation is quasi-religious rather than strongly secular.

But the opposite is actually the case. Instead CV's living in the world have been increasingly discouraged or even prohibited from doing so by Bishops' conferences and Associations of CV's. (Meanwhile commentators on the canons which are to govern an association or be a model of these group's governance has suggested that secular institutes are the most appropriate model and that there are to be no statutes which change the nature of the vocation to a quasi religious one, for instance.) I think you are correct that this is another very suggestive piece of the Church's clarity on the strongly secular nature of the vocation. (The ring indicates the consecrated nature of the vocation as does the limited use of a veil.) However, I believe the Church was clear about this when she stripped the use of the habit from the Rite of Consecration in the process of revising it. There she was being clear about the secular nature of the vocation even while she stressed its consecrated nature. So, perhaps what you describe is a bit of "circumstantial evidence" which strengthens this conclusion.

Again, great question. Thanks!

A Summary of the Church's Position on the Thoroughgoing Secularity of Consecrated Virgins living in the World

[[Sister Laurel, I appreciated the post you put up on another forum summarizing all you have written about the CV vocation for women living in the world. I also agree you have not been nitpicking. Could you please put that post up here so others will see it as well? Thanks, a CV in Canada.]]

Mary of Magdela, Apostle to the Apostles

Yes, I would be happy to. A note to readers: the references to tone and nitpicking are in response to those who believe the issue is being debated only to prove oneself right. We have to recognize that the secular expression of the vocation was once lost due to folks making it into a religious vocation and, as I have argued here, it is its sacred or eschatological secularity which makes it such a tremendous gift of the Holy Spirit to our Church and world. Thus, there is something really critical at issue here --- not someone's need to be right. After all, there is a significant difference between marshalling an argument in a systematic way for the benefit of those discerning the vocation and simply being argumentative.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I would personally urge readers to abstain from reading a "tone" into a post even if the import of that post is the clarification of matters or the presentation of theological reasoning which contrasts with that of someone else. However, let's be clear about what has been called nitpicking. Meanings are important and so are nuances. To clarify these often has tremendous significance in the life of the Church. Nitpicking means to pick at meaningless and tiny differences. I don't think anyone pointing out the basis of the Church's approbation of this as a wholly secular and wholly consecrated vocation can even remotely be considered to be engaged in nitpicking.

The vocation is a secular one AND it is a form of consecrated life. These two elements, in the eyes of the Church, are not in conflict with one another. They quailify each other (thus we get a sacred or eschatological secularity) but they do not mitigate one another.  It is not the case that if something is MORE secular then it is necessarily LESS consecrated or vice versa. Vatican II esteemed secular vocations in a fresh and significant way. It spoke passionately about the universal call to holiness and the vocation not merely of lay persons, but of anyone called to live out their vocations in the secular world. It was out of this context and under the express instructions of Vatican II that the Rite of Consecration was revised so it was not merely for cloistered nuns, but for women "given to the Spirit and the world in the things of the Spirit and the things of the World."

Some would like to see this vocation as "secular in the weak sense" (meaning only that it is not lived in a monastery). That IS a different view of the vocation than the Church herself holds. The USCCB, the USACV, Documents from CICLSAL or from Sister Sharon Holland (as chief in that office under the mandatory Cardinal and Bishop), and the Rite of Consecration itself are all clear that the vocation is a secular one in a much stronger or thoroughgoing sense. The use of veils is limited to the Rite of Consecration and Mass or liturgy on the anniversary of that consecration. Habits are not worn, vows are not made, titles and post-nomial initials are not used. The relationship with one's Bishop is one of a warm paternal nature; he is not the CV's legitimate superior and she is not bound to him by a vow or promise of obedience. The CV's relationship to her diocese is significant, but she is not bound here by the same kind of residential stability as the hermit professed under canon 603. CV's work wherever they can in whatever expertise they are able to exercise. In free time they may volunteer to work for the Church or other charities. Their lives are lives of prayer and service and they are encouraged to pray the LOH --- though it must be made clear that this is the official prayer of the entire Church, not simply of priests and religious, and that ALL lay persons and their parishes are encouraged to pray at least MP and EP from the LOH, just as are those in the consecrated state of life.

The actual revision of the Rite was meant to recover the secular expression of the vocation which was not only more original than the cloistered expression but which, until the early 12th century, co-existed with the cloistered expression. Meanwhile, the cloistered expression is seen to have turned the nature of the vocation on its head and eventually caused the significance and validity of its secular expression to have been obscured, then lost altogether. All of this along with the Church's emphasis on New Evangelization and refreshed emphasis on missiology in and to the secular (and thus to Catholics and non-Catholics alike), a Christology which sees Jesus' active life as completely secular even as he is wholly consecrated to God (Jesus was not cloistered, not a monk nor hermit, etc), an examination of the discussions during the steps leading to the promulgation of this as a secular vocation, theological reflection on the distinction between religious life and consecrated virginity under canon 604 for women living in the world, a fresh appreciation of Paul's eschatology, and the lived experience of the hugest number of women thus consecrated argue the secularity of this vocation. It is a secularity which is truly consecrated, authentically eschatological (proleptic of the Kingdom) but it is an unmitigated secularity nonetheless.

I will add one other piece of evidence which clearly says the Church sees the vocation in this way, namely, she does not require women living secular lives to leave any of this (work, relationships, activities including political activities, hobbies, normal dress, etc) BEFORE (or after) she consecrates them. She allows secular women living secular lives to discern this vocation and to be consecrated. This would be completely irresponsible if thereafter the Church believed these women were to adopt quasi-religious vocations with distinctive garb, vows, legitimate superiors, etc. It is also contrary to the way the Church operates with ANY other vocation to the consecrated state. Imagine what would happen if a women discerned long and carefully the way God was calling her to serve the Church and world in her secularity, and after consecration required she embrace a quasi-religious life instead! The Church has been very clear in her praxis, liturgy, and theology, that this vocation is radically secular even as it is radically consecrated. This is precisely the witness the Church and world needs today when secularism (not the same as secularity) is running rampant and requires a genuine alternative.


Those who would prefer to live a quasi-religious life or to make that of CV's living in the world into a quasi-religious vocation really will cause this vocation to continue to make sense to no one --- and thus, to effectively change nothing, especially the way the secular is truly viewed. (It is meant to be the place where God's Kingdom comes to be in perfection so that "God is all in all.") Religious will continue to regard these women as "wannabes"  or at least continue wondering what the vocation is really all about, and those living secular lives will continue asking, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" --- and rightly so. Meanwhile those living secular lives will continue to believe they have second class or entry level vocations and "heaven" will be defined in terms of "pie in the sky by and by" rather than the eternal life that is meant to interpenetrate this world and, in fact, perfect it in the sovereignty of God. I write all this because I believe the vocation is a tremendous gift of God to our Church and world, but it is only such a gift if it is wholly a secular one as well as wholly a consecrated one. I also write it because I believe it is irresponsible to disregard all of this and suggest that the Church has NOT decided the nature of this vocation's secularity. Thirty years of consecrating secular women to live secular lives based on all of the above suggests otherwise.

Love in Action, Conversations With Women Religious

A lovely video introducing a few Bay Area Sisters and their ministries. The development of charism and the way the needs of the world help shape the gift quality and mission of religious life is well-attested to here. The video is a project of students at University of San Francisco.

Why not live marriage before marriage?

[[Hi Sister, I have a question about something you said about the Church not allowing people to live vocations they are not formed in or prepared for. You said the Church requires people to be living the life they are preparing to commit to before she admits them to vows. I see that is true with religious life, consecrated virgins, hermits, and things like that, but what about marriage? Why is it the Church does not require a period of formation and living the life BEFORE marrying two people (sic)?]]

Now that is an interesting question! I should have seen it coming! The basic reason is that in order to live married life (or married love!) one must BE married. One cannot live married life UNLESS one is married. There is no way to form two individual persons in the married life because they are not yet the Sacramental reality the Sacrament of matrimony makes them. Even with religious life we recognize that all the preparation in the world does not replace what happens with  a vowed commitment. In that act one truly BECOMES a religious no matter how long they have been living the rhythms of the life before this. (Vows are performative realities and this means things come to be in the very pronouncing of these vows which were not real before this. With public vows the person actually gives themselves wholly to the life and a whole slew of rights, obligations, and legal relationships come to be as well in the profession of the vows.) With marriage the situation is even more clear. We can teach people about relationships, about life skills, about the Gospel which should inform and guide their lives together, etc but we cannot make them able to live marriage (nor ask them to practice it) unless they have already married and received the graces attached to the very act of marrying one another (the Church, by the way, does not marry them nor call them to marriage). They must already have become one flesh called to expressing this truth at every point of their lives to actually do so.

I suppose I see marriage (and especially married love) as a reality two people learn to live together (and only together) with the specific graces God provides them in the Sacrament and in their married love for one another. Of course a piece of this is that these two people are called to married or sexual love and they cannot live out such a call apart from marriage. To try to do so trivializes the reality of sexual or married love (merely having sex is not sexual love in the sense I am using it; it is instead an usurpation of something proper to married (sexual) love) and opens the persons to a sinful use of this gift as well. But you are correct that this is one vocation the Church does not require one already be living the life of before admitting to definitive commitment, mainly because it would be impossible to do so. Even so, she DOES require some formation. Thus there are Cana or pre-marriage classes. It may not seem like enough to prepare for such a weighty vocation, but it is the best we can do since marriage is a vocation to love in a way only made possible BY marriage itself. Another way of saying this is that the couple cannot live or love as those who HAVE given themselves wholly to another (and to God through this marriage) until they have actually done so.

I hope this is helpful.

Myths, Parables, and Narrative Theology

In light of the reflection I gave on the first Sunday of Advent, have been reading more about story these days, and especially about narrative theology --- a form of theology which became popular after I had completed my graduate work in systematics. I have been intrigued for some time by the power of story to introduce us to the Kingdom of God, to create a sacred space where we can meet Jesus alone face to face, so to speak, and hear his summons and consider the life and values he is calling us to; similarly I have been intrigued by story's power to bridge the gap between head and heart and call for a centered act of the whole person while allowing us to suspend disbelief, cynicism, exaggerated criticalness or rationalism and leaving these behind as we enter the world of the story. In the past here I have written about the human being as language event, Jesus as the embodiment of God's own story, the way stories work, and a number of other related ideas. Late though I am in all of this, I am more excited than I can say about the possibilities for systematic theology, homiletics, pastoral ministry, etc, offered by narrative and narrative theology.

After the Flood

In part of my related reading I picked up a slender volume of John Dominic Crossan's entitled, The Dark Interval, Towards a Theology of Story. As part of this book Crossan refers to a spectrum of literary forms with myth at one end and parable at the other --- both of which I have written about here a number of times. I especially wanted to share an observation Crossan made about the relationship of these two literary forms since they are both so significant to or Scriptures. He writes  (in agreement with many writers) that myth is the way we reconcile irreducible opposites. Myth is a way we create a consistent world view; it is the way we tell ourselves the story of reality in a way which harmonizes conflicts and brings peace. It is an agent of reconciliation and belief in the possibility of reconciliation, of stability rather than change.

Of parable (again in agreement with a number of authors) he writes that parable catches at the hidden edges and borders of myth. It functions to bring or create "contradiction within a situation of complacent security, and even more unnervingly, it challenges the fundamental fact of reconciliation by making us aware that we made up the reconciliation."  In other words, ". . . it brings a sword rather than peace and casts fire on the earth that receives it." It is an agent of change and a transcendent stability which overarches any stability we might create with myth, etc. Then as a kind of summary, Crossan writes, that myth assures us "You have built a lovely home" while parables reveal to us " the earthquake fault" that lies under the house! I was blown away by this image of the relationship between these two types of literature (parable is actually also a form of word event) and simply wanted to share it. (Besides since I am continuing reading in this area, more about it will be pertinent here no doubt.) Both are critical to human life, but when we look at the subversive character of Jesus and the word events he created we can see how truly countercultural his disciples are called to be and how much more radical and paradoxical the peace and reconciliation he brings.

Question: Canon 604 as Quasi-Religious? Then consecrate Religious women first!

[[Sister O'Neal, why would adopting some of the things some CV's say are necessary (garb, vows, required prayer of the entire Liturgy of the Hours, full time parochial employment, etc)  mean that the consecration should be used for apostolic Religious who are also virgins?]]

Sorry I wasn't clear about this.  Consider this a corollary to my post on not consecrating women living secular lives IF canon 604 does not govern an uncompromised secular vocation. The adoption of the things you mention indicates a mitigated and even compromised secularity rather than a thoroughgoing one. If they are really essential to the vocation it begins to lose it's distinctive gift quality to the secular and post-Vatican II world. The vocation ceases to say to those leading secular lives, for instance, that they are called to an exhaustive holiness which can be achieved in their secularity. It begins to say separation from the saeculum is necessary for true holiness. Thus, if the CV's we are consecrating are required to become quasi-religious because the elements of religious life they adopt which make them less secular are necessary to the vocation, then it only makes sense that every Religious who is a virgin should also receive this consecration. After all, they live the elements of religious life which separate them from the world more radically than CV's without all the limitations of vows of poverty, obedience, Rules of life, Constitutions and Canon Laws. Even further, it makes sense that they should receive the consecration BEFORE any women who have not (yet) been adequately formed in the elements of religious life and who are still living a wholly secular life.

My point is that the vocation today has two clear expressions, one cloistered and the other secular. The first speaks especially to Religious (though not only to them) and is a kind of intensification of certain dimensions of their vocations; the second speaks especially (though not only) to those living secular vocations and is an eschatological witness to what secularity is meant and destined to be. If the vocation on the other hand is really only "secular" in the "weak sense" of not taking place in a monastery amongst cloistered nuns, then we should only be consecrating women who ARE separated from the world in significant ways. Only two groups of women really fit that criterion, nuns and apostolic or ministerial Sisters. Of course, the simple fact is that most of these women would not need or want this consecration, even if their relationship with Christ is specifically nuptial. They are already consecrated and the graces attached to the consecration don't necessarily add to the graces of their vocations as they stand right now. Unless c 604 consecration brings something truly distinctive to the Church and world it ceases to make sense or speak prophetically to people; neither are its graces uniquely pertinent. The only element of this vocation as it is being lived out in today's Church which really allows this prophetic speech and serves to make the vocation truly distinctive and a unique gift is its (consecrated and eschatological) secularity.

If instead it is really a form of weakened, essentially compromised, or even inauthentic religious life then it ceases to be prophetic or to truly speak of radical discipleship as a religious. If it is a form of weakened or essentially compromised secular life, then once again it ceases to speak to anyone who is called to live radical discipleship as a secular. Again, it becomes a vocation which is neither fish nor fowl and merely evokes the standard questions: "why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" or " are only those separated from the world called to true and wholehearted (radical) discipleship?" or again, "is there something necessarily wrong with secularity? Wasn't Jesus' own vocation as well as that of his Mother secular ones --- even if they were also mystical and contemplative?" (While I agree Jesus' vocation was also a consecrated and exhaustively eschatological vocation, I don't think we can argue Jesus lived his public life and calling as a religious, monk, or hermit, for instance.)

 There is NOTHING wrong with being called to a secular vocation in the fullest sense or to being called to witness to the eschatological and consecrated nature of authentic or redeemed secularity. I believe being called to do this is an incredible gift (charism) of the Holy Spirit to our world and Church today. But if this is NOT what canon 604 vocations are meant to be, then we must stop consecrating women living secular lives and, to the degree virginal Religious women request it, begin consecrating those who have truly discerned, are formed in, and live lives which are at once religious and appropriately ministerial without being or becoming secular.

Minimized Secularity: A Legitimate Development for CV's?

[[Dear Sister, Wouldn't it be possible for the Church to discover that the vocation of consecrated virgins living in the world has developed in a way which requires the kinds of things you say separate Religious from aspects or dimensions of the world? I understand your argument that this would mean the Church was wrong for 30 years, but vocations DO develop. Why couldn't a mitigated secularity (your words) be a development?]]

That's a good question and I am pretty sure it is precisely what the minority of CV's who desire the separating trappings of Religious life would argue. When I spoke of being free to experiment in my own vocation in order to discover the shape of eremitical life in the 21st Century I was referring to this question indirectly. You may remember that what I said there is that any experiments I might do would be limited by the nature of my vocation. For instance, I can't make it a secular vocation when part of the canon reads "stricter separation from the world" --- and so, defines this as even more intensely non-secular than other religious vocations.  I can't do this when the liturgy by which I was professed stressed this separation at every point (official liturgy is normative as law is normative). Once my own vocation becomes secular it ceases being eremitical.

There is no calling it secular in the "weak sense" because I don't live on monastery property or out in the boonies, or in a literal desert for instance. It is eremitical because it is defined in terms of the central elements of canon 603 and the Rite of Profession we used, or it is not eremitical at all. Further, these elements are always the ones which guide my implementation of various practices; thus, if I am called on to do some limited ministry at the parish I have to be sure my life is still clearly eremitical in terms of stricter separation, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude. I cannot begin to define my life as "less eremitical" or eremitical in the weak sense, or even as "more ministerial" --- as good as any of those things are generally. I am committed to keeping its essential nature or I will lose it altogether.

In canon 603, for instance, "stricter separation from the world" clearly does not refer to a physical place. It means non-secular. For that reason Bishops profess urban hermits as well as those living in more natural wildernesses. It seems reasonable that when canon 604's Rite of Consecration refers to women "living in the world" then, it is not referring simply to physical location.  It is referring to something more essential and fundamental on which all else is therefore built. This conclusion has to be buttressed with the other things I have mentioned, including the fact that canon 604 CV's are said to be called to serve in the things of the spirit and the things of the world (cf homily from Rite of Consecration), the fact that it is women living thoroughly secular lives who are irrevocably consecrated, the historical and theological context of the vocation which underscores a recovery of a secular vocation lost in the 12th Century when the vocation became the sole property of cloistered nuns, the fact that ministerial or apostolic religious who are virgins do NOT receive this consecration as they surely should if the vocation is not truly secular, the important emphasis of Vatican II on the universal call to holiness, and finally the New Evangelization's emphasis on a new missiology which esteems the secular while struggling against secularism.

 While I have referred to canon law history, the theology of consecrated and religious life, Christology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and a few other things in various posts on this, my basic concern and argument is pastoral. The bottom line for me is that unless this is a thoroughly secular vocation (consecrated life though it is) it does not make sense; unless it is truly secular it will remain a somewhat half-baked, less than radical vocation (neither secular nor religious), and will be incomprehensible and inspiring to neither those living secular lives nor to those living as Religious.

Only if it is a truly secular vocation is it truly charismatic since charisms come from the interaction of the world's need and the influence of the Holy Spirit; only then will it speak relevantly and prophetically to a world-at-large which is called to live the life of the Kingdom in the state of secularity. (I firmly believe this world does NOT truly need yet another vocation which suggests secularity is NOT a call to a radical, exhaustive holiness!) I simply don't believe turning the vocation into a quasi-religious vocation will inspire most people to live an eschatological or sacramental secularity. While my own vocation can summon people to build silence, solitude, and prayer into their lives to a greater degree, and while it can remind them that it is God alone who completes us and is sufficient for our needs, there is also the danger that I give the signal one must leave the world to be a person of prayer, silence, or genuine solitude. I may, unfortunately, give the mistaken signal that one needs vows or special garb or legitimate superiors, to be called to or become holy. And so forth.

Referring only to the fundamental nature of consecrated virginity and not to its special graces, a vocation called secular and given to others "in the things of the world" as well as those of the Spirit is a gift to the secular world in particular for it says that holiness is possible without the separation adopted by religious. It was once taken as common truth that such separation was required for genuine holiness. But this is, of course, no longer the case. Vatican II stressed the universal call to holiness and in light of that vocations to secular institutes as well as the recovery of the consecration of virgins living in the world have become significant calls to a secularity which leads to genuine holiness. Meanwhile the New Evangelization calls for the Church to proclaim a Gospel which transforms all of reality. It hardly seems reasonable to me then that turning the vocation into a quasi religious vocation or otherwise mitigating its secularity so that it is no longer the gift the post-Vatican II Church and the New Evangelization require can be called a development --- at least not a legitimate or positive one.

One final point. The ancient vocation  to consecrated virginity went through a development which saw it used more and more exclusively for women entirely separated from "the world" and cloistered in monasteries and convents. This is now seen as something which turned the nature of the vocation on its head. (cf,  Holland, Sharon, "Consecrated Virgins for Today's Church") Eventually, even the remaining secular expression of the vocation was lost (around 1139). It is the case that this loss corresponded to a time of decreased esteem for the secular and the association of the call to holiness with religious and priestly life alone. This development contributed to the hardening of divisions between sacred and profane, religious and secular, which was destructive of dimensions of the spiritual life of the Church and represented a kind of class-ism which is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Vatican II worked mightily to move past this in what she taught and the revival of the secular consecrated virgin vocation developed as a piece of this. I would therefore be chary of any suggestions that CV's wishing to recapitulate this original development from secular to cloistered in some way is a good thing. Moving away from the thoroughgoing and sacred secularity of the vocation seems to me to be doing just that.

Why are we consecrating virgins living SECULAR lives if the vocation is not secular?

[[Sister, in arguing that consecrated virgins living in the world are called to a secular vocation which is without mitigation or qualification you once said something about formation needing to be changed if the vocation was NOT secular. I couldn't find what you wrote though. Can you help me with this?]]

Yes, sure. First though, while I am clear the Church teaches canon 604 vocations are secular vocations without mitigation, they ARE significantly qualified as sacred or consecrated secularity. I hope I was sufficiently clear on this point in other things I have written.

The point you were looking for is found in my 20. November.2011 response to Jenna Cooper's  (Sponsa Christi blog) post around that time. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Canon 604 --- Response to Jenna Cooper In that post I argued that the Church's own praxis confirms the secularity of the vocation in the fullest sense of that word. She does this in a number of ways, but one significant way involves consecrating women living secular lives while not demanding a formation where one relinquishes a secular life in the process. The Church does not require a change of jobs, a move to a convent, preparation for vows (which means, among other things, divesting of property or signing a cession of administration), a new way of dressing, letting go of relationships, hobbies, interests (including political interests and activities) or anything else which marks their way of life as secular. She does not require these women let go of a personal life-vision of a secular mission which is sacramental,  truly holy and which the entire world is MEANT to live. IF the vocation were not really secular then the Church would need to require candidates for consecration adopt a different way of living BEFORE consecrating them (and before determining they COULD be consecrated).

This would need to occur so that, at the very least, both the candidate and the diocese can discern whether or not the person is truly called to this. As you are no doubt aware, the Church does not profess or consecrate anyone without being sure they have lived the life expected of them for some time prior to definitive commitment. It would be completely irresponsible to do otherwise not only because the discernment process would be worthless in such a case, but also since the person thus professed and/or consecrated is placed in danger of serious sin if they are not truly called to the life embraced. Integrity of witness and life would require one be formed in the life one was expected to live and more, that one be prepared for the life that God is calling them to live.

Thus, a hermit, for instance, does not move into her hermitage and begin living the silence of solitude on the day of (much less the day after) consecration, nor does she only begin living poorly, celibately, or obediently the day she makes vows. She does not quit her secular job just prior to being professed (even temporary vows!), for instance, or give up all of her everyday secular activities and relationships the day of profession. She must be a hermit with the heart, vision, and habits of a hermit long before being professed or she is NOT professed. Similarly, neither does the Church expect a consecrated virgin to start living a non-secular (or quasi-religious) life the day of her consecration. Quite the contrary is true. For those suggesting consecrated virginity for women living in the world is not a secular vocation I argue instead that the vocation is a secular one not least because the Church consecrates women living entirely secular lives.

There is a corollary here. Some suggest that the secularity of the vocation is doubtful and can only be seen in the superficial or "weak" sense of "not living one's consecration out in a monastery."  They seem to expect the Church to add on extra requirements (the whole  Liturgy of the Hours (LOH), distinctive garb, vows or at least promises of obedience, full time parochial work, etc.) AFTER a woman has been consecrated to the life. But what does this say about the way the vocation has been lived during the past 30 years? What does it say to those women whose vision of mission extends this call into every corridor and corner of human activity in true catholicity? What does it say to scholars who are clear that c 604 represents a recovery of a charismatic way of living both a consecrated and entirely secular life that was lost in the 12th Century but until then existed side by side and in equal dignity with cloistered nuns who were also consecrated virgins?

It suggests that in the past 30 years women living this vocation were all wrong because they were living a clearly secular vocation rather than a quasi-religious one. To be frank, it suggests that the Church was mistaken in trying to recover the secular expression of this vocation and that historians and theologians reflecting on the import of sacred secularity are all wrong. It suggests that c 604 is misguided and rather than having a central place in the new evangelization or in promoting Vatican II's insight that ALL, including those living secular vocations, are called to an exhaustive holiness, this vocation really has no meaningful place at all. (Vocations which are neither fish nor fowl tend to speak to no one radically enough to inspire them.)  It suggests the Rite of Consecration itself was badly written not only because it specifies this is for women living in the world, but because the homily included there is clear that these CV's are given entirely to their brothers and sisters in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world.

Everything the Church says and does with regard to this vocation says it is a secular one, and secular in the fullest sense. From what she writes about its nature and history, to her liturgy of consecration, to the way she implements and governs it she affirms the vocation as secular. It is ALSO and emphatically a consecrated vocation with a charism and special graces the world needs very badly indeed. But the world needs this vocation in order to live its own secularity with sacramental vigor and integrity. If one takes away (or minimizes) either element then one changes the essence of the vocation.

Fortunately, apart from a minority of CV 's who seem to prefer this be a form of quasi-religious life in which they are more visibly set apart from the saeculum by externals, there is no reason to believe the Church's own view of the unabashedly secular nature of this vocation is up for grabs or is otherwise unsettled. In any case, one small  but significant piece of the evidence for this is simply the fact that the Church does not require candidates for consecration under c 604 to cease living secular lives and embrace some form of separation from the world (symbolized by distinctive garb, vows, etc), before (or after) she consecrates them. (The veil is worn during the Rite of Consecration and sometimes again on anniversaries of that day; otherwise the visible and public symbol of the vocation is the CV's ring.)

Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (Reprised and Redacted)

Of all the feasts we celebrate, this Sunday's feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of HIS humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for our's is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it  because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS, and matures into his identity as God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness, and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, today's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus' freely accepts life under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public (and one could cogently argue, a thoroughly secular) vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying to self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self which must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way which subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life-possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely in order that God's love may be exhaustively present and conquer here as well.

Followup to "Radical Secularity?"

[[Dear Sister, yes, that was the piece I read that raised my questions. Thank you. The paragraph you added in the beginning was very helpful in clarifying things for me. But I still wonder about calling this a secular vocation. Aren't CV's required to say the Divine Office? Isn't this a requirement of religious life? How can it also be a requirement of a wholehearted or "thoroughgoing" secular vocation? It seems to me that there is some confusion built right into the vocation itself.]]

There are other posts here from awhile back explaining the secularity of the vocation in more detail so I would sugest you look at those. Check the label "sacred secularity" and that should get you to those. Regarding the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours, yes religious often say it (unless one is ordained this is a matter of proper law rather than canon law --- as canon 663.3 explains). However, the Divine Office is highly recommended for any Christian and some parishes do celebrate Morning and Evening Prayer  (Lauds and Vespers) regularly. Also, some parishes without priests use MP (Morning Prayer) as the framework for a Communion service. Additionally, some who cannot celebrate Office everyday add a sung Vespers to their Sunday services, for instance. While these practices have never caught on with the whole Church, the Divine Office IS the official prayer of the entire Church and is not set apart for Religious alone.

For this reason I would say that this is another of those areas that Consecrated Virgins are called on to model a sacred secularity for all those called to Christian Discipleship. It would be great if CV's could help make Office a regular part of the prayer life in their own parishes or dioceses, for instance. It could be done effectively with just a handful of people (just as it often is in small religious houses) and a simple format. CV's could, conceivably lead the way in finding resources, teaching the Office, etc. (Meanwhile, teaching just Night prayer (Compline) itself, which can easily be prayed alone and needs fewer resources would be a wonderful service to many who would love this particular hour to complete their day.)  I would bet that some Religious who tend to pray Office alone because their ministries demand they live apart from a convent setting, for instance, would join in regularly as well. It would be a great piece of breaking down the artificial boundaries between religious and secular (because prayer is NOT one of the legitimate boundaries) and help transform the life of the parish as well.

Be clear in all of this that secular is not synonymous with profane or irreligious. Every Christian, Secular, Religious, or Eremitical is called on to be a person of prayer. The graces attached to the vocation of consecrated virginity lived in the world make these CV's apostles of a sacred secularity and may in fact be calling them to assist the laity to discover that their own vocations are calls to an exhaustive holiness and prayerfulness. If CV's are truly called to commitments in the things of the Spirit and the things of the world a piece of this will certainly be calling all their brothers and sisters to the life of prayer of the Church in a way which breaks down unnecessary (and often all-too-worldly) boundaries and divisions.

Radical Secularity?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, you disagree that CV's wearing veils, embracing lives which are more like those of religious than not, etc is a more radical form of the CV life for women living in the world. How can secularity be a radical call? Why wouldn't those things indicate a more radical discipleship than secularity?]]

 I am posting a copy of a piece I already wrote, and which you may have seen (it's one of the pieces which was criticized for nitpicking and hairsplitting). The basic idea is that we ALL live a radical discipleship wherever we are called to do that. Radical means at the root; the location is far less important in determining radicality than wholeheartedness or thoroughgoingness. CV's living in the world and called to be apostles in the things of both spirit and world are called to live this radicality in the world, the saeculum. Here is the piece; if it is what raised your questions and so, actually leaves them unanswered, then please get back to me:

Personally, I don't think what is being suggested by those who seek to make c 604 into a quasi-religious vocation is a more radical way of living out consecrated virginity in the world, but instead, a less radical way. Distinctive garb and religious vows for the CV called to secularity are ways of separating oneself from the everyday world in which one is called to live out one's vocation. This is especially true of  religious obedience which frames one's freedom in ways which restrict or mitigate one's secularity, but it is true of religious poverty as well. What seems far more radical to me is living a completely secular life but as a consecrated person; in other words, it is a sacred secularity which one is called to live radically, not a vocation which is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious.

While consecration under c 604 sets one apart FOR and to God, it does NOT set one apart FROM the world. One is not meant to be OF the world in the sense 1 John uses the term so often, of course; instead one is of God and set apart FOR God, but one is absolutely called to live this vocation IN the world and in the things of the world, not in stricter separation from it as religious and hermits are called to. A passage from the homily of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins Living in the World reads: [[Never forget that you are given over entirely to the service of the Church and of all your brothers and sisters. You are apostles in the Church and in the world, in the things of the Spirit and in the things of the world.]] (emphasis added). As I have noted in the past, NO religious has ever been told they are apostles "in the things of the world"!

Vatican II worked very hard to be sure that lay persons understood theirs was not an entry level vocation, not second class, and similarly that the secular world was not to be despised but embraced for its truest potential and transformed into (or allowed to be) the sacrament of God it was made to be. While secularism is not a good thing (this essentially asserts the secular is the ultimate value and reality), the secular itself and thus the ordinary life we call secular, as God reminds us in Genesis, are essentially VERY good and holy indeed. Consecrated virgins living in the world are called upon to live out this truth as exhaustively as possible and summon lay persons to do the same in their own state of life.

I personally can't think of a calling which is more challenging than a radical living out of one's secular vocation in a way which allows the secular to be every bit as sacred as it is meant to be. Religious are separated from aspects of secular life by their vows, and in many cases, by distinctive garb. (The vow of poverty separates them from the economic dimensions of the secular world in some ways, obedience separates them from the world of secular power and influence and, as noted above, asks them to exercise freedom differently, while consecrated celibacy separates them from many of the relationships and social obligations which are part and parcel of secular life.) They are actually prohibited from taking a full part in secular life canonically. CV's consecrated under canon 604 are not only called to take a full part in secular life, but to do so in a way which calls it to become completely and exhaustively the realm of the sovereign God. Theirs is a witness  which is at once radically holy and radically secular. I would argue anything which mitigates or compromises the sharpness of this paradox is actually less radical than the vocation calls for.

[Regarding flexibility vs making of canon 604 something it is not because there are supposed lacunae in the canon itself]: In my own life I am certainly free to discover the shape of contemporary eremitical life as our Church and world needs it. The canon that governs my life itself gives me that right and obligation by demanding a specific combination of non-negotiable elements and the Rule which the hermit herself writes. The Fathers who created this canon allowed for that freedom and flexibility, of course. However, they did not allow me to neglect or compromise the essential nature of either the eremitical or the solitary eremitical vocation in doing so. I am responsible not only for my own vocation, but for the eremitical vocation itself (and more specifically, the solitary eremitical vocation).

Thus, when the Church defines it as one of "stricter separation from the world" and (sometimes) marks that with distinctive garb and a prayer garment (cowl, etc), frames and structures it with vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, defines it more clearly with a prohibition of community life (lauras are different than cenobitical life), and with functional cloister and diocesan stability (diocesan hermits cannot move to another diocese without the permission of both current and receiving Bishops), I cannot simply relinquish all of these and turn it into a secular vocation because I might personally feel called to this in some way or because (rightfully) either a secular or cenobitical religious vocation too seem very good to me. My experimentation and discernment have definite limits because of the solitary eremitical NATURE of my vocation, no matter what the Fathers failed to say in their deliberations on establishing this vocation in the 20th Century. I suggest the same is true of canon 604.

Magic Square

Just for fun. How many squares are included in the above? I got 40. (Do not count the border blogger puts around the picture!!!)