Anchoritism is not only Christian

In my own life I recognize that a hermit has to be open to being called to greater and greater degrees of reclusion as we witness to the truth that God (Love-in-act) is the foundation of the being and meaning of our lives and so too, as we also witness to the fact that communion with God is the one necessary thing. It results in a quies or hesychia which is the singleness and peace of a compassionate heart resting in God. Everything comes down to this; everything else, every other relationship and authentic form of love and active ministry flows from it. In my own Camaldolese tradition we have Nazarena who lived as an anchorite in the Motherhouse (St Anthony's) in Rome in the 20th Century as a model of what this might mean.

Other faith traditions also have anchorites who witness to this same foundational truth;  in this brief clip you catch a glimpse of a Buddhist solitary who lives as anchorites have lived for centuries and centuries. Despite her intense physical solitude, she is dependent upon others bringing her food and providing medical care. She too speaks of everything coming down to one essential reality, a singleness of mind, and of a peace and compassion which flows outward to all creation from this. There is also a strong and natural element of hospitality in her life as she opens her window to these unique guests. Christian monastics, especially Benedictines, would certainly not be surprised by this!

We are not the same, of course, not in our beliefs or even our spiritual praxis but our hearts are similarly formed in the silence of solitude and I would wager they speak to one another in the same language of spiritual maturity --- that of compassion for the whole of creation. Whether formed in the silence of solitude or in some other way I believe this is the heart we are each called to have.

Denying the Uniqueness of the CV vocation lived in the World??

[[Dear Sister, do you think the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is valid? Do you think it is unique or special? Sometimes I wonder if you do because you seem like you would like to take away the thing which makes it special. CV's are Brides of Christ really, not just symbolically like Religious women. They are married, not just engaged. They are consecrated by God, not by themselves making vows as is true for religious and they are consecrated as individuals not as part of a community. I think their uniqueness in these things is a gift to the Church. It is what makes their vocation valid. You seem to deny all this. . . .[repetitive bits omitted]]]

First, thank you for your questions. I do believe the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is a valid vocation and, like all vocations, I believe it has a special place in the Church. In fact, I am coming to believe that it is one of the most significant vocations existing in the Church today. (All vocations are more or less timely.) However, I also sincerely believe that like every vocation in the Church it is a gift only insofar as it is iconic of something all persons are called to in some way. It is charismatic only to the extent it meets needs which other Christians (and non Christians as well) have and yearn to be fulfilled --- and too, only to the extent that the Holy Spirit uses it to meet these needs in some focused way. Vocations are charismatic because they are gifts of God which people receive with joy as a way to God --- and not for themselves alone, but for others!! Two often when CV's or would-be CV's speak in the terms you have, the sense I have is that canon 604 and the consecration it provides for is a gift to the virgins themselves which they seem to expect folks to set up on a shelf and admire as precious and wonderfully wrapped, but not really useful or relevant to the lives of non CV's.

I remember that one CV once responded to a comment I made about the charism of CV's living in the world by essentially saying she would be quite surprised to find the pastoral need for a strongly secular AND consecrated witness to be present, much less relevant to the vocation. (The sticking point here was secularity.) But the simple fact is that determining whether something is charismatic, that is, whether it is a gift of the Holy Spirit or not involves determining whether there is a pastoral need or not.  What makes icons really iconic is not that they can be gazed at like a work of art, but instead that they are capable of drawing others into the world shared by both the icon and the one reading it and empowering them to serve similarly. For that matter, the really beautiful is only beautiful to the degree it grabs hold of and resonates with something shared by the one experiencing it. CV's are icons of a universal vocation and the identity of the Church herself. It should not surprise CV's then that to serve in this way means they must reflect characteristics all Christians share and are called eschatologically to share perfectly while also empowering others to take hold of this vocation with an ultimate seriousness.


It would be refreshing to see CV's writing about virginity and its place in our world, especially in terms of quality of commitments, trivialization of sex, the fraudulent and distorted nature of so much that passes for love today, etc. It would be wonderful to hear CV's speaking of the universal call to spousal union with God and the way in which their own vocations are iconic of this and complementary to the iconographic nature of marriage in this regard. It would be refreshing to hear CV's writing about the maternal nature of their vocations and how their virginity allows this to be lived out in a world  which is often so desperately in need of real maternal figures --- women who set aside their own needs, ambitions, personal prestige, etc for the sake of the life of others. It would be wonderful; to hear CV's writing about their place in the new theologies of secularity and mission which affect the way we see the Church and live out our Christianity. But, in the main, I do not hear that. Instead, the dominant topic is how CV's are Brides of Christ while others (Religious women and men) are not REALLY that or "only symbolically" that, etc.

On the use of the term Symbol:

Well, let's get a couple of things clear theologically and philosophically. First, it is not accurate to contrast symbolically with really. I know that Catholics are used to doing this in regard to Protestant notions of Eucharist but it has been almost 150 years since theologians articulated clearly that Symbols are the way the really real is made present; symbols participate in the reality they symbolize. Symbols are not merely arbitrarily agreed upon signs. They are living realities which are born, have a life span, and eventually die. They are not created by human beings but are instead recognized in the same way we always recognize participation in the transcendent and mysterious. They take hold of us with their power and we surrender to that. Thus, we do not say that something is "merely a symbol" anymore than we say a women is "partly" or "sort of pregnant." With regard to the Eucharist, saying that the bread and wine symbolize the risen and ascended Christ is not to say the species are not REALLY the Christ. Instead it is to say that this is one of the true and powerful expressions of his presence amongst us; it also suggests that it is capable of grasping everyone with its universality. To suggest one person is "only symbolically espoused" to God in Christ whereas another is "really espoused" is theologically and philosophically naive and wrong.

Secondly, to the degree something is made utterly unique (and thus robbed of its universal or symbolic value), that thing becomes more and more irrelevant and incapable of truly speaking to or empowering people. If the only way CV's consecrated under c 604 can take seriously their own consecration is by denying the very real spousal vocation of every person, the more iconic and eschatological espousal of Religious, and so forth, they ought not be surprised when people respond to the statement, "I am a Bride of Christ" with looks of incomprehension or shrugs amounting to a "so what?" attitude which is an appropriate comment on the irrelevance of the vocation. My own immediate (and entirely tacit) response to most of the writing I see by CV's (I know a couple of CV bloggers whose work is quite fine) is ordinarily a combination of "So what?" and "Oh, get over yourself!" My secondary response is something like, "No wonder people in the Church generally say this vocation makes no sense, is too precious, or simply lacks relevancy!! When will you say something about what this vocation means for the rest of us? For our world in need? For the Church's decision to renew it now when she is recovering a sense of the importance of the secular, the universal call to holiness, and the nature of the Church as missionary?"

Watch out for Assertions Which Absolutize Uniqueness!

I am not denying the need to reflect on the vocation, of course. But part of this reflection means looking carefully and prayerfully at the theological underpinnings of the call and at what the Church and the Holy Spirit are doing in renewing (or reprising) it now. It means adopting a necessary humility in regard to the vocation's specialness and uniqueness and appreciating that these MUST serve others and lead them to understand the similarity of call and dignity which they share. Vocations are never absolutely unique; instead they are like facets on a gem where each is both unique and yet possesses and underscores a similarity to and identity with the others while thus contributing to the overall beauty of the gem. Each facet catches and reflects the light differently at different times and places but they do so without depriving other facets of the same characteristics. In fact, a gem where one facet was utterly unique would be a seriously flawed gem. It might be worth something as a curiosity but not as a work of art with balance, complex inner relatedness, or complementarity and harmony.

I would thus disagree with your assertion that it is the uniqueness of the vocation which makes it valid. It is the Holy Spirit's impulse and the Church's discernment of the vocation's pastoral significance which make it valid. For instance, even with the eremitical vocation it is not enough to have the sense that some few individuals are perhaps inspired to this way of living by the Spirit. There must also be a sense that this call serves the Church and world in some significant pastoral way. Even the Desert Fathers and Mothers reflected a profoundly pastoral sense in withdrawing to the desert. Certainly it served their own personal holiness, but it also had a strongly prophetic quality which said to the Church:"You are too strongly allied with the world. You are called to be counter cultural! Leave this behind!!"

Today, in a world which is often too individualistic the strongly pastoral nature of the eremitical call to "the silence of solitude" and a life "lived for the salvation of others" is undoubted if ironic -- or if paradoxically expressed. I think there is no doubt that hermits say to everyone, "You too are called to this foundational relationship with God; this union or covenant with God is who you are most fundamentally. You too need silence and solitude; you too need less "friending" and a focus on true friendships instead." Consecrated Virgins, especially those living out their consecration in the world and in the things of the world as well as in and of the spirit and things of the spirit, will find the vocation's validity not only in its uniqueness but in its ability to call for its commonalities with others. Most often in Christianity it is the latter quality which makes something really special!

Regarding your other assertions about Religious, the way they are consecrated, supposed engagement vs marriage, etc, I have already responded to these notions several times and refer you to other posts which discuss the nature of religious profession, consecration, and espousal. If those raise questions for you or you disagree in some substantive way, please write again and I will be more than happy to respond.

On Developing a Spirituality of Discernment

Occasionally the daily lections can surprise us with their relevance. I found that happening recently. Two weeks ago the readings were, in one way and another, about being discerning people who open our entire selves to the Word and will of God in our lives. In some ways what was given to us was a spirituality of discernment, that is, a spirituality which takes seriously the first word of the Benedictine Rule, "LISTEN!" or, more fundamentally, the identity of Christ as the One who was defined as obedient (that is, whose mind and heart were open and responsive to God) unto death, even death on a cross. In other words discernment is a process undertaken by one who listens with the whole of themselves to the whole of reality for the Word and will of God present and active there. A spirituality of discernment is a spirituality permeated by this same process, a spirituality of which attentive listening and responsiveness  (hearkening) is the very heart and soul.

The Challenge of Discernment: Moving through the Second Week of Christmas

Throughout the week we moved from discerning good from evil, light from dark and that which was of Christ versus that which was anti-Christ, through the challenge of discerning more ambiguous reality, and finally, to the difficulty of an even more demanding spirituality of discernment when we are asked to choose between goods. The author of 1 John sees discernment as the core and foundation of all authentic discipleship. On Monday the first lection was about "testing the spirits." 1 John saw all of reality as either of Christ or of the antiChrist and he asked us to choose Christ in everything. Our own world is less literally but no less really inhabited by such "spirits" and it is certainly no less demanding of this discernment. We are asked to pay attention with and to our entire selves --- to our feelings, emotions, bodily sensations, our dreams, imaginations, thoughts, etc, and to choose that which is God's will. This requires practice, time, and effort. It means we work at developing the skills associated with such active listening in every situation in which we find ourselves so that we can hear the Word or will of God and act on it.


On Tuesday the author of 1 John continued his exploration of this spirituality of discernment by defining for us what real love is. Interestingly he is clear that before love involves us in preaching, teaching, healing the sick, feeding the hungry or otherwise ministering to the poor it means receiving the love of God. In other words we must first of all be persons who have allowed God to love us with an everlasting and entirely selfless love before we go out to the world around us and try to love others.

Our world is marked and marred by all kinds of fraudulent and distorted forms of love. We have each been touched by these and we often continue the cycle in ways we are not even aware of  -- but which surely need to be redeemed: children who have never felt loved and have children to fill the hole while those children too are often inadequately loved, those who have been wounded by what passed for love in their families, those sold into modern slavery by human traffickers, sex billed as love, and so forth --- all of these and so many more are prevalent today. Someone must break this cycle of fraudulent and inauthentic love and we Christians believe that Christ, the preeminent "receiver" and transparent mediator of God's love has done that. Only those who know THIS love and have been made into new creations by it are truly capable of ministering to others. Breaking the cycle of fraudulent  and distorted love in Christ is precisely what disciples of Christ are called to do --- but first of all, both foundationally and temporally, we do so as receivers of God's love in Christ.

On Wednesday the author of 1 John continued his exploration of the nature of love and the demands of discernment. He reminded us that we are to abide or remain in God and explains that love casts out fear. Here he provided us with one criterion of discernment but he also prepared us for engaging in genuine ministry. How do we know the cycle of fraudulent love has been broken in us? Love casts out fear. If we abide in God his love makes us capable of giving our lives for others without hedging our bets or compromising our gift out of concern for ourselves. It makes us compassionate and generous because we are secure in God's love and fearless in these things. Others come first, no matter how wounded or contagious, no matter how needy or broken. We are ready for ministry if we are first of all people who receive the Love of God as the utterly trustworthy foundation of our lives --- and do so on an ongoing basis. Otherwise, our ministry will be unwise or imprudent, presumptuous, and perhaps even dangerous to those who need this love so badly today.

Friday's Climax: Jesus shows us a spirituality of discernment

And then on Friday the Gospel gives us a portrait of Jesus in which all this comes together in a vivid and unforget-table way. Jesus heals a leper. In a world which was terrified of the contagion of illness and evil, a world which characterized everything from mold on the sheets to actual Hanson's disease as "leprosy" and then called it all unclean and unworthy of human and divine contact, Jesus reached out his hand and touched a man suffering from leprosy and made him whole in body, mind, spirit, and in his relation to others. He restored the man to physical health and to his rightful place in his family, in his relation to God and right to worship, and with his People. More, this healing lessened the fearfulness of the world as a whole for those who had hardened their own hearts in order to accomplish and deal with the ostracism of this man. It is a wonderful story in every way.

But the lection did not end here, nor with Jesus staying around to heal those who thronged to him upon hearing of his healing of the leper. Instead Jesus withdraws to the desert to pray; despite the unquestionable need of the multitude for his healing touch and the undoubted good of remaining to minister in this way, he returns in a solitary way to the foundation of his life --- the God who is the source of his life, his compassion, and his authority to heal --- the God whom he loves in the same way he himself is loved first. There are three reasons for this I think.

First, as important as individual healings are, Jesus' mission is different than this; it is deeper and more far-reaching or extensive as well. Jesus' real mission is the healing and freeing of reality itself --- the whole of reality. He is called to reconcile all things to God and bring all things to fullness in him. This will only be accomplished by remaining obedient (open and responsive) to God even to the depth and breadth of a godlessness which permeates and distorts reality --- not by individual healings even if these number in the hundreds of thousands -- indeed, even if they included every person that  ever existed. Reality itself is estranged from God and falls short of what it is meant to be in God; the illnesses with which Jesus is confronted  in us are merely symptoms of a more profound disorder and incompleteness. Jesus' mission is twofold, 1) to deal effectively with the actual disease, not merely with its symptoms, and 2) he is called and commissioned to bring all of creation to its fullest potential in God. (Had there been no sin, Jesus' call would still have involved this second prong of his mission.)

Secondly, Jesus reminds us of John's lesson at the beginning of the week: [[this is love: that you receive the Love of God. . .]] While every homily I have heard on this lection refers to Jesus taking "time out" to pray in order to recharge his spiritual batteries and draws the lesson that ministers need to do similarly, I am convinced that true as this is, it is not precisely what the lection is getting at. That is especially true given the context in which we heard it two weeks ago when it was coupled with a series of readings from 1 John. Instead, focusing on Jesus' withdrawal to pray reminds us that more fundamentally ministry must always flow from contemplation. This is the dynamic of Dominican spirituality,  the way in which the Camaldolese especially but all Benedictines experience their call to a Gospel-centered life requiring serious silence and solitude. It is the way St Francis of Assisi and Clare experienced their own vocations and lived out their calls to evangelical poverty and today it is the explicit standard of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious). Authentic ministers of the Gospel are always those who receive God's love, live from and mediate it. As with Jesus this is primary both foundationally and temporally.

Thirdly, Jesus shows us clearly that what we rightly discerned to be good and the will of God yesterday might not be the good we are called to today. It is not enough to be people who can discern good from evil or even the less authentic and more ambiguous from the more authentic; we must also be people who can and do discern the specific good we are called to at this specific point in time. This discernment is much harder than determining or choosing good from evil. Our most difficult choices are always between what is good and what is (perhaps) better today in this new situation. For this reason, discernment must be a way of life for us  because the will of God comes to us freshly at every moment and in every new circumstance.

The relevance of all this:

As a hermit my greatest difficulty in discernment comes in determining when to say yes and when to say no to opportunities for active ministry. At first I thought this was a difficulty that would go away in time. (Maybe I just needed practice I thought!) Later I came to see it was something that would always be with me; I simply hoped discerning would become easier and be needed less frequently. But now I realize that this tension is not only going to be present for some time, but that it calls for me to see discernment not as a process I only pull out occasionally to resolve problems or make big decisions but instead as the very basis of any Christian spirituality. As I read this week in a talk by Richard Gaillardetz (Ecclesiologist), Pope Francis speaks of a "spirituality of discernment" --- which is probably typically Jesuitical of him, but also of course, profoundly Christian. I have come to see that Paul's statement about Jesus' obedience unto death could also be translated as a corollary (or its presupposition!): Jesus was discerning in all things even unto death, death on a cross.

Moreover of course, I find a lot of reassurance in what 1 John says about the nature of love: it is first of all about receiving God (Love-in-act) in our lives and only secondarily about active ministry. As contemplatives know, the command that we abide in God, that we remain in the love which is God, is the heart of our own vocations and the heart of all truly Christian life. Often the choice I have to make between active ministry and withdrawal (anachoresis) will mean withdrawal; of course that is hardly surprising. After all, this is the overarching reality and context I am called to by God and the Church, just as it is the call I have publicly (canonically) committed to for the sake of others. Thus, when the choice presents itself,  I may well have to say no to active ministry, not because it is an evil (it emphatically is not that!), but because I am called in a fundamental way to something else first.  Thus, I MUST repeatedly discern my response anew, for what was good and the will of God yesterday may be less good than the alternative and not the will of God today.

This choice will not disappear from my life anytime soon --- and that is not at all a bad thing --- for not only does it indicate new opportunities for serving God and loving others continue to come my way; it also means I must continue to develop a spirituality of discernment which itself is essentially contemplative and solitary in the best sense. The presence of this choice as part of the constant dynamic of the vowed hermit who belongs integrally to a parish and diocese  further establishes the diocesan eremitical life as one of fundamental importance in the Church. In fact, we hermits especially embody the Gospel lection from two Friday's ago in a way which witnesses to the lesson it holds for every Christian. Namely, good and imperative as active ministry is, something more fundamental in our world needs healing and that, even for those living primarily ministerial lives, requires and is truly empowered only by the habit and foundation of obedient withdrawal in prayer.

Followup Questions: On the Supposed Difference Between the Espousal of Religious and Consecrated Virgins

[[Dear Sister, if both religious and consecrated virgins are called to a similar espousal with God, then why are some nuns consecrated as virgins and some not? This seems to argue that there is something different in these two vocations. Why would nuns also want to accept the consecration of virgins if they are already espoused to God as Brides of Christ? Since some Sisters eschew the identity of "Bride of Christ" doesn't this also suggest they are not Brides in the same sense as CV's consecrated under c 604?]]

Thanks for your questions. I think the question of why we continue using the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for nuns is a really thorny one today. It will take some real thinking to deal with the problems it creates as well as the good it represents. However, I don't think it allows us to conclude there is necessarily any conflict nor substantive difference here. Remember that the Church specifies that for a nun eventually ALSO receiving the consecration of virginity after solemn profession --- even some limited time (e.g., several days or weeks) after the rite of profession --- the symbols of espousal usually given at solemn profession along with the solemn prayer of consecration are withheld until the Rite of consecration of virginity. The idea here is that these are not substantively different consecrations and therefore they are not to be repeated. (If profession of vows were merely an "engagement" and consecration of virginity represented the actual marriage as some CV's naively and erroneously argue, then this specific withholding of ring and solemn prayer of consecration would not make much sense. Similarly if profession were the way in which someone consecrates herself while in the Rite of consecration of Virgins it is God doing the consecrating --- as some CV's also sometimes argue erroneously --- then this division would not make much sense either.)

Why do Some Nuns use the Rite and others do not?

Some religious do not receive the consecration because their congregations are not permitted to use the Rite.  (The use of the rite by Religious is restricted to Carthusians and maybe one of two other congregations of cloistered nuns.) Cloistered communities that are allowed to use the Rite may consist of women who were once married as well as virgins but only the virgins among them might receive this consecration; these congregations may also have  nuns whose prayer lives are explicitly nuptial and who wish to formalize that through the Rite. My own impression is that this could be done through the readings, imagery, prayer, and homilies associated with solemn profession and consecration (profession is the dedication piece of things; it is accompanied by a solemn prayer of consecration) --- especially if the house is only professing one or two nuns; with a larger group the chances of needing to accommodate differences in prayer lives and personal sense of mission increases. Though I appreciate that these congregations have kept alive a form of ancient vocation which is traditionally very significant and while they also serve today to remind CV's consecrated under canon 604 that their own vocation by way of contrast is a call to a renewed form of secularity, I don't think we can argue that the Rite of consecration of virgins used for nuns marks the nun as someone called to a different consecration than her Sisters who do not use the Rite. And yet, some CV's seem to believe this is exactly what it suggests.

For me this uneven practice within houses of nuns actually raises the question of the appropriateness and fruitfulness of continuing to use the Rite of Consecration of Virgins for nuns who are solemnly vowed and whose rite of  definitive profession already includes a solemn prayer of consecration and Bridal significance, imagery, and insigniae. This is especially true since the earliest consecrated virgins did not have to be physically intact, but were women who had given themselves wholly to Christ and were therefore considered "virgins" and more, consecrated virgins. Today we really do need consecrated virgins to whole-heartedly accept their own call to an eschatological secularity and it occurs to me that too often the existence of nuns who add the Rite of consecration of virgins to their own solemn profession (minus its usual solemn prayer of consecration) diminishes the sense that secularity is an appropriate form of espousal to Christ. This is also true because these nuns became the group that eventually completely co-opted the use of the Rite among those living secular lives and led to an end of the secular expression. Certainly it can lead to the idea that religious life is tiered and that some are made to experience Christ's love more intimately than others because they are "chosen" by God to be consecrated in a way substantially different from their Sisters (and Brothers!). We have to be cautious of any interpretation of the use of the rite of consecration of virgins which leads in this direction.

Because of the tendency by some today to treat the consecration of religious and that of CV's as being of different weights or degrees, a further piece of my answer to your questions comes from a consideration of the fact that the French Bishops have made it clear that hermits being consecrated under canon 603, for instance, should not add the consecration of canon 604 to this. They have noted that each consecration is complete in itself. One does not add anything by adding the consecration of virgins to consecration under canon 603. Dioceses in the US have adopted this policy (i.e., today we do not see canon 603 professions and consecrations of diocesan hermits accompanied, much less "completed" with consecrations  of virginity under canon 604) and it seems that canonists generally tend to find it a wise policy.  Were one consecration so different in character from the other that the other could be added (for instance if one were  "constitutive" and one was not), or if one were a fuller or more complete form of the first, none of this would make sense.

Religious Eschewing the Designation Bride of Christ

Meanwhile contemporary Religious who have shunned the identification, "Brides of Christ" have done so for several legitimate reasons. The most important one is that the identification was used in an elitist sense and also one which stripped or tended to strip it of its eschatological meaning. It was seen as indicating marriage in an incredible and mainly "this-worldly" sense by many; at the same time ONLY religious associated this imagery or vocation with themselves --- married people, for instance, though they should have seen themselves as imaging the ecclesial call to espousal to Christ as well, did not. Single persons had no sense at all of being participants in this eschatological call by virtue of their baptism. In general the Church per se was not easily seen as the Bride of Christ with, for instance, religious and married people serving as related but differing icons of this identity.

Further, many Sisters' prayer lives were not similar to those of persons with mystical experiences of union with God. This, coupled with an exaggerated emphasis on religious as Brides of Christ, led to unnecessary self-criticism of their own prayer lives, and unwarranted doubt about the quality of their own vocations; in short, it was destructive. Finally, most Sisters today find the Bride of Christ imagery less helpful than imagery of Sisters or Brothers who identified with everyone and  resonated with imagery that spoke clearly of their availability to all as well as to the universal call to holiness so very important to Vatican II. None of this detracts from or obviates the espousal of religious to Christ, but it does remind us that the reality of espousal can be lived and witnessed to in various ways -- some less legitimate or edifying than others. Especially it reminds us that espousal is not elitist. It is not primarily about the one who is espoused but rather it is about the One who loves them with an everlasting love just as it is about the person's commissioning to bring others to imagine and accept their own call to a union with God which is also spousal. If someone feels the need to proclaim they are "a Bride of Christ" in a way which is elitist and does not open others to accept a share in espousal with Christ, then perhaps the need they are evidencing is too-self-centered  --- too exclusively this-worldly and not sufficiently theological, ecclesial, or eschatological.

Patterns of Exclusion and Elitism

At the present time some in the Church are over-emphasizing the Bridegroom imagery of priesthood in a literal way which requires male gender and mandatory celibacy. (Advocates of this over-emphasis seem to forget that the Church, both Roman and Eastern, also has married priests today and has historically had at least women deacons. They also seem to be forgetting that in baptism we all become Brides to the Bridegroom even as we all image  the risen Christ.) This has led, I believe, to an unfortunate correlative emphasis on Consecrated virgins as the female counterpart to male clergy and even more especially to the Bishop.

Unfortunately, in order to argue this position, advocates have to omit the fact that both male and female religious have been considered Brides of the Bridegroom throughout the entire history of the Church; they must tacitly deny the early history of the Church that defined virginity in terms of giving one's whole self to God in Christ and included both women and men (usually called ascetics); as a consequence they have also embraced a notion of consecrated virginity that focuses on females and physical intactness only. Finally, they are now stripping the eschatological dimension from the symbol Bride of Christ when used for individuals thus turning it into a too-this-worldly marriage. All of this seems to me to  involve neglecting the fact that the Church as a whole, male AND female, married AND celibate, is the Bride while the Bridegroom is the risen and ascended Christ, that is the Christ whose eschatological identity is therefore more cosmic and less culturally derived or merely historically defined.

This pattern, of course, reprises several of the valid reasons contemporary religious have shunned the designation, "Bride of Christ" in the past 50-60 years or so. It should be clear that they did not do so because they are not espoused to Christ in the same way that CV's consecrated under canon 604 or cloistered nuns receiving the consecration are. Both are espoused (and both represent the espousal we are all ultimately called to), one group as religious, whether cloistered or ministerial) and the other as consecrated secular persons. In this way they once again reflect the same two forms of the vocation that existed side by side until the 11th century.

Do You Get Christmas Presents?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I don't think I could ever be a hermit. I like people and I like to talk too much! Is the silence and being alone all the time hard for you? What about during holidays? I guess you don't visit with your family or spend the holidays like most of us do. Do you get Christmas presents? Do you have Christmas dinner? I am in fifth grade. Thank you for answering my questions.]]

Hi there and thanks for your questions. I don't get a lot of them from students your age so it is terrific you decided to write. You know I also like people and I like to talk but it is true that I am an introvert. By that I mean that I am a person whose energy comes from quiet activities done alone more than from being with other people. I enjoy being with other people but it also tires me out and I need time alone to kind of recharge my "inner batteries." (The other kind of person is someone we call an extrovert, and they get their energy from being with people and even from partying; spending too much time alone is what leaves them feeling kind of wiped out or "needing others".) I know we think of hermits as never seeing other people, but I see friends at Mass sometimes during the week and on Sundays, and I also get together with one friend (a Dominican Sister) for coffee many Sundays after Mass. Christmas is a little different too. This last weekend I went to the De Young Museum in SF and saw an art exhibit with two friends (one was visiting her mom from Germany and was leaving the next day);  the weekend before Christmas I went to a Christmas concert (Chanticleer) in San Francisco with my pastor. But you are right that I spend most of my time during holidays alone with God and in silence in my hermitage.

Like many Catholics and other Christians I spend some of the holiday time in Church --- more than usual anyway since the hermitage is like a "little church". I usually go to Mass late on Christmas Eve and again on Christmas morning. Apart from this Christmas is like most other days though. I pray several times a day; I do some studying and reading as usual and usually do some writing. I may also watch a movie on Netflix though or do something else I don't usually do. This year, as I mentioned, that meant a trip to the museum a couple of days after Christmas itself and it will also mean that I may go to the theater and see a movie like The Hobbit II or The Book Thief or Philomena with a friend. (I'm still deciding which movie that will be!) Christmas dinner is something I don't do anything very special for. Here in the hermitage all meals are supposed to be special (they remind us of Eucharist and are a time with God) so I do try to pay extra attention to the truth of that on significant feasts like Christmas or Easter. My family does not live near here so, unfortunately, we do not get together for Christmas.

Still, I am not lonely during Christmas as some people think I must be. I think that is part of what you are asking when you wonder if the silence and solitude are hard during holidays. Remember that I am called  by God through his Church to live this vocation and that God does not call us to something which makes us unhappy. Not only is God here with me in everything, but I have the sense that I am meant to be living this. I sometimes think that one of the things which makes people lonely during the holidays is the thought that others are enjoying time with family and friends so somehow being alone --- even if one chooses it --- is not okay. They feel left out and even unloved; sometimes they may even think that having no place to go during Christmas is a sign there is no purpose to their lives or that they have failed as human beings.

But you see I know that I live alone (with God!) for an important reason. My life says to others (at least I really hope it does!) that even if we are alone God is there too and that changes everything. Our relationship with God is part of being truly human; in fact, it is the thing which makes us truly human. Because of that witnessing to this relationship is a very important mission for any human being. More, I know that God loves me without limit and that my answering that love with my own self truly delights God --- just like your being present with your family delights them.  For these reasons the time I spend in solitude is not hard for me. If I were always thinking things like, "I should be with family" or "I should not be alone; it's not right," then I might make myself feel really empty and miserable. Instead I celebrate what Christmas is all about with the One who made it possible 2000 years ago and who makes it real now in my own life too --- just as I am called to do.

Do I get Christmas presents? Yes, in fact I do --- though I think my life is the greatest present I could be given; it and the people in it are the things I celebrate on a feast where God reveals himself in all of our stories as someone who brings life out of barrenness (like he did with Elizabeth) or where God makes people who have been frightened, grieving, or were mute into people whose lives are songs of great meaning and joy (like we hear about Zechariah or Mary)! But do I also get Christmas presents in the sense you mean? Yes. Those come from friends, family, and even from my parish or organizations in the parish.

One of these this year is a card entitling me to a movie and lunch with a friend --- which is why I am thinking about movies I might like to see. (The year before last I saw three movies and last year I might have seen one (I can't remember when I went to see the Life of Pi.). It looks like this year I will see at least two!) I also got several new books I haven't read (one, which I had on my wish list for some time, was left in the sacristy for me from "Santa"); I was also given a gift certificate for Amazon along with various treats like gingerbread, cookies, etc. One friend even got me several new shirts (2 white and 2 black!) because those are something I can always use; another good friend gave me two beautiful dark blue ceramic cups with Bible quotes etched around the center!  One says, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life" and the other one says, "When I am afraid, I will trust in You." (I'll try to add a picture of these in the next couple of days. They are really special.) Next week I will have dinner here with my delegate (someone who serves me and my diocese to help make sure I live my life well) and we will celebrate Christmas too (we will use the ceramic cups for coffee or tea!). So, yes, I get Christmas presents and I even give a few too!

I hope I have answered your questions. Please feel free to write again if you have other questions or if I was not very clear about something. It is refreshing to hear from a fifth grader! Have a terrific Christmas season and a happy New Year too. All my best.

Happy New Year!

[[The Japanese have a centuries old ritual Waraiko they use to greet a new year and to celebrate birthdays. The ritual consists of giving three hearty belly laughs! The first robust laugh is of gratitude for the previous year just ended. The second hearty laugh is in gratitude for being given a new year of life to enjoy. The third is a really full-bodied belly laugh, since it is to blow the dust off your mind, heart, and soul? Dust? The dust of habit and routine that slowly accumulates like all dust, causing the soul to lose the luster of its youthful vitality.]] by Edward Hay, Chasing Joy

We believe that because he is eternal and living our God is the ground and source of genuine newness. We believe that he is a God who transfigures all of reality into something hope-filled and meaningful. We believe that in Christ we can cooperate with God in his creative and redemptive activity as he brings about a world where heaven and earth profoundly interpenetrate one another and God is all in all. On this holiday, as so many make lists of goals and resolutions for the New Year, may each of us recommit ourselves to a time in which God's own projects in us and in all we know and love may be brought to fulfillment. All good wishes for a wonderful year!

God directs the Course

Dear Sister, would you agree with what this lay hermit says about eremitical life? [[. . .  Hermit life is more than what one can describe or formulate. God directs the course, not the hermit nor any other. Some may remain in the mode of judging and criticizing, or setting forth how a hermit is, ought, should be or not. Only God knows; only God does. . . . .]]

Of course. In general I find the first statement to be true of any vocation. What the Church and theologians or those living various vocations describe are the general rudiments of something that is authentic and that the Church recognizes as such because it is modeled by many in her own tradition --- not least, in regard to the eremitical vocation, by John the Baptist and Jesus. I think it is always implicit (if not stated explicitly at many points along the way) that there is always an inner depth and breadth in every vocation which, because it is of God, cannot be completely comprehended by finite man nor adequately described. When we are speaking of contemplative vocations and especially of an eremitical vocation where the heart of the call is the life of one person with God alone I think this is even truer. There is a core which can never be completely charted or described, even, perhaps especially, by the hermit herself.

However, this does not mean that the rudiments cannot be described, nor the authenticity of the vocation determined by those who are knowledgeable and discerning. Today the Church deals with a number of aspirants to canon 603 life. Very few reach the point of being accepted for profession; the reasons for this are, in the main, good ones having to do with lack of formation or other preparation (by far the biggest issue), inadequate motivation, selfishness and individualism, unhealthy withdrawal from others, or other signs that the person does not grow in human wholeness or authentic holiness in a life of eremitical solitude. In other words, the inner core of the life leads to overt and unmistakable signs that the vocation is authentic and without these signs one can only conclude there is no vocation. Most of the time the Church requires that one live as a lay hermit for some years so that she may determine whether the person is progressing in her life with God in solitude. She is watching for the signs of growth in authentic love and holiness and generally she is mindful of the time this takes to become evident or discernible. The Church is charged by God with the mission of overseeing this vocation and keeping her finger on its pulse of both lay and consecrated hermits. Both can instruct the Church in this even as they must allow themselves to be instructed by the Church.

If the final comments you have cited mean that the vocation is between the hermit and God alone and no one else can judge or better, discern, the authenticity of the vocation, or if it means that one can live any isolated way at all and call that eremitical solitude, then I would disagree. Within the Church no vocation is between the person and God alone --- though ultimately they are between God and the person, of course. Every life lived in the Church, however, affects the Body of Christ itself and witnesses to others regarding the Gospel of God in Christ. Every life lived within the Church is lived for others and is shaped by an awareness of others and their needs --- something which is critically true of the hermit. No authentic eremitical vocation can ever forget that it is lived in and from and for the community of faith. This is especially true of ecclesial vocations but not only of them.

Throughout the history of eremitical life hermits desiring to do justice to God's own will and working in this matter have established criteria for discerning authentic expressions of the vocation. When the Church changed her requirements (and her theology) regarding frequency of reception of the Sacraments hermits like Paul Giustiniani decided solitary hermits living apart from the Church and her Sacraments were no longer legitimate expressions of the life. (Giustiniani decided lauras were by far the best solution for those desiring to live as hermits. St Francis came up with a different solution.) They did this as a matter of discernment, not arbitrary rule-making. Individual hermits back as far as the Desert Fathers and Mothers have been granted or deprived of the habit on the basis of the ways they are discerned to live their lives. Canon 603 today allows for solitary hermits once again and demonstrates a remarkable balance between non-negotiable elements and individual freedom; meanwhile dioceses work to discern authentic vocations which distinguish eremitical solitude from the many forms of life in isolation or physical solitude so common today.

It has really always been necessary to do this; the alternative is to carelessly allow anything at all to be called eremitical and completely empty the term of meaning. That would actually be a betrayal of the gift the Holy Spirit is bestowing on the Church and world in this vocation. It would, in other words, be a way of refusing to let God "direct the course" as the writer you cited put the matter precisely because it had ceased to be discerning.

God With Us: Everyday God

A few portraits of Emmanuel, the God revealed in the Christ Event. Music is by Bernadette Farrell. I am using this by returning to it at various points during the day or before bed as a period of prayer or preparation for other prayer and find it is very effective for this.

Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors (Luke 2:14)
Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the world, Happy Christmas!

I take up the song of the angels who appeared to the shepherds in Bethlehem on the night when Jesus was born. It is a song which unites heaven and earth, giving praise and glory to heaven, and the promise of peace to earth and all its people.

I ask everyone to share in this song: it is a song for every man or woman who keeps watch through the night, who hopes for a better world, who cares for others while humbly seeking to do his or her duty.

Glory to God!

Above all else, this is what Christmas bids us to do: give glory to God, for he is good, he is fait hful, he is merciful. Today I voice my hope that everyone will come to know the true face of God, the Father who has given us Jesus. My hope is that everyone will feel God's closeness, live in his presence, love him and adore him.

May each of us give glory to God above all by our lives, by lives spent for love of him and of all our brothers and sisters.

Peace to mankind.

True peace is not a balance of opposing forces. It is not a lovely "façade" which conceals conflicts and divisions. Peace calls for daily commitment, starting from God's gift, from the grace which he has given us in Jesus Christ.

Looking at the Child in the manger, our thoughts turn to those children who are the most vulnerable victims of wars, but we think too of the elderly, to battered women, to the sick. Wars shatter and hurt so many lives!

Too many lives have been shattered in recent times by the conflict in Syria, fueling hatred and vengeance. Let us continue to ask the Lo r d to spare the beloved Syrian people further suffering, and to enable the parties in conflict to put an end to all violence and guarantee access to humanitarian aid. We have seen how powerful prayer is! And I am happy today too, that the followers of different religious confessions are joining us in our prayer for peace in Syria. Let us never lose the courage of prayer! The courage to say: Lord, grant your peace to Syria and to the whole world.

Grant peace to the Central African Republic, often forgotten and overlooked. Yet you, Lord, forget no one! And you also want to bring peace to that land, torn apart by a spiral of violence and poverty, where so many people are homeless, lacking water, food and the bare necessities of life. Foster social harmony in South Sudan, where current tensions have already caused numerous victims and are threatening peaceful coexistence in that young state.

Prince of Peace, in every place turn hearts aside from violence and inspire t h em to lay down arms and undertake the path of dialogue. Look upon Nigeria, rent by constant attacks which do not spare the innocent and defenseless. Bless the land where you chose to come into the world, and grant a favorable outcome to the peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Heal the wounds of the beloved country of Iraq, once more struck by frequent acts of violence.

Lord of life, protect all who are persecuted for your name. Grant hope and consolation to the displaced and refugees, especially in the Horn of Africa and in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Grant that migrants in search of a dignified life may find acceptance and assistance. May tragedies like those we have witnessed this year, with so many deaths at Lampedusa, never occur again!

Child of Bethlehem, touch the hearts of all those engaged in human trafficking, that they may realize the gravity of this crime against humanity. Look upon the many children who are kidnapped, wounded and killed in armed conflicts, and all those who are robbed of their childhood and forced to become soldiers.

Lord of heaven and earth, look upon our planet, frequently exploited by human greed and rapacity. Help and protect all the victims of natural disasters, especially the beloved people of the Philippines, gravely affected by the recent typhoon.

Dear brothers and sisters, today, in this world, in this humanity, is born the Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Let us pause before the Child of Bethlehem. Let us allow our hearts to be touched, let us allow ourselves to be warmed by the tenderness of God; we need his caress. God is full of love: to him be praise and glory forever! God is peace: let us ask him to help us to be peacemakers each day, in our life, in our families, in our cities and nations, in the whole world. Let us allow ourselves to be moved by God's goodness.

Merry Christmas!

My warmest greetings on what we Christians believe is a feast awaited and celebrated by the whole of creation. The Love that is the source of the cosmos comes to us today as One who will share completely in our condition that we too might fully share in Love's own life. We stand at the beginning of the life of Jesus who, through all of his choices for his Father --- and so, for us --- will become the exhaustive incarnation of the Word of God in human flesh. May this year bring us each closer to being the incarnation of the Word of God we are each called to be through our participation in this Christ Event. As Jesus was called to truly be the counterpart God sought for eons and eons, on this feast of his Nativity may we too renew our own commitments to be those who have a share Jesus' own vocation.

Consecrated Virgins vs Religious: Which are Espoused to Christ?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, a CV has written that in [in contrast to] the Rite of Religious Profession, consecrated virgins have a spousal mission. She also writes, [[Con-trasted to the mission of the religious to live a religious life according to vowed evangelical counsels and separation from the world, the consecrated virgin's mission is to serve the Church primarily as Virgin, Bride, and Mother]] and then [[It should be noted that the Rite of Profession of Religious emphasizes the evangelical counsels and communal lifestyle and barely touches upon a Bridal or nuptial theme whereas the Rite of Consecration to a life of Virginity does not reference the evangelical counsels at all except virginity and the emphasis is entirely upon the themes of virginal espousals and motherhood.]] Does this support the idea that CV's under c 604 are Brides of Christ but Religious are not? Why would this CV make such an argument?]]

Well, I don't know the conclusions drawn from these comments by the person you are citing, but in and of themselves, these comments do not support that idea, no. Does this writer actually argue this explicitly? The conclusions they do support are part of the position I have put forth before, namely, Religious and CV's are similarly consecrated by God and espoused to Christ but they live this reality out differently in most cases due to differences in context, charism, mission, etc. Most fundamentally, one group lives it out as consecrated religious and the other as consecrated secular persons.  Beyond that, one group (ministerial religious) ordinarily lives it out implicitly while the other group (CV's living in the world) do so, and are meant to do so, explicitly. (Cloistered religious may do so more explicitly and some apostolic religious also legitimately feel called to do so.)

The profession  of evangelical counsels effectively separates persons from or significantly qualifies their relationship to the world in fundamental areas (i.e., those of economics, power, and relationships). These religious may or may not be called to witness primarily to espousal per se; instead they may be called to live out this espousal in ways which make something else more directly the gift they bring to the Church and world. For instance, the Sisters of Mercy are consecrated Religious, espoused to God, etc,  but the charism they specifically bring to Church and world is the gift of ministering Christ's mercy to the poor, marginalized and ignorant with a special vow for that. Espousal to God in Christ in an underlying and foundational reality which is usually left implicit in this as they act as spiritual mothers and sisters to the world of the marginalized and poor. In other words, for ministerial religious, their commitment to others often tends to move espousal per se to the background even as it moves the resulting gifts associated with spiritual motherhood and sisterhood to the fore. The gifts and graces of spiritual motherhood and sisterhood however, stem from their espousal/consecration which is itself a specification of their baptism.

CV's on the other hand are called upon to live out their espousal explicitly in a secular way and context. They are Brides of Christ but not Religious Sisters. They are consecrated women,  icons of the eschatological espousal every person is ultimately called to and they are called to live this out explicitly in the world and in the things of the world right here and right now. At the same time, while they are not vowed to religious poverty, or religious obedience, they, like every Christian, are called to embrace the values of the Gospel; these include the counsels of poverty, obedience, and chastity according to one's state of life. The apparent absence of reference to the evangelical counsels in the Rite of Consecration however, is due to the absence of vows or life in community, and to the vocation's secularity, not to the absence of these values more generally.

Especially, neither does the difference in emphasis of the Rite of Profession of Religious from the Rite of Consecration under c 604 indicate one rite refers to espousal while the other does not. Nor does any difference refer to a different degree of espousal any more than this difference refers to a different degree of consecration. Again, one rite refers to the espousal of Religious who live out their consecration in terms of public vows and (diocesan hermits excepted) life in community, while the other refers to the espousal of virgins living exhaustively consecrated AND secular lives where their identity as Brides of Christ is explicit and the fundamental ecclesial gift they bring to the Church and world.

I think the passage you have cited says as much. What it does not (and cannot honestly) say is that the Bridal imagery or nuptial import is absent in the Rite of Profession/Consecration of Religious, nor that where it is present it is different in kind or degree from that of the Consecration of Virgins living in the world or vice versa. What differs is emphasis and context, charism and mission. Both Rites use Bridal language while the insigniae given in  Religious Profession and the Consecration of Virgins living in the world is the same as has always been the case in any consecration and/or profession. These are nuptial in nature: veils, rings, etc. (Cf, for instance the picture and prayer of the giving of my own ring where the Bishop said, according to the prescribed rite: [[ Sister, receive this ring for you are betrothed to the eternal King: Keep faith with your Bridegroom so that you may come to the wedding feast of Eternal joy.]] So again, in both cases -- Religious and CV's living in the world -- espousal is real and fundamental. Where these two groups differ is in the way they are called by the Church to live this out and symbolize it for others.

Attempts to Deny the Nuptial Reality of Religious Profession

Though what you have cited does not say so, there is indeed a movement afoot (possibly only composed of a minority of CV's) to say that CV's under c 604 have the right to be called Brides of Christ where Religious do not.  One CV actually (and erroneously) wrote that she has the right to ask a Sister calling herself a Bride of Christ to stop doing so! But the Church herself has traditionally understood her own identity as reflective of a spousal bond and vocation and has Traditionally recognized a special expression of that spousal bond and ecclesial identity in the vocations of Religious women and men.  There is absolutely no indication that by reprising the secular vocation of canon 604 the Church wishes to affirm that CV's are Brides of Christ while denying Religious are similarly espoused. The evidence is quite the contrary in fact.

Additionally, some CV's have actually asserted that if Religious Women and Men share in the charism of spousality it weakens or dilutes the charism of CV's! Of course since we (Christians) are ALL ultimately called to this espousal and since the Church herself is the Virgin Bride of Christ, it hardly makes sense to argue that a lack of exclusiveness "dilutes" the CV's charism. ALL vocations, and especially all ecclesial vocations share in and express this universal conjugal love between God and his own. Relative to other vocations Religious and CV's image this universal vocation in a more explicit way even if they differ from one another in degree of explicitness,  just as those called to marriage and the holiness and sacramentality of sexual love image different dimensions of this same universal call.

What remains true is that CV's consecrated under c 604 cannot change almost 2 millennium of Church tradition simply because they are themselves in search of a rationale for their vocations which fails to center on (or, in some instances, fails even to recognize) the foundational secularity qualifying the consecrated nature of the calling. Graces, mission, and even the charism (gift quality) of the vocation may differ from those of others also called to reflect the ecclesial vocation of spousal (all-encompassing and total or conjugal) love; what does not change is the underlying spousal call and bond. (This is equally true for religious who reject the nuptial imagery and trappings associated with their profession and consecration.) Though other things may be at play, the apparent need to argue a difference in the consecration and espousal of Religious in distinction from canon 604 CV's seems to me to stem first of all from an inability to accept the radical secularity of the vocation. Because they do not accept this, they must find something else which makes their vocation truly meaningful and distinct.

Additional Reasons for this Denial:

I think there are a couple of other related reasons as well. First, this minority of CV's seem to be impatient with the Church's (meaning here the whole People of God's) slowness in coming to understand and appreciate this "new" vocation. Admittedly, it is sometimes frustrating to give oneself to a little-understood or appreciated vocation! This leaves the increased hiddenness of the CV's vocation to rankle with some CV's. Instead of allowing time for the Church as a whole to establish and reflect on the unique gift quality of a consecrated vocation lived in the world and the things of the world (and therefore living without distinguishing garb, title, vows, or insigniae beyond the wedding ring each CV wears), there seems to be a need to establish themselves as special and "set apart" in a way which also actually betrays the fundamental secularity and the charism of the vocation. We ought not need to suggest we are special merely in referring to what distinguishes us from other vocations; sometimes we are special because we share a charism with others while our mission in extending or mediating this charism to others is quite different.

Once CV's become more secure in articulating the charism and mission of their vocation as both conse-crated AND secular, I believe and hope the need to redefine the consecration and espousal of Religious will cease. The same is true when CV's living in the world become completely comfortable with the paradox I mention below, namely, that being set apart FOR and BY God in their case does not necessarily mean being set apart FROM others; it does not ordinarily involve distinguishing garb or insignia beyond their ring. For the CV living in the world, being set apart for God as a consecrated person in the church means secular lives, secular dress, etc. Certainly I have spoken with mature examples of this vocation for whom elitism is unacceptable even as they understand and live out both the uniqueness and the universality of their vocation; they give me hope in this matter. What is true, I think, is that only as CV's live out the paradox of their vocations wholeheartedly will the Church as a whole become more accepting of it.

Secondly, it seems to be the case that a number of CV's really desire to be Religious, but for some reason are unable or even unwilling to enter a congregation and move through all the steps and formation required. For that reason there seems to be a movement afoot to take a secular form of consecrated life and transform it instead into a quasi-religious form which simply lacks, "all the bells and whistles." In such cases, where the radical secularity of the vocation is actually denied, the common  and usually misguided question, "Why didn't you go the whole way and become a nun?" actually has some cogency. Related to this is the too-facile distinction of Religious life from secular life in a way which treats secular life as less than truly devout, and certainly as not fitting to one who is consecrated by God. As I have written here before, today the Church is moving to reappropriate a more adequate notion of secularity, an understanding which is to be carefully distinguished from secularism and where, whether consecrated, ordained, or lay, persons can embrace the fact that they are called to live out lives of radical discipleship to Jesus in the world and in the things of the world precisely in order to call others to the same discipleship. CV's will especially call others to recognize that they too share in some way in the vocation of spousal union with God in the midst of secularity.

This means that CV's living in the world have actually been given a significant place in this dimension of the Church's mission. Paradox is often hard for people to appreciate or embrace but here CV's are called to embrace and live the paradox of consecrated or eschatological secularity. The Church seeks to hold these two things together as a piece of its own sacramental character; she consecrates virgins TRULY living in the world so that they might be icons of the Christian paradox where the divine is exhaustively revealed in flesh, the sacred is revealed in the ordinary and all of existence is called to be a living symbol of the reality of God's love which is poured out in the creation of ordinary life.

Can Consecration Ever be Undone?

One piece of recent developments in reflecting on the meaning and significance of c 604 vocations, and a piece which must be relinquished, is the notion that the CV is made Bride of Christ in a way which changes her ontologically. In saying this I do not mean that consecration does not change the person at all --- especially in her capacity to receive the grace of God which is specifically pertinent to her unique vocation.  However, I do mean that the person is not made "Bride of Christ" as though there is some sort of special form of humanity, some unique genus known as "sponsa Christi" into which the CV has been transformed which is unlike what happens to religious during their own consecration.

At her consecration the CV is uniquely graced and made especially capable of receiving the graces associated with bridal, virginal, and maternal love proper to the Kingdom or Reign of God; at the same time she is made legally and morally responsible for receiving and living out these graces as best she can on behalf of others in accordance with Canon Law and the Rite of Consecration --- especially as a consecrated person and icon of the universal calling of the whole Church to be Bride of Christ.  As with Religious who are consecrated by God at perpetual or solemn profession (this does not happen with temporary profession), the consecration per se cannot be undone; even so, what can be relinquished or undone are the legal and moral rights and obligations which attend and mark the CV's entry into the consecrated state of life.

Religious are dispensed from their perpetual vows in order to achieve this relinquishment. When dispensed in this way they do not cease to be consecrated but they are no longer consecrated persons in the Church. Since CV's have no vows they cannot be dispensed from them, but it does happen that CV's leave the legal rights and obligations enjoined on them with consecration and thus too, leave a state of life with its commensurate obligations, responsibilities, and public privileges and expectations. Such a CV does not cease to be consecrated, but she does cease to be a consecrated person (i.e., one in a public state of  consecrated life) in the church. She ceases, in other words, to be an iconic figure in the way CV's living in the world are called to be.

Is Christ the Consecrated Virgin's "Husband"?

Another way of  buying into extravagant and elitist ontological claims is by embracing the notion that Christ becomes the CV's "husband." I admit that I have never been comfortable hearing some use this term and I have become more uncomfortable with it as it is linked with increasingly elitist notions of the CV's consecration. We must always remember the analogical nature of our language when we are speaking of God; when the eschatological reality of the metaphor "spouse" or "Bridegroom" is replaced by the this-worldly legal and social term "husband" we are no longer taking significant care with our language or our theology. Further, we are talking about a change in Christ's own identity which is also exclusionary and I emphatically don't think we can do that.

Those who are espoused, betrothed, or (perhaps less appropriate linguistically) "wedded" to Christ become unique sharers in and witnesses to the CHURCH'S identity as Bride of Christ. We never say Christ is the Church's husband; it is simply not appropriate nor theologically accurate. We refer to him as the Bridegroom because it preserves the dimension of a real marriage which is not yet consummated or marked by home-taking. We do the same with CV's; the Church does so in all traditional, official, or authoritative documents referring to this vocation that I have seen. (See for instance par 18 of Pius XII's "Sacra Virginitas" where Pius carefully and consistently maintains the distinction between Christ as spouse and others as "husbands" --- even going so far as to speak of virgins as espoused to Christ and thus free of husbands!) Neither then do we say the Church (nor individual Sisters, Brothers (!), Friars (!), or CV's) are Christ's wives. Such language strips away the eschatological and ecclesial nature of the identity the CV or any of these others have accepted and makes claims of a spousal bond apparently ridiculous. I believe this usage is theologically naive and harmful to the actual witness the CV is meant to give.

To summarize then, because the vocation is ecclesial and makes the CV an icon of the Church's own identity, as well as because it is a share in an eschatological reality and points to a union which occurs in eternity when neither man nor woman will be given in marriage, it cannot make of Christ a "husband" in a this-wordly sense. Again, in Xtn theology we tend to keep the Scriptural language of espousal (Bridegroom, spouse, Bride) and eschew more common language of wife and husband in speaking of this dimension of consecration precisely to maintain the eschatological nature of the union and identity.  (Again, refer to Pius XII's usage in Sacra Virginitas.) Taking care in this way might also prevent some of the extravagant and elitist claims we are seeing  and hearing from some CV's. After all, I have called this vocation one of eschatological secularity; just as CV's cannot deny or diminish the secularity of it and be true to it, neither can they legitimately deny nor diminish its eschatological nature without betraying the vocation.

Is the CV really a Bride of Christ then? Yes, absolutely, but in a way which is representative, iconic, proleptic, and prophetic, rather than exclusive or elitist. The CV is a Bride of Christ in a sense which says, "I am what you are also called to be eschatologically, and I am this here and now so that you might know you are also called to this!" She is not a Bride of Christ in a sense which says, "I am a Bride of Christ and you consecrated Religious are not!" nor, "I am a Bride of Christ now and will be so in eternity in a way you will never be!"  Instead, the CV consecrated under c 604 lives out the specifically ecclesial identity of  Bride to the eternal Bridegroom in a particularly vivid and coherent way; she does so precisely so others may also do so (and aspire to do so) in the differing ways God calls them to share in this foundational ecclesial identity. The call and mission of CV's consecrated under c 604 is a tremendously significant ecclesial witness which serves the whole Church in reminding us of something fundamental which has been lost sight of, namely, the universal call to spousal love, the call of every person and God's Church as a whole to a union with God through Christ that is best seen as "nuptial."

Though I have focused on the nuptial character of this vocation, I should also say that this call is also profoundly significant in extending and clarifying the Church's new and evolving stances on secularity and mission! This too is part of its charism and a witness and challenge the world needs profoundly. This vocation reflects a form of "set apartness" which itself is only truly expressed when it is lived exhaustively within the culture; it is the "set apartness" proper to the Incarnation of the Word of God and to a Church whose very nature (like that of the God she worships and mediates) is missionary. The CV living in the world ministers and missions, not merely by going out to segments of the world preaching, teaching, healing, and so forth, but by manifesting the Kingdom of God here and now IN secularity --- albeit a wholly transformed secularity, an eschatological secularity proper to the "time" when God will be all in all.

Please also see: On Consecrated Virginity: the Nature of This Espousal

Made in the Image of God

A number of weeks ago in the book of Wisdom the author affirmed that we are made in the image of God and that we are, in fact, imperishable. Above all the writer wished us to be consoled and encouraged by these truths and our hope "be full of immortality".  He contrasted the shortness of our lives of suffering, the limitations in our seeing and understanding, the narrowness, that is, of our finite perspective with that of our Creator and Sustainer.  For the author of Wisdom, the symbols "imago dei" and "imperishabilty" are the symbols of our hope, but they function in this way precisely because they point less to us than they do to the unceasing faithfulness and love of God. My sense is that in the history of theology we have not always allowed them to do this as clearly or powerfully as we might. Two ways of looking at these things contrast in significant ways; thus, as we prepare for Christmas and the nativity of the One who will fully reveal what it means to be human as well as what Divinity truly is it is Jesus who shows us the nature of "imago dei" and real "imperishability". Because Jesus' revelation of both humanity and divinity accent relationality when we contrast a relational sense of both "imago dei" and the nature of our soul's imperishability  with an older and more substantialistic notion of these, we will find the former more compelling.

The Substantialistic Approach:

The first is a "substantialistic" way which tends to focus on human beings alone, gifted by God, yes, but still on the human being alone.  This way tends to be rather static and it looks at realities like imago dei or imperishability --- linked to an immortal soul --- as possessions we have --- fixed endowments or characteristics which exist in us. The most common of these have traditionally been identified as rationality, free will or volitionality, a moral sense, and a spiritual dimension or "component" (immortal soul, etc). As significant as these dimensions of the human being are this approach also has draw backs.

Sometimes they are seen as ends rather than means. They are spoken of to underscore our uniqueness and dignity but without a correlative sense of mission. They can be used to compartmentalize us and the idea of imago so that imago is linked to various dimensions within us but not to our humanity per se. Speaking of imago in this sense can tempt us to see ourselves as superior to the rest of creation and lead to a theology of isolated or estranged dominion over creation rather than of stewardship in collaboration. It can even lead to a theology where those who are more intelligent, more logical,  (or whatever the characteristic chosen) are seen as superior to those who are less intelligent, and so forth.

Another drawback is that this approach can make God seem to be the sum of certain human characteristics writ large. If we are rational, then God is supremely so; if we are a being, then God becomes a supreme being, and so forth. While it is true that God is rational, moral, etc in some sense, it is also the case that God is wholly other than these characteristics as embodied in human beings. God is their source and ground but he is not them merely writ LARGE. God is Being itself, rationality itself, meaning and beauty themselves; he is the ground and source of all of these but he is not A BEING, not even a supreme being. We cannot forget this. And finally, this approach to imago dei treats or tends to treat these elements or dimensions as possessions rather than as graces. Especially this approach tends to leave us speaking of imago dei as an entitlement and source of other entitlements rather than a vocation and mission to be lived for the benefit of creation.

With regard to immortality this same substantialistic approach treats our own imperishability similarly. We think of ourselves as HAVING an immortal soul --- a possession which, to some extent seems to us to be independent of God's continuing act of being God, God's continuing sustaining action. We think of our bodies as ceasing but our souls as continuing because they themselves are immortal. In the past this distortion of Scriptural theology has lead us to a dualism which demeans and discounts the human body or rejects the nature of human beings as embodied spirit; it also led to an at least implicit questioning of  the nature of and need for resurrection. (If our souls, which are the (supposedly) "really essential part of us", are immortal, then why do we need resurrection? If resurrection is merely a reuniting of body and soul, then how is it also an even in which death and sin are destroyed?). In turn this led to a whole host of difficulties including taking seriously life on earth, speaking rightly about the symbols heaven and hell, accommodating a Church and Gospel which are engaged in social justice, the problem of moving folks away from individualistic notions of spirituality focused on "getting (their souls) to heaven, " etc.

The Relational Approach:

But there is a second way of approaching both the symbol imago dei, and the reality of human imperishability or immortality. It is a relational way of seeing the human being as such, and therefore too, these two central dimensions of human dignity. It says clearly that we are made in the image of God only to the degree we are in relationship with God and it notes that our imperishability comes to us moment by moment and is entirely dependent on God's unceasing faithfulness and love for us.

Jesus is the clearest model of what it means to be imago dei.  He demonstrates to us that imaging God is precisely what human beings are called to do. Throughout his life we are told that Jesus grew in grace and stature --- meaning that  through the grace (very presence) of God he grew more and more into a human being who exhaustively revealed God to and within the world. Throughout his life Jesus becomes more and more transparent to the One he calls Abba. (For Jesus and for each of us this is what it means to be human and to glorify God.) Throughout the Gospels we see him choose to let go of those things which are an assertion of self or otherwise are obstacles to revealing (in all three senses!) God clearly. Think especially here of his relinquishing of family (both primary and secondary) and claiming as his true Mothers and Brothers and Sisters those "nobodies" and "outcasts" who see God in him. Think of his time in the desert when he lets go of ambition, personal power, and  the limited security that comes from these to rely wholly on God; think of his continued clashes with Judaism or the surrounding honor/shame culture when he embraces the insecurity of one who trusts whole-heartedly and ultimately in God. And of course, consider his final trial, passion, and death when he becomes the epitome of human failure and shamefulness, and instead is and remains entirely helpless and exhaustively open to God being the sole source of life and meaning.

Throughout his life Jesus grows more and more into God's own counterpart. He reveals in his own humanity both what it means to be human and who God is. Where God seeks to love, Jesus allows it and lives from it so that we all might do  the same. Where God desires to enter exhaustively into every moment and mood of our world, including sin and godless death, where he seeks to turn a human face to us Jesus is open and responsive to this desire. Where of course Jesus shows us a capacity human beings as human have to reveal God he more clearly demonstrates to us that imago dei is a calling we are entrusted with and a mission we have been created to carry out in relationship with God. In Jesus' life it is the combination of human openness to God and God's love for his creation which together constitute the great grace we call the image of God. (Paul's version of this is summarized in 2 Cor 12:9 when he reprises God's self revelation, "My grace is sufficient for you. My power is made perfect in weakness.") What Jesus models for is is the truth that imago dei is the call entrusted to human beings to be wholly transparent to God in all the ways God desires.

Immortality is also Relational

Just as imago dei is a relational term referring to the reality that comes to be when we are open and responsive to the love of God, so too is immortality a relational term. We are imperishable only because and insofar as God loves us.  Though he was speaking of something else at the time, Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam once said: "God sustains us like a singer sustains a note." I have come to understand this as an image of the nature of the human person and the human soul's immortality.  What is so striking for me in this statement is the way both human and divine are inextricably wed as well as how dynamic an image it is. There is no way our being becomes a static possession --- and neither is there any way we can understand humanity apart from relatedness to God. Similarly, our spirits or souls possess immortality because they are of God --- not in a kind of indirect or derivative way and especially not of themselves, but because they are his continuing, unfailing activity within us.

For the New Testament writers, and especially for Paul, death is a power which needs to be brought under complete subjection. Our hope is in the resurrection because it proves for us God's power over death in his commitment to us --- sinners whom he loves with an everlasting love. Any victory that death wins in this life is temporary --- for God will neither forget us nor cease from breathing us forth. We have immortality because God is immortal and because our own existence is wholly dependent on God. We are immortal to the extent we are in relationship with God --- and fortunately for us, God is at work in Christ reconciling us to himself so that that relationship will never cease.

Being What we Are Called to Be, the Counterparts of God

Christmas is about what happens when people accept God's invitation to be his coun-terparts in significant ways and especially it is about the birth of the One who would be God's counterpart in an exhaustive and definitive way. Joseph, Mary, Jesus, John the Baptist, Anna, Elizabeth --- all of these persons allow God to speak through them in significant ways; they allow the breath of God to take form and expression in their very lives. They become these expressions, these words or language events. As a result we have births summoned out of barrenness, fullness of life called to be from virginity, muteness and paralyzing fear transformed into canticles of joy and hope, and human beings who become more and more transparent mediators of the very Spirit of God as they hearken to God's will to love them into wholeness and to bring the whole of creation to fulfillment through them.

The climax is the Word made fully incarnate in the man, Jesus who is God's counterpart in a way which is paradigmatic for the rest of us. In other words with Christmas we celebrate the stories of a God who seeks to find in his creation a counterpart, one who would be responsive to and share his love in every moment and mood of his existence. We also therefore, celebrate the stories of a chorus of people who themselves prepare for this event by allowing God to sustain and shape them as a singer sustains and shapes a note. The paean of praise that results, both individually and collectively,  is also the revelation of what it means to be imago dei and truly imperishable. In short, it reveals the vocation of every human being to be a Word event continually enlivened and empowered by the eternal breath of God.