Continuation of a Conversation of the Normative Nature of Canon 603

The following post is a continuation of a conversation begun in email regarding my own online presence and the seeming harshness of my criticism a couple of years or more ago of the Archdiocese of Boston for using canon 603 as a stopgap means of professing Sister Olga Yaqob. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is not about Sister Yaqob per se (I continue to think she is an amazing person and a fine religious), but about the  appropriate implementation and meaning of canon 603. The OP's comments and questions are italicized.

Sister Olga is amazing in her willingness to plunge into work that kept her fed, and then had a chance to live in solitude on her days off. So her definition of hermit might be equally true as yours, and she carried her hermitage in her heart, as saints of encouraged. Her choices were limited.

Yes, you are correct that her choices were limited just as they are for all of us seeking to live LIVES of eremitical solitude. Canonical hermits, however cannot go out and get full time jobs outside the hermitage nor can they be satisfied with one day of contemplative prayer a week. Those too are limitations which the very nature of their lives, personal and public commitments, and the canon which governs these impose. Canon 603 hermits are not wealthy --- at least generally speaking. They do live poor lives and quite often live at a subsistence level.

They mainly work from within the hermitage (or on the property) and do a variety of things to keep body and soul together. Some do receive disability or other subsidies (depending on the country, etc) but all mainly and often only work from within their hermitage doing any number of things consistent with their contemplative and solitary life. Typically, if a person cannot do this, it is understood by dioceses as a sign that the vocation is not one they can pursue at this point in time. It is sometimes seen that they may therefore not be called to eremitical life just as it is also the analogous (though reversed) case that those who cannot work full time as religious or who are disabled, for instance, are ordinarily unable to enter a religious congregation. While it might be a good idea to have dioceses assist perpetually professed hermits to live their lives so that more folks CAN pursue a truly eremitical life (there is a debate about this among hermits and others), there is NO real debate that full time work outside the hermitage is incompatible with eremitical life as the Church understands it.

What Sister Olga saw as a valid definition of eremitical life you see is not the real question. What constitutes the normative vision of the eremitical life is defined clearly in canon 603 according to which she was (as the rest of us are) obligated to live and shape her own life. That canon is clear: a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world. Canon 603 does not define an eremitism of the heart ONLY. It defines a life measured both externally AND internally, institutionally and personally in these terms. Olga's life at BU did not meet this criterion by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that she has dropped any mention of canon 603, does NOT refer to herself as a hermit, as well as the fact that her diocese has stopped referring to her profession as made under canon 603 suggests to me she knew this to be true and agrees with this assessment --- as, I think, did Boston and a lot of folks who questioned the situation --- including faithful, diocesan hermits, other Bishops, canonists, Vicars for Religious, etc. In any case she has moved on and continues to do wonderful things with her life.

I can see the unusual circumstances Sister Olga was in, and she probably felt far more solitary being in a strange country, and trying to stay close to the Church, than many other hermits. I do not think Canon 603 is necessary to protect a hermit, and the Holy Spirit can handle this without laws, and has risen up this type of vocation since the beginning of the Church, so I do not think you need to be worried about it, as you offer your viewpoint.

I agree that Sister Olga's circum-stances were difficult and the way she dealt with these is one of the things that makes her so admirable. The problem here, however, is that feeling solitary is not the same as being a hermit. MANY people today are isolated and marginalized. Many feel alone and disconnected from their families, homelands and cultures. Nonetheless the intensity of Sister Olga's feelings (or those of these many others) is somewhat beside the point; we do not call the isolated, marginalized, and lonely "hermits" unless they also ARE truly hermits, nor do we automatically profess and consecrate them under canon 603 as a stopgap solution to their situation.

One does not need to be professed as a religious (much less a hermit) in order to "stay close to the Church" (we baptized ARE Church) and there is no apparent reason Sister Olga could not, for instance, have embraced consecrated virginity for women living in the world as a way of life if she was looking for a form of consecrated life which allowed her to live fully in the world while serving the Church through active ministry --- unless of course she (and/or her Bishop) was looking, for instance, to eventually create a religious community and seek canonical standing for that. (In such a case c 604 would not have worked and c 603 was not meant for such a purpose either.) As for needing the canon or not, I have argued and continue to argue that the canon is precisely the way the Church assists the Holy Spirit to raise up authentic solitary eremitical lives. It is not that the charismatic and the canonical conflict. Instead they come together in this ecclesial vocation where law serves love.

You speak of Sister Olga as an acceptable exception to this eremitical norm. The problem of course comes when every Bishop in every diocese decides someone he knows should also be counted as an exception. Canon 603 describes a rare vocation; we must accept that fact. It also describes an infinitely valuable vocation which is a gift (charisma) of the Holy Spirit. We must also accept and honor that fact with our actions and policies. Using canon 603 to profess and consecrate exceptions to the rule is an inevitable way to empty the canon of meaning and vitiate the gift this vocation actually is. The canon is not there to accommodate folks who simply cannot be professed any other way --- unless of course they ALSO have a truly eremitical vocation; it is not there to give lonely folks a way to belong (though it assuredly often ALSO does this). It is there to profess those relatively rare instances of eremitical life raised up by the Spirit which the Church considers NORMATIVE of the living eremitical tradition.

There are probably far more personal differences and definitions than a canon law could capture, and that is where the bishop has the authority to work with it the best he can. It is wonderful the bishop gave Sister Olga a sense of belonging. I cannot imaging being in her position.

Actually, I find that the canon is beautifully written not least because it strikes an amazing balance between normativity and flexibility. It is composed of 1) certain non-negotiable elements and 2) the requirement of a personal Rule which applies or configures these elements in the way which is personally best for the hermit herself. There is a vast variety in the way c 603 hermits live the non-negotiable elements of the canon/life. The canon is thus a wonderful example of law and love combined as an expression of truly responsible freedom. Still, the point is that it is a canon; it is a norm for the way the Church understands the solitary eremitical life lived in her name. The hermits professed this way are meant to be exemplars or paradigms of a particular way of life. Again,the canon is not a stopgap way to profess anyone who cannot or will not join a congregation.

I think I can see the root of the confusion, at least mine, when you said Canon 603 was written in 1983. So this is not an ancient church law with a long history of defining it, and now you are in the arena trying to define it. You are defining it with use of the internet, while others may define it differently, not encouraging internet activity. 

Yes. Canon 603 is indeed a modern canon; there is no precedent for it in the Code of Canon Law. That means 1) that it is not the revision of something from the 1917 Code and 2) it supersedes any local diocesan statutes which may still be on the books from throughout the centuries. I believe it is clear in some ways regarding what it calls for even though it does not define these terms. For that reason although I don't need to create a definition it is often important to spell out the history of the vocation and the meaning of the terms used within it (which I think is what you mean) so that it is not seized upon as a canon which applies to just ANY lone person or just ANY isolated and marginalized life.

For instance, stereotypes of eremitical life can blind people to the fact that the life is a healthy one, or that in the main hermits have always tended to live on the margins (and sometimes in the center) of society (rather than in very deep deserts) and offered both the fruits of their skills (in agriculture, for instance), sold goods (created things, art, calligraphy, woven mats, etc), offered advice and spiritual direction (think of anchoresses and their windows which were central spiritual  hubs in medieval towns), or otherwise interacted with their culture and times in ways which 1) protected an essential and contemplative solitude,  2) witnessed to the fact that this vocation is lived in the heart of the Church as well as for the sake of others, and 3) served as a kind of prophetic presence to the Church as whole.

Similarly, because a person does not KNOW the history of the canon or is unfamiliar with eremitical life does not mean the terms of the canon can be defined anyway at all. After all, these terms really DO have meanings just as the term "Catholic Hermit" has a particular and normative meaning within the Church.

But it is understandable that people are literally ignorant of these meanings or (in less understandable and more unfortunate circumstances) choose to ignore them; for this reason it means their definitions may need to be made clear by someone knowledgeable about the eremitical tradition and especially about the history and nature of canon 603. Thus, for instance, a Bishop --- even if he is a canonist --- might not know that "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term with a particular range of meaning both far broader and more intensive than mere "physical solitude" and "external silence". Certainly individuals who become intrigued with c 603 as a possible way of  "getting professed while living alone" don't usually know this. Likewise, "stricter separation from the world" has a meaning but it is not "isolation," "reclusion," (at least not usually), nor "separation from and disdain for created reality as a whole."

So yes, I am doing some of this with the aid of the internet. It is a way of preserving my own eremitical life of the silence of solitude while contributing to the development (or at least the understanding of this new piece) of the living tradition I am publicly committed to. Other hermits explore the same constitutive elements of their lives (and the canon) every day; a number have blogs which allow them to share their reflections on these and other matters for the edification of the Church. Each one does so with the knowledge and approval of her superiors, and I would wager, each one does so in a careful and discerning manner because she values the gift this vocation is to the Church and world.

Knocking on Pope Francis' Door on Behalf of the LCWR

From the Editorial Staff of the National Catholic Reporter

In his address to pilgrims in St. Peter's Square May 11, Pope Francis departed from his prepared text and told them to "knock at the doors" of their pastors, saying it would make them better bishops and priests. "Bother your pastors, disturb your pastors, all of us pastors, so that we will give you the milk of grace, of doctrine, and of guidance."

The very next day at morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, Francis preached on Acts 11:1-18, in which Peter tells the church gathered in Jerusalem that Gentiles, too, had come to believe in Jesus. Francis said that Peter had opened the doors to the church for all. "Who are we to close doors?" Francis asked. "In the early church, even today, there is the ministry of the ostiary [usher]. And what did the ostiary do? He opened the door, received the people, and allowed them to pass. But it was never the ministry of the closed door, never."

Pope Francis, today we're here to bother you, to knock on your door until you open it. We are knocking on behalf of faith-filled U.S. Catholics, who are among the millions worldwide whom you have inspired and encouraged in your mission to renew the church. And today we are specifically knocking on behalf of our hurting and misrepresented women religious whose visions of ministry they entrust in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. LCWR is the thinking head to the body of Catholic sister service.

Francis, we are not alone. Catholics across our nation are knocking at your door on behalf of these faithful, Christ-centered women. They are highly educated women, whose assemblies occur in a spirit of prayer and contemplation, and we feel they continue to be maligned by the characterizations we find in statements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Visit our new website, Global Sisters Report! LCWR's work should not be impeded or diminished. It needs to be encouraged and celebrated. We find a painful disconnect between how they are being treated and the church of encounter that you preach. We are knocking, waiting for your response.

We ask ourselves: What is the cause of this severe disconnection? The answer, we come to conclude, is fear. Fear of allowing women to sit at the table. Fear, perhaps, of what an inclusive church might look like. Does this stem from a fear of change? Is this fear generated by not spending time in collaboration with women? Our experience tells us that listening to their ideas, their perspectives, their insights would result in building a stronger, healthier church. Keeping them out diminishes us all.

Francis, nothing you have shown us since the first day of your pontificate indicates you are a fear-driven bishop. On the contrary, you appear whole and at peace with yourself. Your humble confidence says you trust in the Spirit. These are all healthy signs the Spirit is alive within you. Trust that Spirit. That trust will serve you well. It will lead you to open the doors of which you speak -- to all the faithful, including, no, starting with the LCWR leadership.

LCWR does not claim to be perfect. But the "mistakes" they might have made do not come out of a lack of faithfulness. Any mistake would have come out of a dedication to the very faithfulness you articulate in your vision of church: a prophetic vision that makes room for change and is fearless as it moves forward, taking risks on behalf of the needy of the world.

Francis, LCWR grew out of the Second Vatican Council, a council you hold dear in your heart. It came out of the vision of St. John XXIII. The council espoused renewal, collegiality, justice and service, the very principles out of which U.S. women religious congregations have operated since that council. These women need not be feared. They need, rather, to be embraced.

Francis, something is askew. Cardinal Gerhard Müller's sharp attack on LCWR is not justified. This is not just the opinion of this publication. It is the opinion of faithful Catholics throughout our nation, including theologians who are deeply involved in ecclesial matters.

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks aloud if LCWR's focus on new ideas robs it of the ability to "feel with the church." Francis, the opposite is true. It is because LCWR feels with the church that it is exploring these new ideas. Failure to explore what is new will cripple the church mission in the years ahead. Like it or not, change is the norm of contemporary society. Expressing changeless teachings requires new understandings and articulations. Furthermore, the unyielding nature of Müller's comments are out of step with -- and far removed from -- the spirit of the church you are reimagining and trying to build.

Francis, listen to the knocking of your people. Open the doors to LCWR and break the impasse with the doctrinal congregation. Open the doors for all the people of God to pass through. We remain confident you will respond led by your Gospel instincts of mercy, love and inclusion. How this impasse gets resolved -- or fails to get resolved -- in the weeks and months ahead will undoubtedly give clearer and sharper form to your pontificate.Knocking on Behalf of the LCWR

Which three words do you see first?

Thanks for Explaining the Pastoral reasons for Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for explaining the PASTORAL reasons for canonical standing. Does keeping the seriousness of all this in mind help you to live your vocation? I would think it must. Is it your position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life? You mention lay hermits but since you emphasize the pastoral importance of canonical standing I wonder if you believe it is really possible to live as a lay hermit.]]

Yes, keeping the public and especially the ecclesial nature of this vocation in mind (two dimensions of its serious-ness) is a great help to me in persevering in this vocation. Don't get me wrong, I love this call and every day I thank God for gifting me with it but it is not always an easy thing to be faithful to. For instance, as I have written before it is not always easy to discern what expressions of ministry are appropriate. Sometimes I would like to withdraw in more selfish ways than might be healthy or called for by eremitical anachoresis itself but the ecclesial nature of my vocation and the canonical nature of my commitment help me to recognize and resist this temptation. Other times I might desire to minister in some active way which might not be what is best for the vocation more generally or I might be inclined to spend time outside the hermitage in ways which draw me out of the silence of solitude; again, the ecclesial and canonical nature of my commitment assists me to be true to both myself and my call. Because I am not in this alone, because I am responsible in a public way for this vocation, because I have legitimate superiors (or quasi superiors!) and others (parishioners, pastor, friends, Sisters) who are also responsible in varying ways and degrees and to whom I can turn for assistance and support, living this vocation is both richer and easier than it would be otherwise.

However, it is absolutely not my position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life. Lay hermits do it all the time and they do it in a way which may minister and be more accessible to those who will never seek nor desire to seek canonical standing in their own lives.  I would suggest you read some of the posts I have put up on the lay eremitical vocation specifically to understand my thought here; I believe I have been pretty clear regarding how much I believe in this (the lay eremitical) vocation and in its possibility and importance today. When I say the public rights and obligations associated with canonical standing cause my own vocation to differ from the lay eremitical vocation but that the absence of these public dimensions does not constitute a deficiency in the lay hermit vocation I am both quite serious and entirely sincere.

In fact one of the things which makes me saddest is the fact that lay hermits seem generally not to take their own vocations as seriously in terms of its significance to the Church and world as they do the canonical version. Few that I can find write about it, reflect on its charismatic nature, or recommend it to others. Few offer to talk occasionally to their parishes or diocese about it, etc. While I know lay hermits who do not, many seem instead  to continue to subtly elevate the eremitical vocations connected with canonical standing (semi-eremitical and solitary eremitical life) when these are not accessible to them for a variety of reasons. Some do this by resisting  and never using the actual designation "lay hermit" while others make it their business to disparage canonical standing and those who seek and receive it, but the bottom line is that many lay hermits seem to treat lay eremitical life as a second class form of eremitism. Still, the specifically eremitical elements and dimensions of these two (or three!) vocations are identical --- especially if the lay hermit lives some form of the evangelical counsels, as all Christians really are meant to do.

Again, thanks for your comments. I am glad I was able to convey to you some of the pastoral reasons for canonical standing and canon 603. Others may be found in posts on the relationship of freedom and obedience, for instance, or the relational nature of standing in law (cf., labels below). As I said in the post you referred to, the critical question is really this one: if this vocation were NOT a gift of the Holy Spirit then why would we care about canonical standing? What the Church sees clearly is that  canonical standing and the activity of the Holy Spirit are not in conflict with one another nor  (as one person I spoke with recently commented) does the Holy Spirit's action makes the canon unnecessary. What is true is the canon exists precisely as one significant way the Holy Spirit nurtures, protects, and governs the contemporary solitary eremitical vocation in a world which militates against it in every way including especially: 1) its allergy to silence, 2) its isolationist and marginalizing tendencies, and 3) its heightened individualism --- all of which are antithetical to and cry out for genuine eremitical solitude.  All good wishes.

What does it mean to say a vocation is normative, canonical, or ecclesial? What does it matter?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you say that a hermit with public vows has embraced a "normative (canonical)" and ecclesial vocation do you mean that all other hermits measure their lives according to these people? What does it mean to call a vocation ecclesial? Why does it matter? Is this important to the person in the pew? Also, if you live your life "in the name of the Church" does this mean that when you speak out here you do so on behalf of the Church or as some sort of official spokesperson?]]

I have written about these topics a lot -- though not so much recently --- so I really encourage you to look them up in the topics or labels list at the bottom of this post as well as to the right. In any case this answer will reprise a lot of what those posts already contain. (The need to repeat this kind of thing as questions occur is one of the deficiencies of a blog format.) Still, your questions are also a little different than what I have answered in the past, especially in wondering about what it means to say a vocation is an ecclesial one or what it means to say "in the name of the Church" so I am glad to look at these things again. That is especially true when some question the need for canonical standing with regard to eremitical life --- as one person wrote to me yesterday morning.

Normative Vocations:

When I say that a hermit has embraced a normative (canonical) vocation through public profession I mean that her vocation is governed and measured by the canon defining her life. In my case and the case of other diocesan hermits it is mainly canon 603. While one hopes that anyone professed accordingly lives her life in an exemplary way it is first of all the life described by the canon, and so, the canon itself which is normative; that is, the canon tells us what the Church herself understands, establishes, and codifies as "eremitical life" for the benefit of her own life and the salvation of all. A person admitted to a public commitment to live under this canon has committed to living this specific understanding of the eremitical life and is publicly responsible for doing so in recognizable, fruitful, and faithful ways. She does so  in order that the life and holiness of the Church may be augmented and may serve to witness to others in terms of eremitism itself. You might say that a diocesan hermit is responsible for enfleshing or incarnating this canon and the form of life it describes for the healing and inspiration of her local Church, the universal Church, and the world at large. Only in this sense does the hermit herself become "normative" of the eremitical life. (The diocesan hermit is so-called because she is publicly professed and consecrated by God in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and is bound to this specific diocese unless another Bishop agrees to receive her and supervise her vowed life in his diocese).

Canon 603 has a number of non-negotiable elements to it. It describes a vowed life (603.2 specifies a publicly vowed life) of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance according to a Rule the hermit writes herself and which is lived FOR the salvation of the world. All of this is undertaken in law and under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop who is the hermit's legitimate superior (superior in law). In other words this c. 603 hermit lives a solitary eremitical life of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the canonical specifications of the Catholic Church so that others might hear the Gospel of Christ in a particularly vivid way through her life of desert spirituality. She is not a misanthrope, a failure at life or relationships, nor is her solitary life a selfish or self-centered one. The requirement that this life be a loving one lived for the sake of others is no less significant than the requirements of assiduous prayer, stricter separation from the world, or the silence of solitude.

Because she does this in the heart of the Church and for others the canon stands between them and her as a kind of signpost and point of entry. It tells her fellow Catholics (and all others as well) what her life as a Catholic hermit is about (the term Catholic here implies one who is publicly and thus, normatively committed to this life; it specifically means a life lived in the name of the Church; in other words, it is a right (with commensurate responsibilities) granted BY THE CHURCH, not one which is self-adopted). The faithful can read the canon and question the hermit about what it means for her life; the canon gives the faithful in particular the right to specific expectations with regard to this hermit. This is not the case when one's commitment is private. Similarly it constantly summons the hermit to faithfulness to a specific and normative vision of eremitical life as the Catholic Church understands and codifies it. Both the hermit and the Church itself are mutually responsible for the faithful living out of this vocation. Both are publicly committed to this. If the hermit continues to allow her life to be shaped by God in the heart of the Church in this particular way and if her superiors work with her to ensure the same then this eremitical life will be truly edifying --- meaning it will build up the Church and the Kingdom of God.

Non-Canonical Hermits, authenticity vs counterfeits:

Many people live as hermits but not in a way which is normative and sometimes not even in a way the  Church would consider authentic. I have a friend whose brother lives in the Pacific Northwest in a small secluded cabin. He has lived there for at least thirty years that I know of. He is a hermit who lives a significant physical solitude, but he is not a hermit in the sense the Church uses the term. Further he is a Catholic but he is emphatically NOT a Catholic hermit and to think of him as one could be disedifying. If you look at other posts on this blog you will find the story of Tom Leppard an eccentric and curmudgeonly misanthrope who lived as a hermit on the Isle of Skye in significant physical solitude, deprivation, and psychological isolation for a number of years. Tom also fails to meet the criterion of those called "hermit" set forth by the Church. Recently a "hermit" in Maine was arrested for stealing. He was indeed a hermit in the common sense of the term, but he would have thought canon 603 the description of an entirely alien landscape and certainly could not have lived as a hermit in the name of the Church. These examples could easily be multiplied many times over. A quick search of the internet will uncover other equally eccentric and frankly alarming examples of counterfeit eremitical life.

Not all authentic hermits are canonical of course. Lay hermits who will always represent the lion's share of the eremitical population may well live most of the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 and do so in exemplary ways (I know several who are wonderful examples of eremitical life) but they live their commitments to this way of life privately, neither publicly called, publicly committed or commissioned, nor accepting the public rights, obligations, nor the expectations associated with canonical standing. This is not a deficiency but it is still a significant difference which those considering one form of eremitical life or another need to be aware of. The faithful in general also need to be aware of the differences here not least so their own expectations can be appropriate ones. While our private commitments should be serious and something we live with integrity, members of the Church have no real right to complain or question if they do not see signs that this is occurring in an exemplary way. In my own life, while members of the church will be concerned for me if I am having problems living my eremitical commitments with integrity, these concerns can actually be taken to my legitimate superiors with the justifiable expectation that the situation will be rectified in all necessary ways. Not so with private commitments.

Ecclesial vocations:

I think you may already see that a normative (canonical) vocation and an ecclesial vocation are closely related  even overlapping ideas. Still, we do mean one thing I have not yet explicitly mentioned here. An ecclesial vocation is one mediated to the person by the Church. One cannot claim such a vocation on one's own. Such vocations are mutually discerned. The person whose vocation is mutually discerned is then called forth from the midst of the assembly to respond publicly to this vocation and commit her life to it. Her vows are received in the name of the Church and the rights and obligations attached to this state are mediated to her as well (things like the right to be known as a diocesan or Catholic hermit, the right to wear a religious habit or prayer garment publicly, the right to use the title Sister (etc) along with all the obligations attached to these and the expectations associated with them, etc. are included here). The very state itself with all the graces attached are mediated by the Church. When I spoke above of the mutual responsibility of hermits and superiors for making sure the life is lived well I was also referring to the ecclesial nature of the vocation.

On the ground canonical standing also means that the Church has vetted these folks over some period of time and, as well as possible, found them sane, spiritually well-grounded, theologically sound, and committed to living this life for the sake of others. They are not seeking a sinecure nor a place to live a life of idleness. Again, they are not misanthropes, failures at life, eccentrics, or self-centered and self-pitying misfits. They understand the vocation, have significant positive reasons for pursuing it and are deemed to have been called by God through the ministry of God's Church to do so. They live disciplined lives of prayer and penance according to a Rule they have written.  The Rule by which they live their lives and the vows they have made have been approved by canonists and others to be sure they represent a healthy and sound version of vowed eremitical life which can truly serve as a witness to others. As a piece of this their lives and efforts are also supervised and supported as they meet regularly with a spiritual director and/or diocesan delegate as well as less frequently with their Bishop. In other words, an ecclesial vocation is one in which the person and the Church more generally --- especially through the agency of the local ordinary or other superiors --- are publicly and mutually committed in an effort to be faithful to this vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why Does this Matter? Is It Important to the Person in the Pew?


I hope you can see that all of this does matter to the person in the pew. In fact all of the requirements and vetting is done so that the Church as a whole is able to see and respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in her midst. The key word in all of this is CREDIBILITY. The Church understands the eremitical life as a great gift of the Holy Spirit but she also knows that it has become associated with all sorts of stereotypes and nutcases as well as authentic hermits. As I have noted, our world is fraught with individualism, narcissism, the aggrandizement of victim status, misanthropy and self-centeredness --- all of which have been confused with authentic eremitical life and the words "solitary" and (more problematically) "solitude". The silence of solitude has been confused with the silence of emptiness, lack, and personal deficiency whereas it is really the silence of communion and fullness. Canonical Hermits are specifically called to witness to the vast differences between a solitary life lived in communion with God and for the salvation of the world and these perversions , distortions, or counterfeit versions of authentic eremitical, and indeed, authentic human existence.

I believe that is terribly important to the rest of the assembly (ecclesia) and especially to anyone struggling to make sense of lives where they or others they love are now alone, feel their lives have ceased to have meaning because of loss (job, money, status), bereavement, or illness, etc. I believe it is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world peopled with the marginalized, prisoners, the poor, sick, and suffering who are in search of a peace the world cannot give. And of course, it is because I believe this vocation IS a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and World that I am sensitive to its normative and public character. In other words, it is because this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit and is lived for the sake of others that emphasis on such things as normativeness, canonical standing, or ecclesiality are important. If the vocation meant nothing and was not a gift of the Spirit to the Church and world, if it was really nothing more than an expression of  a selfish or misanthropic individualism whether a relatively pious form or not, then indeed, why should we care about such things?!?! Why indeed, should we codify it, invest it with rights and obligations, or encourage others to seek it?

Living Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

No, when I write here I do not do so as an official, a spokesperson for the Church. However I do write as one commissioned and one who does live diocesan eremitical life in her name. In other words I am responsible for being a solitary Catholic Hermit in the sense the Church uses that term. I and others like me are, that is, charged with representing a living eremitical tradition in the Church and we are, as noted above, publicly and legally bound to do that with faithfulness in a way which adds to the tradition (especially in its dialogue with contemporary culture I think) and to the holiness of the Church herself. Anyone claiming the title "Catholic Hermit" should be able to say the same or they are actually breaking faith with the Church herself. Because by education I am a theologian I am also called in a charismatic way to reflect on the vocation itself more systematically than many others living the life. Still, every diocesan hermit I know reflects on the life c 603 outlines precisely as part of living it with integrity. Moreover, almost all those I know regard the importance of working with their Bishops to ensure the health and beauty of this gift of the Spirit. All of this is a normal part of living the life in the name of the Church as "Catholic hermits."

(By the way, the Church is very careful about folks calling institutions, forms of life, etc "Catholic" and actually forbids this in law unless the right is granted by the appropriate authority.) You see to call oneself a Catholic priest, a Catholic Sister, a Catholic hermit, a Catholic lay person, etc, is another way of saying, "I have been publicly commissioned (publicly ordained, professed, and/or consecrated --- including baptismal consecration) to live this life in the name of the Church." It is another dimension of a normativity whose purpose is really a profoundly pastoral one. Canonical standing nurtures and governs the vocational gifts of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church;  it also helps prevent faithlessness, hypocrisy, and even outright fraud. After all, in a vocation as rare, little known, and unusual as authentic eremitical solitude, especially given the stereotypes that exist and the individualistic tendencies in our culture, it would not be hard for some to misrepresent the vocation or call themselves "Catholic Hermits" when they are really no such thing.

Circumcision and Law as well as Gospel: What's all the fuss?

[[Sister, what is the issue with circumcision about in the early Church?]]


This week's readings from the Acts of the Apostles focus mainly on the huge disagreement that led to the Jerusalem Council, namely the Judaizers' insistence that new Gentile Christians be circumcised and submit to the Mosaic Law. I suspect that like you most of us are apt to ask what the big deal is. After all if we follow Christ we will also keep the Law, so why the great flap from Paul and those who work with him?

The answer Paul's theology gives us is pretty simple. When he encountered the Risen and Ascended Jesus he realized that Jesus was the goal and fulfillment of the Law, the fulfillment of the covenant with God, the one in whom salvation was achieved and available to all. Reunion or reconciliation with God was achieved in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of this man who was, in fact, crucified according to the law, and then vindicated by God. This vindication was also, therefore, a judgment on the law and its fragmentary and partial nature. As a result none of the fragmentary or partial ways of achieving or at least remaining in union with God were necessary any longer --- and that included the law that had been shown to be such a fragmentary vision of the will of God. If one was in Christ, if one had been baptized into his death and resurrection, then one had fulfilled the law in him as well. Either this is true or it is not. Either life in Christ alone is a means, sign, and measure of our covenant faithfulness and life with God or it is not. Either we are carried by the grace of Christ into God's presence or we must get there according to our own feeble works. Paul saw this clearly and because he did he rejected laying extra burdens on Gentile Christians.

 Remember that the Law was a partial revelation of God's will for us. The task before human beings is not merely to keep the Law in the sense of not coveting, not bearing false witness, not committing adultery, etc. We are to fulfill the law, that is we are to be the authentic human beings who do the will of God and love God, ourselves and others in the exhaustive way God calls us to. The Law can summon us to love and set the minimalist guidelines beyond which we may not go if we wish to remain on the path to and with God, but it cannot empower us to love. It can call us to live truthfully but it cannot make us true. It can sometimes prevent ever greater estrangement from God but it cannot lead to union with God. All of those things come to us in Christ who is the "end" or telos, the goal and fulfillment of the law. Once the goal has been reached (or once those on the way have seen or "known" this goal) the path markers are no longer necessary and, if our focus is drawn to them, may even cause us to crash short of our goal.

( N.B., I am thinking here of something I wrote about with regard to increasingly detailed definitions of the requirements for admission to consecration as a virgin. It is something Paul knew well about the Law: [[ It's a little like riding a bicycle between two posts. If a person looks at the posts, first one then the other, then again, etc., she will invariably crash into the posts. If, on the other hand a person sights along the top of the wheel to gauge its projected  movement along the path or, even better,  focuses as well as one can on the path beyond the posts --- that is, if she looks at where she wishes to go and is actually heading rather than where she does NOT wish to go --- she will pretty much sail through the posts without concern.]])

Moreover, to focus on these as signs of covenantal faithfulness is to risk being divided within the believing community. This was the primary issue for Luke I think and Paul would not have disagreed. To the degree we live IN Christ and are empowered by his Spirit we no longer need the Law itself. To turn back to measuring our lives and those of other Christians in terms of Law would be an example of what Jesus himself forbids, namely, putting our hand to the plow and then turning back, or refusing to let the dead bury the dead. It would also be an example of entering the wedding banquet without the garment (the works) provided by the Bridegroom himself as well as of the lection we heard a couple of weeks ago regarding entering the sheepfold as a thief and robber because we have come in in some way other than the gate that is Christ himself. The Johannine affirmation we heard last Friday, "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" is, in part, the same truth Paul and Barnabas are insisting on in this week's readings. It is also the reason we heard the story of the vine and the branches (remain in me!) today or are given Friday's Gospel admonition that we act in Jesus' name (that is, in the power and presence of Jesus) and love one another as Jesus loves. To the degree we do these things we no longer need the law; in fact, to the degree we do these things we are FREE of the Law and of course, free to fulfill it as well.

The tension between Judaism and the new Way and between Law and Gospel informs all of these gospel stories and more besides. In Christ God has done something absolutely new and entirely sufficient in giving us access to the abundant life of God; there is no going back to older or "dead" or far less lifegiving realities. The transition that was called for in light of Jesus' resurrection was both total and truly world shattering.

Wearing Habits: Helpful to Prayer?

[[Dear Sister, you once wrote, "A habit is unnecessary and superfluous apart from the assumption of such rights and obligations; it is for this reason they are not usually approved apart from admission to vows." I think that I pray better when I am wearing a habit of some sort. No, I am not publicly professed but I had one made and I really feel more comfortable when I pray in it.You must know what I mean!  Don't you feel more comfortable praying in your habit? ]]

I suspect this may be the shortest blog post ever but the answer is simply NO. I honestly have no idea what you mean. So long as I am physically comfortable (i.e., warm enough, not constricted, etc) what I am wearing is of no consequence at all.

But let me say a bit about prayer and how what you describe doing strikes me. To be frank (and pardon me for this) I believe you are fooling yourself and making of prayer something marked by pretense. I also think you would do well to speak with someone you know and trust about this practice, especially someone who does spiritual direction. Not least you need to understand (and perhaps work through) why you are comfortable when dressed one way but not so comfortable in prayer otherwise. You see prayer is simply being who we truly are before and with God. If who we are involves the right and obligation to wear a habit then fine; if it does not, then wearing one before God is pretense --- that is, one is pretending to something one has no right to; one is pretending to be someone one is not.

Because I have been given the right (and privilege) as well as accepted the obligation of and responsibilities associated with wearing a habit --- and because I wear it routinely --- yes, I am entirely comfortable praying  in it. However, I am equally comfortable praying in jeans and a work tunic, pajamas, or even (for some forms of prayer anyway!) naked in the shower. In other words, I am comfortable in my own skin before and in the power of God. You must be yourself in prayer. Nothing else makes sense. Nothing else is truly reverent or really open to God. Anything else is an offense to the God of Truth who truly accepts us as we are and loves us into wholeness. Anything else is contrary to our being  humble persons who are and allow ourselves to be wholly dependent upon the mercy of God. Playing dress up in a habit is contrary to humility which is a loving form of truthfulness; neither is it the basis for prayer to or empowered by the God who makes all things true.

By the way, what you might like to do instead of dressing up in a religious habit is to use a prayer garment. I do not mean a cowl, for instance (this is associated with solemn public profession and monastic or eremitical life), but many people use prayer shawls or garments like a Jewish "Tallit" .  Meanwhile, thank you for your question. It is actually a significant one and I am truly grateful you asked it.

Seeking Eremitical Consecration When one's Director Disagrees

[[Dear Sister, I am a lay person and would like to become canonically approved as a diocesan hermit but I am not sure my spiritual director thinks it is something I should go ahead with. I wouldn't want to go against his wishes in this. Do you have an opinion?]]

Thanks for your question and for waiting the past several days for an answer. First of all, petitioning for canonical standing (standing in law) means asking the Church to admit you to public profession and allow you to accept the public rights and obligations associated with the consecrated (and in this case, the eremitical) state of life. It means petitioning to be allowed to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and so, being publicly responsible not just for your own vocation, but for the living eremitical tradition as well.

If you are accepted and admitted finally to solemn (perpetual) profession and consecration as a diocesan (c 603) hermit, you become responsible for continuing this stream of the tradition in a normative way which allows an ancient vocation to be lived in inspired and fruitful dialogue with the contemporary situation;  again, you do so in the name of the Church. It is a significant public responsibility and while there is some degree of "approval" more fundamentally canonical standing is about being given a place of trust in the public (and the hidden) life of the Church. (By the way, this is also why only publicly professed hermits, whether those that live in community or those professed under c 603, are called Catholic hermits. The use of the term Catholic here points to the public, normative (canonical), and ecclesial nature of the vocation one has both been admitted to and assumed, not to the individual's membership in the RC Church.)

The language of "approval" as in "(a) canonical or bishop's (stamp of) approval" is therefore misleading and superficial in this regard and I would suggest you mainly avoid it. I have really only heard one other person use this language routinely and she did it mainly to trivialize the vocation and to criticize hermits who desire "status" and "approval" --- as though seeking canonical standing (standing in law) was merely (or mainly) a matter of personal aggrandizement or pride. A consistent theme in her posts and videos was a downplaying of the ecclesial nature and responsibility of the vocation in order to focus on more superficial notions of "status" (as prestige) and approval. Your own language reminds me of these posts in which the nature of canonical standing was so badly misrepresented so I want to address this issue as well as those you asked about specifically. In general this language represents a perspective which actually prevents one from understanding the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial or the real nature of standing in law.

Similarly, your post reminds me of this person's posts and videos in the way you speak of your spiritual director. In my experience competent contemporary directors do not assume the kind of responsibility you are describing. I know I do not, nor does my own director (as director) or any of those with whom I am familiar. I am not my clients' legitimate superior nor do I tell them what I think their vocation is. I may certainly have opinions about a person's readiness or lack of readiness to pursue a particular vocation but I do not tell them to either pursue or not pursue it. That is beyond my purview as a director and the directors I know feel the same way about this. More importantly, however, the fact that you are considering not exploring something you apparently feel called to because your SD may disagree with you about it may actually suggest that you are really not ready to pursue consecrated life generally or consecrated eremitical life specifically.

You see, this life is a mature and independent one where every day one is called on to listen to and follow the voice of God in one's heart of hearts. A director can accompany you in this and assist you in learning to hear and respond appropriately to this voice of God --- which is why you of course should listen carefully to what she has to say in this regard and pray seriously over her concerns --- but s/he cannot (and really should not) replace this entire dynamic by telling you what you should do. That way encourages a juvenile approach to life and discernment, not authentic or mature obedience. By the way, the relationship between a legitimate superior and one bound by a public vow of obedience is more complex than (on the subject's part) simply doing as one is told or (on the superior's part) simply telling someone to do things. Instead both parties are bound to listen closely to God's will in this person's life as well as in the life of the community, diocese, eremitical tradition, etc, and for that reason the vow means careful work together motivated by love in Christ. It is actually relatively rare today for a legitimate superior to simply tell a person bound by a public vow "what to do."

In any case bear in mind that simply petitioning to be admitted to canonical profession and eventual conse-cration does not mean this will happen. It means that you are seeking to enter into a process of mutual discernment with members of your local chancery, first Vicars and/or vocation personnel and then, if that goes well, the Bishop. (They will, of course, request a reference from your director and they might possibly seek her recommendation or at least listen to concerns she might have.) Because canon 603 life is an ecclesial vocation it is not one you can embrace all by yourself; neither does your own sense of call ensure a call exists nor therefore, that the diocese will agree in this matter. The discernment MUST be mutual and your diocese may decide to allow you to enter into such a process or they may determine that you are not ready to do this. They may even determine you are not suited to the vocation or they may actually be unwilling to profess anyone at this point in time. If you are admitted to a process of discernment which eventuates in profession and consecration, actual admission to even temporary vows is likely several years in the future -- so be prepared for that.

By the way, if your director is pretending to bind you in obedience or expects you to simply do as s/he says in the way you have described (since you are not a religious and since this person has no legitimate authority over you this can only be pretense) I would personally suggest you look for another director or, at the very least, see if the relationship cannot be significantly modified in this regard. I have never heard of competent contemporary directors relating to lay clients this way but I have sometimes heard directees speaking of their directors in these terms when those same directors really do not encourage it or relate to them in this way. While I am not saying you are doing this (I honestly don't know of course) it is important if you ever want to be a diocesan hermit that you have internalized a truly adult model of obedience and ways of relating to authority in your life --- legitimate and otherwise. Because diocesan hermits' legitimate superiors are their Bishops it is really unusual for them to meet with one another more than twice a year at most. Once a year is much more typical so one can hardly "wait for permission," or "wait to hear what he thinks" until one sees her Bishop. To assist in this situation diocesan hermits tend to have diocesan delegates with whom we meet more frequently (four to six times a year or so as possible); these persons serve as quasi-superiors but they also tend not to encourage the hermit to turn to them for permissions or approval, for instance, except in very occasional and significant matters.

Consecrated Virginity, Eschatological Secularity and the Descent and Ascent of the Bridegroom

[[Sister Laurel, when you talk about consecrated virginity as a form of eschatological secularity you are talking about it in terms of this same eschatology you have been explaining the Ascension in aren't you? The bridal imagery Jesus uses to explain the Ascension applies directly to this vocation then doesn't it? It is an icon of this new creation and this new heaven and earth the Scriptures talk about. Is that right? If that is the case then I understand better why you have insisted this is a "significantly qualified secularity" defined in terms of eschatology and consecration. It is not only that CV's are icons of something still to come but that they are icons of something already here; both consecration and secularity are essential dimensions of this. . . .]] (Paraphrase and transcription of part of a conversation I had with another Sister on this matter. It builds on the following article among others: Consecrated Virgins and the Interpenetration of Heaven and Earth)

Yes, exactly.  When I write about consecrated virginity lived in the world as a form of eschatological secularity I am specifically thinking of the ascended Jesus and his mediation of God into the world as well as his mediation of the saeculum or created world into God. The new heaven and new earth we look forward to, that reality in which God is all in all has begun to exist but is not here in fullness. CV's living in the world are icons and apostles of this proleptic reality in a way which is unique not only because of the bridal imagery associated with the vocation but because of the vocation's secularity as well. Just like the Bridegroom CV's are called to mediate between heaven and earth by representing both fully. They are not to flee the world as some forms of religious life stress, nor do they represent an unchanged secularity. Instead they are icons of the ascended Christ and the new creation, the new heaven and earth his own life in God represents and mediates.

You see, when I think about Jesus as mediator there is an amazing symmetry about it. It is quite literally beautiful to me to see the way Jesus as God's Christ stands between two worlds and brings them together in himself.  All vocations participate in Christ and in his role as mediator but the bridal imagery used in the Gospel of John to speak of the Ascension and his "going to prepare a place for us" in the very life of God seems to me to be especially explicit in the vocation to consecrated virginity. So is the transformed secularity, that is, the eschatological secularity, of this new heaven and new earth. It may well be that any Christian consecrated in baptism can represent this kind of secularity but because of the explicit bridal imagery associated with it it seems to me that consecrated virgins represent this is a more vivid, explicit, and perhaps too, a more integrated way than other forms of consecrated life.

In the early Church folks were in greater touch than we are today with the fact that they belonged to an earth which was objectively different than it had been prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. They lived and breathed a truly eschatological secularity because they saw the new heaven and new earth both now present and its coming in fullness being right around the corner. We have lost touch with this sense but the renewal of this vocation, it seems to me, could represent a completely new (and very ancient) approach to the cosmos which is profoundly eschatological. Christ as Bridegroom models the movements of descent and ascent, kenosis and pleroma, self-humbling and glorification. It is in Christ that things which were once separated and alienated from one another are reconciled so that God might be all in all.

Remember that it was typical of religions to believe these things did not belong together in God or in the Divine (God could not be associated with kenois, humbling, sin, death, godlessness, suffering, etc); thus it was similarly typical to believe that created reality or material reality did not belong to the spiritual realm or vice versa. The Christ Event changed all that and it is Jesus as mediator and bridegroom that makes the reconciliation and eventual transfiguration of these both real and vivid. Christ mediates the sacred to the secular and the secular to the sacred, so to speak; the reality that comes to be in him, whether proleptically or in fullness, is an eschatological secularity --- a new heaven and a new earth. His Bride (the Church) shares in this mediatory vocation. It should not be surprising then that consecrated vocations serve to demonstrate a similar paradoxical "belonging together" of those things which were once seen as incompatible and rightly alienated.  So you see, I continue to believe CV's living in the world are called to demonstrate this in a privileged way. Those who reject the eschatological secularity of their vocations seem to me to have missed this central piece of what the NT bridal imagery is really all about.

Another look at Ascension: Jewish Marriage as Analogy to Christ's Role as Mediator

I have been asked by a regular reader to try and say more about what I meant in the post on Ascension. She actually asked if I could simplify it some, not to dumb it down, but to try and say it in a way which is simpler and clearer. Her point is well-taken and I want to try to do that. Unfortunately, that may take a couple of posts. In this one I especially want to remind us all of the Jewish marriage ceremony and the way the gospel writers uses it to symbolize all of creation and redemption history --- the whole history of God's relationship with humankind --- especially as these are mirrored in the dual movements of divine descent and ascent, divine self-emptying and then God's welcoming created, embodied life back into himself in Christ so that he might be all in all. In this dual "movement" Christ is the mediator and Bridegroom.

The Two Stages of Jewish Marriage

The central image Jesus uses in Friday's Gospel lection is that of marriage. His disciples are supposed to hear him speaking of the entire process of man and wife becoming one, of a union which represents that between God and mankind which is so close that the two cannot be prised apart or even seen as entirely distinguishable realities. Remember that in Jewish marriages there were two steps: 1) the betrothal which was really marriage and which could only be ended by a divorce, and 2) the taking home and consummation stage in this marriage. After the bridegroom travels to his bride's home and the two are betrothed, the bridegroom returns home to build a place for his new bride in his family's home. It is a better place than she had before. When this is finished (about a year later) the bridegroom travels back to his bride and with great ceremony (lighted lamps, accompanying friends, etc) brings her back to her new home where the marriage is consummated.

This image of the dual stages in Jewish marriage is an appropriate metaphor of what is accomplished in the two "stages" in salvation history referred to as descent and ascent. When we think of Jesus as mediator or revealer --- or even as Bridegroom --- we are looking at a theology of salvation (soteriology)  in which God first goes out of himself in search of a counterpart. This God  'empties himself' of divine prerogatives --- not least that of remaining in solitary omnipotent splendor --- and in a continuing act of self-emptying creates the cosmos still in search of that counterpart. For this reason the entire process is known as one of descent or kenosis. Over eons of time and through many intermediaries (including prophets, the Law, and several covenants) he continues to go out of himself to summon the "other" into existence, and eventually chooses a People who will reveal  him (that is, make him known and real) to the nations. Finally and definitively in Jesus he is enabled to turn a human face to his chosen People. As God has done in partial and fragmentary ways before, in Christ as Mediator he reveals himself definitively as a jealous and fierce lover, one who will allow nothing, not even sin and godless death (which he actually takes into himself!)** to separate him from his beloved or prevent him from bringing her home with him when the time comes.

With Jesus' ascension we are confronted with another dimension of Christ's role as mediator; we celebrate the return of the Bridegroom to his father's house --- that is to the very life of God. He goes there to prepare a place for us. As in the Jewish marriage practice, that Divine "household" (that Divine life) will change in a definitive way with the return of the Son (who has also changed and is now an embodied human being who has experienced death, etc.) just as the Son's coming into the world changed it in a definitive way. God is not yet all in all (that comes later) but in Christ humanity has both assumed and been promised a place in God's own life. As my major theology professor used to say to us, "God has taken death into himself and has not been destroyed by it." That is what heaven is all about, active participation and sharing by that which is other than God in the very life of God. Heaven is not like a huge sports arena where everyone who manages to get a ticket stares at the Jumbo Tron (God) and possibly plays harps or sing psalms to keep from getting too bored. With the Christ Event God changes the world and reconciles it to himself, but with that same event the very life of God himself is changed as well. The ascension signals this significant change as embodied humanity and all of human experience becomes a part of the life of the transcendent God who is eternal and incorporeal. Some "gods" would be destroyed by this, but not the God of Jesus Christ!

Summary

Mediation (or revelation) occurs in two directions in Christ. Christ IS the gateway between heaven and earth, the "place" where these two realities meet and kiss, the new Temple where sacred and profane come together and are transfigured into a single reality. Jesus as mediator implicates God into our world and all of its moments and moods up to and including sin and godless death. But Jesus as mediator also allows human life, and eventually all of creation to be implicated in and assume a place in God's own life. When this double movement comes to its conclusion, when it is accomplished in fullness and Jesus' commission to reconciliation is entirely accomplished, when, that is, the Bridegroom comes forth once again to finally bring his bride home, there will be a new heaven and earth where God is all in all; in this parousia both God and creation achieve the will of God together as it was always meant to be.

** the Scriptures recognize two forms of death. The first is a kind of natural perishing. The second is linked to sin and to the idea that if we choose to live without God we choose to die without him. It is the consequence of sin. This second kind is called variously, sinful death, godless death, eternal death or the second death. This is the death Jesus "takes on" in taking on the reality and consequences of human sinfulness; it is the death he dies while (in his own sinlessness) remaining entirely vulnerable and open to God. It is the death his obedience (openness) allows God to penetrate and transform with his presence. The resurrection is the sign of the defeat of this death and the first sign that all death will one day fall to the life and love of God.

I Go to Prepare a Place for You

We speak about Jesus as the mediator between God and mankind and ordinarily we think of this in terms of mediating our prayers to God and God's grace to us. But there is something more profound involved in claiming Jesus as mediator. The language of Jesus as Good shepherd from last Sunday's Gospel lection is also the language of mediation. Jesus is the gate to the sheepfold, the way and the life. Just as he mediates the presence of God within our world by implicating the one he calls Abba in those personal spaces and dimensions from which human beings have excluded him by their sin, so Jesus also  is the gateway for human beings assuming a place in God's own life.

On Friday the Gospel has Jesus telling his disciples not to worry; he goes to God to prepare a place for us. In its own cryptic way it points the disciples to Jesus' death and resurrection while for us nearing the end of the Easter season and the Feast of the Ascension it gives us a key to what the Ascension of Jesus is really all about. In this event humankind achieves its rightful place in the very life of God. Bearing that in mind I am posting a reprise of a post I put up a couple of years ago for the Feast of the Ascension.


[[A couple of years ago I wrote about a passage taken from one of the Offices (Vigils) on the Feast of the Ascension. In that passage we hear the remarkable statement that, [[It is he who gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in roles of service for the faithful to build up the body of Christ, till we become one in faith and in the knowledge of God's Son, AND FORM THE PERFECT MAN WHO IS CHRIST COME TO FULL STATURE.]] It is an image that has intrigued me since, and of course, one that I hear and reflect on again each Ascension Day. Imagine that it is we-as-church who quite literally make up the body of Christ and who one day will be taken up into the very life of God just as Christ was --- and that in this way, Christ will have "come to full stature." He will live in us and we in him, and all of us in God as God too becomes all in all. (Sounds very Johannine doesn't it?)

When I was an undergraduate in Theology (and through a lot of my graduate work as well), the Ascension never made much sense to me. It was often mainly treated as a Lukan construction which added little to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and if my professors and those they had us reading felt this way, I didn't press the issue --- nor, at least as an undergraduate, did I have the wherewithal TO press the issue theologically. It didn't help any that the notion of Jesus' bodily ascension into "heaven" was more incomprehensible (and unbelieveable) than resurrection, or that I understood it as a kind of dissolving away of Jesus bodiliness rather than a confirmation of it and continuation of the Incarnation. (The notion that a docetist Jesus had just been "slumming" for thirty-three years, as one writer objects to putting the matter, and that Ascension was the act by which he shook the dust of humanity from his sandals when his work was done, was probably not far from my mind here.)

Finally therefore, it was really difficult to deal with the notion that Christ, who had been so close to us as to appear in his glorified body with which he walked through walls, ate fish, allowed his marks as the crucified one to be examined, etc, was now going to some remote place far distant from us and would be replaced by some intangible and abstract spiritual reality. Of course, I had it all wrong. Completely. Totally. Absolutely wrong in almost every particular. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that most Christians have it wrong in all the same ways. And yet, it is the passage from Ephesians which is one key to getting it all right, and to rejoicing in the promise and challenge that Jesus' Ascension represents for us.

What actually happens in the Ascension? What about reality changes? What does it mean to say that Christ ascends to the right hand of God or "opens the gates of heaven"? The notion that Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension changes reality is novel for many people. They may think of redemption as a matter of changing God's mind about us, for instance, appeasing divine wrath, but not really changing objective reality. Yet, on the cross and through his descent into the very depths of Godlessness (sin and godless or sinful death), as I have written before, Jesus, through his own obedience (openness, and responsiveness) opens this realm to God; he implicates God into this realm in definitive ways. God's presence in all of our world's moments and moods is, in light of the Christ Event, personal and intimate, not impersonal and remote. And with God implicated in the very reality from which he has, by definition, been excluded, that reality is transformed. It is no longer literally godless, but instead becomes a kind of sacrament of his presence, the place where we may see him face to face in fact --- and the place where being now triumphs over non-being, life triumphs over death, love triumphs over all that opposes it, and meaning overcomes absurdity. This is one part or side of Jesus' mediatory function: the making God real and present in ways and where before he was not. It is the climax of God's own self-emptying, his own "descent" which began with creation and continues with redemption and new creation; it is the climax of God first creating that which is other so that he might share himself, and then entering into every moment and mood of creation.

But there is another aspect or side to Christ's mediatory activity, and this is made most clear in the Ascension. The language used is not descent, but ascent, not journeying to a far place, but returning home and preparing a place for those who will follow. (Yes, we SHOULD hear echoes of the parable of the prodigal Son/ merciful Father here with Christ as the prodigal Son journeying to a far place.) If in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, the world is opened to God, in Jesus' ascension, God's own life is opened definitively to the world. In Jesus' ascension, the new creation, of which Jesus is the first born and head, is taken up BODILY into God, dwells within him in communion with him. In Jesus we meet our future in the promise that this will happen to us and all of creation in him.

When Paul speaks of God becoming all in all he is looking at the culmination of this double process of mediation: first, God entering the world more profoundly, extensively and, above all, personally in Christ, and second, the world being taken up into God's own life. When he speaks of Christ coming to full stature, he is speaking of the same process, the same culmination. When theologians speak of the interpenetration of heaven and earth, or the creation of a new heaven and a new earth they are speaking again of this process with an eye towards its culmination at the end of time. The Ascension marks the beginning of this "End Time."


It is important to remember a couple of things in trying to understand this view of ascension. First, God is not A BEING, not even the biggest and best, holiest, most powerful, etc. God is being itself, the ground of being and meaning out of which everything that has being and meaning stands (ex-istere, i.e., "out of - to stand"). Secondly, therefore, heaven is not merely some place where God resides along with lots of other beings (including, one day, ourselves) --- even if he is the center of attention and adoration. Heaven is God's own being, the very life of God himself shared with others. (Remember that often the term heaven was used by Jews to avoid using God's name, thus, the Kingdom or Reign of Heaven is the Sovereignty of God) Finally, as wonderful as this creation we are part of is, it is meant for more. It is meant to exist in and of God in a final and definitive way. Some form of panentheism is the goal of reality, both human and divine. Jesus' ascension is the first instance of created existence being taken up into God's own life (heaven). It is the culmination of one part of the Christ event (mediation seen mainly in terms of descent and creation/redemption), and the beginning of another (mediation seen in terms of recreation/glorification and ascent).

When the process is completed and God is all in all, so too can we say that the God-Man Christ will have "come to full stature," or, as another translation of today's lection from Ephesians reads: [[. . .in accord with the exercise of his great might: which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, far above every principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.]]

For those who have difficulty in accepting God's assumption of human flesh and revelation of himself exhaustively in a human life -- most especially in the weakness and fragility of such a life, Jesus' ascension offers no relaxing of the tension or scandal of the incarnation. Instead it heightens it. With Jesus' ascension the Godhead NOW has taken created reality and bodily existence within itself as a very part of God's own life even while He transfigures it. This is what we are meant for, the reason we were created. It is what God willed "from the beginning". If, in the Christ Event human life is defined as a covenantal reality, that is, if our lives are dialogical realities with God as an integral and constitutive part, so too does the Christ Event define God similarly, not simply as Trinitarian and in some sort of conversation with us, but as One who actively makes room within himself for us and all he cherishes --- and who, in this sense and because he wills it, is incomplete without us.

Human being --- created, redeemed, recreated, and glorified --- assumes its rightful and full stature in Christ while Christ assumes his full stature as part of the very life of God. In the acts of creation, redemption, and glorification, Divinity empties itself of certain prerogatives in Christ as well, but at the same time Divinity assumes its full stature in Christ, a stature we could never have imagined because it includes us in itself in an integral or fundamental way. Whether this is expressed in the language and reality of descent, kenosis (self-emptying), and asthenia (weakness), or of ascent, pleroma (fullness), and power, Christianity affirms the scandal of the incarnation as revelatory of God's very nature. It is also revelatory in the sense of making real. We should stand open-mouthed and astounded in awe at the dignity accorded us and the future with which we are, and all of creation is "endowed" on the "day" of Christ's Ascension.]]

On Appropriate Perspectives: Loving Chastely vs Protecting One's Virginity

[[Dear Sister, with respect, why would requiring a manifestation of conscience in someone seeking something as important as consecration as a virgin be "problematical" as you put it? If a woman is not physically a virgin or if she has been lustful or involved in immodest activities and things like that, how can she represent this vocation? don't we have a right to know that the persons we admit to consecration really are virgins? Didn't you have to pass some kind of screening to become a hermit? Isn't this just part of the discernment process in determining who is called to this vocation or not?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me talk about some of the concerns these two related ideas (1. more detailed physicalist definitions or focus (including the more scrupulous definitions of the meaning of the terms "public" and "open") and 2. the requirement that there be a manifestation of conscience in cases of personal doubt) have raised for me with regard to the vocation to consecrated virginity --- especially as these more physicalist definitions seem to me to be linked with larger elitist attitudes or tendencies among some CV's which assert things like "Religious should not be allowed to call themselves brides of Christ" or the notion that "in heaven some who were consecrated will wear the virgin's crown or aureole" while others, because of physical  or biological criterion, will not, and so forth. Perhaps that will help answer your question about why I consider the whole thrust problematical. I will try not to merely repeat what I have already said.

My first concern has to do with the nature of the vocation itself and what we are saying with it. Is it merely the consecration of physical virginity per se, a virginity defined in mainly physicalist terms, or is it the consecration of a person to a life of virginal (single-hearted) and spousal love? While these two things belong together we change the emphasis significantly when our focus is on establishing ever-more-detailed definitions of what it means to be virgin rather than on what instead constitutes violations (especially public violations!) of chastity in the virginal state. Once we cease measuring virginity (within this vocation) primarily in terms of love or the generous, sacrificial, and risky (by which I do not mean reckless) self-giving this entails and instead focus on the necessary avoidance of emotional and physical interactions or activities which might lead to a loss of physical virginity we have made a fateful move. I argue this is especially so given the more detailed ways in which these are being defined and which are confusing folks to the point which may actually require a woman check with her Bishop to see if she has violated them or not. Specifically, it seems to me that in introducing this whole issue we have significantly shifted the mindset with which a woman approaches the vocation, and therefore too, the nature of the vocation itself from one of generous self-gift to one of scrupulous self-protection. Perhaps paradoxically this is true because the canon seems to me to confuse virginity with any serious violation of chastity in the first place. Once that is done the definition of virginity needs to be continually and retroactively continually expanded in the way some are attempting to do now.

Both virginity (including sexual or genital innocence or relative innocence) and a commitment to generous or sacrificial self-gift can be protected and encouraged of course, but the perspective required to do so is different than this practice encourages. What it takes to do this is a perspective which defines (a life of consecrated) virginity in terms of self-gift and singleness of heart, a perspective which sees virginal love as a goal, not as a static or "starting" state one simply preserves; its achievement must be perceived as something which demands a woman engage profoundly with others --- not that she avoid such engagement. If the focus is on loving and singleness of heart, on generous and sacrificial self-gifting in ways which are graced and motivated by Christ and empowered by the Spirit, then one will not need to do detailed examinations of whether this activity or that experience actually violated one's physical virginity. One will generally be successful at preserving this physical state because they are striving for something more transcendent which will also include lesser or more limited  concerns.

However, if one's focus is instead on merely preserving a physical state, then one may very well fail to love --- and to miss opportunities to love while identifying them as "dangerous" or "near occasions of sin" or simply being blind to them altogether. It's a little like riding a bicycle between two posts. If a person looks at the posts, first one then the other, then again, etc., she will invariably crash into the posts. If, on the other hand a person sights along the top of the wheel to gauge its projected  movement along the path or, even better,  focuses as well as one can on the path beyond the posts --- that is, if she looks at where she wishes to go and is actually heading rather than where she does NOT wish to go --- she will pretty much sail through the posts without concern. If I look at what it means to love --- God, myself, and others --- and if I try to do so with greater compassion, sensitivity, generosity, sacrifice, and so forth, I am not likely to violate chastity; if, however, I am constantly concerned with my own chastity it will only be by luck or the sheer grace of God alone that I do not violate it because I have set my sights on violation. (By the way, we ought not tempt the Lord our God in this matter! Grace is necessary but so is the perspective it provides) Meanwhile there is no doubt that I will also fail to grow sufficiently in loving as fully as I am called to because love implies self-forgetfulness and risk while this perspective is not only relatively self-centered but is defined by the words, "Caution" and "Danger!". In this analysis perspective is everything and the approach suggested by some CV's seems to me to foster the wrong perspective.


Another example, this time from the history of Judaism might be better. Consider the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath. This was ordinarily interpreted to mean that one rested from work but it also meant to rest in God as well as to worship him. It allowed the whole of creation to rest on that day. Sabbath rest allowed one to foster an attitude of thanksgiving or gratitude for God and his gifts. It allowed one to foster a mindset in which an instrumental and even exploitative approach to reality (including people) was relinquished along with workaholism and all the ways we measure ourselves in terms of wealth, success, power, etc,  so that one might just be oneself with God and one's loved ones.

This broader and more demanding goal was stated as "keep Holy the Sabbath". Eventually, Judaism developed detailed lists of what was and was not allowed on the Sabbath. Sixty-nine forms of work were delineated as prohibited on the Sabbath. Throughout history, of course, developed even further in response to a changed culture.  In contemporary culture observant Jews had do ask themselves "May I turn on a light switch after the Sabbath has begun?" Drive or ride in a car? Etc, etc. In other words the focus or perspective shifted away from the goal to limited and delimiting notions of the means to that goal. It also fostered the hardening of a sacred/profane dichotomy. Is this what the commandment is about? I don't think so. And yet, this is invariably the direction things move when we are concerned with what we should avoid rather than with exercising the freedom and love of the children of God. (Remember Paul's Conclusions on Law vs Gospel.)

I think the Church herself saw this clearly in creating what seems to me to be a threshold definition of virginity rather than a highly detailed and physicalist one. (Again, it seems to me the canon confuses loss of virginity and violations of chastity since not all violations of chastity --- even if flagrant -- cause one to cease being a virgin; thus, I am instead suggesting the church created a threshold definition here.) While she clearly expects the woman never to have been married or participated in the marital act, in every other way the canon, rite of consecration, formal homily, etc seems to focus on loving others and witnessing to an all-embracing, demanding, challenging spousal love to which all are ultimately called. Again, when we keep our focus on the latter we are almost assured of remaining chaste in whatever state of life to which we are called. When our focus is drawn to the former, the detailed "thou shalt nots" ---- especially if this is linked to a sense of confusion or uncertainty --- we are more apt to fail at the larger task, the true call. In terms of the parable of the foolish virgins we might put it this way:  If attention is drawn away from Christ and his call to love others in the exhaustive way he loves us,  if our attention is drawn away from waiting on him to focus instead or even primarily on preserving physical virginity, if, that is, CV's shift their perspective from the love that gives freedom (and espcially freedom from fear) to an anxious, fearful and protective concern that, in Scriptural terms, brings "death", then CV's are apt to find their lamps are clean and shiny but empty of oil and unable to light the way to the wedding banquet. They may even find they have missed the Bridegroom altogether. Again, at bottom this is paradoxically at least partly a result of conflating any serious violation of chastity with a violation of one's virginity.

Manifestation of Conscience, a dangerous Precedent

The second concern I have is that if we allow (or require) women who are confused about the matter of their personal virginity (not least because of the previously mentioned confusion) and do not know whether they have ALSO violated chastity to make a manifestation of conscience so their bishop can decide matters, then unless the church refuses to consecrate such women or subsequently locks the consecrated virgin up in something equivalent to a medieval anchorhold we will need to require subsequent and regular manifestations of conscience to continue to protect such women's virginity. We will really not be able to adopt this idea of requiring a manifestation of conscience in cases of personal doubt only as a pre-consecration step. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, if the woman --- whom we presume to be relatively intelligent and at least well-catechised if not theologically well-educated --- is confused or uncertain before consecration it can only be because 1) the definition of virginity is too difficult (or too narrow) for her  to grasp or the list of things which are violations are too complex or too vaguely defined for her to determine things on her own; there is no reason to think this will change after consecration --- especially since cultural and societal changes, physical changes in the woman herself, and the demands of ministry focused on loving engagement with others will assure this detail-oriented definition does not remain static, or 2) the woman is not really suited to the vocation or is really too immature to be admitted to consecration. In either case if such a woman is admitted to consecration there is no reason to think she will not need to be questioned and checked up on regularly.

One alternative, of course, is as you say, to treat the first manifestation of conscience as a screening procedure used in the discernment process alone and then presume the woman will never need this again. But this is inadequate; it is either naive or it sets a double standard. You see, once we set the precedent of having another person determine FOR a woman if she is really a virgin when she herself is doubtful we have taken what I called earlier a fateful step on a slippery slope that can only lead to more of the same. For the moment this women is presumably is a virgin but what about six months from now? A year? Tomorrow? How will she "protect her virginity" if she (and perhaps the church herself) is unclear on what constitutes an irreparable violation of that in the first place? This is, after all, what that confidential pre-consecration "talk" with her Bishop signaled. And how about those CV's who claimed to know what they were committing to? Do they really know what it means to remain chaste or was their focus insufficiently detailed and physicalist originally (as some CV's seem to believe the Church's working requirements for admission to consecration have been for the past 31 years)? Who decides? Best just call them all in regularly for a "confidential chat" with the bishop!

Obviously I am being a bit facetious here, but only a bit. Setting a precedent regarding the manifestation of conscience for a woman who is unsure she is really a virgin in order to consecrate her to a life of virginal, spousal love is a terrible and destructive idea which fosters the wrong perspective for generous, single-hearted, and selfless love. There are a number of other questions raised by you and also by other readers including: what happens to women who are already consecrated but cannot NOW affirm virginity in the face of more stringent (and also less demanding) definitions? How about those who fall into essentially private violations of these definitions? I will leave this here for now until I have more time, but I hope this has been helpful in clarifying some of my concerns.