Miserando atque Eligendo: A Mercy That Does Justice as it Creates a Future (Reprise)

Quite often this blog is a way in which I work out theological positions, especially in terms of the nature and charism of eremitical life, the relation of Gospel and Law (often canon law!!), or of mercy and justice. In reflecting on Friday's readings from 1 Sam and Mark I was reminded of Pope Francis' jubilee year of Mercy and of his coat of arms and motto: Miserando atque Eligendo. In 1 Sam David shows mercy to Saul despite Saul's commitment to killing him and is deemed by Saul to be worthy of Kingship by virtue of this act. An act of mercy is presented as having the power to change Saul's heart as nothing else does. The lection from Mark deals with the calling of the twelve. Together they represent a single pastoral impulse, a single imperative, the impulse and imperative also marking the entirety of Francis' Episcopacy and Pontificate and this Jubilee year of mercy as well: Miserando atque eligendo.

Francis translates the first word of his motto as a gerund, "Mercifying". He sees his episcopacy as being about the mercification of the church and world; the motto as a whole means "To Mercify (to embrace wretchedness) and to Call". This can even be translated as, "I will mercify (that is, make the world whole by embracing its wretchedness in the power of God's love) and (or "and even further") call (or choose) others" who will be commissioned in the same way. Francis speaks of the meaning of his motto in his new book, The Name of God is Mercy . He writes, "So mercifying and choosing (calling) describes the vision of Jesus who gives the gift of mercy and chooses, and takes unto himself."  (Kindle location 226) This is simply the way Francis chose to be a Bishop in Christ's Church; it is certainly the face God turned to the world in Jesus and it is the face of the shepherd we have come to associate with the Papacy. It is the way the Church is called to address and transform our world, the way she is called to literally "embrace wretchedness" and create peace and purpose. Mercifying and calling. It is the Way into the future God wills for everyone and everything.

Paul too saw that mercy was the way God creates a future. He writes in his letter to the Romans, [[Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?]] In other words it is the kindness or mercy of God, God's forbearance and patience that will create a way forward --- if in fact we take that mercy seriously. What I saw as I read that line from Paul was that Divine mercy is always about creating a way forward when our own actions close off any way of progress at all. God's mercy draws us out of any past we have locked ourselves into and into his own life of "absolute futurity". Let me explain. Often times I have written here that God's mercy IS God's justice. Justice is always about creating and ensuring a future -- both for those wronged, for society as a whole, and for the ones who have wronged another. Justification itself means establishing a person in right relationship with God and the rest of reality; it indicates that person's freedom from enmeshment in the past and her participation in futurity, that is in God's own life. Mercy, which (as I now see clearly) always includes a call to discipleship, is the way God creates and draws us into the future. What is often called "Divine wrath" is just the opposite --- though it can open us to the mercy which will turn things around.

Divine Wrath, Letting the Consequences of our Sin Run:

Wrath, despite the anthropomorphic limitations of language involved, is not Divine anger or a failure or refusal of God to love us. Rather, it is what happens when God respects our freedom and lets the consequences of our choices and behavior run --- the consequences which cut us off from the love and community of others, the consequences which make us ill or insure our life goes off the rails, so to speak, the consequences which ripple outward and affect everyone within the ambit of our lives. Similarly, it is God's letting run the consequences of sin which  lead us to even greater acts of sin as we defend or attempt to defend ourselves against them, try futilely to control matters, and keep our hands on the reins which seem to imply we control our lives and destinies. But how can a God of Love possibly allow the consequences of sin run and still be merciful? I have one story which helps me illustrate this.

I wrote recently of the death of my major theology professor, John Dwyer. In the middle of a moral theology class focusing on the topic of human freedom and responsibility John said that if he saw one of us doing something stupid he would not prevent us. He quickly noted that if we were impaired in some way he would intervene but otherwise, no. Several of us majors were appalled. John was a friend and mentor. Now, we regularly spent time at his house dining with him and his wife Odile and talking theology into the late hours. (It was Odile who introduced me to French Roast coffee and always made sure there was some ready!) Though we students were not much into doing seriously stupid things, we recognized the possibility of falling into such a situation! So when John made this statement we looked quickly at one another with questioning, confused, looks and gestures. A couple of us whispered to each other, "But he LOVES us! How can he say that?" John took in our reaction in a single glance or two, gave a somewhat bemused smile, and explained, "I will always be here for you. I will be here if you need advice, if you need a listening ear. . . and if you should do something stupid I will always be here for you afterwards to help you recover in whatever way I can, but I will not prevent you from doing the act itself."

We didn't get it at all at the time, but now I know John was describing for us an entire complex of theological truths about human freedom, Divine mercy, Divine wrath, theodicy, and discipleship as well: Without impinging on our freedom God says no to our stupidities and even our sin, but he always says yes to us and his yes to us, his mercy, eventually will also win out over sin. John would be there for us in somewhat the same the merciful God of Jesus Christ is there for us. Part of all of this was the way the prospect or truth of being "turned over" to our own freedom and the consequences of our actions also opens us to mercy. To be threatened with being left to ourselves in this way if we misused our freedom --- even with the promise that John would be there for us before, after, and otherwise --- made us think very carefully about doing something truly stupid. John's statement struck us like a splash of astringent but it was also a merciful act which included an implicit call to a future free of serious stupidities, blessed with faithfulness, and marked by genuine freedom. It promised us the continuing and effective reality of John's love and guiding presence, but the prospect of his very definite "no!" to our "sin" was a spur to embrace more fully the love and call to adulthood he offered us.

How much more does the prospect of "Divine wrath" (or the experience of that "wrath" itself) open us to the reality of Divine mercy?! Thus, Divine wrath is subordinate to and can serve Divine mercy; it can lead to a wretchedness which opens us to something more, something other. It can open us to the Love-in-Act that summons and saves. At the same time it is mercy that has the power to redeem situations of wrath, situations of enmeshment in and entrapment by the consequences of one's sin. It is through mercy that God does justice, through mercy that God sets things to rights and opens a future to that which was once a dead end.

Miserando atque Eligendo, The Way of Divine Mercy:

What is critical, especially in light of Friday's readings and Francis' motto it seems to me, is that we understand mercy not only as the gratuitous forgiveness of sin or the graced and unconditional love of the sinner, but that we also see that mercy, by its very nature, further includes a call which leads to embracing a new life. The most striking image of this in the NT is the mercy the Risen Christ shows to Peter. Each time  Peter answers Christ's question, "Do you love me?" he is told, "Feed my Lambs" or "Feed my Sheep." Jesus does not merely say, "You are forgiven"; in fact, he never says, "You are forgiven" in so many words. Instead he conveys forgiveness with a call to a new and undeserved future.

This happens again and again in the NT. It happens in the parable of the merciful Father (prodigal son) and it happens whenever Jesus says something like, "Rise and walk" or "Go, your faith has made you whole," etc. (Go does not merely mean, "Go on away from here" or "Go on living as you were"; it is, along with other commands like "Rise", "Walk" "Come",etc., a form of commissioning which means. "Go now and mercify the world as God has done for you.") Jesus' healing and forgiving touch always involves a call opening the future to the one in need. Mercy, as a single pastoral  impulse, embraces our fruitless and pointless wretchedness even as it calls us to God's  own creative and meaningful blessedness.

The problem of balancing mercy and justice is a false problem when we are speaking of God. I have written about this before in Is it Necessary to Balance Divine Mercy With Justice? and Moving From Fear to Love: Letting Go of the God Who Punishes Evil. What was missing from "Is it necessary. . .?" was the element of call --- though I believe it was implicit since both miserando and eligendo are essential to the love of God which summons us to wholeness. Still, it took Francis' comments on his motto (something he witnesses to with tremendous vividness in every gesture, action, and homily) along with the readings from this Friday to help me see explicitly that the mercification or mercifying of our world means both forgiving and calling people into God's own future. We must not trivialize or sentimentalize mercy (or the nature of genuine forgiveness) by omitting the element of a call.

When we consider that today theologians write about God as Absolute Futurity (cf Ted Peters' works, God, the World's Future, and Anticipating Omega), the association of mercy with the call to futurity makes complete sense and it certainly distances us from the notion of Divine mercy as something weak which must be balanced by justice. Mercy, again, is the way God does justice --- the way he causes our world to be transfigured as it is shot through with eschatological Life and purpose. We may choose an authentic future in God's love or a wounded, futureless reality characterized by enmeshment and isolation in sin, but whichever we choose it is always mercy that sets things right --- if only we will accept it and the call it includes!! Of course it is similarly an authentic future we are called on to offer one another -- just as David offered to Saul and Jesus offered those he healed or those he otherwise called and sent out as his own Apostles. Miserando atque Eligendo!! May we adopt this as the motto of our own lives just as Francis has done, and may we make it our own "modus operandi" for doing justice in our world as Jesus himself did.

St Paul of the Cross (reprise)

Several years ago I did a reflection for my parish. I noted that all through Advent we sing Veni, Veni, Emmanuel and pray that God will come and really reveal Godself as Emmanuel, the God who is with us. I also noted that we may not always realize the depth of meaning captured in the name Emmanuel. We may not realize the degree of solidarity with us and the whole of creation it points to. There are several reasons here. 

          + First, we tend to use Emmanuel only during Advent and Christmastide so we stop reflecting on the meaning or theological implications of the name. 

          + Secondly, we are used to thinking of a relatively impersonal God borrowed from Greek philosophy; he is omnipresent -- rather like air is present in our lives and he is impassible, incapable of suffering in any way at all. Because he is omnipresent, God seems already to be "Emmanuel" so we are unclear what is really being added to what we know (and what is now true!!) of God.  Something is similarly true because of God's impassibility which seems to make God incapable of suffering with us or feeling compassionate toward us. (We could say something similar regarding God's immutability, etc. Greek categories are inadequate for understanding a living God who wills to be Emmanuel with all that implies.) 

          +  And thirdly, we tend to forget that the word "reveal" does not only mean "to make known," but also "to make real in space and time." The eternal and transcendent God who is revealed in space and time as Emmanuel is the God who, in Christ, enters exhaustively into the most profoundly historical and personal lives and circumstances of his Creation and makes these part of his own life in the process.

Thus, just as the Incarnation of the Word of God happens over the whole of Jesus' life and death and not merely with Jesus' conception or nativity, so too does God require the entire life and death of Jesus (that is, his entire living into death) to achieve the degree of solidarity with us that makes him the Emmanuel he wills to be. There is a double "movement" involved here, the movement of descent and ascent, kenosis and theosis. Not only does God-in-Christ become implicated in the whole of human experience and the realm of human history but in that same Christ God takes the whole of the human situation and experience into Godself. We talk about this by saying that through the Christ Event heaven and earth interpenetrate one another and one day God will be all in all or, again, that "the Kingdom of God is at hand." John the Evangelist says it again and again with the language of mutual indwelling and union: "I am in him and he is in me," "he who sees me sees the one who sent me", "the Father and I are One." Paul affirms dimensions of it in Romans 8 when he exults, "Nothing [at all in heaven or on earth] can separate us from the Love of God."

And so, in Jesus' life and active ministry, the presence of God is made real in space and time in an unprecedented way --- that is, with unprecedented authority, compassion, and intimacy. He companions and heals us; he exorcises our demons, teaches, feeds, forgives and sanctifies us. He is mentor and brother and Lord. He bears our stupidities and fear, our misunderstandings, resistance, and even our hostility and betrayals. But the revelation of God as Emmanuel means much more besides; as we move into the Triduum we begin to celebrate the exhaustive revelation, the exhaustive realization of an eternally-willed solidarity with us whose extent we can hardly imagine. In Christ and especially in his passion and death God comes to us in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Three dimensions of the cross especially allow us to see the depth of solidarity with us our God embraces in Christ: failure, suffering unto death, and lostness or godforsakenness. Together they reveal our God as Emmanuel --- the one who is with us as the one from whom nothing can ever ultimately separate us because in Christ those things become part of God's own life.

Jesus comes to the cross having apparently failed in his mission and shown his God to be a fraud. (From one perspective we could say that had he succeeded completely there would have been no betrayal, no trial, no torture and no crucifixion.) Jesus had spoken truth to power all throughout his ministry. On the cross this comes to a climax and in the events of Jesus' passion, the powers and principalities of this world appear to swallow him up. But even as this occurs and Jesus embraces the weight of the world's darkness and deathliness, Jesus remains open to God and trusts in his capacity to redeem any failure; thus even failure, but especially this one, can serve the Kingdom of God. Jesus suffers to the point of death and suffers more profoundly than any person in history we can name --- not because he hurt more profoundly than others but because he was more vulnerable to it and chose to embrace that vulnerability and all the world threw at him without mitigation. Suffering per se is not salvific, but Jesus' openness and responsiveness to God (that is, his obedience) in the face of suffering is. Thus, suffering even unto death is transformed into a potential sacrament of God's presence. Finally, Jesus suffers the lostness of godforsakenness or abandonment by God --- the ultimate separation from God due to sin. This is the meaning of not just death but death on a cross. In this death Jesus again remains open (obedient) to the God who reveals himself most exhaustively as Emmanuel and takes even the lostness of sin and death into himself and makes these his own. After all, as the NT reminds us, it is the sick and lost for whom God in Christ comes.

In perhaps the most powerful passage I have ever read on the paradox of the cross of Christ, John Dwyer (my major professor until doctoral work) speaks about God's reconciling work in Jesus --- the exhaustive coming of God as Emmanuel to transform everything --- in this way:

[[Through Jesus, the broken being of the world enters the personal life of the everlasting God, and this God shares in the broken being of the world. God is eternally committed to this world, and this commitment becomes full and final in his personal presence within this weak and broken man on the cross. In him the eternal One takes our destiny upon himself --- a destiny of estrangement, separation, meaninglessness, and despair. But at this moment the emptiness and alienation that mar and mark the human situation become once and for all, in time and eternity, the ways of God. God is with this broken man in suffering and in failure, in darkness and at the edge of despair, and for this reason suffering and failure, darkness and hopelessness will never again be signs of the separation of man from God. God identifies himself with the man on the cross, and for this reason everything we think of as manifesting the absence of God will, for the rest of time, be capable of manifesting his presence --- up to and including death itself.]]

He continues,

[[Jesus is rejected and his mission fails, but God participates in this failure, so that failure itself can become a vehicle of his presence, his being here for us. Jesus is weak, but his weakness is God's own, and so weakness itself can be something to glory in. Jesus' death exposes the weakness and insecurity of our situation, but God made them his own; at the end of the road, where abandonment is total and all the props are gone, he is there. At the moment when an abyss yawns beneath the shaken foundations of the world and self, God is there in the depths, and the abyss becomes a ground. Because God was in this broken man who died on the cross, although our hold on existence is fragile, and although we walk in the shadow of death all the days of our lives, and although we live under the spell of a nameless dread against which we can do nothing, the message of the cross is good news indeed: rejoice in your fragility and weakness; rejoice even in that nameless dread because God has been there and nothing can separate you from him. It has all been conquered, not by any power in the world or in yourself, but by God. When God takes death into himself it means not the end of God but the end of death.]] Dwyer, John C., Son of Man Son of God, a New Language for Faith, p 182-183.

A Contemplative Moment: Morning Prayer

Morning Prayer

by John Philip Newell

In the morning light, O God,

may I glimpse again your image deep within me

the threads of eternal glory

woven into the fabric of every man and woman.

Again may I catch sight of the mystery of the human soul

fashioned in your likeness

deeper than knowing

more enduring than time.

And in glimpsing these threads of light

amidst the weakness and distortions of my life

let me be recalled

to the strength and beauty deep in my soul.

Let me be recalled

to the strength and beauty of your image in every living

soul.

_______________________________________________________

The dignity of the human person is not easy for some to believe in, or even to glimpse, much less to stay attuned to and live in light of. The inner work I do is strongly oriented towards awareness of the presence of God within us as ground and source of all the potentiality we hold uniquely and realize over time. As we abide in God and God abides in us, this incredible revelation of life and divinity at our very core demands our awareness and cultivation if we are to live life as abundantly and authentically as God desires and wills for us. John Philip Newell's prayer captures all of this as it provides an invitation to get in touch with God's call to live the graced integrity we know as imago dei.

Have Mercy on Us (Porter's Gate)

 

 The paradox of Christianity celebrated in song!! 

 [Verse 1] 

The goodness of the Lord is the kindness of the Lord 

With ev'ry breath we take, the gift of life and grace 

The power of the Lord is the meekness of the Lord 

Who bore humanity with brave humility 

 [Chorus]

 Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

 [Verse 2]

 The beauty of the Lord is the suff'ring of the Lord 

Is Christ upon a tree, stripped of dignity 

The glory of the Lord is the mercy of the Lord 

Gives life for us to see a new humanity 

 [Chorus] 

Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

 [Bridge 1] 

When they see us, may they see 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

When they know us, may they know 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

When they see us, may they see 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

When they know us, may they know 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

 [Chorus]

 Let Your mercy flow through us

 Your mercy, Your mercy

 Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

 [Bridge 2]

 Bless the hands and feet 

Of those who serve in need 

Of the broken and ashamed 

Bless the weary soul 

The Lord will make us whole 

God, speak peace to those afraid 

May the words we speak 

Build a bridge for peace 

Your loving kindness shows the way 

Open up our doors 

Giving refuge for 

All the weary and afraid… 

 [Chorus]

 Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy

 Let Your mercy flow through us

 Your mercy, Your mercy 

 [Outro]

 Let Your mercy flow through us 

Your mercy, Your mercy 

Hermiting: A Life Lived Entirely for God is also a Life Lived Entirely for Others

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, Congratulations on the Camaldolese leading Morning Prayer for the Synod! It must be exciting to know someone there -- almost like being there yourself in some way!! I read your post on readiness for profession and also the post linked to it on basic questions to ask oneself in writing a Rule, which I hadn't read until tonight. They're both very good but also kind of daunting!! I understand that they are part of an ongoing process of dialogue with formators so that sort of helps them seem less daunting. What struck me clearly was the emphasis on the hermit living her life for the other. I don't think it was ever so clear to me as it was in reading your post on readiness, what a difference it must make whether the hermit life is lived for others or whether it is just about oneself and one's own selfish approach to solitude. 

I've read your pieces for a while now and the "for others" dimension of your life is always there at least implicitly. I never got a sense that your life was selfish, but in thinking about a hermit candidate for profession "struggling" with the paradox of "stricter separation from the world" and being able to articulate how this vocation is really lived for the sake of others, I got a sense of how important it is to you and to the Canon governing your life that the hermit life not be a selfish one. How hard that must be!!! You are asked to separate yourself from the world and live a life of silence and solitude and yet to be engaged with it in a way that helps it be redeemed! Wow!! You know, I thought I had a question for you but now all I have is that "Wow"! 

Does it ever cease to be a struggle -- the balance between solitude and living one's life for others? Do all hermits succeed in not living a selfish life by going off into solitude? I don't know if those are the questions I really want to ask but maybe you could say a little more about all of this when you have time. Oh, I found my question! Do you have it in your mind all the time that your life is lived for the sake of others? Is it something that drives who you are and what you do?]]

Thanks for your comments and your (eventual!) questions!! Good that the one you really wanted to ask came back to you!! I'm glad the emphasis on a life lived for others came through so clearly for you. It is one of the most counter-intuitive pieces of the vocation --- at least when we are thinking of hermits the way most folks tend to do. Today we have a term being used by some, "cocooning", that essentially refers to the idea of shutting oneself away from others. It gained real speed during the pandemic and today is recognized, not as a fad, but as an evolving trend. Some recognize three distinct types of cocooning, some speak of hyper-cocooning to measure the way technology has kept up and combined with the drive to cocoon, but most see all of this as a contemporary version of hermiting. One of the things Canon 603 makes very clear is that this is not so, and one element of Canon 603's vision of ALL eremitical life that does this most vividly is its insistence that eremitical life is a life lived for "the salvation of others".

Yes, this idea is in my mind somewhere all the time --- though not always consciously. Usually, my thoughts go this way: [[This life is lived from, with, and for God, that is, on God's behalf in all of these ways. For this reason, it is also lived for the sake of those whom God loves, and for that reason it should edify and be a source of healing and redemption for them as well. It is unlikely that I will do this in the same way the apostolic Sister does, but hermiting should definitely be ministerial.]] Because I believe that hermiting witnesses with a kind of vividness to what it means to be truly human my sense of being human implies a responsibility to become and be that as fully as possible. One does that by allowing God to be God for us and within us as fully as possible --- even to the point of our becoming transparent to God as Jesus was wholly transparent to God. What we show others then is that human being is a task we are given to accomplish by the grace of God and in which relating to and with God is central. 

For some hermits, all of this will necessarily spill over in some way for the direct benefit of others. Some will write about Eremitical Life or Prayer, for instance. Some will teach Scripture to their parish community, some of us have blogs and do spiritual direction, and some serve as EEMs or Lectors. Even when the hermit's presence in these ways is minimal or she rarely leaves her hermitage or speaks to others, the hermit raises questions for those paying attention: How can she live alone like she does? Does God really call some to give their lives to others in this way? Who could pray all day, how silly (boring, empty, meaningless, etc.) is all that; so why does she do this? Why would she come to minister to us in such minimal ways when she is a religious; shouldn't she be doing more (teaching CCD, RCIA, or leading workshops for Adult Faith Formation, etc.)? Is it really true her life is a ministry all by itself? What can I learn from her?

What I hope you hear in all of this is that the hermit's life is first of all, all about God and all about letting God be God. But this also means God will love the hermit into wholeness. And because of this all of it also means that such a life will reveal to others the very nature of being truly or authentically human, whether this happens through active forms of ministry or not. If the hermit focuses on God and on allowing God to be God, she will become an expression of God's love and that will inevitably spill over in some way to others. Perhaps she never leaves her hermitage except for occasional shopping trips or attendance at Church. Even so, her very life is a ministry for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. At other times, the hermit's life with God will spill over into discrete ministries. Still, in either case, it is not about balance so much as it is about what must always come first, and what will invariably also occur in light of that.

And so it is with every disciple, everyone who desires to minister to others. What the hermit says to the entire Church of ministers is that it is always primarily about letting God be God and loving us into wholeness.  Active ministry must always be built upon this. I remember that (Arch)Bishop Vigneron noted in his homily at my consecration that what I was reminding everyone of on that day is that we each need a place within ourselves that is given over entirely to God. I would push that a bit further because I understand the truth is paradoxical. I would say instead that each of us must be, first and foremost, entirely (wholeheartedly) about letting God be God and then too we can and will also be entirely (wholeheartedly) about the other --- each in our own way as our state of life calls us to be. 

What I try to keep in my mind all the time is this paradox. (It is actually made up of the same thoughts I began this piece with above and both parts drive me.) It helps prevent my life from becoming one of self-absorbed navel-gazing and concern with my own holiness or spiritual 'progression', and on the other hand, it also helps me when I am tempted to say yes to too much active ministry. In this paradox, there will be both work and progress toward greater and greater holiness AND there will be significant ministry. I suppose it is the hermit's outworking of the scripture, [[Seek ye first the Reign (or empowering sovereignty) of God and his righteousness (that is, let God be God), and all of these things shall be added unto you (i.e., everything else will flow freely).]] It is also, of course, an exemplar of the Law of Love.

Camaldolese Lead Morning Prayer at the Synod

Excited not only by the Synod, but by the fact that It is Camaldolese monks leading the schola for yesterday's Morning Prayer. (I understand they will lead MP every day.) I only know Fathers Cyprian (Prior, New Camaldoli) and Matteo (Monestero di Camaldoli), but they are with Br Thomas . (Not sure about the fourth monk.) Play to the end and you can access other segments of the Synod session.

The Sound of Silence (Reprise)

I asked an old monk, "How long have you been here?"
"Forever," he answered. " I smiled.
"Fifty years, Father?"
"Forever."
Did you know St. Benedict?"
"We are novices together."
"Did you know Jesus?"
"He and I converse every day."
I threw away my silly smile, fell to my knees, and clutched his hand.
"Father, " I whispered, "Did you hear the original sound?"
" I am listening to the original sound."

Those who pray contemplatively know this experience. It is the experience of being at the center, of having everything make a new kind of sense and having it feel alive with a new kind of life and light; colors are more vibrant, and flowers and plants seem lit from within with a unique iridescence; the gentle movement of the breeze through the branches occasions awe and even a sudden intake of breath as the everpresent movement of the Holy Spirit becomes symbolically "visible" for a moment. It is the experience of being part of the same story with our Sisters, Mary and Claire, and our Brothers, Paul, Francis, and Benedict, alive in the God who grounds us and resides deep in the core of our being, but who silently and as insistently summons us from without as well.

It is the experience of resting, really resting -- of being where one is meant to be, where one has ALWAYS been meant to be --- the experience of stepping out of time and taking up a place in the eternal heart of the Holy Trinity. God in us, we in Him, a communion of saints learning to love as God loves, to listen as God listens, to sing our lives and celebrate the singing of others' lives, to be the inestimable gifts to one another in Him we were always called to be --- and yet, always beginners, and always with everything ahead of us. It is the experience of being comprehended in every sense of that word: being profoundly heard, understood, known, held securely in God's hands, and completely encircled by his presence. It is the sound of silence and the compassionate space of contemplative solitude.

Time travel is an interesting subject for speculation, but for contemplatives, it is something known from regular experience. Every day eternity breaks in upon us. Every day we slip the bonds of mere temporality and participate in time's transfiguration. Chronos becomes Kairos; linear time dissolves into an eternal now, and our citizenship in this world is shown for the pale reflection it is of our truest citizenship in the Kingdom of God. But we do not do this to reject the created realm for some "supernatural" one, much less to leave it behind in a misguided anti-world asceticism. We do it so this world may BE transfigured, and God may come to be ALL in ALL.

Contemplation, after all, is not escape, but a quiet confrontation, a gentle capitulation to being, and the silent mediation of life; it is not flight, but the still celebration of an all-accepting and transforming presence. The hermitage or cell is separate from the world only so the world may be truly loved into its own in genuine intimacy, for real intimacy requires distance as well as closeness. An anchorite has a window into the church and peeks out onto eternity as it breaks in on the world in the liturgy. But really, every true hermitage (and every true hermit!) is a window through which the love of the living God radiates to transform the world of space and time into heaven itself.

First published 1/20/2008. I thought it was timely given recent posts. Tweaks to include Claire and Francis as I should have done originally!!! (Apologies to them!)

Reminder: Questions and Comments are Welcome Here

I put this up once in a while and it's time to do it again. I just wanted to remind folks that questions, suggestions, (polite!) criticisms, and so forth are more than welcome here. Oftentimes the questions I get help me to consider aspects of my own life and this vocation more deeply or to see things in a completely new light. I write about what is important to me, or what strikes me in something I have read, etc, and while I didn't originally envision this as a question-answer format blog, more often it is the questions I receive that shape the posts I put up here.

One caveat: I do not always answer some questions immediately (though I will email you a quick reply nonetheless), Sometimes I will hold them with others of the same tenor and post them all together in a single composite "question." If you need an immediate answer please indicate that, and of course, if the question you ask is a confidential one that is not meant for this blog please indicate that. I respect your privacy. (N.B., You may find your own question here at another time in another form. Please understand that that is because it related generally to the subject at hand and was asked by others as well as yourself!)

One of the beauties of having a blog is, as I have written before here, it is very much like the anchorite's window on the world which allowed folks to approach her and talk. For the most part I, like most anchorites, keep the curtain drawn on my life here in Stillsong only opening it at certain times to reveal what is pertinent to the questions or topic at hand, but like the anchorite who lived in the midst of her town my choice of having a public blog means that folks have a right to approach me; that is, you are able to read me, question me, object to what I say and hear my response, and so forth. I sincerely hope readers will continue to do this; your questions, comments, etc. are of immense value to me and I have grown in my understanding and appreciation of Canon 603 and this vocation as a result of them.

While I have disabled comments on the blog itself (it makes the boundaries between things too porous and would intrude on my solitude) anything you would like to say or ask me about should be emailed to SRLAUREL@aol.com. Thanks again.

Follow up Question to "Consumed by the Temporal or in Love with the God Revealed as Emmanuel?"

This was originally included as part of an earlier post. I have given it a space of its own.

[[Thanks Sister for your response. I have one follow-up question. What does it mean to speak of "Canon Law hermits vs. God's Hermits"?]]

As noted here many times over the years, there are two basic ways to live as a hermit in the Church today. The first is to do so canonically (or "publicly" with a public commitment), whether as a solitary hermit under c 603 or under other canons in an institute of consecrated life ordered to eremitical life or that allows for hermits in its proper law. This form of eremitical life implies a second consecration besides that of baptism. The second is to do so non-canonically, which is a response to God in light of one's baptism in Christ without the additional public rights and obligations that come with a second consecration. 

When authentic, both are of God, and both are empowered by God, whether through baptism alone or through baptism and a second consecration. Human beings mediate both of these consecrations, whether in the Rite of Baptism and the pouring of water, or in the Rite of Perpetual Profession and the solemn prayer of consecration, but they remain the work of God and the basis for two different eremitical vocations. The reference you ask about is both misleading and simplistic. It's important to understand that both non-canonical and canonical eremitical life represent significant Divine vocations. There need not be any "competition" nor denigration of the other vocation. They differ, yes, but both are calls by God and both are to be esteemed.

Consumed by the Temporal or in Love With the God Revealed as Emmanuel?

Sister, do you understand the following passage? Could you please explain it? [[To be consumed with the temporal world--even the temporal world of humankind's temporalization of the Church by the human-created laws which involve yet more temporalization of one's existence in what is a temporalized church--then God's Law of Love is lost to those temporal humans. This includes the path of life upon which God sets each of us, in whatever format that may be expressed in words. Those who are so temporal as to not be able to envision a life lived in the Love of the Holy Trinity are not of those of temporal nor spiritual association.]]

From this excerpt and my own reading of other passages and blog posts, I believe I understand where this writer is coming from yes, and I personally disagree with both her premises and her conclusions. I believe that theologically she has moved away from authentic Christianity while claiming to be a Catholic Christian, and so I am critical of what she writes. In any case, what she seems to be saying is that living life in space and time (i.e., life in the spatiotemporal realm) and being concerned with things of space and time (like canon laws that help mediate God's will) obviates one's ability to be ultimately concerned with God's law of love. It's an exaggerated version of,  "If you concern yourself with the things of this world, you can't attend to God's Law of Love or even envision a life lived in God's love," and thus, has both theological and spiritual implications.

Much of what this writer opines seems clearly based on an exaggerated division between the temporal and the eternal (or even the spiritual). From my own perspective, she seems unaware of God's determination to be Emmanuel right here in space and time or God's realization of that determination in the Incarnation. In this way (that is, in Jesus' incarnation of the Word throughout his life and into death itself) the eternal breaks into the temporal and is at work divinizing it. This results in a kind of paradox of which your writer seems unaware, namely, while not forgetting contemplative prayer and mystical experiences of God, it is in truly attending to the everyday "ordinary" reality in which we live, that we meet God and God's mercy and love all the time!!! God is eternal, yes, AND God has chosen to become Emmanuel right here and right now. We do not despise the spatiotemporal; we recognize that our world is now a sacramental reality with the capacity to reveal God in life's every moment and mood.   

I am not sure what your writer means by the temporalization of the Church. The Church is temporal by its very nature, just as all Sacraments are temporal even as they mediate the eternal. It is not plopped down full-blown from heaven but Divinely called and breathed into being from earthly roots. At the same time, the Church mediates the power and presence of God just as all sacraments do. The Church, however, is not the Kingdom of God though she prepares the way for God's Reign. While she serves the eternal in this sense and has a definite mystical dimension, she is not eternal; she remains a temporal reality meant to sanctify the realm of space and time by assisting in its divinization. In Christ, chronos becomes kairos --- time shot full of futurity. One of the ways the Church assists this to happen is with canon laws like C 603 which allow for and govern Divine vocations in the very midst of space and time. 

There seems to be a degree of unwarranted judgment in this writer's approach to canon law --- especially with canon 603 and those like myself who concern ourselves with exploring it and the life it describes and prescribes. Because someone like myself lives and explores the terms of the canon by allowing them to serve as doorways into the depths of Mystery or the Transcendent, this does not mean one is incapable of concern with God's law of love. Just the opposite. Neither does one's exploration of this canon and work on applying it creatively for solitary eremitical vocations mean one is somehow cut off from the Holy Spirit. Absolutely just the opposite!! It is one small way some of us living life under this canon serve others and the Church itself. We do that precisely because the Love of God moves us to do so; God works in and through Canon 603 for those called to live and/or explore this life. Unfortunately, the tendency to judgmentalism seems to prevent your writer from reading what I actually write about the canon and what it makes possible in terms of the power and presence of God. I am sorry that is the case.

Please note: I chose the pictures I did for this piece because each one is concerned in its own way with God's Love/Presence breaking into and transfiguring the ordinary realm of space and time. The first and third pictures remind me of what we miss when we denigrate the world around us or forget where God is truly found --- namely, in the unexpected and unacceptable place. The third also reminds me of what it means to see as a child sees and love as a child loves when everything (even a painted "plaster" figure) is allowed to mediate the love of God.

My sincere apologies, if the writer mentioned above, heard me saying she is not a Catholic Christian.  (Cf. On Sinful Judging Take Two)  I believe it is clear for most folks that, in fact, it is because she is a Catholic and a non-canonical hermit and blogger who often writes antagonistically about c 603 and those so professed, that I am concerned with her writing about canonical (consecrated) eremitical life. I think it is very likely the reason folks comment on or ask me about what they read on her blog(s).

Stages of Growth in Prayer Associated with Eremitical Life (Reprise)

 

[[Dear Sister, when you write about the making of the hermit heart I begin to understand more why it is some people become hermits. I had not realized that a hermit was meant to witness to an experience of redemption. I agree with you that the formation of hermits really cannot be done by a diocese. A diocese cannot engineer such an experience of redemption! Yet you argue that significant discernment and formation is necessary. What does this really mean and how can someone make sure they get the formation they need? Does formation ensure an experience of redemption or how does that work?]]

Your question and observation are important because the hermit must bring something to the formation process beyond a desire to make vows or dedicate herself to God. What I mean by saying this is that a person might want to dedicate themselves to God very sincerely but the silence of solitude is neither the context,  the content, nor the charism they are called to in making this dedication. It is simply not the way they experience God's redemptive grace in their life, nor, therefore, can it be the unique way they witness to God's redemption. And yet, a hermit must say with her life that silence and eremitical solitude (which implies a life of penance and prayer in communion with God) lead to that redemptive quies or hesychasm canon 603 refers to as the silence of solitude.  Moreover,  the hermit must be able to say with her life that the grace of God is sufficient for us. She must be recognizable as a loving, generous, humble person who has been made truly human and truly happy in her eremitical solitude.

What may not have been clear in what I have written until now is that formation and redemption overlap. To the degree one is formed in the silence of solitude (again, in the solitary quies of communion with God) as a hermit so too will the person experience conversion and thus, redemption. When I describe the kind of person the hermit must be and the witness she must live I am also describing who she becomes by the grace of God in the silence of solitude. That means I am describing the person who is formed in the conditions laid down in Canon 603.

Dioceses that are discerning Canon 603 vocations have a right to expect that over the period of five years or so a person will come not only to be comfortable in silence and solitude but that they will grow as persons of prayer in the same context. This means the person will thrive as a loving human being, a human being in whom the Incarnation is clearly imaged. Formation is an ongoing reality in the life of any hermit and/or religious; so is conversion of heart and redemption. We grow more and more deeply united with God in Christ throughout our lives. Still, several years of eremitical solitude will produce unmistakable signs of an experience which is healing and sanctifying or one will need to discern this is not the vocation to which they are called.

You are correct that dioceses cannot engineer such experiences of redemption. All they can really do is supervise how a person is living the terms of Canon 603 and discern whether or not the person is truly thriving in this context, whether or not they are growing in holiness and wholeness and becoming the kind of person I have already mentioned. There are ways of assisting the person in both discernment and formation --- not least by requiring the candidate to write and revise Rules of Life which, over time, reflect where they are in terms of living the canon and their own personal growth. Occasional meetings with vocation personnel, regular spiritual direction, therapy to assist with unexpected or traumatic life circumstances, etc. are all helpful or even indispensable in the process of formation and discernment. A diocese can thus also ensure that sufficient time is given to discernment and formation without drawing it out inordinately. Vocation personnel can decide more easily than the candidate might be able to do, either when more time is needed or, for that matter, when the candidate is mistaken in thinking she has an ecclesial (or canonical) eremitical vocation.

What Will Formation Entail?

That said, the responsibility for formation falls to the hermit in canon 603 vocations. These are vocations to solitary eremitical life and that means there is no community, no novitiate, no formation director, etc. (Hermits formed in lauras need to be clear that c 603 requires they live as solitary hermits should the laura fail or be suppressed; thus, formation for c 603 is generally entirely dependent on the hermit's own initiative in cooperation with the grace of God alone.) The spiritual director can be extremely helpful here but she does not assume the role of formation director or some sort of superior; the hermit herself must take the initiative. She must be sure she reads about eremitic life, especially contemporary eremitical life, but also the desert Fathers and Mothers, Urban anchorites in the Middle Ages and later, and communities of hermits like the Camaldolese and Carthusians.

This will allow her to begin to see what she is living that is consistent with the tradition and what she is not. (If something seems inconsistent with the tradition she will work to discern its place in her life and the life of the Church; she will discern whether such modifications can and should be made for herself personally, but she will also do so as part of determining whether or not this represents a legitimate adaptation of a tradition which is Divinely inspired and a gift to the Church. What is discerned to be necessary for her may not be a legitimate adaptation of eremitical life.) Knowledge of the eremitical tradition and the history and nature of canon 603 is indispensable because this is the vocation she must negotiate as a solitary hermit living her call in the name of the Church.

Thus, she will reflect on Canon 603 and the terms of that. She will read and otherwise learn about the vows she proposes to make one day, especially from authors living those vows today and specializing in contemporary religious life. And of course she will pray, not just the Liturgy of the Hours (which will require some instruction from others), but quiet or contemplative prayer, lectio divina, journaling (which can be prayer and will support prayer and spiritual direction). She will learn to maintain Formative relationships in a life committed to the silence of solitude, and she will learn to love and serve others similarly. She will assure she lives a healthy and balanced life which includes appropriate recreation and exercise. Learning all of this and coming to the conclusion that she truly thrives in such a life is necessary as part of the candidate's formation. So is writing a livable Rule (a Rule which can be binding morally and canonically) --- something that cannot begin to happen until the hermit has learned how all of these pieces actually work in her own eremitical life.

The Rule: 

Writing a Livable Rule that one proposes to be both morally and legally (canonically) bound to observe is a demanding and complex project. It requires several steps because it has to combine experience in eremitical life  (including several years of learning and trying various prayer forms, etc), experience of living the values of the vows, and experience in working with one's director to truly reflect the eremitical tradition and to grow in one's life with God --- with the canonical or normative requirements of c 603 and one's diocese. Thus one will have (some form of) 1) an initial Rule that allows for considered experimentation in cooperation with spiritual direction, 2) a Rule that is less experimental but still allows for necessary changes as one builds in all the elements of eremitical life and comes to see what one needs personally (e.g., more sleep, more quiet prayer, less study, time outside the hermitage for walks, attendance at parish Mass, etc), 3) a Rule which includes the vows/vow formula and can bind one in a temporary commitment, and finally, 4) a Rule which fulfills the requirement of c 603, has been lived for a significant period of time (1 year or more) and which will bind one after perpetual profession. 

As I experienced the task of writing (and rewriting) a Rule it is an essential part of the hermit's formation. In some ways, I see it as the most formative experience a canon 603 hermit can have precisely because in order to write one, one must reflect on every part of one's life and see how God is working in them. One then has to make decisions about what will allow for God to work as effectively as possible and in a way that corresponds to the canon's definition of eremitical life. Finally one must articulate all of this in a way that inspires one to live accordingly. It is for this reason I see the need for a hermit to write several Rules over time each of which corresponds to her level of knowledge, experience and need at any given point. Approaching the writing of a Rule in this way allows for discernment with the diocese as well as formation. In all of this though, I contend the person should be growing in wholeness and holiness and this growth should be recognizable. All of this means forming the heart of a hermit whose life witnesses to God's redemption.

I am not sure I have answered your questions. Most of these things I have written about before so please check the labels to see related articles. If I have missed answering something effectively please let me know and I will give it another shot.

So, Why is All of this Important to You?

[[Dear Sister, if it is not the case that the Church is increasing canons and making all kinds of complexities that cause competition between vocations, where do the various distinctions in things come from when you speak of C 603 vocations? I have read some of the posts from Joyful Hermit in the past (when she was still using that name) and she seemed to believe you are making these up, and thus, making C 603 more complicated than it needs to be --- though now she seems to believe any law at all is opposed to Jesus' law of love. So where do the distinctions you write about come from? Have you created any of them? Also, why are they important to you?]]

These are great questions, thank you for posing them!! The distinctions I have drawn over the years are not my own, nor have I created any terms. While I really believe Canon 603 is beautifully written and exciting in ways I don't ordinarily find Canon law to be (!!), there are also ways in which someone reading the canon without a background in religious life, or some at-least-casual understanding of the norms and vocabulary related to religious life, will fail to understand categories and language that are significant and presupposed --- but which also often go unexplained. Mainly then, these terms and distinctions come from the Church's long-standing theology of religious (or consecrated) life. Let me give you a couple of examples. 

 We speak of entering a "state of life" via profession or a Sacrament (i.e., Baptism, Orders). Sometimes we refer to the "religious state", the "lay state", and the "clerical state," as well as of "being recognized" as members of a "recognized state of life". There are three terms that are sometimes misunderstood and even commonly misused, namely, "state of life," "recognized," and "profession". In speaking of consecrated life, the catechism refers to Christ proposing the evangelical counsels to all disciples, but then distinguishes the way those in the consecrated state are called to live these counsels. It says, "it is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God."  Unfortunately, the catechism does not, so far as I can see, define "state of life", what constitutes "recognition"; nor, while italicizing the word profession, does it actually explain that it means not just making (public) vows, but also entering a new state of life. Thus, it really does not apply to someone dedicating themselves to eremitical life with private vows. 

One thing we should keep in mind, even as we benefit from our use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that it was not written for all Catholics. It was written for Bishops and thus presupposes knowledge about such things as the nature of "profession," what it takes for a religious congregation (or person in the consecrated state) to be established or "recognized," as being in that state. Because fundamental knowledge is presupposed by the catechism, this can cause the uninitiated person (which really is most laypeople) and many clergy as well to read various ambiguities through the wrong lens. That way lies almost certain misunderstandings and potentially serious stumbling blocks. So, in the section entitled The Consecrated Life, the word profession might be read as though it refers to any act of making vows. When that happens, someone making private vows might read this section of the catechism and believe that because they made private (non-canonical) vows as a lay person, they have been professed, "left" the lay state of life, and been initiated into the consecrated state of life via their avowal. In actual fact, however, the thrust of the section and the use of the term "profess" in the very first sentence, indicates immediately that this section of the CCC  involves entry into a new state of life established in law and that it therefore requires a public commitment mediated by the Church herself.  

It can also be problematical when someone being admitted to profession under c 603 has no real understanding of the meaning and implications of correlative concepts like, "state of life" and "recognition" by the Church --- both of which imply the assumption of canonical (legal) rights and obligations beyond those granted with baptism. So, for instance, in the quotation above, recognition does not mean seen or allowed (as in "non-canonical hermits are recognized by my bishop" because they exist in his diocese); it means established in universal law. Since a number of c 603 hermits (and those seeking to be professed in this way) have never been through initial formation as religious nor studied canon law or the theology of consecrated life, and are unaware of the distinctions most religious know implicitly, clarifying the meanings of the terms, "state of life", "recognition," "profession", and also the nature of consecration and the way it differs from dedication, clarifications of these things can help with such misunderstandings or inadequate understandings. 

My experience is that few dioceses seem to recognize how unlikely the average Catholic is to know these and other dimensions associated with profession under c 603. At least they don't seem to communicate these kinds of things to candidates or inquirers. There seems to be a tendency to assume that folks who seek admission to profession already know exactly what they are asking for and are able to take on. At the same time, some chancery personnel may not realize how completely they themselves have internalized some of those distinctions they know so well, and so, they simply do not think of needing to clarify their meaning. Others may not understand how important knowing about such dimensions can be in living eremitical life under this canon. 

When one understands that one is taking on responsibility for an ecclesial vocation with rights and obligations the entire church has a right to expect one to live well, it enhances one's sense of vocation. It also reminds us that one is definitely not merely doing "one's own thing" here and that the Church (the People of God) is called to support one in this vocation with its prayer, friendship, etc. In taking this vocation on, one is taking on an important, if rare, form of ecclesial life that has been lived and has contributed to the life of the Church throughout its long history. In a world and time where individualism is epidemic, it is critical that profession under c 603 be known by everyone as admission to an ecclesial vocation that belongs intrinsically to and benefits the Body of Christ. After all, c 603 life is focused on the God who wills to be God-With-Us! In this rare and incredibly vivid relationship with Love-in-Act, the hermit stands at and witnesses to the very heart of Christian life and hope --- Love completes each of us if only we open ourselves to this.

What is important to me? In all of this, it is important to me that everyone understands that dedicating oneself to eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit, whether or not one does so with the use of private vows, is to make a significant and valuable commitment. At the same time, it is important to me that people understand that those of us who seek and are admitted to profession under c 603 do not do so because we love canon law (I know of no canonical hermit who loves canon law!), or are somehow ignorant of God's law of love (much less being ignorant of or unconcerned by the reality of Divine love!!), nor because we are into prestige, power, or social status. We do so because we have felt called by God to contribute to the life of the Church and the living tradition of eremitical life in this particular and publicly responsible way. It is important to me that folks understand the integral relationship between this vocation and the Church so that it is not mistakenly perceived as selfish or individualistic. Instead, solitary canonical hermits live this life as a rare and vibrant expression of God's redemption, and we are grateful to the Church for finally recognizing and providing for this vocation with C. 603. 

Though much fewer and farther between than when I first began blogging, I continue to get comments and questions from folks who read Joyful's public blog(s) and are concerned, confused, or simply gobsmacked by what they read there. Personally, I sincerely wish they were no longer available.  Thus, it is also important to me to respond to those questions and comments (even those I cannot publish here) to clarify what I can. Most of the time these are common misunderstandings and general mischaracterizations that were once amplified in import by Joyful's blog and her inadequately supported claim to be a "consecrated Catholic Hermit". Today, my impression is that Joyful's posts on the Catholic Church generally, as well as on law of any kind, have made a lot of this moot and more obviously incredible. Still, past posts continue to raise questions and comments.

Meanwhile, whether I receive questions or not, I do reflect on all of this as part of realizing the nature, promise, and challenge of solitary eremitical life in and for the church. Canon 603 is still relatively new and reflecting on various difficulties in implementing it is important (helpful) work. The irony is I am doing that work in my own little way as I live and move ever more deeply into the life framed by the canon itself, and not as an advocate of increased Canon law. I continue to be surprised at how well the Church fathers wrote when they composed this canon; because of this, my own work directly counters the typical approach of canonists regarding resolving the perceived "deficiencies" of C 603. 

A Contemplative Moment: The Necessity of Relationships

The Necessity of Relationships

by

Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam

The Eremitic Life

Human freedom is founded on two indispensable pillars: the ability to possess oneself and the ability to overcome oneself. This is why every human being is, by his very nature, a person of dialogue and relationships. Both dialogue and relationships express the great potential for love of the human heart, a heart that is free.

The seclusion and solitude that constitute the eremitic life do not aim at negating the fundamental dynamism of human existence, with its entering into dialogue and relationships. On the contrary, eremitic isolation and solitude form the basis of that dynamism. As was said, one of the most important motives for undertaking the life of the desert is the burning desire to find one's own identity. In the course of time, however, we discover that we are unable to realize that task unaided. The only way of learning anything important about oneself is to look at another person's face** with love and attention.

As mentioned before, the hermit's solitude can never be a sign of withdrawal and isolation from the world and its affairs. The hermit, since he wants to serve other people, must arrive at a profound understanding of his own nature and his relation to God and the world. That is why his solitude is not at all a barrier, but it is rather the element that encourages openness toward others. The hermit, changed by the gift of meeting God, knows how to address the lonely hearts of those who come to seek his help and support. His solitude is not therefore a lifeless emptiness, but it is related to the most vital aspects of the human spirit. It is related to those spheres of human personality that can exist only if they are open to meeting God and the world in love.

_________________________________________________

**The reference to seeking another's face is from an earlier section of the book where Wencel speaks of a quote by J. Tischner: [[To meet someone means to experience the person's face. Experiencing the other's face means experiencing his truth. What is necessary to make the meeting happen is mutuality; if we want to see the other's face we have to uncover our own face, and the other must have the intention to accept what has been revealed. . .The meeting introduces us to the depths of all the mysteries of existence, where questions about the sense and nonsense of everything are born.]] For Wencel, the paradox of eremitical solitude is the fact that it serves the hermit's quest and desire for love, and that implies "meeting and dialogue with God and with the human other."

What Happens to a Canon 603 Hermit if a New Bishop is Installed?

 [[If, for example, a (diocesan) hermit had a new bishop come to the diocese, and that bishop did not want (diocesan) hermits, the (diocesan) hermit would need to find a diocese in which the bishop was accepting hermits under his direction, and relocate.]] 

Dear Sister, is this quote true? I read it on a hermit's blog. . . . I checked with someone at the chancery and they said they would need to check with someone else, but they also thought not. Just wanted to check with you as well. I am not up to moving to a new diocese, particularly if it means uprooting every part of my life as this would!! Especially, I am not up to starting this process all over again in another diocese.]]

Thanks for writing. I am glad you decided to check this out. Your chancery contact was correct in his/her impression. The quote is mistaken.

If a diocesan Ordinary is replaced by another, and that new bishop doesn't want to profess hermits under c 603, he doesn't generally have to do so --- except in one case. Even then it would be a matter of acting in good faith and charity to complete something begun under his predecessor, not a matter of having no choice. Suppose a hermit has been temporary professed under c 603 in the hands of his predecessor and has continued to live her vocation in a faithful way. In that case, she should be able to count on being admitted to perpetual profession in a timely manner by the new bishop so long as she and those responsible for her vocation continue to discern that diocesan eremitical life is her vocation. If that hermit is already perpetually professed, however, the new bishop needs to accept that it is his role to supervise this vocation in some substantive way. This specific vocation comes to him with his assumption of responsibility for the diocese, and he needs to accept that, no matter how personally challenging he finds this. The hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated does not have to uproot, search for a willing bishop, find another SD, locate housing, parish, etc., and incur the expense of such a move simply because one bishop does not want to use a Canon that is already in effect in universal law.

I have not run into a case where someone who is either preparing for profession or who has already made a temporary profession is simply left high and dry when a new bishop is installed. I am aware of one situation where the Archbishop will be retiring in another year or so; even so, in this specific case there has been an auxiliary bishop overseeing the individual's progress; the general sense is that the candidate can confidently continue on with the process of discernment and formation she has been working through for more than a year and a half now and do so under the auxiliary. Hermits seeking profession under canon 603 do not move through the process all at the same speed, and they are not ready for profession at the same time. One of the things we are trying to get dioceses to recognize is that writing a liveable Rule -- as required by the canon --- takes significant experience and time. The process of discernment and formation is more individualized for this vocation than any other I know. The process of writing a Rule helps with both of these, both for the candidate and for the discernment team. Chanceries do tend to know some of this and act in good faith regarding admission to profession.

Further Considerations and Possibilities:

Your own situation raises the difficulties of moving to another diocese very clearly. The demands they would place on you to continue following this vocation would be inordinate and unacceptable, especially given both CC 603 and 605 that are universally binding within the Church. You have not said whether you are temporary professed or not, but I do agree that even if you are in temporary vows now, moving to another diocese would essentially mean starting over again. I think that would be true even if your current bishop and those others who have worked with you over the years wrote glowing recommendations. I think it is really important that you find a way to ease your concerns in this matter as much as possible. If the new bishop is not here already, get an appointment with the current Ordinary as well as with the chancery personnel who have been working with you during the past years, and apprise them of your concerns. 

If they can assure you your own discernment/formation process will continue without the prospect of it being derailed because of a new bishop, then excellent! If this assurance cannot be given, another option might be for the diocese to anticipate perpetual profession and celebrate this before your current bishop leaves office. If this is not possible, however, try to get a sense of what you still need to do so that you are ready for that step as soon as possible. If you are working on your Rule, then try to get an assessment of where that is still weak or incomplete. There are posts on writing a Rule on this blog, including a new post on "the basics". Much of writing a Rule has to do with sufficient experience and reflection. What you include in your Rule will be used by your diocese to help determine your own readiness for perpetual or definitive commitment. Do get some specific answers from vocation personnel in regard to their own work with you. At least this will help ensure both they and you are clear about your progress and any concerns regarding your vocation.

And, of course, if you are already definitively professed and consecrated, you have nothing to worry about in any case. Still, if the incoming bishop does not want C 603 hermits, one thing you may want to consider is that he may also not plan on supervising your vocation as C 603 calls for. Neither may he be able to do so. In that case, if you have not already done so, I recommend you ask your current bishop to approve a delegate with whom you will meet in place of or in addition to the local ordinary. Hermits ordinarily choose their delegate, but some bishops will assign them. In either case, a delegate serves as a quasi-superior and can ease the burden on the bishop by meeting with the hermit more frequently than bishops can ordinarily do. I work very closely with my delegate(s) and that has seen me through various bishops and degrees of availability. Moreover, since my co-delegate(s) are both women Religious with backgrounds in formation and leadership, our level of sharing is greater than it might be with a bishop I see but once or twice a year. Just something to consider.