The Consecrated Secular Person

by Mother Therese Ivers, JCL, JCD (Cand.), OCV

Who is the consecrated lay person? Today, the consecrated lay person is a vowed member of a secular institute of diocesan/pontifical right. This means they are 1) lay and 2) secular and 3) consecrated. Such individuals are called “to” secularity. Meaning, that they have forever given their lives over to Christ by profession of the three evangelical counsels, and these counsels are lived in the world, as “leaven in the world”. This distinction is important because the Church distinguishes two ways of living out vowed counsels that while they are compatible with the counsels are lifestyles that are fundamentally incompatible with each other. What are they?

The first is what is known as “separation from the world”. People who are separated from the world are first and foremost members of religious institutes. Members of such institutes have all kinds of names: sisters, canons, canonesses, friars, monks, nuns, mendicants, etc. Religious life by its nature, has “separation from the world” as part of its definition. Let’s break this philosophical concept down. If there is a formal lifestyle that does NOT have “separation from the world” included as part of its very essence, then it is NOT religious life. In order to be a religious, a person must belong to an institution that has “separation from the world” as part of its very definition, as part of its very mission. No one can be a religious without being separated from the world. No one.

Hermits are another vocation that absolutely requires “separation from the world” as part of its very definition. If a person is not “separated from the world”, in the manner approved by the Church authorities in accordance with the norms and intent of canon 603, then that person is NOT a hermit. The very definition of the hermit has as an essential element “separation from the world”.

Why is all this important? Because hermits and religious profess the evangelical counsels to receive the consecration of hermits and religious respectively. Certain elements are required for the valid reception of the consecration of hermits/religious. If they are not present, no consecration is conferred. Likewise, if they are not present, then the vocation is not present. It is as simple as that.

The massive earthquake that occurred in the late 40’s with regard to the profession of the evangelical counsels in a context that was NOT separated from the world but alive and kicking IN the world was an historic one. In 1947, Pope Pius XII, having studied the matter extensively, permitted what we call “secular institutes” to be approved by the Church when they followed stringent criteria.

A secular institute is an institute of consecrated life in which a person professes the evangelical counsels as “leaven in the world”. “Leaven in the world” is essentially different from “separation from the world”. In fact, embracing the one will always and necessarily mean rejecting the other as a way of observing the counsels in lifestyle adopted by the individual. This is because of the philosophical principle of “non contradiction”. Meaning. A religious cannot be a member of a secular institute because a secular institute by definition requires the member to live in the state of secularity. Or put in another way, living “in the world” as opposed to “separated from the world”. Likewise a member of a secular institute cannot simultaneously be a hermit or a religious. Because this individual has embraced a lifestyle that contradicts the very essence of the other lifestyles.

It might be easier to understand some of the differences between religious and secular institutes by contrasting them:

Secular Institutes According to Essential Elements #9

Union with Christ by consecration through profession of the counsels can be lived in the midst of the world, translated in the work of the world, and expressed by means of the world. This is the special vocation of the secular institutes, defined by Pius XII as “consecrated to God and to others” in the world and “by means of the world” (Primo feliciter, V and II). Of themselves, the counsels do not necessarily separate people from the world. In fact, it is a gift of God to the Church that consecration through profession of the counsels can take the form of a life to be lived as a hidden leaven. Christians so consecrated continue the work of salvation by communicating the love of Christ through their presence in the world and through its sanctification from within. Their style of life and presence are not distinguished externally from those of their fellow Christians. Their witness is given in their ordinary environment of life. This discreet form of witness flows from the very nature of their secular vocation and is part of the way that their consecration is meant to be lived (cf. PC 11).


Religious Institutes According to Essential Elements #10 and #34

 Such is not the case, however, with those whose consecration by the profession of the counsels constitutes them as religious. The very nature of religious vocation involves a public witness to Christ and to the Church. Religious profession is made by vows which the Church receives as public. A stable form of community life in an institute canonically erected by the competent ecclesiastical authority manifests in a visible way the covenant and communion which religious life expresses. A certain separation from family and from professional life at the time a person enters the novitiate speaks powerfully of the absoluteness of God. At the same time, it is the beginning of a new and deeper bond in Christ with the family that one has left. This bond becomes firmer as detachment from otherwise legitimate relationships, occupations, and forms of relaxation continues to reflect God’s absoluteness publicly throughout life. A further aspect of the public nature of religious consecration is that the apostolate of religious is in some sense always corporate. Religious presence is visible, affecting ways of acting, attire, and style of life.
The totality of religious consecration requires that the witness to the Gospel be given publicly by the whole of life. Values, attitudes and life-style attest forcefully to the place of Christ in one’s life. The visibility of this witness involves the foregoing of standards of comfort and convenience that would otherwise be legitimate. It requires a restraint on forms of relaxation and entertainment (cf. ES 1, §2; CD 33-35). To ensure this public witness, religious willingly accept a pattern of life that is not permissive but largely laid down for them. They wear a religious garb that distinguishes them as consecrated persons, and they have a place of residence which is properly established by their institute in accordance with common law and their own constitutions. Such matters as travel and social contacts are in accord with the spirit and character of their institute and with religious obedience. These provisions alone do not ensure the desired public witness to the joy, hope, and love of Jesus Christ, but they offer important means to it, and it is certain that religious witness is not given without them.

One of the clearest divisions between those called to secularity vs. those called to separation from the world has to do with personal involvement in politics. The secular institute member may run for office. Those separated from the world are not normally permitted to do so:

 To establish the kingdom of God within the very structures of the world, insofar as this constitutes evangelical promotion in human history, is certainly a theme of great interest for the whole Christian community, and therefore for religious also; but not in the sense that they allow themselves to become involved directly in politics. Through their scholastic institutes, the communications media, and multiple religious and educational projects, they can actively contribute especially to the formation of the young, thus making them architects of human and social development.  (Religious and Human Promotion #12)

A call is a positive embracing of the lifestyle. It is a call “to” a defined path of life. When someone is called “to” consecrated secularity, it means that an individual has become a member of a secular institute, because it is the only vocation that requires a definitive commitment to be 1) secular and 2) consecrated.

Now that I have broken down the difference between consecrated secularity and consecrated separation from the world, it is time to look at combining compatible vocations. A man can be a member of a secular institute and a priest. The vocation to the priesthood is distinct from the vocation to a secular institute. But both are compatible with each other. Likewise, a member of a secular institute can be consecrated as a virgin if she meets all the criteria. The vocation to be a consecrated virgin is distinct from the vocation to a secular institute. Both are compatible with each other.

When you have two separate vocations, formation needs to be given for both. Thus, a man who intends to be both a priest and a secular institute member must have formation in the priesthood vocational track and the secular institute member vocational track. This is because a vocation has its own essential nature and essential elements. It has its own patrimony. Its own saints, culture, history, theology, mission, and impact on the world. It has its own defined way of life, defined rights, defined obligations. The man will learn that even if he leaves a secular institute, he will still be a priest, because it is a reality that cannot be dispensed; he will remain a priest even if he departs a secular institute.

What is true of men who have a dual vocation to secularity and to the priesthood is likewise true of virgin females who have a dual vocation to secularity and to sacred virginity. If a woman intends to be both a member of a secular institute and a consecrated virgin, she will need formation in both vocations in order to make the informed decision as to whether to do so. She must learn everything of her intended secular institute’s traditions, charism, patrimony, secular form of life, etc. She must learn the obligations and rights she will assume by professing the evangelical counsels. Likewise, she must learn what the vocation to sacred virginity is. She must study its saints, its patrimony, charism, culture, history, theology, unique mission, and impact in the world. She must understand and embrace its defined form of life, rights, and obligations. She must understand that it is a reality that, unlike that in the secular institute, cannot be dispensed; she will remain a sacred virgin even if she departs a secular institute.

What has been said in earlier articles bears repeating. The very essence, definition, or nature of sacred virginity DOES NOT contain as an essential element a call to secularity or to separation from the world. As has been shown above, the nature of a secular institute requires an actual commitment to secularity. This is why secular institutes, in principle, are forbidden in many major areas to be like religious; they are not separated from the world. How consecrated laypersons/seculars live out their lives is diametrically opposed to how religious live out their lives. Since a member of a secular institute can receive the consecration of virgins and a member of a religious institute can receive the consecration of virgins, logic dictates that the very essence of the vocation to be a sacred virgin cannot contain secularity or separation from the world as part of its definition. It also implies that the vocation to sacred virginity – by definition – is something different by its very nature than any other vocation in consecrated life because it is not pigeon holed into the sequela Christi paradigm. Its very nature allows it to be lived in circumstances that are incompatible with each other: secularity vs. separation from the world.

The ritual contained in the Roman Pontifical is used for the ordination of male members of a secular institute to the holy orders. The ritual contained in the Roman Pontifical is used for the consecration of female virgin members of a secular institute to sacred virginity. Those who receive the consecration of ordination or of the consecration of virgins are entered into a new vocation, adding an additional vocation they must conform to. It is important to realize that a secular institute is not a “latent” form of the diaconate/priesthood/episcopacy. Men do not go through the ordination ceremony in order to be “recognized at last” as the priests they were by virtue of their profession in the secular institute. Likewise, women do not go through the consecration of virgins ceremony in order to be “recognized at last” as the sacred virgins they were by virtue of their profession in the secular institute. These are new realities, which are not the result of the profession of the counsels and are essentially different from the profession of the counsels.

There is much experience in the realm of formation for men who are also members of institutes of consecrated life for them to add the additional vocation of holy orders. There is little experience (apart from some communities in the Benedictine, Carthusian, and Trappist orders) today for female virgins who are also members of institutes of consecrated life for giving adequate formation for women who intend to be sacred virgins [and one wonders if the formation actually provided is adequate given the uniqueness of the vocation to sacred virginity]. I think part of this has to do with the historic and immoral plundering of the unique and distinct patrimony of the order of virgins by female communities (and by certain modern proponents of the hermit vocation). It also has to do with a contemporary tendency to gloss over the fact that the very origin, history, and theology of religious (and secular institute) life is fundamentally different from that of sacred virginity.

There appears to be this fixed idea that consecrated virginity is (maybe) a vocation in its own right when “lived in the world”, but it magically becomes a non-vocation when “lived by a member of an institute of consecrated life”. Yet, the constitutive sacramental consecration is one and the same, regardless as to who receives it. Thus, sacred virginity is either a vocation in its own right or it is not. It either has something essential to its very nature and definition that no other vocation shares, or it is not actually a vocation. It either imposes new rights and obligations by virtue of its very nature/essence that are distinct from those of other vocations, or it is not a vocation.

Already, we have determined that sacred virginity cannot have as part of its definition “secularity” or “separation from the world”. The Church Fathers, then, must have understood the definition of sacred virginity to be something other than an enterprise that requires secularity. What was it? How do you conform to a vocation that has existed for 2022 years if you don’t know what it is? [The nature is knowable; but most people are not formed well enough to know what its nature is.] The vocation of sacred virginity is not identical to the vocation of consecrated secularity (secular institute membership). Both are beautiful. Both are compatible. But the question is, what makes the vocations to secularity (secular institute) and to sacred virginity different in a way that makes membership in both desirable? [The answer to that question is forthcoming in my dissertation.]



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is Sacred Virginity a Secular or Religious Vocation?

by Mother Therese Ivers, JCL, JCD (cand), DHS, OCV

It seems that a lot of people have the erroneous impression that sacred virgins are called to secularity, or worse, that they are lay persons. Others likewise erroneously believe it is a religious vocation. It is time to put both errors to rest. Let’s first start with what a lot of people cite when they claim that consecrated virgins are “secular”: Canon 604. Canon 604 is the canon in the Latin Code of Canon Law which describes the vocation in juridic terms. What a lot of people miss, is the fact that it is talking about ALL people who liturgically receive the consecration of virgins, not members of a specific group. Here is what canon 604 states:

§1. Similar to these forms of consecrated life is the order of virgins who, expressing the holy resolution of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan Bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are mystically betrothed to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.

§2. In order to observe their own resolution more faithfully and to perform by mutual assistance service to the Church in harmony with their proper state, virgins can be associated together.

Notice that nowhere in the text does it talk about the vocation of the sacred virgins as being one of that to “secularity” or it being a “lay vocation” or “separated from the world”. For its very definition does not include this terminology. Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s adapt canon 604 for priests:

§1. Similar to these [other] forms of ordained life is the order of priests who, expressing the holy resolution of following Christ more closely in ministry, are consecrated to God by the diocesan Bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are conformed to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.

§2. In order to observe their own resolution more faithfully and to perform by mutual assistance service to the Church in harmony with their proper state, priests can be associated together.

Would this text automatically translate as “the order of priests is secular”? Or, “Priests are called to secularity”? Of course not. Whether the man in question is a hermit, a member of a religious institute, a member of a secular institute, or does not belong to any institute, the priesthood is the priesthood is the priesthood. The priesthood is neither secular by nature nor is it religious by nature. In no part of its definition is “part of the world” or “separated from the world”. It is compatible with either mode of living. If an essential part of the very definition of the vocation to holy orders is “secularity” then the result would be no priest/deacon/bishop would be allowed to be a religious or hermit of any kind because part of the definition of the nature of the vocation of a religious or hermit is “separation from the world”. Likewise, if an essential part of the very definition of the vocation to holy orders is “separation from the world”, then a priest could not be a “diocesan priest” or belong to a “secular institute”. Read this carefully. The very definition of being a priest would preclude the priest from membership in a secular institute or under the direction of a diocesan bishop if part of the definition of the vocation of the priesthood requires “separation from the world”. This is logic 101.

What is striking about the liturgical ritual of consecration of virgins is that both members of cloistered communities can receive it (c.f. the Roman Pontifical) and members of secular institutes can receive it. Religious by law and by definition profess the evangelical counsels and are “separated from the world”. Non clerical secular institute members by law and by definition profess the evangelical counsels and are “leaven within the world”. Note that the evangelical counsels of themselves do not define whether a person is “not separated from the world” or “separated from the world”. The counsels can be practiced in either condition.

When commenting upon the consecration of virgins, people tend to only read part of the liturgical ritual of the consecration of virgins in the Roman Pontifical. This is a grave error. Likewise, they ignore how the ordo virginum is entered according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (hint: through liturgically bestowed consecration). Religious nuns who receive the consecration of virgins receive the same exact consecration as members of secular institutes who receive the same consecration of virgins as those who do not belong to another form of consecrated life. In other words, the homily, minister, consecratory prayer and essential elements of the ritual of consecration of virgins is the same. There isn’t a separate consecration prayer for nuns or hermits vs. members of secular institutes. The Order of Virgins is open to all who validly receive the consecration of virgins, regardless of whether they belong to an institute of consecrated life or eremitic life or not. Why? Because the very nature of the virginal vocation is compatible with all forms of consecrated life (except consecrated widowhood which requires having had intercourse with one’s deceased husband as a prerequisite). Logically, the virginal vocation cannot be identical to that of other forms of consecrated life (so your homework is to figure out what makes this vocation distinct).

The reason a woman who does not belong to a religious order does not don a habit when she receives the consecration of virgins is because the vocation of consecrated virginity does not have as an essential element of its definition “separation from the world”. Likewise, a woman who is a virgin and a nun does not take off a habit if she receives the solemn liturgical consecration of virgins because the vocation of consecrated virginity does not have as an essential element of its definition “leaven within the world” or “secularity”. Again, if one simply takes the time to actually read canon 604 and the Roman Pontifical’s consecration of virgins ritual, it will be abundantly clear that secularity or separation from the world is not and cannot be part of the definition of the vocation itself.

Any serious interpretation of the vocation to sacred virginity must include a rigorous scrutiny of the entire ritual of the consecration of virgins, and not just cherry picking from a portion of it to suit an ideological narrative. Further, this interpretation should take into consideration the normative text which is in Latin. Why? Because many vernacular translations omit (or badly translate) portions of text found in the Latin that give greater insight into the nature of the vocation.

If the vocation to sacred virginity is neither secular nor separated from the world by nature, then what exactly is its nature? A careful reading of the entire ritual (Introduction-Ch. 3), particularly in its Latin form, will furnish the answer. An answer many women, whatever their condition of life, will not like. The answer goes against the narrative many religious women tell themselves and others as far as their self-identity is concerned. It goes against the narrative a lot of clergy have. It is what it is. It is unique. It is an immense privilege; it is an immense responsibility to live up to. For those who need it spelled out, this will be done in my upcoming dissertation on the nature of the vocation to consecrated virginity.

Now, let’s talk briefly about the lay vocation. Sacred virgins are not lay. Let me repeat this, because it is an important point. Sacred virgins are not lay!!! They belong to the consecrated state in the Church, which is distinct from the lay state and the clerical state. Other people who belong to the consecrated state in the Church are diocesan hermits and members of religious institutes (and in the Eastern Churches, consecrated widows). In the words of St. John Paul II: ” The idea of a Church made up only of sacred ministers and lay people does not therefore conform to the intentions of her divine Founder, as revealed to us by the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament.” Vita Consacrata, n. 29. Sacred virgins have been constituted “sacred persons”. They have existed from the very beginning of the Church, starting with the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are not lay nor called to the lay state.

There is a difference between being in the lay state and being “called to a vocation” in the lay state. A woman can be married and be a religious sister (separated from her husband). She is not “called to a vocation’ in the lay state. She is called to the consecrated state. Marriage is usually between lay persons, but this is not always the case. Some clerics are married. Some consecrated persons are married. Neither are lay or called to lay life. A vocation “to” the lay or secular state is rare: it basically means that a person is called to a secular institute. Simply being lay is not a vocation in and of itself. The vocation to human marriage is not a vocation to the lay state, the couple simply remain in the lay state as opposed to being called to it.

Let us pray that the faithful of the Church learn more about the vocation of those called to be the living images of the Church as Virgin, Bride, and Mother.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hermits and Vows

by Mother Therese Ivers, JCD (cand), DHS, OCV

JEANNE LEBERFive to fifteen minutes total of the time I spent in canon law classes for my licentiate in canon law were spent on canons 603 and 604. Why?  Because they either considered too rare of a vocation, or because there is a lot of jurisprudence and history that must go into the proper interpretation of these canons.  A good interpretation of these two canons, which deal with hermits and virgins respectively, can take volumes and much research and familiarity with the development of the vocations, significant legal history, concrete lives of those who lived it in earlier centuries, etc.  I should know.  My first approved subject for my doctoral dissertation was on diocesan hermits.  I wrote extensively before I discovered that someone else had gotten to my conclusion first, and my topic could no longer be considered a significant contribution to the field. 

My second (current) subject of my dissertation is on sacred virgins.  It always amazes me how little native English speakers think there is about this vocation because they cannot read other languages.  The bibliography of just one of my sources contains 50 pages of books, articles, and other treatments on virginity that are utterly unknown to these virgins who rely mostly on religious life to give them guidance instead of their own patrimony.  It is embarassing and scandalous.  If 5 or 10 minutes total is all a priest hears about hermits in all of his formation as a priest and in canon law, then he is simply not an expert on the vocation.  Yet, unfortunately, that is the most that 99.999% of priests and chancery officials know about the hermit vocation.  This is why many make serious blunders when it comes to hermits (and virgins).

At any rate, I am returning to the topic of hermits and vows yet again because in the last few months I have seen 3 separate “professions” of hermits that have sparked grave concern about the direction the eremitic vocation is going in, and part of this concern is linked to errors surrounding the nature of consecrated life and the role and nature of vows.  (I do not think any of the three were valid.)

Let’s begin with the hermit vocation.  The Church recognizes in law, only hermits who are validly consecrated according to the provisions of canon 603.  But wait, what about the “private hermit”!  Isn’t that a vocation?  No.  Simply put, it is not a vocation (if you want to know why, read my upcoming dissertation). It is a lifestyle that is adopted by some members of the faithful who feel called to imitate Catholic hermits who are professed according to canon 603, but who do not conform to canon 603 completely themselves.  Retired clergy and single lay persons can live “like” hermits: they can devote hours upon hours to prayer and penance.  They can live in the “solitude of silence”, segregated from normal society for the most part.  They can -but shouldn’t- even mouth off words of vows, sign made up vows on the altar, and wear costumes.  But they do not have a hermit vocation.  In other words, they can be “hermits”, in the sense of living a lifestyle of prayerful seclusion, but they are not recognized as such by the Church.  

The Church is the protector and clarifier of vocations.  People are expected to conform their lives to the vocations they have been accepted into, and not define a vocation by their own individual lifestyle.  In other words, there are objective standards to which those who are authentically called must live, and definitions which they have no ability to change because to do so would change the nature of the vocation.  In an earlier post, I pointed out that Covid 19 has made a lot of people “recluses”, locked into their homes.  But being mostly confined to the home and being a devout person does not constitute a person a hermit.  The vocation is deeper than a superficial resemblance caused by global lockdowns.  To pretend that all a hermit is is a single person in a household who rarely goes out is to completely miss the point of the vocation to the eremitic life.  Canon 603 merely scratches the surface of what it means to be a hermit, and to be quite frank, it is a pity that it is the only canon on the vocation as this really trips chancery officials who do not know how to interpret it and come up with all kinds of crazy abuses.

A real hermit is one who has thoroughly discerned, internalized, and acted upon the call to be alone with the Alone, in the “silence of solitude”, in strict withdrawal from the world.  A real hermit is one who conforms to the values of the eremitic vocation but does not necessarily adopt all of the means.  E.g. The making of vows and the writing of a rule of life that has been approved are “means” to an end; years of studying about the vows, writing a rule of life that is sensible for living out a genuine eremitic lifestyle, having accountability to God and the Church, these are all ways intended to foster and protect authentic expressions of the eremitic vocation.  Without other people to intervene, a twisted, false ecclesiology, a lifestyle of isolation, unhealthy prayer or penitential practices, and possibly danger to mental health can blossom and grow if the individual is not well balanced, knowlegable, “mature” in faith, etc.  Thus, a hermit is a member of the faithful who conforms to the essentials of the eremitic lifestyle: assiduous prayer and penance “in the silence of solitude”, in “stricter withdrawal from the world”.  The hermit is not a person who is active in priestly ministry, campus ministry, or who otherwise engages in interfacing with people on a regular, sustained basis.  

For most people, it is far easier to be a canonical hermit than a lay (or clerical) hermit at least in theory.  This is because, in theory, the Church assists diocesan hermit candidates in discerning and embracing what is truly eremitical and jettisoning what is an obstacle to that lifestyle.  The vows and rule of life help provide a meaningful way to ascertain whether a person is actually living a life that is suitable for those desiring consecration.  The consecrated state is not merely a “legal” state.  It is an ontological reality to which greater responsibility on the recipient is attached.  Years are spent in formation, in which the theology of the vows should have been assimiliated, the virtues understood and practiced.  Layers of self-deception and walls to grace should have been peeled away in formation and the resulting rule of life should reflect a clearer reflection of the hermit’s understanding of self and the road to greater conformity to Christ.  

Those who do not wish to (or cannot) pursue formation and profession as a hermit under canon 603 have a much harder time of it.  To be faithful to the eremitic lifestyle, they must forgo certain things that could be of great help.  They may not wear a habit, because the habit is a public sign of consecration, and they have chosen a path outside of consecration.  To wear a habit would be to wear a lie, deceiving the faithful about their true status as regular members of the faithful (or clerics).  They may not make vows at Mass because without a legitimate superior, they have no one to receive their vows.  They cannot sign vows on the altar, because that is reserved to those who are liturgically allowed to do so (namely, those who are in approved institutes of consecrated life or those in the process of becoming so with appropriate permission, or those who are professed in the hands of the bishop in accord with canon 603).  Any rule of life that they might have will probably have to be worked out alone without the assistance of canon lawyers and others who might be experts on this lifestyle.  They cannot expect formation or continuing formation from the diocese in the eremitic lifestyle.  This means that often, lay “hermits” will actually not be living authenticly as hermits because they can’t or they won’t or they don’t know how.  E.g. The married husband or wife raising a family is not a “hermit” no matter how devout they are or how many hours they spend in prayer to the detriment of their actual vocation.  The college professor or the activist priest are no more hermits than the local news reporter.  The hermit vocation is not about being a “single religious” living independently, with or without other people, with bits of prayer sprinkled in their day.  It is far richer than that, and that is why most people are not called to this lifestyle, much less vocation.  Humans are social and this is why it is a rare vocation.  God rarely calls people to the hermit life.

Now, a word about vows.  Vows should be studied for years before making them.  There is no point in a private vow of “obedience” as there is no legitimate authority to obey.  Real experts should be consulted for valid vow formulae.  Recently, there was a ceremony with invalid vows for a “diocesan hermit”.  Because the vow formula was invalid, the individual is not a hermit until/unless that is rectified.  

Lastly, let’s briefly discuss private vows.  Private vows do not a hermit make.  Private vows should never be made in a way that gives the impression that the Church accepts or approves those vows, particularly at Mass.  No priest should preside at any Mass or ceremony that looks like the profession of vows for a hermit, because by so doing, he is mocking the actual vocation of diocesan hermits, violating liturgical directives, and in general confusing the faithful about the consecrated state.  It could safely be considered sacriligious to do so as he does not have the authority and it would be simulating a real sacramental (eremitic profession).

St. Paul the First Hermit, pray for us!

P.S.  In case you are wondering, I have studied way more than 5-10 minutes on hermits!!!  I probably have one of the best private collections on hermit books, treatises, and articles in the Americas.  I have also studied for years on consecrated life, the eremitic life, and yes, I do possess a diploma from the Vatican on the Theology and Law of Consecrated Life, making me a perita (expert).  That is why I am writing now.  To share with you so that invalid ceremonies do not continue to harm the dignity of the vocation and make a mockery of the consecrated life.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Traditionis Custodes: Religious Institutes and the Ordo Virginum

By Mother Therese Ivers, JCD (Cand), DHS, OCV

 

Shepherdess St. Genevieve of Paris being consecrated a virgin by the bishop.
Shepherdess St. Genevieve of Paris being consecrated a virgin by the bishop.

The long-expected Motu Proprio from Pope Francis has been promulgated today concerning the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Latin rite for Mass.  Religious Institutes are now forbidden to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Latin rite unless they receive explicit permission from the Holy See, from the Congregation of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.  As the permissions from John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were directed towards the Roman rituals and not the proper rituals of those Orders whose distinct rituals date from 1395 or earlier, religious Orders who do possess their proper rituals that were not suppressed by the Tridentine reforms may continue to use them.  This means that any religious liturgical ritual utilizing and incorporating extraordinary form celebration of the Mass are forbidden without express permission.  Permission must be obtained even if a community has already been given this permission previously unless the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life announce otherwise.  While the Motu Proprio does not specify whether the pre-Vatican II Divine Office may be celebrated, it is evident that its usage is not encouraged.

Likewise, as the solemn consecration of virgins occurs through the ministry of the bishop in accordance with the ritual contained in the Roman Pontifical (not merely the Roman Missal), the celebration of the ritual in accordance with the extraordinary form (1962) is prohibited as of today, July 16, 2021 for all secular virgins, and virgins among the professed nuns of the cloistered communities who have no pre-1395 Ordo of their own.  Or, put in another way, without express permission from the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, no virgins may be consecrated using the 1962 Roman Pontifical because it requires the use of the 1962 Roman Missal.  All consecrations of virgins living in the world, virgins who are members of secular institutes, and virgins who belong to cloistered communities who use the Roman Pontifical must use only the 1970 Roman Pontifical (again, the only exceptions being those religious communities who have their own Ordo dating from 1395 or older or those who receive permission after today from Rome).

On the one hand, this may be very disappointing news to candidates who may have desired to be consecrated in this form of the ritual.  There are some candidates and communities who have immersed themselves in the attendance of the extraordinary form of the Mass, and who perhaps also recite the pre-Vatican II Divine Office.  

On the other hand, the prohibition of the 1962 Roman Pontifical’s use for communities and individual virgins will ensure that no liturgical abuses will occur with this particular form of the ritual.  Some of the abuses that will now be abolished include:

  • The reprehensible practice of some of mixing the extraordinary form Mass with a portion of the 1970 Roman Pontifical’s rite of consecration of virgins.
  • Secular virgins having veiled heads throughout the celebration of the extraordinary form’s Mass when the ritual clearly calls for bare heads for the beginning of the Mass so that the virgin is veiled later by the bishop.
  • Virgins not presenting the bishop with the candles or receiving the crown because they are unaware this is part of the extraordinary form of the Mass.
  • Virgins not being called forth from the assembly correctly (from nave to choir to sanctuary) and instead having them seated in the nave for the duration of the Mass when they are supposed to be present within the sanctuary starting from the calling of the bishop.
  • Secular virgins not going to the top step of the altar to receive the Eucharist at the hands of the bishop before the other ministers.
  • Priests celebrating the extraordinary form “low Mass” instead of the bishop celebrating the extraordinary form“Solemn Pontifical High Mass” because the bishop is unable or unwilling to do the Solemn Pontifical High Mass.
  • The abuse of tweaking the ritual for secular virgins as their vocation does not include reception of the habit or profession of vows that the ritual entails for professed nuns.

I am not aware of any consecrations done within the extraordinary form in the last two decades that has not had its share of liturgical abuses.  The principal reason for this is that the virgins are not familiar with the ritual done in the extraordinary rite and there are few living bishops who are capable of celebrating a solemn Pontifical Mass with all that it entails properly today.  Thus, I believe that forbidding the extraordinary form is a good step for the Church and the Ordo Virginum when it pertains to the solemn consecration of virgins.  Until Bishops are familiar with and are able to celebrate the Solemn Pontifical High Mass in accordance with the extraordinary form, it is pointless to desire the return of the extraordinary form of the consecration of virgins.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Isolation, Sunday Rest, and Hermits

by Mother Therese Ivers, JCD(cand), OCV, DHS

One of the deacons I am friends with has spoken about his visits to impoverished housebound people and assistance both spiritual and temporal given to them. Our conversations became a catalyst for this article, which has been put on the backburner for far too long, for I wish to speak on covid isolation, Sunday rest, the movement of parishes and dioceses cutting off Mass live streaming to encourage people to go back to in-person Mass, and hermits.

Covid has wreaked havoc around the globe. No one has escaped its impact, and for the first time in history, most of the world had had its Sunday Mass attendance obligation suspended because of the virus. This has lead to otherwise healthy single people living in greater isolation due to government regulations. They have been cooped up in their homes and apartments, only gradually being “let out”, perhaps only for a brief time before again enduring more isolation if another wave breaks out.

C1DECD50-A526-4D2D-896F-7C93A88A304A

Church going Catholics have been fairly vocal about the pastoral and governmental response to the covid crisis. This is not what we’ll be focusing on today, and any comments about the concrete handling of this situation by authorities will be summarily deleted, as this is simply not the space for such a discussion. Rather, we will be examining something I think has been overlooked and undervalued, namely, Sunday rest, the lot of the homebound, and hermits.

Healthy individuals who are forcibly isolated and who have more limited access to the sacraments have understandable feelings about being unable to socialize with people, partake of the sacraments normally, etc. Priests who are dealing with the crisis are for the most part not happy about having to livestream their Masses as being a “youtube tech” was not what they imagined as part of their ministry description. Both groups just want to go back to life as normal with in-person Masses, and having a normal social life and ministry. This is fine and natural.

When transitioning back into society, it is appropriate for us to begin seriously reflecting upon how we understand Sunday, which is to help “everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.” [CCC #2184). Sundays are not simply for attending Mass and fostering our spiritual lives, although that is extremely important; humans need a holistic and uplifting praxis of the day that allows for but sufficient rest and leisure for other very positive effects in our lives: cultural, familial, and social. In pandemic times, how this is accomplished must be adapted for our concrete reality. Obviously we cannot completely re-create our former social, familial, and cultural activities conducive to Sunday observance in these trying times, and millions of us have to do this in relative isolation because of the restrictions imposed on us.

Many Catholics know that we are “to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The charity of truth seeks holy leisure- the necessity of charity accepts just work.” (CCC #2185). However, it may come as a surprise that “Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation.” (CCC #2186). How many healthy individuals think only of fostering their own leisure, their own social life, and their own methods for attaining relaxation?

FDAA028A-83C2-4821-87F2-4F77DC60C7E4

Who of us think about doing works of mercy and offering humble service to the “sick, the infirm, and the elderly”? I would mention in particular, the home-bound isolated individuals who are ignored by society and rarely or never visited by their relatives or members of the clergy or fellow parishioners. Do we go and mow the lawns of widows, the elderly, homebound, or the military spouse with children? Do we make it a point to ensure that there is regular visitation of the sick by not just extraordinary ministers but also priests who can hear confessions? Will we keep livestreaming Masses and prayer services for the homebound? Or will all sense of solidarity evaporate once the healthy get what they want?

Let’s face it. Marginalized persons are so far out of the mind of most of the healthy who are not caregivers, and their pastors, that their needs are simply ignored when it comes to decisions about livestreaming Masses, visits, and volunteer work. This needs to end. If healthy people are finding it difficult to cope with imposed isolation, it is high time to consider those who are homebound and do not necessarily have the same resources for cultivating their social, religious, cultural, and familial lives. That couple on a fixed income might need to get out of the house and brought to a social activity or cultural experience provided with courtesy and respect by others. Or, that 83 year old woman living alone with a leaky sink could do with a cheerful word and donated repairs services.

It is time that we embrace the fullness of living out the Sunday observance and start reaching out to our neighbors. We need to bring community and care to our homebound, and to foster a love and appreciation for our culture. We need to be constructive about our collective future.

Now, it is time to shift to a related topic, that of hermits. If anything, the pandemic has highlighted the fact that people can live in isolation on a temporary basis, but most people are not called to live withdrawn from normal pre-pandemic social interactivity. The majority of people are waiting with bated breath for normality to return so that there is an end-point to the severe disruption isolation causes in their lives. Put in another way, most people do not have a positive call from God to live “alone with the Alone” as a hermit.

Many have the idea that a Catholic hermit is someone who lives alone. In this time of pandemic, it is possible that some might consider themselves all but canonical hermits because the externals of devout Catholics might have the outward appearance of that of a hermit’s life: a rhythm of prayer, meals, greater separation from normal activities, etc. But it is clear that such people do not fit the definition of a real hermit. It is one thing for people to be in relative isolation during the pandemic but afterwards go back into normal socialization. And for those who are homebound due to age or chronic illness, if they had a choice, many would opt into normal activity. It is another to voluntarily choose, not isolation, but healthy solitude to be alone with God.

8F579F49-B674-444A-B80D-C193A05B4418

Why bring up hermits in connection with the pandemic? Because outward circumstances do not a vocation make. A hermit is more than a pious person who is “alone” in a household. A hermit is essentially one who is given a special call by God to consecrated life “for the sake of the kingdom” in “the silence of solitude”. A call that must be carefully discerned over a period of many years because it is so rare and it can be dangerously unhealthy for a person who is not balanced to embrace.

The pandemic is not only bringing out the goodness in people as evidenced by the outpouring of the corporal works of mercy by individuals and organizations, but also the ugly distortions of sin, the amplification of struggles of people with certain mental health conditions, and proliferation of issues due to financial inequity. It will undoubtedly bring up a small segment of people who may be considering the eremitic vocation for the first time in their lives because of forced isolation. The healthy individual should be using this time of forced isolation as a time for reflection, and adaptive habits that foster community, culture, religion, etc. within the boundaries set by the authorities. To really use this opportunity for “solitude” to have better self awareness and to do some good soul-searching. Those struggling with the challenges posed by isolation should work to find solutions.

For a very small minority of people, this period of forced isolation may be the transformative experience needed to seriously consider the possibility of a hermit vocation. In the absence of certain distractions, one might very well find oneself drawn to be with God in a disciplined life of prayer, penance, etc., lived in solitude that the busy-ness of everyday life may have drowned out. But hermit life is not the life of the eccentric person who hates people or is a-social. Nor is it a nice label for “basement dwellers” who are unable to function in real life. It is not the caricature of eremitic life that might come immediately to mind of a cranky social misfit that the Church fosters as an authentic vocation to the eremitic life.

The Catholic hermit withdraws from normal social life because he is drawn to conversation with God, not because she thinks that she cannot live in society without sinning because all “conversations are idle”. The diocesan hermit is a healthy, balanced individual who is able to have strong relationships with others, not the loner who can’t get along with other people. A person called by God to this lifestyle is drawn to the service of the greater body of Christ in service done via prayer and penance rather than focusing on his own private benefit. The hermit doesn’t spend the majority of his time wrangling with the problems of society and of the Church in activity, but instead focuses on grappling with those elements in his own life that keep him from a closer and more virtuous relationship with God and cooperating with grace to become a greater vessel to humankind.

Whether the hermit is a dedicated individual (via lifestyle and/or private vows) or a consecrated diocesan hermit whose superior is the bishop, the lifestyle embraced is far different and more expansive and rich than that of those simply forced into isolation by reason of the pandemic, ill health, age, quarantine, or even imprisonment. It is not about isolation but of communing with God and fighting with the inner demons. The eremitic lifestyle is not a runaround for starting a religious community or shorthand for a person who is aping religious life as a kind of “active religious of a community of one”. It is its own unique style of life with its own charism, spirituality, way of life, etc. It is a very rare vocation in the Church.

If a true call to the eremitic life that might bubble up within the laity and possibly detected in this time of pandemic is rare, it is far rarer for there to be an authentic vocation to the eremitic life from members of institutes of consecrated life and diocesan clergy. The pandemic is certainly impacting religious and clergy alike. It is fostering deep divisions over issues such as social distancing, vaccinations, care for the elderly and vulnerable, sacramental access, etc. It can be a catalyst for pitting brother against brother, sister against sister, priests against priests, and parishioners against priests. Thus, it shouldn’t be too surprising that care should be taken in the discernment of a religious or secular institute member who yearns for a hermitage but whose institute does not provide for hermit members, and the discernment of diocesan priests to the hermit vocation.

For the religious, a simple transfer isn’t possible. The religious would have to line up a way of providing for himself, a hermitage, etc. Then he would have to seek a dispensation from community life to experiment with this lifestyle, and eventually from his religious vows. Only after living several years as a lay person testing the hermit vocation successfully would the former religious be in a position to petition the bishop for candidacy as a hermit.

Likewise, the secular priest who desires to be a hermit would have to ask for release from his active ministerial obligations from his bishop. He should have a demonstrable yearning and personal holiness and soundness of life that would indicate potential success in this way of life. As it is a completely different vocation than the priesthood, the clerical aspirant would have to begin from the very beginning and presumably take the same 9-12 years that a lay hermit would have for formation. The theology he has been taught is a good support for the eremitic life but is not a substitute for the actual living of the life nor for the gradual learning of the praxis and theology of consecrated life. Eremitic life goes beyond slapping on the vows of poverty to that of the priestly promises of celibacy and obedience to his bishop and living “alone” [in fact this is not how profession is done, but that is a whole different can of worms].

The clerical candidate would have to learn about the vocation and spirituality of the diocesan hermit. Unlike most aspirants, he would never have to worry about his financial support as the diocese will always have the obligation to support him even if he did profess the vows because he would continue to be incardinated in the diocese but not be in active ministry. He should not be too surprised if permission to experiment with a possible vocation to the eremitic life is not granted by his bishop until retirement age, although bishops should be open to the vocation and give the matter serious discernment on a case by case basis.

For its part, the diocese should be very careful in this time of the pandemic to be even more thoughtful about potential candidates and to have a good grasp on the nature of this vocation. This is a true vocation, and is not a way of getting rid of an annoying individual by “professing them” and then forgetting about them. Nor is it a canonical equivalent to giving a stamp of episcopal approval on an individual’s ministry, whether they be lay or clerical. It is not a way of “validating” a homebound individuals’ existence and giving them a “meaningful purpose”. Nor is this a way of blessing the eccentric individual or the asocial person who is unable or unwilling to live in society because of a false ideology or physical/mental weakness.

If it is tricky for the bishop to discern the lay person’s potential vocation to the eremitic life, which must be tested over a long period of time, it is all the more delicate in the situation of those who desire to separate from their religious institution or be a clerical hermit. The bishop should enquire about the experience of the community of the ex-religious. Was the individual balanced, loving, mature in the virtues, etc. Likewise, the character of a clerical aspirant should be duly considered. Did he live up to his holy vocation as a mature, balanced, holy cleric? Hearing directly from the members of the institute in addition to superiors, and members of the councils and parishioners is important in these special cases.

In particular, the bishop should ensure that primary reason for a religious considering leaving an institute isn’t on account of “personality conflicts” but because they are persons of proven virtue and have carefully discerned a call to greater solitude. Since there are rogue priests who just want to do their own thing, the diocese should take care that the priest is carefully supervised and that the rule of life contains elements that make it clear that this is not a canonical construct for “independent priests” but is built for the “silence of solitude”, a life centered primarily upon prayer and penance with little to no active ministry involved in person and online.

Also, a word of warning. Just as healthy religious have the right to common “communal life”, so too diocesan priests have the right to not be shunted to a fake vocation as a hermit if he is a “misfit” or for “punishment”. A priest found guilty of certain delicts can certainly be punished by being sent to a religious house, if such will receive him, but he is there as an outsider, following their way of life as a restriction on his activities rather than as a person embracing the life as a positive call from God. No priest can be punished by being told to become a diocesan hermit because not only is that outside of a bishop’s authority, but it goes against the very nature of the vocation itself, for which the bishop is a guardian.

In summary, let us not mistake isolation for eremitic life.  We need to be mindful of the homebound and sanctify our Sundays in service to and in communion with others.  Those who are called to authentic hermit life should be aware that it takes much discernment on the part of the individual and diocesan bishop in addition to rigorous formation proper to the vocation.

Posted in Consecrated Life, Hermits, Holy Orders, monks, priesthood, Profession, Religious, Religious Brothers, Rule of Life, Separation from the world, single life, Stewardship | Leave a comment