Thanks and Why Did You Reprise the Piece on Solace?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I wanted to thank you for the piece you put up yesterday by David Whyte. It is really wonderful and I missed it the first time you put it up several years ago. (Maybe I didn't miss it and it didn't really speak to me then, but it did this time!) I know this is a personal question but do you mind telling readers why you put it up again? I don't think you have done that with your "Contemplative Moment" posts so it piqued my curiosity. Is it because of the pandemic? Did you think this was particularly meaningful at this time because of the suffering the world is experiencing? I thought maybe the reason it spoke to me this time was because I really needed consolation that did justice to my own suffering and this piece did that. Sometimes what you write makes me think you know me and just what I need! I am going to get David Whyte's book!]]

Many thanks for your comments and questions. Yes, David Whyte is a really wonderful writer and what he has to say is rooted in a deep wisdom which is only gained through experience. I think you will love his book; I have posted several passages (definitions) from it over the years and it confirms for me that quite often we need to spend more time thinking about the words we use too blithely or facilely. Consolation (and/or solace) are among these. 

For instance, in spirituality people speak of experiencing consolations and usually they mean by that that somehow God did something "pleasant" or pleasurable for them in prayer, and sometimes they will mean that something that happened in prayer eased their pain and made them feel better. Thus, they will speak of "sweet consolations" and play these off against "bitter desolations" --- where desolations are unpleasant and, at least momentarily, make one feel worse. But in Ignatian spirituality these words are not so easily defined in this sort of black and white way. Instead, what Ignatius meant by a consolation was anything that helps us grow closer to God (and our deepest selves), and desolation is anything which does the opposite. A consolation in this sense might be immensely painful; it might entail serious struggle and various lesser forms of death (or even death itself), while a desolation might be deceptively pleasant when in reality it draws us away from God, and so, away from the very source of life and meaning which is the ground of real happiness or beatitude. David Whyte's piece on solace understands the complex dynamics of these words and captures them very very well.

So why did I reprise this piece? In the Scripture class I am teaching on the Gospel of Mark we had finished the first half of the Gospel, the portion that includes Jesus' non-stop "campaign" through Galilee and environs, his seemingly unceasing miracles, exorcisms, teaching, and his calling and missioning of his disciples/Apostles. This is the story Mark tells in a breathless way, much as an excited 4 year old might recount the story of Christmas morning or a beginning writer just discovering conjunctions might link sentences together with "and" after "and" after "and". This section concludes with Jesus' transfiguration and Peter's compromised profession of Jesus as the Christ or anointed One of God and Jesus' instruction on his death. As Jesus and his disciples move towards Jerusalem and the cross, the first story of the second half of the Gospel (Mark 9:14-29) is Jesus' last recounted exorcism, the healing of the boy with epilepsy which occurs against the backdrop of the disciples' failure to do this and the boy's Father's request to Jesus to heal his son if he can. 

I have never taught this story before and, because of my own seizure disorder, it has always been a difficult one for me. I have tended not to spend a lot of time with it, but now I had to teach it and that meant understanding the story in terms of Mark's Gospel, why it is placed where it is in the text, and attending to what Jesus says about the disciples' failure and the place of prayer in the successful healing. As part of this I especially had to be ready to deal with my own identity as a woman of prayer and the importance of suffering in discipleship (because of the story's context); I needed to do this in light of my own struggles with continued seizures.  Consequently, I spent more than two weeks with the story, reading commentaries, journaling, praying with it (lectio, etc.), and using a couple of sessions with my spiritual director to explore all of this and particularly the way the story affected me. Central to this period was recognizing and articulating the questions characterizing my own struggle to be myself in the face of competing gifts and limitations. Especially I had to pose some sharp questions to God, questions I had never specifically asked Him (unlike the exchange that occurs in the dialog between Jesus and the blind man in the story of the healing of Bartimaeus which ends the section in Mark 10:46-52!!); the process was both incredibly painful and healing for me. Thus, the following paragraph was timely and particularly powerful:

To look for solace is to learn to ask fiercer and more exquisitely pointed questions, questions that reshape  our identities and our bodies and our relation to others. Standing in loss but not overwhelmed by it we become useful and generous and compassionate and even amusing companions for others. But solace also asks us very direct and forceful questions. Firstly, how will you bear the inevitable that is coming to you? And how will you endure it through the years? And above all, how will you shape a life equal to and as beautiful and as astonishing as a world that can birth you, bring you into the light, and then just as you are beginning to understand it, take you away?

A second reason had to do with several conversations I had with a writer for the New York Times. (More about this later.) We were talking about eremitical life and the place of solitude in a truly human life, but also, yes, there were links to the pandemic and the added dimensions of solitude so frequently forced upon people as a result. Especially, we were talking about what is possible and necessary then with regard to solitude, not only for hermits, but for every human being. I had written some about the place of struggle and even of suffering in growing in one's capacity for compassion and had cited Douglas John Hall's God and Human Suffering where he says: 

[[The question therefore becomes: How can one at the same time acquire sufficient honesty about what needs to be faced, and sufficient hope that facing it would make a difference, to engage in altering the course of our present world towards life and not death?]] a page later he observes that acknowledging suffering is not enough. What is also required is [[ the trust that something --- the life process or Providence or God --- something “enduring,” as Isaiah put it, is able to take into itself all that does not endure, even things that are not, and give them a future that infinitely transcends the bleak promise of their past.]] 

Eremitical solitude combines all the elements needed for sufficient honesty about "what needs to be faced" with a defining orientation to God and God's Providence; together these provide significant hope in the midst of suffering in a way which is profoundly consoling. Above all I recognize my own eremitical life as motivated by the desire and sense of a call that, by virtue of the grace of God, can [[shape a life equal to and as beautiful and as astonishing as a world that can birth (me), and bring (me) into the light.]] So this too was on my mind and in my heart, and David Whyte's piece on Solace helped clarify and contextualize all of this for me personally. However, yes, I certainly believed it would speak to readers during this time.

On Canonical Standing and Responsible Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you write that one of the reasons some hermits choose canonical standing is because of the freedom it gives them from being concerned with peoples' opinions about them was this your own reason for seeking canonical standing? I am asking because it seems kind of petty to be concerned about what people think of you or your vocation.]]

Thanks for your question. Yes, it can be petty to be concerned re what people think about you or your vocation, I agree. But the situation I was responding to in my other post seemed to me to be about more than that. It involved what I heard to be an intensely critical attitude of others which, in my own experience, is an intensification of an entire constellation of beliefs and attitudes which we might call "the world". Namely, the person writing me found that much of his choices regarding prayer, silence and solitude, his likes, attempts to be faithful to his deepest self, and so forth, were being criticized and more, actually conflicted with much of what the world around him considers "normal" or perhaps, "healthy" (although that is not a word he used in his questions). When this sort of global "attitude" is what one meets at every turn in one's attempts to be faithful to one's call, it can be destructive as it eats away at one's confidence in the soundness of one's discernment. Thus it leads to temptation, mainly the temptation to conform oneself to the beliefs, attitudes, activities and general culture of those surrounding one but potentially at the expense of one's integrity and deepest self.

At such times, having one's discernment confirmed by those in leadership in the Church can result in a form of freedom. As a result of such confirmation one is able to trust in one's discernment even in times of difficulty and doubt and this is immensely empowering. In the solitude of the hermitage one continues to pray, work, and study in silence with and in the presence of God; over time one will find one's certainty of one's vocation deepens and pervades every moment and mood of one's life but there must be this essential freedom to disregard the culture that has, until this time, defined a whole constellation of what was considered normal and worthy of being aspired to. Canonical standing, which always comes only after a significant period of mutual discernment and which is accompanied by the assumption of public rights and obligations, is incredibly important in establishing a person in a vocation which is little-understood, less-esteemed, and often caricatured with the help of stereotypes and those who live the vocation badly or just eccentrically. So yes, I affirm canonical standing as an important context allowing hermits, especially those who must live in urban and other populated settings, to persevere and mature in their vocations.

However, while this is a valid and important reason for seeking canonical standing, I don't think it is a sufficient reason for doing so. Instead I think there are two other reasons which are more important: First,  the eremitical vocation I live is an ecclesial vocation. It "belongs to the Church" and was entrusted to her by Christ. This vocation recognizes "the silence of solitude" not only as the physical context of the life, but also as the goal of the life (we are to come to the stillness and peace of life in God, and thus to the fullness of human existence where God alone completes us), and the unique gift or "charism" hermits bring to the Church and world. Second, the ecclesial hermit is meant to witness to the Gospel of God in Christ; she is called to witness to the way in which the Gospel saves. Ecclesial hermits will have had a an experience in silence and solitude which is profoundly redemptive and will need to witness to this movement of the Holy Spirit. (cf., On the Redemptive Experience at the Heart of the Eremitical Vocation)

In my own life I embraced eremitical life and especially canonical eremitical life for these three reasons. The most important one, to my mind, is the need to witness to the redemptive way God has worked in my life in the silence of solitude. It is important to note that as I understand it, this cannot be separated from the ecclesial nature of my vocation, nor from its public nature; instead, it makes this public and ecclesial context essential. The Gospel is entrusted to the Church. It lives and works first of all in her midst and is the very reason for her existence. For me personally, seeking canonical standing was the only way to continue living such a vocation and meet the requirements of eremitical life in real and literally responsible freedom. I hope this is helpful.

On Discerning a Call to Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sr. Laurel,  Would you be so kind as to write a bit about your experiences as a lay hermit? What does the process of discernment look like when a  lay hermit discerns canonical eremitism? As a layperson, how does one live a privately eremitical life while still presenting an open, engaged public life in society, parish and workplace? I'm thinking about the need for a lay-hermit to avoid falling into merely antisocial behavior and justifying such behavior as an expression of eremitic life.  

A few years ago, I changed some things in my daily structure to create space for more prayer and solitude--hardly enough to claim to be living as a hermit! Yet, my acquaintances/coworkers questioned me quite critically on my lifestyle (what exactly do you do on the weekends? Don't you have a social life? Why are you always busy but never say what you're doing? Don't you want to get married?--Time's running out! So what do you do for fun?--that doesn't sound like fun!). 

I guess what I want to know is: Am I being a wannabe/imposter/poser by even testing this mode of living as a lay hermit? Why does it arouse such opposition in others, but feel just right to me? Did you experience anything like this in your discernment?]]

Hi there, I think what you are experiencing is part of the reason some hermits have discovered the importance of canonical standing with regard to their eremitical lives. Ecclesial vocations rooted in admission to canonical profession and consecration along with the rights and obligations of an established state of life provide a realm of freedom in which one can live an eremitical life as fully and authentically as possible without having to be ultimately (i.e., beyond the period of initial and mutual discernment) concerned with one's motivations or the opinions of others. The Church's approval of one's vocation is especially helpful during those times when one is led to work again through the reasons one has discerned this vocation and whether it is truly God's call or a response to ill-fitting motivations one was previously unaware or inadequately aware of. At these times one has the Church's discernment to trust in. It helps a lot with questions of authenticity (is this doubt due to my imperfection or am I just a poser, am I kidding myself in trying this, am I the real deal, how much of this is due to failure or selfishness?); it also provides a context which challenges and demands one live one's vocation in a whole-hearted, exhaustive way which witnesses to the Gospel.

 What I am saying is that your own experience, the things you are struggling with or worrying about may be indicators that you are dealing with exactly the kinds of dynamics one must negotiate in discerning such a call. None of us come to this vocation without a mix of existential successes and failures as well as a mix of motivations that make our discernment more complicated. When we add the impressions and opinions of others to the mix, or when we measure our lives against the normative or ideal ways of living our society touts initial discernment can be difficult. Despite some vision-and-locution-riddled accounts of calls to eremitical life one can find online, God does not ordinarily simply say to a person, "I want you to be a hermit." Instead, God summons us to the silence of solitude in ways both clear and subtle, vivid and obscure, with movements of our hearts;  it is up to us to discern this call in the midst of our own human complexity and then determine the very best context for living it out.

Also, please understand that few folks in our culture or society will understand a call to eremitical life. Even devout Catholics are unlikely to immediately understand it because its witness value differs so profoundly from that of apostolic Religious life or ministerial life --- both lay and ordained. (Given time and conversation with actual hermits, however, understanding will -- or at least can --- come!) At this point in time, despite the existence of canon 603, even many bishops still don't understand or accept eremitical life as something authentic. Even so, I sincerely believe that those who truly love you will be able to see how fulfilling contemplative and/or eremitical life is for you. (More about this in the excursus below.) Others will never get it. You need to learn to understand and trust your own motives. If you are looking to get other folks to understand an eremitical vocation please know most never will. Eremitical life is counter-cultural even within the contemporary Church and while our contemporary world knows and accepts things such as cocooning (an anti-social form of isolation) it generally does not accept lives lived for God and especially those that say "God alone is sufficient for us".

My Own Life as a Hermit:

I don't know if I can be of much help here regarding being a lay hermit. Remember I had a background in religious life, lived as part of a community when I began the process of becoming a diocesan hermit and was generally known as a Religious Sister in my neighborhood even after my diocese decided they were not going to profess anyone under c 603 due to some earlier situation which "left a bad taste in the bishop's mouth". At this point I had to decide whether I would continue living as a hermit whether in community or as a lay hermit. Eventually I decided I would continue living as a hermit no matter which state in which I did that --- that I could do nothing else because I clearly was thriving in this way.

However, because I was not a canonical hermit without the Church herself professing or consecrating me as a hermit, I can say I understand the difficulties of having people understand or support what I was doing and why. What I experienced, however, is that to the degree I was comfortable with my own vocation people gave me the benefit of any doubt. They might not understand about hermits and what motivates them, but they trusted me and remained open to the idea of my being a hermit. I did lose a couple of friends but not with the degree of antipathy you seem to be describing. When friends needed something to hold onto that would make sense of my life and also made sense to them, they hung onto my identity as a woman Religious. For myself, it was clear to me that the Holy Spirit was working in my life in this specific way and while I hoped some day the Church would recognize this, I could not do anything but continue on as a hermit while still being professed in community. God was calling me to do this -- of that I was certain. However, it also became very important to find connections which/who supported me in my journey, e.g., the Camaldolese, a good spiritual director, other Sisters, etc. I don't know if this helps but if you have other specific questions re my own life as a hermit, please get back to me with those.

Discernment and Your Questions about Balancing a Healthy Relationship With Parish and Eremitical Life:

You describe maintaining a healthy presence and an open, engaged public life in society, parish, and workplace while living a privately [vowed] eremitical life. I wonder most about your comment about workplace. If you must work outside your hermitage and it cannot be 1) in a solitary way or 2) part-time (fewer than 20 hours a week), I don't think you can think of yourself as a hermit. (By the way, this is true about canonical hermits as well; dioceses have occasionally made the mistake of professing those working in social jobs on a full-time basis -- the Archdiocese of Boston is, unfortunately, best known for this serious error -- but most bishops will not even consider professing a hermit who works outside the hermitage much less in a full-time job.)  If you are transitioning to an eremitical life, and especially if you plan on seeking standing in law as a diocesan hermit, the ability to work only part time in a way which is consonant with eremitical life is one of the first things you will need to negotiate.

Before you are ready to do this you will need to work to 1) move to a genuinely contemplative life. This means growing in contemplative prayer but also in your approach to the whole of your life. I assume you are working regularly with a spiritual director who will aid you in your developing life as a contemplative. This is a sine qua non without which you cannot progress in your own growth in this way. Once this prayer and life is well-established you may find you have no real need to live as a hermit. On the other hand, you may find you feel called to even greater solitude and feel an even more intense sense that eremitical life is the only context and content that makes sense of your entire life. This whole process until this point takes years. You will not be a hermit at this point, and may not ever feel called to being a hermit.

Once you have reached this point, however, if you do feel a call to even greater solitude you will need to limit your participation in your parish and other external activities or venues. I would suggest you write a draft or working Rule of life describing what elements of prayer, lectio, study, and penance are essential for you right now. Similarly, describe the relationships you have that are genuinely life-giving and need to be honored no matter whether you are a hermit or not. Similarly, list the ways you engage in ministry that are life-giving to you and that you determine are important for your own prayer/spiritual life. For the present then (once you have reached this point), limit yourself to this degree of active participation in the parish and make clear to those who know you why you are doing this in a matter-of-fact way: "I need more time for prayer, lectio, or study" or, "My relationship with God is growing in this direction". Don't make a big deal of it. You are merely stating what your own life holds as priorities. Most likely ou will continue to support your parish in prayer, attend liturgy there, do limited ministry, and maintain friendships (though this last might not be in quite the same way you have done until now).

Excursus: The rule of thumb I think you should hold onto is "when in the parish or other social situation be available to others in a normal way; do not hold yourself aloof but let yourself be truly present! Especially, do not insist on only speaking about "Holy things" or only talking about God!! In other words, do NOT "play" hermit!! Be yourself!! If you need greater solitude, build it into your life but in all things, be yourself and when you are at your parish, etc., be there with and for others! You may (or may not) lose a few friends but it will not be due to some kind of pretense on your part. Meanwhile, you may also gain some new ones with whom you can share yourself truly. While your life may not seem like fun to others the more relevant question, I think, is whether or not you are happy. Folks know that I am supremely happy and even excited when I am reading Scripture or studying theology. This is not their idea of a good time maybe, but neither do I insist it should be. When I am happy that comes across in my ability to be present to/with others and it is here that the importance of what I do for recreation or with my time alone becomes a witness for others. End excursus.

Back to Writing a Rule:

As I think you can see from the above description, writing a Rule is first of all an exercise in discernment. Meet regularly with your spiritual director during this process. Don't be surprised if it takes some time before you have a Rule that meets your own needs and challenges you to grow even as it reflects the nature of your life now. When you are satisfied this Rule can assist you for the next couple of years, commit to living it. During this time your director can assist you in keeping what works and editing those which do not. Revise your Rule in ways that allows it to work better for you in terms of relationships and ministry (including hospitality to God and others) while respecting your sense of being called to greater silence and solitude.

If this particular Rule should work out for a space of time after revisions (say 1 to 2 years), and you see yourself called to eremitical life rather than merely to contemplative life with significant silence and solitude, it will be time to begin considering what context best allows you to live this. Will it be as a non-canonical or lay hermit or will it be as a canonical hermit under canon 603? Throughout all of this time, you will also pay attention to the evangelical counsels -- the values of poverty, chastity, and obedience (the values that define the way you relate to wealth, relationships, and matters of power or autonomy).

Private vows here are not essential, but they can make sense and help you prepare for canonical profession if that is a direction you believe you might go. For instance, while you will not have a legitimate superior (your spiritual director should not expect or be expected to act as one!), a private vow of obedience can make sense in terms of committing to allowing God to be sovereign in your life and in being attentive and open to God's presence and will. Similarly, you will live simply and take care of any wealth you might have just as you will love well and maintain the relationships which lead to wholeness and holiness. As you do this you may or may not find that God is calling you to the freedom (and responsibility) of the consecrated state of life where you will live eremitical life in the Church's name (i.e., as a Catholic hermit). If so, you will likely petition your diocese for admission to profession and eventual consecration under Canon 603). I would suggest you will have needed to live as a hermit per se for at least two or three years in order to be clear you feel called in this way.

Throughout all of this you will be discerning. There will be questions like the following running all through everything you are and do --- something which will be true whether or not you are discerning a canonical or non-canonical vocation: What does God call me to? How am I truly happiest, truly free? What makes me most whole and generous as a human being? Am I merely indulging my own tendencies to selfishness or being individualistic (which is not the same as truly being an individual)? Am I being false or engaging in pretense in this? How and how not? Is my need to be by myself  (or live in solitude) motivated by woundedness or by wholeness? (It is likely to be both and with your director's help you will need to learn to work through/heal the woundedness and enhance your own wholeness so your discernment can continue.)  How do I love best? How will my life witness most fully to the Gospel of God in Christ? Who am I really and who does God call me to be? That these questions arise does not necessarily indicate pretense on your part; they do say you need to grow in clarity about who you are and how God is working in your life, and that you continue to grow precisely in honestly posing such questions and attending seriously to the answers they reveal throughout your life.

I hope this is helpful. Again, if I have missed the mark for you or raised more questions, please feel free to get back to me with further comments and questions. In the meantime, all my best.

On Monastic and Eremitical Life in the Future

[[Dear Sister, Sorry for the back to back questions. Recently I was on retreat at a Trappist monastery. During vespers on the last day of my retreat I took a good look at the monks in choir and realized that due to the age of the monks and the lack of vocations that this monastery (barring a miracle) will be gone in 10 or 15 years. It made me incredibly sad. I also realize that this will be the case for most monastic communities throughout North America (and probably Europe too).  While there are a few happy exceptions to this trend (many of which are very traditional) I fear monastic life is dying and with it many beautiful traditions and more importantly much wisdom that will not be passed on to a future generation of monastics. This realization raised many questions for me. I would love your opinion on them:

 

1) Do you think the growth in the hermit vocation is a response to the general collapse of religious life after the Council?]]
 

Thanks for your questions. I am still working on the one prior to this one so no problems that you wrote again. In fact, it's a help to me and I am grateful. First though, let me say that I definitely don't see what is happening to religious life as a "collapse". What people became used to was actually not the norm but an exaggerated instance of numbers. We know that the average life cycle of a congregation is ordinarily around 150 years. This is typical for Apostolic or Ministerial congregations which are founded for specific ministries and needs. For monastic congregations the shift in numbers does not mean the monastic life is dying out, much less "collapsing". Monastic life has evolved over time, throughout time and will continue to do so. Today, for instance, the popularity of oblates represents a shift in the form in which monastic values are embodied but they depend on vowed monastics so a shift in numbers here may point to a new form of monasticism with greater presence among the covenanted laity but not without vowed representation and (perhaps) leadership. Most of the religious I know recognize that even when communities die (or, better said perhaps, achieve the completion of their historical lives and missions) their charism continues if the congregation has worked to provide for this, and they trust that God will ensure the continuance of religious life itself in whatever form that will take. I agree with that view of religious life as providential --- which certainly includes monastic life itself.

 

Regarding the upsurge in eremitical life, no I absolutely do not see it as a result of some sort of "collapse" of monastic life  While the Trappist community you saw was ageing and perhaps dying out, that is not the case generally. Even so, the upsurge in eremitical life, to the degree these vocations are authentic, is more representative in the Western Church at least, with the Church's new-found esteem and provision for this vocation in canon law. The vocation never died out in the Eastern Church and I believe the Western Church would not have experienced the dearth of vocations it did had it recognized the vocation universally in law or truly esteemed it as the Eastern Church has done right along. Another source of authentic eremitical vocations is the countercultural, paradoxical, and prophetic reaction to individualism (and several other "isms") so prevalent today. Canon 603 defines an ecclesial vocation which is individual but not individualistic. I sincerely believe that  the hermits I know who live their lives as consecrated Catholic hermits, and thus as those publicly professed (whether  in community or under c 603) have, out of the love of God, embraced an essentially ecclesial vocation in profound reaction to the dis-ease of individualism (and those other "isms") which so afflict our culture.

 

[[2) It seems most hermits look to communal monastic life for their inspiration by adopting the charism of these communities as the inspiration/grounding of their lives as hermits (i.e. Camaldolese, Carthusian, Cistercian).]]

 

Remember that monastic life grew out of (and sometimes was an attempt to protect the very best impulses of) eremitical life and a radical discipleship, not the other way around. However, that said, it is also true that in monastic life we see preserved and developed the values and spirituality of eremitical life, particularly the communal or ecclesial seedbed leading, for instance, to authentic solitude and "separation" from the world. We look to monastic life because it ordinarily provides the necessary formative context for human growth and spiritual maturity which allows one to hear an authentic call to the silence of solitude in eremitical life. The larger Church, per se, does not ordinarily do this where once it did. So, for instance, if we want to understand values and praxis central to eremitical life, values like silence, solitude, assiduous prayer, penance, the evangelical counsels, the value of manual labor, the importance of community for solitude (and vice versa!), etc., we mainly have to turn to monastic houses and communities. Generally speaking, silence and an understanding of, much less an esteem for solitude-in-community simply cannot be found in parish churches. Contemplative life (which eremitical life always is) itself tends to be found and supported effectively in community, (and again generally speaking) not in contemporary parishes. Regular prayer (Divine Office, contemplative prayer, the cultivation of the Evangelical counsels, and life rooted in Scripture or the Rules of Benedict, Albert, et al., also cannot generally be found in parishes.)

 

[[3) What effect do you think the collapse of monastic life will have on the hermit vocation? It seems to me that without a connection to a living monastic tradition the hermit life will become unanchored.]]

 

While I don't believe eremitical life will disappear, I believe it will become even rarer if monastic houses disappear. Canon 603 allows for hermits who are formed mainly within parishes or dioceses, but these vocations are truly very rare. What is crucial to them is not merely the silence of solitude but the fact that the values of eremitical life are embedded in and supported at every point by the life of the Church itself. Camaldolese hermits "live alone together". Diocesan hermits live the silence of solitude only with the support of a parish and diocesan structures but also may find these insufficient and require the more intense and explicit contemplative life of the monastery for support and inspiration. Eremitical life must be anchored or rooted in specific practices and values; these are most fundamentally ecclesial, spiritual, and human values not merely monastic; but at the same time they have been lived and embodied most faithfully and consistently in monastic life. To the degree people can really find these values in their local churches (or in accounts of monastic life, etc) eremitical life will continue as the rare vocation it is. Paradoxically, at the same time, to the degree people find these values to be important but threatened to disappear from the local Church, eremitical life will continue to arise as a prophetic reality, just as it did in the days Constantine published the Edict of Milan and inadvertently triggered the rise of the Desert Fathers and Mothers.  

 

Unfortunately, I believe the existence of authentic eremitical vocations will be more threatened by ignorance and individualism than by the growing loss of numbers among those living monastic life itself. Today, dioceses sometimes (maybe often) fail to distinguish between lone individuals and authentic hermits; this leads to the undiscerning and unwise profession of "vocations" which cannot persist except as aberrations of eremitical life. Eremitical life is marked by great freedom and no hermit is identical to any other, but license and freedom are not the same things. To the degree diocesan staff don't understand eremitical life and mistake it for merely being someone who lives a relatively pious life alone, candidates discerning eremitical life may substitute individualism for eremitism without noticing what is actually happening.

Importantly, we cannot treat hermits as though they are something other than rare. Eremitical life is simply not the way most people come to human wholeness or genuine Christian discipleship. Especially, we cannot see them as the replacement troops for diminishing numbers of cenobitical religious. The two forms of religious life are related but not interchangeable and dioceses will need to resist the impulse to treat them identically or to look for numbers in either form of religious life. Similarly, we cannot allow c 603 vocations to be replaced by individuals who actually reject Vatican II and the wisdom it codified and is now found embodied to some extent in the post-Vatican II Church. (I say to some extent because I believe Vatican has not been adequately received by the Church yet.) Vatican II is part of the Church's authentic Tradition and we cannot allow individuals who reject that part of the Tradition to isolate themselves from the contemporary Church while taking refuge in a canon which was actually made possible by the Vatican II Council and it's call for the revision of Canon Law itself. I think this specific use of canon 603 represents a particularly disreputable form of individualism which cannot be validated as diocesan eremitical life.

[[4) Finally, it seems to me that growth and vocations in the monastic life is mostly among communities that are quite traditional (i.e. using pre-Vatican 2 liturgies). I don’t think dismissing them, as some do, is the answer. The monks and nuns of these communities are well educated, hard working and living their monastic life with integrity. In short, they are “doing and living it.” And they have been for decades. They aren’t a flash in the pan. It seems that if monastic life is going to survive then the future belongs to these communities as they will be the only ones in existence. What are your thoughts regarding this phenomenon and what implications, if any, will it have for canon 603 hermits?]] 

 

I don't believe the pre-Vatican II monastic communities will be the only ones in existence in the future. I think in this matter you have overstated your case. At the same time, I recognize that Canon 603 itself with its clear effect upon eremitical vocations is, again, a direct result of Vatican II and its return to earliest Christian sources and impulses. If the pre-Vatican II monastic communities you mention are to continue and be something the post Vatican II church can learn from, they will have to do so in dialogue with the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and with contemporary monastic life. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence of a desire to embrace such dialogue by the communities you are referring to.

Canon 603 hermits may draw from some of the values found in monastic life lived in these congregations and houses, but c 603 eremitical life remains the fruit of Vatican II and is shaped charismatically by the same Holy Spirit that occasioned Vatican II and inspires all authentic monastic and consecrated life. (By the way, as something of a postscript I should note that monastic houses don't necessarily lose members because they are inauthentic in their living of monastic life, and neither is it automatically true that the traditionalist communities you are speaking of gain members or demonstrate continuing numbers because they are living authentic and healthy monastic life. The situation is very much  more complicated than that and once again numbers are not the guiding criterion here any more than they are with eremitical life.)  

These are my initial thoughts on the things you have written about. I think of it, therefore, as the first step in a continuing dialogue. I hope you find it helpful.

Lay Diocesan Hermit???

Dear Sister, what is a diocesan lay hermit? How do they differ from conse-crated diocesan hermits?

Thanks for your question. From time to time folks search this site using various terms and one of those is "diocesan lay hermit". There is  simply no such thing. All diocesan hermits are professed and consecrated canonically under canon 603. What this means is that if one is publicly professed and consecrated as a diocesan hermit, they live as a hermit OF a specific diocese rather than living as a privately dedicated or non-canonical hermit IN the diocese. The distinction between being a hermit in a diocese and being a hermit OF a diocese may seem like a petty distinction but it really is not. It involves the difference between doing something privately within a diocese and being commissioned to do something that publicly represents the diocese and her own discernment and trust in this specific way.

For instance, I lived for many years as a hermit IN the Diocese of Oakland; only when I was admitted to perpetual profession and to consecration as a canon 603 did I become a diocesan hermit OF the Diocese of Oakland. A legal document (analogous to a sacramental certificate) testifying to this fact was issued by the diocese and given to me on the day of profession; such affidavits represent ecclesial affirmations of a public vocation and have been provided for many diocesan hermits over the years upon their admission to perpetual canonical profession.

You see, once one attaches a term like diocesan or Catholic or consecrated or professed to one's eremitical life one is necessarily talking about being a publicly or legitimately committed and commissioned hermit OF the diocese. The diocese must share in the individual's discernment and admit them to canonical profession and consecration. When this occurs the person so consecrated is a diocesan hermit, a hermit living her eremitical life in the name of the diocesan Church and too, the Church Universal. (Remember the diocese is a local Church and the publicly professed hermit lives her life in the name of the Church --- both local and universal). Through profession under canon 603 alone does one become a diocesan hermit. A lay hermit in a diocese, whether privately vowed or not vowed at all, is not a diocesan hermit. She is a hermit IN the diocese but she is not a hermit OF the Diocese of [N___].

Again,  the professed (i.e., the canonical) hermit is not necessarily better than the lay (i.e., the non- canonical) hermit. However, they differ in the rights and obligations they have assumed. Both live their baptismal promises in the silence of solitude. A canonical or consecrated hermit --- whether under c 603 or professed as part of a congregation (or institute) like the Camaldolese or Carthusians, for instance, --- is extended and embraces canonical obligations and rights which are additional to those associated with baptism alone. The word diocesan in your question points to an ecclesial vocation in which the Church admits one to canonical standing as a hermit under the direct supervision of the diocesan bishop.

Addendum, Followup Question: If I am a Catholic and a lay hermit don't I also live my life in the name of the Church? Why not as a hermit?

Lay persons do indeed live their lives and vocations as persons in the lay state in the name of the Church. The Church commissions them to do this not only at baptism or other Sacraments of initiation, but at the end of Mass (Go and proclaim the Gospel with your lives, etc), and at other times as well. Such a sending forth is something we may take for granted but it is an act of commissioning which serves to renew the call associated with one's state of life.

However, a lay hermit (with or without private vows) does not live eremitical life itself in the name of the Church. She has undertaken this life according to her own discernment in her own name. It is a private undertaking unless and until the Church specifically commissions her to live it in her name. You, for instance, are entirely free to live as a lay hermit in this way, just as you are free to live your lay vocation in any number of ways with various commitments (e.g., to the military, law enforcement, education, medicine, politics, etc) in light of your baptism as a lay person alone.  While all of these and any number of other similar commitments are significant callings ordinarily embraced by persons in the lay state, they are not ecclesial vocations and are not commissioned by or lived in the name of the Church. If you should also wish to live eremitical life in the name of the Church you (or any lay hermit) must submit to a process of mutual discernment and, should the Church determine you are called to this vocation, they will act to profess, commission, and eventually consecrate you to live eremitical life in her name.