The thrust of eremitical vocations is often thought to be individualistic and selfish. (Even, or perhaps especially, the quest for personal holiness can lead us badly astray without a strong ecclesial context, sense, and commitment.) When c 603 hermits struggle against the stereotypes and biases that mark what most folks believe about solitary eremitical life, it is most often a struggle to provide an understanding of the vocation that clearly stands against those who view these vocations as irrelevant or as marked by selfishness, personal failure, and isolationist tendencies.*** Unfortunately, some hermits (both canonical and non-canonical), usually inadvertently, strengthen the case against understanding the vocation as meaningful in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or significant in the way it moves the Church towards a stronger focus on and representation of the Kingdom of God. Such vocations put a premium on privacy (which is not the same as stricter separation or withdrawal from the world), are focused on a too-individualistic notion of personal holiness, are unconcerned and sometimes entirely uninvolved with the Church's mission in this world, and are often isolated from the faith community we identify as "primordial Sacrament."
Canon 603 counters all of these tendencies by establishing vocations that are public and ecclesial. It is critical that dioceses and those they profess as c 603 hermits understand and appreciate these two dimensions of the vocation and come to terms with them in spite of the hidden nature of the vocation and its humbleness. These two dimensions introduce new tensions into the vocation and some critics treat these as though c 603 life is a betrayal of "traditional hermit life"; in truth, however, they are the source of a fresh sense of the vocation's humble generosity and other-centered meaningfulness. These two dimensions serve to allow eremitical life to truly exist as an expression of the Church's loving, sacrificial, Christ-centered, and Christ-shaped heart. Without faithfulness to all of the canon's foundational elements, but particularly these two dimensions of the vocation, eremitical life would fall inexorably into a selfish individualism, isolation, and disengagement with others making it instead, a vivid example of the worldliness true eremitical life seeks to disavow and stand against.Over the past almost two decades I have contended off and on with one particular lay hermit and, over the course of that time and partly because of this contentious relationship, I have come to understand more and more clearly the importance of the Holy Spirit calling some hermits to public and ecclesial vocations, vocations that serve the Church and are normative of all authentic eremitical life while protecting the life from falling into all of those stereotypical distortions so prevalent in the stories of hermits throughout the centuries. For the most part (though, to my deep regret, this has not always been the case), I have managed to keep my writing focused on issues rather than persons, and over the same period, the issues raised by this lay hermit's vision and praxis of eremitical life have lead me to a very clear perception of what eremitical life, whether canonical or non-canonical, must never be allowed to become if it is to serve the Gospel and the Church called to proclaim it, as wholeheartedly as it is called to do. Moreover, it has led me to see clearly precisely why c 603 was so important in the history of eremitical life, how this canon in its ecclesiality honors the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and how necessary it is in nurturing and protecting healthy solitary eremitical vocations.
So let me say something about this blog and how I will proceed in the future. First, I will continue to explore c 603 and its central elements, including public and ecclesial status. These vocations and this canon are the will of God for the sake of the whole of God's People and in a special way for hermits. I am, through God's grace and inspiration clearer about that than I have ever been. I will continue to write about distortions of this vocation and of eremitical life more generally and the focus will not be personal, that is, I will not pretend I know the person's motivations, make judgments about their behavior, etc. This means if someone believes they have found themselves in these discussions unless I use the person's name, that's on them! I am writing about issues, not persons. And yes, sometimes the two are inextricable. Thus, if I do need to refer to a particular person as an exemplar of such an issue, I will name them and move on to the issue itself. If a reader concludes I am talking about them when I have used no name, then again, that's on that person. I suggest such persons receive what you hear as a call to metanoia and, as the saying goes, "get over yourself!" You see, I plan to write about hermit life, both consecrated and non-consecrated, and reflect on what I have learned over the years and am still learning. Again, rarely, specific examples will be necessary; most of the time they will not and I will do my best to ensure that.With regard to lay or non-canonical hermits, as I have already noted, I believe what the Archdiocese of Seattle is doing with these is critically important in helping us all to understand the reason for vocations with a strong ecclesial sense, even when they are not specifically considered ecclesial vocations. thus, a third factor beyond the two mentioned above is my recent education on the way the Archdiocese of Seattle is handling the situation of non-canonical or lay hermits. That continues to work in me as a kind of leaven and to bear surprising fruit.