On Mystical Experiences that Disrupt Liturgy and Alienate one From the Sacraments

[[Dear Sister, I would like to raise the question of what happens if someone’s “mystical experiences” alienate her from the sacraments and disrupt the liturgy, are they really of God?]]

Authentic Mystical experiences are generally associated with prayer. They should not alienate one from the sacraments or disrupt liturgy which are  at the heart of one's prayer. Ordinarily one chooses the way one will pray. What I mean by this is if one occasionally wants to allow oneself to sink into quiet prayer during a liturgy, one can do that if one is practiced at doing this at other times or feels called to do so. Mystical states are something different, however. In these states, God acts to take one beyond where they are used to going in regular practiced prayer, even quiet prayer. However, two things will remain true about these periods: 1) they should not disrupt the liturgy which calls for appropriate participation, and 2) if one doesn't wish them to happen they will not. God does not force us into mystical states if we are not open to them or if they are inappropriate for the setting. I think this is particularly true in a parish setting. 

You may be aware that recently a non-canonical hermit has claimed she invariably has mystical states during liturgy and she claims to no longer come to Mass because she becomes an occasion of sin for people there. There are a number of problems with this analysis. First, the states are said to be invariable, happening at the same place and in the same way at each liturgy. God is eternal but he is not invariable nor are prayer states he moves to occur in us. Moreover, significant prayer experiences are rich in content and they require time to process them. It is unlikely that God would have prayer experience after prayer experience  in an invariable way without the time and space to process them. What I have found is that a single significant "mystical" prayer experience can nourish one for the rest of one's life, so I disagree that this daily (every Mass) pattern is of God.

Then we have the question of what is edifying to others and to the community as a whole. While I might occasionally drop into quiet prayer during a Mass, I can't do that without reassuring the persons seated with me ahead of time that I am okay. I also recognize that I am a member of a praying community and for that reason I usually pray with them as we are each asked to pray during liturgy. To do anything else (except very occasionally and in genuine need) seems to me to be a reason for staying home and praying in whatever way I feel called to. Otherwise, it is simply disedifying and potentially disturbing. And finally, we have the problem of determining these are occasions of sin for someone else --- which, of course we can never do. A person may react in a way one does not care for, but one does not know their motivation; one cannot know another person's heart except to the extent they reveal it to one. Even if one senses that the person is irritated, one still does not know this is sinful. If the person dealing with these states is led to sin, then she must speak to her pastor and find a way that deals with this adequately; she can speak of her own sin, but she cannot know anyone else's.

The question of alienation from the sacraments is an important one. I find it impossible to believe that God would cause something that alienates the person from participation in and reception of the Sacraments. Why would he call one to become a member of Christ's body and then act in a way which disallows participation in that body as the Church (even minimally) requires?! Some accommodations can certainly be made in the case of illness, and I don't know a single pastor, priest or minister that would not seriously try to create such reasonable accommodations. I have a seizure disorder that is triggered by certain sounds (including cell phone ringtones). My parish community, especially the daily Mass crew was very careful to be sure and leave phones in the car or at home or on vibrate once they understood the need. In the situation raised here, I believe that this alienation is feeding an essentially Gnostic approach to reality that divides it too absolutely into a spiritual and temporal duality and leads to maligning the temporal. Give the centrality of the Incarnation and the bodiliness of the Ascension, I think this is particularly dangerous.

EEMs can always bring Communion to a person who cannot attend Mass for some valid reason. Some church's with cry rooms (or unused choir lofts) can allow someone to attend Mass from there if they need to. Ecstatic prayer is ordinarily very silent (it is profound in its silence!) so I am not sure that much accommodation is necessary if one sits at the back of the church and simply prays quietly. In other words, alienation from the Sacraments is unnecessary and unlikely to be of God. Neither, however, does this need to disrupt liturgy. Of course if someone is making noises, calling out in pain or something, or proclaiming they can read a priest's heart in the middle of Mass, then this is objectively disedifying and not of God. In such cases, I can understand why folks might be upset and pastors might prefer the person to stay home. Still, accommodations can and will generally be made for such a person or situation. They still have rights and obligations rooted in their baptism and the Church will find a way for them to meet these.

Do Dioceses Profess c 603 Hermits Who do not Believe in c 603 Vocations?

[[Sister Laurel, do dioceses profess hermits under c 603 who don't believe in c 603? How about people who attack c 603 every chance they get and then request to become a diocesan hermit? I know you will see these are rhetorical questions. I am aware of a situation where someone who seems never to have had a good thing to say about can. 603 is requesting to be made a can. 603 hermit. How can this be?? Will her diocese profess her? I am just so outraged by the whole situation I don't even know what to ask you. I do think I know now why this "hermit" insists on remaining anonymous!!! 

She has waffled back and forth on c 603 for years I think, and how it is a distortion of the tried and true way to be a hermit, and now how it is tainted by some canonical hermit in California she doesn't care for at all (yes, that's you I think) and says the canon may not have been the will of God in the first place. The words that come to mind for me are jealous and hypocrite!! And now she is claiming because it has only been 10 weeks since she applied for canonical approval and she has heard almost nothing from her diocese, they are disrespecting her and care nothing about her vocation and she is trash-talking the "temporal Church" for their priorities (or lack thereof!!). 

I wonder if they have discovered her videos or blogs and are giving them a close look. She vlogged recently that they should be doing that with your blog. Well, if it should be done to you it should be done to her! Far from not taking her seriously, they may be taking her more seriously than she really wants! I read your post,"On Intervening in Cases of Fraud." It sounds like you have dealt with something like this before. If I knew who this person really is I would call or write her diocese myself because they need to know there are big concerns with professing her. God only knows the damage she has left in her wake in the past and then moved on from by using "anonymity" to protect her from being exposed.!! Oh, one question though I have assumed the answer: are you the canonical hermit in California joyful/christian/hermit trash-talks so routinely?]]

Thanks for your comments. Please know that I understand what you are feeling and have felt some of the same impulses myself. In general, I have only heard of a diocese professing someone who does not believe they truly have a c 603 vocation once, and no one who believes c 603 itself is some sort of mistake or ill-conceived merely human creation. How could a diocese do this without risking an invalid profession and/or consecration and a possible scandal for the faithful? Ordinarily, unless one has some ulterior motive, one petitions for admission to profession and consecration because one truly believes in one's heart of hearts that God is calling them to this vocation and one has found it to be their personal path to human wholeness and holiness!! Dioceses assume this is the reason one is petitioning and may be very surprised when they find it is not so.

Even so, given a candidate's long history of denigrating the canon, it is not a good idea to profess them simply because they claim they want to do what the bishop accepts is the normative way for hermits to go these days!! Since there are both canonical and non-canonical hermits today and since most will not be made canonical, neither does the argument about wanting "unity" carry much weight, especially when the one making this argument does not want anything to do with the "temporal Church", and does not attend church or receive the sacraments otherwise. Canon 603 is not obligatory. it is one option among several for some hermits. the basic question that should be asked is, if one cannot take on the ordinary rights and obligations of a lay Catholic, why should one be admitted to the additional rights and obligations of a canonical hermit? Many of us deal with chronic illness; we still find ways to participate regularly in the Church's sacramental life.

For instance, if one wants to be a hermit and believes c 603 is not divinely inspired, one can become (or remain) a non-canonical (lay) hermit. (Apparently, the person you are writing about seems to have said recently that if the diocese decides to profess her, she will agree the canon is inspired and willed by God! Until then the question of the canon's divinely inspired character is an open question for her.) But, this kind of nonsense aside, to pursue profession under c 603 is a serious matter (the profession itself is an act of worship) and if one does not truly feel called to this, then it can become a serious act of dishonesty or fraud which then obligates others to act on their knowledge to prevent the situation from rising to the level of scandal. In the blog piece you referred to I said the following and still believe it completely: 

[[. . . I need to say that any person with genuine knowledge directly impacting the nature and quality (and this can include even the validity) of a public profession has not just the right but the obligation to share that knowledge in an appropriate way. Moreover, bishops and others involved in overseeing such vocations have the obligation to hear and seriously consider these concerns. Public professions involve ecclesial vocations which affect the entire Church. They are also public acts of worship and if there is actual deception or fraud at their heart, such an act of worship can become a serious scandal and that can rise to the level of sacrilege. It can also invalidate the profession being made -- one source of the scandal involved. When we are dealing with Canon 603 professions where the total number of solitary canonical hermits are, relatively speaking, so very few, and the vocation is both rare and even more rarely understood --- and also because dioceses are cautious in dealing with the implementation of C 603 anyway --- serious scandal can affect the credibility of the entire vocation. When this happens, genuine vocations to C 603 life are likely to be further prevented from being professed by the Church --- a kind of functional suppression of the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation.]] On Intervening in Cases of Fraud

There is an incredible irony in the situation you referred to and this is one of the things that can happen if a diocese entertains this person's petition for profession without learning enough about her attitudes toward c 603. In one instance, we have someone who has written for years and now speaks on videos about how flawed c 603 is and how little Bishops actually know about "real hermits" or hermit life. And yet she is putting herself in the hands of a diocese that may or may not profess her as a canonical hermit. If they do not realize how she feels about c 603 and take that into account, they will look foolish and underscore her complaints about dioceses not knowing the people they profess/consecrate. 

Perhaps this is one reason she is doing this --- because whether she is accepted for profession or dismissed as unsuitable, she can then claim she is a victim of others not understanding her and once again "proving" how very little bishops and dioceses know about or respect "real" eremitical life. (At the same time, she also claims real hermits don't need or want to be respected so complaining now that the diocese is not giving her vocation the regard it deserves is a bit rich and ironic all by itself! If a miniscule 10 weeks of waiting has her feeling disrespected (after all, she is already a hermit living what she believes is her vocation!) one would think she would be reveling in it, given her claims about authentic hermits being completely unseen and treated as "nothing".) In any case, she sets things up so she can also pull out of the process of discernment herself while claiming the canon is problematical and merely a human invention that God disapproves of. Whether the diocese accepts or rejects her petition, it is apt to be a win-win situation for her that leaves chaos in her wake. 

Your own Course of Action:

I want to encourage you to pay attention to your own sense of what you need to do in this situation. At the same time, I would strongly encourage you not to act in anger and generally to follow the other steps I provided in that post. Concerns may be significant or more trivial, so be clear about what these are for you, and that you can articulate them in a cogent way for those who truly need to hear them. Meanwhile, should you decide you need to take action, the person's diocese is readily identifiable from videos she has posted in the last couple of months. It can be verified for you.

Meanwhile, while you must act as you believe is right, I will also consider whether there is any need for me to contact the diocese in this matter. Currently, I don't believe there is; I believe the Diocese will not accept this person for admission to profession, much less to consecration as a c 603 hermit because of a canonical impediment due to a prior marriage. Obviously, there are other reasons as well (including past blogs, the videos, and the inconsistencies these produce regarding this person's vision of eremitical life and attitude toward the canon), but this one impediment is the least complicated most straightforward reason to refuse admission to profession. I also suspect that the decision has already been made, but I don't know this. Thus, I too will continue to pray about the matter and do what I believe is best for the c 603 vocation.

Postscript: Yes, I am the hermit from California this person writes and videos about, though I can rarely recognize myself from what she claims. While California is a big state, so far as I know, it only has two c 603 hermits and only one with a blog.

Many forms of Hermit Life Means all are similarly Valuable

[[Hi Sister Laurel, As you write about many forms of hermit life are you also saying that c 603 hermits are not better than non-canonical hermits? Are canonical hermits not better than non-canonical hermits? Is an ecclesial vocation not better than a non-ecclesial vocation? Why would God want some people to be canonical and others non-canonical? It seems to me that the Church regards ecclesial vocations more than non-canonical one, isn't that so? I also wondered if you regret that the process of discernment and formation as a hermit takes such a long time (I mean it took a long time for you and I have heard for others as well) -- was that a problem for you? My last question is are c 603 hermits considered religious? I heard someone say you are not.]]

Many thanks for these questions! Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am saying that every vocation to eremitical life is valuable and valued (esteemed, regarded as precious) by God. They are a gift of God to the Church and world. The Scriptures tell us this about every person and their call by God. We are part of a single body and every member is empowered and embued with the Holy Spirit and is valuable to the whole Peoples' being and doing what the whole is supposed to be and do. Is any one part or role better than another? No, but they are different at the same time. Every hermit needs to discern not just the call to eremitical solitude, but the way in which God is calling them to live it out. It could be in an institute of consecrated life of hermits, in a small laura of c 603 hermits, or as a solitary consecrated hermit under c 603; it could also be as non-consecrated in the lay state. Again, all are valued, all are important, but they do differ in the way they witness --- both in what way they witness and to whom!

Why does God call People to different forms of Eremitical Life?

I could never say why God chooses one calling for one thing and another for someone else, but I can see why God called me to this vocation and what, in particular, I bring to this vocation, to the Church to whom this vocation belongs first of all, and therefore to the People of God and others. From the time I discovered c 603 and the fact that eremitical life was still a vital and vibrant life, I lived some years as a religious and hermit, some years as a lay hermit, and then years as a consecrated solitary hermit under c 603. When I first petitioned for consecration under the canon I met with the Vicar for Religious and over the next 5 years she and I continued to meet (she came to my place). There was no indication I would not be approved for profession and consecration, but at this point the current bishop decided he was not going to profess anyone under the canon for the forseeable future. I continued living as a hermit and exploring both c 603 specifically and the eremitical life more generally. 

At some point, before this bishop retired, I came to realize I had something specific and even somewhat unique to offer the Church in my eremitical life both because of disability and because of my theological background as well as my understanding and appreciation of the canon. (Those things have grown into this blog as well as into a process to assist dioceses and inquirers with discernment and formation of c 603 candidates based on the requirements of the canon itself and will include a written guide to this process generally available to the Church. Additionally, though I could not have foreseen this, it permitted a deep inner journey geared toward human wholeness and holiness, and in some ways, I am more grateful for that than for anything else.) As a result, I reactivated my petition under Bp John Cummins. Perpetual profession and consecration occurred several years later under a new bishop (Allen H Vigneron) once he had met me and completed what had been a long discernment process. (Remember until final profession and consecration, one is still discerning the vocation, as is the Church herself. While if due care is taken this is unlikely, one can be temporarily professed and subsequently not admitted to perpetual profession and consecration several years later.) 

Do I have Regrets re the Length of Time. . .?

I sometimes regret that the entire process took 23 years, yes, but generally speaking, I learned a lot about both non-canonical and canonical eremitical life. I also had time to discover what I was bringing to the vocation, though I suppose that in time I would have discovered that anyway had I been canonically professed under c 603 sooner. So, my regrets are passing and most of the time I am simply grateful to be who and where I am in this vocation. I lived as a hermit during these 23 years anyway, and grew in the life, so I cannot necessarily say that I lost anything during the time of waiting for admission to profession and consecration. However, I recognize I also gained a lot during these years, so again, any regrets I have are occasional and passing. Certainly my vocation is stronger because of all of this. 

It is true that now that the canon is known and understood better, the process of discernment and formation should NOT take this long for anyone. However, I believe an adequate period of discernment and formation does need to take from five** to 12 years, particularly if one has no history of religious life! What I mean here is that it ordinarily takes at least five years to be admitted to temporary profession even if one has already lived as a religious (some bishops won't consider taking such an important step for at least this long) and up to another seven years to be admitted to perpetual profession and consecration. For those with a history of religious life and who left because they felt called to greater solitude, admittance to temporary profession still takes at least 3-4 years. Admittance to perpetual profession and consecration usually occurs within another three years. Longer periods of discernment and formation naturally take place for those with no history of religious life, and those who left community for reasons other than feeling called to greater solitude. 

A Few Less-Common Reasons Discernment Can be Lengthy:

One major reason for this is that it takes significant time for a candidate to write a liveable Rule of life that demonstrates genuine understanding and experience of living the terms of the canon. Another is that there are many forms of and reasons for solitude. Most are not eremitical solitude, for instance, cocooning is not the same as living as a Hermit. Reclusion does not mean isolation from the Community of faith.  Discerning the healthiness of an eremitical vocation in the presence of options such as these can be more difficult and take longer. Other situations with specific candidates also complicate initial discernment, and can cause delays because the diocese must determine how to handle matters charitably when the candidate is not suitable for c 603.

Are c 603 Hermits Considered Religious?

[[I have answered this question on the blog before so you might look for it in other places here, but the answer to your question is yes, c 603 hermits are considered religious. In the Handbook on Canons 573-746  and in the section on “Norms Common to Institutes of Consecrated Life” looking at canon 603 specifically, canonist Ellen O’Hara, CSJ writes, [[The term “religious” now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relationship to an institute.]]

One can also argue the case on the basis of the public profession made, the stable state of life entered, the title hermits are allowed to adopt, and the other canons that also apply to the c 603 hermits that they have entered the religious state. . .post-nominal initials granted by bishops also argue this. ]]

** Archbishop Cordileone said in a conversation with me while he was Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, that he would not even entertain a petition for profession until the person had lived as a hermit for at least 5 years. I agreed with him then and still do. 12 years is the outer limit provided by canon law for religious in formation in community (novitiate and juniorate). It works as well for solitary hermits, though what tends to be more important is to gauge the degree of growth that has occurred and is still occurring. Still, though not carved in stone, these are the typical limits recognized by dioceses. 

Abide in this Canon and it will Teach You Everything

[[Dear Sister, are you ever concerned your interest in c 603 takes you away from attending to God? I realize you are a theologian, but first of all you are a contemplative, true? How can you spend time on canon 603 rather than in prayer and God?]]

Interesting questions. I suspect I know where you first heard these concerns, but never mind. That is of no moment. I would also have liked to hear a little more about your concerns, but I suspect my answer would be the same, namely, no, I am not concerned at all about my interest in c 603 and in finding ways to assist dioceses and candidates use it effectively for the discernment and formation of solitary eremitical vocations. Remember that this is the canon by which I live my consecrated life. It's constitutive elements are also the constitutive elements of my eremitical life and I am vowed to be both faithful and obedient (meaning attentive and responsive) to them. 

When I speak of these as doorways to Mystery I mean they open up to God and union with God. In this regard, I am not studying c 603 like a scholar studies a text. I am paying attention to what the canon makes possible from within it, on its own terms, and exploring what living the canon with fidelity and perseverance means. That means a life of prayer and faithfulness, in poverty, chastity, and obedience in the silence of solitude and stricter separation from that which is resistant to Christ under the direction of my diocesan delegate. I don't see any of this as either/or (either God or the canon). I see it as both/and --- both God and c 603. Remember that I live my own Rule of Life under c 603. This does not generally require direct scholarly attention to either the Rule or the canon. It is more like doing lectio divina with these texts. Over time, they have been written on my heart just as Scriptural texts are written there during lectio. My attention is on God as God speaks to me in and through whatever I am reading, writing, or doing.

You see, one thing I have been concerned with is canonists whose approach to c 603 is merely legal and who treat the canon merely as a legislative text. It is that, but it is also far more than this. Hermits explore life with God and this means they explore those pathways to union with God (the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world (i.e., that which is resistant to Christ), persevering prayer and penance, and the Evangelical Counsels), and they do so with and for God. I have also been approaching this canon as a gift of God to the Church which should be treated as any gift, namely, as something that is honored and contemplated. 

What I am really reflecting on then is a journey, a journey I am professed, consecrated, and commissioned to make by the Church. I do this for the sake of my own wholeness, for others who seek to make the same journey or to assist those called to do so. At the heart of this journey is love, love for God, the love OF God, love for one's brothers and sisters who may be hermits or need the witness of hermits, love for oneself as precious to God, and even love for this unique little canon that was inspired by God, composed by human beings, and sings with the power and beauty of the Holy Spirit.

Canonists tend to believe a lot must be added to this canon to complete it. I believe that if one enters into it prayerfully and makes the journey I have described above, they will discover the canon needs no such additions. In some ways, this is a version of the old desert saying, abide in your cell and your cell will teach you everything. Except in this case, we are saying, that the canon itself functions something like a hermit's cell; as hermits, we abide, to some extent, in this canon and the God who inspires it. The journey we make together will teach us everything.

Postscript: Please know the title of this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek!

A Contemplative Moment: Courage (Reprise)

 

Courage

 

is a word that tempts us to think outwardly, to run bravely against opposing fire, to do something under besieging circumstances. . .

 

Courage is the measure of our heartfelt participation with life, with another, with a community, a work, a future. To be courageous is not necessarily to go anywhere or do anything except to make conscious those things we already feel deeply and then to live through the unending vulnerabilities of those consequences.

 

To be courageous is to seat our feelings deeply in the body and in the world: to live up to and into the necessities of relationships that often already exist, with things we find we already care deeply about: with a person, a future, a possibility in society, or with an unknown that begs us on and always has begged us on. To be courageous is to stay close to the way we are made.

 

The French philosopher Camus used to tell himself quietly to live to the point of tears, not as a call for maudlin sentimentality, but as an invitation to the deep privilege of belonging and the way belonging affects us, shapes us and breaks our heart at a fundamental level. It is a fundamental dynamic of human incarnation to be moved by what we feel, as if surprised by the actuality and privilege of love and affection and its possible loss. Courage is what love looks like when tested by the simple everyday necessities of being alive. . ..

 

by David Whyte in

Consolations, The Solace, Nourishment and Underlying Meaning of Everyday Words

Transfer to Canon 603?

[[Hi Sister, is it possible to transfer from non-canonical status to canonical status? I've lived as a non-canonical hermit for the past 6 years and was thinking about applying to be recognized as a c 603 hermit. How long does the process take?]]

Thanks for writing and for your questions. Unfortunately, no, it is not possible to simply transfer to c 603 standing, especially from non-canonical standing or status. This is because one is seeking to move from  the baptismal state to the consecrated state, and therefore to a state where the canonical rights and obligations (for which one must be prepared and into which one must be admitted via profession and consecration) differ significantly. You see, even if one had been a solemnly professed cloistered monastic for three decades and decided she wanted to become a c 603 hermit, she still could not transfer her vows to c 603. Transfers occur between equivalent forms or states of life and then, only with a three year probationary period. 

The c 603 life must be mutually discerned and formed on its own terms before a diocese will agree to profess one. Also, it is not simply about being recognized or approved as a c 603 hermit. When one petitions one's diocese, one petitions to be admitted to the consecrated state of life and that requires profession (usually with temporary vows and then, several years later perpetual vows and consecration). One is not simply declared to be a c 603 hermit, nor recognized as one, one is made a c 603 hermit. That means that one is made ready to make public profession in a public and ecclesial vocation as a hermit living all of the elements of c 603. 

Some of those self-identifying as non-canonical hermits will be more ready for this, and some will be less ready, but the process of mutual discernment and formation must still occur for a diocese to admit someone to profession and eventual consecration prudently. So, how long does this whole process take? Presuming no canonical impediments (marriage is the usual one here, but there could be others), once the hermit's "paperwork" (Sacramental certificates, decrees of nullity, transcripts, and autobiography perhaps) has been submitted a diocese will usually begin meeting with the candidate regularly. They may also ask a c 603 hermit to accompany the candidate to assist with discernment and formation. At some point, the candidate will submit a Rule of Life (this step is by far, the most time-consuming for the candidate). If that passes muster (or even if it has not yet done so), the diocese will request letters of recommendation and the hermit candidate will ask people to submit these to them. All of this can take several years, particularly if the person is a novice at eremitical life. Even if the person has lived alone for a long time this does not make them a hermit, and when they are a hermit, they may not have an ecclesial vocation. 

I would encourage you to think in terms of several years to negotiate this process if one is a good candidate. (Only your diocese can help you know more explicitly.) If the diocese has significant doubts about one's vocation, or if they are clear the person is not called in this way, the process will be much shorter, particularly if there is a canonical impediment involved. My own experience is that so long as a diocese is willing to implement c 603 for a suitable candidate, they will not accept someone in a true process of mutual discernment and formation unless they have some sense they are dealing with an authentic ecclesial vocation. This is one reason they want to examine the person's paperwork before proceeding any further.

On the Beauty and Depth of c 603 (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Why concern yourself with the law once you're admitted under a law? I wondered if you could explain that. . . .]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and questions!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called to (and will need to) explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, in some ways, I have come to know the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 [now 17] years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course, they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. Canonists tend also to look at c 603 simply in terms of its legal dimensions, particularly seizing on (or sussing out) legal loopholes rather than reflecting on the vocation itself, [as happened in the Diocese of Lexington this last Pentecost. (2024)] More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit. One must be able to see the implicit depths and Mystery below the surface.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived experience and long reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit writes a liveable Rule confronts everyone participating in the process with the need for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find c 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance). Still, the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession. Certainly, it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs and thus perpetuates the vocations of solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements that mark this definition. It is here, however, that c 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery that grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true --- because canon 603 is not a once-used-now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more that opens onto the Divine, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

On Reservation of the Eucharist as a Non-Canonical Hermit

[[I want to live out my life in [omitted]. I receive a good tax free income. I only have to taxi to pharmacy and occasional doctors. Groceries are delivered. I want to know if a priest is allowed to give me the Eucharist and allow me on my own to take one per day.]]

Hi there! Thanks for reaching out to me. Just FYI, I tried responding to this by email several times Sunday, but each time I received a message that you were over your quota on icloud. In case you are not receiving emails from others as well, please delete some of the backlog so you have some space for these. Sorry to put this note up here, but I am told it is the only way to reach you given the error message received. 

Meanwhile, it's great you are considering hermit life. Congratulations! It has often been a late stage of life vocation for people. Regarding your question, if you are not considering petitioning for consecration as a c 603 hermit, but making a private commitment, it would be more difficult to be given the privilege of reserving the Eucharist in your own hermitage, but it might not be impossible. Yes, a priest can give you Communion but generally speaking, he cannot give you Eucharist to take away with you; the reservation of Eucharist for a week's worth of Communions, would only be possible if your bishop gave you specific permission to do this. I don't know who your Bishop is, but if you could get your parish priest to assure him of the vitality of your faith and relationship with your parish, to help you out to make sure a space was properly set up to reserve the Eucharist in your hermitage, as well as to vouch for you more generally as well, your bishop might grant permission.

No promises, of course, but it seems to me it might be done with adequate oversight and pastoral assistance. However, what I usually suggest in situations similar to your own (including with candidates who are actually moving toward eventual c 603 profession and consecration) is that you instead enshrine the Sacred Scriptures in your prayer space and come more and more to live in light of the presence of Christ in the Word of God. This is a more traditional path for hermits while living with the reserved Eucharist is very new, especially made more prevalent with c 603 hermits. At the very least, this is something you can do now and continue to grow in as you read the Scriptures daily (something we are already permitted and encouraged to do) and while you seek permission from your bishop for the reservation of the Eucharist.

You see, if you were thinking of becoming a consecrated hermit the path to reserving the Eucharist in your own hermitage would be at least somewhat easier. In canonical consecration, the person's relationship with the Church is determined to be a clear and vibrant one while profession and consecration establish them in an ecclesial vocation. (This is part of what allowed St Peter Damian to speak of a hermit as ecclesiola and also one of the reasons candidates for consecration under c 603 wait until after profession and consecration to be able to reserve Eucharist in their own hermitage). Because eremitical solitude is about living alone with God in the heart of the Church for God's sake and the sake of others and not simply about living alone, this must be established before allowing someone to reserve the Eucharist and self-communicate. Eucharist, our most potent symbol of communion with God and one another, cannot be associated with mere isolation and separation from others. Whether you choose to petition to be professed as a canonical or live as a non-canonical hermit by virtue of your baptism, the permission to reserve Eucharist and self-communicate would lie in the bishop's hands.

What is a Stable State of Life? (Reprise)

I am reprising the following article because of a couple of questions on the distinction between being consecrated and being consecrated in a stable state of life. I hope it is helpful!

[[Hi Sister, I was reading the Catechism and canon 603 because I was trying to understand the idea of a "stable state of life" or a "stable way of living". You have said more on this --- though indirectly ---than I could find elsewhere online. Could you please define what constitutes a "stable state of life" in Roman Catholic theology? How does it apply to your life as opposed to that of a lay hermit? Thanks.]]

Great question. I don't know why I haven't ever thought to write about this; a stable (or permanent) state of life is a core element in understanding the distinction between consecrated eremitical life and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical life. I am very grateful you asked this. I checked it out online and as you said, while it was part of every accurate definition of consecrated life (including consecrated eremitical life) there isn't much written about it that I could find. So let me try to make explicit what has been implicit in my writings on this and related topics.

Stable in this context means lasting, solid, established, and (relatively) secure. The necessary noun "state" means ä fixed and permanent mode of life, established (in and by the Church) to acquire or practice a certain virtue (e.g., perfection in the Christian Life, holiness, the evangelical counsels within religious life, etc). Implicit in these definitions when the two words are combined, is the sense that such a stable state signifies a recognized way God is working in the Church: ecclesial approval and mediation of God's call, canonical standing (standing in law), appropriate oversite, support, freedom, governance (legitimate superiors), and a formal (legitimate or canonical) commitment (say, to God via the evangelical counsels, for instance) by the one assuming the rights and obligations of the given state of life constitute this state as stable. The elements required for something to be considered a stable state of life tend toward structuring and extending to the individual life the elements necessary to truly pursue the given vocation in the name of the Church (and so, as a recognized representative of the vocation) with which the Church is entrusted. The Church recognizes several such states : Baptized or Lay, Married, Consecrated (Religious, Hermits, and Virgins), and Ordained. All require public commitments, whether Sacramental (Marriage and ordination) or via canonical profession and consecration (Religious, consecrated hermits, consecrated virgins).

When we begin to think about what makes a state of life in the Church a stable state we begin to understand why it is private vows per se never constitute the means to initiation into the consecrated state of life. They can be a significant part of the stable state of life we know as the baptized or lay state however, and they serve as significant (meaningful) specifications of one's baptismal consecration in this way. But in this case it is one's baptismal consecration into the lay state which defines one's stable state of life; private vows are expressions of that particular consecration but do not initiate one into it. Hence my references in many places to "lay hermits" --- hermits who live their vows in the baptized or lay state alone. In any case, private commitments, though often witnessed by a priest or spiritual director, are not actually received in the name of the Church or overseen by anyone in a formal or canonical way. There are no additional public rights or obligations, nor approved Rule the living out of which the Church as a whole is responsible for governing and supervising. Neither is there any process of mutual discernment by which one may be evaluated as to their capacity and suitability to assume the public rights and obligations of a given state (here I am thinking of the consecrated state), nor of methodical formation with such commitments.

 Moreover, private vows are easily dispensed precisely because of their private nature. In other words one may make private vow as a hermit (whether with serious thought or on a relative whim) one day and days later (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) decide one has made a mistake or circumstances may change which make the vows inconvenient or an obstacle to a greater or more fundamental call from God re one's lay state. The vows can be dispensed by one's pastor. Because of the lack of oversight, etc.. other problems can creep in. If the person does not decide they have made a mistake an individual living a private dedication to eremitical life, for instance, may decide to substitute their own private notions of eremitical spirituality, or live inconsistently given conditions of health, education, training, economics, etc. Even for the most sincere and well-intentioned individual, in a private commitment there is no authority to whom the individual is canonically answerable, no canonical constraints or ecclesial vision to which one has committed oneself to make sure the hermit in this case can make, has made, is keeping, and continues to (be empowered to) keep through the years an appropriate and maturing commitment which the Church herself could recognize as consistent with the eremitical tradition and as rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Canonical standing provides a context which is stable.

Remember that consecrated persons act (live this vocation) in the name of the Church (and also their founders and spiritual Tradition) and that gives the People of God their own rights and reasonable expectations about the quality of life being lived by the person who has been professed and/or consecrated. The people also have a right to turn to the person's legitimate superior if there are grounds for suggesting the vocation is being lived badly or there are scandalous or concerning circumstances involved. Of course this is true only because canonical vocations are public vocations. But think how important it is that such expectations and accountability add to the stability of genuinely consecrated vocations! Accountability itself is a central element of a stable or permanent state of life. It shapes the vocation, challenges and supports it. In a public (canonical) vocation where the vocation "belongs" first of all to the Church who is entrusted with this calling, and only secondarily to individuals called by God through the mediation of the Church, stability is a function of clear channels of authority and accountability. This does not mean these channels are heavy-handed, of course, but it does require them nonetheless.

One of the things I appreciate most about canonical standing is the way 
it establishes a person (or a community) in a living tradition in a way which means there is a clear and responsible dialogue ongoing between the individual, the Church, and the spiritual tradition involved. (This is true in religious families like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappist(ine)s, Benedictines, Camaldolese, etc. and it is true in eremitical life per se.) The continuing give and take as the consecrated person is granted and assumes a defined place in the living stream of eremitical tradition is tremendously edifying. The individual is formed in a given strand of the tradition and at the same time she will shape and extend the tradition with her own life. Edward Schillebeeckx writes about this powerfully in his essay on being a Dominican in God Among Us. A life that assumes this kind of responsibility, accountability, humility, and obedience has been initiated into a stable state of life that extends both behind and after her. She has taken a place within it and lives in a conscious and recognizable dialogue with and for this traditional thread, a thread which may have existed for two thousand years and stretches into whatever future the Church has. Private commitments which of their nature are truly entirely private (as opposed to public in the technical sense I use it throughout) simply do not do this.

The Church is a complex living reality. States of life within the Church have been some of the primary ways the Gospel has and continues to be proclaimed and ministry carried out; they are capable of being flexible and responsive to the needs of the world as a whole because they are also well-founded and rooted in a living tradition. Because of their stability (again, they are mutually discerned, publicly committed, ecclesially consecrated, governed and supervised) they can represent a way of life in away which teaches and inspires. When the congregation or individual requires assistance, when congregations reach the  end of their natural life, for instance, canonical standing allows for various creative ways to be sure their life and/or charism can be handed on and, eventually, their history entrusted to archives so scholars can research them and allow their life, a response to the Holy Spirit in a variety of circumstances, to be of continuing benefit to the Church and world.

With regard to the lives of diocesan hermits or publicly professed vs privately vowed hermits I think you can see where the Church will be able to follow and assess the phenomenon of solitary eremitical life beginning in the late 20C. She will be able to look at the Rules written by c 603 hermits, interview bishops professing and supervising them, speak with their delegates, parishes, and dioceses, and just generally provide the story of professed solitary hermits since 1983 according to c 603. Both as individuals and as a group these hermits will contribute to the eremitical tradition, to assessments of what formation was helpful or inadequate, to considering what time frames were associated with successful discernment and formation of eremitical lives, to considerations re protecting the hermit's requirements for support, modes and effectiveness of supervision, the place and nature of limited ministry in the lives of these hermits, and possibly -- to some extent -- the hermits' affect on their local church communities.

We will also more easily contribute to theologies of eremitical life that allow chronic illness as a witness to the way God's power is perfected in weakness, for instance, because some number of us are chronically ill and sought out eremitical life in part because of this. Because we are professed and consecrated into a stable (and public!) state of life, the witness value of our lives will take on greater import for the Church and world. Sometimes folks decry the canonical paper trail that is attached to the profession of the diocesan hermit; others treat it as merely pro forma and relatively meaningless. But the paper trail is a witness to and even part of the stability of the hermit's life and a key to appreciating and researching eremitical tradition not only in the 20-21C but in comparison with it throughout history.

On Living Lay Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote that you do not write in the name of the Church and that you live eremitical life in the name of the Church. But isn't writing part of your life and isn't this blog a part of your life and ministry? It seems to me that there's no big jump in saying you write in the name of the Church. No? Too, I wondered if because I am a Catholic and because I am a lay person, is that what people (you!) mean when they talk about canonical standing or standing in law? Does that mean the Church has commissioned me to live lay life in her name?? I think that's incredible, awesome even!! I hadn't realized!]]

Great question, thanks!! When I say I don't write in the name of the Church I am being pretty literal. The Church did not consecrate me as a writer, nor did (she) commission me specifically to write. She consecrated me as a hermit and commissioned me to live a life of prayer and penance in the silence of solitude. Writing is one of the ways this life spills over into ministry, yes. Because writing is a really important part of my life and because I tend to write these days mainly about my exploration of c 603 and eremitical life, I can see where I might slide into thinking of my writing as part of my consecration and commissioning. It's a fine line, though, especially since my Director encourages at least some of my writing. Perhaps if my Bishop were to say I needed to write more, or in some way directly encouraged me to write, my position on this might change, but for now, what this all means for me is that I don't say I write in the name of the Church; instead, I live eremitical life in the name of the Church and writing is a part of that. Think of it this way, recreation and sleeping are also important parts of a healthy eremitical life, but strictly speaking, I don't say I recreate or sleep in the name of the Church!

Yes, you have standing in law as a lay person (or a person in the lay state)! If you married in the Church you also have standing in law as a married person. The Church gives certificates for the various stages or ecclesially significant moments regarding these things. You might not know this but your Church of Baptism keeps track of the various sacraments you have received and other ecclesial events in their own records. If you entered religious life and made vows, a record of that also goes to your Church of Baptism or home parish. If you (just for example) were divorced and received a decree of nullity, that too is kept not only in the chancery where it was given but also sent to your home parish and added to your baptismal record. If you are ordained a deacon or priest, the same thing happens. Thus, when someone writes for your baptismal certificate, they will receive notice of all the Sacraments you have received and any other events (e.g., ordinations, professions, and consecrations) that impact and may modify your standing in law.

And yes! so long as you have not been ordained, the Church has commissioned you to live lay life in her name. That is why you are called and able to call yourself a Catholic!! You live your entire life as part of the People of God (laos Theou) in the name of the Church. Whatever you do as a layperson redounds to the honor or dishonor of the faith and the Church. Simply being a Catholic layperson is indeed an awesome calling. Consider all of the ways lay persons bring the sensibilities, ethics, and Gospel of the Church to the world!! Their lives are far more varied than the lives of priests and religious and they truly are commissioned to be the Church for others in every walk of life.  The depth and import of this vocation have been diminished today. Vatican II wrote significantly of the universal call to holiness to urge us to appropriately honor the call to be laity. Some of the Church's earliest stories help in this. 

Remember St Perpetua (the patron saint of my own parish). Perpetua had not yet been baptized but was training for that when she was arrested for not worshipping the emperor. Imprisoned with other Christians, it became clear that she and they were in danger of death. ("Simply" having been baptized put one in danger of death because Christ became one's Lord and King!) Perpetua's father came to visit and asked her to recant any commitment to Christ. As the story goes, she refused, pointed to a water pitcher that could be nothing but a water pitcher, and told her father that neither could she be anything but what she was, a Christian. In that prison, while waiting for death, Perpetua was baptized into full communion in the Church. Later, after much courageous suffering including watching her father be beaten with rods to convince her to betray her faith, she died in the arena as a baptized Christian and martyr for Christ. She lived and died as a member of the People of God, a member of the laos or laity just as she had been commissioned to do in the Name of God and God's Church. So, is it incredible, awesome even? Absolutely!!

James Talarico on Christian Nationalism

Many know that Christian Nationalism is a plague on our world, and unfortunately,  on and in the United States. The problem is that while many of us understand at the gut level that it seems antithetical to Christianity, we may be unable to spell out why this is so.  James Talarico, Texas State Legislator and ministry student preparing to become a minister gives a great homily on Christian Nationalism as idolatrous, the central sin in both Old and New Testaments. Enjoy this! (The themes will be familiar for folks who have read posts here for any length of time.)

Followup Question on Crash Course Post

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,  were you afraid some people would believe that because they can't be Catholic hermits and want to be hermits anyway, that they believed they couldn't be Catholic anymore either? That is what it sounded like. I wouldn't have believed anyone would interpret things that way, but I am really glad for the lesson in the difference between non-canonical and illegal!! Also, I liked the added examples about the difference between a police officer living in San Mateo and a San Mateo police officer. Those were helpful. Thanks for that!!]]

Hi there! You're welcome! Yes, I had heard a recording of someone concluding that because she could not call herself either a consecrated or a Catholic hermit and wanted to remain a hermit (because she experienced this as a call from God), she thought she couldn't be a Catholic any longer either. She felt she would be an illegal hermit, which was not true. I definitely didn't want her to believe either of these things! She had just apparently come to terms with the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church only canonical hermits are consecrated, or better, are in the consecrated state of life, and may therefore call themselves Catholic hermits, but this other bit seemed to be a bridge too far; I didn't want a misunderstanding causing her to leave the Church she loves. And, apart from her situation, people must get a sense of what it means for a hermit (and others) to live an ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. 

One can be professed, consecrated, and commissioned by the Church to do this as a c 603 hermit, or a member of an eremitical or semi-eremitical institute of consecrated life, but one can also live as a Catholic AND a hermit in the lay or non-canonical state. That has always been the predominant way of being a hermit, even when bishops were approving some hermits to wear hermit tunics and preach or anchorites to live in the midst of town. The most important examples of hermits in the Church's history, one could argue, are the Desert Abbas and Ammas; I don't think the Church is going to declare them to be outside the Church simply because they were non-canonical or not overseen by a bishop!! Canon 603 provides a normative vision for all eremitical life in the Church, but living under this canon, "in law," is not the only way to live eremitical life in the Church today and we should not make the mistake of thinking it is, particularly if we take seriously that there are many members and many gifts in this One Body.

A Crash Course in the Language of things Canonical and Non-Canonical

 Recently questions and misunderstandings came up about the meaning and implications of the term non-canonical. I have written about this before and added a postscript to my follow-up post on why God wills many forms of hermit life in the Catholic Church. I also wrote about it four years ago when a non-canonical hermit suggested she had discovered she was illegal and perhaps couldn't even think of herself as Catholic. 

But, it seems the lesson was never really internalized. I am going to come at it again now for two reasons: 1) it is a terrible and very costly error to believe that because one is non-canonical and cannot call oneself a Catholic hermit, one cannot be a Catholic if one wants to remain a hermit or that one cannot be a hermit if one wants to remain a Catholic, and 2) if one person is making this error, others may also be making or being led to make it as well. So here is the basic question, does non-canonical mean illegal? The answer is no, it does not!!  Here is one place it is probably more helpful to think of canons as norms rather than laws, (I am not denying canons are laws, but the use of the word law and its cognates (illegal, illicit, unlawful, etc.) in this context is seriously misleading. If we think of canons as norms, the opposite of having them apply is not being illegal, but being unbound by, or free of them. To be a non-canonical hermit is to be free of the specific canonical rights and obligations that bind a canonical hermit.)

When we are baptized into the Church certain norms of the universal Church apply to us automatically. We are, by virtue of our baptism, Catholics, and we have the right to call ourselves Catholic. That right and others come with baptism as do certain obligations, the requirement that we attend Mass on Sundays, follow the laws of fasting and abstinence, go to confession once a year in case of mortal sin, etc. In other words, at baptism we are admitted to the lay state of life and like all new states of life it is a public vocation with pertinent canonical rights and obligations. We do not lose these rights and obligations so long as we are in the baptized state. In this sense, though we don't usually speak this way, baptism makes us canonical; it causes us to be bound by certain norms or canons corresponding to specific rights and obligations that belong to every person in the Church in virtue of Baptism.

As laity, every baptized Catholic can pursue all kinds of avenues of life including the eremitical life. However if one makes vows on one's own, private vows, even if encouraged and witnessed by someone in authority in the Church, they are a private matter not a public one. No additional public rights or obligations, no additional norms or canons bind this person in law. Suppose the vows are associated with living as a hermit (including the evangelical counsels!). In that case, the person is a Catholic and a Hermit, but they are NOT Catholic Hermits (more about this below). They are bound by all the canons that bound them upon baptism, no more, no less. In other words, when we speak of these hermits as non-canonical we do so because they live eremitical life without additional canons that bind them in law, whether c 603 or those appropriate to religious institutes. 

Some persons seek to live as consecrated hermits, either as part of a community or as solitary consecrated hermits. Each option is a public and ecclesial vocation requiring the Church's approval for admittance to public profession and consecration, and each of these fall under its own set of new canons beyond those associated with the lay state. For those whose profession is received by the Church in a public rite, they become canonical hermits. New Canons beyond those binding at baptism become legally binding on these hermits. For this reason, they are called canonical hermits. Canonical is a shorthand term for bound by (additional) canons or norms. Non-canonical is a shorthand term for unbound by additional canons or norms. Because the Church acting in God's name consecrates them in the hands of the Bishop they are consecrated hermits. And finally, because canonists point out that because of c 603, the category of religious life now applies to people with no relation to an institute of consecrated life, these hermits are considered Religious. Canon 603 hermits are Catholic Hermits and live the eremitical life in the name of the Church. They are specifically commissioned by the Church to be and do this because the gift of this vocation belongs first of all to the Church and only secondarily to the individual hermit. 

This emphatically does NOT mean that privately vowed hermits are illegal!! They live this vocation privately rooted in their own discernment and dedication under the same norms every baptized Christian is bound by; they do not consecrate themselves nor live this vocation as a public representative of the eremitical life in the Catholic Church. The Church has not entrusted them with this calling nor have they embraced the rights and obligations associated with a public and ecclesial vocation. However, they remain Catholics living a private eremitical life. They are, as one friend said, hermit (or eremitic) Catholics but they are NOT Catholic Hermits because the latter means they live this life in the name of the Church. 

(By the way, once again, by way of illustration, I do not write in the name of the Church nor do I teach Scripture or theology in her name. I am not and cannot call myself a Catholic theologian, though the theology I do is profoundly Catholic. To do theology as a Catholic Theologian requires a pontifical degree (not just a PhD or a ThD from a Catholic College, University, or Theological School) and a mandatum to teach in the Church's name. This mandate can be taken away by the Church just as it is up to the Church to grant it.)