"From Trash to Triumph": The Importance of Beauty and the Landfill Harmonic Orchestra

 In our Bible class, we are reading NT Wright's Surprised by Hope.  Last week we read chapter 13 where Wright begins to speak of reshaping the Church in terms of Hope. One of the most striking pillars of creating hope in our world is the pillar of beauty along with two others Wright describes, justice and evangelism. And yet, this pillar is one not all churches pay much attention to --- either to the destructive power of ugliness or to the uplifting power of beauty. In preparing for the class I asked folks to watch the second of the following videos and to see if they could explain how it tied into the week's reading. My own sense is that in these children and the larger community, we implicitly see the power of Jesus' resurrection, the power of hope at work shaping their world through the presence of beauty. In this way, we also see human beings coming more fully alive to and with the potential with which they are created and re-created, the realization of the potential that makes them the very image of God.

The second video is a TED Talk done in Amsterdam. Here you meet the teacher who started all this and a few of the players of the Landfillharmonic, including the 19-year-old cellist from the earlier video playing the Prelude from Bach Cello Suite #1 for unaccompanied cello.

One person spoke about this video and said, "Music is a human right." Another noted that she thought Ada (13-year-old violinist) is now studying veterinary medicine (she is likely finished by now)! I read an account of the community (Cateura) that noted before the introduction of music to the children (and to the work of making musical instruments out of garbage!!) parents would come to school and take their children out to work on the landfill. Schooling was clearly not important because the horizon of the community's life was the mountain of garbage everyone sent their way; that defined their lives and it was a narrow, discouraging definition. Now, however, given the fruits of the music program, it was said that taking kids out of school to work on the landfill never happens. It is said to be "unthinkable". These folks have been given a view of a much larger world and moved by beauty of all kinds and have come alive as a result. They are capable now of dreaming in ways they were never capable of before.

In Surprised by Hope, Wright makes clear that the resurrection of Jesus empowers us with a vision of a new heaven and new earth already present to us in a proleptic way. (I have sometimes remarked that in Jesus, the crucified and risen one, we find God in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place; the recycled orchestra in Cateura certainly reminds us of this truth!) Wright reminds us that we too should come alive and build for the Kingdom. We are capable of new dreams and freed to see and act in light of the beauty present here and now among us because God has revealed himself in the crucified One as Emmanuel. The bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus has begun the definitive interpenetration and interlocking of heaven and earth. The horizon of our own vision is no longer just our sinful "temporal" world any more than the mountain of garbage is the sole horizon of the children in Cateura, Paraguay. We have been granted a different vision of a "reality made new" in Christ and are called to live in light of that!

Who can Live Canon 603 and in what sense?

[[Sister Laurel, can someone who is not professed under c 603 live the canon?]]

Thanks for writing! Because I believe the vision embodied in c 603 is normative of eremitical life in the church, my answer is yes, they can. At least, that is, the first section of the canon can be lived by any hermit in the church, no matter their canonical state or form of eremitical life. However, a non-canonical hermit and a canonical hermit in an institute of consecrated life would not live the second section of the canon. I recently cited that second section, but let me put the text of the entire canon up for you to see what I mean.

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance. 

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction.

Members of institutes of consecrated life including those properly termed semi-eremitic, are canonical, but they do not fall under the second section of the canon. This is because their professions, consecrations, legitimate superiors, and canonical standing are rooted in other canons and the proper law of their institutes. Non-canonical hermits can fulfill all of the terms of c 603.1 but do not have standing in law as a hermit, nor do they live a "proper program of living" in a strict sense because in c 603.2 this means an approved Rule that serves as their own proper law.

I've written this before but please note that "proper" in 603.2 is not a Britishism meaning "well or appropriately done" like when someone can make a "proper cuppa" tea for their guests. Proper in the c 603.2 sense refers to proper law and is approved, as an institute of consecrated life has approved constitutions and statutes that form their own proper law in addition to the requirements of universal or Canon law.  (The hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Decree of Approval and becomes legally binding on the day of profession.) On the other hand, any person could certainly write a Rule that serves as a vision of and means to live their own personal way of eremitical life. It would be considered proper to them alone even though it is not an officially approved Rule; it would just not meet the conditions of c 603.2, however.

Sister Irene Gibson, First Professed Hermit in Ireland

I have posted a video of Sister Irene in the past, but I had never seen these videos before. These are from before the time she left the Vatican II Church. It seems we share a lot on the notion of what constitutes a hermit, particularly on solitude as a form of community that is antithetical to isolation. Our backgrounds are not identical (she comes from a large family, I do not) but there are similarities. I said before that Sister Irene is the real deal --- though I disagreed with her rejection of the VII Church and much of her theology from that time. In these videos, I believe that her eremitical vocation is even clearer. It was only later on that Sister Irene shifted her spirituality in significant ways. I think that is a shame, not least because it leaves her believing things like the notion that the synod on synodality is a form of Communism. I  wonder if she is also critical of the account of the early Church in the Acts of the Apostles where all hold all in common, but her early approaches to eremitical life (shown here) are edifying. Enjoy.

 

Mistaken Expectations Can Lead to Terrible Disappointment

 One thing more struck me about the phrase "canonical approval" today when someone who had lived as a non-canonical hermit for a number of years and who had petitioned to be admitted to canonical standing under c 603 made a chance remark. I am grateful she did! She spoke of a priest advisor who felt that after @12 weeks of waiting the person should have already been sent some sort of paper to sign to be granted approval!! This is a serious misunderstanding of what is being petitioned for or why the wait is an ordinarily long one! It underscores why we do not use the term "canonical approval" so much as we refer to "canonical standing" or "standing in (canon) law".

Recently I wrote a piece about transferring from a non-canonical hermit life to standing under c 603. I noted there that one could not simply transfer from a non-canonical hermit state to a canonical one because the canonical one involves added canonical rights and responsibilities. One enters and embraces these through a public act of profession and then, with perpetual profession, by an act of consecration by God in the hands of the diocesan bishop. One cannot simply sign some sort of piece of paper noting one has been "approved" and given canonical standing. One must be professed and eventually consecrated to acquire canonical standing!! The priest who expected this non-canonical hermit to be given some piece of paper to be signed marking "approval" is, if the statement made is accurate, completely mistaken. To the extent this hermit has believed this, she is also completely mistaken and apparently misled in a way that sets her up for significant disappointment.

Consider what c 603 itself says: §2. A hermit is recognized by [or in] law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction. [Note the importance of writing a liveable Rule of Life. Note too that the appropriate words for what the hermit does in this process are dedication and profession in the hands of her bishop.]

When one approaches a diocese to be admitted to c 603 standing in law, the approval involved is approval to be admitted to profession and consecration. This does not constitute canonical approval! Again, one is approved to take on the public canonical rights and obligations of an ecclesial state of perfection (to use an older language); one does this by giving oneself wholly in an act or acts of profession. A hermit petitioning for this opportunity needs to understand she is petitioning to be allowed to give the whole of her life publicly to and in an ecclesial vocation with significant rights and obligations, and the church must discern whether she has the vocation to allow this to occur.

I have been writing about this recently to prevent this non-canonical hermit (or anyone else, for that matter) from being hurt and disappointed by her diocese. I have wanted her to know what she has petitioned for and how serious and lengthy the process of approval for admittance to profession ordinarily is. I have wanted her to be able to tailor her expectations because there seemed to be a serious misunderstanding involved regarding "transferring" from non-canonical to canonical standing. I had no idea that a priest advisor believed the diocese would simply have her sign some piece of paper or that twelve weeks of waiting would be considered an exorbitant length of time! Simply having lived as a self-defined non-canonical hermit, does not necessarily prepare one to live a public and ecclesial vocation. It does not even necessarily indicate one is truly a hermit in the way the Church understands that vocation or will allow from c 603 hermits. All of this and more must be discerned by a diocese when they are confronted by a non-canonical (lay) hermit, and that takes time and most often, significant formation as well. When one petitions for admission to profession, one also petitions to be allowed to participate in this entire process of mutual discernment and formation.

I would seriously encourage anyone considering applying to be admitted to c 603 standing, to drop the term "canonical approval" from their vocabulary. One is only approved to move forward with a process culminating in public profession and consecration leading to canonical standing. One petitions to be admitted to this standing in law. There are many acts of approval (and perhaps some of disapproval) along the way. Think and speak instead in terms of standing in law and misunderstanding and commensurate disappointment will be minimized as one's expectations are made more realistic.

On Hiddenness and Transparency: A Little Bit of Father Seraphim

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you haven't commented on the lack of hiddenness for someone putting up videos of themselves while going on and on about you and others because you wear a habit? It seems to me that when christianhermit [aka joyful hermit] goes on and on about how your wearing a habit means you don't care about hermit hiddenness and don't live c 603 even while she is revealing details about her health, views of her bedroom, and on and on about [stuff] that is really meant to be private she should see that this is not eremitical hiddenness!! I wondered if you see things this way and why you don't comment on it.]]

Good questions. I think with regard to c 603 it has been far more important to clearly state what the essence of eremitical hiddenness is about. Externals are not unimportant, but at the same time, they are not the heart of the matter. I thought writing about that was more important at the time. I think so still. Moreover, I trust that people can watch something and gauge the inconsistency involved when it is as blatant as what you have pointed out. I want to take this in another direction though, and move away from the person you asked about. The question your concerns raise for me is: can hermits or monks create videos and be truly hidden at the same time? Yes, I think they can. I am thinking of the work of a monk whose videos I was introduced to by a friend just yesterday. It is Fr Seraphim Aldea of Mull Monastery in Scotland. His videos are wonderful (so far I have only seen a handful); they are genuinely shot through with the Holy Spirit and despite the fact that Seraphim reveals his heart in them, there is never a sense that he is allowing us to go beyond what is kind of a personal iconostasis or grill.

In other words, it is in his transparency that Fr Seraphim lives and maintains a very real and essential hiddenness even in a public videographic presence. Perhaps this is because whether he is reading someone else's questions or responding from the deepest depths of his own heart, there is a clear reverence, love, and gratitude to God for every word, for the setting, for the potential of the communication, for those who will hear him speaking. More, there is a real joy in Seraphim's ministry, a love for tradition and also real regard for the contemporary world and its potential. He knows both of these, but he knows the Tradition in a particularly profound way. It is what allows him to speak credibly to the contemporary world. Father Seraphim recognizes some really awful ways monastic life has been compromised in this world, but he does not believe this is a necessary outcome. He is no antiquarian. No, he is a monastic who understands that authentic monastic (and eremitical) life can be lived in this time and place as well as in the first centuries of the Church. But what is striking to me is the way he maintains an essential hiddenness while simultaneously practicing an authentic transparency.

I have seen a similar paradox in a couple of Sisters I know. They are able to be entirely transparent to others, completely truthful, and yet it is in this transparency that genuine hiddenness is protected. What I see in them is that transparency does not mean that everything is allowed to hang out there for everyone to see. (We don't, for instance, hear about every ache or pain or medical appointment, etc.)  It means instead, that the genuinely holy is revealed to others reverently and with love while what is not loving (and not helpful for the other to see or know) is withheld. Especially, there is no pretense in them, and no tendency to disrespect either themselves or others in this way. I am only just beginning to examine, reflect on, and analyze this. It is not entirely new to me, but it is entirely new with someone posting videos that are sacred and profoundly revelatory of self and of God. 

Another piece of this is Seraphim's wearing of a habit. It is a simple fact that alerts one to his ecclesial identity. It essentially both stands out from and blends into the background -- whether the local forests, the monastery living room, a church where he is lecturing, or wherever he finds himself -- because, I am sure, he is entirely comfortable in his own skin.  What we mainly see is Seraphim, not someone dressed in a costume. The covering of that skin is as familiar to Seraphim as any other part of himself and it functions both to signal the presence of hiddenness and to reveal him to others. That is the way habits function for those called to wear them. That is part of the reason one begins to wear them in novitiate so the novelty and correlative self-consciousness associated with them initially have time to wear off before one is seen in public in one. One needs time to grow in and come to know oneself in one's new role as a religious before being faced with the way the habit opens one to others' approaches with their profound needs and questions. 

As an introduction to Fr Seraphim, I thought the following video was completely wonderful. Seraphim's first sentence in his response to the questions was stupendous! Unequivocal!! Compelling!!! Can we ever fall beyond the reach of God's love? See if you can see what I mean about that but also the combination of hiddenness and transparency Seraphim shows us, especially when he speaks of pretense.

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 lay hermit has claimed she invariably has mystical states during liturgy (Eucharist) and she claims to no longer come to Mass because she becomes an occasion of sin for people there. I believe there are several serious problems with this analysis, and it is not sufficient to respond to these by saying "this is mystical and no one understands such things today". First, the states are said to be invariable, happening at the same place and in the same way at each liturgy. God is eternal and entirely faithful, but God is not invariable nor are prayer states he empowers within us. Moreover, significant prayer experiences are rich in content and they require time to process. It is unlikely that God would have prayer experience after prayer experience in an invariable way without the time and space to process and truly appreciate them. This actually makes them less important and less revealing; in other words, it trivializes them and calls attention to the subject having the experiences, rather than to the God who is supposed to be empowering them. What some have found to be true about authentic experiences is that a single significant "mystical" prayer experience can nourish one for the rest of one's life, so I personally disagree that this daily (or 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 very occasionally drop into more extended quiet prayer during a Mass (not an ecstasy!!), I can't do that without reassuring the persons seated with me ahead of time that I am okay should I choose to do this. I also recognize that I am a member of a praying community and for that reason, I am generally called to pray with them as we are each asked to pray together 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 to my community. Finally, we have the problem of determining that these "states" 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, especially if they are worried and don't know what is happening to us, 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 or outright angry about something, one still does not know whether or not this is sinful. If the person having these "ecstatic" states is led to sin herself, then she must speak to her pastor, director, or confessor, and find a way that deals adequately with this; she can be aware of and speak of her own sin, but she cannot presume to know anyone else's.

The question of alienation from the sacraments is an important one. Personally, I find it impossible to believe that God would cause something that alienates the person from participation in and reception of the Sacraments in a general way. Why would he call one to become a member of Christ's body and then act in a way that disallows participation in that body as the Church (even minimally) requires?! Some accommodations can certainly be made in the case of illness or other extraordinary conditions, and I don't know a single pastor, priest, or other minister who would not seriously try to find such reasonable accommodations. I have a seizure disorder that is triggered by certain sounds (including some cell phone ringtones). My parish community, especially the daily Mass crew has always been very careful to be sure and leave phones in the car or at home or at least on vibrate once they understood the need. (Yes, sometimes there were slip-ups or someone new had not heard the caution yet, but generally speaking, people were really caring and responsive in this!) During Sunday liturgy, if seizure activity was a frequent problem I could have stayed in the sacristy to hear Mass, whether alone or with a friend, or I might simply have needed to stay home!

In the situation raised here, I believe that this alienation from the sacraments is feeding an essentially Gnostic approach to reality that divides it too absolutely into a spiritual (eternal) and temporal duality and leads toa spirituality that unduly maligns the temporal. (This (ancient) Gnostic duality or approach to reality also feeds alienation from what is being called "the temporal Church" and its sacramentality as well.) Given the centrality of the Incarnation along with the bodiliness of both the resurrection and the Ascension (and Mary's Assumption as well), along with the theology of the new heaven and earth where creation and God's space already partly and will one day wholly interpenetrate one another, I think this is particularly dangerous.

EEMs can always bring Communion to a person who cannot attend Mass for some valid reason. Some churches with cry rooms (or unused choir lofts, etc.) can allow someone to attend Mass from there if they need to. Ecstatic prayer is ordinarily very silent (in fact, it is awesomely 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, crying 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 (must!) help find a way for the person 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 and disability including that from chronic pain; 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, my developing spiritual direction ministry, 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 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 the 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 from 3-4 years. (There is a great deal to set up, significant transitions to make (including grief over loss of one's community), and differences in the way the vows are lived.) 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.]]

** 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 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.