What Specifically Does the Church Hold You Responsible For? (Reprised from 2015 with new postscript)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, recently you wrote: [[Especially we do these persons no favors by encouraging them to embrace pretense in the name of the God of Truth. In the end to do that is to betray their deepest longings and treat them as though they are either too unimportant to God to be called to live a significant (meaningful) vocation, or simply too weak to bear the vocation God truly HAS extended to them. This is so because in the Church, standing in law ("status") is always associated with the gift and challenge of responsibility. We do not recognize a person's real dignity nor show genuine respect for them by extending  standing --- much less allowing them to pretend to standing --- which is without commensurate responsibility.]] I understand what you are saying here, and I am beginning to understand why you are concerned about people who pretend to a status they don't actually have. What is hard to see clearly is what responsibility or responsibilities a hermit takes on. When you talk about [being a hermit] "in the Name of the Church," that refers to responsibility; I know that. But what specifically does the Church hold you responsible for? Is any of this based on the Bible, or is it all about Canon Law?]]

Scriptural Roots Exemplified:

Thank you for the questions.  Let me begin with the last one, which I believe is critically important. I think there are very clear Scriptural precedents for the Church's insistence that standing is inevitably associated with commensurate responsibilities. One of the most vivid is the parable of the Prodigal Son/Merciful Father. Remember that when the younger Son demanded "the property that would be his at his Father's death," he very specifically does NOT ask to assume the responsibilities of inheritance. In fact, he rejects these outright. Despite some English translations of the text, he asks for the "ousia", the very "substance" of the material or wealth portion of the patrimony that would come to him at his Father's death, but he does not use "kleronomia", the usual word for inheritance. This is significant because asking for the inheritance (kleronomia) necessarily includes acceptance of leadership for the family, their wealth, honor, and general well-being. In fact, it includes the pledge that one will give one's life for the family if need be.

Instead, this son effectively wishes his Father were dead, separates himself from the family, sells off his portion of the property for cheap (he does not bargain as is typical in the Middle Eastern culture but liquidates things quickly for whatever he can get in the moment), thus leaving his family in reduced circumstances; he then squanders the proceeds of his impulsivity, greed, and lack of compassion in "riotous (exorbitant) living" among foreigners. He becomes rootless, a wanderer without value or responsible role, someone who has exchanged the lasting or eternal for the entirely ephemeral. (By the way, it should be noted that in Jesus' day calling someone rootless in this way was an unpardonable offense; making oneself rootless was incredibly degrading.) 

Meanwhile, skipping ahead in the story, when the younger son returns home in yet even greater disgrace, he is restored to Sonship and will be honored by all the village as the Father's Son because of the robe, ring, and shoes with which his Father has clothed him. In other words, he has been re-established as one with genuine standing in the People of God and real responsibility within and for the family and the family's honor and wealth. With standing comes responsibility. To take what is due a Son and to do so while cutting all ties, betraying and sundering all relationships, and selfishly relinquishing all responsibility for one's family or the People of God is the very essence of sin in this NT parable. Despite some distorted approaches to spirituality, and the genuine limitations of life as a hermit, I would argue one cannot do these things in the name of eremitical life either. That way lies the disedifying isolation of counterfeits and curmudgeons rather than the ecclesial solitude of the Christian hermit.

Canonical Standing and Responsibilities:

 To accept canonical standing then (i.e., that which comes with public profession and//or consecration) is to accept the responsibility to act in whatever way one is commissioned by the Church to do in her name. The same is true with regard to Sacramental relationships and standing: Baptism (Sacraments of Initiation), Marriage, Ordination all come with specific responsibilities within the Church and for the very life OF the Church. In my own life, the specific obligations include: 1) an ecclesial vocation lived as an integral part of the Church's own life and holiness governed by both universal and proper law, 2) an eremitical vocation whose nature is defined by canon 603 and other canons related to consecrated or religious life. It includes stricter separation from the world (those things contrary or even resistant to Christ as well as those things which promise what only God can promise), assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels and all those imply, life according to an approved Rule I write myself, and the supervision of the diocesan Bishop and those he delegates to act as legitimate superiors and/or delegates (quasi-superiors).

In all this, I (and all diocesan hermits) are specifically responsible for living the eremitical life in the heart of the Church as a continuation of the prophetic life of the Desert Fathers, the pastorally significant lives of medieval anchorites, along with the hidden witness of so many other hermits, and for extending this rich tradition in ways which meet contemporary needs and speak to contemporary culture. 3) As a representative of these, I am also part of a parish and diocese; I was called forth from their midst and professed and consecrated in their presence, with them witnessing, supporting, and celebrating. As solitary as a hermit's vocation is, it is ecclesial, and so I live this life in my parish's midst and serve them and others as my eremitical life makes possible.

Bearing the parable of the Prodigal Son/Merciful Father in mind, as a Sister (that is, as a professed religious), I am responsible in various limited ways for dimensions of the life of this parish family. There is something similarly true with regard to the diocese as such, though ordinarily this is expressed in my commitment to parish life, or, occasionally, in diocesan events and diocese-wide celebrations, funerals, etc. It always means the parish and diocese are kept in my heart and prayer, but it sometimes means speaking at other parishes in the diocese, doing an occasional presentation at Contemplative Outreach or similar groups in the area, regarding desert spirituality, eremitical life, contemplative prayer, etc. In any case, I am responsible not merely to be a hermit, but to be a hermit in the heart of the Church and to appropriately allow the fruits of my own solitary contemplative life to nurture the life of the family I know as the local parish and diocesan Church.

In terms of the universal Church, I really do feel the obligation to live a life which is truly an extension of the eremitical tradition which has been part of her life since the 4th Century and certainly was an element of Jesus' own life, that of John the Baptist, Elijah, etc. And even beyond the universal Church is the world-at-large --- also searching, hurting, and yearning. Every person comes to communion with God in an essential solitude, and the hermit's life reminds them of this. At the same time, some effectively marginalized persons especially need the example of the hermit's solitude to come to a sense that their own isolation, no matter the circumstances causing or exacerbating it, can be redeemed through such communion.

Canon 603 is very specific about the hermit living her life for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Her own prayer --- intercessory and otherwise --- is very important here, but so is the entire solitary life she lives as a public person in the Church. The very hiddenness of the hermit's life is, paradoxically, actually part of her public identity and witness. After all, most of the struggle, love, work, and prayer we all do in our lives is hidden "from the eyes of men" and sometimes that can tempt us to abandon this for notoriety, etc. A hermit reminds everyone that this is unnecessary and perhaps even illegitimate depending on what God wills in our lives. At the very least, the hermit's own life of essential hiddenness encourages patience and suggests a new way of seeing things. Especially, it encourages us to see the immense dignity of our lives and the significance of whatever we do in and with God, no matter how ordinary or how hidden.

So, I have a strong sense of responsibility in all of these ways. Moreover, as you very perceptively put it, the Church herself rightly holds me morally and legally responsible for living my life in these ways. Public profession and consecration establish a covenant between the individual professed and the Church more generally --- usually through an institute of consecrated life, but now with canon 603, through the hermit's diocese and local Bishop. The Church spells out some of this in the canon, but she fully (and rightly) expects the hermit who is publicly professed to concretize or make these obligations more specific in terms of her own prayer, study, reflection, and response to the grace of God as it comes to her through the relationships that constitute her life. This is another reason it is very important that there be sufficient formation and mutual discernment before admitting someone to profession and (then) consecration under canon 603. Through canon 603, diocesan hermits give their lives to Christ and to those who belong to him in what is intended to be an irrevocable gift. Thus the Church that receives this gift needs to have the sense that the candidate has the necessary tools, sensibilities, maturity, and constitutive relationship with God and his Church to truly "flesh out" (or even incarnate) all of the potential which is profoundly embodied in this brief but richly pregnant canon.

Canonical or non-Canonical Hermits: Standing Comes with Responsibility, Rights with Obligations:

My own understanding of the Parable of the Merciful Father (aka Parable of the Prodigal Son) colors the way I see people who seek (or pretend to!) the status or standing of consecrated solitary hermits without accepting the responsibilities the Church associates with such standing. One's life in the Church always comes with commensurate responsibility. Standing as a publicly professed and/or consecrated person in the Church codifies such responsibilities in law. The Prodigal Son was given a robe, a ring, and sandals signifying his new standing in the family. It is not hard for the diocesan hermit to see or hear echoes of this story as the Bishop presents (or clothes her in) the prayer garment, eremitical tunic or scapular, and profession ring, or as he presents her a copy of his formal approval of her Rule, which establishes it as binding on the hermit in law as well as morally.

Resonances of the Son's renewed acceptance of his place in protecting the patrimony of his family and People are not far from the hermit's heart when she makes her vows in the hands of the Bishop while resting them on the book of Gospels, or signs those same vows on the altar, or is congratulated and welcomed in her new standing by friends, family, and especially the whole parish community at the Eucharistic Feast. I would think the lay hermit who lives her eremitical life by virtue of her baptismal consecration alone might well perceive similar resonances with 1) her baptism which initiates her into the family of followers of Christ, 2) her anointing with chrism, 3) her clothing with the white baptismal garment, and 4) the giving of the baptismal candle which is accompanied by the commission to keep it burning brightly as a witness to others. In either case, and in all other instances of ecclesial commissioning, standing in the Church comes with responsibilities, and rights are accompanied by obligations. The matter is both canonical and profoundly Scriptural, but as I understand it, it is Scriptural long before it is canonical.

_________________________________________________________

** I want to note here something that was not included when I first wrote this piece, namely, that because canonical standing is about both rights and responsibilities or obligations, it is not the kind of "status" associated with pride, arrogance, and some of the things that I  and others associated with c 603 have been accused of recently. 

The obligations assumed with public profession and consecration bind the person under the virtue of religion. [[“A vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God concerning a possible and better good which must be fulfilled by reason of the virtue of religion.”]] This occurs with a different weight with public vows than with private vows: [[ Accepted by the Church’s authority, Public vows are binding in Church law and carry the full weight of the virtue of religion.]] This means that breaking or abandoning a (public) vow is always a grave matter and can thus be a mortal sin. 

Private vows involve a different weight than public vows; even so, this in no way makes them or the vocation they mark as insignificant or something one might treat as a "has-been" kind of thing when one begins to feel they are "no longer [much of a] sacrifice" --- at least not without getting them dispensed by one's pastor, for instance!

On Being and Becoming a Religious (Reprised from 2019)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you speak of profession or being admitted to profession you also speak of undertaking and being entrusted with rights and obligations beyond those of baptism. In some ways this sounds sort of legalistic, but in other places you speak as though something changed in you at the moments of profession and consecration. Is there both internal and external change with profession and consecration? Because you have written about the difference between private and public commitments, between authentic and counterfeit Catholic hermits, and coming to act or live your vocation in the name of the Church as opposed to doing so in your own name, I suppose you seem again and again to be saying something changes within you as well as external to you in your relationship with the Church.

Is there such an internal change? Is this part of distinguishing as you do between hermits in the lay state and hermits in the consecrated state? I know that priests, when they are ordained, are somehow changed so that they can consecrate the Eucharist, and so forth. Is there something similar that actually happens to you and within you when you are perpetually professed and consecrated? Is this why you insist (or why the Church insisted at Vatican II) that the distinction between dedication and consecration be maintained?]]

Yes!!! Yes!! Yes!! You have understood me (and the church's theology of consecrated life) well, I think. There are both external changes (the assumption of rights and obligations including the right to style oneself as a religious, the relationships necessary to live one's vows and be adequately guided and supervised in these via the ministry of authority, and the privilege, right, and obligation to live one's life in the name of the Church) along with internal changes (God sets one apart via consecration as a "sacred person" (I am not thrilled with this phrase, but I don't know a better one) and graces the person in ways (or constellations of ways) not necessarily found in the lay (vocational) state. It is traditionally referred to as a second consecration. This "second consecration" has sometimes been explained in terms of betrothal or espousal --- something that does not generally apply to baptism per se and which adds to one's baptismal consecration. While this is not the same as the "character" associated with priestly ordination, what is critical to understand here is that in the making of one's vows and the prayer of consecration associated with perpetual profession one becomes what one was not before, namely, one becomes a religious with a soul configured as that of a religious initiated into an external religious state to match.

When I write that we cannot consecrate but instead can only dedicate ourselves, I am saying the same thing: we cannot change ourselves, we cannot make ourselves into "sacred (divinely consecrated or set apart) persons", or give ourselves the rights and obligations which are intrinsic to the religious state. We cannot claim or assume on our own something only the Church has the right and ability to mediate to us on God's behalf. We can put ourselves in the position of those who desire to embrace these rights and obligations as well as the graces associated with this particular state of life, this identity within the Church (for this too is a reason we call religious or canonical eremitical life ecclesial vocations), but again, we cannot assume, much less claim to have such an identity unless and until the Church extends them to us and, through acts of mediation which are "performative" in nature, make us into that thing we so profoundly desired. The word performative is important here; it points to a kind of language event in which the thing spoken comes to be in the very act of speaking. In religious life, the vow formula is such a piece of performative language; so is the prayer of solemn consecration. In the praying of these forms of language (in these language events), the thing spoken is realized in space and time in the very speaking of the words.

A metaphorical way of saying this is that in the act of speech of profession we "say ourselves (an act of dedication) into" a state that stands ready for us as a gift of God; the Church receives this act of profession and extends God's own consecration to us in her own solemn consecration. According to Vatican II and traditionally, we dedicate ourselves, but only God consecrates. Speech is the way truth is mediated, the powerful way in which reality is changed -- the significant or meaningful way in which we ourselves are changed and assume a NEW identity, a differently graced identity we did not have even an hour earlier. In religious profession and consecration, God is doing something new, just as he was doing something brand new at our baptisms! Vocations are, it seems to me, not about us so much as they are about what God has done and continues to do within us and our world through the mediation (of both call and response) of the Church. In any case, to be a religious, to have this identity means much more than to desire profoundly to be a religious; in ways which are both internal and external, it means to be made a new reality with public rights and responsibilities and the graces (both internal and external) that attend the state. These are not icing on the cake, so to speak; they are absolutely intrinsic to the reality of a religious (consecrated) and public vocation.

Yes, all of this is at issue when I speak of counterfeit hermits** vs. legitimately professed and consecrated hermits. Those who, without benefit of public profession and consecration, claim the title Catholic Hermit, for instance, are, whether they realize it or not, claiming to be living eremitical life in the name of the Church. Whenever the word Catholic is appended to an enterprise, project, and so forth, someone is claiming that this reality is being lived, done, undertaken, or enacted in the name of the Church --- and that they have been extended and accepted all the rights and obligations pertaining thereto. A Catholic theologian is not a Catholic who is also a theologian but one given a Mandatum by the Church to do theology in her name. When someone claims to be a consecrated hermit, they are claiming to have participated in a public rite of profession and consecration where God's own act of making sacred or uniquely blessed has been extended to the person through the formal and authoritative mediation of the Church. Not just any priest, for instance, can act in such a way, nor can just any person desiring this. One online hermit has said that, in her belief, "we are all religious" if we make (private) vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. But this is exactly wrong and fails to see, especially, that the making of a religious involves a divine/ecclesial act in which something that did not exist before comes to be!

Religious today rightly make a great deal of the fact that, in a hierarchical sense, they are lay persons and not clergy, and that they do not stand in an intermediate state hierarchically between laity and clergy. This allows them to assume a rightful place with everyone else in the Church and serve, not from a position of superiority, but of equality. This is right and good, and it is an important fruit of the Second Vatican Council that Sisters and Brothers are right to underscore. But at the same time Religious know that vocationally they are not lay persons and are no longer in the lay state. They have been changed exteriorly with the assumption of rights and obligations appropriate to this new state; but they have also been made new inside as well and become someone formed by new manifestations of the grace of God precisely so they are able to assume the rights and obligations associated with their new state of life.

These two changes, external and internal, work together to shape, challenge, console, and then, shape the person some more, in an ever-ongoing interplay of grace and nature which is distinct to this state of life. If one is consecrated but leaves the consecrated state of life in terms of the external rights and obligations, then one, despite one's consecration, is no longer a religious (or a consecrated hermit) and cannot grow as a religious (though one can and likely will certainly grow as a person!). If one tries to take on the rights and obligations of the religious state as though grace and ecclesial admission granted and received through public profession and consecration were unnecessary, one will not and cannot be a religious. To be initiated by the Church into this distinct (not superior but distinct!) and formative stream of grace and challenge, this unique dialogue between nature and grace, and to respond in continued dedication to this ecclesial vocation is to become and be a religious. Personal potential and desire notwithstanding, before and apart from this initiation, one simply is not and cannot be a religious.

** Counterfeit here refers to those who might usurp the title "Consecrated Catholic Hermit" by attributing it to those who are baptized lay hermits, or baptized non-canonical hermits. One cannot drop the term that stands between baptized and hermit in these descriptions. It is critical to retain the sense that a Catholic Hermit or Consecrated Hermit involves the primary sense that God makes such hermits, not through baptism, but through a "second consecration" and the explicit, intended liturgical mediation of God's own Church. In the same way, it is critical to remain aware that one lives such a vocation "in the name of the Catholic Church," which explicitly calls us forth in this way on God's behalf during the rite of Profession and Consecration. This helps both the Hermit and the Church to bear in mind the rights and obligations this person has taken on for the sake of God, the Gospel, and the whole of God's creation. It does NOT and is not intended to reflect any denigration of the lay hermit vocation.

Early discovery of a Vocation or Parental Aspirations on Parade?

President Obama greets a little one dressed as Leo XIV in the Popemobile for the Halloween parade. I don't care much for red shoes on our actual Popes, but I love them on this kiddo! I hear Obama is really great with little ones like this. It looks like he and this papaculus are enjoying themselves.

Lay Hermits and Accusations of "Playing at Being Religious"

[[Hi Sister Laurel, in your last post, one of the links referred to lay persons who wanted to live as hermits as independent lay persons pretending to be monks. The person speaking denied that had ever been true and said she didn't know where "these Benedictine monks" got that idea. Who were they, and where DID they get this idea from? We have lay hermits today; do people think they are just playing at being religious?]]

Good questions! Thanks!! In the post you are referring to, the link only included the last third or so of the poster's comments on Bishop Remi de Roo (pronounced de ROH, not de Rue), and c. 603 hermits. The persons who wanted to live as hermits had been monks, many years in solemn vows, who desired even greater solitude. They wanted to live as hermits, but the proper law of their various houses did not allow that. (Remember Benedictine houses are independent of one another, even when they are confederated.) Thus, not being able to follow God's call, they needed to seek dispensation from their solemn vows, be "secularized", and live as lay hermits. 

But this was before Vatican II and its emphasis on the universal call to holiness (or at least before that insight became widely known as a foundational insight). That shift with Vatican II changed a great deal, including the way lay persons approached their own call to spiritual life. Lay persons saw their own vocations (if they used the word vocation for lay life at all) as very different from that of religious and priests. Religious life was centered on God; lay life, not so much. Religious life was set apart, holy, ethereal; lay life was secular, "worldly," and decidedly second rate! (Tragically, it is still possible to find people who believe that "having a vocation" refers only to priests and religious. 

This implied lay life was commonly not seen as representing a genuine divine call, much less one to exemplary holiness truly valued by the Church!) Moreover, hermits were neither common (they were almost non-existent in the Western Church and were always linked to monasteries in the Eastern Church), nor was their life regarded as a gift of God one pursued to become a whole, true, integrated, and integrally related person. Generally speaking, eremitical life was seen as false, escapist, individualistic, and independent in a misanthropic way. After all, in a world geared to productivity and a Church perceived as similarly geared to active ministry, whom did it serve? How was it a witness to human relatedness in Christ, or the call to love others? How could one grow to human maturity by oneself in "the silence of solitude"?

These former monks continued much of their earlier way of living and praying, though now they did so in greater solitude, and, in terms of most Catholics, also suffered from the stigma of having left solemn vows and their monastic life without really transitioning to lay life. It is not hard to see why they might have been thought to be "playing at being monks". Neither is it hard to see why these hermits, who were apparently in correspondence with one another and exploring the possibilities open to them, developed a contemporary laura with a Benedictine hermit/monk as superior, and sought out a Bishop Protector in Remi de Roo. This eventually convinced Bp de Roo that the Church needed to recognize the gift of God that solitary eremitical life was, and establish it as a "way of perfection", a need he raised in relation to the Council's discussion and composition of the various drafts of Perfectae Caritatis (on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life).  

Bishop de Roo was impressed with these men's courage, persistence, faithfulness, vision, creativity, and love -- love of God, of others, of the Church, and of their vocations and Benedictinism. He was also convinced that their vocations uniquely served and mirrored the heart of the Church's own vocation to be Church. Thus, he sought to get Vatican II to establish solitary eremitical life in law. N.B., the meaning of status here is standing in law, implying the adoption of appropriate rights and obligations not all members of the People of God will share. In the Church, for instance, married folks have a certain standing in law, and so, rights and/or obligations that single people (including priests and religious) do not have. The same is true when the other groups in the Church are compared in terms of their legal standing. Bp de Roo saw a yet-unrecognized and uniquely ecclesial vocation in these men (as he may well have done in the lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers who moved to the desert to protest the Church's effective co-optation by the State in the days of Constantine). In any case, he wanted the Roman Catholic Church to recognize this since it "belonged to" and was meant to enliven the Church in characteristic ways. Almost two decades after Bishop de Roo made his modest** but historic intervention at the Council, the Church as a whole did so, and c. 603 was the result. 

(** N.B.: while Bp de Roo made the intervention at Vatican II (and is, therefore, a bit of a personal hero to me), Canon 603 itself was crafted after the council by many Church Fathers from various Vatican Dicasteries, especially that for Clergy, and those they consulted (theologians, canonists, et al). The conciliar way towards the canon, then, included the Church Fathers' work on Perfectae Caritatis. The canon was codified and finally promulgated as part of the revised Code of Canon Law two decades following the Council, and approved by Pope Saint John Paul II. Thus, c. 603 is not itself the work of Bishop Remi or the Hermits of St John the Baptist.) 

Your last question is excellent. In my opinion, today we have more lay hermits and people considering identifying themselves as lay hermits precisely because c. 603 allows the whole Church to regard the solitary eremitical vocation as a significant and deeply Christian vocation and gift of God. Yes, we indeed have both canonical and non-canonical eremites, and they do differ in the canonical rights and obligations associated with them, but generally speaking, we have begun to move away from the idea that lay or non-canonical hermits are lay persons simply playing at being religious. Failing to nurture this movement is one of the real tragedies of any situation in which a person feels compelled to reject the term lay and to insist they are "irregular", "illegal", or "consecrated hermits," though this is at odds with the Church's own theology, praxis, and usage. It perpetuates a situation we have begun to put more firmly behind us as the laity truly claims the dignity Vatican II charted in its conciliar documents. 

As I see it, Canon 603 (and Vatican II, of course!!!) has helped to make that tragedy unnecessary. Lay hermits have the capacity to remind us with particular vividness that every person is called to union with God, that assiduous prayer is to be at the center of every Christian's life, and that genuine and profound spirituality is not only the purview of those in the consecrated state of life. The emphasis of the lives of Canonical hermits differs in its radicality here. In this way, it contributes to strengthening the clarity of the Council's teaching by allowing the Church to see the individual Christian constituting and mirroring the very heart of the Church. Today, in part because of Remi de Roo's role and the existence of c. 603, all authentic eremitical life can be regarded as a gift of God that one pursues to become a whole, true, integrated, and integrally related person in Christ. And though I guess there may always be those who will be unable to move forward with the Church as she has done in the last 50-60+ years in this regard, c. 603 invites us all to drop whatever stereotypes and defensiveness we hold in the way we approach both non-canonical and canonical, lay and consecrated, or solitary and communal eremitical vocations.

__________________________________________________________

Postscript: Please remember the word lay can be used in a hierarchical sense and a vocational sense. These are distinct. In the hierarchical sense, the Church is composed of clergy and laity. Both religious men and women are laity in this sense unless they are also ordained (deacons, priests, bishops). In the vocational sense of the word, the Church is constituted by persons in the lay, consecrated, and/or ordained states of life. These states of life are defined in law. I am using the term lay throughout this post (and in most of what I write here) in the vocational sense.

On Pretending to be a Consecrated Hermit and Seeking Permission to have a Tabernacle

[[Dear Sister Laurel, my understanding is that lay or non-canonical hermit cannot have a tabernacle with the reserved Eucharist. That's true, isn't it? I also understand that non-canonical hermits cannot call themselves Catholic Hermits or Consecrated Religious. What should one do if they know of someone who is dishonestly claiming to be a consecrated Catholic hermit and seeking to be able get reserved Eucharist from their parish? (She says she told the parish secretary that her bishop didn't answer her request to have a tabernacle and then gave her a story about suffering and how good it would be to be able to adore Eucharist from her bed.) 

I think I would be less bothered by the whole deal if I thought the person really didn't know the truth and was honestly calling herself a Catholic Hermit or Consecrated hermit, but she knows the truth and has posted a long video on it (Canon 603 the Way to Become a Catholic Hermit) which I read  a while back. What is really getting to me is the person's dishonesty and that's even worse given her critical comments on you and other diocesan hermits in the next link. Cf Bishop de Roo and Diocesan Hermits (@1:10:10ff). She has criticized you . . . for wanting "temporal religious privileges," and now she is going to parishes near her, misrepresenting herself and trying to get them to allow her to have a tabernacle and reserved Eucharist when she knows she doesn't have the right to this. What should I do?]]

Difficult questions given the context. Thanks for the links. I understand why this is so bothersome to you. To whatever extent your description is accurate, the situation would bother me as well -- though I believe it is a definite positive for the person to be seeking regular access to the sacraments and to some limited participation in a parish community. That's really gratifying and important to the life of the Church as well as to that of the individual. Yes, you are correct in your understanding of the various points you mentioned. What should you do? My first suggestion is always to go to the person directly and speak to them about your concerns and how the matter strikes you. In this case, I suppose that means you would contact her via her videos or her email address if you have access to that.  My hope would be that this would be enough: 1) to give you a clearer picture of the situation and 2) to get the person to cease calling herself a Catholic Hermit (or Consecrated Hermit, or Consecrated Religious, etc.) if she is actually doing that again. However, because this hermit told the secretary she had asked the bishop for permission to have a tabernacle and he failed to respond, I suspect (and hope) the parish will simply leave it in his hands. For this reason, I don't think you need to worry much about the situation. 

I suppose it is also possible that, simply because the person claims to be in touch with the bishop, the parish staff might seek to verify whether or not she really is a c 603 hermit (a solitary Catholic Hermit) and confirm her identity as well as her right to have a tabernacle and reserved Eucharist in her residence. That permission only comes from the local ordinary and is only granted to those in the consecrated or ordained states. Ironically, they might do this precisely because she apparently has a relationship with the bishop, and they are doing their own due diligence for her sake and the sake of her supposed vocation; they may be excited to have a Consecrated Hermit in the parish community. Personally, I suspect it is more likely than not that the parish staff will conclude she should be offered ordinary parish resources to assist her in receiving the Eucharist and other sacraments. Again, I don't think you need to worry about the situation at this point.

Can a Person Simply Claim to be a Consecrated Hermit?

Because a lot of this is not commonly known, remember also that simply claiming to be a Consecrated Hermit won't be sufficient in the kind of circumstances you describe. The Church supplies a variety of documents verifying (and celebrating) one's vocational standing in law. There will be an affidavit of profession and consecration signed by diocesan representatives, including the professing bishop and the diocesan notary. The diocese gives it to a canonical hermit on the day of her consecration. The chancery will also keep a copy in the hermit's file (there will always be a file with all pertinent documentation, even when specific chancery personnel don't personally know the hermit)! If a hermit has been given permission to have a tabernacle with reserved Eucharist, both the hermit and the diocese can confirm that for the parish. Ordinarily, this arrangement (which can include where the Eucharist for the tabernacle will be obtained, and how often Mass will be said in the hermitage when this is possible) will be included in the hermit's Rule of Life. That Rule will also have been given a "Bishop's Decree of Approval" at the same time the affidavit of consecration is supplied. 

If a person claims to have been consecrated in another diocese, the new diocese will have communicated with them and gotten all of the pertinent paperwork before allowing the person to live as a consecrated hermit in this diocese. Both the bishop from the former (professing) diocese and from the new (receiving) diocese need to be sure the hermit is living c. 603 and is in good standing before accepting her as a diocesan hermit in the new diocese. With all of that in mind, it should be clear that the Church takes such matters seriously and will not look favorably on the kind of disingenuousness you have described -- even more importantly, though, they will deal with the situation pastorally, of course. You can take further steps if you truly believe they are necessary and helpful, but again, after your anger abates, your first step is to go to or otherwise reach out to the person and discuss the matter with her directly.

__________________________________________________

Notes regarding the date and place of profession and consecration will also be sent to the person's home parish (i.e., wherever they were baptized or fully received into the Church). These notes are included in the Sacramental register where the person's Sacraments of Initiation are recorded, and will also be sent along with the record of significant events in the person's faith life: marriage, annulment, temporary professions, dispensations, baptism, first Eucharist, and confirmation) --- notes on all of these are included.

A Contemplative Moment: A Church Journeying Through Human History

from Leo XIV's First encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas

18. . . .we [must] first clarify some fundamental principles concerning the way the Church exists in history and relates to the world. Failing to do so would expose social doctrine to the risk of being perceived as an undue interference in "worldly" matters or as an external code of ethics imposed from above.  In reality, it stems from a Church that walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this very reason that she strives to serve the common good.

 

19. The Church is present in the world as a sign of unity for the entire human family. She recognizes today’s questions and challenges as the current setting in which to carry out her particular vocation of listening, dialogue and service, and of being responsive to everything concerning the lives of contemporary men and women. This involvement in people’s lives helps the Church understand ever more clearly that her mission has a historical scope and entails a responsibility for the way in which social relations are built. For this reason, she cannot consider herself a stranger to the forces shaping society. On the contrary, the Church actively participates in the processes by which society grows and is organized, and she offers her own contribution to the creation of a more just and fraternal society. Pope Francis emphasized this historical dimension of the Church’s mission: “No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society.” [Emphasis added]

*****************************************

This is part of the chapter that the group reading Pope Leo's encyclical is discussing next week. I was very happy to see Leo address this problem since it is a common criticism put forth by those who do not understand either the incarnational and historical nature of the Church (which is NOT the Kingdom of God) or the role of the Pope in leading the Church. I should point out that as a canonical hermit, I take this encyclical seriously as a call both to being myself and to describing something of how the Church understands we are to live our eremitical lives in our contemporary world. 

I realize some hermits speak or post extensively on embracing the "spiritual life" and leaving the "temporal world", including the "temporal Church", entirely behind them. (I'm never clear how that is supposed to happen when we each are spatio-temporal, i.e., historical (incarnational) beings through and through! At the same time, we are made and hunger for more than this! The paradoxical truth of Christianity is that the Spirit of God breathed within us, fits us for being profoundly in and of the world (cosmos) of God's good creation without also being of the world that distorts and destroys that good creation. Some also criticize Pope Leo XIV as being too political, and others, like President Trump, similarly demand that he "stay in his own lane." 

After all, at the heart of our faith is the Incarnation and a God who willed to be Emmanuel, "God with us," in everything, including the depths of sin and death, and so, in the very midst of human history and beyond. Jesus was as profoundly spiritual as we can imagine a person being; he was also as profoundly historical and committed to the world (cosmos) of space and time that God had created and called "good." What Leo describes in the passage above is the vocation of every Christian, including hermits. We embrace this historical and incarnational "ecclesiality" in a unique solidarity with the human family. We do so in the silence of solitude and in stricter separation from "the world" constituted by the distorted values, projects, and goals that distort God's good creation in so many ways. 

The way hermits embody this vocation to be part of God's good creation in our hiddenness will look different from the way many, especially many younger and able-bodied people or those in active (Apostolic) ministry, embody it. It is still a vocation we share and commit to living out carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully, precisely because it is lived out with and within the larger world (cosmos) Pope Leo calls "our common home". 

Canonical Hermits, Non-Canonical Hermits, and Humility (Reprise from 2022)

In light of an experience I had with recent questions, I wanted to put up something I wrote several years ago. For me, this piece is part of the foundational truth I hold whenever I discuss non-canonical and canonical hermit vocations. 

[[Dear Sister, do some hermits choose not to become canonical because of their humility? I have read one hermit who chose not to do so because she wished to remain "small" and another because she wished to remain "hidden". Is there an advantage in making such a choice for these reasons?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me define humility as I understand it and then try to answer your question about smallness from that perspective. Humility is a form of honesty, specifically, a form of loving honesty (both elements are critical here) about who one is (and who others are) in light of the way God sees us. We are humble when and to the extent we regard ourselves (or others) in the same way God regards us, neither disparaging ourselves (or others) nor engaging in self-aggrandizement. I have written here before about this and especially on the distinction between something that is truly humbling and something which is instead humiliating. Too often in various threads of spirituality, the verb associated with humility has been mistakenly construed as 'humiliate'! But God does not humiliate --- ever! God's love humbles us. It reveals our true dignity. It raises us to the ability to see clearly and lovingly just who we and others are in light of God's own deep regard for and delight in us.

There can be many sources of the notion that canonical vocations are about pride or a lack of humility. Consider, however, that if God calls some to be diocesan hermits under c 603, it is also the case that acceptance of such a vocation might well be a wonderfully humbling experience. Surely it could be argued that God would intend any vocation to be a humbling (or humble-making) experience rooted in God's love for that person and those to whom they are called to minister in this specific way.  No? My own sense is that we tend to associate pride or arrogance with canonical standing because we often neglect to ask ourselves whether or not God calls anyone at all in this way. If a way of life represents a form of divine call, why should we assume that those who seek this specific form of life lack humility or that the way of life lacks sufficient "smallness" where another form of the vocation (non-canonical eremitical life, for instance) does not?

I participated in a couple of conversations this last couple of weeks on a list on "Hermit Vocations" --- a list apparently made up largely (but not exclusively) of self-designated hermits in the lay state. I was saddened to find the degree of judgment I did, which is present regarding diocesan (c 603) hermits and the arrogance or pride they were thought to reveal simply in having sought (and been granted!) canonical standing. One opinion was that for those seeking standing in law under c 603, it "was all about show" and concern with externals. It is seriously harmful to any form of eremitical life to paint them with such a cynically broad brush, and I was surprised to find this response to be so immediate and, in some ways, pervasive. But to be misunderstood is nothing new with eremitical vocations, and I think the question of God's call is critical here: If canonical standing is something God wills for at least some hermits, then how can we automatically conclude that canonical standing and all it brings is something only the arrogant or prideful embrace? (By the way, please note that when folks criticize canonical hermits, they tend only to criticize solitary canonical (or diocesan) hermits, not those living eremitical life in canonical communities. I wonder why that is?)

I am not certain what you are asking when you speak of advantages in making decisions in terms of "smallness", for instance, but I believe one's personal discernment can certainly benefit from being concerned with one's own personal and spiritual strengths and weaknesses and how the grace of God is working in the Church, and one's own life to make the very best of these. If this means realizing that one sees diocesan eremitical life as lacking in "smallness" or "hiddenness", then it can certainly be of benefit to work through all of this with one's spiritual director. Similarly, if one is looking for a "higher" form of eremitical life, perhaps one needs to spend some time working through this aim and all that motivates it. At the same time, if one is unable to see the real value in lay (non-canonical) eremitical life, the dignity and worth of such life, then one needs to work through whatever it is that causes one to see this form of eremitical life in this way. Whenever we get into competitive ways of seeing that accent "better", "superior" or "lower", "meaner", etc., it is time to take real care regarding what is going on in our own hearts.

That said, it is important to also ask if there are ways each form of eremitical life challenges the other to greater authenticity. For instance, canonical standing calls hermits to understand that the eremitical vocation belongs to God and the Church, not to the individual. It calls hermits to find ways to embrace, live, and express the truth that eremitical life serves others from within the Church --- whether or not the vocation is technically an "ecclesial" vocation or not. Canonical standing emphasizes the place of mutual discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, and the necessity for regular spiritual direction and participation in the sacramental life of the church. It does not allow one to substitute license for genuine freedom. It stresses the need for a Rule, a vision of how one is to live the life, and a commitment that binds in conscience as well as in law. It affirms what is foundational and what is not in terms of the Church's understanding of the vocation. Lay (non-canonical) eremitical life reminds hermits of the roots of eremitical vocations in the life of the Church, the profound prophetic character of hermit vocations as typified by the Desert Abbas and Ammas --- and others throughout the history of the Western church. These two forms of solitary eremitical existence should be in conversation with one another, NOT in competition.

 There are temptations associated with each form of eremitical life. For instance, it is true that canonical standing can lead to the temptation to consider canonical hermits as "better" hermits than non-canonical hermits. This particular temptation needs to be assiduously eschewed, and that may require one learning to see oneself merely as called to one valid form of eremitical life rather than another equally valid form. If one has a problem with pride, for example, then perhaps that is a good reason for one's diocese to require one to live as a hermit without the benefit of canonical standing until one appreciates the way God works in and through lay or non-canonical hermits. Even so, the conversations I have recently had remind me that non-canonical hermits can easily fall into the same trap -- that is, they can easily believe they are "better" hermits than canonical hermits because, for instance, they are more like the Desert Abbas and Ammas who did not have (and of course could not have had!!) canonical standing (institutional standing and support in law), or are (supposedly)  "smaller," or "more humble," or more "hidden."

But to get back to your questions and what I began this post with, namely, an understanding of humility, in all of this we need to recognize that real humility does not engage in such a competitive way of characterization and discourse. Real humility recognizes that both canonical and non-canonical eremitical life can be rooted in the call of God;  though they differ in their relative canonical rights and obligations, both have all the dignity and importance of true vocations of God, and both can reveal the tremendous diversity and freedom of eremitical life. It seems to me that one could discern a vocation to hiddenness and to public vows/canonical standing. One has to be certain of one's own motives and discernment, but there is no reason to necessarily conclude that God cannot call one to smallness, hiddenness, AND to canonical standing. He has done this and continues to do so.

Discussions on Magnifica Humanitas with St Perpetua Catholic Community

I am including the notice for a discussion group beginning this week at St. Perpetua Catholic Community. Our Scripture Study class decided to take a break to spend time with Pope Leo's first Encyclical. Since we will meet via Zoom, we can accommodate people who might want to join the class even if they don't live near Stillsong Hermitage. (I am not sure of the number we can accommodate here from outside the parish, but numbers permitting, you are more than welcome. Please contact me if you are interested.)

Focus of Magnifica Humanitas

[[What does it mean to remain human? To say we have a duty to do that? In what ways does our world tend to dehumanize us? Why, in this technological world, are such questions so urgent? These are Pope Leo's concerns in Magnifica Humanitas (The Grandeur of Humanity). It is a pivotal and timely encyclical pitting a culture of power against what Leo calls a civilization of love. At the center of this battle, we find AI, robotics, digital technology, etc. --- new and unprecedented forms of power that can be used for enhancing human life or for destroying it. We have a duty to remain human. Leo's encyclical examines the potential threats posed by these new forms of power and turns to Scripture and Catholic social teaching to help us reflect on how we do that.

Please join us on ZOOM from 22 October through 03 December (no meeting on Thanksgiving) to discuss this encyclical! Meetings will be held from 10:00-11:30 am and will be recorded for those who wish to participate but cannot make this time. If you are interested or would like more information (ZOOM links, materials, etc.), please contact Sister Laurel O'Neal, Er Dio at: SRLAUREL@aol.com.]]

Text being used: Magnifica Humanitas, Humanity in its Grandeur, Foreword by Arthur C Brooks. Ascension Press. Afterword Fr Mike Schmitz.  Available on Amazon or at ascensionpress.com (1-800-376-0520) (If you have another version of the encyclical, that's fine. The Ascension Press version has some reflection questions we will use and a handy glossary. I can send those to folks who are using a different text.)

Hidden and Public, the Eremitical Paradox under Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, in what way is your vocation a public one? Is it only your Bishop's role in professing and consecrating you that is public, or does this miss something? Does hiddenness conflict with the public nature of the vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions. It's been a while since I was asked similar questions. Let me start with basic vocabulary. The term "public" can be used to refer to a kind of notoriety, a presence out in public, which contrasts with privacy. When we speak of hermits living a public vocation, this is NOT what we mean. The second way of using the term "public" refers to the assumption of public rights and obligations. Here we are speaking of what is binding in law through legal (canonical) commitments. Because these two senses are so different from one another, it should be noted that a hermit having a public vocation can ALSO live in significant physical hiddenness and privacy. That's not a problem; it is required by c. 603, so the two certainly need not conflict.

My own vocation is a public one in terms of its public rights and obligations. This means that the Church commissions me to live this vocation in a way that contributes explicitly to the life of the Church. The People of God have the right to hold certain expectations of me regarding the way I live out my vows, my Rule, the living eremitical tradition, and my relationship with God in Christ. My commitment is a public one in this sense. As a reminder, let me note again that eremitical life entails significant privacy, and whether private or public, all forms of the eremitical life are valuable. While we cannot say either is better than the other, for instance, we also need to recognize that they differ in meaningful ways. 

If someone is a non-canonical or lay hermit, they are living a private vocation. If they have vows (not all do), those vows will be private. These hermits, despite the undoubted seriousness of their commitments, are not bound in law to live as hermits. This is why we call such vocations "non-canonical". It is the lack of a legal, public commitment that means the People of God do not necessarily have a right to hold certain expectations of them regarding the way they live out their vows, their rule of life (if they have one), the living eremitical tradition, and their relationship with God in Christ. Again, their eremitical commitment is a private one, not a public one. One privately vowed hermit says it this way: [[I don't tell people that I am a hermit; they don't need to know . . ..]] Their lives may entail a good deal of privacy, or they may (are free to) spend hours a day creating videos of themselves and opening the intimate details of their lives to the entire online world. Whether marked by privacy or by intimate sharing, the commitment itself is still a private one, and no one has a right to expect either more or less from them than the significant canonical obligations that already apply by virtue of their baptism and their public (i.e., lay) state of life.

So, my Bishop's vocation is a public one in the sense provided here re rights and obligations, and so is mine. He is also more public in terms of notoriety and public ministry or presence than I am. We don't speak of c. 603 as a public vocation merely because the Bishop has a public role and vocation and my profession is made in his hands. Again, we speak of the c 603 vocation as public because the one professed and consecrated under this canon assumes new public rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism. (N.B., The Church uses the term profession to speak of this public commitment and its assumption of new rights and obligations; it is a broader act than the "mere" making of vows and initiates one into a new state of life. Making private vows is considered an avowal or a dedication and not a profession for this reason.)

The hiddenness of the eremitical vocation refers primarily to the inner life of prayer, the inner journey with and to union with God that the hermit is committed to making throughout the life of this vocation, 1) in the name of the Church and 2) for the sake of the silent preaching of the Gospel. It requires significant privacy, of course, and stricter separation from the world, but it is not measured as either public or private primarily in terms of these. For this reason, hiddenness does not refer to anonymity, not wearing identifiable garb, etc.  Whether people recognize the hermit by garb or name, or know her because of an online presence, post nominal initials, etc., they will ordinarily be unaware of the nature of her inner life. This is true even when she writes publicly about Scripture, prayer, spirituality, and theology.

We celebrate the profession and consecration of such vocations at Mass and with subsequent receptions, etc., because these are the normal and appropriate avenues for the public ecclesial celebration of life commitments. I may have mentioned that at my eremitical consecration, during the Litany of the Saints, I had the sense that the whole Church, in heaven and on earth, was focused on this small patch of floor and what was occurring here in this single small parish and diocese. This was not mainly about me per se (though vocations work through individuals), but about this vocation and the Divine gift it (and all eremitical life) is to the Western Church. It was about the Church reclaiming something she had, to some extent, let go of or had trouble accommodating, and that she was meant to be enriched and challenged by, from the days of the desert Abbas and Ammas onward. Yet, even in the midst of such a public celebration of God and the life of the Church, the vocation itself is, and remains, a hidden and provocative one. This is not a matter of contradiction; it is one of paradox.

Conversation between James Martin sj and Bishop Mariann Budde

Lots of good stuff in this conversation but one is Bishop Budde's observation that God always meets her more than halfway. Another is the section on the way our prayer practices change over time. Enjoy.

Pope Leo XIV says Mass at Hospital

Pope Leo says Mass at the hospital. While the world prays for Pope Leo's well-being and the outcome of his surgery and ongoing treatment, Pope Leo celebrates the Eucharist. In a timely way,  our Scripture group is taking a bit of a detour and beginning a study of Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, The Grandeur of Humanity. It's an amazing work underscoring how fortunate the Church is to have Pope Leo at this time in history.  Holding him in prayer!!

Humans as Question, God as Answer: Where Does this Insight Come from?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, the idea that we are a sort of question in search of an answer makes some sense to me. I am intrigued by it. I wondered where you got the idea, though.]]

Good question!! I got the idea from several places. (These are not necessarily presented in the order in which I came to this insight.)

• The first is Paul Tillich's work on what he called "the Method of Correlation". Very simplistically described, Tillich understood the human question to be something articulated by philosophy and the answer to be provided by Theology. More fundamentally, this meant that human beings presented a series of existential questions, while God was the One who constituted both their source and their answer. 
• The second is Augustine's observation that our hearts are restless until they come to rest in [God]. In this insight, Augustine recognizes that we are made for God, and this in turn means that we feel that "made-for quality" as a restlessness to get home to God. In this too, then, God is both the source of and the answer to our yearning. 
• The Christian notion of freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. This is clearly a way of pointing to the fact that we are responses to a call that rescues us from bondage and answers our need for secure being and meaning. Only to the extent that we are such a response do we know what it means to be free. Again, we are made for freedom, and God is both the source of our "made-for" quality and the One who fulfills it in us.
• A similar and supporting insight derives from the German notion of what is necessary to ask a question: One must know enough to be able to ask a question, and at the same time, one must lack knowledge in a way that makes the question necessary. 
• This insight is linked in my mind with the notion of being "made-for", and so, with the sense we yearn so for God because we both know (and are known by) God and are somehow estranged from God (our knowing as well as our being known is partial and incomplete, or perhaps damaged and distorted, etc). Knowing God and also needing God because, in some senses, we lack God, causes us to yearn for God.
• A central source of this insight stems from my experience of prayer, where I am always a seeker, always a listener called to be open to allowing God's work within me and my life; God is the one who inspires and answers prayer with himself. Two critical insights here have to do with the Lord's Prayer and the work done on it by Gerhard Ebeling and so many others. 
• First, in the Lord's Prayer, we need to notice that every line except the opening invocation (where we call upon God by name in a way that requires permission and must be revealed to us) is a petition. In the prayer's two sections of petitions, we first concern ourselves with God and the things of God, and second with the things or needs of humanity that follow when we put God first. (This, in prayer form, is an elaboration of the admonition, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you.") At the same time, each line represents a petition in which we open ourselves to what only God can supply. 
• The Lord's Prayer, then, is a paradigm of what it means to pray. Scripture contains two different versions of the prayer (Matt and Luke), so we cannot conclude it was primarily given as something to simply recite verbatim, nor that it represented the ipsissima verba of Jesus. In other words, the LP is a model of the nature and priorities of prayer. It sees prayer as a matter of opening ourselves existentially to the response God is and achieves within us. It teaches us to be or pose the "question" God "answers" or completes.
• Also, when Ebeling reflected on the invocation, he observed that in coming to learn to say Abba, Father, rightly, the entire prayer has been prayed and answered because God has empowered this invocation and comes to us in the process. To call upon God as Abba (a name, not a description) is to respond to a revelation. God himself is the answer to ALL sincere prayer. 
• These insights pointed me back to the human person as the one who lacks, calls for what they lack and need, and, in praying sincerely, finds that God wills to be Emmanuel (and wills us to be the human form or counterpart of that as well). In this way, God is the source of that prayer, and so too, the answer that completes us.
• A specific form of needing, seeking, and finding --- a way of posing the existential question and learning to receive the answer that is God and all God brings --- is the juxtaposition of doubt and faith.  In this way of seeking, faith and doubt belong together, and doubt calls for faith in a particularly neuralgic and powerful way.
• Another point came from the philosophy and theology of Language Events, and especially the idea that human beings are language events. What this means (in part) is that we are created by the words spoken to us and by the responses they empower us to become. We are, most truly or essentially, responses!! At one point, I came to see that it was possible for a person to be a "cry of anguish" or, at another time, "A Magnificat of triumph or joy". It was not a large step to consider persons yearning for God as "questions" (or "petitions") seeking the single completing answer who would be Emmanuel.
• A final point that leads me to this whole idea is the sense that human beings are made for relationship. Relationship is a constitutive dimension of the living God-as-Trinity, and in Catholic Theology, it is a constitutive dimension of being human and imago Dei as well. Hermits, for instance, know very well how critical relationships are to human beings being truly human because they know the difference between isolation and solitude! Because they are people of prayer, they know how we yearn to love and be loved, and they know that Love Itself calls us to completion both from within us and from without. Most fundamentally, we are relationship. 

In any case, these are the main ways I came to the sense that human beings are questions and God is the completing and originating answer (the Creator and Redeemer who reconciles all things to himself) --- at least off the top of my head!!! (I am probably forgetting a really central one, of course!!)

And What of Those Who Cannot Withdraw as C 603 Requires?

 [[Hi Sister, I wondered what you suggest for those who cannot withdraw as hermits do? Can they live desert vocations?]]

Though sitting in my inbox for some time, this is a timely question because I heard from someone this week who struggles with it himself, and I am still reflecting on our conversations. There is a piece of wisdom from the Desert Abbas and Ammas that is instructive here. It also ties into the posts I have been putting up regarding chronic illness and disability as desert experiences, and sometimes as specifically eremitical (hermit) desert experiences.  John Chryssavgis says it this way in In the Heart of the Desert. He is explaining that the desert is as much a way as it is an actual place:

It is clear in the understanding of these elders that one does not have to move to the geographical location of the wilderness to find God. Yet if you do not have to go to the desert, you do have to go through the desert. The Desert Fathers and Mothers always speak from their experience of the desert, even if they do not come out of that desert. The desert is a necessary stage on the spiritual journey. To avoid it would be harmful. To dress it up or conceal it may be tempting: but it also proves destructive on the spiritual path. . . .If we go through this experience involuntarily, then it can be both overwhelming and crushing. If, however we accept to undergo this [desert] experience voluntarily, then it can prove both constructive and liberating. p. 36

One point of my posts on chronic illness and disability as vocational paths is to stress that these are truly desert experiences where one meets one's true self and the true God. This is the case whether the person can ever withdraw in the way hermits do. The core of anachoresis, or withdrawal from the world, is not necessarily the physical withdrawal into a literal desert, but withdrawal from the values which distort us and make encounters with, and commitment to, the true God and true self impossible. The opposite of withdrawal from the world is not engagement with others (which authentic hermits do not necessarily give up), but falling into idolatry!! This was true with Israel, and it was true of Jesus' time in the desert. It was equally true of the Desert Abbas and Ammas. As Chryssavgis also notes:

 Living in the desert does not mean living without people; it means living for God. Antony and the other desert dwellers never forgot this. They never sought to cut off their connections to other people instantly. They sought rather to refine these relationships increasingly. Of course, the desert was, on a deeper level, always more than simply a place. It was a way. And it was not the desert [as place] that made the Desert Fathers and Mothers, any more than it was the lion that made the martyrs. (Ibid, p35, while quoting B Ward, The wisdom of the Desert Fathers)

For those who cannot find a way to physically withdraw in significant ways, as, for instance, c 603 requires, their very inability becomes one of those limitations that represent a desert experience. Some of us with chronic illness and/or disabilities either could not enter religious communities or could not stay, despite our (accurate) sense of having a religious vocation. Today, some of those with apparent calls to eremitical life must work and remain involved in active ministry in ways that prevent them from becoming consecrated hermits. Both groups of people have been asked to accept these limitations as desert experiences that lead them to embrace both their true selves and the true God. In this way, both groups of people are called to live out the very heart of the Desert Way, whether by physically withdrawing or not. Neither is better than the other. As one saying of the Desert Abbas and Ammas reminds us:

It was revealed to Abba Antony in his desert [place] that there was someone who was his equal in the city. He was a doctor by profession. Whatever he had beyond his needs, he could give to the poor; and every day he sang hymns with the angels. (Antony, 24)

By the way, when I write here about authentic and inauthentic hermits, I hope it is clear that it is those who live out the Desert Way wherever that occurs, that instruct us on authenticity. Some who call themselves hermits, shutting themselves off from others out of self-righteousness or misanthropy, or a mistaken notion of what stricter separation from the world means and entails, etc., create idols of certain forms of withdrawal and inadequate notions of eremitical solitude. (Remember that solitude (and the silence of solitude) may certainly mean or imply physical aloneness, but in deeper or more foundational ways, it also means wholeness and personal integration!! This latter meaning is particularly clear in the stories of Jesus' temptations in the desert.) As John Chryssavgis also writes:

The physical setting of the desert is a symbol, a powerful reminder of a spiritual space that is within us all. In the United States, the grand desert of Arizona can assist us in recalling that inner space where we yearn for God. In Australia, the frightening outback can also guide us in our search for that heavenly "dreamtime." In Egypt, the sandy dunes of the desert resembled the unending search of these abbas and ammas for "abundant life" (John 10:10) and "a living spring of water" (John 4:14).