Reflections on Consecrated Celibacy, the Importance of Friendship, and the Relationship between Pope John Paul II and Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I have a question that may not be something you want to deal with. It's about Pope Saint John Paul II and the relationship he had with a Polish woman over about 32 years. I understand this was mainly a relationship via correspondence, and they never were involved physically or sexually with one another, but there was a very real intimacy. My question is, where does this put John Paul II in terms of his commitment to celibacy? Wouldn't this be a violation, or even an act of adultery?]]

Thanks for your questions. First, I think this topic is something I could respond to on the basis of my own life as a professed religious and my commitment to consecrated celibacy. Where I cannot respond is on the nature of the relationship between JPII and the woman correspondent. While I have read a couple of articles on these letters, I don't know what they actually contain, or the degree and kind of intimacy they involve. I believe only one side of the correspondence has been made public, or at least "known" in any case. Beyond that, I don't know enough about Anna-Teresa's life to speak about the propriety of these letters or the prudence of continuing the correspondence. She was married, but I don't know the quality or nature of her relationship with her husband, nor do I have any idea how her relationship with JPII affected this relationship or the ability of either husband or wife to live their vows. What I can speak to, however, is the propriety of intimate, loving friendships between religious who are vowed to chastity in celibacy and those of another gender.

Remember that vows of chastity in celibacy are not merely or even primarily about not participating in genital activity and not having sexual relations with others. They are about learning to love in the fullness of one's manliness or womanliness, though without genital expression or (strictly) sexual activity. God, of course, is primary in this kind of learning, but healthy, loving relationships with both men and women are important as well. Chastity in celibacy fosters a kind of availability to others, and to grow in one's humanity, a humanity which is either manly or womanly, one really does need to be in relationship with those of the opposite sex. Yes, they need to be truly chaste relationships (as is true for anyone, no matter their state of life), but they will always be touched by the participants' fundamental womanliness or manliness. Sexuality is that profound and pervasive a reality. Whatever we do in the spirit of this human reality will be an expression and reflection of our fundamental womanliness or manliness. That includes a chaste and celibate life.

The possibility of genuinely manly and womanly lives that are capable of loving one another profoundly without falling into lust or moving to genital activity is something Christianity recognizes throughout its history. We have many examples of religious men and women in relationships of intimate friendship. Two of the most famous are St Francis de Sales and St Jane de Chantal, and St Francis of Assisi and St Clare. St Aelred of Rievaulx wrote once about the nature of such profound relationships when he said, "You and I are here, and I hope that Christ is between us as a third." That pretty well captures the nature of relationships known as "anamcara" (soul friends) with roots in both Celtic and Desert Abba and Amma traditions. The New Testament speaks of friendship with God, or of the beloved disciple who rests his head upon Christ's breast, and the fact that that disciple is unnamed allows and even calls each of us to imagine ourselves in precisely that kind of profound friendship. (The Gospel of the day is about this call to profound friendship!) It is intimate, and sexual (manly or womanly) without being genital or leading there. Meanwhile, Jesus' most loving friends and followers included women who bathed his feet in their tears out of love and grief, or sat at his feet just listening when that position was traditionally appropriate for male disciples only. We are happy to "spiritualize" these relationships (where "spiritualize" really seems to mean to be made physically and emotionally risk-free), but look again at how they truly reveal a profoundly embodied love and deep friendship! Both spirituality and sexuality imply embodiedness.

As human beings, we are created by the choices we make. Even more, we are made truly human by the choices we make to love one another intimately, authentically, and in Christ -- or, by those choices we make refusing to love in this way. Every one of us is morally bound to love chastely, whether we are married, single, consecrated, or ordained. But the emphasis in that sentence is LOVE, not chastely, because all authentic love will be chaste. Some of us embrace chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God, and that Kingdom is where God is sovereign and authentic love is modelled in this state by those given first of all to God. Our consecrated celibacy is embraced to allow both profound love of God and our neighbors; it is embraced to make that love more widely accessible in our world through its public nature and ministry. Nothing in any of this suggests that celibate love, rooted in God and the deep womanliness or manliness of those professed in this way, cannot exist between males and females like Pope Saint John Paul II and Anna Teresa Tiemieniecka.  Just the opposite, in fact. Such relationships can lead those sharing in them to an ever-deepening relationship with God and greater compassion for others. Hence, Rievaulx's famous quotation above from his work, Spiritual Friendship.

There is no circumstance related to a commitment to celibacy that makes such a relationship necessarily a transgression of one's vows or commitments. In fact, those of us bound by such public vows often have known profound heterosexual and non-genital relationships with other religious, priests, and non-religious. Sometimes these are some of the most fruitful and growth-producing relationships we have known. I am able to say that some of my best friendships have been with religious Brothers or priests, and some of the deepest sharing has occurred in those relationships. When two people share intellectual and spiritual gifts and interests, as well as values, ministerial or pastoral interests, concerns, and so forth, the relationship can be quite profound and actually lead each other to God in privileged ways. It seems to me that John Paul II and Anna Teresa might well have had just such a relationship.

Yes, there is risk in such relationships; vows might be transgressed, vocations to love truly might be betrayed. But this is not necessarily so because again, the renewed commitment to chastity in celibacy that occurs choice-by-choice and decision-by-decision can also model really profound and compelling instances of authentic friendship that lead the participants to God in a world that needs examples of deep and intimate friendship that not only can and do remain non-genital, but speak compellingly of the love of God. As is well known, friendship today is trivialized, and the sexual (not genital!!) nature of every relationship is neglected or denied so that any deep relationship between man and woman (and often, similar relationships between those of the same sex) becomes suspect. (We also treat genital activity as being as imperative as breathing when that is simply not the case.) I would argue that this specific witness is an especially important reason religious men and women are called to make vows of chastity in celibacy in today's world, and one of the really critical reasons the Church has renewed the vocation of Consecrated Virgins living in the world.

Over time, as (hopefully) more of these letters are made available for reflection and analysis, it will be somewhat easier to say whether the relationship was ill-advised or another of those relationships mentioned above that will one day stand as a model of the relationship between authentic Anamcara (alternate spellings, Anam Chara or Anam Cara). Currently, there have been several reassurances that JPII did not transgress his commitment to celibacy, the primacy of his relationship with God, or his responsibility to the Church, and there are quotes from Anna-Teresa that seem to indicate the same, despite a real personal struggle with the emotional dimensions of the relationship. I have read no comments on the nature of Tymieniecka's marriage over the years, and it seems to me that this is where the greatest risk actually existed.  To truly understand the prudence or imprudence of the (continuing) relationship with JPII, it would be important to consider any information about how the JPII-ATT relationship affected Anna-Teresa's husband and their marriage. However, because the relationship with JPII was not hidden, and Anna-Teresa's marriage was sustained in any case, perhaps she was able to love her husband as fully as her vows called for. In that case, both he and she are remarkable people, as was Pope John Paul II.

For this reason as well, I cannot and so, will not, suggest adultery occurred. I cannot suggest, much less know, that lust was a problem for either party. (Physical attraction and intense emotionality need not become a matter of lust or adultery in one's heart, though of course they may do so. My hope is that the above picture of  SS. Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II demonstrate this in what seems to be a very natural and chaste expression of both masculine protectiveness and affection on JPII's part, and joyful receptivity and love on Mother Teresa's.) In any case, I will continue reading about the situation and post updates as there is reason to do so. Meanwhile, thanks again for your questions.

We Are Pioneers! The Goal and Witness of Eremitic Life (Reprise)

I have always been a fan of Star Trek and its spin-off series. Some I have liked more than others, but all of them have engaged me on some level. I am finding Strange New Worlds especially wonderful, not only because of the exploration being done in each episode, but because of the rich characterizations, the struggle each player has to be their best selves, and the ethics of equality and compassion that permeate the show. In all of these aspects, Star Trek generally, and in Strange New Worlds specifically, I am reminded of a world we have the potential to be as part of a universe we can hardly imagine yet.

As a hermit, I don't imagine I will ever explore outer space! But I, and other diocesan hermits, are excited by the prospect of exploring inner space, the realm of life with God, and of life lived on the frontiers of eremitical life with our canonical privileges and commitments. More, we do this as part of our ministry to and within the Church, precisely so the Church can be alive in the way she is called to be. This is also essential to the health and well-being of the world around us, and integral to God's own will for the whole of his creation. We are pioneers of sorts, and we struggle in the ways all pioneers struggle, first to live our lives with an integrity that is true to the solitary eremitical tradition we represent, and secondly, to be open to whatever new the Holy Spirit wills to do in and with our lives. That makes our lives a strange mixture of old and new, inner and externalized, traditional and novel, profoundly personal and expansively cosmic, all at the same time. Like many who have gone before me, and numbers of others journeying in the same way today, I think this is what it means to be a contemplative and to live as a hermit in the present moment!! 

It is also what it means (for anyone) to live in and from the Risen Christ, who abides at once in heaven and on earth. He is the one in whom the interpenetration of these realities is made real. In all of the Scripture I have done in the past years, two themes are newly important for my understanding of the nature of eremitical life and the journey I have been called to make. The first is the affirmation that God is the One who, from the beginning, has willed to be Emmanuel, an image of God that affirms his desire to be with me (and the whole of his creation) in every moment and mood of my life. Emmanuel is the name in which heaven and earth are drawn together to make the whole of God's dwelling place. The second theme that affirms this same will of God is that Jesus is the new Temple. A temple is not merely a holy place set apart for God or for worship of God. It is the place in which heaven (God's realm) and earth (creation's realm) are quite literally drawn together. Jesus as the new Temple becomes the One in whom heaven and earth interpenetrate one another, and the renewed world becomes God's own once again. 

Into this incredibly weighty story I have been born and born anew, and what I also know myself, now for the very first time, is that both I and this solitary eremitical vocation were made for times like these. (E E Cummings would shout with delight: "and books are shuter than books can be")! It is something of a truism to say that eremitic life tends to reappear or flourish during difficult times. But here we are, and here I am -- just 42 years into the life of the canon 603 vocation -- and our world faces crises on every front. The US is facing a Constitutional crisis and the endangering of our democratic society on numerous fronts; our people need to be able to hold onto hope, and religious freedom needs to be protected, especially from "Christian Nationalism" and the assault on religious freedom that ideology represents.  At the same time, the Catholic Church has just lost Pope Francis, one of our strongest voices for human rights, social justice, the threat to our environment, as well as to the place of a synodal Church in establishing and maintaining a just and compassionate Church and world. We look to the election of a new Pope and the renewal of the Church's mission, especially in the face of growing fascism, oligarchies, "Christian" Nationalism, and factionalization throughout the Church and the World.

I have written on this blog for almost twenty years about the task to become the person God calls each of us to be. A vocational path is the means by which we achieve this task and goal. An ecclesial vocation also means being part of those directly responsible for assisting the Church to be the Church God calls her to be. As a part of this task and goal, I have worked with a highly skilled spiritual director during this entire time, and together we have explored the ins and outs of my own journey to growth, healing, and union with God. It has been surprising, at times gratifying, at others exhilarating, and at other times (though especially the past nine years with this particular inner work) extremely difficult. In the main, just as it is for every hermit, it has been a journey of love --- loving, being loved, learning to be loved, and learning to trust and love more fully in return. This has meant exploring the depths of myself, learning what it means to be true and, through the love and mercy of God and others, to be made true and whole.  

In all of this, our relationship with the creator God is so central to our lives, so constitutive of who we are, that we can say we ARE this relationship, and like any relationship, it is both demanding and fulfilling. This is the inner world the hermit explores, commits to allowing being enlarged and deepened even to the limits of her human weakness and the darkness of personal alienation and fragmentation. The desert Abbas and Ammas spoke of doing battle with demons, and the vivid pictures they sometimes painted reflected the awesomeness of this same inner world. It was sometimes terrifying, always challenging, and, so long as one persevered, inevitably exhilarating in the victory of love over personal woundedness and brokenness. This is true of contemporary hermits as well. This victory culminates in union with God and the certain sense that one's life is given to God so that He may be the Emmanuel He wills to be, even as he makes of us those we are called to be, too. 

No, this isn't the final frontier of a Star Trek program. But it is every bit as exciting an adventure, and of much greater moment! At a time when truth is generally neglected and routinely betrayed, when personal truth is sacrificed for the sake of inhuman disvalues like greed and power, when Christianity itself is betrayed by a "prosperity gospel" with no room for the Cross or the authentic grace of God, when individualism replaces the commonality of brothers and sisters in Christ, hermits explore and witness to this deepest of truths, namely, to the extent we are truly human and live this with integrity, we ARE a relationship with God in which we both fulfill the telos of our lives, and participate in the fulfillment of the whole of God's creation. This is the source of all hope in our world, and it is the fundamental thing hermits are called to witness to with their lives. As Strange New Worlds might describe this vocation, Ad astra per aspera: Through difficulties to the stars!!

Recovering Genuine Humility and Rejecting the Idea that we are Nothing to God's All

[[Hi Sister! I listened to a video that argued about the importance of Canon 603, I think [it was intended] to say that [the canon] was not needed. The point being made was that if the canon was not being used by dioceses to correct problems with the vocation, then why even have it? An additional point seemed to be countering some of what you have written on this blog. The video asserted that "hermits don't need to be recognized, and don't need to be respected, and they don't [need] to have a place of honor in the Church". This would [supposedly] be contrary to the very nature of the hermit call. I don't recall your ever having asserted that c 603 was published to "force" the Church to recognize and respect hermits and their vocations! Besides, does real humility imply that the Church should not recognize or respect the person or the vocation? That's not what I have been catechized to believe!!]]

Thanks for writing about this. I think some of it is a bit dated, and I may have responded to similar questions a couple of years ago. At the same time, the real reason c 603 was created, and the nature of genuine humility, are timely issues because misunderstandings still abound. 

First, then, the reason for the canon. As I have explained recently, eremitical life, though a vital and essential vocation within the Church (and always inadequately appreciated by the Western Church from the time of the Desert Abbas and Ammas), had largely died out in the Western Church by modern times. There are several reasons for this. It remained present and vital in the Eastern Church, but it was also linked to monastic life therein. The challenge Bp Remi de Roo set the Church was the recovery of the solitary eremitical vocation (community forms of eremitical life continued in the Church) and its establishment as a "state of perfection" (the term once used for the religious or consecrated state). The reasons he gave were entirely positive and had to do with the witness value of the vocation and the need of both Church and world for these vocations. 

The canon that eventually grew out of Bp Remi de Roo's Vatican II intervention has nothing to do with correcting problems in the eremitical life as lived at the time. It makes a single reference to being under the supervision of the local bishop, but does not speak of problems, difficulties, etc. in living the life, nor does it refer to detailed ways of living its essential elements. Instead, it codifies a flexible approach to the vocation that depends on the hermit's own Rule of life, her own understanding and experience of things like "stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance", and "the silence of solitude", and a local bishop's "supervision" --- though without detailing what constitutes adequate supervision. None of this sounds like something mainly written to deal with problems.

As I have already pointed out, in any case, one does not take those with problems in living a vocation and initiate them into a new state of life with additional rights and obligations, in order to deal with what may seem to be a problematic way of life. Instead, either one corrects the person in ways already open to one, or one simply lets the way of life die out, as was occurring in the Western Church. Real problems with various lay vocations could be dealt with legitimately through one's pastor or bishop, as truly needed. Ways of correcting and censuring lay hermits existed apart from c 603, which was not meant for this in any case. Remember that to call something canonical means it is normative, while non-canonical refers to ways of living, etc., that are not normative. This also means, then, that those living non-normative (non-canonical) ways of living cannot be culpable for violating norms appropriate to canonical vocations they neither have nor have ever committed themselves to!!

On Forcing the Church

Regarding what I am supposed to have said about "forcing the Church" to esteem hermits or their vocation, let me affirm that I believe every vocation and every Christian from every vocation and state of life should be respected, esteemed, and recognized as possessing a dignity rooted in God and a value sealed by the Holy Spirit. I have never used the term forced in this regard, nor would I. Even so, I do believe that the Western Church did fail to appropriately regard the eremitical vocation from the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas onwards. Local Churches (dioceses) created statutes and a variety of liturgical rites for hermits and anchorites in the Middle Ages (ca 1200-1500), but, as I understand it, these vocations were not recognized in law by the Universal Church. It was Bishop Remi de Roo's Vatican II intervention regarding making eremitism a state of perfection because of the various positive points he outlined that allowed the Church to look at this matter with fresh eyes.

I have written about this for some time now because, like you, I was taught that humility was not about self-deprecation, but about honesty, and loving honesty at that! Today, as I explore the nature and significance of ecclesiality in regard to vocations to the consecrated state, I am freshly struck not only by the truth of the human person as imago dei growing into imago Christi, but also by ecclesial vocations that suggest persons serve as imago ecclesiae. The bridal imagery we have used through the centuries has been applied to religious, both male and female, and now to consecrated virgins living in the world in a recovery of a truly ancient vocation. This has been done, not to aggrandize the individuals called in this way, but to remind them that they are icons of the Church  --- and to remind the Church that the last and least among her serve to remind her of her truest nature and dignity. 

Recovering Real Humility and Rejecting the Idea that We are Nothing to God's all:

For a very long time, I thought that the comparison about being nothing to God's all made sense. I thought that without God I was a "walking zero," and tried to outline the truth of the order of grace in this way. And now, (with apologies to Catherine of Siena!) I look back at that and realize that there has never been a time when this comparison applied to my life or my being. From the moment of my conception, God knew me as precious and as someone he yearned to love as fully as possible. God knew me as capable of being fulfilled by this love because God created me to be capable of this, and dwelt within me. The human person is never made to stand as nothing to God's all. Instead, they stand in and with God as the awesome capacity for Love-in-Act, and that is not ever nothing!! Yes, it grows and develops in response to love, but it is still never "nothing". To be this "capacity" is what it means to be made by God at every instant of our lives; it is what it means to be the handiwork of Love-in-act in search of a counterpart, and it is what it means to be an intimate relatedness to God. I think here we are dealing with another paradox that Christian theology is so full of. We are not the everything or the pleroma that God is, nor are we the source and ground of our own lives, but we are the constellations of every yearning and hunger that call out for, and exist in response to the living God so that in Christ, God's will might be embodied in our world, and we might come to fulfillment at the same time.

No matter how I have tried to think about and say this in the past, I have to say this now: we are not empty containers God fills with Godself. That is the image of the human person that the "human as nothing to God's all" equation implies. Instead, we are the (fullness of) capacity or potential for God, for light and love and being and meaning, and we reveal the nature of God even when we think of ourselves as this capacity and nothing more. (I am wondering if perhaps the word "potentiality" is the better word here because it means more than "mere" capacity. Potential and potentiality have a more interactive dynamism and intimacy about them than the word "capacity," I think. Even as sinners, we are the "living impress" or imago of the infinite Mystery that is the source and ground of everything that does and could exist, and while I cannot adequately express what this truth actually means, I know that humility means the recognition that I am the graced and embodied potential for union with the living God, and my vocation means I have been made to be imago ecclesiae. Neither of these forms of imago is about being nothing to God's all. That older comparison seems to me to be entirely too worldly, too static, and too lacking in intimacy and vitality to capture the awesome truth of human being-toward-God. It may also be too-colored by psychological inadequacies or woundedness. (Again, my apologies to Catherine of Siena, who once claimed a private revelation of this notion, and whose Feast Day is today!!)

By the way, human beings (and hermits among them!!) do, quite literally, call for and even need respect, recognition, and a place (of honor) in the Church.  We cannot live fully or with appropriate dignity without them. People die without these. Psychologists speak of a phenomenon called "soul death" concerning the lack of these and similar fundamental needs of the human person. Jesus reminds us that we do not live from bread alone, but from every Word that comes forth from the mouth of God. Those words are words of recognition, respect, and honor. They are words of Love-in-Act. No one should be made to feel apologetic about these foundational needs. They are precisely part of the revelation of the very great dignity of the human person and the great generosity of our God.

By the way, I need to thank you again for your questions. With repetitive questions (and I get these all the time), I often think I shouldn't respond here yet again, but in doing so today, my writing brought me to a very new and unexpected place in this last consideration of the nature and value of the human being vis-à-vis God. I don't know if that would have happened without your questions, so again, thank you very much!!

On Unity and Diversity in the Church's Approach to Eremitic Life

[[Sister Laurel, I heard something about needing to be concerned with unity in the Church in terms of c 603. I am a lay hermit and up 'til now I haven't really felt any urgency to petition my diocese for admission to profession and consecration under c 603. (Frankly, the whole process kind of scares me and I need to screw up my own courage about this, I guess.) Should I be concerned to be sure I am in unity with c 603 since it is now the way to be a hermit in the Catholic Church? Am I somehow dissenting because I am a lay hermit? I sure don't mean to do that or be out of sync with the Church.]]

Thanks for writing. I am not sure where the idea of being dissenting in some way, or not being in sync with the Church because you are not professed under c 603 comes from. Unity in the Church is always a unity in great diversity, and eremitical life is an example of this. There is no single way to live eremitical life in the Church today. There are three or four basic ways: 1) solitary canonical eremitical life, 2) coenobitical life allowing hermits within the community according to particular law, 3) semi-eremitical life (hermit life with other hermits within a canonical community),  and 4) hermit life lived in light of one's baptismal consecration alone. (This is what I would call lay or non-canonical eremitical life. The first three forms are canonical, meaning they are governed and bound by canons beyond those that apply by virtue of baptism alone.)

Within these four basic ways of living eremitical life, individual hermits will evince differences as well. So, as I have written here a number of times, my own eremitic life looks quite different from that of others professed under c 603, even though we each live the fundamental elements of c 603!!! Unity is not uniformity!!! This is a critical lesson in the Catholic Church, and it is similarly true of eremitical life. At the same time, c 603.1 outlines the central essential elements that are normative of the hermit life in the Church. I tend to believe that every hermit, whether non-canonical or canonical, needs to be living these essential elements. What they do not need to be living are the elements associated with legal (canonical) standing in the Church. (Some of these elements can be helpful, of course. Writing a liveable Rule of life can be incredibly formative, and working with a spiritual director regularly is almost essential to living an eremitic life well.

Please don't worry about contacting your diocese. Pray about this, of course. See if you feel called in this direction, and if you do feel this, talk it over with your director and then act on what you sense to be the truth. The process is not scary, though it can take some time, especially if your diocese has never professed or consecrated a c 603 hermit, or has not done so in some time. You merely have to be yourself, be able to speak about what you live and why, and listen carefully to diocesan concerns and questions. If your diocese says they are unwilling to profess you at this point in time, make sure to ask if you can petition again after some years of experience. Often, a person's petition is merely premature, either in terms of her own formation or in terms of the local church's readiness to have diocesan hermits. If the diocese is not ready, see if there is someone in the chancery you may continue to check in with each year, for instance. (The same might be helpful if the diocese finds that you are not yet ready for admission to profession.)

If your diocese simply says no to everything at this time, you are still entirely free to live eremitic life as a baptized Catholic. This vocation is also important to the life of the Church, and in some ways, may speak more vividly to other lay persons looking to live lives of prayer and putting the Gospel at the heart of their lives. Good luck to you. Please don't worry about c 603 or being a "dissenter". Based on what you have said, that doesn't seem to be true at all.

Does God Withhold Consecration in Cases of Insufficient "Purity"?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, have you ever heard the idea that canonical hermits are not necessarily consecrated because God only consecrates one as they becomes more sanctified and purified? I think the person I heard say this is suggesting that some canonical hermits are not consecrated by God despite being consecrated during the liturgy of perpetual profession and consecration.]]

Hmmm, nope, I don't think I have heard that before. Any Catholic knows that God acts through his ministers, and in some instances, through his entire People to consecrate. That includes the consecration of baptism, but also it involves the transubstantiation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. God does the consecrating in these cases, and in cases of Religious consecration as well. However,  this occurs in the latter instances, in the hands of legitimate superiors, and, in the case of diocesan hermits, through the ministry of the local Bishop. In all of these cases, the Church makes as sure as possible, that the person is ready to receive the consecration involved. Yes, of course, the person will be in the state of grace. Still, I have never heard of personal holiness or some kind of "purification" used as a criterion of whether God actually works through the Church's consecration, or whether God withholds himself because someone is not "pure enough".

Consider the problems this could cause if some sort of "lack of purification" made God withhold himself when the Church -- God's Church, the Church God promised that what she held would be held by God and what she loosed, would be loosed by God -- that Church --- consecrated someone prepared for this. Admission to consecration doesn't ordinarily happen carelessly, and so long as the candidate is honest in all of their preparation for this moment, and opens themselves to God's action, God will, of course, act to consecrate the person. And think what this position means when the hermit reaches those times and places in her inner journey that cause her to wonder if she discerned this vocation rightly or was ever consecrated at all!! How does the Church deal with such circumstances if it is true God might withhold himself as described? Remembering that consecration is a source of graces, I think we have to agree that whenever someone submits themselves to God's consecration in good faith, and a licit Rite of profession and consecration is carried out by the Church, God acts effectively to consecrate the person.

Hermits and Anchorites of Britain: A Living Tradition

Father Paul Lester takes on several dimensions of the hermit life, especially regarding the distinction between hermits and anchorites, and the way hermits are called to what every person is called to, but more radically and, perhaps, more vividly. I love the way he points out that hermits live their vocations in the heart of the Church, and often live in the center of  Christian communities. I also love his reference to the paradox of eremitical life's solitude. Father is clear that hermits are not special, though their vocations are rare ones and significant in the life of the Church. He also points out that hermits are signposts for every person who is a seeker. (Thomas Merton would very much agree, I think!) 

I very much appreciate Father's tendencies to speak on the same points I have made here over the years, particularly recent material on the ecclesial nature of the eremitic (or anchoritic) vocations. I suspect that means we have heard similar questions and share similar sensibilities re the eremitic vocation. I can also recommend the books he mentions. Rotha Mary Clay's is very fine and is considered a classic. E.A. Jones' work, Hermits and Anchorites in England 1200-1550, is also excellent and contains some particularly interesting information on hermits that sometimes mirrors how dioceses do things today (not least re the place of the local bishop in the hermit's life); he also has a great chapter on "Renegades, Charismatics, and Charlatans," which suggests this has been a problem throughout the centuries! What is more striking about both of these works is the huge number of hermits referenced and therefore, recorded in Church registers and archives.

Communities using Canon 603 with Local Professions?

[[Sister Laurel, do you know of a community located in a particular place that allows people from other locations to join and become hermits in their own locale? My understanding is that at some point in their formation, those joining this congregation would write their bishops to consecrate them as hermits, presumably under c 603. Is that the way c 603 works? ]]

Hi there. I don't know of any communities matching the characteristics you have outlined, especially when you specify the local "hermit" will then go to their own bishop and seek to be professed and consecrated. No, this is not the way the canon actually works. If a community, or rather, a laura (a gathering or colony of hermits which does not rise to the level of a juridical community) is to be established, it needs to be with those who are already publicly professed. Lauras are established for the support of those who have already been granted canonical standing. Neither are they to be established as houses of formation. (Hermits belonging to the laura may, if capable, serve to mentor persons seeking to be professed and consecrated, but the laura itself is not established as a house of formation.) I am not going to go into the problems of jurisdiction here except to say that it seems to me that this would be complicated if one belongs to a community with superior and statutes in one place, and has one's vow of obedience, etc., in the hands of one's local ordinary.

About twenty years ago, I heard of two such communities that attempted to use c 603 in this way. Those in the first one who signed up went running around in Carthusian habits and sought (or were told to seek) to be professed by their own bishops, so it must have been under c 603, since there is no other canon that might even be considered for such use. I don't know if this specific group still exists, but I believe it might have been a forerunner of the International Federation of Saint Bruno (St Bruno Lay Contemplatives) --- not sure of that, though. I do know that the Carthusians are very protective of those who can wear a Carthusian habit or use the Carthusian name, so if someone was doing those kinds of things with the habit, name, etc, the Carthusians themselves might have come down on the group. Bishops in individual dioceses who understand the history and nature of c 603 are very unlikely to be open to professing such persons under this canon. The second was a group of Camaldolese Oblates who argued to their bishop that it was customary to use c 603 to accomplish final oblature. This was not accurate.

Exploring Some Implications of the Ecclesiality of the Eremitic Vocation

 [[Sister Laurel, I was pondering something you have been writing about. What does it mean to speak of an ecclesial vocation? I understand that every vocation reflects on the Church in some important way, and I bet some do that more clearly than others. But I get the sense you are saying more than that when you use the term "ecclesial". Can you explain it to me? I remember that with your own vocation, you once said that the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit, and that is part of the answer, but why would it be important for a hermit to understand they are committing their lives to an ecclesial vocation? . . .Thank you for persevering in this blog. Do you get a lot of readers? I don't get here very often, and this is the first time I have asked a question, but I always go away thinking about what you write and how little I knew about being a hermit before reading your blog]]

Well, thanks for asking your first series of questions, then!! They are really very good ones and mainly about a dimension of this vocation (as you note), I am exploring currently. What I am mainly discovering, and have been looking at over the past couple of years, is what it means to say this vocation is an ecclesial one, so I may not have a complete answer for you at this point, but I will give it a shot! As you note (see the second half of your questions below), it might be very helpful to look at the way that contrasts with a vocation that is not an ecclesial one. I find that question very intriguing, but also a little tricky to answer without appearing to demean the non-ecclesial vocations -- something I definitely don't want to do. The first part of this answer explains ecclesiality itself. The second part (beginning below with the remainder of your questions) begins to look at the way the ecclesiality of the vocation shapes my life.

A Brief Summary of the Ecclesiality of the Hermit Vocation

 So, what do I mean by calling a vocation ecclesial? Most fundamentally, I mean that such a vocation belongs intimately and integrally to the Church because it reflects something critical and essential about her life in this world. In other words, this vocation reveals something central about the Church without which she would not be Christ's own Church. Ecclesial vocations may share these dimensions with one another, and at the same time, some may reveal one or more of these dimensions with greater clarity or vividness than do other ecclesial vocations. I believe that what congregations identify as their own charisms are these various ecclesial dimensions possessed of a significant vividness, personality, or unique application.** For the hermit, I believe the unique charism of his/her vocation is what c 603 identifies as "the silence of solitude", and which I recognize as context, goal, and gift of the eremitical life.

The canonical hermit, whether a solitary (diocesan) hermit, or a member of a congregation of hermits (some Carmelites, some Camaldolese, and Carthusians, for instance), lives certain elements of a consecrated life with particular vividness. So, for instance, every consecrated person prays, is committed to conversion of life, lives degrees of silence and solitude as well as some separation from that which is resistant to Christ so that encounter with Christ may have priority in their lives, but the hermit, and especially the solitary hermit, will live these elements with a radicality and vividness that is revelatory in calling attention to the hidden core or heart of their lives, namely, the redemptive journey to union with God in and with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. None of the constitutive elements of the eremitical life makes real sense apart from this hidden core or heart. At the heart of eremitical life, then, is a pilgrimage to and with Love-in-Act that is essentially freeing. This hidden journey, driven by and towards encounter with God in Christ, allows the hermit's call to authentic humanity to be realized in space and time. At the same time, it allows God to be Emmanuel, the One God wills to be with us, and has willed to be from before creation. 

The Journey of the Canonical Hermit

The journey the canonical hermit makes into the depths of self, and of Mystery we know as God, is one that the Church commissions her to make in its name. It is meant to allow her to know firsthand and to witness how faithful God is and how unconditional God's love. It goes right to the deepest, darkest depths of her own humanity. On the way, and especially as she moves to and through the apparent limits of her own life into the arms of God in Christ, she will also encounter her own brokenness and fragility, her own hungers, her most profound needs, the desire for being and meaning that colors everything else in her life, and especially, she will journey to the depths of her ultimate need to love and be loved. This most radical cry of her heart (cri-de-coeur) is the ground and reflection of all of these hungers, needs, etc., and drives her pilgrimage to encounter God in the present, God who is both its source and answer or fulfillment. 

In other words, as far as possible, the hermit sets aside everything except the ongoing dialogue with God she is most essentially and profoundly and is called to become exhaustively. In the process of an existential journey, even into the darkest depths of her own humanity, the hermit meets God and a self rooted in and made to image God that, in Him, lives beyond death, beyond despair, beyond all the brokenness, limits, and even the various forms of godlessness that have been part of her life. In short, she meets God as Love-in-Act who has desired her from before creation, welcomes her into his own life, and thus assures her of the truth of the Gospel and the offer of fullness of life that is hers in God. She lives from and for this truth and the God that is its source, ground, and guarantor.

Becoming a Microcosm of the Church and its Gospel

Where this occurs, where one becomes fully oneself in Christ, and where God becomes fully Emmanuel, there is revealed (both made known and made real in space and time) the Self as "intercessory place" where the reconciliation of heaven and earth is achieved. While this happens in a hermit's own life, indeed, in her own heart, what is revealed here is the very nature and goal of the Church itself. The Church points to and participates proleptically in the Kingdom of God. It is NOT the Kingdom of God, but it participates in God's reign, and can reveal it to the World. The hermit's life mirrors this Kingdom and the truth of the Gospel that God will allow nothing whatsoever to separate us from him. (This is, of course, the Good News of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as Paul reflected it in Romans 8, and the Church is called to proclaim in season and out.) In this way, the hermit's life serves the Church and calls it to be the Church it is made to be.

Every Christian's life is meant to reflect this message and become an embodiment of its truth. Each Christian is part of the Body of Christ and called to carry on the Church's mission to proclaim Christ's liberating message of God's sovereignty. Each of us is called to be a microcosm of such a life-giving dynamic realized in space and time in our work, our families, the Church, and so forth.  Hermits and other members of the consecrated state, however, embrace (and are entrusted with) this vocation for the sake of God, God's Church (God's People), and the well-being of the entire cosmos. They will give up families, renounce marriage and children, give up certain kinds of careers, relinquish the use of many discrete talents and gifts, and undertake studies and training that serve this calling, for the sake of the Church's being Christ's own body, or again, his Bride. This, then, is not merely a vocation lived in the Church, but a vocation that is dedicated and essential to the Church being God's very own community of precious "called ones". 

[[Does it [the ecclesiality of your vocation] change the way you approach your daily life? I think I also want to know what it would look like if you were living a vocation that was NOT an ecclesial one. What would that mean? Would it mean you approach living as a hermit differently than you do now?]]

Yes, absolutely. I think it doesn't so much change what I do as why I do it! When I think about the eremitic vocation, I wonder about its importance and why it exists. What is such a life supposed to embody? What message does it give to others and call for from them? What does it matter if I don't live this life with integrity? After all, it doesn't do or produce much, and its actual heart is hidden from others! In answering these questions and a number of others, I recognize that the answers can cut in very different, even antithetical ways. One set of answers leads in the direction of personal failure, isolation, and emptiness; the other leads in the direction of Christian responsibility, abundant life, mission, and meaningfulness. Without a sense that this is an ecclesial vocation***, the answers one gives to the questions noted above can tend to cohere with answers that reflect on a human being's failure to truly be human. But, as an ecclesial vocation, each question is a challenge to both the hermit and those she encounters, to uncover (and even explore) the positive, God-centered, communal, redemptive, and lifegiving answers, rather than the ones that point to brokenness, meaninglessness, lostness, emptiness, and likely signal human failure.

One of the things that changes without the sense that my vocation is an ecclesial one, then, is my ability to pursue eremitical life with the same dedication. Does even God really need me to be a hermit? Why in the world would God need or will that? Can I ever put these questions to rest and journey as deeply into this vocation as I am really called? Unless the Church answers these questions positively, these questions perdure. Unless she recognizes the eremitic life and calls some to ecclesial eremitic vocations, what we meet head-on is not only the possible validation of personal failure, but the increased tendency of a would-be hermit to slide into individualism and selfishness. While hermits do pursue personal holiness in the power of the Holy Spirit, eremitical life in the Church is not primarily about this. This is because personal holiness serves as a witness to something more fundamental. Instead, eremitical life is about God's will to be Emmanuel, growth in compassion, and the desire to be the place where heaven and earth come together for the sake of others --- for the Church, the world, and all that is precious to God. As noted above, eremitical life, above all, models the foundation of what it means to be truly human, namely, to be not just in dialogue with God, but to be a dialogue with God that allows God's will to be sovereign. Without this larger perspective, it becomes very easy to justify whatever one thinks and does in the name of "eremitical" (read individualistic) weirdness. (This is especially evident with regard to solitude in the next point.) Unless one appreciates this larger perspective, one will especially "miss the mark" of achieving genuine holiness, because holiness is about these things.

A third and related thing that changes without the sense of eremitism as an ecclesial vocation is the tendency to struggle with culpability for the disregard and wastefulness of gifts and talents. I am dedicated to this life because it makes sense of all dimensions of my own existence. Not only my talents, but also my limitations and brokenness actually contribute to this vocation and make sense within it. Chronic illness does not take away from my ability to live a life of prayer, nor do the diverse forms of isolation it causes. Instead, this physical isolation becomes a means to explore eremitical solitude and to learn just how radically different it is from personal isolation and unhealthy withdrawal. It allows me to find a deeper relatedness to others in my life, a relatedness that illness cannot affect, except, perhaps, to make me keener in my commitment to it. When a person begins to discover this dimension of their physical solitude, they have begun to truly be a hermit. They have begun to savor the communal nature of eremitical solitude.

At the same time, in this vocation, I let go of certain discrete gifts and talents and discover that in doing so, what that makes clearer is the gift God makes of me for others (or, potentially, any other person). This is a profoundly counterintuitive way of approaching one's own giftedness, and would ordinarily seem wasteful and disparaging of oneself and of God, who is the giver of such gifts. Again, the perspective here is deeper, broader, and, to be truly appreciated in the way I believe God wants, requires one to believe in the significance of eremitic vocations in the life of the Church and world. Especially, it uncovers the truth that the person, per se, is the creation and invaluable gift of God to whom God wishes to entrust Godself, even when the person is marginalized and without apparent outstanding talents and gifts. 

I both reflect on and write about the ecclesial nature of the eremitic vocation, not because it is simply another element of the life I have discovered over time, but because it is a foundational dimension of the vocation that allows me to live it faithfully, fruitfully, and generously, even when it means letting go of every gift but the gift God alone makes of me. In turn, this will mean assisting the Church to be the Church God calls it to be, and especially, I believe, it will help individuals marginalized by chronic illness and innumerable other things to see themselves as the precious gifts of God they are made to be in our Church and world.

____________________________________________________

** For instance, the Sisters of the Holy Family in Fremont have an emphasis on ministering to and for the lost and least. They do and have done parish ministry, catechetics,  social justice, accompanying children and families who search for ways of living more fully, etc, etc., but who they are in every form of ministry are "gleaners" and specifically, gleaners for the Kingdom of God. Other congregations do the same ministries, but the charism of SHF is their focus on the lost and least, the forgotten, and undervalued. This congregational "gift quality" or "charism" reveals something intrinsic to Jesus' life and ministry, and so too, to the life of the Church itself. Not only is the Church revealed to itself and to others in the lives of SHF, but it is challenged to be ever truer to this call. The SHF, no matter the kind of ministry each Sister undertakes, has embraced (and been entrusted with) ecclesial vocations that make the Church what it is called to be.

*** While I am mainly writing about canonical eremitical life in this piece, it is important to remember that the significance of eremitic vocations of all forms is established and witnessed to by the ecclesiality of consecrated vocations to the eremitic life. While non-canonical eremitic vocations are not ecclesial vocations per se, the fact that the Church recognizes eremitical life in law and consecrates ecclesial vocations to eremitic life underscores the value of ALL eremitical vocations, whether canonical or non-canonical. This is another example of the ecclesiality of the vocation. It indicates another way the existence of c 603 vocations serves the Church, especially since the majority of hermits throughout history and even today are non-canonical.

Canon 603, Ecclesiality, and Witnessing to the Value of Eremitical Life in ALL of its Forms and States

[[Dear Laurel, I was wondering why isn't it good enough for you or other diocesan hermits to be hermits the way God called hermits before 1982? Isn't that way good enough for you? I like hermits that really stay incognito and hide themselves like the cathechism says they are to do. Wasn't it good enough for you and other CL hermits to be the same as the historical and traditional hermits so you had to get some kind of special status and prestige?]]

Thank you for your questions. I would ask you to read the posts I have put up about the history of c 603 life. Check the labels to the right to find appropriate articles, and let me know if you need help finding the most helpful articles. I have written a lot about this in the past couple of years, especially, but also throughout the past 18-19 years. I think one of the things you have missed in your understanding of why Canon 603 was established is the way it reflects on the lives of past hermits and the way the Church either once regarded, or now newly regards, their vocations. Perhaps I have not spoken about this aspect of the reason for c 603's existence. Canon 603 is meant to rectify a significant lack or defect in the way the Church has regarded the eremitical vocation throughout the centuries. Far from saying hermits throughout the centuries could be disregarded, c 603 came into being not only to assist contemporary hermits who had left their monasteries to be secularized, but to point to the importance of the vocation in whatever way it had been lived within the Church up until 1983 and will be lived in the future.

The eremitic vocation has not always been appropriately esteemed in the Church. The fault for this is multifaceted, and both the Church and hermits bear blame. On the whole, hermits were treated with suspicion by the Church, something that may have stemmed 1) from the critical stance towards the institutional Church and its relation to the state taken by the Desert Fathers and Mothers, but also 2) from the genuine independence of the authentic Hermit living his/her life in the power of the Holy Spirit. Throughout the centuries, Bishops and dioceses took the responsibility for anchorites and hermits living in their dioceses. There were diocesan statutes created (ordine), and anchorites were more strictly regulated, but hermits were vested with the hermit's tunic, and if they felt called to preach, bishops provided a license to do so. In this way, the Church limited and tried to guide (sometimes this was about controlling) hermits in the region. At the same time, hermits (for good and for ill) multiplied at times of social unrest and struggle, which tended to increase the Church's distrust of the vocation.

It took time for the Western Church to truly recognize the value of eremitical vocations, and then, more time for the Church in the West to be presented with an experimental example of the life being lived in a way that could be examined by the Magisterium/hierarchy and reevaluated as a prophetic vocation. This model colony was also 180 degrees opposed to the individualism of the age. It was gradually coming together in a colony of hermits in British Columbia, particularly since these hermits were committed to "living singly in total solitude". (Here you can see the difference between a laura and a community of hermits. In the laura, which constitutes a supportive structure, the hermits live a more rigorous solitude.) It took time to find a monk who would serve as abbot, and time for the bishop protector to come to know these men and their lives and see the value of the eremitic life for the Church. Vatican Council II provided the perfect opportunity for Bishop de Roo to try to get this form of life recognized in the Western Church (it had never died out in the Eastern Church).

But here is the critical piece of the picture you appear to have missed: the eremitical life in the Western Church had died out, though it was a life God clearly called well-formed, experienced monastics to. It was also, therefore, a life of significant value, and needed to be recovered by the Church herself if it was to thrive in the way it did in the East, and seemed to want to do in the West as well. In creating c 603, the Church was not saying the hermit life is only now of value, and especially not only in a few canonical hermits!! She says it has always been of inestimable value in every century, and it is time to put suspicion and distrust behind us and recognize this vocation in universal law!! It is not only possible to be a hermit, but it is possible, if one feels called to do this, to live the life in the name of the Church! Canon 603 hermits, in recognizing they stand within a living stream of the Church's spiritual tradition, say to everyone, the hermit vocation -- every hermit vocation -- is valuable; the vocation is to be esteemed as a gift of God to our Church and world!!! Some witness to this publicly, normatively. Most do not. But the witness c 603 hermits give to the Church and world serves every eremitic vocation in this way.

This is part of the ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation, by the way, one of the specific ways the c 603 vocation serves the Church directly in helping her be the Church God calls her to be. This particular dimension of ecclesiality also fosters humility in those called to it. It is a literally awesome thing to think that God might call people to be part of a vocation almost completely lost to the Western Church, and to stand awed by one's call is to be both reduced and raised to humility. This is the paradoxical or countercultural prestige of the Kingdom of God, the call to stand with and for others so that God might be glorified and they might have life and have it abundantly! In this instance, c 603 hermits stand specifically to witness publicly to the eremitical vocation in all of its forms and to their important place within the Church. (Please note: the hiddenness of the c 603 hermit is found most radically in the inner journey the hermit makes with and in Christ to union with God. This focus of the hermit's entire life is almost entirely hidden from the eyes of humankind. I can say more about this in another post if this is not enough.)

How Does Having a Delegate Work for You? Could it Work for Me?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I am a diocesan hermit, but because of the nature of my question, I don't want to identify myself or my diocese. I hope that is okay. What I am really hoping is that you have some suggestions for me in dealing with this situation. My diocese has a new bishop since I was professed and consecrated. I understand that my position as a c 603 hermit is not in jeopardy, even if my new bishop does not agree with the idea of hermits, but you know, I have been unable to meet with my new bishop, and it looks like such a meeting, much less regular meetings with him, are not going to take place anytime soon. You have a delegate. How does that work, and could I work out such a situation in my diocese? I realize that not all bishops are ready to take on the role of supervising a diocesan hermit. Is this a very common situation, if you know? I'm just hoping you have a little bit of wisdom to share with me! Thanks!!]]

Thanks very much for your questions. They are really important, and apply to many dioceses in one way or another -- at least from what I know anecdotally. First of all, it might be helpful to consider what role a delegate serves. Bishops are called to supervise c 603 vocations in their diocese; they are to be sure the hermit is living her vocation, growing in it, and representing the Church and Gospel in the ways hermits do. A person's bishop should be knowledgeable of the hermit's Rule and have a sense of the way God has worked in her life over the years, and have at least a sense of where she is currently in her life with God and in the church. However, the Canon does not define how the Bishop is to carry this responsibility out. 

Thus, some bishops have determined that they will use a delegate who serves the diocese (the local Church) and both the hermit and the bishop by accompanying the hermit and then by being available to the bishop to fill him in, et al., should the diocese wish to discuss how things are going. (I should note here that this arrangement is ordinarily undertaken in addition to regular meetings between the hermit and her bishop.) This works well, both because the hermit really does need to be able to check in with someone regularly, and because they definitely may need to meet with someone more frequently than Bishops might be able to do, a delegate serves everyone involved, along with facilitating the requirements of c 603.

Now, here's the rub insofar as you are concerned. I was asked prior to being admitted to perpetual profession and consecration to get a delegate. You have not been asked to do this. The Vicars for Religious at the time (we had two), had met with Bp Vigneron prior to my meeting with them at this one point, and, as a result of that meeting, asked me to get a delegate. Thus, the request came directly from the bishop; it was not my idea. However, the use of a delegate is now pretty well-known and common. While it was not done in your case prior to your profession and consecration, it seems to me that you could make a proposal to your diocese/bishop about adopting the use of a delegate who could 1) meet with you regularly (as necessary), 2) be available to your bishop in your regard, 3) be responsible for keeping his/her finger on the pulse of your vocation, your growth in it, and in the life of the Church -- both universal and local. Even if the arrangement remained completely informal, it could assist you to live your vocation with integrity, and a record of your letter would be kept in your file for future reference.

As you know, Canon 603 is very clearly meant to foster the presence of deeply ecclesial eremitical vocations, and given the individuality of this vocation, and the lack of religious community, c 603 hermits experience, the connection to the local Church must be maintained to prevent the hermit from falling into individualism or feeling like there is no real relationship with the local or universal Church. After all, the canonical hermit makes commitments beyond those of baptism, which are binding in law, and these are commitments she lives for the sake of the Church. In this way, too, she glorifies God and serves the salvation of the world. This is the reason the supervision of the local bishop is required. As you likely also know well, the eremitical life is both vital and fragile, especially in a world where selfish individualism routinely replaces healthy individuality lived for the sake of others.

It does happen that bishops are unready to meet regularly with hermits, though, since my information here is anecdotal, I don't know the frequency with which this happens. It also happens from time to time that hermits decide not to meet with their bishops (another significant issue I should write about.) I was fortunate in my diocese and was able to meet with my bishop twice a year, as well as meeting more frequently with my delegate. Bp Vigneron, who followed Bp John Cummins, communicated through my delegate; he was followed by Bp Cordileone, and he kept a twice-a-year schedule unless I needed to meet for some unexpected reason, in which case I simply needed to contact his office for an appointment. When Bp Cordileone left for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, he arranged for me to meet with the Vicar for Religious in case of need. We had an interim Bishop in there for a time, and he also kept in contact through the Vicar for Religious (Rev Robert Herbst, OFM Conv), who left for the Diocese of Las Vegas after Bishop Barber took over. My first meeting with Bp Barber came when he did a visitation at my parish, when we met in the sacristy after Mass. It was only then that he learned he had a diocesan hermit in the diocese whose legitimate superior he was. He was more than a bit surprised!!! So, a lot happened in the first ten years after consecration, but Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, served as my delegate during all of that time, and still does, now with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. 

I don't think there is much in this post that is new, but perhaps it gives a better sense of why the delegate can be helpful and is often necessary. Bishops who "inherit" diocesan hermits may well feel ill-equipped to follow or assist such a vocation, particularly alone. (They might feel inadequate to supervise any contemplative vocation, but that of a solitary hermit might accentuate this sense, and that is understandable. Having a religious who understands contemplative life, and the importance of solitude, can be of immense assistance to the bishop.)  My suggestion to you is to find someone who could serve in this role (a religious or religious priest with a background in formation, spiritual direction, contemplative life and prayer, leadership in community, theology, spirituality, and the willingness to read about eremitical life) is especially helpful. If you can get a monastic who can do this, that would be great! Make sure they have a copy of your Rule, and have a conversation (or several!) with them on the ways you live it now and once lived it, the ways you have grown in your understanding of the elements of Canon 603, and why you are taking this step now. Also, be clear how you understand your vow of obedience and make sure they are on the same page with a ministry of authority; after all, this person will be a kind of "quasi-superior" for you, and you both need to see religious obedience in the same way. (This will be the way it is articulated in your Rule of Life.)

Once you have someone who can and will serve in this way, write your bishop with your proposal (be sure to cite the canon, the person you have spoken to about serving the diocese in this way, and also give the reasons you have found such an arrangement important); request an appointment to discuss the matter. See if he would like to meet with the proposed delegate at the same time. If you cannot get an appointment with your Bishop, see about an appointment with the Vicar for Religious or Vicar of Consecrated Life. Finally, as an additional aid, especially if your diocese does not have a Vicar for religious, you might also consider joining other diocesan hermits with whom you might meet once a month or so in a virtual laura. These kinds of non-geographical arrangements can be really supportive for solitary hermits living c. 603. In this way, you can share with folks living the same lifestyle you are, and doing so in the same world; they will have probably dealt with the same questions and challenges you are. This does not take the place of a delegate or meetings with your bishop, for instance, but for some of us, this arrangement is incredibly life-giving!!

Do get back to me to let me know how you do with all of this. I'm sorry I don't have more suggestions than this one solution, but it has worked really well for me and for the C. 603 vocation in the Diocese of Oakland, both with Bishops who are more involved with my vocation and with those who are less so.  

Canon 603, a Break With the Eremitical Tradition? (Reprised from March 2012)

[[Dear Sister, how big a break with the traditional form of hermit life is canon 603 hermit life? Is the focus on law and rules a distortion of the simplicity of the hermit life as found throughout the history of the church until the last century? Why would the church move in this direction? One lay hermit says that the Church had canons on eremitical life in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and that the addition of c 603 in the 1983 Code was designed to curb abuses.]]

Thanks for your questions. I am not sure what you mean by "the traditional form" of hermit life unless you are referring to the most original (Christian) forms established and typified by the Desert Fathers and Mothers (they had more than one). Throughout the history of the church, there have been a variety of forms of eremitical life: solitary, laura-based, religious or communal (sometimes called semi-eremitic), anchoritic, urban, reclusive, and so forth. Appropriately, all of them see themselves as carrying on the tradition and spirituality of the Desert -- the spirituality of John the Baptist, Jesus (especially in the desert), and the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Today we recognize three main forms of, or avenues for living, the hermit life: 1) religious or semi-eremitical hermit life which does NOT use Canon 603 as the basis of their public profession (Carthusians, Camaldolese, etc), 2) solitary consecrated or diocesan (canon 603) life, and 3) lay (dedicated or non-canonical) eremitical life. While the desert Fathers and Mothers are the original instance of Christian eremitical life, they lived both solitary and laura-based lives as well as reclusion. So, there has always been significant diversity within several major forms, not just one or (in light of canon 603) two forms or avenues.

I think your question about canon 603 as a break with tradition, though, is a question about canonical standing or the place of law in all of this, no? Your next sentence focuses on law and rules, and I read it as an elaboration of this first question. Some people do assert that law in any form is not consonant with the eremitical vocation, but these generally mistake license for genuine freedom and forget that freedom is exercised in spite of or at least in relation to life's constraints. They also exaggerate the desert Fathers' and Mothers' freedom from custom, precedents, and the like, and minimize the degree of communal responsibility every hermit had. Moreover, they seem to treat post-desert Father/Mother hermit life as entirely independent of the supervision of the Church and her hierarchy, laws, and customs. While there were always folks doing the equivalent of whatever they wanted and calling themselves hermits, and while there have also been true hermits who had no formalized relationship to the institutional church, the general truth is that authentic hermits have often lived in a formal, legalized relationship with the Church and even sometimes with the secular society. This has been true for the majority of the church's history. In any case, then, the answer is no, canon 603 eremitical life is not a significant departure from, much less a break with, what has existed for at least the last 14-15 centuries in the Church.

The Customs of the Desert Fathers and Mothers

It is true that the desert Fathers and Mothers were part of a movement to protest the Church's linkage with the State, and substitute in some way for the loss of red martyrdom as well --- the loss of which made living one's faith a less risky or demanding business. These two changes, while certainly desirable, also made living merely as a nominal Christian very much easier. Additionally, it is certainly true that the desert Fathers' and Mothers' move away from "the institutional" church led them into an area of recognizably greater freedom and individuality, but not to one of individualism or complete freedom from constraints of any kind. They were prophetic in this move, but they would have ceased to be prophetic had they not also been related to the Church and her Gospel at the same time.

As noted, there were, for instance, customs that these original hermits observed in learning their vocation; novices lived with an elder who mentored them and taught them what they needed to know. Such elders also served to help discern the genuineness of the novice's call to the desert. They taught the Scriptures, assisted the novices to learn to pray assiduously, to fight demons, to fast, to live the evangelical counsels, etc. Additionally among these thousands of hermits there were customs regarding the giving or taking away of the habit (they could not be donned on one's own authority and would be taken away if the person lived the life badly), the way one lived in one's cell, the ways one exercised hospitality, requirements for work, manual labor, time out of cell, etc. but beyond the desert Fathers and Mothers and their customs, eremitical life has always been supervised (often by Bishops) and subject to forms of legislation (established Rules, monastic constitutions, decretals, diocesan ordine, etc).

A Summary of the Relationship between Solitary Hermits and the Hierarchy in the post-desert Fathers Church

Thomas McMahon, O Carm, writes a brief general summary of some of this history and notes; [[While the early lay hermit movement [speaking of non-religious, non-ordained hermits] was very charismatic, the hierarchical Church demanded some measure of accountability. Lay hermits enjoyed certain canonical rights and protections both in ecclesiastical and civil law. Consequently, one was not free to simply go off on one’s own and become a hermit. Because they often did some spontaneous preaching and often depended on the alms of the faithful for support, the bishops claimed some rights over them. While anyone was free to live a life of retirement and prayer, a man needed to seek the blessing of the local prelate before he could assume the habit of a hermit. Hermits, like canonical pilgrims, wore a tunic that fell somewhat below the knees but was not as long as a clerical gown. They belted this with a leather belt and wore a short hooded cape. Pilgrims, in addition to this basic habit, added a purse slung from their belts in which to keep food or alms given to them for their journey, and they also wore the badge of their pilgrimage, such as a scallop shell for those going to the shrine of Saint James at Compostella or a palm for those going to Jerusalem. The pilgrim, like the hermit, had a right to appeal for alms.]] Emphasis added.

In a work including more detailed inventories of the legal rights and obligations of hermits (anchorites) in various countries @ 1000 AD (one essay deals with hermits @ 400 AD onwards), Anchoritic Traditions of Medieval Europe has several essays by various authors, two of which especially make it clear that anchorites during this period were generally scrutinized by and lived eremitical (anchoritic) life under the supervision of their Bishops. While the Bishop's primary (and lengthiest) duty was to see to the spiritual well-being and maturation of the anchoress, there were established rites of enclosure, sometimes with a Mass, sometimes not, requirements regarding financial well-being, suitability of the anchorhold, etc. Some dioceses had detailed lists of statutes ("ordine") applying to anchorites and extending certain benefits to those who were their benefactors. Civil laws were also promulgated, which protected the anchorites. Their lives and presence were highly valued so these statutes or ordines established formal relationships between anchorites and the society at large, which protected all involved and are reminiscent of the way canon 603 functions today. (cf McEvoy, Anchoritic Traditions of Medieval Europe.)

Canon 603 as Break with Tradition: A Serious Misconstrual of Eremitical History

All of these things and more point to the fact that it would be a serious misconstrual of the history of eremitical life to suggest there was one form in the main which existed until canon 603, and which was free of canonical or civil legal constraints and permissions. While there have always been those who went off to live lives of prayer (or those who went off to do their own thing!), those who were recognized as hermits or anchorites and wished to minister in the church through or in light of their solitude have generally been licensed (yes, actually licensed!) or "approved" by their Bishops and thus bound by a variety statutes or lists of statues and canons established diocese by diocese. Canon 603 is unique because for the first time ever it provides for hermits to assume standing in universal law, and for that reason, and to some extent, it cuts through all of the varying diocesan regulations that governed this life through the centuries.

By its establishment, Canon 603 continues and renews a tradition of dialogue between church and hermits where the church accommodates the authentic call to solitude in various ways while the hermit herself accepts the relationships and commitments established in law to assist her in this. Hermits have always been dependent in some way on those around them, whether it is their town, their community, their parish, diocese, or the church at large. Even the largest numbers of the desert Fathers and Mothers lived on the edge of the desert rather than alone in the deep desert, and were accessible to those in the nearby towns and villages. In later centuries, it was expected that some situation like this would exist for the mutual benefit of all concerned; total solitude was not only impossible, but undesirable. (cf Mari Hughes-Edwards, "Anchoritism: The English Tradition", p. 146, op cit.)

What law does, and, apart from heavy-handed abuses or mere attempts at control, what it has always done, is establish stable ways this dependence can be worked out for the benefit of the whole church. Canon 603, for instance, does away with some of the instability that can obtain from diocese to diocese, parish to parish, and village to village by establishing this vocation in universal law and locates the hermit in the heart of both the local and universal church. (Calling the hermit forth from the parish or cathedral community and publicly professing her in the parish or cathedral church underscores this traditional understanding of the mutual relationship between hermit, community, and Bishop. Yet, each hermit, et. al. will work this out individually as best suits her vocation.) What it also does is provide for a vocation which requirements for participation in the sacraments and an essential ecclesiality once made illegitimate. Paul Giustiniani (Camaldolese) called for laura-based eremitical life and an end to solitary eremitical life when these requirements were codified. Now, once again, because of canon 603, the church is recovering the solitary eremitical vocation and providing norms which remind us these vocations are 1) ecclesial rather than individualistic, and 2) despite a rich diversity, marked by specific non-negotiable elements.

Reasons Canon 603 was Promulgated (yet again!)

As for the reason canon 603 was established then, it is much more positive than an attempt to deal with abuses. I have told this story at least twice before, so please do check the labels on the history of canon 603 (cf canon 603 --- history) for a more complete account. As you can see from the terribly abbreviated snapshot of historical conditions above, while law did prevent abuses, its more important raison d'etre was the protection and nurturing of a very unusual or uncommon, fragile, and significant vocation. Candidates needed to be checked out (not everyone can live this life!), they had to be provided for, whether by their town, by other benefactors, or --- when these failed --- by the anchorite's own Bishop. Without the protection of law, the existence of hermits becomes a very iffy thing, which means that without the protection and requirements of law and the relationships legal standing helps establish and regulate, a Divine vocation can be lost.

Canon 603 serves to replace, or at least subordinate to universal law, any diocesan schema used to legislate hermits from diocese to diocese. It calls all dioceses and all Bishops to reflect on the essential nature and value of the eremitical life and be sure that candidates for this life live these central elements with fidelity and even prophetic power. It allows for collaboration and learning from one another regarding successful and unsuccessful examples of this vocation in our own day and age, and helps the entire Western Church to be on the same page in approaching such vocations. At the same time, it does not level out or destroy legitimate individuality. It allows for and, in fact, requires the hermit's own Rule or Plan of Life, which she writes herself and which reflects her own individual lived expression of the essential elements of canon 603 in dialogue with both the eremitical tradition more generally and the contemporary world. If a country has 100 diocesan hermits, it also has 100 individual expressions of this life. At the same time, all of these hermits are publicly covenanted (vowed) to live the same essential elements. This is the pattern of all authentic eremitical life --- a pattern of individual creativity and faithfulness to the central elements and values of a given tradition in conjunction with the hermit's own world, and in response to the Holy Spirit. Canon 603 helps ensure this authentic pattern.

Finally, though I have said this in this article and many times in this blog over the past several years, let me reiterate: Canon 603 is absolutely new in universal law. There has never been such a canon affecting the universal Church before in the Western Church. The 1917 Code had nothing in it addressing eremitical life. (As I understand it, a 1911 draft version of such a canon did not ultimately find its way into the 1917 Code.) This was left up to the proper law of religious congregations --- that is, to the constitutions of religious congregations (many of which had no provision for such a call to solitude!). Neither was c 603 developed primarily because of abuses. This had been necessary in the past when hermits were numerous, but in the modern era, religious hermits were governed by proper law and solitary lay hermits (of which there were few beyond the Middle Ages and almost none in the contemporary period) lived privately committed lives, and most people did not know of their existence.

Neither did canon 603 come to be because hermits wanted some kind of social privilege or status. It came to be because religious people who discovered a call to solitude late in their vowed lives were often required to leave their communities and vows and become secularized to try to live out such a call. (Again, often the congregation's proper law had no provision for hermit life, and there was none in universal law -- i.e., the 1917 Code of Canon Law.) Meanwhile, eremitical life --- at least as an institution --- was called upon to exercise a place in a more public dialogue with and prophetic or countercultural witness to the contemporary world --- even if the individual lives of hermits were essentially hidden. Bishops recognized the gap in law here based on the significant pastoral inadequacies of the situation, and pressed for the Church to recognize the eremitical life as a state of perfection. In any case, "canonical status" does not refer to this kind of status (that of social privilege) but to standing in law as well as to initiation into what the church refers to as a (stable) status or "state of life." After all, as I have also noted before, one does not correct a badly lived lay eremitical life by granting the hermit admission to public vows and canonical standing. While such standing emphatically does not mean the canonical hermit has a higher vocation nor necessarily is a better hermit than her lay counterparts, it does mean she accepts public responsibility for the eremitical vocation generally and her own call specifically. It makes little sense to extend such responsibilities or the rights that go with them to one who has shown they live the life badly, especially when their existence is hardly known.

Summary: Canon 603, A Continuation and Renewal of Tradition

The bottom line in all of this is that canon 603 is entirely consistent with the history of the way eremitical life has been lived in the Western Church throughout the centuries. It is not a break with that tradition despite the fact that it is also new in some significant ways. Instead, it recovers something that was lost in the Western Church, especially after the Middle Ages --- namely, solitary eremitical life lived in dialogue with the Church, especially in the person of the diocesan Bishop. In response to the needs of the church and world, it also makes of diocesan eremitical life a "state of perfection" and allows for public vows (or other publicly embraced sacred bonds). This means that the "religious state" is no longer only associated with public vows made within the context of a religious community. (Cf, Holland, Sharon, IHM, Handbook of Canons 573-746, especially p 55, O'Hara, Ellen, CSJ, Norms Common to all Institutes of Consecrated Life) But again, these new elements are lived out by virtue of the traditional dialogue/relationship between the individual hermit and the local Bishop common throughout the history of the life.

I hope this is helpful.