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 implies 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. (The meaning of status here is standing and, specifically, standing in law with the appropriate adoption of rights and obligations not all will share. In the Church, married folks have a certain standing in law that single people (including priests and religious) do not have.) Bp de Roo saw a yet-unrecognized and uniquely ecclesial vocation in these men (as he may have done in the lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers who moved to the desert to protest the Church's effective co-option by the State in the days of Constantine). In any case, he wanted the Roman Catholic Church to recognize the same. 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 Father's 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 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 only somewhat here, and again, I believe it contributes to it by allowing the Church to see the individual Christian constituting and mirroring the 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 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 bothers me as well -- though it is a definite positive for the person to be seeking access to the sacraments regularly and to some limited participation in a parish community. That's gratifying. 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 because the person claims to be in touch with the bishop, the parish staff will seek to verify whether or not the person really is a c 603 hermit (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. I suspect, though, that 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.

Can a Person Simply Claim to be a Consecrated Hermit?

Because a lot of this is not commonly known, remember 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, because this is a gift of God!!) one's 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, 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.

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).

First Steps: Applying Hermit Lessons to Those with Chronic Illness and Disability

[[Hi Sister Laurel,  I am chronically ill, probably on the way to being disabled. I don't want to live as a hermit. I want to do as much as I can with my education and my talents. I also want to maintain my relationships with others, but there is no doubt that illness limits my ability to do all these things, sometimes more than other times. Does what hermits live still apply to me if I am disabled or chronically ill? Can you please explain how what you live could apply to me even if I am not a hermit and don't want to be one?]]  (Redacted some)

Yes, I can sure try at least to start doing so in this post!!! Thanks for your question! When I look at my life, I know that it bears witness to two different sets of conditions: 1) those appropriate to a hermit, and 2) those appropriate to someone with chronic illness and disability. What is also true, however, is that in my life and that of other hermits with chronic illness, for instance, these two sets of conditions overlap. They are both ways to witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they are both examples of desert experiences, and even forms of desert existence. Both of these sets of conditions demand that I pose serious existential questions, questions of being and meaning, and that I am open to the most radical answer available to us, so let me start there.

Existential questions of Being and Meaning:

Questions of being revolve around the issue of being my true self. So, for instance (and just off the top of my head!) what does it mean to be truly human? Is it possible for me to be fully myself if illness (or hermit life) limits the gifts I can develop and use for others? Is it possible for me to learn to truly love others maturely if my relationships with others are curtailed by the limitations of disability (or hermit life)?  Questions of meaning revolve around the value and purposefulness of my life in Christ, whether as a Christian with a disability or as someone living in eremitical solitude. And largely, these questions can be answered positively and become a witness for others if the questions of being can be answered positively. For example, if I answer the question about the possibility of being truly myself positively based on my experience of disability or of eremitical life, then I can proceed to explain what the value or purpose of my life is or has been and why that is important. This essentially works out as Christian witness for the sake of others.

Whether one is a hermit or has no inclination to be one, disability and chronic illness impose a variety of existential questions of meaning. What kind of theology makes sense of both my suffering and the limitations associated with chronic illness? Does God will suffering? Could I love such a God? Why has this happened to me? Am I able to develop and use some of my God-given gifts? What if I am not? Am I able to value myself as a person with unique limitations or is that difficult for me? What makes it possible for me to affirm my beauty as a human being not only in spite of my limitations but perhaps because of them and what God is helping me to do with them? What do I do when other people seem to be repulsed by me? What do I do if I am repulsed by myself? Does my life really have value, can I really make a meaningful contribution, or am I a waste of skin? What if I am so self-centered and/or angry because of my situation that I can't really love myself or anyone else? What am I supposed to do? Am I just unloving and unlovable? Can I get past my limitations here? In whatever way we ask these kinds of questions about how we are to be ourselves, they are questions about the meaning of our lives and are some of the deepest existential questions we pose and/or embody.

A number of these questions are also raised by the solitary eremitical life, especially those dealing with our capacity and willingness to love ourselves and others, and those centered around letting go of specific God-given gifts in order to embrace a solitary eremitical life. Does the hermit really live a full and meaningful life when letting go of such gifts? Do they really make a meaningful contribution to the Church and world? Of course, all of the theological questions raised and many more besides will show up in some form. We are used to esteeming certain forms of ministry and valuing lives that make a contribution in strict Gospel language (preaching the Gospel, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick, etc.), but hermits are a different matter because of their hiddenness, and because the value of their lives raises significant questions, both for them and for those who know and regard them.

Finding the Answer to Our Existential Questions:

Hermits don't only live the deep existential questions of being and meaning. Over time, both through their studies (Scripture, Spirituality, and Theology) and through their experience (especially of inner work like that of spiritual direction and through their long history of assiduous prayer), they come more and more to know the answers to these questions. Your own chronic illness invites you to be aware of and pose such significant questions. It invites you to find the answers!!! You need not withdraw completely to do this. Good friends can help. So can priests, pastors, spiritual directors, some physicians and therapists, and the time you take exploring such questions in writing, work, art, music, prayer, etc. This kind of exploration is not selfish. It can serve others who also suffer from chronic illness and disability, or are marginalized in other ways. Of course, you could distract yourself from such things and never really grapple with them, but that would be a lot like someone calling themselves a hermit while watching TV many hours a day, or otherwise being taken up with screens, etc. It would be like a hermit who does not commit themselves to the long and ever-deepening journey to union with God, which is all about growth in a relationship that completes us, and witnesses to the truth of the Gospel we find in Romans 8, for instance.

31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”[j] 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

What is critically important to both the hermit and to the person with chronic illness or disability is the fact that the "answer" to our existential questions is discovered as we learn who we really are, and that only happens in relationship with those who see us for who we truly are. This does not mean seeing our flaws and limitations, though they will also do that, but rather seeing us as God sees us. In monastic life, the wisdom of truly seeing is doing this with the heart, seeing a person with love. This is what it means to see someone (including ourselves) as God sees us. It is what the Magnificat refers to when it says that God regards Mary. He truly knows her and esteems her, despite her limitations. In journeying to union with God, one will journey to the depths of one's own darkness, one's own distortions, defences, selfishness, fear, and despair. The hermit is committed, however, to finding the Light that darkness could not overcome.  She trusts in the existence of such a Light (this is what we call faith), and she learns, in time, to trust that this Light is deeper and more real than the darkness and distortions that obscure it. When she meets this Light, she meets not only her truest self, but the God Jesus revealed to us on the Cross, the God from whose love nothing at all can separate us. Here is the source of real hope and the ability to live with chronic illness/disability as a source of grace. Here is the witness that both hermits and those with chronic illness or disability are entrusted to make.

Obviously, this God is not only available to hermits. Such availability does, however, mean committing oneself to developing a strong and regular prayer life in which one grows in knowing God and oneself as God knows one. It means committing oneself to the kind of inner work that allows all of those existential questions to be fully posed so that God might reveal himself as the answer God is, and to do so as fully as possible. It means discerning how best to live one's life while accepting unavoidable and painful limitations. Hermits can be something of an exemplar here, especially if they have their own disabilities, but even if they don't, they still choose to allow God alone to be and do in their lives what only God can ultimately be and do. They want, and, of course, they are also called to witness to the deepest truth of the Gospel with their very lives! 

For every person created, God is the One who completes us and is the very source of both Being and Meaning. In other words, God is the one in whom the unique existential question that we ourselves are is "answered" and resolved. God is the source of meaningful life, peace, hope, love, truth, beauty, wholeness, and holiness. The basic or foundational vocational task of every human being is to let God be precisely THIS God, the God without whom we cannot be truly human or truly whole. When we are "successful" in such a vocation, the God our lives reveal and witness to in Christ, is the God Jesus revealed fully, the One we call Emmanuel (i.e., the one who is known most truly as God With Us)!! To witness to the God who is really Emmanuel in everything we live, including the darknesses, suffering, and even despair, lies at the heart of every vocation, eremitical and otherwise.

Please treat this as a starting point for your questions. If you have other, more practical questions, please get back to me. There are probably other pieces from the last year or two that are clearer, so have a look at those as well.

The Heart of the Church Revealed: Pope Leo Blesses Disabled Child and is Similarly Blessed

After writing last night's post referring to potential vocations to Chronic Illness and Disability, I came across this picture of Pope Leo XIV with the headline "Pope Blesses Disabled Child". What I want to make clear is that this picture is a startlingly vivid picture of the heart of the Church. If you don't see a contemporary version of the Pietà in this picture, please look again. Spend some time in lectio with it! If you want to understand the mystery of the hiddenness of the solitary eremitical vocation and its significance, consider the life of this precious child and her relationship with God. What do you think most people see in or do with this question? What do you think Pope Leo saw as he held her? 

Chronic Illness and Disability: Allowing Jesus to come to Full Stature in our Lives

[[Dear Sister, thank you for writing about diocesan hermits with chronic illnesses and disabilities. I think I am beginning to understand why hermits desired legal standing or legitimacy. When you think of being about the salvation of the world or being ecclesial, are you thinking about modeling a life where the chronically ill and disabled become central to the life of the church? I am disabled and have never thought about becoming a hermit, but for sure I know what it means to live a life cut off from the rhythm of most people's lives. Are you saying that my life can be one in which Jesus comes to full stature?? That would really be saving for me!! I have mainly thought that since I couldn't work or produce much, my life was of little or no value, and it didn't matter that I am well-educated. 

I hear you saying that by making the hermit canonical and consecrating them, the church takes lives that seem to be of little value and affirms them at the very heart of the church!!! WOW!! If that is what you are saying, then that is amazing!!! It has nothing to do with arrogance or pride, does it? . . . until I read your last post, what you were actually saying hadn't clicked with me. Too, I hadn't realized that many c 603 hermits live with disability. Am I getting what you are saying?]]

Wow!!!  Many thanks for your comments!! I am so glad you read the recent post and decided to write!!! Yes, you have really heard what I was saying. Absolutely, I believe you can become a person in whose life Christ comes to full stature. I don't know the details of your disability; however, I do believe that you can, with the grace of God, become authentically human (the universal task every person faces) and someone whose life glorifies (reveals) God as Emmanuel. While, of course, you don't need to be a hermit to do that, I believe the example of c. 603 hermits -- whether or not they are disabled --- can provide an inspiring example to those whom our world marginalizes. Hermits live apparently unproductive lives of deep vulnerability and profound existential questioning. This is the way to authentic holiness. No, it has nothing to do with pride or arrogance. Instead, it encourages genuine humility (loving honesty) and raises to God-given dignity those whose calling is to live the way of the Cross in relative hiddenness.

Long ago I wrote that while the church may do well in ministering to the chronically ill and disabled, it was not at all good at recognizing or nurturing ministry of the chronically ill and disabled. (I now think even my first conclusion is questionable.) I published a single article in Review for Religious on Chronic Illness and Disability as vocation, and potentially as eremitical vocations, but am only now returning to this theology in light of my own experience, and also as part of other writing I am doing. Thanks for the links to the post on Bishop Remi de Roo and diocesan hermits. I stopped watching Joyful's videos once she stopped calling herself a Consecrated Catholic Hermit or a Religious (cf., Diocesan Hermits as Widely Accepted Pathway). . . .. I haven't yet listened to your links. I deleted them from your post until I can do that -- probably tonight and tomorrow. If there is something I should respond to in that video, I will do so after I have had time to digest the contents. Again, thank you for reading this blog and sharing some of your own situation. Sorry this response is so brief.

Proclaiming the Cross of Christ: On the Importance of the Desert and Desert Vocations

[[Hi Sister, I wondered why you stressed that your vocation was a desert vocation. What is so important about the desert? I know that hermits get their name from the Greek for desert -- I read that here, and other hermits talk about it too- but why is that so important? You don't actually live in a desert, and you aren't in some deserted place, so you are not saying a literal desert is necessary. You don't believe that God can only be met and followed in a desert vocation, do you? Do you think that God can be followed better in a desert vocation? And that brings me back around to my first questions. Why are the desert and the hermit vocation so important?]]

Thanks for asking these questions. Because you have already read some of what I have written on this topic, it helps me to see the somewhat different direction they are leading. I appreciate that. What is most important about a desert vocation is that it represents a place where several forms of essential encounter occur and, because the desert leaves one vulnerable in a way that doesn't allow for many distractions, these encounters cannot be easily avoided or left superficial. Thus, these forms of encounter are radical, foundational, and call for a relatively all-consuming commitment from the desert dweller. In the desert, one meets oneself, both one's true and one's false self. One also meets God, and in this encounter, is called to entrust one's entire self to Him in a process of self-emptying (kenosis) and transfiguration. Finally, one meets the existence of evil, the presence of sin and death, failure, distortion, temptation, and all that can lead us to choose or turn away from God and the fullness of life he offers. The desert is the place where the fundamental choices between life and death, freedom and bondage, and despair and hope are presented to us most radically. That means that it is also the context in which the choice for or against God and one's truest humanity can be similarly made.

One way to think about this whole process, and what is at stake in desert spirituality and desert vocations, is to see it as allowing Christ to come to full stature in our lives. Likewise, it refers to us coming to full stature in Christ. As one author puts it, the desert is a "Geography of Growth," ** and as is true in Christianity generally, the Cross is the ever-present measure and standard of desert existence. It marks an event of unprecedented abjection and alienation, and at the same time, it celebrates the divinization and consequent glorification of what had previously been known as godless. This means that in the desert, as was the case with the whole of Jesus' life, hermits are those committed to a life where God's power is perfected in weakness (2 Cor 12:9), where Divine justice is done in God's mercy, and where self-emptying leads to the fullness of meaningful existence. 

In Christ, hermits are committed to posing the deepest and most searching questions of their lives. They confront and live out questions of life and death, meaning and meaninglessness, isolation and communion; in this way, they become those who receive and embody the answer whom God is for every human being and the whole of creation. The desert (which, in NT theology, includes mountains and seas, as well as the grassy slopes associated with the feeding of the multitude, etc.) is the privileged context in which all of this occurs. 

So, no, I am not necessarily speaking of a literal desert as the home of the hermit. Many human experiences are desert experiences and make it possible to live a desert existence. For instance, chronic illness and disability represent such an experience. So would poverty, joblessness, homelessness, and similar states of loss and deprivation. Whenever and wherever we are thrown back upon our own fragile and limited resources and are confronted by existential questions of meaninglessness and the threat of nonbeing, we have entered the desert with its critical invitation to entrust ourselves entirely to God and to allow the paradoxical Gospel of Christ's Cross to transform us into a new and truly free creation. While God can be met and embraced anywhere, I do believe that the desert, with the radical vulnerability it entails, is uniquely suited to encountering and being embraced by God at the depth that coming to radical faith and our truest humanity require. This is why the desert plays such a central role in both the Old and New Testaments.

Every vocation witnesses especially to some dimension or multiple dimensions of the Gospel. We call these dimensions "charisms" not only because they are spiritual qualities, but because they are gifts of God to us, to his Church, and to the larger world. The hermit vocation brings the desert and Christ's Cross right into the center of the Church with a unique vividness and challenge. As a result of the hermit's witness, it becomes and will continue to become more impossible to marginalize desert experiences like chronic illness, disability, poverty, etc., within the Church. This in turn means that those whom the world devalues, marginalizes, and otherwise excludes find a central place in the Church's life and proclamation of the Gospel of hope. It is no accident that many canonical hermits once considered "unsuited" for apostolic religious life because of chronic illness and physical disability found their true vocations as solitary hermits under c. 603 and identify profoundly with the Cross of Christ and the radical hope it brings to our world. 

** "Geography of growth": this characterization of the desert in the Scriptures is from The Wilderness Years by D. Michael Gross.