Diocesan Hermits as Hothouse Blooms?

[[[Dear Sister Laurel, I have read where diocesan hermits are really a kind of betrayal of the eremitical ideal. You have answered questions on this yourself. One lay hermit writes, [[Hermit is a label, and [I] have realized people have very strong opinions and judgments of what is or is not a "hermit". Or a "Catholic hermit." Or a "canonically approved" or "diocesan hermit." Or a "lay hermit" or "privately consecrated hermit." Chucked them all. The formal garden variety of hermits, the canonical ones, are very much as grandifloras, tea, and other cultivated roses have become. Tended, noticed, prized, utilized, pruned, fertilized, identified, sprayed, winterized, mulched, composted, photographed, named, protected. The wild rose is out there, on its own, no temporal usefulness, loads of thorns, mostly undetected. Has to exist on the natural elements of God alone: air, rain, snow, sun, soil, darkness.]] I think she makes some good points. It looks to me like lay hermits are truer to the historical ideals of eremitical life. Since you are a diocesan hermit with some of those strong opinions referred to what do you think about the analogies used?]]]

Agreements and Disagreements

First, I genuinely agree with aspects of this quotation. For instance, I agree that in some ways it is much harder to live as a lay hermit without official standing (besides one's baptism) in the Church than it is to live as a diocesan hermit. It is true that the heart of any eremitical vocation is the fact that we must live with, from, and for God alone, and it is easier to do that when one has a sense that doing so is something recognized as infinitely valuable and when others have validated this vocation. This is true regarding the eremitical vocation generally and with regard to the individual's own call specifically. It is especially true in a world which does not understand or value solitude, or the essentially spiritual nature or divine grounding of human beings and in a Church which, despite a long history of official esteem for this, seems not to really value contemplative life --- much less solitary contemplative life. Hermits, as I have written many times, are always on the margins of society; when one lives in this way with official standing it creates a kind of freedom to explore this counter-cultural space without concern for the world's response to this. There is no doubt that in some ways it is much easier to live in this way when there is some sort of concrete approval for at least the vocation itself.

I would disagree that the eremitical vocation is "temporally useless" and I think qualifying "useless" in terms of temporality is confusing since every hermit lives in space and time. Another phrase (e.g., "in worldly terms") might be better. It is true that hermits are not producers, do not generally involve themselves in consumerism (thus contributing very little to the GNP, or economy generally). They are not mainly involved in ministries we can point to as valuable or fruitful. I would even argue that hermits are not some sort of "powerhouse of prayer" who --- as I read recently --- bring grace to those who do not pray as much. This image really bothers me on several levels and seems to buy into the very culture of "productiveness-as-a measure-of-value" that hermits reject. And yet, I completely agree that my presence and prayer within a community and parish serves as a kind of leaven here --- just as I believe that everyone who loves well and lives a generous, prayerful life does the same.

In many ways then, the eremitical life is one of worldly uselessness and perhaps this is what the author you cite is getting at. But at the same time, hermits are called to be prophetic presences within space and time. They witness to the fundamental relationship which constitutes each of us, and the dialogical character of authentic humanity rooted in that relationship. They witness to the fact that isolation can be redeemed here and now so that heaven can interpenetrate and communion become the defining reality for every person, no matter their "worldly" circumstances. This is a form of immense "temporal usefulness" because it serves God and God's kingdom as it is meant to be realized here and now. No one living at the heart of reality (as hermits do) and witnessing to the reality of redemption that occurs when human poverty and divine grace meet can be said to be "temporally useless."

I would strenuously disagree with the appropriateness of many of the applications of the "grandifloras" analogy to diocesan hermits: [[Tended, noticed, prized, utilized, pruned, fertilized, identified, sprayed, winterized, mulched, composted, photographed, named, protected.]] It is true that diocesan hermits are publicly professed and are often recognizable within their parishes (etc) because of garb, title, and the like. They are also, to the rather cautious degree the Church esteems and uses Canon 603, publicly valued. At the time of their profession they may indeed be photographed and written up in the diocesan paper because this is a significant event in the life of that church, but beyond that they ordinarily return to the obscurity of the hermitage. For this reason I honestly can't see the appropriateness or accuracy of the rest of the description --- especially when played off against the "wild rose" picture of lay hermits.

For instance, remember first of all that diocesan hermits are self-supporting. The Church does not provide anything towards their living expenses, domicile, retreat, education, formation, spiritual direction, medical (generally) or other insurance, etc. These are commitments consecrated solitary hermits are expected by the Church to take care of. So really, how are these diocesan hermits tended, pruned, fertilized, sprayed, winterized, mulched, composted, or protected in ways which differ from their lay brothers and sisters? Remember too, that generally their daily lives are hidden and not involved in active ministry. They may attend daily Mass a couple of times during the week (more if it is possible and does not detract from their solitude and less if it does), and other parishioners may assist them in the ways any needy person in the parish may get assistance (e.g., help with transportation, shopping, doctor's visits and the like), but how does this differ from what is available to lay hermits in the same parish setting? Yes, their gifts and education will be used by the parish in ways everyone discerning the matter finds appropriate, but again, how does this differ from the lay hermit in the same situation?

Public versus Private Vocations

Again, it is true that members of a diocesan hermit's parish (and diocese, etc) have the right to certain expectations of one who is publicly called from their midst and professed, consecrated, and officially commissioned to serve. This is not true in the same way for the lay hermit. While both are valued and expected to live their vocations with integrity, the private nature of the lay hermit's life means that more aspects of their life are indeed private and not susceptible to specific expectations. Even so, I don't think this means the diocesan hermit is being treated as a kind of hothouse plant. She must live poverty, celibate love, and obedience to God in recognizable ways. Her life must be a life of prayer steeped in the Word of God and this should be clear. She must live stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude in ways which allow others to perceive the redemption possible and real in these. She may legitimately be expected to evidence the fact that love is the motivating force behind her vocation, and that she is growing in this --- even though this does not involve her in active ministry to a large degree. People have a right to necessarily expect these things of her. People have a right to understand her vocation and the concrete ways she lives this out in their midst. Of course this does not cancel out the normal privacy which obtains in any relationship with others, but it does point out the difference between public and private vocations.

At the same time, it can happen that lay hermits who really accept their integral place in the parish and diocesan communities are closer to the rest of the laity in some ways than are diocesan hermits. I have said before that lay hermits could well witness to the redemption of so much of the isolation and alienation in our society in ways which speak more effectively to those who will never seek canonical standing or public vows. Imagine what could happen in a parish if two or three authentic lay hermits along with their diocesan hermit sister or brother gave a workshop or talk geared to the isolated elderly and chronically ill in the parish! Imagine if they did this every six months and were otherwise occasionally available to talk with their fellow parishioners about the transformation of isolation into genuine solitude or the place of the solitary in the heart of the Church. Imagine what could happen if they confronted the questions associated with those unable to do active ministry and affirmed the importance of lay contemplative vocations in the heart of local parshes, churches, etc. The two vocations together have greater similarities than differences but they also complement each other in demonstrating or witnessing to the place of the hermit in the Church. But what I have asked you to imagine cannot really happen if a huge dichotomy between lay and diocesan hermits is drawn and exaggerated as in the images used by the hermit you have cited.

Summary, Betrayal of Desert Ideal

So, while I think the hermit you cited made a really good point about the difficulty of living as a lay hermit without official standing (as a hermit) in the Church, this should be balanced with an appreciation of the importance and possibilities of the lay eremitical vocation in today's church. I clearly think it is a mistake to speak of diocesan hermits as though they are hothouse plants which are constantly and especially tended, nurtured, nourished, etc. This is simply not accurate. Again, I also take issue with the assertion that eremitical life is "temporally useless," though I certainly believe it is true that it is mainly useless in "worldly" terms. As for betrayals of the ideal, eremitical life has always allowed for great flexibility and individual expression. There are certain essential elements which should define any life which is called eremitical (cf c 603), but otherwise legitimate differences are allowed in living out this life without considering these ways a betrayal of the ideal. In any case, betrayals may occur with either lay or diocesan hermits. What has always been true is that hermits have traditionally tried to find ways to live the Gospel while relating prophetically to the institutional church. The prophetic stance of the lay hermit may approximate that of the desert Fathers and Mothers more visibly than the stance of the diocesan hermit does, but so long as the diocesan hermit is true to and can articulate the nature of her own prophetic stance she too represents the desert ideal with fidelity.