Implications of Abuses of Canon 603 on the Diocesan Level

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
you have written that Canon 603 hermits are solitary hermits and that while they can come together in a laura, they cannot form a community in the proper sense. You have also written that canon 603 is not meant to be a stopgap means of achieving profession on the way to another vocation. While all that makes sense to me isn't it true that the Archdiocese of Boston has a diocesan hermit perpetually professed in 2005 who is now the superior general (Mother) of a new community? Are you aware of the situation I am currently speaking of? I am from Boston and was confused at this Sister's approach to eremitical life. You may remember I wrote you back then. But given what you have written about using c 603 as a stopgap means of profession and other things, I am now even more confused. Can you clarify things for me?]] (Redacted for this blog)

Thanks for your letter. I do remember your email from about two or three years ago. While I did not write about the situation specifically here (at least not by name of Archdiocese), it was one of the reasons I subsequently wrote posts about c 603 misuses and abuses, the use of Canon 603 as a stopgap means to profession, etc. (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Solutions to Using C 603 as a Stopgap way to Profession)  At the time the situation you ask about raised a lot of questions and as I may have mentioned then, your own were not the only ones I received. What was at issue then was a diocesan hermit who was working full time as head of campus ministry at Boston University and later became Chaplain for the University's student body. Now, to be very clear, Sister Olga had an amazing background, was much-loved, worked very hard and, as I have noted before, is someone I would personally be really privileged to know. The problem then was that she was no hermit, despite being professed under canon 603. Since admission to profession under canon 603 was not her decision or responsibility, I cannot point to her as the source of the problem. Instead, it seems to me that it is more likely that she became caught up in something that was not truly right for her or for the solitary eremitical vocation under canon 603.  The responsibility for professions under canon 603 falls ultimately to the (Arch)diocesan (Arch)Bishop.

Looking at Sister Olga's Story:

A little of Sister Yaqob's story is important --- not least because it points up the exceptional person she is. Sister Olga had come here to study from Iraq. She was not Roman Catholic but had begun a congregation of Sisters in the Assyrian Church of the East. After she came here she became a Roman Catholic. However, this was something of a problem since she could not remain a professed religious in light of this change of affiliation. Canon law had two and only two options she might have pursued which deal with the consecration of individuals apart from communities. The first was canon 604, the canon for consecrated virgins living in the world. In such a case, however, the CV is not a Sister, does not have public vows, does not wear distinguishing garb, etc. She belongs to the order of Consecrated Virgins, but is not a religious and cannot begin a religious congregation. The only other option was and is Canon 603. However, this canon governs solitary eremitical life, not merely any form of pious solitary living. As you and others made clear, it seemed to everyone looking on that Sister Olga, who once claimed the term "hermit" as a "metaphor for her life", was not living an eremitical life. A description of her life noted that she set Saturdays aside for contemplative prayer and solitude and mainly worked full time at the University in a highly social job.

For whatever reason, her Archbishop had professed her in 2005 under canon 603 then, and this raised serious questions for others all around the country and the world. Some dioceses heard from people who wanted to make vows, wear a habit, and work full time outside the "hermitage" (residence) in a similar way. They were completely comfortable committing to one day of contemplative prayer per week, never mind the LIFE the canon demanded, and some had had experiences which isolated them so that they felt okay about using the term hermit as a metaphor for their lives --- just as Sister Olga had characterized  her own life. Bishops mainly refused to admit them to profession under canon 603, and rightly so.

Yet this raised serious questions for those wishing to become canon 603 hermits.  I  received several questions, letters, or emails from people wondering how, if an Archbishop could profess a person involved in full-time ministerial activity as a University chaplain as Sister Olga certainly was, their own Bishops could refuse to profess them because they were "not living an eremitical life" or needed to work full time outside the hermitage. One of these persons was living an essentially eremitical life but still needed to work alone at nights outside the hermitage. It was a difficult situation. Still, some were professed and so today we have "hermits" living primarily non-contemplative lives given mainly to active apostolates instead of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance and stricter separation from the world. The precedent was destructive and even yet threatens the vocation itself --- a vocation canon 603 was designed to protect and nurture. Thus, it continues to be problematical.

Where we Stand Today

Current descriptions of Sister Olga's life today mention her perpetual profession in 2005 but they do not mention that her vows were made under Canon 603 nor that she was (and perhaps still is) professed therefore as a diocesan hermit. It may be that her eremitical vows were dispensed, but apparently no new public vows have been made. It sounds like the Archdiocese has decided to allow the entire diocesan hermit portion of Sister Olga's life and profession to slide into the oblivion of forgetfulness in order to avoid further stumbling blocks for folks both within and outside her diocese. However, the situation still raises significant problems canonically and a number of questions are left unanswered by such silence and obscurantism.

You see, diocesan hermits cannot allow their lives to morph into ministerial religious lives. There is often a constant pressure to do more active ministry for one's parish or diocese and most of us feel some pain or regret in needing to say no (or to fail to offer to serve in various ways) because we have embraced a contemplative vocation to solitude which is much less understood and whose value is much less evident to those around us. This example of the Archdiocese of Boston thus makes living c 603 with eremitical integrity much harder for those of us who are tempted to become more active in a directly ministerial way. At the same time, c 603 hermits cannot (as I have been told at least) simply transfer their vows to a congregation. They must be dispensed from them, discern another vocation and then be admitted to vows within the congregation according to universal canonical procedures and time frames.

In fact, diocesan hermits cannot even move to a new diocese without the permission of both ordinaries involved. Though they are diocesan hermits wherever they visit and anywhere in the Church, their professions are very specific and circumscribed by a form of diocesan stability. And, though this second point (moving) is not directly applicable to Sister Olga's situation it points to the narrow constraints involved in Canon 603 profession and of course it could become significant should Sister Olga Yaqob seek to leave Boston as her new community grows. After all, if her vows are still canon 603 vows, then a new Bishop will be placed in the position of accepting a non-hermit living according to a canon governing eremitical life. Consider the precedents and questions this would raise in the new diocese!!!


As it apparently stands, the situation in Boston also raises the issues of hypocrisy and non-comp-liance: namely, if a diocesan hermit ceases to live an eremitical life she can (and should) certainly be dispensed from her vows. That remains true even if one discerns and embraces a new and different vocation to ministerial religious life . One has still ceased being a hermit and is living as though they are no longer bound by either an eremitical Rule or eremitical vows nor by the canon governing such vocations. How can one ask the Bishop of a new Diocese to merely accept such a situation (and the person's vows) and turn a blind eye? How can one ask a  new incoming Archbishop to do something similar?

And what of other newly-fledged congregations who would like to take short cuts in becoming canonical? Should canon 603 be used to profess at least the superior/moderator of such congregations? Why not if it was once appropriate in  the Archdiocese of Boston and there is still someone living out public vows made under canon 603 but now doing so as the founder of a new community? Why pay attention to expert commentators on c 603 and its history and nature, who note lauras are permissible but that these should not rise to the level of communities? Why not simply use c 603 as a stopgap means to profession for any and all individuals desiring admission to public vows never mind whether they live anything remotely resembling eremitical life? Why, that is, should we not simply turn a blind eye to the gift of the Holy Spirit which c 603 seeks to nurture, govern, and protect?

Protecting against the Repetition of this Situation

As part of the hermit's own vow formula, some dioceses require the specification that these vows are made as a part of responding to the grace of a solitary eremitical vocation.  The wisdom of this requirement is clearer to everyone involved with the canon as time goes on. Further, since canon 603 governs solitary eremitical vocations which allow for coming together in lauras but not the establishment of communities per se, it seems clear that a hermit should be dispensed from her vows in order to begin a community. Further, as one dispensed from her vows she cannot ordinarily simply begin a canonical foundation. Not only does she cease to be a vowed religious in such an instance, but ordinarily, any community she begins will need to move through the same stages any other aspiring group needs to move through: private association of the faithful, public association of the faithful, and, if all goes well over time, institute of consecrated life. This process is not only codified in law but reflects simple prudence.

Because of all these factors the extraordinary situation in Boston is still a thorn bush of difficulties. It is understandable, I think, that 1) Sister Olga dropped the pretense of being a hermit to fully affirm the truth of what she is apparently more truly called to, and 2) the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed all this to merely slip from view and memory by focusing  (a) on the fact of vows while omitting the fact that they were solitary eremitical (c 603) vows and  (b) on the new community. Diocesan hermits and others, however, are interested in and perhaps could be said to have a right to know how the situation is resolved canonically because this has significant implications for how the diocesan eremitical life is lived out concretely.

The primary reason for bringing all this up is to make sure that canon 603 is never misused in this manner again. Sister Olga (or Mother Olga as she is now known) is an exceptional person (and apparently an exceptional religious) and it makes sense that the Archbishop of Boston was particularly open to accommodating her in some way -- especially given her history, her faith and people skills, and her ethnic background and skills in Arabic language and Iraqi culture. I very much appreciate the integrity Sister Yaqob has personally shown in leaving the diocesan hermit designation behind. However, professing her using canon 603 was a serious mistake which threatened the diocesan eremitical vocation in the process.

The secondary reason for bringing this situation up then is because the canonical questions it raised are still with us and require answers. Similarly, the pastoral questions it raises are also significant and, in part, will only be answered over time with the education of the episcopacy and church as a whole regarding the nature of the solitary eremitical vocation along with a history of well-discerned professions which ensure the integrity of the life which canon 603 governs. At some point the Archdiocese of Boston also needs to clarify publicly how they resolved this situation. Sister Olga's eremitical profession could have been determined to be invalid, for instance, but if that proved to be the case then what is the canonical standing of Sister Olga now and what precedent does her situation vis-a-vis the new community set for other aspiring founders and communities? Aspiring hermits? Remember, Sister Yaqob cannot have made canonical vows as an individual under any canon but 603. Again, the situation is a thorn bush of difficulties and unresolved questions.

I know this doesn't really clarify what is largely still obscure for many of us, but hope this is of some help.