[[Dear Sister, doesn't it seem unfair to you that you have different rights or "perks" because you are a canonical rather than a non-canonical hermit? What you wrote about the right to have a priest come to your hermitage and say Mass isn't something a non-canonical hermit can do. Also, a non-canonical hermit does not have the aid of a delegate to discern things or the bishop to give permission or ask priests to assist you in this way. I wonder if this is really fair.]]
Thanks for your questions. I agree there is a real and substantial difference between the rights and obligations between a canonical and a non-canonical hermit, but that is precisely the distinction which exists between a public vocation with public commitment and a commitment which is private. Hermits who have private vows and do not, therefore, enter the consecrated state retain the freedoms associated with the lay (baptized state) itself. The Church does not extend additional rights or obligations to such hermits nor do the People of God (whether parish or diocese) have additional expectations of them. But such obligations and expectations do accrue to the publicly professed and consecrated hermit.
I don't know that fairness enters into things here, but in any case, I don't think the differing rights and obligations are unfair. Different, yes, but not unfair. Generally speaking, if a lay hermit wishes to take on the rights and obligations of the public vocation, they can seek admittance to public profession. Because we are talking about an ecclesial vocation, this will require the Church's own discernment and admission to profession because only the Church can extend certain rights and obligations to the hermit in such a case, but that said, a lay hermit is certainly free to seek admission to profession and eventual consecration as a solitary canonical hermit.
Many hermits do not desire to "jump through the hoops" associated with canonical standing; they do not want to participate in a process of mutual discernment or to give themselves over to the kinds of relationships and requirements which are part and parcel of a public vocation. Some believe these additional canonical requirements are destructive of the freedom of eremitical life itself. Others believe c 603 sets up an essentially legalistic approach to eremitical life. I strenuously disagree with the accuracy of these last perceptions but I also understand them. The bottom line here is that if one wants the rights attending canonical eremitical life, one also needs to accept the canonical state and obligations which contextualize these rights.
One of the reasons I wrote about what establishes a "stable state of life" was precisely to indicate the existence of differing rights and obligations associated with these. The question of Eucharistic spirituality and Sunday Mass attendance is one of the ways the lay state can differ from the consecrated state -- though it need not. The existence of a public vow of obedience and the relationships which make such a vow meaningful is another way consecrated eremitical life differs from lay eremitical life. The various differences in the way consecrated hermits may style themselves (titles, habits, cowl or other prayer garment) are further ways they differ from non-canonical or privately vowed hermits. Public obligations to religious poverty and the central or constitutive elements of canon 603 all constitute dimensions of the stable state of life associated with the consecrated state of life. (Note well that this is not the same as some vaguely defined "consecrated life of the Church" -- it is very specifically a reference to a precisely defined and constituted state of life.
The lay state itself is a canonically defined state of life with its own rights and obligations but again, the elements constituting such a state of life differ from those of the consecrated state. If a person would like the rights associated with the consecrated state (including the right to call themselves a Catholic Hermit) they need to embrace the publicly granted obligations which are also associated with such a state. As I said some posts back, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too if by this we mean one can personally assume the rights of the consecrated state without also embracing the public obligations and graces of that state; this is why private vows do not admit one to the consecrated state of life.
Similarly, neither can we claim the kinds of freedom associated with the lay state (including the freedom to separate oneself from a diocese, the ability to move wherever and whenever one wishes, freedom from the supervision of legitimate superiors -- though this is not onerous -- etc) and at the same time claim the perks or rights of the consecrated state (title, garb, public recognition, the assistance of legitimate superiors, supervised ongoing formation for the whole of one's life, etc). One needs to make a choice as to which state one truly feels called to and, depending upon what the church decides, embrace the obligations associated with that state.
.jpg)
Posts
