Pentecost: A Tale of Two Kingdoms (Reprised)

 One of the problems I see most often with Christianity is its domestication (not to be confused with domestic churches!!), a kind of blunting of its prophetic and counter cultural character. It is one thing to be comfortable with our faith, to live it gently in every part of our lives and to be a source of quiet challenge and consolation because we have been wholly changed by it. It is entirely another to add it to our lives and identities as a merely superficial "spiritual component" which we refuse to allow not only to shake the very foundations of all we know but also to transform us in all we are and do. 

Even more problematical --- and I admit to being sensitive to this because I am a hermit called to "stricter separation from the world" --- is a kind of self-centered spirituality which focuses on our own supposed holiness or perfection but calls for turning away from a world which undoubtedly needs and yearns for the love only God's powerful Spirit makes possible in us. Clearly today's Festal readings celebrate something very different than the sort of bland, powerless, pastorally ineffective, merely nominal Christianity we may embrace --- or the self-centered spirituality we sometimes espouse --- in the name of "contemplation" and  "contemptus mundi". Listen again to the shaking experience of the powerful Spirit that birthed the Church which Luke recounts in Acts: 

[[When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.]]

Roaring sounds filling the whole space, tongues of fire coming to rest above each person, a power of language which commun-icates (creates) incredible unity and destroys division --- this is a picture of a new and incredible creation, a new and awesome world in which the structures of power are turned on their heads and those who were outsiders --- the sick and poor, the outcast and sinners, those with no status and only the stamp of shame marking their lives --- are kissed with divinity and revealed to be God's very own Temples. The imagery of this reading is profound. For instance, in the world of this time coins were stamped with Caesar's picture and above his head was the image of a tongue of fire. Fire was a symbol of life and potency; it was linked to the heavens (stars, comets, etc). The tongue of fire was a way of indicating the Emperor's divinity.  Similarly, the capacity for speech, the fact that one has been given or has a voice, is a sign of power, standing, and authority.

And so Luke says of us. The Spirit of the Father and Son has come upon us. Tongues of Fire mark us as do tongues potentially capable of speaking a word of ultimate comfort to anyone anywhere. We have been made a Royal People, Temples of the Holy Spirit and called to live and act with a new authority, an authority and status which is greater than any Caesar. As I have noted before, this is not mere poetry, though it is certainly wonderfully poetic. On this Feast we open ourselves to the Spirit who transforms us quite literally into images of God, literal Temples of God's prophetic presence in our world, literal exemplars of a consoling love-doing-justice and a fiery, earth-shaking holiness which both transcends and undercuts every authority and status in our world that pretends to divinity or ultimacy. We ARE the Body of Christ, expressions of the one in whom godless death has been destroyed, expressions of the One in whom one day all sin and death will be replaced by eternal life. In Christ we are embodiments and mediators of the Word which destroys divisions and summons creation to reconciliation and unity; in us the Spirit of God loves our world into wholeness.

You can see that there is something really dangerous about today's Feast. What we celebrate is dangerous to a Caesar oppressing most of the known world with his taxation and arbitrary exercise of power depending on keeping subjects powerless and without choice or voice; it is dangerous if you are called to live out this gift of God's own Spirit as a prophetic presence in the very same world which kills prophets and executed God's Anointed One as a shameful criminal --- a traitor or seditionist and blasphemer. Witnesses to the risen Christ and the Kingdom of God are liable, of course, to  martyrdom of all sorts. That is the very nature of the word, "martyr", and it is what yesterday's gospel lection referred to when it promised Peter that in his maturity he would be led where he did not really desire to go. But it is also dangerous to those who prefer a more domesticated and timid "Christianity", one that does not upset the status quo or demand the overthrow of all of one's vision, values, and the redefinition of one's entire purpose in life; it is dangerous if you care too much about what people think of you or you desire a faith which is consoling but undemanding --- a faith centered on what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace". At least it is dangerous when one opens oneself, even slightly, to the Spirit celebrated in this Feast.

A few years ago my pastor (John Kasper, OSFS)  quoted from Annie Dillard's book, Teaching a Stone to Talk. It may have been for Pentecost, but I can't remember that now. Here, though, is the passage from which he quoted, [[Why do people in church seem like cheerful, brainless tourists on a packaged tour of the Absolute? … Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us to where we can never return.]] Clearly both Fr John and Ms Dillard understood how truly dangerous the Spirit of Pentecost is.

We live in a world where two Kingdoms vie against each other. One is marked by oppression, a lack of freedom --- except for the privileged few who hold positions of wealth and influence --- and is marred by the domination of sin and death. It is a world where the poor, ill, aged, and otherwise powerless are essentially voiceless. In this world Caesars of all sorts have been sovereign or pretended to sovereignty. The other Kingdom, the Kingdom which signals the eventual and inevitable end of the first one is the Kingdom (Dominion) of God. It has come among us first in God's quiet self-emptying and in the smallness of an infant, the generosity, compassion, and ultimately, the weakness, suffering and sinful death of a Jewish man in a Roman world. Today it comes to us as a powerful wind which shakes and disorients even as it grounds and reorients us in the love of God. Today it comes to us as the power of love that does justice and sets all things to right.

While the battle between these two Kingdoms occurs all around us in the way we live and proclaim the Gospel with our lives, the way, that is, we worship God, raise our children, teach our students, treat our parishioners, clients, and patients, vote our consciences, contribute to our society's needs, and generally minister to our world, it is our hearts which are ground zero in this "tale of two Kingdoms." It is not easy to admit that insofar as we are truly human we have been kissed by a Divinity which invites us to a divine/human union that completes us, makes us whole, and results in a fruitfulness we associate with all similar "marriages". It is not easy to give our hearts so completely or embrace a dignity which is entirely the gift of another. Far easier to keep our hearts divided and ambiguous. But today's Feast calls us to truly open ourselves to this union, to accept that our lives are marked and transformed by tongues of fire and the shaking, stormy Spirit of prophets. After all, this is Pentecost and through us God truly will renew the face of the earth.

Skills for the Pandemic: Waiting and the Present Moment

[[Dear Sister, during the lockdown many of us are living now, I know we're all struggling with the same kinds of things. How do we learn to wait for the end to all of this pandemic awfulness and the time when we can resume our normal lives? I've never been all that good with waiting anyway and now as things stretch on without a foreseeable end I think I've lost any ability I ever had to wait!! I just don't feel patient at all. How do you do this? Is it different for you than it is for non-hermits?]]

Thanks for your questions; they are important and I agree that everyone is probably struggling with these or similar questions. This may sound strange but I am convinced that the key to waiting comes from not misunderstanding its nature. I think that rather than waiting for the end to this lockdown and return to normal --- both of which we want but cannot even be sure will happen --- we have to learn to live the life we have this day, this hour. We wait well when our attention is not on the future possibilities (no matter how probable or improbable), but on the present moment right in front of us. There is a paradox here --- as in so many things associated with the Gospel. We wait best when we live our lives right here and right now and allow the "waiting" piece of things to drop away.

Consider Sunday's Feast/Solemnity of the Ascension. The readings were full of references to "Jesus' return" and to the promise of the fulfillment of this New Creation at some unknown time. And yet, the disciples' attention had to be drawn away from the skies and a sense of what would happen one day in some unknown way, and brought back to the world around them where Jesus would surely be found as the one now exalted to the right hand of God.  The language of leaving and returning helps us ready ourselves for a change that has actually happened and can be perceptible with the eyes of faith. What will one day come to be in fullness can only be seen, and in fact, only "waited for" by attending to it now while appreciating its proleptic or very real but also anticipatory quality.

The correlative paradox is that we cease to wait as soon as we begin to look away from the present moment. Think what it is like to wait for a doctor's appointment or in the check-out line in the supermarket. Imagine someone waiting patiently (which really just means waiting). They watch people, perhaps pray for them, allow themselves to take in all of the sights and sounds around them, quietly recheck their list to make sure they have included everything they 1) wanted to talk about or 2) needed to purchase, and then continue on being entirely present to the present moment. Then consider someone "waiting impatiently," (no one  actually waits impatiently; impatience means one has ceased to wait altogether). They wonder what is taking so long, imagine all kinds of reasons, dream about where they might otherwise be, consider how much more important they and their time are than this silly delay seems to indicate is appreciated, etc, etc. This person is not merely impatient with the situation and the world around them (which perhaps goes unnoticed and is certainly unappreciated); they have ceased to live the present moment almost entirely. They no longer wait in any meaningful way.

So what does this mean for those on lockdown or "shelter in place"? To whatever extent you can make future plans, do that, but after you have done that, let yourself live your life as it is in the present. Make sure there is regularity about your days, sufficient rest, work, prayer if that is important to you, and recreation. Limit your consumption of news (and anything else you are tempted to overindulge in!)  If you have time to take on a new project, piece of learning, or hobby, by all means do that. Honor your commitments as best you can. But again you only truly wait by being fully present to the present moment. That's how any meaningful future comes to us, and in fact, it is the way we honor and welcome the future, paradoxical as that seems. This is why we have the sense of the "future" sneaking up on us and waiting taking no time at all when we are engaged in the present. 

All of this is how it is for a hermit or contemplative of any stripe. I admit that in most ways the shelter-in-place has been easier for me than for most because I already live this kind of ""stability". But that is about living in the silence of solitude. Waiting is the same for me as for anyone; there is no special trick here that hermits-only know. Yes, I do try to practice living in the present moment as best I can --- which likely makes waiting easier for me in some ways. I hope this is helpful.

Two Were Bound For Emmaus

About a month ago I wrote a homily for my parish community for the Sunday using Luke's story of the Road to Emmaus. Both spending time with Luke's text and writing the reflection were very important for me personally (cf back around 28.April for this piece), and it has stayed with me throughout the Easter season. Tonight I heard the hymn, Two Were Bound for Emmaus.  There was one line that reminded me of what I wrote for yesterday's Feast of the Ascension as well: "Love unknown then walked beside them." So much of our own faith lives is about learning to "see with new eyes" because Love-in-Act walks right beside us, accompanying, comforting, consoling, inspiring and bringing us home.This has been the challenge for us all during Easter and continues now with a special urgency and new difficulty after the Ascension. I loved this version of the story we embody ourselves. Enjoy!

Reflection for Solemnity of the Ascension: Seeing our New Creation with the Eyes of God

In one of the Star Trek Next Generation episodes, Commander Geordi La Forge and Ensign Ro Larren are caught in a transporter accident. While returning to the ship, a surge of power or radiation causes them "materialize" back on the Enterprise in a way where they cannot be seen or heard. The transporter pad looks empty; they seem to have been lost. Neither can they interact in their usual way with the ordinary world of space and time; for instance, they can walk through walls, reach through control panels or other "solid" objects, and stand between two people who are conversing without being perceived. The dimension of reality Geordi and Ro now inhabit interpenetrates the other more everyday world of space and time, interfaces with it in some way without being identical with it. In other words, their new existence is both continuous and discontinuous with their old existence; Geordi and Ro are both present and absent at the same time. In Star Trek parlance this new way of being embodied is called, ”phased” -- because it is a presence slightly “out of phase with our own”. While their friends believe that Geordi and Ro are gone forever and begin to grieve, Geordi and Ro are still vitally present and they leave signs of this presence everywhere --- if only these can be recognized and their friends empowered to see them as they are.


Especially, I think this story helps us begin to imagine and think about what has been so important during all the readings we have heard during this Easter Season and is celebrated in a new and even more mysterious way with the feast of the Ascension. In these stories Jesus is present in a way which is both like and unlike, continuous and discontinuous with, normal existence; it is a presence which can be described as, and even mistaken for absence. Today’s first reading from Acts describes a difficult and demanding “departure” or “absence” but one which has the disciples misguidedly looking up into the skies --- something the angels upbraid them for. Meanwhile, the consoling and hope-filled word we are left with at the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel conveys the promise of an abiding presence which will never leave us. Jesus affirms, [[And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.]] In these readings, absence and Presence are held together in a strange tension.

We know that Resurrection itself represented the coming of something new, a new kind of expanded or less limited incarnation, a new embodied presence or materiality where Jesus can be encountered and recognized with the eyes of faith. What is made clear time and again as Jesus picnicked on the beach with his disciples, invited them to touch him, or even when he warns Mary of Magdala not to cling to him in this form, is that his resurrection is bodily. Yes, it is different from the kind of materiality Jesus had before his death. He is no longer mortal and so we are told he walks through walls and breaches locked doors or otherwise comes and goes without anyone seeing how. The gospel writers want us to understand that Jesus was not merely "raised" in our minds and hearts (though we will certainly find him there!); neither is the risen Jesus disembodied spirit or a naked immortal soul. Finally, he has not relinquished his humanity. God has raised the human Jesus to a new bodily life which is both earthly and heavenly.

Only in Luke’s version of the story is Ascension spoken of directly or treated as a separate event occurring 40 days after the resurrection. (Mark's Gospel originally ended short of the Ascension story.) Here Luke shifts our attention from Jesus’ continuing earthly but mysterious presence to his having been “taken up bodily into heaven”. But how can this be? We might be forgiven for thinking that surely the Star Trek story is easier to believe than this fantastical and incredible tale on which we base our lives! So, what is Luke doing here? What are we really celebrating on this feast?

What Luke and his original readers knew was that in the Scriptures, "Heaven” is a careful Semitic way of speaking about God’s own self --- just as the presence of clouds in today’s reading from Acts refers to the mysteriousness of God’s presence. Heaven is not a remote location in space one can locate with the proper astrometric instruments and coordinates; nor are unbelieving cosmonauts and hard-nosed empiricists the only ones to make such a mistake. After all, as we hear today, even the disciples need to have their attention drawn away from searching the skies and brought back to earth where Jesus will truly be found! Heaven refers to God’s own life shared with others.


Luke is telling the story in a way which helps us see that in Christ God has not only conquered death, but (he) has made room for humanity itself (and in fact, for all of creation) within (his) own Divine life. Christ is the “first fruits” of this new way of existing where heaven (Divine Life) and earth (created life) now interpenetrate one another. God is present in our world of space and time now in a way he could not have been apart from Jesus’ openness and responsiveness (what the Scriptures call his “obedience”), and Jesus is present in a way he could not be without existing in God. Jesus’ own ministry among us continues as more and more, Jesus draws us each and all into that same Divine life in the power of the Holy Spirit of the Father and Son.


St John uses the puzzling language of mutual indwelling to describe this reality: "The Father is in me and I am in him" . . ." we know that we abide in him and he is in us." When theologians in both Western and Eastern churches speak of this whole dynamic, their summary is paradoxical and shocking: [[God became human so that humans might become gods]]. And as one contemporary Bible scholar puts the matter, “We who are baptized into Christ's death are citizens of heaven colonizing the earth.” As such, we are also called on to develop the eyes of faith that allow us to see this new world as it is shot through with the promise of fullness. Some of us experienced what this means just this week.

Three years ago, in a visit to my parish, Bro Mickey McGrath, osfs, gave us a virtual tour of his Camden ‘hood by sharing the work he had drawn and painted from Holy Week onward during his own sheltering in place. Many of us got a chance to see through his eyes, that is, through the eyes of faith and love. What Bro Mickey showed us was not an idealized Camden without violence, poverty, suffering or struggle; those were all present. But through his eyes we saw the greenhouse cathedral of a neighborhood garden, the communion lines  and eucharistic Presence of the community food pantry, the way of the cross of a crippled man as he limped up the street, a broken and bold statue of Mary standing as a symbol of perseverance and hope despite everything, and another more contemporary version made even more beautiful by a prostitute's gift of a single flower. And everywhere reality that could have been accurately drawn in harsh tones of pain and struggle were more accurately shown awash with life, beauty, and hope splashed in colors of brilliant orange, and purple, and gold, and green --- the colors of life, royalty, holiness, newness and potential. 

Today’s Feast is not so much about the departure or absence of Jesus as it is his new transfigured, universal, and even cosmic presence which in turn transforms everything it touches with the life of God. The world we live in is not the one that existed before Jesus’ death, and resurrection. Heaven and earth now interpenetrate one another in a way which may sound suspiciously to some like bad science fiction. We know its truth, however, whenever we can see this New Creation with the eyes of faith and love --- that is, whenever we can see ourselves and the world around us with the very eyes of God. It is the only way we will become disciples ourselves --- or truly make disciples of all nations.

She Just Wants to Help

I have been working on a homily for the Solemnity of the Ascension and struggling with it some. Part of what I am trying to convey is that Luke's way of telling the story with its various stages, time frames, and images of leaving, absence, and eventual return are a paradoxical way of speaking about  a new and challenging Presence in a new and sacramental world --- if only we have the eyes of faith to see it! In the midst of this work I received the above picture with a brief note from my Director. 

One can see a foolish child, mistaken in what she sees, misguided in her futile attempts to assist with something she would be too small and insignificant to help with even if this weren't a statue --- and maybe allow "how cute" such foolishness is! Or, one can see what it means when Jesus says we must become like little children and view the world with the eyes of faith. Yes, this is a tableau of Jesus' way of the cross, not merely because of the suffering, struggle, and failure associated with the scene, but because it is simultaneously a tableau of two hearts, blind to their very human limitations, and united in their alertness to the infinite potential of Love. 

This "little one" may not have moved this statue but there is no doubt in my mind she moved God with compassion and delight --- and deeply touched the hearts of whoever has seen this. 

On the Performative Nature of Profession and The Prayer of Solemn Consecration

[[Dear Sister, I've read your last couple of pieces on the profession and consecration of hermits. You are saying these things are more than some kind of official recognition by the Church, aren't you? Would this be like ordination is more than a kind of official recognition of a priestly vocation or of a person? Is this why you use the word performative or speak of a "making real" quality? If a bishop said that profession and consecration was just a form of official recognition he would be incorrect wouldn't he? Because you write that neither the canonical nor the non-canonical hermit vocation is better than the other why is it a problem if someone contends they are canonical when they are not?]]

Yes, you've gotten it. The term performative is used about language events and means that something comes to be or is "realized" in the very act of speaking. We all have a slight sense of this from when we finally put obscure feelings into words and sense they are suddenly more real. But consider, when a judge pronounces a jury's finding of "guilty" the person is guilty under the law and convicted --- even if they did not commit the crime. When the pronounced judgment is "not guilty" the person IS acquitted even if they committed the crime. When an umpire calls a person "safe" they ARE safe; they become so at the moment of the call. On a more significant level, vows work this way as well. They are performative: in the pronouncing of one's vows one becomes bound by them and committed in a way one was not prior to making such vows.  Marriage vows are exchanged and in the process of this exchange a couple marries one another; something comes to be that was not a reality before this and the bonds are unbreakable. If one is admitted to religious profession with public vows, what comes to be is a complex set of relationships, rights, and obligations that did not exist before this, because these vows have implications for more than the person making them. Meanwhile, the prayer of solemn consecration prayed over the person by the bishop mediates God's own consecration where someone is actually set apart in the consecrated state.

Yes, though the two are not identical, there is some similarity between consecration and ordination in the sense that something comes to be that was not before.  Some write that in consecration a person is set apart as a "sacred person". Whether we speak of it this way or not (I tend not to do so) this consecration cannot be undone. While one can be removed from the consecrated state of life (meaning one can be deprived of the rights and obligations associated with this state) consecration itself is an act of God and cannot be undone.  With ordination one is admitted to a Sacrament which also changes one in a lasting way. Those who are ordained are ordained forever (their souls are marked and they are made capable of or ordered to ordained ministry) though they too may be deprived of the rights and obligations associated with their priestly state and returned to the lay state. What is important in all of this is hearing why it is the Church is as careful as she can be in admitting to ordination or, for that matter, to consecration. There are elements of both that, once done, cannot be undone and this makes both very significant acts. Again, there is something involved in each which is God's own doing and is far more than official recognition. Even in terms of the Church herself there is more involved than official recognition including supervision, governance, and mediation.

No Roman Catholic bishop would ever say profession and consecration are merely forms of official recognition because he would have to be ignorant of (or actually denying) the Church's own theology of profession and consecration to do so. Thus, you are correct: were a bishop to say this seriously he would be incorrect. At the same time, if he is trying to assist someone come to terms with the fact that they are not called to a vocation to the consecrated state, but wishes to encourage them to continue to live as a hermit in their baptized state if they feel so called, I can understand him adverting from what public vows and consecration signify within the church. This cannot mean using an actual untruth, however. I tend to think it is important to state the whole truth and to point out that while different from one another neither being a hermit in the lay state nor being one in the consecrated state is better than the other. They have different rights and obligations yes, and they speak to different people in different ways, but neither is "better" than the other, neither is a "higher" vocation than the other.

Even so, the fact that neither is better than the other or higher than the other does not mean they are identical either. Again, the rights and obligations associated with each differs. For instance, diocesan hermits live eremitical life for the sake of others in the name (authority) of the Church and they take on the rights and obligations of someone specifically called to and made responsible for that. They are Catholic hermits because they are explicitly authorized by the church to live this life and because these vocations are specifically governed and supervised under canon law by the local ordinary who is also doing this in the name of the church. Hermits in general may not need such governance and supervision, but those who call themselves Catholic Hermits, who claim to be consecrated, who wear habits to signal this, who reserve Eucharist in their hermitages, and who, on behalf of others they serve, assume other titles like Sister or Brother, DO require canonical standing and episcopal/diocesan supervision. At bottom this is about truth. It is about being the person one says one is -- and being the person God has called one to be. It is about not participating in pretense but instead treating others with charity by telling them the truth.

By the way, a variant of this is the purported assertion of a bishop that canon law (c 603) "does not speak to the validity of a vocation." This was recently posted in the blog Catholic Hermit and I cannot verify either the context or the text of the exact assertion; for this reason the meaning is entirely unclear as well. Even so, the given statement is true if the vocation being spoken of by the bishop is a non-canonical vocation lived in the lay state. After all, there is nothing about canon 603 that says a non-canonical eremitical vocation lacks validity, nor does anyone I know contend this.  On the other hand, does canon 603 "validate" or "speak to the validity"  of consecrated solitary eremitical lives? Yes, of course. The canon establishes in law and in fact allows for solitary eremitical life to be validly lived as an instance of consecrated life for the first time in the universal Church. It serves to establish, measure, and govern vocations precisely as valid vocations. Does this mean such vocations will be lived well? No, c 603 cannot do this, but it does say to the extent everyone involved is acting in good faith the vocation is a divine one recognized as valid (well-founded and legally established with corresponding rights and obligations) in and by the church.

A Contemplative Moment: The Lightest Touch

THE LIGHTEST TOUCH

by David Whyte

Good poetry begins with

the lightest touch

a breeze arriving from nowhere,

a whispered healing arrival,

a word in your ear,

a settling into things,

then like a hand in the dark

it arrests the whole body

steeling you for revelation.

In the silence that follows

a great line

you can feel Lazarus

deep inside

even the laziest, most deathly afraid

part of you,

lift up his hands and walk toward the light.

On the Paradox of Externals and the mediation of Spiritual Reality

[[Dear Sister, it seems contradictory or maybe it's just paradoxical that a vocation as profoundly spiritual and countercultural as hermit life should have to depend on canon law and other externals.  isn't there a conflict here or at least a danger that a hermit living her life under canon law will lose focus on the spiritual?]]

Excellent questions and also an excellent move from "contradictory" to "paradoxical" instead. That was the exactly right shift and the key to understanding the importance of structures and canons in ensuring or helping to ensure the spiritual and countercultural nature of the consecrated hermit's vocation.

Let me ask you some questions which should help me make my point: have you ever tried to nail jello to a wall? Ever tried to drink or even pour a cup of coffee without the cup? Have you ever tried to deal with mercury outside some kind of container or sleep on a feather "pillow" without the sewn encasement? Ever tried to live a productive life without a schedule, or a place to live or work or tools to work with? How about trying to live as a Christian without benefit of baptism or attempting to ensure a strong sacramental life without depending on "externals" like water, oil, unleavened bread, Scripture, or ordained ministry? Ever tried to take a long journey while avoiding the use of "externals" like roads, maps, gas stations, restaurants, or food stores? How about crossing a busy street at rush hour safely without regard to traffic signals or when there are no traffic laws? How about playing a violin sonata without the violin or the sonata or the technique and musical structure and rules for doing so? Similarly, have you ever tried to cook a complex meal without recipes, timers, utensils, or a stove providing assured temperatures (how about by using sticks and leaves over a campfire)? How did that work out for you? Better than it did for me, I hope!!

A few more questions: have you ever tried to live a consecrated life without being consecrated by God, or a married life (with all the rights and obligations intrinsic to this state of life) without being married? How about raising healthy children without rules or consistent norms; how would that work out do you think? And how does one play games with one's children and have fun doing it if the game has no rules or norms and play itself is "anything goes"? Finally, what would happen if I tried to grow vines without a trellis, the proper soil, water, and other nutrients, or taste/feel the effervescence of CO2 without a liquid in which this occurs? In other words, where do externals stop being merely external to something and instead become necessary for and sometimes even intrinsic to the thing itself? The simple fact is the more precious and fragile or frangible an activity or thing is, and certainly the more important, the more dependent it is on established norms, customs, rules, structures and "containers" of all sorts. Similarly, because we are embodied (historical) beings living our lives in space and time we need these "externals" for protection and health.

The dichotomy being drawn between externals and the spiritual in your own question is largely a false one. You see, in my life I need certain structures, relationships, and laws as well in order to live this vocation fully and faithfully. Others need some of these same things so they can truly benefit from this vocation, but also sometimes, truly serve it. These "externals" are not really merely external; instead they are part and parcel of the vocation itself. I am not merely called to be a lone individual, but a hermit and this requires I stand in the tradition of eremitical life known throughout the history of humankind. But beyond this I am also called to be a hermit living this life in the heart and in the name of the Church and for that reason certain "externals" like consecration, public profession, canon law, legitimate superiors and the ministry of authority, a Rule, and so forth are necessary for and also an intrinsic part of this vocation. All of these things serve this vocation and the God who is its source and ground. Can one be a hermit apart from these things? Yes, or at least yes to some of them. But one cannot be a hermit living this vocation in the name of the Church without them.

The thing is none of these supposedly "external" realities get in the way of the spiritual dimension of my vocation any more than the cup gets in the way of a cup of coffee, or a pillow encasement gets in the way of the feathers. Instead they make these things possible -- and capable of benefiting others. Just like I need a violin and the music for a sonata if I am to play a violin sonata, so too does a call to be a diocesan or canonical hermit require the church, canon law, and the mediation of both the call and the response. There is no call to such a vocation apart from these. My vocation was not a call I heard once in my mind, and responded to similarly once and for all. It is a call I heard, responded to in a definitive way and continue to respond to day in and day out in an embodied way. Canon 603 and my own prayer, work in direction, and life within the Church, sacramental and otherwise, continues to mediate that call to me and to receive my response. Not everyone needs all of this to live as a hermit, of course, but to live as a hermit in the name of the Church and with the rights and obligations which allow that vocation to take concrete shape in my life and the life of the church, one needs these things. Again, they serve this vocation and I am glad for their service.

Our God reveals Godself exhaustively as incarnate. God is exhaustively revealed (made known and made real in space and time) in an embodied way in the person of Jesus. Jesus' humanity does not get in the way of this revelation; it serves it!! It makes it possible! It is an incredible paradox, and something theologians throughout our history have struggled with. So too it is with the  supposed "externals" of canon law, church, ministry of authority, liturgy of consecration and profession, vows, Rule, etc. These allow the call of God to be revealed day in and day out, not only to the hermit, but to all of those the hermit's life touches.

These things shape my life in significant ways, yes, but they are also shaped by my life and reveal the way God is at work in it. Canon 603 isn't merely an external for me but rather something essential to mediate the voice and presence of God --- and thus, intrinsic to it. The same is true of the relationships I have with my Directors, my local parish, diocese, and so forth. These help create a realm of profound freedom infinite in its capacity to allow my exploration of life with God alone. To remove them is like sleeping night after night with one's head in an unconstrained pile of feathers. While this analogy fails like any analogy, it would not be long before the pile would cease to be and the feathers would be lost entirely through my own movement, and sweeping, bedmaking, laundry, an open bedroom window or door, and 1,001 other things which are part of everyday life.

Canon 603: A Process of Approval or a Process of Discernment?

[[(. . .This negative affirmation reminds me all over again why not to be involved in a newish canon law that allows such persons with history of hubris, nastiness, and outer attack not only of myself but of others over the past 12 years and likely longer, to have been approved by a bishop. This reminder of the inconsistency and lack of holy bishops having time to supervise their approved hermits, brings up what seems a solid suggestion. When bishops who have canonically approved persons in their diocese to be hermits, are transferred with a new bishop arriving, the person who was approved by the first bishop ought be taken through the approval process over again by the next bishop (and so on with new bishops), for not all bishops would approve of certain types of persons. In not continuing my writing as a Catholic hermit, I will definitely not miss this person nor the person's followers, but I will pray for them as I pray for the salvation of all the world. I also hope in God that you readers will pray for me.)]]

Sister, could you comment on this passage? I think it's messed up in some way, but I can't explain exactly how.

Sure, and I agree that your basic sense is correct. Personalities aside, this passage raises an important question, namely, does admission to perpetual profession and consecration represent a bishop's personal "approval" of the candidate for profession or is there something more involved? There is a corollary: should canonical hermits be run through the process of discernment and profession again and again as the diocesan bishop changes? (For instance, my own diocese has had 5 bishops -- 4 installed and one interim --- in the time I have lived here and first petitioned for admission to profession under c 603. Should I have been asked each time to undergo a new discernment process, and if so, what happens to the concepts of life or perpetual profession and consecration?) I have emboldened the critical part of the post cited and formulated these questions in a way which highlights what is actually at stake here, namely, do we accept the Church's theology of consecrated life or not? Do we accept the Church's theology of vocation or don't we?  Once someone is perpetually professed and consecrated, once they have been initiated into this stable state of life with all of the graced ontological changes that implies, it cannot simply be taken from them without grave reason and canonical process, nor can they be asked to "do it all again" whenever there is a change in the office of Bishop (or for any other similar situation).

The Problem with the term "Canonical approval":

The term "canonical approval" is inaccurate and, depending on how it is used, it can be seriously misleading. Someone who has petitioned for admission to public profession and divine consecration are either approved or disapproved for this specific admission. If they are professed and consecrated they assume a canonical standing they did not have before. They are not "canonically approved" nor is the approval given to admit to profession about whether they are a certain kind of person or not.  Neither does it have to do with whether or not the bishop likes or dislikes them, their theology, their personalities, reading habits, taste in music, or any similar thing. It has to do with whether or not this person has been discerned to have a divine vocation. God calls whom he will and when one is determined (as best as this is possible) to have a vocation to the solitary consecrated eremitical state, for instance, they will be allowed and (if they petition) required to accept the canonical rights and obligations associated with profession to this under c 603. In this way they are initiated into to the state of life of those called to live this life in the name of the Church. They become Catholic hermits. Canonical standing does not assure anything more than the fact that the Church and the person professed and consecrated has been determined, as well as can be by those with oversight in such matters, to be called to this; it says nothing about their personalities or a bishop's personal approval of them in a more general sense.

If, after profession/consecration the person lives the vocation with fidelity it makes no difference whether or not an incoming new bishop likes her much or not at all. She has been deemed ready for, called to, and admitted to a perpetual commitment and consecrated by God in the hands of her bishop who represented the whole Church in doing so. Yes, it is a big step and petitioning for and accepting this new standing in the Church under canon law by the hermit is a big decision. But it has been done and cannot be undone on a whim or bit of personal pique. There is a performative or "making real" quality to profession and consecration. They literally change reality. For this reason, the incoming bishop will learn to work with this hermit or not, he will supervise this vocation adequately or not, but without grave reasons having to do with the hermit's own failure to live her vocation, a bishop cannot take action against the hermit, nor can he simply deprive her of her vows or the state of life associated with her consecration by God. She has standing in law and that is something incoming bishops also have to honor.

There is a theology of consecrated life and profession at play here that I don't have the sense that the poster you quoted understands in the least. When one continues to speak in terms of canonical approval one gives signs of not having understood the seriousness or nature of the commitment one is being asked for the right to make or the church agrees to receive.. When I petitioned my diocese to admit me to profession and consecration as a diocesan hermit I was asking to be allowed not only to live eremitical life, but to be graced (in fact, consecrated) in a way which allowed me to do so in the name of the Church, and with all of protections and demands of canon law, church law, that pertained. I was petitioning to live this life in the very heart of the Church, and to do so as one whose life would exemplify this call if I were faithful to God in my living out of it. I was petitioning to be allowed to accept a public role, an infinitesimally small yet significant part in the long tradition of eremitical life that had helped shaped the Church and religious life. And I was asking to be allowed all of these things for the whole of my life --- to pour myself into my relationship with God as he poured himself into my heart and took me into himself in the silence of solitude --- all without having to worry that somehow the values and concerns of "the world" or even my own insecurities re "worthiness" or "ability" would be obstacles to this.

Perpetual profession and consecration under canon law provides all of this. Because the Church recognizes divine vocations (ALL vocations!) as significant gifts of God she creates laws to govern and nurture them. One dimension of canon law and having canonical standing as a hermit is the freedom to pursue one's vocation as God calls one without having to fear being deprived of what is necessary to live this calling for merely superficial or selfish reasons. None of this occurs because a bishop likes or "approves" of a person personally. After long discernment a bishop approves someone for admission to profession because it seems clear they have a vocation to eremitical life lived in the name of the Church, and because using canon 603 in this way could benefit the diocese. Similarly, a bishop receives one's profession and mediates God's consecration in the name of the church. The qualification, "in the name of God" is critical here because it emphasizes a recognition of God's calling here. After profession and consecration the bishop supervises this vocation as do others who might take his place as bishop. Again, none of this merely depends on the diocesan bishop's approval of the hermit personally, nor does canonical standing imply merely personal approval --- though I am sure there cannot be serious concern with nor disapproval of the way a hermit lives her vocation or action would be taken to assist her with this. In any case, I hope you can see the difference here.

The Problem with the term "approval process":

The process is rightly called a discernment process, not an approval process because one will approve a person for admission to profession and consecration if one determines they have a divine vocation. Approval for admission to profession is the natural consequence of a process of discernment involving many people, Vicars, canonists, pastors, spiritual directors, and bishop.  We name the process after the  thing everyone is most concerned with, namely seeing (or not seeing) the hand of God in this person's life and petition. Do we discern that canonical standing, admission to public vows and divine consecration reveals, nurtures, and protects the hand of God in this life and in the Church, both local and universal? Are we willing to undertake the obligations of canon 603 here (because the local and universal church also take on rights and obligations in admitting to profession, etc.) because we believe this person has a vocation to consecrated solitary eremitical life or not?

In case this is not clear though, imagine what the discernment process would be like if a diocese were to say: we are going to determine whether you have this vocation and are ready for perpetual profession; if we determine you have such a vocation and are called to perpetual profession, we want you to make your profession and give your entire self to God for the whole of that life --- but should something happen to the bishop, we'll ask you to do it all again, and again, and again --- as often as a bishop dies, or is transferred or becomes an Archbishop somewhere else, etc etc. Oh, and about the Divine consecration you receive at that perpetual profession, well, though we can't change it, we'll just act as though it never happened and ask God to do it again if and when the time comes! Unless of course the next bishop or the one after that doesn't personally "approve of you", or of having diocesan hermits at all, in which case we'll ask you to just cease being who you are (and who we have made you with the grace of God) and take up a new life in the Church. Meanwhile, we want you to live your vocation like its an eternal gift of God and to do so in our name, because that is what we teach it is. Are we asking you to live a lie? No. Are we giving the lie to what we are asking you to live? Yes.

You see, the very idea that the Church could pull the rug out from under this vocation once an honest discernment process had been done and profession and consecration occurred makes the state of life entered into by the hermit radically unstable. It gives the lie to every element in the situation being enacted in either profession or consecration: the vows cannot truly be perpetual, the consecration is made subordinate to the whims and vagaries of historical circumstances and a particular bishop, rather than being honored as the will of the eternal God, while vocation itself is treated like something one can regard or disregard, turn on or off like a light, without serious consequences for the person, the vocation itself or the Church's theology of vocation. Meanwhile, the canons which carefully provide the needed conditions for a truly stable state of life are emptied of meaning.

Summary:

When the Church admits someone to perpetual profession they have determined the person has a divine vocation.  When the Church uses the solemn prayer of consecration she mediates God's own consecration and will govern and supervise it for the glory of God. The Church recognizes she is not the source of such a vocation but its servant. Part of her service is engaging in an honest discernment process --- nothing less and nothing other. As a result of a positive discernment, the church agrees to celebrate a liturgy in which God's call and consecration of the person is publicly mediated to the hermit and the hermit's response and life commitment are also received in God's name. Together with the one called, the Church works to provide a stable foundation for the vocation to thrive and the person living that vocation to grow into the authentic likeness of the God she loves more than any other. Canonical standing is a fundamental part of this obligation for both the larger church and the individual hermit. This means that were the church to do as the poster you cited suggested she would be guilty of abandoning the gift of vocation altogether.

Clarification: Inconsistent Answers?

[[ Dear Sister O'Neal, thanks for your responses. You wrote recently that the most crucial issue in the discernment and formation of canon 603 vocations was an understanding of the charismatic quality of the vocation and enlarged on that by referring to how important it is to understand the gift quality of this vocation. In your response to my question about whether the canon is being implemented more appropriately your wrote that one area requiring improvement in implementing c 603 was the role of bishops in the ministry of authority. Are these two things linked in some way? If not it seems that you have answered the same question in two contrary ways. Thanks.]]

Another good question, thank you. The two responses are linked but the point I was making about charism is more foundational for everyone's esteeming this vocation; it may or may not be implicated in a bishop's failure to adequately supervise the vocation of a c 603 hermit in his diocese. You see,  the charism of solitary eremitical life is the silence of solitude. What I mean by this is that the real gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world in this vocation is "the silence of solitude", The central elements of the canon refers not only to the environment of the hermit's life and hermitage (physical silence and solitude), but as I understand it, it is both the gift of the Spirit but also the very goal of what the hermit is seeking in this eremitical life, namely, the silence or stillness (shalom, quies, hesychia) and solitude (wholeness, integrity, union) of one who rests entirely in the love of God (cf., Silence of Solitude as Goal of the Eremitical Life). My sense is that most of the misuses of canon 603 that occur, whether by the folks petitioning for admission to profession and consecration under c 603, ultimately stems from a failure to understand and esteem this gift quality and goal of the vocation.

Specifically, it is lack of understanding of just how eremitical life is a gift to the Church and world which allows bishops to dismiss or give short shrift to c 603 hermits. It is this which allows lone individuals who will never be hermits to be professed. This same lack of esteem or regard for the charism of eremitical vocation allows individuals and dioceses to use canon 603 as a stopgap to profess those who would like to be a religious without being or becoming a true hermit. A lot of abuses and misuses would fall away if dioceses understood what a gift of the Holy Spirit this vocation is and took care to honor that. Having said that I think it is clear that a bishop not understanding the charism of the vocation or even its charismatic nature might fail in his obligations to a hermit professed in his diocese just as he might fear to use the canon at all or seriously discern with those who may well have a solitary eremitical vocation which is ecclesial and canonical. So yes, the two are related but the failure to understand the charismatic nature of the vocation is the more fundamental one and bishops may or may not fail in their own obligations because of this just as they may fail for others reasons as well.

Is Canon 603 Being Implemented More Appropriately in the Present?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, Given what you have written about the short life of canon 603 and the way diocesan representatives are learning to implement it, do you think  it is being used more appropriately now than it was in the past? Are there ways the Church could improve in this?]]

That's a great question but one that is difficult to answer except in terms of anecdotal impressions. I know that dioceses have greater resources available to them because of the hermits already professed and consecrated according to this canon than was the case early on; this includes a number of hermits who have lived this life for some time in ways that are edifying to others and who can assist dioceses. They also have greater access to the experience of dioceses more generally with relation to this canon. Some have done well with it, some have greater failure rates, and a few at least have failed to even attempt to implement this canon. Some of this has changed the way dioceses use the canon and in this I have seen improvements. For instance, the use of this canon for individuals who really want to live community life and not solitary eremitical life has apparently diminished; at the same time very few true lauras (which differ from communities) are now being established much less succeeding. In other words, the focus is rightly on solitary eremitical life and that is the reason the canon was promulgated. Additionally the use of canon 604 in its place, something that happened very early in the history of these two canons, now seems not to happen at all; dioceses are very clear today that c 603 and c 604 describe vastly different vocations even when some aspects overlap in similarity. More and more it seems to me, canon 603 is being used for true eremitic vocations and not merely to profess lone individuals who could not be professed in community or who are simply unwilling to give up what is necessary for this to happen. 

Similarly, I think it is being used less frequently for those lone individuals who are isolated from others, from the church, and perhaps too from themselves; instead this kind of candidate tends more and more to fail to be admitted to profession and consecration under canon 603, which I think, is a very good thing. Longer periods of discernment and the greater use of temporary profession without automatic admission to perpetual profession three to five years later now allows time for such persons to truly transition into eremitical life in the heart of the church if they truly have eremitical vocations.  And finally, it seems to me that more and more the canon is being used to profess second half of life vocations to solitude rather than younger persons --- especially those who must still live with their parents to undertake such a life. Generally speaking (there are a couple of exceptions, I think), younger persons should be encouraged to join semi-eremitical communities rather than embracing solitary eremitical life. Of the persons I have seen professed under this canon these latter are some of the most questionable. One wonders what happens when the parents die and the "hermit" is required to live a self-sufficient life under vows, particularly when eremitical profession occurred before the person finished their education, worked full-time, and negotiated the other stages of adult individuation.

When canon 603 first was published there was a flurry of interest. I don't know that this interest has fallen off in any steep way, but it is clear to me that dioceses have mainly taken care in professing people in these recent years and that is always a very good thing. With regard to dioceses which have simply refused to implement the canon, these were initially wise in their wait-and-see refusals but are now more and more becoming simply recalcitrant; for this reason, some vocations to consecrated solitary eremitical life are being lost. Still, better this than that non-eremitical lives seeking to use c 603 as some sort of stopgap when no other way to profession and consecration are open to folks. (Here, distinguishing clearly between the Roman Catholic canon 603 from the Anglo-Catholic canon 14 for "solitary religious" who are not necessarily hermits is an important step forward.) As a result of better discernment, and a better sense of what solitary eremitical vocations look like --- meaning that dioceses tend not to simply profess anyone seeking this until they have shown the patience, initiative, and spiritual maturity required for a lifelong commitment to the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance --- I think the faddish quality of canon 603 has diminished significantly.

Areas of Possible Improvement in the Implementation of Canon 603: The Role of Bishops

Yes, there are certainly some areas that could be improved on with regard to eremitical vocations under canon 603. The most critical one, I think, is in the provision for meaningful and regular supervision and ongoing formation of already professed hermits. The canon is clear that these lives are to be lived under the supervision of the local ordinary. The one complaint I hear time and again is that new bishops coming into a diocese do not have time for, nor much want to meet with c 603 hermits in a way we really need. I feel fortunate because when I was approaching profession the Vicars for Religious at the bishop's behest asked that I choose someone to act as a delegate for the diocese, someone who would be a "quasi-superior" for me and who would serve both the bishop and myself as my regular contact person since I would only be able to meet with the bishop annually or so. Over the years this has proved absolutely invaluable. I now have "co-delegates" (we tend to use the word Directors instead) --- one of whom takes the lead and the second who keeps in touch and is ready to step in as Director should anything happen to the other. (For instance, both of these Sisters have been in leadership in their own congregations and during this time it may fall to the other Sister to take the lead as my Director. But this arrangement also provides for illness and other circumstances as well including potential conflicts in matters of internal and external forums.) 

When new bishops come into the diocese (I have lived as a hermit under 4 bishops and a diocesan hermit under 3 with one interim bishop), I will simply continue meeting with my Director(s), and (usually) the Vicar for Religious in case of need, until the new bishop is able to meet with me. (I continue meeting with my Director(s) in any case since I would ordinarily meet with my bishop once a year unless there is a specific need otherwise.) It provides continuity in terms of ongoing formation in one's vows and is especially critical when a new bishop is less able or (perhaps) is even unwilling to meet regularly with a hermit. When I have the need, or there is something which concerns the vocation more generally, either I or my Director can contact the bishop to advise him and work out whatever is needed.

But some hermits have not had such an arrangement asked for by their dioceses and these hermits are sometimes left bereft of sufficient diocesan contact or supervision with real (i.e., legitimate) authority --- especially when new bishops "inherit" them because they are perpetually professed and consecrated. To be left in the lurch this way while trying to faithfully live a consecrated life is certainly not what canon 603 calls for nor is it wise or helpful, especially for ecclesial vocations to eremitical solitude. The need for people who truly assume the ministry of authority in one's life (and here I do not mean a heavy-handed authority which supplants individual responsibility but rather, a ministry of real knowledge and love!) is critically important in such an ecclesial vocation while the failure to provide adequately in this way by bishop who may "inherit" c 603 hermits is a failure of charity and episcopal responsibility as well. Hermits are vowed to obedience to God in the hands of their bishops; to live their vows, and grow in the ways such a vow allows for, requires a bishop (and/or his delegate) do his/her part.

Since bishops change at least occasionally, the possibility of a c 603 hermit falling under the governance of a bishop with no interest or time to act as legitimate superior is always a possibility. Here a delegate who is a consistent and regular presence in the hermit's life and who has the expertise to serve in the ministry of authority at the bishop's behest is critically important. Still, because a hermit in perpetual vows remains consecrated and bound by her vows no matter the changes in diocesan leadership bishops must assume their proper place in the supervision of such vocations. Thus, if we desire such vocations to persevere and succeed in glorifying God and serving as the gift to the Church the Holy Spirit makes them, it is a problem which needs to be addressed -- perhaps at the level of CICLSAL or others in Rome since this seems to occur more than occasionally. Besides the other areas I have mentioned above, this is the one I hear most complaints about. There are a couple of others but, if you don't mind, given the length of this post, I will follow up with those at another time.

Implementing C 603: Difficullties?

[[Dear Sister, if someone doesn't like canon 603 or the way it has been used in some instances, why would they seek to be consecrated and professed under it? You have read Joyful Hermit's blog. [Title and author's name omitted here per request.] She seems to be arguing that the canon is subject to abuse, misuse, hypocrisy, and so forth in ways that troubles her. If her bishop wants to use canon 603 in her regard is she forced to accept it? You are professed under this canon. Do you think there are significant difficulties with its implementation?]]

No, of course, neither "Joyful" nor anyone else is forced to accept canonical standing under canon 603 if she (or anyone else) has serious conscientious disagreement about its nature and/or use generally. For that matter, however, no bishop would or could admit someone to profession and consecration under this canon if that same person has serious concerns about the validity and integrity of the canon, or believes it represents something destructive of true eremitical life -- something "Joyful" has posted about a number of times over the years. For instance, the idea that canon 603 prevents someone from focusing on Jesus alone -- or, I would say instead, from focusing on Jesus and learning to see everything in light of Him --- is simply not the case.  I would say that arguing in that way indicates a lack of understanding not only of the canon, but also of what it looks like to focus on Jesus in the way the gospel and our baptisms call us each to do.

What canon 603 provides is a framework for solitary consecrated eremitical life. It is the only canonical means of doing so. It combines various essential elements (stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, within the framework of the evangelical counsels, under the supervision of the hermit's bishop) all according to a Rule the hermit writes herself. This combination allows for significant structure, eremitical substance, ecclesial accountability, and appropriate flexibility so the needs for each hermit's spiritual growth are adequately met. Not everything one needs to understand and live a consecrated life in the Roman Catholic Church is included in this canon. For instance, other canons will apply regarding the vows, provisions for end of life, canonical freedom, impediments to the vocation, etc., so it is best not to look to canon 603 as exhaustive. Even so, most hermits will find that the way it defines the essential elements and combines these with a personal Rule and the supervision of legitimate authorities, provides a good foundation which is both edifying and sufficient for the hermit's living out of this vocation with authentic freedom and space for the Holy Spirit.

The greatest problem I find with the implementation of this canon is the inadequate understanding of its history and the charism of eremitical life. This lack of understanding is true not only for some seeking to be professed under this canon, but for some who are responsible for admitting individuals to profession and consecration. It takes time and education to understand the distinction between being a lone individual and being a hermit, and especially a consecrated hermit with an ecclesial vocation.  Even some hermits should never be consecrated using c 603 because they are not suited to living an ecclesial vocation "in the name of the Church". Similarly, the discernment and formation of such a vocation takes time, education, and prayer. Cutting corners here, and using canon 603 as some sort of stopgap when other options for religious or consecrated life are not open to one, is a great temptation for those seeking and those admitting to profession both. It is critically important that those dealing with candidates for profession understand the charismatic nature of eremitical life, otherwise they may simply not take the significance of this vocation with adequate seriousness. If the charism or "gift quality" of this vocation is carefully attended to by all involved in its living out, canon 603 will certainly provide the foundational canonical structure needed for solitary consecrated hermits and their ever-deepening relationship with Christ.

Keep in mind that this canon is only 37 years old. There is a learning curve involved in using it wisely, especially in a world given to an exaggerated individualism. Remember too that this is a world in which contemplative life is rare and eremitical life is rarer. Only as dioceses work out their own approaches to discernment and formation (both initial and ongoing), as well as the fundamentals of supervision in conjunction with dioceses with successful hermits, does the nature of the life defined and governed by this canon become clearer. Have mistakes been made? Yes, there have been. Generally, these have raised serious questions by others (religious, clerical, and lay persons in the diocese of profession and beyond its boundaries) which has tended to make dioceses more careful in the future -- though it has also sometimes made it more difficult for dioceses to use the canon appropriately due to greater caution. But canon 603 has also been used well during these 37 years; as a result, diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious have learned what is necessary to live this vocation well and discovered ways to assist in the discernment and ongoing formation of such candidates.

One note: when I researched the sources for "Joyful's" recent post on c 603 Catholic Hermits and Work, I found she had used the equivalent of Wikipedia as her primary citation. Personally, I find that a credible source only for the most general description of the ways c 603 has been implemented. For someone involved in a serious discernment process, especially if they have concerns with this implementation, it is better they speak to C 603 hermits themselves or seek out information from canonists and others who have dealt directly with canon 603 hermits over the years. "Joyful"  believes C 603 will lead her from living hermit life in its "purity" and "essential nature." While I don't doubt the truth of this subjective fear, it isn't true for me nor for the diocesan hermits I know personally or have read about. And this is as it should be for someone professed and consecrated under this canon. We know the nature of the way Canon 603 works from the inside out, and for those professed after sufficient discernment and formation, this experience is positive in terms of personal and spiritual growth as a hermit. In any case, what generally remains true, is that in the Roman Catholic Church, the essential nature of this vocation to solitary consecrated eremitical life is defined by the canon itself. That is the nature of a canon or "norm". That is why the canon was created and why it functions in a "performative" way. It is tied to other canons in the Code of Canon Law where the norms for consecrated life lived according to the Evangelical Counsels are found.

If one is professed and consecrated under Canon 603 one accepts ALL of these norms as legally (i.e., canonically) binding. Together they constitute the framework in which one discovers a realm of freedom that is infinite in its breadth and depth because God and the union with God one is called to explore in this way is infinite. This is both the sacrifice and the blessing of consecrated life. If one believes otherwise or has found their experience is contrary to the witness of those living canonical (consecrated) eremitical life, it is most likely because one is not called to this. Please understand this is not a problem for Catholics since one may live as a hermit in either the lay or the clerical states without benefit of the additional canons pertaining to religious and consecrated solitary eremitical life. Instead, one needs only fulfill the baptismal and canonical obligations of the lay or clerical states and do as one feels called as a hermit within this context. Whatever state of life this implies, one must act in good conscience to live the truth of one's own call and one needs to discern/discover the best path to that life. If one feels called to canonical/consecrated eremitical life, then that pathway will be mutually discerned with representatives of the Church herself.

The real question raised by the post you cited is not whether there are inconsistencies (and far less, whether there are hypocrisies) in the way a canon like 603 is implemented from country to country and diocese to diocese, but whether the canon can provide what is needed to live the truth of one's own Divine call with integrity and the flexibility and creativity of the Holy Spirit. My own answer to that question has been proven time and again: canon 603 is exactly what I need to hear and live my own divine call. Canon 603 constitutes one as a consecrated solitary hermit; for this vocation Canon 603 is normative and constitutive. 

Is this right for everyone? Must everyone seeking to live an eremitical life embrace the same canonical rights and obligations? No, nor has the Church ever said they must. In fact, the reason discernment is relatively long-term with this vocation is rooted not only in the fact that the eremitical vocation is rare, but also in the fact that one has meaningful alternatives if the two canonical routes (semi-eremitical and solitary eremitical life under c 603) do not suit one. Lay hermits (hermits living this life in their baptismal state under the canons that pertain to lay life alone) have always been a significant and often, a powerfully prophetic form of eremitical life. That was true in the early church with the Desert Fathers and Mothers who have been paradigmatic for all hermits; it is true today as well.