Thanks for the questions. In fact, I believe that in some ways it is harder to be a non-canonical hermit than to be canonical. You are correct in pointing to my comments on the greater freedom which I associate with canonical eremitism. There is no conflict. While there are greater explicit rights and obligations associated with canonical standing, the discernment and profession/consecration with and by the Church ensures that one also experiences a greater correlative permission to stand in the face of the values of the world around us and to be the person one is called to be by God in his Church. That permission is part of what leads to greater freedom to be oneself.
Similarly, one experiences a sense of mission and understands one's vocation in terms of charism as a canonical hermit. These elements add to the richness and the purpose of eremitical life and so too, in my experience, they make it easier to live faithfully. The expectations of others in the Church (and larger world as well) work in the same way --- as does the role of those serving in spiritual direction or the ministry of authority. Finally, understanding eremitical life as a tradition that in some real sense "belongs" to the Church, and makes the hermit calling an ecclesial vocation, contextualizes an already meaningful life in a way that assures its communal nature and ecclesial significance even as it helps prevent the vocation from devolving into something less than authentic.
Non-canonical hermits must maintain the same relationship with God, the same stricter separation from the world, and the same values held by a canonical hermit, and do so in the midst of a world that militates against this. They must choose to grow as a hermit and to continue growing as a hermit with all that demands (vows, spiritual direction, theological sophistication), and they must do so without anyone necessarily recognizing their needs or their commitments to do so. In a world that militates against eremitism and often substitutes individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, and isolation for authentic hermit life, it seems to me to be very difficult to live as a non-canonical or lay hermit. Thus, while I recognize that hermits living authentic eremitical lives are rare whether canonical or non-canonical, I believe canonical standing and the elements it ensures, makes it easier to live an eremitical life in today's world.
As to why non-canonical hermits do not speak much of rights and obligations with expectations in living their own eremitical lives, I do believe it is largely a matter of education and formation. When one is in initial formation and preparing for profession as a religious in community, one is carefully initiated into the rights and obligations of the life. These things are made explicit and, in fact, are the way one moves from candidacy to novitiate, to juniorate, and then to solemn or perpetual profession and full membership in the community. Moreover, one is introduced to the consequences of having been initiated into the "religious state" and begins to think in these terms. Nothing is left untouched by initiation into the "religious state" and young religious learn this. Unless such formation occurs I don't think one would think this way. Thus, lay persons who are unfamiliar with the nature of initial and ongoing religious formation are unlikely to appreciate the process or think in the same terms.
As to why non-canonical hermits do not speak much of rights and obligations with expectations in living their own eremitical lives, I do believe it is largely a matter of education and formation. When one is in initial formation and preparing for profession as a religious in community, one is carefully initiated into the rights and obligations of the life. These things are made explicit and, in fact, are the way one moves from candidacy to novitiate, to juniorate, and then to solemn or perpetual profession and full membership in the community. Moreover, one is introduced to the consequences of having been initiated into the "religious state" and begins to think in these terms. Nothing is left untouched by initiation into the "religious state" and young religious learn this. Unless such formation occurs I don't think one would think this way. Thus, lay persons who are unfamiliar with the nature of initial and ongoing religious formation are unlikely to appreciate the process or think in the same terms.
Should such a lay person become a hermit with the accent on "eremitical freedom" and a private commitment which changes nothing in terms of rights and obligations, it becomes doubly unlikely they will understand such life in terms of these things in either canon or proper law. (It is possible to see an example of the failure to think this way in discussions of "wearing a mask" vs "not wearing a mask in today's pandemic. So many think of freedom as the power to do whatever I want whenever I want to do it, and not in terms of rights and obligations. They have been enculturated to understand freedom very differently than Christian theology requires, and they substitute license instead.)
Thus, I agree with you that it is the failure to either think or be able to think in terms of rights and obligations that stands at the heart of self-assumed practices like those you mention. Another source of difficulty is the tendency to believe one is owed such rights, or can simply "consecrate oneself", or assume the wearing of religious garb and title through one's own agency. A similar source of difficulty is the failure to understand that ecclesial vocations are never discerned by oneself alone; they must be mutually discerned and until and unless the Church extends God's call to one in a mediatory and juridical act, one cannot be said to "have" such a vocation, much less live it "in the name of the Church." Calling anything to do with canon law "legalism" is another piece of all of this. I wonder if it would assist folks if preparation for baptism included a section on the canonical rights and obligations of the baptized state of life? Just a thought.
.jpg)
Posts
