Revisiting a Criticism of the Misuse of the term "canonical obedience"

[[Dear Sister, a while ago you wrote a blog article on "canonical obedience" in response to the first part of the following quotation. [The person upset by my professed eremitic vows' inclusion of canonical obedience did not fully understand; perhaps the meaning and intent was confused with canonical approval of hermits by one's specific diocese bishop re. Canon Law 603. I, of course, was not singling out that particular canon law. (At the time, neither I nor my spiritual director were even aware of this relatively recent Catholic "law".) I tend to think, live, perceive and write more expansively and inclusively. My profession of vows includes obedience to all canon laws to the best of my ability. I strive to obey them as I strive to obey civil laws. But most of all, I need to focus on the Law of God which the Living Word specifies is love!] I think you should have considered the person's position beginning with, "I, of course,  was not singling out that particular canon law. . ." which you seem not to have quoted. The person you criticized was not writing about canon 603 but her own vow of obedience to all canon law and even more importantly to the law of God. I think you should retract what you wrote and apologize for quoting her out of context!]] 

You are correct that in January of 2017, I wrote a post about the incoherence of a private vow of what the poster called, "canonical obedience": The Incoherence of Vowing Canonical Obedience. I also wrote a follow-up post in February 2017: Another Look. In both of those posts I wrote about why it is that calling private vows of obedience "canonical obedience" makes no sense. The general gist of these pieces is this: 

1. Only in public vows does one makes a canonical vow of obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior (that is, only in this way does one make a public vow binding in law). This means the vow is received by the Church by someone acting in her name. Yes, one becomes canonically responsible for living the canons which affect her new state in life, especially via the public vow of obedience, but the term canonical obedience does not primarily mean "being obedient to canons." It refers to a new state in life which includes new canonical responsibilities to which one will be open, attentive, and responsive to God according to a vow of obedience and one's Rule of Life (or Constitutions and Statutes); 
2.  private vows, which are considered "non-canonical" vows, do not involve either a change in state of life or the related conveying and embracing of additional canonical rights and obligations beyond those of any baptized person; this is because a private vow is an entirely private act. The obedience owed to God, the Church, and her code of Canon law in a private vow is the same as that which obtains for any baptized person. No more, no less. There is no legitimate superior, for instance, in such a case, nor is there a Rule, Constitutions, or Statutes to which one is canonically bound in obedience. Again, a private vow of obedience obliges to the same obedience any baptized person owes to God and the Church by virtue of their baptism. While psychologically and spiritually helpful, perhaps, they are an important making explicit of one's baptismal responsibilities. Nothing new in terms of canonical responsibility is added, however.

The bottom line in all of this is that the term "canonical obedience" (to the extent we can use this term at all) implies a public vow of obedience made by someone entering or already in a canonical (public) state of life (religious, consecrated, ordained)  and so, a vow that is received by the Church, and which therefore binds canonically via legitimate superiors. It does not mean a private vow made to "keep canons," whether one or many. It seemed to me the original poster was trying to give her private vows a different weight or character by misusing the term "canonical obedience." In any case, the use of the term "canonical' with regard to a private vow of obedience is incoherent. It substitutes an idiosyncratic usage for that of the Church in order to indicate or imply something untrue about a person's private vows. It does not hang or hold together properly -- the very meaning of the term incoherent.

There is nothing in any of that that requires or calls for a retraction. As for quoting this poster out of context, I don't believe I have done that, but if you can demonstrate how I did so I am happy to respond with an apology. While I did not literally quote as much as you did, my responses referenced the author's entire post and responded directly to the sentence you believe I did not consider. As far as I can see, nothing was taken out of context. So, please let me thank you for your concern; I hope you will understand why, at this point, I cannot accommodate your request.

Pentecost: A Tale of Two Kingdoms

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: 

Roaring sounds filling the whole space, tongues of fire coming to rest above each person, a power of language which communicates (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.

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.

 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.

On Stricter Separation From the World as a Call to Love the World into Wholeness

[[Sister Laurel, I was asked where the "stricter" in "stricter separation from the world," comes from in canon 603.  Does it mean stricter than cloistered communities, stricter than other religious, stricter than other forms of consecrated life generally? I also was thinking about the idea of "the world" in the phrase in the canon. Doesn't this involve a kind of judgment (judgmentalism) on the world around the hermit? Because I take seriously the admonition not to judge others I wonder if Jesus would have condemned such an approach to something God created and Jesus  made new through his death and resurrection. Can you speak to this? ]]

In my understanding, the reference to "stricter separation from the world" in canon 603 is an intensification of c 607.3. That section of canon 607 reads: "The public witness to be rendered by religious to Christ and to the Church entails a separation from the world proper to the character and purpose of each institute." [Emphasis added]  Generally speaking hermits living under c 603 are called and obliged to live a separation which is stricter than that of other religious. Hermit's vows (or other sacred bonds) will qualify their relationship with the world in terms of wealth, relationships, and power (poverty, chastity, and obedience) but will, in conjunction with their Rule of life and the other requirements of canon 603, do so even more strictly than those of other religious. In particular, the hermit's ministry or apostolate will be very different because in the main it is a matter of being sent into the hermitage* in the ministry of prayer and not out in active ministry. I don't think it means more strictly than cloistered religious, however, because hermits are self-supporting and responsible for interfacing with her local, parish, and diocesan communities --- and even with the more extended support community I mentioned in a previous post.

I don't think the requirement regarding stricter separation from the world is a form of judgmentalism but it does require significant discernment on what, when, and how one will give one's heart to things -- first to God and then to all that is precious to God. Stricter separation from "the world" is meant to allow one to love and/or be loved by God in a way which leads to conversion and sanctification -- that is to authentic humanity -- and in light of that, to love all that God loves in a similar way. 

It is always important to remember, I think, that "the world" in canon 603 does not mean "everything outside the hermitage door" -- nor does it exclude dimensions of the hermitage itself as though "the world" is not present there as well. "The world" is a collection of attitudes, values, perspectives, and priorities which live in a hermit's heart just as they live in the hearts of others. Perhaps these have been more or less changed through the context of the silence of solitude and, more importantly, through assiduous prayer and penance, but they remain deeply inculcated and closing the hermitage door, especially when done while naively believing one has shut "the world" out, merely makes the hermitage an outpost of "the world".

As noted in earlier posts, The Handbook on Canons 573-746, notes that "the world" refers to "that which is not redeemed or open to the salvific action of Christ". I have added other dimensions to this definition: 'anything which promises fulfillment apart from Christ," for instance. Thomas Merton  warns against hypostasizing "the world" and sees it in terms of illusion which should be unmasked; it is that which has become a lie and which needs to be seen for what it is.** (see below) We do that when we see all of reality with the eyes of God, and that means seeing all of reality with the eyes of love, just as I noted in my homily for the Solemnity of Ascension.  What it does not mean is God's good creation generally. For that reason, the hermit does not reject the world outside the hermitage, nor even that which is antithetical to Christ. Instead her silence and solitude (i.e., her life with and in God) allows her to see things as they are and to help love them into wholeness. Stricter separation from the world is done for the sake of the hermit's capacity to see clearly and to love truly and deeply. This includes learning to see herself clearly and learning to love herself rightly and profoundly. 

So again, no, I don't think stricter separation from the world represents a form of judgmentalism any more than a physician's diagnosis in order to treat a disorder represents a form of judgmentalism. For the hermit, stricter separation from the world, means disentangling ourselves from all kinds of forms of enmeshment so we may see properly and love profoundly into wholeness. This is what I meant when I said it required significant discernment on what, how, and when we would give our hearts to things. I hope this is clear. So much spiritual writing treats "the world" as anything outside the hermitage, convent, or monastery doors or walls. But this is just careless and dangerous thinking. It neglects the very real dimensions of the human heart which are worldly and on which one cannot simply shut the hermitage door; it also neglects the Great Commandment of love and the profound relationship a hermit (for instance) must have with the world around the hermitage, especially in the silence of solitude -- as paradoxical as that sounds.

I agree with you that Jesus would condemn many writings that speak of "the world" as though it is a distinct objective thing outside a religious house. Especially I agree that Jesus would condemn any way of seeing God's good creation which ignores the victory of the cross over sin and death and over the powers and principalities of this world. We are challenged every day not to ignore "the world" but to see it clearly, to transform it with love, and thereby to eventually win its allegiance to Christ -- even if that allegiance is anonymous. Love provides the kind of unmasking which humbles without humiliating; it raises reality to its true dignity, and it allows the deep meaning possessed by reality to come through without idolizing this world or dimensions of it. It provides the lens through which we can see things truly and value them rightly. I think Jesus saw reality in this way and we who profess that we are in and of him, must be able to demonstrate that we have the capacity to see reality in the same way. 

Hermits separate ourselves more strictly from the larger world in order to cultivate this way of seeing, this way of loving. We do it so that we can be remade into a dimension of the heart of the Church; where others who share in the love of God in Christ are meant to be Jesus' hands and feet, hermits stand hidden and yet present as a representation of Jesus' own sacred heart. Once we think of ourselves in this way, stricter separation from the world will never again mean a sterile, much less judgmental, disengagement from the world. Instead it will be a new and paradoxical way of being engaged so the world may truly be and become all God calls it to be. Stricter separation from "the world" is about love for the world of God's great and creative goodness; it is not about "contemptus mundi" except to the degree we reject the ways the world itself has been falsified by human idolatry. It is this falsification (and the distorted human heart that created it) that must be unmasked, and this, it seems to me (and to Thomas Merton, I think) is the work of the hermit and her hermitage. 

_____________________________________________

* The phrase "sent into the hermitage" instead of out into active ministry is borrowed with permission from Sister Anunziata Grace, a diocesan hermit for the Diocese of Knoxville. During a conversation we had several years ago she spoke this way and I found it particularly revelatory of the nature of the hermit's commission.

** And for anyone who has seriously entered into the medieval Christian. . . conception of contemptus mundi [hatred for or of the world],. . .it will be evident that this means not the rejection of a reality, but the unmasking of an illusion. The world as pure object is not there. it is not a reality outside us for which we exist. . . It is only in assuming full responsibility for our world, for our lives, and for ourselves that we can be said to live really for God." Thomas Merton, Contemplation in a World of Action.

Homily for the Solemnity of the Ascension: Seeing Our New Creation With the Eyes of God (Reprise)

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.

On Wednesday evening 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, 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.

On Eremitical Support Systems

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I can see from what you have written about different forms of eremitical life that they would suit different people differently. Is that what you believe? I have been reading about the Carthusians and because of what you wrote about community as a context for living eremitical life I am beginning to understand why they require a community, and also why they have lay brothers. Some people talk about the Carthusians as the "real deal", but what is pretty clear to me is that the choir monks (hermits) require a huge support system to live the solitude they do. Are you able to live the same kind of solitude as a canon 603 hermit as the Carthusian choir hermits? If so, what is your support system like? Do you think that c 603 life is flexible enough to allow for several different expressions of eremitical life? I am not thinking [so] much of the distinctions you wrote about recently: community, semi-eremitical, and solitary hermits, but more the eremitical expressions of one individual hermit as opposed to or when compared with another individual hermit. Thanks for your blog, by the way, it is always helpful to me. I wish I had written sooner.]]

Wow, now this is a really great set of questions and your observations on the nature of Carthusian life are spot on! Thanks! First of all, while I think I understand the Carthusian life and degree of solitude in an intellectual way, I am not sure I know it in an experiential way --- not because I don't live a significant physical and inner solitude, but because I do not have the same constraints on my time, movement, and choices with regard to prayer, study, recreation, housework, faith community, etc. For that reason it would be hard for me to compare my own physical solitude (physical time in cell) with that of the Carthusians. But yes, as you say, Carthusian solitude (both inner and outer) requires a significant support system to protect and nurture it. That, however, is true of the Franciscan model of eremitical life as well, though to a much lesser degree. And, it is necessary to some degree for canon 603 hermits as well.  Eremitical life is not lived in a vacuum; every religious hermit requires a significant support system and communal context, including the parish faith community. Thus, while I personally consider the Carthusians the "real deal", I don't consider them the only "real deal" as far as eremitical life goes, and in some ways, I think they are a very limited expression of eremitical life today.

My Own Support System:

You asked about my own support system so let me talk about that a bit. First of all, I am thinking of the importance of my computer and internet linkages here. I have participated in listserves where some "wannabe hermits" decried the presence of a computer in the hermitage. They declare they would never use such a thing or even have it on the premises. (Please note they are on a computer listserve for hermits talking with consecrated hermits who also use computers in this way! Notice the irony?) They hold the same position regarding cell phones and other forms of technology. Good for them if they can do this, but one of the things the pandemic has made clear and that is the importance of internet access. It may seem paradoxical, but in fact, if I did not have access to the internet I would not be able to live the degree of solitude I do. In fact, that degree of solitude has become greater during these months of lockdown because providing for people who are living other forms of solitude has become more important to different companies and services.

I use the internet to shop and schedule deliveries for almost everything I need. I can now do doctor's appointments online, see clients this way (not optimal but it works), meet with my own Director without her having to drive here, teach Scripture this way, join with others for lectio despite not being able to get there due to distance otherwise, make retreats I would not have been able to attend without ZOOM, do this blog, keep in touch with hermits from several countries, and be accessible to others who would not be able to travel here to the hermitage (including a journalist along with a writer doing  articles on eremitical life, one from Canada, and the other from New York. I count one of these a new friend (not a word I use lightly) -- though I definitely owe her an email!) For many of these things I no longer have to travel distances by walking, taking trains and connecting with busses (and reversing that to get home). I can simply stand up from prayer, make a cup of tea, and turn on ZOOM. So, in thinking about support systems, I have to name my computer and internet connection as a critical part of that.

One of the things I am aware of is the number of people the things I just mentioned involves. Doctors, Director, Sisters I would not see or even have come to know without this connection, others who share their lives in lectio and enrich my own solitude with their faith and love and courage, delivery people and all those connected with grocery orders, pharmacy needs, and other routine needs here at the hermitage, clients, et al. Some of these people I never even see, but they are part of my support system and I am grateful to God for them and what they make possible. Others I see infrequently, but I know they are there and accessible, and that is important in living solitude rather than isolation. Some I see regularly --- even frequently (my Director, for instance), and a number are email contacts only (with an occasional ZOOM meeting thrown in here and there). One thing that just now strikes me as very "Carthusian like" is the way delivery persons set groceries right in front of the inner (front) door of my hermitage at an expected time. I often don't even see them --- much like choir monks never seeing the donate brothers who leave meals in the choir monk's' hatch.

Another hugely significant part of my support system is my parish faith community. For most of the pandemic I depended on members of this community to bring me groceries, prescriptions, etc. Others would check in regularly to see how things were. Regular liturgies were available via ZOOM, my pastor is always accessible. When the pandemic lockdown began I was disoriented because my contacts with those in my parish shifted so radically and I could not use the old pictures I held in my heart of members doing x or y --- because I no longer knew what they were doing, etc. It also shifted because I was trying to teach Scripture via ZOOM and that too was disorienting. Over time all of that changed, thankfully, and my solitude once again was rooted in a living faith community which supports my time alone in my hermitage. Not least, we continue to pray for one another during what is a difficult time for most. So, generally speaking, this is a brief sketch of my support system. It is substantial and actually allows me to live this vocation with integrity.

A final and integral part of my support system I should have mentioned above, and one I would like to see become more consciously developed, is the assistance I get from and give to other diocesan hermits. There are several of us who communicate regularly (or as regularly as we can!), and who are beginning to meet and reach out to one another in shared friendship and Sisterhood/Fraternity. These relationships grow organically but I can envision this conceivably becoming a contemporary version of a laura. Though we are divided by many miles and belong to different dioceses, we share our eremitical commitments to live our lives at the heart of the church and we do so as Sisters/Brothers and friends. We are linked by the computer pathways that allow us to email and even ZOOM with one another. This could grow to encompass periods of shared lectio once a week and perhaps some time for sharing and prayer otherwise. What I already know is the support of these Sisters and Brothers, but I can envision our commitment to Christ and one another -- in the spirit of c 603 and our individual Rules -- growing in a conscious way which could allow our becoming a small, but real laura of solitary hermits.

Canon 603 as a Flexible but Firm and Supportive Framework:

Yes, I do believe in c 603 as a flexible framework for varied expressions of consecrated eremitical life. One of the things I have written about frequently here is the way Canon 603 combines the essential defining constituents of any eremitical life with a(n essential) Rule of life the hermit writes herself on the basis of her lived experience and the way God is at work in her own life; together these create and protect a coherent and balanced solitary eremitical life. 

There are certain givens: this is a life of stricter separation from the world --- not only the busy world around one, but especially the world which is composed of all that is antithetical to Christ or rejecting of love and truth. Apparently canonists agree (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746, general norms, p.33). Above all this refers to the hermit's own heart!! Secondarily it means dimensions of the world around us -- though these two together constitute a single reality which must both be addressed by the hermit. To think that canon 603's reference to "stricter separation from the world" means merely shutting the hermitage door on all of God's good creation is theologically and spiritually naïve. To conceive of everything outside the hermitage as "the world" in the negative Johannine sense, is similarly naïve. 

Canon 603 life is a life of "the silence of solitude" which means not only that (physical or external) silence and solitude are the vocation's context, but also that the (inner and deeply personal) silence of solitude is its charism and goal. It is a life of assiduous prayer and penance --- a life of communion with God and of all those things which help one participate fully in such a life.  It is a life of the Evangelical Counsels vowed to God --- a life of complete dependence on God with its simplicity and frugality -- of chastity in celibacy (or consecrated celibacy), that is, a life committed to loving and growing in one's capacity for genuine and inclusive love --- and it is a life of obedience, a life of attentive listening and responsiveness to God in all the ways God comes to one symbolized especially in obedience to a superior who exercises the ministry of authority in one's regard. 

The vocation must be these things, truly and recognizably; together they constitute the necessary and firmly supportive framework established by the canon itself, but the way they are lived out in each hermit's life, that is the pattern of human commitment and fulfillment (holiness and wholeness) produced by this constellation of elements in one diocesan hermit to the next will differ. The Holy Spirit works with each of us and our differing backgrounds, resources,  capacities, and potential and the weaving that comes from this mutual and cooperative work of the Holy Spirit and the obedient hermit will differ one to the next. We will differ in how we dress, when we rise or retire, when and how we pray,  eat, read, study, minister outside or from the hermitage, rest, recreate, meet with our directors and delegates, relate to our parishes and dioceses, and much more as well. 

What our vocations will share is the beauty, seriousness, and celebratory spirit of desert life where the silence of solitude is lived and gained more fully in both quiet and peaceful existence and in and through the solitary struggles one will face daily with and within oneself; the desert existence has always been so because it is committed to growth in Christ which entails the process of daily, even continual dying and rising until we rest at home with and in God. No one hermit (or person) can or does live this pattern of dying and rising in the same way another one can or does, and yet, from hermitage to hermitage and heart to heart, there will be significant commonalities because of canon 603 and the nature of Christian life itself.

The Diocesan Hermit: Some Considerations by Therese Ivers, JCL

 I said I would speak to a canonist or two and see if they would be willing to weigh in on the issue of c 603, lauras vs communities, etc. Well, I was able to have a long conversation with a canonist this last weekend and she wrote a piece for her own blog which (as she and I talked about) I am also posting here. The author is Therese Ivers, JCL and her blog is: Do I Have a Vocation? As readers can see, I think the author and I are in general agreement on the basic characteristics of a laura as opposed to a community. 

The one dimension Ivers brings out which I had not spelled out explicitly myself is the temporary nature of a laura. (I realize much of what I have written necessarily implies this but Therese is definitely a step (or three!) ahead of me here. Regarding the diocese's responsibility in formation, both initial and ongoing, Ivers and I are also in essential agreement; I believe, however, we may differ on the way this responsibility is exercised. Meanwhile, I very much appreciate the various comments she has made on candidates for profession, discernment, formation, the desert fathers and Mothers, and so forth. Please note, I do add one element to the lists of distinguishing qualities Ivers supplied below, namely, spirituality; the approach to diverse spiritualities differs significantly from laura to community. The one thread that runs throughout Iver's analysis is the significance and uniqueness of the c 603 vocation. Emphasis on formation, discernment, the continuing role of the bishop, and the individual nature of the vocation are dimensions of this extraordinary significance. My sincerest thanks to Therese for sharing her work and time in this!

“Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything!”

In the early centuries of the Church, men and women fled to the desert as the Church’s first hermits. Christianity had become the official religion of the empire, and as a result of external prosperity and growth, Christian praxis became lax in the cities. Virgins, hermits, and ascetics grew in numbers to fill the vacuum of those intent on a life devoted to the sole focus on the service of Christ in a life of perfect chastity lived in the manner of their respective calling.

It should be noted that these were hard-core practicing Catholics who were familiar with their faith and extremely familiar with those things “in the world” that could distract them from their focus. In today’s language, we would say that these men and women were “well catechized” or “well formed”.

Hermits were no exception to the general quality of being “well catechized”. Nevertheless, not all were prepared for life in the desert or to the specific challenges of their calling. As a result, “mentors” naturally arose when hermits of great fame for holiness began to accept followers in their lifestyle. Likewise, hermits began to gather together at times for communal exercises albeit infrequently. How else would we know the doings of various hermits through the sayings of the Hermit fathers and mothers?

Some clusters of hermits (many lived at great geographical distance from each other but could be considered a “cluster” or “group”) eventually self organized and consolidated into proper monasteries. Others retained their proper eremitical character which consisted of individual hermits who lived their own very distinctive lifestyles who occasionally met up with one or more hermits. Clusters of such individuals came to be known as “lauras”. [The word lauras or lavras, in case I have not said this recently, comes from the Latin word for pathways; it was the pathways that linked these hermits and their individual hermitages to one another that defined such "clusters". SrL.]

Today, we have two forms of individual consecrated life in the Latin Church. One is that of hermits (canon 603) and the other, the portion of the order of virgins (canon 604) who are not also members of a religious institute. There are many myths about both forms of life, which have arisen for many reasons, particularly because of a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the vocation to be a hermit or to be a spouse of Christ respectively. The purpose of this article is to discuss some aspects of the eremitic vocation that is not always clear to those who are not cognizant of this vocation.

Individual Life Lived “In the Silence of Solitude” is the Primary Reality or Framework Designated by Canon. 603

As some people are aware, my original proposal for my doctoral dissertation in canon law was centered on the “Silence of Solitude” aspect of canon 603. It encapsulates the solitary lifestyle which is permeated with the mental and physical silence required for the “desert” substitution which provides the backdrop of the intense grappling of the soul with itself and heavenly -and not so heavenly- things.

Solitude, or a “stricter withdrawal from the world” is not a mere metaphor. It requires a similitude to the desert in which an individual is not rubbing shoulders with people on a daily basis [with the exception, perhaps of attendance at daily Mass if this is called for in the hermit’s rule]. Encounters with people should be infrequent, even in the running of a guest house, which should have periods of unoccupancy to facilitate the solitude of the hermit manager.

This is not a “religious of one” paradigm in which a hermit is free to do apostolic activity willy-nilly. On the contrary, the lay hermit (or diocesan hermit) is expected to be extremely withdrawn from the everyday hustle and bustle of the world. This includes apostolic works.

Some individuals imagine that they can live as a “caretaker” for someone else and live authentically as a hermit. Again, this is simply not the case. Caring for another person on a daily or frequent basis goes against the solitary nature of this vocation. But it is compatible for reasons of age or illness for the lay or diocesan hermit to be cared for, as there is a profound difference between caring for another in their daily necessities and being cared for in daily necessities when one is unable to do so.

The implication for a “laura” is also clear. That it is not the responsibility of individual hermits living in a laura (inside their individual hermitages) to administrate long-term care for an elderly or chronically ill fellow-hermit, and that provisions must have already been made and executed for the long term care of such hermits in appropriate facilities or with relatives [ideally Catholic].

A Word on Lauras:

Although it is possible for diocesan hermits to gather together in a geographic place, a laura is intended to be strictly distinct from a religious eremitic or semi-eremitic institute. Here are some of the key differences: (Apologies to Therese Ivers, because here she has a great chart laid out side by side; I couldn't use that here (space limitations) so I have set these two sets of characteristics out sequentially.)

Religious Institute:

• Common Superior to whom obedience is vowed who is not the bishop
• Common purse; the institute is jointly responsible for the wellbeing of the religious from the day of entrance until their deaths.
• Common rule of life
• Meals in common. Meals are eaten together in a refectory or at the same time in the hermitage.
• Communal Office or synchronized hours designated at common times [e.g. the horarium is the same for every individual even if the office is said alone in the hermitage such as in a Carthusian charterhouse]
• [In addition I would add here the single spirituality which characterizes an Institute and in which members are formed. An Institute of Consecrated Life will serve as a paradigm of a particular spirituality and its founder/foundress; it stands within the living tradition of this particular current of spirituality and consciously reflects and extends it. Thus a community will be Franciscan or Carmelite, or Camaldolese, and so forth. (SLO'N)]

Lauras:

• Obedience directly to the bishop as superior is professed
• Each individual hermit has their own bank account, retirement funds, health care and other insurances, and is expected to manage their finances individually. The individual hermit is expected to be independent regardless of whether they stay in a laura all their life, leave of their own accord, or are asked to leave.
• Individual rule of life that has been lived outside of the laura and which will be observed before, during [and even after] life in a laura.
• Generally meals should be taken alone and within the cell even if cooked for the whole laura. What is eaten, how it is eaten, and when it is eaten will be autonomously decided by the individual hermit.
• The individual hermit recites the liturgical hours or other prayers [non-cleric hermits are not obligated to say the liturgy of the hours and may in fact choose other forms of prayer to occupy their time] within the hermitage. This prayer-cycle is individualized for the growth of the hermit and therefore is highly unlikely to be synchronized with other hermits.
• [In addition to Therese Iver's list I would add here that there is no single spirituality beyond the general desert spirituality of the solitary hermit. A laura does not inculcate, much less form persons in a single spirituality like Franciscan, Camaldolese, Carmelite, etc. Instead it welcomes a diversity of spiritualities which will exist in harmony within a desert framework marked by the charity (in both rigor and flexibility) of the Desert Ammas and Abbas. Since a laura as such does not engage in the initial formation of hermits, and since it is a second half of life vocation, there is no concern with forming novices in a particular spirituality. (SLO'N)]

A laura, is in short, a temporary living arrangement of independent diocesan [or] lay hermits who maintain their own rule of life, finances, hermitage, etc. on a piece of property. It is not the “ideal” way of living to which a canon 603 hermit “aspires” but is merely an arrangement that can be permitted for the good of hermits on an ad hoc and temporary basis [even if such an arrangement de facto lasts decades]. Practically speaking, the numbers of hermits on the property in a laura should be limited as it would become too unwieldy to have over a handful unless the property is vast and perhaps owned in trust by some entity that rents out hermitages.

Canon 603 is not intended to encourage the formation of lauras, but is primarily focused on the actual solitary vocation for which membership in a laura may be a help or a hindrance. In any and all events, membership in a laura cannot be a condition for profession as a hermit and it must always be the result of a voluntary and seriously discerned path on the part of the experienced and [ideally] already professed hermit who believes it may be of benefit.

Unfortunately, due to greater familiarity with religious institutes, dioceses may have an incorrect understanding of the difference between a laura and a budding religious institute. This may cause abuses of canon 603 when a “hermit” is really an aspiring founder/ess of an eremitical or semi-eremitical religious institute. If the “hermit” really intends to be a religious founder, then the steps for the founding of a religious institute are to be utilized and the “vocation” tested.

As a canonist, I have heard all too often the opinion that the “ideal” hermit is one who has membership in a laura. To the contrary, I would say that membership in a laura by its very nature would merely be a temporary living situation for a diocesan hermit. The diocesan hermit cannot escape the hard work of crafting a personal rule of life over the course of several years – I consider the minimum for this to be at least 7-9 years as a prudential measure not unlike the requirement for final profession of contemplatives to have had no less than 9 years of formation reasonable. [Emphasis added to original]

This rule of life cannot be a mere appropriation or light tinkering of existing rule(s) of religious institutes or even that of other hermits. It must result from experimentation and the self-knowledge of what is helpful for this particular person in his/her struggles in “the desert”. This hermit must know what a balanced lifestyle for himself looks like and that will not be identical to that of anyone else.

The relationship between the hermit and his/her bishop is a direct one, as the bishop is the lawful superior of the diocesan hermit. This remains true even in a laura, as the position of hermits in a laura is that of equals among equals. Any “leadership” position would be only to assist with certain communal exigencies of living on the same property; real authority is not canonically granted. The diocese continues to have the obligation of furnishing continuing formation and supervision to the individual hermits, whether they belong to lauras or not.

If a diocese thinks it can “escape” its responsibilities to hermits by abdicating its duties to a fictitious “superior” of a laura, then it is gravely mistaken. The hermit has the right to direct access to his/her lawful superior who is the bishop, any “delegate” notwithstanding and the bishop has the obligation of knowing the individual hermits in his diocese.

Initial and Continuing Formation of Hermits

The problem faced by hermits today, whether they be in the pre-formation/candidacy stage, initial formation stage, or post-profession stage, is that of formation. This is a complex reality as “living in the cell” is a large part of the formation process. But it is not the only part of the process. For diocesan candidates or hermits, the diocese has an intrinsic and serious responsibility to provide initial and ongoing formation to its hermits. This must be tailored and adapted to the reality that there will be no “companions” or live-in superiors to ensure continued growth of virtue and of wholeness in humanity of the hermit.

The individual hermits themselves have a grave obligation of growing in the practice of virtue, growing in prayer, widening their understanding of sacred scripture, theology, etc. They also need to be well aware of their own holy patrimony in the Church, and steeped in the mindset of the desert fathers/mothers.

Given the complexity of all that has been said above, the bishop, whose duty it is to carefully discern with those who believe that they may have a vocation to the eremitical life, should consult with true experts on the eremitic vocation. It is not enough for the people tasked with assisting the bishop in the discernment of eremitic vocations and/or formation to be ordained or possess a diploma in theology [unless their role is to give formation in say liturgy or theology]. Bishops should collaborate with those who actually know the canonical and practical framework of the vocation for viable candidates and those in need of continuing formation.

Likewise, the eremitical vocation is not a mere matter of the internal forum. It is a public vocation even if it is lived in solitude and therefore it has a visible framework. Thus, it is highly inappropriate and a grave abuse to relegate all work with the individual aspiring hermit to the “spiritual director”. The division between the internal forum and external must be maintained and those entrusted with roles in either must be suitably competent in their area.

While this may sound intimidating, it is the Church’s intent that both parties do their due diligence and not shirk their individual responsibilities. The bishop has the obligation of authenticating and promoting true vocations to the hermit life and the hermit aspirant has the obligation of discerning and following their vocation even if the diocese refuses to profess hermits for valid or invalid reasons. Someone called to the silence of solitude will do it regardless of whether the diocese is willing to profess hermits.

Questions re: Various Forms of Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, You have written that those living eremitical lives in community are living different eremitical lives than those live as solitary hermits. I get that one is "semi-eremitical" or only half-time hermit life and one is full-time eremitical life. I think that semi-eremitical must also mean only partly eremitical or not truly eremitical while solitary eremitical life is the real deal. I wondered then why you don't distinguish in terms of one being better than the other, or one being truer than the other. Wouldn't lauras represent a mitigation for those who can't live full-time eremitical life?]]

Thanks for your questions. If you check you will find an article from several years ago: Full-time Work and Eremitical Life (not the exact title). Look at the last portion of that article you will find a bit of information on the meaning of the term semi-eremitical, and more importantly what it does not mean -- at least not any longer. Because I don't agree with you that semi-eremitical life is not truly eremitical, neither can I accept that one form of eremitical life is better than another. Absolutely, one will be better for one hermit than for another but solitary hermits, semi-eremitical hermits, and hermits living in canonical communities are all living eremitical life accentuating in one way and another the silence of solitude; thus, I don't agree that one is better than another. They do accentuate different qualities, demonstrate in different ways the relationship of eremitical life  to the larger faith community, and so forth, but they remain forms of eremitical life and each is authentic in its own way. (Clearly, I am not referring in any of this to fraudulent or inauthentic ways of living -- or failing to live -- eremitical life.)

Semi-eremitical life refers to eremitical life lived within the framework or context of a community. It does not mean it is merely half-eremitical (though one might structure the community in this way, somewhat akin to choir monks and donate brothers in the Carthusian tradition) but rather that hermits living in this way are supported in their solitude with some elements of communal prayer, meals, and perhaps, recreation (long walks, a shared movie, poetry reading, a board game on some evening, a trip to get groceries, etc.). The solitude lived is eremitical and it is not half-time. Again, with semi-eremitical life, the context for living one's solitary life is a community, or, in the case of lauras, it is lived within a colony of similarly committed solitary hermits. Solitary eremitical life is lived without the communal context --- though it may involve a laura. Solitary hermits who are consecrated in the Church under c 603 live eremitical life within a parish context and also within a diocesan one. These are ecclesial vocations so there is always a significant ecclesial dimension. This does not make them any less the "real deal" than any other form of eremitical life. Instead it helps assure that the authentic solitude of eremitical life is not supplanted by individualism and isolation.

You ask if life in a laura doesn't constitute a mitigation of full-time eremitical life. I am assuming you mean why doesn't it represent a mitigation of full-time solitary eremitical life, yes? Assuming as well, that each hermit lives her own Rule under the direction of her own delegate and spiritual director, that she maintains care for her own finances, insurance, ministry, education, ongoing formation, retreats, and self-care, a laura will be supportive, yes, but the hermit remains a solitary hermit. The use of the word mitigation here is a bit problematical for me because it seems to indicate a weakened discipline, lessened time alone, etc. The point of eremitical life is not that it be difficult (though it will have difficulties as any other vocation will) but rather that it be healthy and defined in terms of one's communion with God in the silence of solitude. If a laura helps ensure all of the elements mentioned above in this paragraph, then it may actually assist the hermit to go deeper into her own living out of her Rule and vows within a more immediately supportive context.

Maybe an analogy will help here. Some might think that a vow of obedience mitigates the freedom associated with eremitical life. But actually, the vow ensures that the hermit will move more deeply into her life of attentive listening and the freedom of a deepening love relationship with God and God's creation. While it is true the vow will constrain freedom if this is defined in terms of one's power to do whatever one wants whenever one wants to do it, it actually provides limits within which one achieves a greater Freedom to be the one God has called one to be. This latter definition is a Christian conception of authentic Freedom. In a similar way, a properly constituted laura where hermits live their own Rules and maintain a context of the silence of solitude for and with one another, far from mitigating the hermits' solitude, will find they are supported in a deeper and more consistent life of the silence of solitude shot through with the love of God.

But yes, if a laura is a colony in name only and fails to ensure, support, and nourish the constitutive elements of c 603 (one's own rule, delegate, spiritual director, finances, ministry, life with/in the parish, focus on the vows, needs for ongoing formation, and so forth), then this could absolutely represent a mitigation, and in fact a distortion of c 603 (solitary consecrated) eremitical life. I may not have adequately answered your questions so please get back to me as you wish!

Why Doesn't the Church Support Hermits if they Support other Religious?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I wondered why it is the church doesn't support hermits. They support other religious so why not hermits? Does the church want hermits to form lauras? (They support lauras, don't they? Do you agree with the church not supporting hermits?]]

Thanks for writing! Before I answer your questions though, I should correct one misunderstanding, namely, generally speaking, the church as such does NOT support religious. Religious live within their congregation's sphere of care and support. While individual religious work to earn money, that money goes to the congregation's treasury in order to sustain the congregation and its apostolate and ministries. One of the reasons religious communities today are strapped for money is the increasing median age and the declining number of Sisters and Brothers able to work. While religious tend not to retire in precisely the same way non-religious do, their earning capacity declines with increasing age. That means more elderly Sisters and Brothers are supported by fewer salaries and increased social security (which religious had to buy into because until the mid 70's, they did not pay into social security, and often were not able to do so because they earned so little). Again, I am speaking generally here only. Some (perhaps all) congregations depend on benefactors to a greater or lesser degree, so it is important to understand the church does not finance religious institutes; institutes themselves, generally speaking, are self-supporting.

Hermits (and here I mean solitary consecrated hermits living eremitical life in the name of the church under canon 603) do not belong to religious congregations so they are responsible for their own upkeep. This can include disability and social security payments, but the point is the hermit herself is responsible for her own upkeep -- the church does not generally assume financial or material responsibility for hermits. This also means that the hermit must secure her own living situation (hermitage); dioceses do not generally provide land or space for hermits consecrated under c 603. (Sometimes dioceses have provided these things, here or there, but the situation becomes fraught for the hermit in several different ways --- mainly in terms of insecurity should the diocese decide it needs to use the property in some other way or for some other purpose, but also because different bishops feel differently about eremitical life as such and may choose not to continue the arrangement.) The larger, but still related, problem in such a situation is the precedent it sets both within the diocese and for other dioceses who cannot provide in this way for a canon 603 hermit (or for multiple c 603 hermits within a single diocese). When other dioceses cannot act similarly they may simply decide they cannot profess diocesan hermits at all. It also sets precedents for other hermits or would-be hermits who don't realize that canon 603 assumes the hermit is and will remain self-sufficient and will live the eremitical life in the context in which she herself can best provide. (N.B., a new bishop may thus know canon 603 and ask a hermit to leave a diocese-supplied property precisely because he does know and understand canon 603.)

I think there is some pressure to form solitary hermits into lauras. In part this can come from the situation just outlined, where a diocese gives/provides land or retreat house space to a single c 603 hermit, and is not able to care for others in the same way unless they all come together in a laura. (Unfortunately, a laura is often misunderstood as though the colony is allowed to become a juridical community or institute. This is not the case under c 603.) I have already spoken of one group I know that began as a laura of canon 603 hermits and morphed into a community while still using c 603 as the basis of professions. In that diocese, it turns out that those desiring to become c 603 hermits were required to do so within this specific context and not as solitary hermits who are formed and may choose to live outside such a group. I know of three or four other groups that have called themselves lauras through the years -- though I am unsure they are all still viable. Neither do I know if there are other diocesan hermits living in these same dioceses and apart from such groups, though in the case mentioned above the laura is the only way to become a c 603 hermit in the diocese. For this reason alone I would have to say, yes, there is some misguided tendency to desire hermits to come together in lauras and then to funnel candidates for c603 in this direction. 

My sense from conversations I have had with bishops is a concern for adequate formation of those seeking profession under c 603. This concern seems to drive some of the pressure to form hermits into lauras. While it's an important issue for c 603 professions, and while I believe such groups can be a significant resource for diocesan hermits, I truly believe that adequate formation can and, in most ways, must be secured by the hermit outside such a group. This might not be done easily, perhaps, but it is possible and, in fact, I think it may be necessary for the solitary hermit learning to make discerning choices re: the use of resources. (Here I am thinking of the need to spend/use resources for the sake of priorities like ongoing education, spiritual growth, participation -- no matter how limited -- in the larger world, etc).

 As I have written before, I am torn on the issue of the church providing support for c 603 hermits. I agree completely that support should not be given initially, nor for some years after perpetual profession -- unless there is some significant emergency a diocese may decide to assist in. C 603 truly is meant for solitary hermits who are responsible for their own upkeep. Canon 603 cannot, and must not be used for folks seeking a sinecure, so unproven vocations might well slip into such a situation. One canonist opined that this ability to support oneself was a litmus test for c 603 hermits. While I didn't agree with that characterization when it was first made and still do not agree that this characteristic is the litmus test for this vocation, I do agree that it is an essential element in initially discerning such a vocation, and for living it as the authors of the canon envisioned. In my mind the requirement that one truly be a solitary hermit, and thus self-supporting, is part of the unique desert the diocesan hermit embraces. I can say more about this if it seems helpful.

Where I am torn, and here it is a matter of justice as well as protecting a vocation that is proven, is in two areas: 1) the need for ongoing formation, which I believe dioceses can and perhaps should assist with (here I am thinking of supplementing the hermit's resources to help pay for retreats, workshops, and maybe even to assist with funding for spiritual direction) in cases of demonstrated need, and 2) in the case of older hermits who have lived their perpetual profession for 15 to 20 years or more who may need access to a religious house where they can be physically secure and still live a significant degree of solitude in a supportive context.  In such a case I believe a diocese should, at the very least, help the hermit secure such a place. (Here bishops, vicars of religious, et al, might be able to intervene helpfully in the situation or simply have broader contacts than the hermit herself.) It is unclear to me at this point whether needs for additional care would be supported entirely by the hermit's own social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., or whether additional and financial resources would be required from the diocese. There is precedent for ongoing limited support for solitary hermit/anchorites whose vows/commitment was in the hands of the local bishop dating from the Middle Ages though what the authors of canon 603 had in mind is another question.

What I am completely clear about is that a hermit should be able to live on her own or, in well-established vocations, in a facility or religious house that allows her to truly remain the hermit she is until and unless she can do so no longer. That church (diocesan) sponsorship would likely be necessary in such a situation (I think the hermit should pay her own way) and I believe additional diocesan support could certainly help both the hermit and the house which is generous enough to allow (or consider allowing) her to live there. In such cases, it may be important for a hermit's diocese to be open to providing assistance, sometimes even financial in nature, to preserve and continue to nurture a long and well-lived vocation in a non-secular institution (where it is apt to be impossible to live). 

When I was first perpetually professed I received some correspondence from c 603 hermits who believed that church support indicated the church truly valued the eremitical vocation --- or, conversely, that failing to support the hermit indicated a failure to value the vocation. I thought the points were well-taken and I have not forgotten their cogency. At the same time, I recognize that, again, eremitical life is not meant to be a sinecure and that true eremitical vocations are rare. Likewise, I continue to believe hermits do not need to be supported by the church to believe that the same church values our vocations. What does have to be true however, is that there must be ongoing and meaningful communication and personal support from the chancery to the hermit, between the chancery and the hermit's delegate, and between the delegate and the hermit.

Detachment as the Matrix for Christian (and Eremitical!) Love (Reprised from 2008)

We have all heard the Christian term, "detachment," or at least, that is, we know the word and its common meaning. What does it actually mean in the context of monastic or eremitical life? What relation does it have to other values, to other demands of this or any Xtn life? Does it limit our ability to love others, for instance, or does it serve as the means to love more generously, more purely, more whole-heartedly? Does it demand an end to treasured relationships, or does it clarify and transform the way we participate in these? Does it somehow cause a lack of desire to participate in or nurture these relationships, or does it sharpen the delight we take in them and serve to allow the deepening of our commitment to the other? Is it marked by apathy (which is not the same as monastic apatheia!!) and a lack of feeling or energy for life, or does it help cultivate and condition a deeper sense of being alive and in love with life? And finally, does detachment entail a loss of self so complete that one can be said to be "nothing" or have no self (a la Bernadette Roberts, for instance), or is it a new way of possessing a self, a truer and fuller self which is more abundantly alive, and more profoundly related to reality? 

As is probably obvious from the way I have phrased the questions, I believe genuine detachment does the latter in each case. It is possible to believe, using the common definition of the term, that detachment means an end to involvement, an end to relationships and to love, and even the loss of selfhood. It is possible, using this sense of the word, to set it in opposition to love and the involvement with others love demands, but in reality --- at least as I understand the term, and as the tradition of the desert Fathers and Mothers and other monastics and hermits I know understand it --- detachment is the means by which we are freed for authentic love; it is the matrix of Christian --- and so, eremitical --- love, not their antithesis. It is a mark and (partially) the means by which we claim TRUE selfhood, not the end or renunciation of it. 

At the center of our understanding of the nature of detachment are a couple of truths: 1) we are called above all to love --- to love God and to love ourselves and others in, through and with God; this is the very nature of authentic selfhood, whether Divine or human selfhood, and 2) we cannot love God or others unless we have a self which is capable of this. Detachment, if it is a real value we pursue and cultivate must, like any other Christian value, contribute to these goals or it is worthless. More than worthless, it is destructive and even demonic --- that is, capable of distorting the persons we are and blocking the process of becoming God summons forth and grounds in us. But of course genuine detachment in the eremitical life, and in the Christian life more generally, is actually the basis for the freedom to be the selves we are called to be. 

Detachment is the liberation experienced by one who truly loves and is truly human. It is, like so many other things in Christian life and spirituality, a paradoxical reality. If it is not marked by a rich and full loving, an abundant life of love and liberated selfhood, then it is not Christian detachment. And yet, how easily it is to fail to understand this! How common the misunderstanding of the term, even in those who are focused on spirituality in some way! 

Detachment and the Creation of the Self capable of Love: 

I wrote recently that real love requires distance as well as closeness, and that enmeshment was destructive of authentic human love. It is that insight that is at the root of understanding the nature of Christian detachment. There is a second and related insight which is also at the root of things here, namely, that real love requires freedom from counterfeits and a liberation from the concerns of an ego self which measures selfhood in terms of what we do, what we have, or what others think of us. This latter liberation is important not only to see and accept (i.e., love!) ourselves for who we really are, but to see and accept or affirm others (i.e., love them!) similarly. The choice before us is really to see and accept ourselves as God sees us, or to see and accept ourselves as the world (and our ego-self) sees us. There is no other option really. Detachment describes the state (and process) of moving from the latter to the former. It is a matter of freeing ourselves (or rather, allowing ourselves to be freed) from the claims and enmeshments (i.e., attachments) of the false self and embracing the true self and all that constitutes that. 

But this goal is not an end in itself. Detachment is not something to be pursued for its own sake. Detachment is at the service of something greater in the Christian life. It is at the service of the true self, yes, but above all that means it is at the service of the call to that self to love as Christ loves. Our own truest selves are hampered from becoming or being embodied in many ways, but one of the most destructive is by the attachments we make and have to all those values, structures, and realities which support the "ego-self, " that is, the self which is constantly judging and composing a portrait of "Me" which, again, is defined in terms of what I do, what I have, and what others think of me. Not only is the ego-self noisy and constantly rehearsing this portrait of self in order to maintain it so that it blocks our ability to hear the call of our own hearts, but, because it is constituted by attachments to these things, it detracts and distracts from the complete dependence upon God and God's summons (vocation) which is the necessary response to it and the One who grounds and authors it. 

Detachment is therefore the loosening and breaking of these bonds of attachment which are neither from nor of God, these definitions and images of self and others that hold us in their grip along with all that sustains and empowers them. It is a process and goal which again is at the service of a larger one, namely the making of authentic, obedient selves capable of loving others IN CHRIST. Communion is the fruit of detachment, and any supposedly "spiritual" process which does not lead to genuine communion should not be mistaken for detachment. The paradox involved here should be underscored: when we are truly detached we are capable of loving concrete human beings AS THEY ARE in our day-to-day dealings with them. Detachment does not issue in a merely abstract and superficial love of "the poor," "the homeless," "the unloved," or the like (Bondi, To Pray and to Love). It results instead in the capacity to see others --- real flesh-and-blood people with warts, body odor, lousy dispositions, contrary opinions, and the like --- and love them for who they REALLY are, namely, the images of God (as imperfectly as they -- or we -- realize this foundational identity!) who confront us with his presence everyday and who need to love and be loved in all the ways that we ourselves do and are called to do. 

On Detachment and Apathy: 

And this has implications for those who see detachment as a kind of apathy. As I noted in the beginning of this post, apathy is not the same thing the desert Fathers and Mothers called apatheia. Apatheia was understood to mean a kind of imperturbability or holy stillness which resulted when one was rooted in and lived from and for the love and mercy of God and was no longer enmeshed in the world. It was not only not incompatible with profound love for others, it called and prepared for it. Neither then is true detachment marked by apathy. Detachment and apatheia were intimately linked because both involved the freeing of the self from passions, that is from those distorting lenses formed by woundedness, neediness, insecurity, ambition, greed, etc, which caused one to relate to reality in ways which were less than authentically human. But detachment and apathy on the other hand are actually antithetical to one another because apathy is a form of self-centeredness and bondage resulting in psychological death, whereas detachment is a form of freedom from self which opens to life and love. 

[By the way, please note well: the passions, in the sense this term is used by the desert Fathers and Mothers and those who have followed them, are not simply strong feelings; they may involve strong feelings but they are really distorting lenses through which we come to relate inappropriately or inadequately to God, ourselves, and others. For a very good treatment of the reality of the passions as understood by the early Church fathers and Mothers see Roberta Bondi's, To Pray and to Love. There she defines them as, "habits of seeing, feeling, thinking, and acting that characteristically blind us to who we ourselves, our neighbors, and God really are so that we are not able to respond appropriately, rationally, and lovingly." A longer treatment is found in her book, To Love as God Loves, also highly recommended.] Given this view of things what sometimes passes for detachment and is rightly described as apathy is actually what the desert Fathers and Mothers called a passion. 

All of this leads back to the questions with which I opened the post. Detachment is a freeing process and state which allows us to love others more honestly and generously. It does not close us off from others --- even if we are hermits --- but instead allows us to see and cherish them with the eyes and heart of God. It allows us to delight in reality in a way which our ego-selves would censure and shut down, because the detached self, the true self, is unconcerned with what this reality can do for us, how it can be owned or possessed by us, or how it affirms us. Detachment makes us capable of delight in the thing itself simply because it is what it is. And, it allows us to hear and respond to the vocational call which sounds instant by instant deep in the core of our being. In other words, it serves authentic humanity; it serves the growth of the true self which loves God and claims as its own to cherish all that is cherished by Him. Further, while the eremitical life poses unique challenges in embodying this love, the FACT of it is no less real for the hermit than it is for any other Christian. For every Christian, including the hermit, detachment is the matrix out of which authentic love is birthed.