Why Doesn't the Church Support Hermits if it Supports 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.