Hermits Without formation? (Reprise)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, another poster mentioned that maybe Jesus is calling hermits without formation. Isn't it kind of outrageous to demand a significant degree of formation for the freest [most free] vocation known? Aren't you asking for more than Jesus asks?]]

In a word, no; I don't think so. We are each called to discipleship, to sell what we "have" (or what "has us"!), to prioritize every relationship and to follow Jesus wholeheartedly. This is true whether we are called to be hermits, cenobites, priests, married, single, or whatever. We are called to live from and for the Gospel, to inculcate the values of the Kingdom, to embrace the radically counter cultural and reject individualism, commercialism, and every other false "god" or ideology our society (and our hearts) have created. We are each called to become men and women of prayer, penance, compassion, and service to others. We are called to become profoundly human; that is, we are called to become persons who are wholly transparent to the glory (revelation) of God --- persons who allow God to love us exhaustively and express our gratitude and joy for this as fully as possible in our love for others. None of this is a matter simply of catechesis or book learning.

For the disciples this becoming occurred in encounters with and in the company of Jesus --- as it must do for us as well. The Christ we meet, however, comes to us in all the ways he has come to hermits throughout the centuries: in the sacraments, in lectio, in contemplative and liturgical prayer, in solitary intellectual and manual work, in solitary leisure and in the personal work these and spiritual direction occasion. Our estrangement from God, self, and others means that none of this is "natural" for us;  none of this is achieved without formation.

Freedom and License are antithetical realities:

Freedom is not the same thing as license. One of the most serious errors I hear people making today is equating these two things when they are really opposites in most ways. While it is true that eremitical freedom is one of the most remarked on qualities of the life, this has always meant the freedom to respond to God as God wills. It has never referred to the notion of doing whatever one likes whenever one likes to do it. I have written here a number of times that authentic freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. That is, freedom is a capacity to hear and respond fully and appropriately to the will and voice of God in our lives. But developing this capacity obviously takes formation. It requires self-discipline, clarity about who we are and who God is (especially on the basis of the Jesus' revelation of him and the Gospel),  and it requires real time and leisure for listening to God's Word as well as the capacity to commit to this in all the ways it is mediated to us in the eremitical life. Again this all requires and presupposes formation.

You see, most people who write me about eremitical life are clear that they would like to listen to God's voice more wholeheartedly but only in terms of the life they are already living --- they are open to "tweaking" it a little here or there. Only one or two have been clear that eremitical life really requires changing one's life in all the truly radical ways necessary so that God's Word or Voice is mediated to them constantly, especially in and for the silence of solitude. (Remember that the silence of solitude is not only the environment in which this is achieved, but the means and goal of the hermit's life as well.) The symbol of this is the giving over of one's own home to eremitical life (not to eremitical life-lite much less to some form of pious individualism). This idea of giving our very residences over to God in this way so that everything we do or have becomes a piece of the life of the silence of solitude, so that everything is drawn into God's mediatory activity and is capable of revealing God to us, so that everything becomes Eucharistic requires periods of transition. More, it requires that one comes over time to understand the choice that involved when one proposed to become a hermit; additionally it requires the time and training necessary to be made ready to make such a choice, and then, of course, the ability to really do so.

St Peter Damian and the Hermit as Ecclesiola:

I have written here before about the linkage between Peter Damian's notion of the hermit as an "ecclesiola" --- a litte church --- and the homily my Bishop (Archbishop Vigneron) gave at my perpetual profession. It was there that I first heard the  reference to giving over one's entire house. Partly because it had been some time since I could simply "take the train home from work" and leave all that "behind me" and partly because I no longer thought of my own place as an "apartment", it took some time for me to fully appreciate the depth of Bp Vigneron's insight here. What I mean is I could not hear at that moment how striking and radical this image for the commitment I was making actually was. I have also written about the change that must come about for a beginner in this life --- namely, that they must transition from being a lone person to being a hermit in some essential way. In such a context, the idea of giving over one's entire home  assumes a very striking and challenging import.

You may have seen comments, for instance, by a person who was trying to "balance hermit things with worldly things" I noted several years ago. I have heard this difficulty more than once and dealt with it myself. It indicates to me that the person had not yet made the transition from being a lone person living in an apartment (for instance), to being a hermit who lives in a hermitage in some truly essential sense. Signs that one has made such a transition include: 1) a radical break with one's former life (if one does some of the same things one now does them from a radically different perspective and in a different way), 2) a movement from living in solitude because it is required by circumstances to living in solitude because it is truly one's own way to wholeness and holiness (the circumstances may not change but they are now a subtext rather than the defining reality of one's life), 3) a transition from concern with whether or not this latter element (chronic illness, for instance) has merely forced one into solitariness and is an inadequate reason for embracing eremitical life, to living it because it is also, and more importantly, a gift to others which glorifies (reveals) God most fully through one's own life. The hermit may certainly be concerned with her own wholeness and holiness (discernment of a vocation presupposes this vocation leads to these for the individual!), but at some point she must become more focused on the charism which this life is to the Church and World. This transition and the other elements as well all represent a transition from selfishness or a more individualistic focus to a truly ecclesial life. Similarly, they all require formation.

Freedom and Selflessness are Inseparable:

Finally, there is no true freedom unless there is also true selflessness. Freedom and generosity go hand in hand. A life lived for others is a truly free life. A life lived from and for the Love of God is one of authentic freedom. A life of mere license and self-indulgence (including self-indulgence that takes apparently pious forms, as for instance did the person's who spoke of using canon 603 as a means of reserving the Eucharist in her own place and found consecration pointless otherwise).  Jesus always demands a great deal from his disciples. Yes, he is clear that his yoke is easy and his burden light --- and indeed they are --- but at the same time, making the transition from hanger-on to true disciple requires formation. It requires a radical break with one's former life. In a world where silence is rarely heard and solitude has been exchanged for some kind of mere isolation and/or individualism,  Jesus' call to those who would be hermits, and certainly a call to be diocesan hermits who represent the vocation publicly or "in the name of the church", cannot be answered without formation. 

Vaccinations, a Moral Imperative

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, everyone around here is going crazy and jumping on those who have not been vaccinated against COVID or who refuse to wear masks. I wondered how you approach the whole matter of vaccinations and mask-wearing since you have faith in God but also because you live alone and don't see a lot of people. I believe that God will take care of me so I shouldn't need vaccinations and if it is God's will that I contract COVID, well, then a vaccination wouldn't help anyway and might go against God. This has made it hard to be with my family but I think it is what faith means. Maybe God is calling me to be a hermit through all of this and increasing my solitude. I read online about a hermit who is also a priest. He says COVID is a hoax and rejects vaccination. He trusts in God and has real faith!! He is not driven by fear and I don't want to be either. Jesus was the one who said, "be not afraid!!  Is this how you think about getting vaccinated against COVID?]]

Thanks for your questions. I think perhaps my answer will surprise you. One of the things I write about here most frequently is the way eremitical life is antithetical to individualism. The paradox of solitary eremitical life is that precisely as those living alone with, from, and for God, we reveal the communal nature of the human being. We are concerned with the things of God --- not least God's creation -- including, of course, our fellow human beings. We hermits are the most vivid example of this paradoxical reality. The second thing I write a lot about here is the nature of genuine freedom. I have defined it as I was taught and as Christianity understands it: namely, as the power to be the persons we are called to be. These two realities intersect in an incredibly vivid way in the vocation of the solitary hermit. Because of that, because hermit vocations are defined in terms of freedom and a unique and solitary expression of community, I am particularly "allergic" to a lot of what is happening in politics and public health under the guise of "freedom" (including "religious freedom") and the putative infringement of "personal or individual) rights".

When I watch the news or listen to folks who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated in the name of personal freedom, it is completely dismaying to me. After all, we are responsible for ourselves, of course, but at the same time we are responsible for the wellbeing of others we call "brothers" and "sisters" or "friends" and "neighbors". The answer to the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" is yes! Our behavior should reflect that!! Take the issue of wearing masks if one is unvaccinated: we are called by God to do what we can to protect ourselves and others from COVID-19. 

Wearing a mask helps prevent the spread of infection and thus too the various problems that come when infection is able to spread relatively unchecked, especially new and more virulent variants, the overrunning of our healthcare system --- seen particularly in the exhaustion of critical care workers who give themselves for the rest of us --- and the infection of those among us who cannot yet avail themselves of vaccines -- children and those who, for medical reasons, truly cannot take the vaccine. Vaccine also protects but even more effectively and completely. I therefore have to ask, what is difficult in the concept of accepting vaccination and the relatively minor risk attending that so that not only we may be safer from COVID, but so that the virus itself may be deprived of room and occasion to spread and flourish as herd immunity is gradually achieved?

Early on in the lockdown beginning 17 months ago March, I was awaiting the delivery of a package and walked outside and down my street to see if I could spot the UPS truck and to get a little respite in the open air. A couple I did not know crossed  onto the sidewalk behind me and the young man said, "I should rip that mask off your face!" I was stunned and bewildered --- and also a bit threatened. How in the world did my wearing a mask threaten this man? How could he feel my own act of self-protection impinged on him at all? This was my first experience of a senseless politicization of the pandemic and an example of what would soon become a dominating response to something that was mistakenly and willfully seen as a threat to another's freedom. 

Within days I was hearing (via the news) from folks who believed that those of us who were "driven by fear" should simply stay inside and isolate ourselves while we allowed others to continue on unmasked, not concerned with social distancing, and thus, without concern or recognition of the virulence of COVID-19 at all. I found that stunning, a kind of contempt for anyone admitting weakness in the face of a virulent and potentially lethal virus, even as "the strong" carried on without concern for the same life-threatening virus or anyone but themselves. I never thought this attitude could be widely represented amongst the general population; even less did I think it would become prevalent even among many who considered themselves to be Christians and strongly rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Was I fearful? Yes, of course; I have chronic illnesses which would make contracting the virus deadly for me, so of course fear was a reality. I neither wanted to contract the virus nor did I want to pass it on to others. So, while fear was a reality, it was love that drove me and so many others I know. Sisters, for instance, sacrificed their ability to visit others in their own congregations or even leave their own rooms in order to protect everyone from infection; it was difficult but everyone trusted this was temporary and endured it so they could minister again. 

Meanwhile, ways of adapting ministry were found. Parishes moved all classes and liturgies to ZOOM meetings for the same reasons. Some videotaped or streamed Mass so that others could experience a connection with the larger church in that way. Retreats, lectio divina, scripture classes, social gatherings of folks now separated, lonely, and fearful were held in this new context and folks realized not only that they could minister to one another in this unexpected way but that they could reach those now accessible by computer. Some even developed dimensions of theology that had ordinarily been underemphasized --- the notion of families or households being instances of domestic church, for instance. Was there fear? Yes. And grief as we lost people to the virus. But were we driven by fear in the choices we made for this new way of relating?  Did we lack faith? No. We were impelled by love. We protected ourselves and we protected our ability to be there for others in whatever ways we could. For Christians, acting in such ways is simply a moral imperative.

I don't know every hermit out there, but of the hermits I do know and whose profound faith I can attest, every one of us has been vaccinated and wears masks when these are required or prudent. Each of us spends the majority of our time in our hermitages in the silence of solitude. Each of us trusts God with our lives and live our lives for God and for all that is precious to God. But you see, in our solitude we are other-centered --- which is what c 603 and, more fundamentally, the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. And, it is precisely the fact that we live our lives for others and understand eremitical solitude in terms of relatedness and solidarity rather than isolation that makes us capable of living as Catholic Hermits. It also makes us good models of how to handle this pandemic. We are each of us, hermit or not, free to the extent we allow ourselves to be empowered by the Love-in-Act we know as God. As Paul tells us faith is great but greater still is love!! We are individuals (i.e., not just isolated beings, but truly ourselves!) to the extent we are truly free and live our lives for the sake of others. Freedom is not license. Individuality is not the same as being an individualist, while much that goes by the name of faith today is simply a description of self-assertion and a refusal of the Divine call to be there for others.

Today we are seeing the DELTA variation dominating new cases of COVID-19 in this country (and, in fact, in the world). Moreover, we are seeing a new epidemic amongst the unvaccinated; 99.5 % of new cases in the US occur among those who are unvaccinated. With each new variant the disease becomes more highly infectious and we don't yet have vaccines approved for children. At some point the vaccines we do have may become ineffective as variants proliferate. Meanwhile, the side effects from the vaccines have been truly minimal and anaphylaxis, which is also rare, can be effectively handled in the way it always is. Unless one has verified, and thus, legitimate medical reasons for avoiding the vaccines, there is no other word for remaining unvaccinated at this point than irresponsible!  While we must always maintain the sanctity of our certain conscience decisions, one must seriously question whether a conscience judgment which selfishly contradicts the Law of Love in the name of some badly defined notion of personal "freedom", for instance, is truly well-formed and informed. From my perspective, getting vaccinated is a moral imperative --- nothing less.

When the Stone Was Rolled Away: Feast of Mary Magdalene (Reprise)

Probably everyone is aware by now that today's commemoration of Saint Mary Magdalene is indeed a FEAST. I heard a great homily on this from my pastor last Sunday --- it was on both the raising of Mary Magdalene's liturgical celebration from a memorial to an actual feast and Francis' move to create a commission to look into the historical facts regarding the ordination of women as deacons in the church. Change comes slowly in the Catholic Church --- though sometimes it swallows up the Gospel (or significant elements of the Gospel) pretty quickly as it did with last Sunday's story of Jesus' treating Mary of Bethany as a full disciple sitting at his feet just as males (and ONLY males) did. As we know, that story, read without sensitivity to historical context, was tamed to make it say that contemplative life was the greater good or calling than active or ministerial life; still, once the stone has been rolled away as it is in today's Gospel we may find the Spirit of God is irrepressible in bringing (or at least seeking to bring) about miracles.

One sign the stone is being rolled away by Pope Francis is the raising of Mary Magdalene's day to a Feast. For the entire history of the Church Mary M has been known as "Apostle to the Apostles" but mainly this has been taken in an honorific but essentially toothless way with little bite and less power to influence theology or the role of women in the Church. But raising the Magdalene's day to the level of a Feast changes all that. This is because the Feast comes with new prayers -- powerful statements of who Mary was and is for the Church, theological statements with far-reaching implications about Jesus' choices and general practice regarding women (especially calling for a careful reading of other stories of his interactions with them), a critical look at the way the early church esteemed and ministered WITH women --- especially as indicated in the authentic writings of Paul, and the unique primacy of Mary Magdalene over the rest of the Apostles, including even Peter, as a source of faith, witness, and evangelism.

The Church's longstanding and cherished rule in all of this is Lex Orandi, lex credendi, literally, "the law (or norm) of prayer is the law (norm) of belief", but more adequately, "As we pray, so we believe." And what is true as we examine the new readings and prayers associated with today's Feast is that the way we pray with, with regard to, and to God through the presence of Mary Magdalene has indeed changed with wide-ranging implications as noted above. The Church Fathers have written well and I wanted to look briefly at a couple of the texts they have given us for the day's Mass, namely the opening prayer and the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer.

 The Opening Prayer Reads: [[O God, whose Only Begotten Son entrusted Mary Magdalene before all others with announcing the great joy of the Resurrection, grant, we pray, that through her intercession and example we may proclaim the living Christ and come to see him reigning in your glory. Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
R. Amen.

What is striking to me here is the very clear affirmation that Mary was commissioned (entrusted) by Christ with the greatest act of evangelization anyone can undertake, namely, the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead. This is a matter of being summoned to and charged with a direct and undisputed act of preaching the one reality upon which is based everything else Christians say and do. It is the primal witness of faith and the ground of all of our teaching. It is what allows Paul to say quite bluntly, if this is false, if Jesus is not raised from the dead, then Christians are the greatest fools of all. It is this kerygma Mary is given to proclaim. Moreover there is a primacy here. Mary Magdalene is not simply first among equals --- though to be thought of in such a way among Apostles and the successors of Apostles in the Roman Catholic Church is a mighty thing by itself --- but she was entrusted (commissioned) with this charge "before all others". There is a primacy here and the nature of that, it seems to me, especially when viewed in the context of Jesus' clearly counter cultural treatment of women, is not merely temporal; it has the potential to change the way the Church has viewed the role of women in ministry including ordained (diaconal) ministry. The Preface is as striking. It reads:

Preface of the Apostle of the Apostles

It is truly right and just,
our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God,
whose mercy is no less than His power,
to preach the Gospel to everyone, through Christ, our Lord.
In the garden He appeared to Mary Magdalene
who loved him in life, who witnessed his death on the cross,
who sought him as he lay in the tomb,
who was the first to adore him when he rose from the dead, and whose apostolic duty [office, charge, commission] was honored by the apostles, so that the good news of life might reach the ends of the earth.
And so Lord, with all the Angels and Saints,
we, too, give you thanks, as in exultation we acclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts. . . (Working Translation by Thomas Rosica CSB)

Once again we see two things especially in the Preface: 1) the use of the term Apostle (or apostolic duty [office or charge]) used in a strong sense rather than in some weak and merely honorific sense --- this is, after all, the Preface of the Apostle of the Apostles!!! (note how this translation brings Mary right INTO the collegio of Apostles in a way "to" may not; here she is definitely first among equals)--- and 2) a priority or kind of primacy in evangelization which the apostles themselves honored. In the preface there is a stronger sense of Mary being first among equals than in the prayer I think, but the lines stressing that Mary adored Jesus in life, witnessed his death on a cross --- something which was entirely unacceptable in ordinary society and from which the male disciples fled in terror --- and sought him in the dangerous and ritually unacceptable place as the rest of his disciples huddled in a room still terrified and completely dispirited, these lines make the following reference to "apostolic duty" --- which Mary also carried out in the face of general disbelief --- and thus, to Mary's temporal (but not merely temporal) primacy over the other apostles all the stronger.

Do Not Cling to Me: Another Sign the Stone has been Rolled Away

 

Part of today's gospel is the enigmatic challenge to Mary's address of Jesus as "Rabbouni" or Rabbi -- teacher. In response Jesus says, "Do not cling to me!" He then reminds Mary he has yet to ascend to his Father and her Father, his God and her God. What is going on here? Mary honors Jesus with a title of respect and great love and Jesus rebuffs and reproves her! The answer I think is that Mary identifies Jesus very specifically with Judaism and even with a specific role within Judaism. But Jesus can no longer be identified with such a narrow context. He is the Risen Christ and will soon be the ascended One whose presence, whose universality (and even his cosmic quality), will be established and freshly mediated in all sorts of unexpected and new ways. To be ascended is not to be absent but to be present as God is present --- a kind of omnipresence or ever-presence we must learn to perceive and trustingly embrace. This too is a critical part of Mary's commission or officio; she is called to proclaim this as well --- the eschatological or cosmic reality in and through which the Gospel of God's presence is opened to all the world.

Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, who is already aware that he is difficult to recognize as the Risen Christ, not to cling to old images, old certainties, narrow ways of perceiving and understanding him. He reminds her he will be present and known in new ways; he tells her not to cling to the ones she is relatively comfortable with. And he makes her, literally and truly, Apostle of and to the Apostles with a world-shattering kerygma or proclamation whose astonishing Catholicity goes beyond anything they could have imagined.

And so, it is with us and with the Church herself. On this new Feast Day, we must understand the stone has been rolled away and the Risen and Ascended Christ may be present in ways we never expected ways which challenge our intellectual certainties and theologically comfortable ways of seeing and knowing. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, as we pray so we believe. What a potentially explosive and ultimately uncontrollable rule beating at the heart of the Church's life and tradition!! The stone has been rolled away and over time our new and normative liturgical prayer will be "unpacked" by teachers and theologians and pastoral ministers of all sorts while the truth contained there will be expressed, honored, and embodied in ever-new ways by the entire Body of Christ --- if only we take Jesus' admonition seriously and cease clinging to him in ways which actually limit the power and reach of the Gospel in our world.

Like the original Apostles we are called to honor Mary Magdalene's apostleship so that the "good news of life [can] reach the ends of the earth." We pray on this Feast of St Mary Magdalene that that may really be so.

Eremitical Solitude: A Silent Preaching of the Crucified One (Reprise)

Dear Sister how is it a hermit can be a silent preaching of the Lord and at the same time be "hidden from the eyes of men"? You write about canon 603 a lot but why don't you ever write about pars 920-921 in the Catechism? They are richer than the canon I think. [[921  [Hermits] manifest to everyone the interior aspect of the mystery of the Church, that is, personal intimacy with Christ. Hidden from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because he is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One.]]

I agree with you that the paragraphs on eremitical life in the Catechism are quite rich. I don't personally find them richer than the canon but my relationship with the canon is necessarily different. What I mean is that the canon is both legally and morally binding on me in a public way. I am commissioned and directly responsible for understanding and revealing its meaning with my life. The catechism, on the other hand, was actually written for bishops, theologians, and those teaching the faith. It thus presumes a broader knowledge which can adequately contextualize and inform what the CCC says in summary fashion. It is not meant to be the final word on things --- much less on things eremitical! (In this case, for instance, par 920-921 are to be read in light of the Church's theology of consecrated life --- not the other way around.) With that in mind I can say that while the CCC is profoundly instructive, and while I reflect on it as well as on the canon, it is not normative for my life in the same way. Still, if you look at the themes dealt with regularly here I think you would find par 921 is at least implicitly present in almost all of them (par 920 is essentially a reprise of canon 603).

For instance, I write a lot about eremitical life as an ecclesial vocation, a vocation which "belongs" to the Church in a formal way, the charism of the vocation (the silence of solitude where solitude is understood in terms of both aloneness and communion) which is a gift of God both to and from the Church, the hermit as ecclesiola (a la Peter Damien). This is all part of a hermit being a manifestation of the intimacy with Christ which is the interior aspect of the Church's own identity. I write very frequently about the distinction between isolation and solitude, or between silence and solitude and the silence OF solitude; this involves several of the elements mentioned in par 921 including intimacy with Christ, the silent preaching of the hermit, the hiddenness of her life, etc. 

When I write about the redemptive experience that must exist at the core of the hermit's life or about the theology of the cross, I am clearly writing about the Crucified One, the inner spiritual battle we are each called to participate in, and the intimacy with Christ the Hermit is commissioned to manifest. When I write about the Word Event or Language Event the hermit becomes as she is transfigured and comes to rest in the silence of solitude I am thinking again of her intimacy with Christ and of her life being a silent preaching of the Lord.

I do believe all of these fit neatly together (though not without the paradox present whenever Christianity is lived out in our world) and I believe that the hiddenness of the life is completely consistent with being a silent preaching of the Lord. You might want to look at the following article Hiddenness of the Hermit Vocation and others with the label "Eremitism and Hiddenness" for what I have written in the past years.  What is clear to me is the work of the hermit is to allow the silent and entirely hidden work of the Lord within her heart, mind, and spirit to come to fruition in her life. She witnesses to this presence and to the redemptive work of God that occurs in each and every person in the silence of solitude. No active ministry is needed here. One simply lives in intimate relation with God and is made whole and holy in the process. It is to this power perfected in weakness to which the hermit especially  witnesses with  her life.

But all of this is also implied in the elements of canon 603. Assiduous prayer and penance combined with stricter separation from the world in the silence of solitude conveys a sense of essential hiddenness and of something special happening in that hiddenness. The Evangelical Counsels and the hermit's Rule do likewise. How could she live these otherwise? Even the supervision of the bishop required by the canon and the hermit's delegate witness to this; it is, in fact, what they are called to ensure for those who never see or come to know the hermit -- and for the whole Church. I do appreciate the CCC paragraphs and I actually love the reference to a hermit as a "Silent preaching of the Lord" (or, as I tend to think of it, a silent preaching of the Crucified One).

The salvation of the world occurs  through the solitary life of the One who lives in an ineffably intimate dialogue with the Father in the power of the Spirit. While it may seem his life is filled with people and certainly filled with love, Jesus' entire life is a solitary life in the desert. He is, except for his relationship with his Abba, alone --- alone in a crowd, perhaps, but still ultimately alone with only God as the One who knows him intimately in the biblical sense and completes him. And of course, at the end of his life he experiences the absolute aloneness of even an experience of God's absence. Jesus' 40 days in the desert was thus, as I understand it, a snapshot of the character of his entire life. Likewise, there is no doubt in my mind that par 921 of the Catechism sees the hermit's life reprising this aloneness which is lived, as c 603 says explicitly for, "the salvation of the world", the reconciliation of all of creation.

While the two sources are complementary and while both are rich resources for reflection on the nature of eremitical life, canon 603 functions to order and govern my life in ways the CCC paragraphs neither do nor can. Also, its elements are most often misunderstood and misunderstood not only by candidates but even by professed hermits and chancery personnel. For instance, the Silence of Solitude is often misread as "silence and solitude", while the specific charismatic nature of this element is often missed. (The silence of solitude functions not only as context and goal of the hermit's life, but as the gift the hermit is empowered to bring to both the Church and World.) For that reason, because I personally need to be in touch with this notion of charisma and because misunderstanding of this element of the canon  leads to a failure to esteem to specific gift this vocation is, as well as to professions of solitary persons who are not and may never be hermits, I have spent more of my time and attention on the canon which mentions it explicitly.

The Silence of Solitude as Charism or Gift to the Church and World (reprise)

 Because I believe having a sense  of the gift quality or charism of eremitical life could help prevent abuses of canon 603, I am reposting one of the pieces I have written in the last few years about it (cf August 2017). Every dimension of the eremitical life is a gift of God to the church but in my reflection I see all of these various elements of the life summed up and expressed in the unique term, "the silence of solitude". It is this which is the context, goal, and unique gift to the church and world.

[[Dear Sister, thanks for posting what you have about diocesan hermits. You say that your vocation is a gift to the Church and to the world. I am having a hard time describing to a friend how it is that this is so. I don't mean that I don't believe it, only that I cannot explain it. Could you say specifically what you mean when you speak of the charism of your vocation or the gift it is to Church and World? Thank you!]]

Great question! Thanks. The eremitical vocation, and in my case the solitary eremitical vocation, is always very clearly a gift of God to the hermit. It is the way she comes to freedom from various forms of bondage, the way she experiences redemption and grows to wholeness and holiness. It is the way God shapes the weaknesses, deficiencies, as well as the gifts and talents of the hermit's life into a coherent whole so that all of these things witness to the grace of God. When I try to speak of what this means in my life I have sometimes said that God transformed what was often a scream of anguish into a Magnificat  of praise. (Neither part of this illustration is hyperbolic.)  But, because this is the work of God, because vocation is ALWAYS the work of God, it must be a gift to others as well and especially, it is a gift to the Church even as it is a gift to the whole world. 

It is by reflecting on the way the vocation transforms and transfigures my own life that I come to understand how it is a gift to these as well; when I do this, one phrase from canon 603 begins to sound in my heart and mind, namely, the silence of solitude. I think this phrase describes the charism or specific gift quality of the solitary eremitical vocation both in my own life and as that life is lived for the sake of the salvation of others. So let me summarize what I mean by "the silence of solitude" and why it is the unique gift I am asked to bring to the Church and world.

There are all kinds of silence but I think they can be divided into external or physical silence and inner silence. The silence of solitude is a combination of both of these but what I want to focus on throughout this response is how "the silence of solitude" reflects more than anything an inner wholeness and silence we each seek and need --- an inner wholeness and silence we are really called to by God. 

This silence is the quiet of inner peace, a silence that sings with the presence of God, and resonates with the love one knows as part of the Body of Christ, part of the family of mankind, and part of the Mystery of Creation more generally. It is the silence of belonging, of knowing one's value and the meaningfulness of one's life, the silence of the cessation of striving for these things or the noise of existential and unfulfillable yearning for them. The Jewish term which might best be applied to this particular silence is shalom. I say this because it is a dynamic, living thing which pulses with the life, peace, wholeness, and promise of God even as it quietly and confidently contemplates that same God in wonder and love.

What you may notice is how intrinsically related to God and others, and to one's deep or true self too, this "solitude" is in what c 603 calls "the silence of solitude". The "silence of solitude" does involve an external silence and physical solitude; the hermit cannot live the inner reality without this. But in a deeper way the silence of solitude is a paradoxical reality I have to describe in terms of harmony and music and life and singing and relating to and resonating with others. The "silence of solitude" referred to in c 603 describes not only the outer environment of the hermitage, but the inner reality of loving and being loved in a way which witnesses to the truth that God alone is enough for us; we truly are imago dei transformed in and by the silence of solitude into imago Christi. So long as the relational element is missing from our definitions or descriptions, and so long as the "musical" or living dimension is omitted we can be sure we have missed the point of this phrase in the canon. But when we include it we begin to understand why the hermit's vocation is truly a gift to the Church and others.

The hermit lives alone; she lives in relative silence. And yet, the consecrated hermit, the solitary canon 603 hermit or the hermit living in a canonical community also consciously embraces an ecclesial vocation where the dimension of commissioning by and for the Church is never absent. These hermits have Rules and formal relationships (legitimate superiors, delegates, faith community expectations) which qualify or condition the quality of their solitude at every point. They are engaged in ongoing formation which empowers continuing healing, growth, greater maturity and even genuine holiness. They do this in order to witness to the grace of God and its place in transforming the isolation and alienation of every life into something hermits recognize as the Person glorifying (i.e., revealing) the God we know as Love-in-Act. Individualism, isolation, alienation, the muteness and anguish of bondage have no place here. 

Powerfully and paradoxically the hermit stands against each and all of these in the freedom and profound relatedness canon 603 refers to as "the silence of solitude." As one called and commissioned to live this reality she witnesses to the possibility of being genuinely whole, truly happy, complete and capable of the relatedness, generosity, and love God's grace makes possible in every life --- even when the person has no worldly status, no physical wealth or power, no family or friends, and perhaps no place even to "lay her head". This is the charism of her vocation and life, the gift God bestows on Church and world through consecrated eremitical life.

I can spell some of this out more concretely perhaps, but I am hoping it gives you the beginnings of an answer to your question. To summarize: in a world torn apart by divisions of all kinds, by the rampant individualism marking and driving so much of its terrible dysfunction and disorder as well as by a grasping at and use of others with distorted forms of "love" and relatedness, the hermit ostensibly stands alone, but really is made whole and of almost infinite value by the continuing power and presence of the God she knows as Love-in-Act. She proclaims the potential held by each and every life and the way in which that potential can be realized by the grace of God. 

To stand apparently alone in the name of the Church, witnessing to the possibility,  power, and presence of Love and the indispensability of deep and harmonious relatedness with God, self, and others ("the silence of solitude", the song of shalom), that is her charism, the charism or gift of her solitary eremitical vocation.

Understanding and Preventing Abuses of Canon 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it that bishops and others misuse canon 603? Have you thought much about this? I wonder how it is we can prevent this from happening, whether by bishops or by those who are not hermits at all. Have you written about this already?]] 

Thanks for your questions! In light of several of my recent posts I think it is clear that they are important questions, and perhaps as neuralgic today as they were in the days of the first implementation of canon 603. So while, yes, I have written about this in the past, it is probably time to look again at the problems involved and the multi-part solution.

Your first question gets to the heart of the matter: "Why do bishops misuse or allow the misuse of canon 603?" is the way I would restate it. (There are many reasons individuals seek to be professed under canon 603 only one of which is valid --- namely, they have discovered they are called to human wholeness and holiness as a hermit and now wish to bring the gift of this call to the whole Church and world in the way only a public and ecclesial vocation can do.) That is, they seek to live this gift for the sake of others and others are allowed to know and take encouragement from this. However, it is up to the church (via bishop and his curia/staff) to discern both the genuine presence of this gift and the call to live it canonically. For this reason, I changed your question so that the weight and focus of it falls to the seeker's bishop. So, why do bishops misuse or allow the misuse of canon 603?

I think in the main the answer must be ignorance. It may be the bishop knows nothing really of the canon or its history. Sometimes they may not know anything substantive rather than merely superficial about eremitic life itself. Sometimes, even when they know something of eremitical life, they do not understand its charism, the unique way it is a gift for the individual hermit and for others, and they may have no sense at all that this is truly a significant vocation entrusted to the church by God. Added to ignorance there may be degrees of arrogance and carelessness as well then --- and here I mean carelessness in both the sense of "I couldn't care less" and in the related sense of sloppiness or negligence in discernment, implementation, supervision, etc. This is only logical because the carelessness we sometimes see with bishops who abuse or misuse canon 603 necessarily follows from a failure to understand either the nature or significance (especially in the sense of the charism) of the vocation itself. One cannot value appropriately what one does not understand, and one cannot treat with appropriate attentiveness what one does not value.

For me the most significant form of ignorance is a failure to understand the charism or gift quality of the vocation. I identify this as what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude" because it is unique to this vocation not only as context for the life, but also as its very goal and in this way, it becomes a gift to church and world (cf Silence of solitude as charism). Hermits recognize the call to wholeness and holiness is realized in the quies and shalom achieved by the individual in communion with God. This union of human and divine lived toward and realized in an eremitical context is what we rightly identify as the reality of true silence and the fullness of solitude. Where we are one with God our hearts are whole and at rest, just as where we are truly with God we are one; our hearts are not seeking or striving for meaning, nor do they cry out in anguish or groan in emptiness. (The anguish of compassion is another matter entirely!) In union with God we are truly ourselves and that self is a covenantal or dialogical event. This is what makes the solitude the hermit lives in and towards so very different from isolation. Too, it is from this eremitical silence that the song that is the hermit is spun out and into our world. And how desperately our world needs the witness of such lives!!

But how very few, relatively speaking, are those called to human wholeness and holiness in this specific way! While all are called to union with God and made to become God's very prayer in our world, very few are called to achieve this via eremitical life. Bishops need to understand this. They must learn to appreciate the gift the eremitical vocation is, not seeing the hermit as a kind of "prayer warrior", another, though perhaps, more subtle way of gauging the meaning of a life in terms of productivity and even busyness, but rather as a vivid illustration of the fundamental truth that we are each completed and find our lives to be supremely meaningful in our communion with God --- something which comes to us as grace as we learn to rest in God in the silence of solitude. I think few bishops come close to understanding the gift of the eremitical vocation in this way, and for that reason, they fail to see how much such vocations have to offer a society and culture where so very many are marked and marred by isolation and struggle with a sense of emptiness and meaninglessness in their lives. 

Without such a vision of the vocation's nature and charism it is a small step to bishops treating c 603 vocations as though they are unimportant, able to be used as stopgap solutions for problematical priests who, despite all their seminary discernment and training are unsuitable for parish ministry in the contemporary church, to serve as a canonical slot into which they shoehorn cranky nutcases who might be appeased and quieted with consecration, or a relatively obscure sinecure into which a "failed religious" who wants to continue in active ministry might fit without making waves for anyone. Each of these represent ways c 603 has sometimes been used by bishops, and each is marked by ignorance and a correlative arrogance and carelessness. The most common result of such a lack of vision, however, is the profession of lone isolated individuals who may be pious and well-intentioned, but who are not, and will never be hermits in anything more than name only.

How do we prevent this from happening? 

I don't have an answer to the question of prevention. I have been asked in the past if canon 603 needed to be enlarged, or if there need to be more canons created, and once or twice whether the church needed to publish some other document on the vocation. At this point I would like to see some instructions** not only on the significance and charism of the vocation but also on who one admits to profession along with some suggested time frames for such a step. For instance, that one is already a (lay) hermit in some essential sense and approaches the diocese only after living as such for at least five years for a discernment process which will last anywhere from 2 to 5 years before admission to temporary vows, is one of these. (Someone coming from a background in religious life still needs a meaningful period of transition, discernment, and formation as a hermit though the number of years required for this are likely to differ.) 

I would also like to see some general instructions on what it means to write a Rule of Life and the amount of time such a project requires and why. Especially I would like dioceses and candidates to understand that writing a liveable Rule requires experience living the life as a prerequisite, and also that writing several Rules over a period of years can assist the hermit, her director, and the chancery as well with both discernment and formation. So, to answer the question I once said no to, perhaps there is a need for a document of instructions on the nature and appropriate use of c 603 along with commentary on the central elements of the canon. Many bishops have taken the time to educate themselves on this specific vocation and implementation of the canon has worked well for them in the occasional vocations they have admitted to consecration.  However, abuses and misuses will probably still occur even in the presence of such an instruction; it will not stop misuses until and unless bishops and others working with candidates for c 603 profession take it (and other forms of education) seriously and use them to instruct inquirers and those admitted to serious discernment. Only in such cases will such an instruction put an end to the ignorance that leads to abuse and misuse.

** Note: A reader reminded me of a resources document put out in 2002 by CICLSAL which was helpful and open to development. My thanks to him. There is certainly room for c 603 hermits/dioceses to share their wisdom re living and implementing canon 603 along with their ideas on this document and the ways it might be enhanced today.

Feast of Saint Benedict (Reprise)

 Benedict's Rule was a humane development of Rules already in existence. In it he truly sought to put down "nothing harsh, nothing burdensome." Today's section of chapter 33 of the Rule of St Benedict focuses on private possessions. The monk depends entirely on what the Abbot/Abbess allows (another section of the daily reading from the Rule makes it clear that the Abbot/Abbess is to make sure their subjects have what they need!) Everything in the monastery is held in common, as was the case in the early Church described in Acts. Today, in a world where consumerism means borrowing from the future of those who follow us, and robbing the very life of the planet, this lesson is one we can all benefit from. Benedictine Oblate, Rachel M Srubas reflects on the necessary attitude we all need to cultivate, living as we do in the household of God:

UNLEARNING POSSESSION

Neither deprivation nor excess,
poverty nor privilege,
in your household.
Even the sheets on "my" bed,
the water flowing from the shower head,
belong to us all and to none of us
but you, who entrust everything to our use.

When I was a toddler,
I seized on the covetous power
of "mine."
But faithfulness requires the slow
unlearning of possession:
to do more than say to a neighbor,
"what's mine is yours."
Remind me what's "mine"
is on loan from you,
and teach me to practice sacred economics:
meeting needs, breaking even, making do.

From, Oblation, Meditations of St Benedict's Rule

My prayers for and very best wishes to my Sisters and Brothers in the Benedictine family on this Feast (Memorial) of St Benedict! Special greetings to the Benedictine Sisters at Transfiguration Monastery, the Camaldolese monks at Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley, and New Camaldoli in Big Sur, and the Trappistine Sisters at Redwoods Monastery in Whitethorn. Happy celebrating today and all good wishes for the coming year!

Picking Up Where We Left off: Questions on Profession, Single Vows, Etc.

(Picked up from last post) [[I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your patience. The last post was going to be long and the topic was important of itself so I wanted to address these questions separately.  The vows made in an act of profession are 1) public, and 2) made to God. The larger act is profession which is primarily one's self-gift to God; vows are one of the ways and for most religious (except c 603 hermits who may use other sacred bonds), the only recognized way to structure such a self gift. Even so, in the individual's making and church's reception of this profession the individual assumes new public rights and obligations, a new title, and a new state in life (with temporary vows one becomes a religious and with the act of perpetual or definitive profession which includes a solemn prayer of consecration instead of a simple blessing, one becomes a consecrated person).  So the act of profession is about the total gift of oneself to God and accepting God's own consecration of oneself through the mediation of the Church. The vows are the ordinary means by which we express and structure this self gift in terms of power, wealth, and relationships but they are not the whole of the act of profession. Another aspect of this self gift for the c603 hermit is the Rule one writes as an expression of how one envisions and will live out this eremitical life. (In Religious institutes Rules, Constitutions, and Statutes serve in this way and are implied in the act of profession.) 

Such a Rule comes from one's lived experience of a long dialogue (and one's already established contemplative existence) with God in the silence of solitude. It includes (or at least implies) one's own sense of eremitical life and acceptance of a place within the tradition of hermit life within the church. For this reason there are values in this Rule which may or may not fall directly under one's vows of (religious) poverty, chastity, and (religious) obedience, but to which one is bound nonetheless. So, for instance, "stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance", "the silence of solitude", (in other words, a contemplative life where one is sent or missioned into the hermitage rather than out to the world around one), a sense that one has been commissioned to live all of these things in the name of the Church and is responsible for doing so in a way which edifies and may even console, heal, and empower others --- none of these things of themselves fall neatly under any one of the vows but they are all informed by the vows and will themselves impact the vows. Again, profession is an act which is larger than acts of avowal alone.

Differences between religious profession and commitments of secular priests:

One of the reasons the vows of the evangelical counsels are so important to an act of profession is their ability to symbolize (in the strongest sense) the all-encompassing nature of what is occurring in this act. While they themselves -- though a defining part, even the heart of the act of profession -- are not identical with it, they are unique in their power to to illuminate the nature of the entire act of profession. In looking at the difference between the vows of profession and the commitments made by secular priests, the first thing we must see that is true of the vows associated with profession is that they are made to God, not to one's bishop. 

Immediately, in saying this we can see that a vow of obedience made to God involves the responsibility to listen and open oneself to God in ALL the ways God comes to us (including through the care and requirements of legitimate superiors), all the ways God makes a claim upon us and invites us to life in and with God himself. It includes a responsibility to remain open, attentive, and responsive to all the ways God calls us to become persons who loves as God loves because God empowers us in that way. A promise of obedience to one's  bishop is a much narrower act whose scope and purpose is more limited than the vows associated with religious profession. (Please note well that secular or diocesan priests make promises of obedience and celibacy to their bishop; they do not make vows to God in these matters. Again, neither of these promises, as rich and significant as they may be, is identical to the vows of chastity and obedience religious make in the act of profession)

What this means when making secular priests into canonical hermits in particular, is that the profession of the Evangelical Counsels required by c603 must be made in its entirety. One cannot take promises to one's bishop and substitute these for vows or other sacred bonds made to God in an act of profession and consider this a valid profession. The acts differ from one another in both content and scope. Additionally, in the case you were referring to the priest says he made a "vow of simplicity". However, a profession of the Evangelical Counsels requires a vow or other sacred bond of (religious) poverty. Religious poverty has significant meaning in terms of one's relationship to wealth and material goods but even more fundamentally, it is rooted in, reflects, and is a commitment to utter dependence upon God. 

When this is borne in mind, we have to ask what it means to make a vow of simplicity. It certainly does not speak immediately or necessarily of a religious or eremitical dependence upon God alone. It may have nothing to do with religious poverty per se for it is possible to live a simple but luxurious lifestyle, nor does a vow of simplicity necessarily indicate a life that images the poor Christ. The main point, however is that simplicity is not one of the Evangelical Counsels structuring part of an act of profession under c 603. When such a vow is combined with promises made to a bishop rather than to God in the hands of one's bishop in a mix and match attempt at authentic eremitical commitment, one simply is not speaking about a religious profession nor one involving the Evangelical Counsels as required by c 603.

Canon 603 Used as a Stopgap Rather than as Recognition of a True Eremitical Vocation?

[[Dear Sister, in light of your last post,  would you consider someone describing themselves as a "sort of monk-missionary" and their place of abode a "hermitage" to be a hermit? Also, if a priest had a history of difficulties with his bishop and parish ministry, does it make sense for his bishop to admit him to profession under c 603? (I know of a pretty public case where this happened and the bishop outlined the difficulties in a public letter and then admitted the priest to profession just 5 months later! That does not make sense to me!! Neither does saying: [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life. Isn't a hermit a contemplative no matter what limited ministry they undertake? Aren't they supposed to have discerned a contemplative vocation before they discern an eremitical one?)  

I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me save the ones on profession as compared to avowal for another time. Your note on the priest's self-description makes me think we are speaking of the same rather sensational case. One of the reasons for a careful and relatively long discernment and formation process is to make sure the person really is a hermit, understands herself this way, and is comfortable identifying herself with this descriptor before the Church professes and consecrates her as a canonical hermit under c 603. Using the "hermit" label isn't initially easy for most of us. That is not only because of the rarity of such vocations and the need to work out the shape of such callings in our own lives, but also because of all of the stereotypes associated with the life and all of the nutcases similarly associated with this designation. 

It takes time for one to come to understand c 603 and the solitary eremitical vocation, and even more time before candidates are ready to assume a constructive, faithful, and creative place in the eremitical tradition of the Church. They must see themselves truly as a hermit before they can be allowed to embrace the specific rights, obligations, and legitimate expectations others have of those who are hermits in the consecrated state. Only at such a point would such a person be ready for profession (including temporary profession). What I mean when I say they must see themselves in this way is that they must resonate in their deepest core/self with the term "hermit" and know that God has called them to such a life and especially, that they will not be using c 603 as a stopgap solution for other reasons.

By the time one is professed either one is a hermit or one is not. What I mean here is that either one's profession represents the true self-gift of a hermit (even a novice hermit) or it is a lie. One is not, for instance, a "kind of monk/missionary", or a "sort of a contemplative", or "a kind of loner"; one is (or should be) a hermit and one is entrusting oneself to God to continue making one ever more profoundly into the hermit one knows oneself to be by the grace of God's call. If one begins one's professed eremitical life thinking one is a "sort of monk/missionary" rather than a hermit, (especially if this is the truth of the matter) one can and will grow into more of a "sort of monk/missionary" --- one who is neither this nor that, and certainly not more deeply into life as a hermit. Canonical profession and consecration as a hermit demands that one consciously represents an expression of a particular vocation with a rich and significant history. One may not (will not!!) be a perfect hermit, but one must honestly know one's deepest, truest self by this term.

This, by the way, does not mean one's eremitical life is identical to that of another's but it does mean that one lives a recognizable expression of canon 603 even when there are individual variations involving prayer, limited apostolic ministry, and spirituality more generally. Neither does it mean that one is not growing into one's eremitical vocation. One may be a novice hermit or a potential candidate for profession, and one may be a mature hermit involved in limited ministry within one's parish, for instance, but one is still growing as a hermit in one's core identity. It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit. For one to describe oneself as a sort of "monk/missionary" is the self-description of someone who is not yet and may never become a hermit --- whether or not c 603 has been utilized.

Let me say too that as soon as I hear this kind of designation by someone whose Rule of Life has been approved by their bishop, I have to wonder what is going on. When the supposed hermit writes just 2 years before profession under c 603, [["That [improvement of my Mother's illness] was my indication that I was ready to move on to either religious life or [life] as a diocesan hermit or to take an[other] assignment [as a parish priest],". . . But no assignment came]], the use of c 603 sounds like a way of getting out of a difficult situation, not the mature discernment of a true vocation, much less one ready for profession and consecration, but simply another secular priest's "assignment". Thus, what is being described could be fraud at worst (or ignorance at best). In either case, the canon is being abused by the putative "hermit" and ultimately by his bishop for some reason other than what it is meant for. Whatever is vocationally true in this specific case, to misuse c. 603 in this way is disedifying at best and even scandalous at a time when the Church, and especially the episcopacy, is increasingly being looked to for a capacity to image the humble God of truth and scrutinized for abject failures to do so.

In the case you referenced your facts are correct. The letter outlining an apparently rebellious priest who cannot serve in parish ministry, who (according to his Abp's letter) will not show up for meetings with his superiors, and who 'bad mouths' that same bishop and his staff for being unjust, condoning illegal acts, etc., was written just 5 months before the same priest was reportedly professed as a diocesan hermit. (Yes, I checked with the diocese to be sure of the priest's status under c 603 and they provided his profession date.) Moreover, this "hermit's" Rule was only approved temporarily (for one year) in 2020, which means the priest in question was professed without an approved Rule, and perhaps, therefore, without having lived an eremitical Rule for several years before being professed. 

I too noted where this priest wrote recently; [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life.]] You are entirely correct in your objections to this comment; it is not an eremitical life he is describing nor does he seem committed to maturing in one. The usual and necessary pattern of growth into eremitical life is to first become a contemplative, then develop into a contemplative craving greater solitude and silence, and only then, if one discerns this is the way the call to the silence of solitude must be lived, does one move even more deeply into this reality as a hermit --- all of which happens long before one petitions to be admitted to even temporary profession under c 603. I continue to think that this priest and perhaps his bishop thought that as long as he was already a diocesan priest all he had to do was become a hermit in some limited  or nominal sense and could be professed under canon 603, making him a diocesan (priest) hermit and giving him some superficial but merely apparent grounds for not fitting into parish ministry or diocesan life.

Summary:

Tom Leppard, see posts

From what I have read by both the man and his bishop I continue to think this is the case because NO ONE was busy living canon 603, coming to understand it deeply, or discerning the vocation or ascertaining the adequate formation of a diocesan hermit. What the bishop, for instance, was busy doing was struggling to find assignments for this priest when folks kept sending him back to his diocese; the priest, for his part, was demanding to be assigned somewhere or to something including religious institutes or eremitical life under c 603! For awhile this priest identified himself as a diocesan priest hermit. On the diocesan clergy role where the man's assignment is ordinarily given, this priest's name is now followed by "Diocesan Hermit." Treating c 603 as something one can "assign" an intractable priest to would make sense of the lack of discernment, lack of adequate formation or understanding of canon 603, etc. 

If I am correct and this had merely been treated as a bishop's assignment with an abbreviated "profession" (if I can use that term) consisting of a vow of simplicity (whatever this means!) merely added to a priest's already extant promises of celibacy and obedience to his bishop could also make a weird and limited sense --- though not in terms of canon 603 or the profession required by the Rite of Religious Profession ordinarily used in this regard! And all of this would indicate that neither the bishop nor the priest involved were treating an eremitical vocation under canon 603 as a serious vocation. Everything published on the situation makes it seem that c 603 and eremitical life itself was merely seen as a canonical slot from which a difficult or troublesome priest could carry on as before, free from parish responsibilities with a new standing in law and (perhaps) with a somewhat more contemplative dimension to his active life. It seems to have been a way to accommodate an abject individualism which is exactly contrary to solitary eremitical life. 

This is the only way I could make sense of the time frames and things I read from those involved. It also appears there was more arm twisting or extortion in all of this than I have discussed here, but the bottom line for me is that c 603 appears to have been abused in this case and whatever putative profession was made is disedifying for that reason and may well be invalid. Had I been able to find any article by the priest's diocese explaining the vocation, the longer than usual discernment and formation which it requires, the admittance to profession, and something of the reasons this priest felt called to pursue this, the situation might have seemed differently to me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any celebration and explanation of such a significant public event. (If anyone knows of such, please send it on and I will correct this post as appropriate.)