Bishops, the Suppression of Non-Canonical Eremitical Vocations and Related Questions

[[Hi Sister Laurel, if a bishop decides to use c 603 for Catholic hermits in his diocese does this mean the diocese is phasing out non-canonical hermits? Is it true that c603 vocations are on their way to supplanting non-canonical eremitical vocations? Also, I wondered, if a Bishop tells someone who wants or claims to be a Catholic hermit that they should continue living the non-canonical vows they are currently living, does this mean he doesn't accept C 603 as the way the Church recognizes solitary consecrated Catholic hermits? 

What if someone says they don't want to be a C 603 hermit but want their vocation as a Catholic hermit recognized by the diocese, can the bishop allow them to be a Catholic Hermit without using c 603? I know some hermits who hate what is happening to the pure simple eremitical vocation under Canon 603 and want no part of profession via c 603. Would a Bishop force someone like this to become a canon 603 hermit despite their not desiring this? Some have communicated to their Bishops that they don't want this done and that they hope the bishop would continue to regard them as Catholic Hermits. Are their hopes in vain here? Does it matter what bishop is involved?

I just think all these categories and competition are confusing. It makes Canon Law look kind of silly, don't you think?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have understood them and will try to answer all of them. Many have been addressed here many times over the years so you might check the list of labels to the right. The idea of there being many categories and that there is competition between vocations making Canon Law look silly is mistaken. I know some write about increasing numbers of canons and complexity as though this is actually occurring, but it is not. When looking at the character of vows or commitments being made by hermits, there are only two categories governing these. The first is non-canonical or private and the second is canonical or public. 

Those making public (canonical) commitments are being admitted to a vocation authorized by and lived in the name of the Church. These persons petition to be admitted to the rights and obligations associated with public or ecclesial vocations, and once their petition is received, they begin a long process of mutual discernment, formation, and other "vetting" that can include psychological testing, letters of recommendation, time lived in monasteries under the mentorship of monks or nuns who can assist in this way, and the assessment and approval of a Rule written by the candidate themselves. All of this is meant to take seriously the person's capacities and preparation to live an ecclesial vocation in a public or normative way. This is what is involved in living such a vocation "in the name of the Church". In other words, the Church wants to make as sure as possible this person has a Divine vocation others can look to as "normative" within the Church because this vocation belongs first, to the church and only thereafter to the individual to whom this vocation is mediated. If one does not want any part of this, one simply doesn't petition to be admitted to profession and the second consecration besides that of baptism.

Thus, someone feeling they are called to be a Catholic hermit (whether solitary or part of an eremitical institute of consecrated life) with all of the rights and obligations appertaining, will submit to the process required. Those who wish to live as hermits without jumping through all of these hoops or being granted standing in universal law in a public vocation, can do so simply by virtue of their baptism which represents one's first and fundamental consecration. What this person cannot do, however, is represent themselves as a Catholic Hermit living a normative eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. Nor can they call themselves consecrated hermits since that requires the second consecration associated with public vocations and initiation into what the Church identifies as the consecrated state of life.

The bishop's role in all of this pertains mainly to the public vocations lived in the name of the Church and under the bishop's direct and indirect supervision. Non-canonical vocations are essentially private vocations without additional rights and obligations beyond those granted by baptism; thus, anyone baptized is free to try such a vocation without reference to the bishop, one's pastor, etc. Baptism alone gives them the freedom to live such a vocation. The bishop cannot prevent one from living such a vocation, though he is always free to meet with, encourage, support, and advise such hermits if he has the time and inclination --- or not. Should someone come to him asking to be recognized as a Catholic Hermit apart from canon law, he has no authority to do that. He too is bound by canon law in this matter including C 605 re: new forms of consecrated life. If he wishes to ask someone to consider becoming a canonical hermit, he can certainly do that, but he can NEVER force a person to accept admission to the canonical rights and obligations of a public vocation. Were that to happen, the profession and consecration would be invalid in any case.

Bishops will tell folks to continue living non-canonical commitments for several reasons, and usually, this happens through intermediaries (Vicars, vocation directors, etc). The most common one is that he does not perceive a potential vocation to the canonical or consecrated state or actually sees the person as unsuitable to representing such a vocation. At the same time, he may sincerely recognize that the majority of hermits have always been non-canonical and wish to retain this vocation in his diocese. A bishop need not suppress non-canonical vocations simply because canonical ones are available nor have I ever heard anyone doing such a thing. The latter (canonical vocations) are relatively rare, while the former have existed from the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas. (There was a time when the solitary eremitical vocation in the Western Church had largely ceased to exist. That has never been the case in the Eastern Church.) Moreover, since non-canonical eremitical calls do not require the bishop's supervision any more than other private (non-canonical) vocations require this, he may actually encourage such vocations and even keep casual tabs on how they develop in the diocese. I think this latter arrangement (keeping tabs, etc.), however, is exceedingly rare and would exist only for a bishop with special concerns for all forms of eremitism.

Because I understand the division between public (canonical) and private (non-canonical) as the fundamental and complementary division existing in the church today, I see no competition between the two. They are different vocations with different rights and obligations from one another. Both are valid and both can be edifying. Because I understand the canonical vocation as normative and the way the Church has chosen to honor the long history of non-canonical hermits in the Church, I see it as a vocation meant to serve all eremitical life. Because the Church has written so that the entire faith community and certainly everyone trying to live as a hermit can benefit from the canonical requirements of C 603, I don't think it is silly either. In this instance, I really do find that law serves love and creates a realm of freedom, ongoing challenge, and healthy expectations for/of consecrated hermits in the Catholic Church.