Why Canon 603?

Hi Sister, I found the following questions written to another hermit but I couldn't find an answer anywhere. Could you answer them? Also, I especially wondered if there were no formal or institutionalized forms of eremitical life before 1983. The person writing this question seems to say there was only one traditional form of eremitical life until then and the 1983 canonical form is somehow a perversion or at least a negation of the "traditional form". 

Here is what I read: [[But I do sense and have cited instances noticed, of the division that is being created, plus some detraction even if subtle or recently reworded. Eventhough you state correctly that the centuries-and-into-antiquity style of hermit vocation should not be demeaned, the traditional historic way of hermit life is in effect being negated or presented/treated as illegal by virtue of having the relative recent, diocese hermit path "legalized" by a canon law with procedural structure created by humankind, albeit clerics, but perhaps some who wanted this structure and stature developed, lobbied for and assisted in the creation of the canon law.

So again, to re-cap; my sincere appreciation if you can shed light at least on the reason why a canon law to legalize and make public, organized, and structured a diocese hermit vocation--was determined necessary to begin with, or who promoted the diocese hermit or "by law" type of public profession into the hands of a bishop over private profession in and consecration by God?]]

::Sigh:: I have written about this an awful lot over the past 17 years or so, so let me be brief and point you to past posts. First of all, while one form of eremitical life is called canonical (because it is an ecclesial life that is normative of what the Catholic Church understands such a life to be) and another is called non-canonical (that is, not normative nor appropriately governed as such vocations need to be), this does not mean the second one is "illegal" (nor that those living it are not leading exemplary lives the church respects). Only one person I know of has called the lay eremitical vocation illegal; she did that in a way that tended to demean her own non-canonical vocation and I wrote a piece against this. Later, I had the sense she thought I had said lay eremitical vocations were "illegal".

Some forms of eremitical life have been made canonical (normative) for hundreds and hundreds of years --- long before there was a universal Code of Canon Law. These include monasteries or hermitages associated with the Carmelites, the Carthusians, the Camaldolese, and so forth. In the Middle Ages anchoresses and anchorites (women and men) as well as hermits (always men) were supervised by local bishops and practices governing anchorholds including liturgical praxia were developed as were regulations for hermits seeking permission to wear the hermit tunic or preach openly. In such cases, local dioceses had canons (norms) regarding such vocations, despite the lack of a universal code in their regard. So, no, it is not the case that there has been only one kind of hermit living "traditional" hermit life on their own until 1983 when Canon 603 came to recognize the new possibility of consecrated solitary eremitical life.

Bishop Remi de Roo

The Church, however, came to recognize that God had entrusted her with all forms of eremitical life, and she had failed to sufficiently regard the solitary eremitical life as well as it deserved. Perhaps she distrusted these solitary hermits; perhaps she felt they were too hard to regulate or even shepherd. Sometimes, eccentricity replaced authenticity and individuality detracted from one's participation as a member of the body of Christ. (Paul Giustiniani wrote that solitary hermits were no longer valid given Eucharistic and other sacramental changes in the Church.) 

Whatever the reasons (and there were likely many along the lines noted!) when long-solemnly-professed monks discerned callings to live lives of eremitical solitude, they had to leave their congregations and seek laicization so that they might live as hermits because their congregations did not include this option for members in their proper law. About a dozen of these monks came together as lay (or ordained) hermits under Bishop Remi de Roo in BC, who became their bishop protector and eventually gave a very perspicacious intervention at Vatican II regarding how the Church should esteem these vocations. De Roo recognized that this tiny group of men represented the tip of a potentially very large iceberg and wanted the Church to esteem these vocations as they deserved.

During Vatican II seemingly nothing happened as a result of De Roo's intervention --- none of the documents even mentioned eremitical life. Still, in light of the shifts in church life, attitudes, and praxis brought about by Vatican II, the Code of Canon Law needed to be rewritten. Amid this re-writing, the Church added canons 603-605, recognizing solitary hermits, consecrated virgins living in the world, and the bishop's responsibility to remain open to new forms of consecrated life respectively. What the Church has tried to do with Canon 603 is honor the solitary eremitical vocation as a gift of God to the Church. She has come to recognize its importance to her life and she has provided a canonical (normative) way for individuals who feel called to live this way, to be professed and consecrated by God through the Church's mediation. Hermits whose consecration and professions are canonical become Catholic Hermits, meaning they are permitted to live their lives in "the name of the Church" as God has called them to. Such vocations are mutually discerned while such an identity (Catholic Hermit) is a right and obligation entrusted to the person by the Church herself in a public (canonical) Rite of consecration beyond that of baptism. 

I am convinced that by making the solitary eremitical vocation canonical, the church will say to all genuine hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical, that the church esteems such vocations as a gift of God to the world. At the same time, the Church has recognized that this vocation is a difficult one and relatively rare since few human beings will be called (or able) to achieve the fullness of authentic humanity in the silence of solitude. Far more frequent will be those who seek isolation or individualism, who say with Charlie Brown, [[ I love humanity!! It's People I hate!!]], or who are seeking escape in what contemporary culture calls "Cocooning". The reason for Canon 603 is to codify and provide for the supervision of an ecclesial life that is truly given over to love --- the love of God, of self, and of the whole of God's creation. Hermits generally need such a context if they are not to slide into these forms of eremitical "heresy" or even "apostasy". Common knowledge recognizes and reflects this tendency to distortions and selfishness in all of the stereotypes and derogatory notions it holds regarding what constitutes a "hermit". The establishment of stable forms and states of consecrated life is the task of the Church, and C 603 is part of this achievement for those called to solitary eremitical life.

As I think again about "Why Canon 603?" I remember that when I first googled hermits what showed up was a long list dedicated to "hermit crabs". Second, came all of the eccentric or stereotypical references to "hermits" --- misanthropes, psychopaths, social failures, and so forth. Finally, there were a very few references to authentic hermits whose lives witnessed to a serious commitment to God and authentic humanity lived for the sake of the other. Over the past 40 years, C 603 has become part of helping others reconsider the nature of healthy eremitical life and appreciate the importance of the silence of solitude in every life.

Please check the labels to the right of this post to find similar responses. See especially Canon 603 - history.