[[Sister Laurel, does c 603 say, "Besides private profession"? I looked and couldn't find that so I wondered if I had a bad translation. Can bishops remove canonical approval from someone when they speak out publicly? Also, does a person's bishop read their public media, their blogs, etc. One hermit I know says bishops should be doing this, and I wondered if you agree.. . .If you find another hermit disagreeing with you about something important, like the way you live solitude, or wear a habit, or things like that, what do you do?]]
Thanks for your questions. No, canon 603 does not say, "besides private profession . . ." Not only are those words not present in the canon (I am sure your translation was just fine), but what eremitical life is being contrasted with are institutes of consecrated life. This means canonical Religious Congregations and Communities. The canon reads, [[Besides institutes of consecrated life. . .]] and then goes on to state that the Church now recognizes eremitical or anchoritic life. Institutes of consecrated life do not use private vows. They are public vocations with public vows and now, with canon 603, so too is solitary eremitical life lived under the canon. Similarly, the word "profession" is not used for private vows because the act of profession is a public one that always initiates the person making such a profession into a new state of life. Using private and profession together is an oxymoron. The bottom line is that c 603 establishes c 603 hermits or anchorites in the consecrated state just as religious in communities are established that way.
.jfif)
Regarding speaking out publicly and what you call "removing canonical approval", as I have written before, the use of the term "canonical approval" ceases to be helpful after one is admitted to canonical standing. What is at stake once one is professed is not approval, canonical or otherwise, but standing in law. If one's bishop determines that some action one has taken is seriously contrary to one's profession and consecration, then he can take actions to dispense the hermit's vows and remove her from the consecrated state of life. But let me be clear, depending on what we are talking about, the action would have to be very serious indeed. Ordinarily, a serious transgression would require a correction and warning that one is jeopardizing one's eremitical life in this way and then too, a second transgression in spite of the correction and warning. (Usually, we are dealing with patterns of behavior that the hermit refuses to change despite significant chances for rehabilitation.) Even then, the hermit can appeal the finding that deprives her of her vows and state of life. Simply speaking out on some issue or another is unlikely to rise to this level.
I would assume that bishops and/or delegates will know about a hermit's blog, and certainly, they will know about it if the hermit posts frequently as I do. (This will indicate it is important in her life in some way, and most superiors will know what is important to someone they are working with.) Moreover, if the blog is useful in exploring dimensions of c 603, dealing with problems in implementing it, etc., they might encourage this activity. In other words, I don't see any reason bishops should not be reading a person's blog; they might truly benefit from it.
Excursus: Most diocesan hermits begin blogs, but few continue with the exercise. I have begun to invite other diocesan hermits to contribute here occasionally if they have something regarding eremitical life, spirituality, or c 603 life and spirituality particularly --- if they would like to share. I know that this blog has been helpful to some canonists and bishops, and of course, it has been helpful to those seeking to become c 603 hermits, so it would be really excellent if we could broaden the voices available here and deal with things I may not ordinarily focus on or be strong in.
(So, notice to c 603 hermits, especially if I have not met you yet, if you feel like you would like to write a piece for this blog, please let me know. There are a couple of kinds of posts here that might already prepare the way for such contributions, we can pretty much do what it takes to make it work for you.) A couple of persons are already thinking about what they might contribute, and one canonist has already written something on lauras; please give it some thought and prayer. (If you are a non-canonical hermit and would like to contribute to this blog, please let me know what you have in mind and we'll see what we can do!!)
That apparent tangent indicates that bishops do find this blog helpful in some ways and my sense is that a number of bishops may have read this blog during the kerfuffle with Cole Matson after Pentecost and found it helpful. I don't know whether Bp Michael Barber knows about or reads this blog, but I know my delegates are aware of it because I share about my writing with them, and at least sometimes, specific pieces and issues. In the beginning, I had some decisions to make about the place of this exercise in my life, particularly things like whether to allow comments or not. (My decision on that was that it made the boundary between my hermitage and the public too porous; I disallowed comments.) And over time it has assumed a shape and importance I never really expected. That means that I am not concerned with what any given bishop actually thinks of pieces within the blog itself. It does not matter if a single bishop here or there disagrees with my keeping a blog; it has been significant for my growth and contributed to an understanding of c 603 which is beneficial to the Church and to this specifically ecclesial vocation.
.jpg)
But of course, this blog is not the last word on c 603!! It is a contribution to ongoing discussions, nothing more nor less. If I find someone disagreeing with me on something important, the first thing I will do is listen and pray about it. The next thing I will do alongside these other things (if I think there could be merit in the disagreement or know the knowledgeability and trustworthiness of the person commenting) is to reread my Rule and the way I spoke there about solitude (your question's example), for instance. If there are footnotes in the Rule, or newer references I should also check, I will do that. Finally, especially if I am troubled by something or otherwise uncertain, I will bring the topic to my Director and discuss it and the way I am living it with her. The person who disagreed might represent a valid challenge with God asking me for something more or something different through their observations. At the same time, staying with your example of solitude, some versions of solitude are less about eremitical solitude than they are about isolation. While I believe in reclusion (which is always profoundly rooted in and dependent upon community), I regard isolation as unhealthy and unworthy of being chosen.
Remember that, these kinds of questions can come up again in various ways over the years and will have been discussed and discerned as they do. If changes in my Rule were needed, then they were made. Still, the bottom line in all of this, I think, is that my Rule is something I live and tend to trust. It reflects a particular vision of canon 603 that the Church has approved as representing God's will for me. I don't live someone else's vision of c 603, but the one I have come to in dialogue with God in all the ways God speaks to me. If that means rejecting someone else's way of living the terms of the canon, for instance, then I will do that. If that means changes in praxis or understanding (and the rewriting of portions of my Rule), then I will discern and accomplish those necessary shifts.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jfif)
Posts
