Uncomfortable Questions and Answers!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it you don't want a bishop or priest supervising or directing you? If canon 603 says that you are to live under your bishop's direction then why don't you let him to do that? Why do you use a woman from a dissident community as a spiritual director? You write a lot about c 603 but how can you do that if you don't live the canon yourself? I want to support Joyful Hermit because she suffers so much and all for the love of God. She hasn't even been approved by the church like you have and lives a heroic hermit life. You should be ashamed for harassing her!!]]

Thanks for writing. I've decided to post your questions and answers because I keep getting similar ones. They require more than a private email response if others are going to stop writing me with the same kinds of questions. However, let me say that if you are a friend of Joyful's, or if you want to support her, I would encourage you not only to learn the truth yourself but that you help her to face (and tell) the truth as well. Because asking me directly is the first step toward this goal, I will answer your questions but let me ask you some questions as well. For instance, what besides what you have heard from Joyful makes you think I do not want my bishop to supervise me? Have I ever said or written such a thing? The answer to that is of course not! I am a c 603 hermit and I have committed to live the canon as fully as I can. That includes accepting diocesan bishops' supervision of my life. That said, let me point out that neither I nor any other c 603 hermit can control our bishops and the way they supervise or fail to supervise this vocation!! If Joyful ever truly becomes a c 603 hermit, she will not be able to do that either.

Remember, when one's bishop retires or is moved to be made an Archbishop, for instance, they are replaced by someone who may not be prepared to supervise a hermit, and some are simply unwilling or unable. My own diocese was very wise in requiring me to choose a delegate who would work with me on behalf of my bishop. (And no, the chancery did not require that this person be a priest!) As already noted, Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, serves both the diocese and me in this way and so does my co-delegate, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. Both are qualified to serve me and this vocation in ways most bishops cannot even imagine doing themselves. I have written about the competence and quality of both of these Sisters recently, so feel free to look those posts up if you are interested in the truth about them. It is not as Joyful has imagined it. But to be blunt, very little of what Joyful has imagined (i.e., fantasized!) about me or others she has maligned in her videos, is anything even remotely near the truth. 

As I have written now several times, a bishop is not asked to be a c 603 hermit's spiritual director but to supervise her living out of her vocation. If the word director is used in a translation of c 603, it does not mean spiritual director. Since a c 603's bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior, he, in fact, cannot be her spiritual director. That would lead to conflicts between internal and external fora. Instead, he is asked to supervise this ecclesial vocation and there are no guidelines specifying how that supervision must be carried out. 

As I have also written several times now, the use of a delegate who has a closer relationship with the hermit works very well and maintains the distinction between internal and external fora. Joyful has a single narrow idea of what the canon means by supervision or direction, and if a diocese uses a different notion of supervision, she declares this to be evidence the hermit is not following the canon. But let me again be frank. Joyful also does not demonstrate any real understanding c 603 --- not the reasons for its existence, not its nature, not the language it uses, and not the life it defines and governs.  She has never met me, nor corresponded with me regarding the supposed issues with me she raises. She doesn't know me nor understand my life nor how I live it and that means she is in no position to say I don't live the canon (nor most of the other things she claims about me).

You are correct that Joyful has not been approved for admission to c 603 profession. She is not a consecrated or Catholic Hermit, despite what she claims. That takes the church's admission to profession and consecration, and also a commissioning to live the vocation in the Church's name. While Joyful has petitioned that this standing be granted to her, it has not happened yet, and may never happen. (Here I have to ask you, if Joyful is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, why would she seek admission to profession and consecration under a canon she reviles as inadequate and a destructive influence on traditional eremitical life?) 

And if she is never admitted to c 603 standing, she can continue living as a non-canonical hermit and write about it in a more compelling way than she could ever do c 603. She would need to adopt the Church's own distinction between consecrated and non-canonical eremitical life, of course, and she would need to espouse this as a significant lay (or clerical) vocation. As Joyful's friend or supporter, you could assist her with that. Beyond that, though, the best way any friend or supporter could help Joyful, I think, is to get her to stop drawing gratuitous conclusions about peoples' motivations, presumed behavior, faithfulness to their vocation, etc. She does not and cannot know these things without the person confirming them for her. If she has questions about the way a person understands or lives something or why they do what they do, then encourage her to write the person directly and ask them as you have done!!!

Marymount Hermitage, Diocese of Boise

 [[Dear Sister, do you know the name and location of the hermitage that was begun by two Sisters who became c 603 hermits in 1984? Apparently only one of the Sisters is still there and one has returned to her original religious congregation. I don't have much more information about it except that people in the area assist them with upkeep and other things.]]

Sure, I am pretty sure you are asking about Marymount Hermitage in Mesa, ID. They are part of the Diocese of Boise. I wrote about it here about four years ago: Marymount Hermitage. Sister M Beverly Greger is the single hermit living there now, while Sister Rebecca M Bonnell has returned to Oregon to live with their original congregation due to health issues.

Sister M Beverly can be reached at: Marymount Hermitage/ 2150 Hermitage Lane/ Mesa, Idaho 83643-5005 or sisterbeverly@marymount-hermitage.org. Sister Beverly says she reads emails daily but does not usually answer them. (She may leave that to others with appropriate instructions so she can protect her own solitude.) If you need to reach her you might provide a return number and possible times she can reach you. If you wish to leave a message by phone the number is (208) 256-4354 (this is a message phone only).  I first wrote them @1985 before email and they responded very helpfully via ordinary mail. Meanwhile, if you would like to know more about Marymount, feel free to google their website. Past and recent newsletters make good reading. You can also borrow books from their library.

A Contemplative Moment: On Silence and Solitude

 On Silence and Solitude

In eremitic spirituality silence does not exclude speaking and does not discount meetings and dialogues. What is aimed at is bringing harmony between the heart and the mind, between the spirit and the body, and eventually between God and man. Silence sets us free from the burden of words that are banal and meaningless, from a humdrum that disturbs the true essence of the word. A human word, when it comes from the deep silence of the heart, causes a creative anxiety in everyone who listens to it. It becomes the word of a prophet, proclaiming eternity.

The rigor of solitude --- the second pillar of eremitic ascesis --- does not mean escaping and isolating oneself, and it is not misanthropy of any kind. The hermit wants to meet and confront himself in solitude in order to identify his heart's deceitfulness and to get rid of it. The choice to live in solitude is surely the choice to leave the humdrum of the worldly marketplace, but the character of such a decision is not negative. The hermit does not aim at running away from the world and its affairs and at finding a safe shelter somewhere there in the wilderness. It is not right to consider him a fearful and frustrated fellow, a runaway who is afraid of confronting his self. Solitude has nothing to do with existential neurosis, but it is rather a creative search for the flame of love that burns in God's heart.

 . . .What occupies the center. . .is the existential solitude of God himself. This is what the human heart wants to absorb and this is where it wants to rest. The eremitic solitude is in no case a fruitless and spiritually empty isolation, a cold indifference toward people and the world, or a selfish passiveness. Just the opposite, it is a space of redemption, full of spiritual life and meant to accept and change any human distress, sorrow, or fear."

Fr Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam  The Eremitic Life

On the Power of Jesus' Questions: Calling us to Transcendence

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I liked your post on Jesus's two questions to Peter and his disciples from Sunday. It was the first time I ever heard anyone speak about one question, "Who do others say that I am?" as representing the world, and the other, "And you, who do YOU say that I am?" representing the Kingdom or being freed from "the world" and moving toward the Kingdom. I think you are right that the world tells us what to think and buy, value and reject, though I never saw it this way before. I have two questions. First, do all questions have this kind of power or did only Jesus' questions?  Second, why does Jesus tell his disciples to say nothing to anyone about who he is?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions! While I believe Jesus'questions might have had a peculiar kind of power, I believe that was because they were motivated by love and sought to bring the best (i.e., the truest) out of every person. Also, I believe that it was because Jesus was absolutely trustworthy that his questions could work as powerfully as they did. He asked questions like, "Do you want to be well?", "What would you have me do?" "Do you love (Agape) me?" "Why are you anxious (or terrified)?" "What did you go out to the desert to see?" "What are you looking for?" and, of course, the two we heard on Sunday and many others besides. Each one of these confronts us with ourselves, each uncovers the deeply held and often deeply hidden parts of ourselves and asks us to trust Jesus with them. 

When I hear these kinds of questions that were so typical of Jesus in the Gospels, it is clear these are no mere requests for information or a kind of polite "How are you doing?" with no real desire to hear (much less nurture!) the truth. Instead, I hear a call to vulnerability, self-knowledge, and faith (trust) in the face of our deepest needs and desires. This is the way we grow, the way we are called beyond ourselves, first with confrontation (You are sick, you are looking to me for something, you are frightened, you betrayed me and I think there is something deeper and truer within you, etc.) and then, with a call to transcendence and the invitation to place ourselves in Jesus' hands so that that change might be achieved. And even in Jesus' absence these kinds of questions still have great power. They can still confront us with who we are and what we hold as true and sometimes incontrovertible, and they can stir us to imagine something other and even something greater, not only in ourselves but in others and in the whole of God's creation. 

If we can allow ourselves to "live the questions," (Rilke) we will also begin to see where we are really profoundly dissatisfied with the answers we were formerly at least superficially comfortable with, or where potentialities and opportunities lay deeply hidden within us, covered by layers of "What others have told us" or much of "what we have become convinced of."  Questions of the sort Jesus seemed to specialize in are like psychological or existential dynamite. They can explode the hardened worldly accretions of years of hopelessness and futility or complacency and unearth the fires of Life burning at the core of our Being that make us alive, creative, hopeful, and courageous. Of course, the one who asks the questions is also critical in this entire process, but I think there is no doubt that the questions themselves can work in us and produce powerful results.

Why did Jesus tell his disciples not to tell anyone about him (or about who he was)? I think there are several reasons. 

• First, when Peter gave his answer, "You are the Messiah" Jesus had already become persona non grata to the Jewish and Roman leaders. They were out to get him and Jesus needed to maintain a low profile, not have his disciples touting him as the Jewish Messiah! 
• Secondly, while Jesus did not eschew the title Messiah, he knew it needed to be redefined in terms of suffering if God's love and mercy were to be fully and exhaustively revealed. A God who chose to become God-With-Us to the extent Jesus' Abba did this was literally inconceivable as was a crucified Messiah. One needed to meet this God face to face and, in Christ, allow him to confront, change, and grow one's heart. Second or third-hand reports would not do it! This was true of the disciples as well as those whom they might meet.
• Thirdly, those who met Jesus needed to see (discern) and say (claim) for themselves who it was they were meeting. This was imperative for those who would truly follow Jesus, particularly since they would be following him to his crucifixion --- and potentially to their own passion and death as well. Only those who answered from their own hearts what they truly knew in that profoundly biblical sense of "knowing," would be able to muster the courage one's discipleship to this man would necessitate. 

As you imply in your comments, an encounter with Jesus and his questions led his hearers to a new kind of freedom. It is this freedom we see in the book of Acts when Peter and the other disciples start proclaiming the crucified and risen Christ to their fellow Jews --- those responsible for Jesus' trial and crucifixion --- the kind of freedom associated with what the New Testament calls parrhesia, a remarkable boldness of speech (and associated living) that is wholly transparent to others. One says what is on one's mind and does so completely, without fear or rhetorical tricks or veiling. One is made free to be oneself and to say precisely what one believes so that others might also be brought to the same kind of freedom in Christ.

Eremitical Life and the Security of Man-Made Laws (reprise)

 [[Dear Sister O'Neal, [one hermit] who has chosen to remain non-canonical (not under canon law) and has sometimes written canon 603 is a distortion of eremitical life wrote recently: "It is the animal instinct for some to want to rise above others, to rule the roost, so to speak--to take the prey from the claws of other beasts.  So, too, is often the human instinct to find a sense of security in laws made by humans.  Somehow it brings--falsely, though--a feeling that there are boundaries and structure that will provide stability and formulaic assurance for survival and success."

Do you find that most hermits feel the same way about canon 603 as this hermit seems to feel? You have said that the majority of hermits are not canonical so I was wondering if that is because they don't think living eremitical life under canon law is a valid way of doing this? I can see that a basic insecurity except in God could be desirable for hermits and that law and structure could provide the illusion of security and stability apart from God. I can also see that hermits need a freedom to respond to God in whatever way he comes to them so that laws and structures could be a problem. Is this what you find?]]

I think it is really important to understand that canonical hermits have not sought canonical standing in order to "rise above others" or to "rule the roost". We do so because we recognize that eremitical life is a significant vocation which the Church has recently (1983) affirmed as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and through the Church to the world at large. We recognize this vocation as part of the patrimony of the Church and believe the Church has a right and obligation to nurture and govern it. The way I tend to speak of this is in terms of the rubric "ecclesial vocation". That is, the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to me. Similarly it belongs to me only insofar as the Church mediates it to me and insofar as I belong to the Church and live for her --- for her Lord, her life, her People and her proclamation. Canonical hermits honor the way God works to call us to consecrated life in the Church. We know that in a vocation which can be mistaken for (or tragically devolve into!) an instance of individualism, selfishness, and isolation, this ecclesial context is absolutely critical for avoiding these antitheses to authentic eremitical life.

The insecurity of Eremitical Life:

At the same time, while canonical standing supplies an essential context for eremitical life it does not do away with the insecurity the life also involves. Remember that canonical hermits are not supported by the Church in any financial or material way. Solitary canonical hermits (those under canon 603) are self-supporting and are responsible for taking care of everything the eremitical life requires: residence, insurance, education and specialized training, formation, spiritual direction, library, appropriate work, food, clothing, transportation, retreat, etc. A diocese will make sure the hermit has all of these things in place and is capable of both living the life and supplying for her material needs before professing her, but generally speaking they will not supply these things themselves. (There are accounts of occasional instances where a diocese will include a hermit on the diocesan insurance or supply temporary housing in a vacant convent, retreat house, etc, but these accounts are clear exceptions and the hermit remains generally responsible for supporting herself.)

While this does not mean most hermits lack the essentials needed to live (food, clothing, housing) they do have the same basic insecurities as any other person in the Church or world and they do so without claims to fame, material success, family, significant profession, or any of the other ways our world marks adulthood and security. Many hermits live on government assistance due to disability or associated poverty and this mistakenly marks them as failures, layabouts, moochers, and so forth by the majority of the world. The message the hermit proclaims with her life, however, is the message of a God who considers us each infinitely and uniquely precious despite our personal fragility and poverty. This God abides with us when every prop is kicked out; (he) alone loves us without condition and is capable of completing us.

There is additional though more nuanced insecurity in the prophetic quality of the vocation. Both the Church and the hermit risk a great deal in enabling this vocation to exist with canonical standing in the heart of the Church. This is because the Church recognizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the hermit's life and calls her to consecration which may also lead to a life capable of criticizing the institution, the hierarchy, etc,`(consider the lives of the Desert Abbas and Ammas here) --- precisely as a way of being faithful to vocation, the Church, and the Church's own mission. 

When the Church builds eremitical lives of solitude and prayer into her very heart she opens herself to conversion as well. (cf Ecclesiality as mutually conditioning) Sometimes this leads to apparent clashes (as it did when the faithfulness of women religious to their vocations and to the documents of Vatican II led to an investigation questioning the Sisters' faithfulness). The life of the Spirit is unsettling as well as being the source of life and peace. Generally speaking, the Church will respond in ways that allow the Spirit to summon her to new life and to the remaking of her heart and mind, but any time one is called to proclaim the Gospel with one's life --- especially in the name of the Church --- one is also called to live a kind of insecurity in terms of the world of power and institutional standing.

The most basic insecurity however is that one pins the entire meaning of her life on God and life with God. It is clear that most people need and are called to lives of social connection and service. While most hermits are not called to live without relationships, while those with ecclesial vocations must build in adequate relationships to nurture, guide, and supervise her life with God, and while the eremitical life is a life of service even when this looks very different than that of apostolic religious, it remains true that hermits forego more normal society and service and risk everything, including her own growth in wholeness and holiness, on the existence and nature of the God revealed in Jesus Christ and his desert existence. 

It is one thing to live a Christian existence in the midst of society with all that entails. That is a risk and challenge, of course, with its own very real insecurity: What if I'm wrong? What if God's existence is a delusion, a fiction? What if there was no resurrection and Jesus simply "stayed good and dead"? But to pin everything including normal relationships, one's own home and family, more usual profession and avenues for service, etc., on a God whose love sustains, nurtures, completes and makes us truly human in eremitical solitude seems to me to be a very great (though justified) risk attended by significant insecurity. (My experience is that canonical standing attenuates but does not obviate this insecurity because the Church as such discerns and validates this vocation and proclaims all it witnesses to. Any well-grounded eremitical tradition works in this way in the hermit's life.)

An Ordered and Disciplined Vocation:

While there is a necessary and desirable insecurity at the heart of every eremitical vocation which tends to "prove" the vocation and its dependence on God, there is also the undeniable fact that this remains an ordered and disciplined form of life. Remember that one of the essential elements defining the life is "stricter separation from the world" and this means boundaries are required. For that matter "the silence of solitude" requires very real limitations and boundaries which MUST be articulated clearly and written into the hermit's Rule if they are to be lived meaningfully and with integrity. The lay hermit you cited may believe man-made laws and structures have no place, create illusions of stability and so forth, but the simple fact is that without these kinds of things sinful human beings create chaos, slide into slackness and laxness and ease into a state of general deafness to the work and call of the Holy Spirit. The person who honors the presence of the Holy Spirit, for instance, and who wishes to remain open and responsive to her presence will do so through an ordered and disciplined life. I wrote about this before once when I said:

[[ I think that suggesting commitments and structure will get in the Holy Spirit's way (which, right or wrong, is what I do hear you saying) is analogous to someone saying, "Oh I don't need to practice the violin to play it, I'll just let the Holy Spirit teach me where my fingers should go (or any of the billion other things involved in playing this instrument)." "Maybe I'll play scales if the HS calls me to; maybe I'll tune the violin if the HS calls me to. You mean I can't do vibrato without practicing it slowly? Well, maybe I will just conclude it doesn't need to be part of MY playing and the HS is not calling me to it." What I am trying to say is that if someone wants to play the violin they must commit to certain fundamental praxis and the development of foundational skills; only in so far as they are accomplished at the instrument technically will they come to know how integral this discipline and these skills are to making music freely and passionately as the Holy Spirit impels. Otherwise the music will not soar. In fact there may be no music at all --- just a few notes strung together to the best of one's ability; the capacity for making music will be crippled by the lack of skill and technique. In other words, the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with and through  the discipline I am speaking of, not apart from it.]]

Why Most Hermits are Non-canonical:

I am not entirely sure why most hermits are not canonical hermits. However, it is my impression that only a very small minority percentage of non-Canonical hermits actually reject canonical standing because they believe they will not have the freedom to live authentic eremitical lives under canonical standing or because they would like to imitate the Desert Abbas and Ammas. . . .One credible example of the kind of rejection you ask about is that which turns up in the Episcopal Church and is well-represented by a canonical hermit like Maggie Ross. While personally I don't agree precisely with Ms Ross in this matter, she cogently argues the importance of standing outside the institutional reality so that one can be a truly prophetic presence. (I agree completely with her insistence on being a prophetic presence and I emphatically agree on the marginality of the hermit, but I disagree that one can stand either essentially or completely outside the institution or be free of all legal and structural bonds.)

I will tell you what I have seen in a number of non-canonical hermits, however. First, most of these are self-described "hermits" and tend not to embody or otherwise meet the requirements of canon 603 in what they live. They may not live the silence of solitude nor lives of assiduous prayer and penance. They may not have embraced a desert spirituality but may merely be lone individuals --- sometimes misanthropic, sometimes not --- but generally still, they are not really hermits as the Church understands the term.  Some are married; some treat eremitical life as a part time avocation; some live with their parents or others and have never known real solitude, much less "the silence of solitude". Many desire to be religious men or women but have not been able to be professed or consecrated in community. 

Today the term "hermit" is far more popular than the authentic lifestyle! This means that all kinds of things are being justified by the term hermit and many of them are actually antithetical to this vocation: individualism, narcissism, active or apostolic life live by a solitary, etc. Some non-Canonical hermits have petitioned for canonical standing and been rejected; sometimes this is a personal matter, a determination they are not called to this life or are otherwise unsuitable while other times it is because the diocese they are petitioning is still hesitant to try or unclear on how to implement the canon in an effective and successful way. For instance, appropriate discernment, formation, etc are questions they take seriously and are still unclear about.

Summary:

The bottom line in all of this is that because the eremitical life centered on the relationship of the hermit and God alone is, paradoxically, not merely about the hermit and God alone, because, that is, it is a gift to the Church which can proclaim the Gospel and speak in a special way to the isolated, the alienated, and those from whom "all the props have been kicked out", because it is lived in the heart of the Church in a way which allows the Church to nurture, govern, and mediate it, because, that is, it is an ecclesial vocation which belongs to the Church before it belongs to any hermit, the vocation requires some church laws and structures including mediatory relationships (Bishop, delegate, Vicars) to assure it is what it is meant to be. 

If one believes one can support the idea of a vocation without law or structure by turning to Paul's writing on Law versus Gospel one has simply not understood Paul's theology or his esteem for both law and the Gospel. At the same time the person you cited seems not to have understood the importance of discerning, embracing, or representing ecclesial vocations if s/he truly believes the Church professes those who seek to " rise above others" or to "rule the roost." This is simply not the reason canonical hermits have chosen (or are admitted to) hidden lives lived in the heart of the Church or lives of marginality and essential insecurity in worldly terms.

Living and Responding to Jesus' Questions: the Key to Becoming the Persons we are Called to Be

 In reflecting on today's  Gospel what struck me was the relation between the two questions Jesus asked his followers. Remember he first asks, "Who do others say that I am?" and then, "And you, who do you say that I am?" Why does Jesus begin with what others are saying about him? A couple of thoughts come to mind. Maybe Jesus knows it is easier to speak of what others are saying than to speak of what is on our own minds and in our own hearts. Or maybe Jesus is leading his disciples slowly to the answer he wants them to give; maybe he wants them to think about what others are saying since the others are those with and to whom the disciples will be called to minister.  Given the disciples' uneven track record in getting things right, maybe Jesus is trying to give them a head start on the real answer! There are any number of possible answers. But today, I thought I saw Jesus moving his students away from the basis for much of who we think we are (not to mention who we think Jesus is!) and what we do in our lives, namely, what others think and value, and then giving these disciples a chance to discover and claim what they really think and feel themselves.

And why isn't it enough to answer with these others? After all, they are answering in terms of their Tradition, and the Tradition of Jesus and his disciples as well!   But what Jesus knows is that in him God is doing something new, something unprecedented, something that will tear that Tradition apart. In some ways, Jesus', "And you, who do you say that I am?" is a warning to his disciples. Jesus asks them to get in touch with all of the ways his life moves them, all the ways he resonates with their Tradition, all the ways he is what they expected and hoped for. At the same time, Jesus asks his disciples to bring to the front of their minds and hearts all the ways he surprises or disappoints them, all the ways he doesn't fit the Traditional categories and orthodoxy, all the times the others (and perhaps the disciples themselves) have called him a drunkard, or crazy, or a blasphemer. Only from this point can they really speak about the One God has sent to do something so insanely, inconceivably new. Only from this point can Jesus begin to teach them about what God's plan really has in store for him and for them.

And so, Jesus takes Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah and begins to reshape it out of all recognizability, all Jewish acceptability, and frankly out of any known religious shape at all! And for Peter, it is simply a bridge too far! Nothing in his Religious Tradition or in any other in the Roman world he inhabits has prepared him for a suffering Messiah or (and Peter has not even glimpsed this yet) an executed criminal who allows an utterly transcendent God to take death into himself and not be destroyed by it. Nothing in Peter's experience prepares him for a God who wills so strongly to be Emmanuel (God-with-us), that he will take sin and death into himself and eventually create a new heaven and new earth where sin and death have been destroyed through the faithfulness and work of a condemned and crucified Messiah.

But for all this to happen, Jesus must move us from the place of canned answers (no matter how correct they are) and "fitting in", to the place of an open mind and heart rooted in personal truth, and then to a faithful mind and heart that are courageous enough to travel with God to the unexpected and even the unacceptable place so that that God may do something insanely new in and with our world.  And in today's Gospel pericope, that is what Jesus is doing with his disciples, not because he does not value orthodoxy, and not because he promotes individualism and heresy, but because the God he serves so well wills to do something absolutely explosively, counterculturally new. 

For us, the first step in this journey of faith means breaking away from what others tell us to think and feel. This is part of reclaiming our own minds and hearts for God, the first step in dying to self so that we might live for and from God. It is a step we must make over and over again in a world that so glibly tells us what to think and eat and wear, and what medicines to ask our doctors about or cars to drive. Or what people we should regard --- and those we should not! The hardest part of this journey is coming to know who we really are while letting go of what is false, what is the result of our enmeshment in what monastic and eremitic life calls "the world" --- and this, of course, is what Jesus' second question to his disciples is all about, not ripping them away from the truth of their Tradition, but freeing them from inauthentic enmeshment so that God may do something new with that truth as it truly lives in them.

Jesus captures all of this with his reminder to Peter, [[You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.]] and then to everyone, [[Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.]] When I hear Jesus' questions in today's Gospel, I recognize they do what all Jesus's questions do; they call us beyond being the people the world says we are and must be, and open the way to be who we are truly called to be. For a hermit committed to living a stricter separation from the world, I also recognize that today's Gospel can call the hermit from unhealthy enmeshment in "the world", and empower the kind of freedom that allows God to do something unimaginably new!! The key to stricter separation from the world for hermits or for anyone else, the key to what today's readings call, "walking before the Lord in the land of the living", is in honestly living and answering Jesus' two questions every day of our lives: "Who do others say that I am?" and you, "Who do YOU say that I am?"

Ecclesiality, a Mutually Conditioning Dynamic Between Church and Solitary Hermit

[[ hi Sister! Are you saying that the Desert Fathers and Mothers had ecclesial vocations the institutional Church didn't recognize? I am not sure I see how the vocation of the Desert Fathers' calling belonged to the Church before the Church knew it herself.]] 

Hi there yourself! Yes, I am saying that the vocations lived by the Desert Abbas and Ammas were deeply and essentially ecclesial because they were lived for the sake of the Church and called her to all the things eremitical life holds for the Church. In particular, the desert Abbas and Ammas did what c 603 (and other) hermits do today in showing the Church her own heart, a heart rooted in prayer, the Lordship of Christ, the Evangelical Counsels, humility, and stricter separation from the world. In living countercultural lives dedicated to encounter and dialogue with God. Additionally, I am suggesting that the formula, "ecclesia semper reformanda est" was a dimension of what hermits called the Church to and reminded her she would always need to be. These lives (vocations) belonged to the Church even when the Church did not recognize this and their witness was profoundly ecclesial even as they lived apart from the Church.

Today we have canonical hermits in congregations and orders (institutes of consecrated life) as well as c 603 hermits who are actually commissioned by the Church to remind her of all the things the Desert Fathers and Mothers did by living these things in the heart of the Church. My argument was that the Church herself took a long time to recognize and make canonical these specific vocations, but doing that was part of a journey towards greater authenticity both for the Church and for hermits more generally. C 603 specifically created the option for public and ecclesial solitary hermit vocations that represent the Church's own internalization of the values of the desert Abbas and Ammas in universal law. By creating statutes on the diocesan level, bishops had done this for anchorites and hermits through some centuries, but never in universal law. With c 603 the Church finally made the solitary hermit life an intrinsic part of the public and essential life of the Church and in this way also bound herself to the values the hermit lives, including the prophetic witness some hermits (like the Desert Abbas and Ammas) have been known for.

The ecclesiality of c 603 vocations is something every c 603 hermit must come to understand and value deeply, and at the same time, it is something the Church herself must come to see and profoundly esteem. As I reflect on the dioceses that have failed to implement c 603 I recognize that some fear they cannot do justice to this vocation because they lack the chancery staff, for instance. Others recall the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life I referred to in my last post and want no part of such egregious distortions of eremitical life. Some, simply think the vocation is about keeping folks out of the limelight by shunting them into a hermitage --- a way of taming problem children of all sorts. But some are afraid of the witness of hermits in the heart of the Church, afraid they will introduce a bit of inspired instability in a Church insufficiently in touch with its need to reform itself. I don't believe these fears achieve consciousness in these bishops and chanceries, but I do think the nervousness these chanceries experience over contemplative and eremitical vocations points to this.

When I write about the ecclesiality of c 603 vocations I almost always say the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit. What I must also say, I think, is that hermits and anchorites through the centuries have called the Church to claim, nurture, and protect this birthright as they held onto the fact that they lived this vocation on behalf of the Church. They were not individualists, nor pseudo hermits separated from the Church, but instead, were men and women deeply imbued with the Gospel and in love with Christ's Church living life for her sake. With canon 603 the Church has claimed this vocation explicitly and is on the way to doing so fully. The relationship of the c 603 hermit to the Church is critical for the hermit being all that God calls her to be and also for the Church being all that God calls it to be as well. Just as the Church entrusts the hermit vocation to individuals under c 603, these hermits reveal to the Church her own generous and humble heart, not in the power and might associated with this world, but in a weakness where God's grace is sufficient and God's power is made perfect.

Canon 603: A New Way of Being a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, Because of the videos you have linked readers to, I have checked out Joyful Hermit Speaks. She talks about the traditional way of becoming a hermit, that is, one just goes off and does it. So I was wondering if your own vocation is a new vocation, a new way of becoming and being a hermit? Would this solve some of the arguments you have with Joyful if it were seen this way?]]

Thanks for your questions! I suppose one could say this is a different way of becoming a hermit, but only so long as we don't also affirm it is an entirely different way of BEING a hermit. What I mean is that in insisting that this vocation is public and ecclesial we begin to identify what was truest in the very best and most authentic forms of eremitical life associated with the faith. (There are other forms, of course, but I am not referring to those here.) Those associated in some way with the faith belong first of all to and/or are lived for the sake of the Church; secondly, they witness to the content and power of the Gospel in substantive ways and are therefore associated with specific rights and obligations that allow others to have meaningful expectations of the hermit.

In the very best examples of hermit life we see eremitism as an expression of faith and of the Faith. The Desert Abbas and Ammas lived what they did for the sake of Christ, his Gospel, and the well-being of a Church whose newly granted civil status led to mediocrity rather than to martyrdom. That was true of many hermits and anchorites through the centuries in the Western Church and is the reason eremitical life is associated with the label "white martyrdom". It represented a bloodless form of radical witness to the faith that challenged all Christians to live something more substantive than the mediocre Christianity acceptable to Constantine and his Edict of Milan**. At the same time, many "hermits" were the rugged and radical individualists of their day and their way of life conflicted with vocations that were at least implicitly ecclesial. Largely, this is where the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life come from throughout history. Faith was not at the heart of these "hermits'" lives, nor were concerns with the Church or the Gospel she had been entrusted with.

Over the centuries the Church, especially via the local or diocesan Church began to take more of a hand in assisting hermits and anchorites to live authentically Gospel-centered lives. These lives anticipated and became more representative of ecclesial vocations, but without being validated by the universal Church. In other words, these vocations were, to some extent, seen as ecclesial vocations, but not with the fullness of eremitical life lived in certain Orders and congregations, or under c 603 for solitary hermits. Thus, when I think of c 603, I see the Church finally accepting God's gift of eremitical life, taking responsibility for and becoming responsive to authentic solitary eremitical vocations in a way that allows these vocations to be considered true and full expressions of ecclesiality. Implicitly, I think we can say the lives and vocations of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, for instance, "belonged to the Church" and these hermits lived their lives on her behalf --- but without the institutional Church ever truly recognizing or embracing this fact or the vocation represented. With c 603, I think we see a vocation now fully claimed by the Church in a way that allows hermits to truly be the heart of the Church and who call her to be something more than the world around us allows her to be. At the same time, c 603 leaves behind individualistic and stereotypical eccentricity and selfishness that was never truly edifying.

In this sense, c 603 vocations are ecclesial in a way that is new despite earlier anticipation of a full ecclesiality by other forms of eremitism,. For that reason, yes, they are a new way of becoming and being a hermit; at the same time, they find their roots in Elijah, JnBap, Jesus and the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and so, are quite an ancient vocation. The elements of the canon are the elements present in any authentic eremitical vocation including non-canonical expressions of the life: stricter separation from that which is resistant to Christ, persevering prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the Evangelical Counsels, a Rule of life the hermit writes herself based on her own relationship and life with God, and a life lived for the praise of God and the salvation of others; what is added for canonical hermits is the fact that all of this occurs in the hands and under the supervision of Church representatives (i.e., the bishop and/or the one he delegates to do this service to the diocesan and universal Church). Canonical vocations are those in which the public and ecclesial dimensions of the vocation are fully realized. In this realization, the Church also embraces the fact that she is always in need of reform and conversion ("ecclesia semper reformanda est") as Vatican II clearly affirmed, and the Desert Abbas and Ammas knew!***

My sense of Joyful's take on eremitical life is that it is highly individualistic and that she believes the Church has messed with something it should not have messed with in creating c 603. I am not sure the idea of solitary eremitic life as a public and ecclesial vocation figures at all in Joyful's thought. She likes to call herself a consecrated Catholic Hermit, but until last month had relatively nothing good to say about c 603 nor, as far as I can find, has she spoken at all about the reality of public and ecclesial vocations (which means vocations lived in the name of the Church). While I understand she is now petitioning to become a canonical hermit under c 603, I am waiting for her and her theology of eremitical life to embrace these two foundational characteristics of this vocation and shift from the more typically individualistic perspective she holds. That will be necessary if she is to become a responsible canonical hermit. At the same time, unless and until that all shifts, I don't think our arguments on eremitism will begin to be resolved.

** The edict of Milan ended persecutions of Christians by declaring that it was now "permissible for Christians to be". This meant it took less courage to become a Christian, but also that faith that was demanding in its living was replaced by something that made mediocrity and merely nominal Christianity both more common. and acceptable In fact, Christianity became the state religion and with this mediocrity was almost institutionalized. This led in turn to an increase in emphasis on unhealthy ascetical practices.

*** It is thus understandable that at the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Remi de Roo made his intervention for the recognition of the solitary eremitical vocation as a state of perfection, and thus too, as an ecclesial vocation. I am unaware of anyone drawing attention to this correlation between the potential establishment of the eremitical vocation in universal law and the Council's affirmation of the Church as always in need of reform (granted, this correlation may have only been nascent or yet subconscious at the time of De Roo's intervention); still, it seems to me a significant one.

Again, Hiddenness and a Vocation to Extraordinary Ordinariness

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, does the hiddenness of the hermit say anything to the average person? I don't mean is hiddenness important to the hermit or even what is it, but rather does it speak to the average person and if so, what should they be hearing? Also, is the difference between the way you understand hiddenness and other hermits do, the difference between inner hiddenness and outer hiddenness? I don't necessarily mean is it only one vs only the other, but more about which has priority. Thank you.]]

That's a really great couple of questions, so thanks!! One of the things recent posts have focused on has been accountability and the public nature of this vocation; it is important that diocesan hermits reflect on what their life says to others. It is meant to be a proclamation of the Gospel, of course, but how does one do this when one is largely hidden from the life of the parish community and diocese? And why, then, is hiddenness important? I continue to believe that hiddenness is a derivative value that is rooted in the more primary elements of the life, namely, stricter separation from the world, persevering prayer, and the silence of solitude --- all values that say God must come first in our lives. At the same time this does not mean hiddenness is unimportant, nor that it does not have something to say to the average person. So what is it? what about it resonates or could well resonate with most people?

I wrote a piece some years ago (2008) about hiddenness and extraordinary ordinariness. Hiddenness and living an Extraordinary Ordinariness. The essential idea there was that hermits live very ordinary lives but the reason we do that is extraordinary and further, the grace of God transfigures the ordinary into something truly extraordinary. In other words, we live what every other person lives when at home, but we do so in order that God might be allowed to be God-With-Us. Yes, the focus of our days is likely different than it is for most people (prayer, lectio, study, writing or other activities, work) but the whole of the day is pretty normal and pretty typical of living one's life alone. One cooks and cleans for oneself, does the chores necessary, sleeps, eats, recreates, all the things most people do daily. I live in a complex with seniors and I suspect that my days generally look like the days of many of those living here -- though, again, my focus is different and that transfigures the whole.

What I think the hiddenness of my own life says to others is that in their own life, as they go about the ordinary things of the day, those things can also be transfigured if we learn to "pray the day". I don't mean one needs to spend hours in prayer as a separate activity (though some formal prayer will help withe rest), but instead, practice being present to whatever it is you are doing and let God be God-With-You in that. Each of us lives a pretty ordinary life, but especially those who live alone at home. If we can let God accompany us and be open to God's presence in everything we are and do what is ordinary also becomes extraordinary. The way some say this is to do everything with love. The essence of loving God, of course, is to let God be God, and in doing so, to become truly human, so we are saying essentially the same thing. 

One dimension of the Gospel is the way God values us and our lives, the way God delights in everything about us (except perhaps our sin). Most of us would like our lives to be meaningful and even important. What hermits say in their hiddenness, their embrace of extraordinary ordinariness is that living our day well and allowing God to accompany us in that is significant and possibly, it is the most significant thing we may ever do. Hermits live an ordinariness made extraordinary by the grace of God. I believe that is possible for all of us, though most will accomplish it in a non-eremitical context. 

Regarding your second question, if you mean by outer things the focus on clothes, anonymity, "blending in", no public presence, and things like that, then yes, I definitely see the hiddenness of eremitical life as less about those things than it is about the dimensions of the life no one ever sees, namely, our focus on letting God be God and thus, becoming fully human in the silence of solitude. This latter has priority for me, and I think, for any hermit. But my life, with its title, habit, cowl, and post-nominal initials also witnesses to the fact that I live this life in the name of the Church and in fact, in the heart of the Church. Some speak of struggling to blend or "fit in" as part of their hiddenness. I do not because I don't think I need to do that. Instead, I see myself belonging deeply and truly to the Church and to all that is precious to God. When one belongs in this way, when one is open to all God loves in this way, "blending in" or even "fitting in" is unnecessary and even counterproductive. Eremitical hiddenness involves the "outer" hiddenness you refer to, yes. Still, that is secondary; our life project, the thing we live for and from, the dynamic that defines our lives and marks our success at that life is truly hidden from the eyes of others --- except, perhaps, when grace spills over in a holiness that will help change the face of creation. 

Looking Again at Jesus' Suffering and the Notion of Victim Souls

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I really appreciated the piece you put up on suffering effectively -- sorry, witnessing effectively to suffering. I especially liked what you said about a micro drop of skunk scent and how very far it goes. I've been watching and reading a hermit whose approach to suffering is very different than yours. Not only are they always talking about how they suffer (the scent of skunk is overpowering and keeps me from watching the videos), but seems to me they believe that God sends or causes the suffering. I don't know, but even if God has something to teach us it is incomprehensible to me that God is responsible for suffering.  Besides, what I learned was that what God wants to teach us is how much He loves us. Isn't that the answer to every problem or need? So here are my other questions: Do you believe God wanted Jesus to suffer? Do you believe in "victim souls"? Is the hardest thing about being a hermit the suffering one does? If people don't understand this vocation what is the most important thing they fail to understand?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions. They come up (or used to come up) a lot, and of course, the question of Jesus' suffering is central to our faith -- and is most often misunderstood in terms of placating an angry or offended God. In that regard, I have said many times that what God willed was not Jesus' suffering but his openness to letting God be God and his integrity in the face of every trial he faces. I do completely agree with your rhetorical question, [[Isn't that the answer to every problem or need?]] We are called to witness to the Good News and a God who wills for us to suffer or who even causes that suffering is not that!!!

You might look for the posts where I looked at Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and how I understand the conversation that goes on between Jesus and his Abba. There are two links that are recent on this: Jesus' Prayer in Gethsemane and the followup to that, Jesus' Call to Integrity. I believe it all depends on how we imagine God responding to Jesus' hope that surely there is another way to live his vocation besides the path he is looking at immediately. If we imagine God saying, "it must be this way, I need your suffering so I can forgive sin," then I think theologically we are lost. If, on the other hand, we imagine God saying, "Live who you are in this as you have lived that your entire life; live your integrity and I will be with you in anything and everything," then we have begun to understand the theology of the Cross that is at the heart of the Good News upon which our lives and faith depend!!

I have also written on the concept of victim souls, which I believe has become more of a problem in contemporary society than it was in earlier times.  This is because we have become enamored of status of almost any sort at all, and for some, it is their victim status they like to flaunt. Thus, today (I am not speaking of more historic cases) you are apt to find online the self-proclaimed victim soul ensconced in their bed, huddled against their pillows speaking feebly of how God has willed their terrible pain and suffering while gaining additional strength upon speaking of how tormented and persecuted they have been by everyone in their adult lives. Now that video recording is possible, the histrionic quality of some of these portrayals can be captured with fascinating clarity. They may be temporarily seductive to some (like a freeway accident can be to those driving past), and some may be moved by compassion and compelled to try to help or give support; to others, however, as is true for you, the scent of skunk is overpowering, and the whole situation is so theologically disedifying, that one really cannot continue attempting to watch them. I first wrote a long post about this in 2008. Here is the link: Questions on Chronic Illness, Victim Souls, etc.

As you will see, I don't believe in victim souls, particularly not as a divine vocation. I note that the idea of victim souls is not official Catholic teaching but is linked instead to private revelations no one is required to believe. Suffering is, of course, very real and I do believe that chronic illness and disability can be thought of as vocational, though never in terms of God willing the person's suffering. Once we reframe the story of Jesus' suffering in the way we have done above our ability to let go of this destructive (victim soul) theology as well as concepts of reparative theology that sees what Jesus did as objectively inadequate and still requiring victim souls is greatly enhanced. 

Over the years I have watched those few in this time who consider themselves victim souls and despite all their talk of the love of God, I simply cannot shake the sense that their God is a sadist whose cruelty is underscored by a piety rooted in the subject's subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle self-hatred and inability to truly love others. Even more, I have the sense these supposed "victim souls" don't truly think anyone else suffers as significantly as they do --- or as heroically! It is tragic, really, because such persons seem to lack the humility necessary to allow God's redemption. Once we convince ourselves that God causes even our most profound suffering and wills it, we have also limited our capacity to receive God's love as fully as God wills to give it. As I have quoted several times, Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it this way, [[ Not everything that happens is the will of God, but inevitably, nothing that occurs happens outside the will of God!]] In other words, if we begin and end with the love of God even the evil that occurs (and this includes our suffering) can and will be redeemed because God has embraced the whole of our reality in Christ and made it his own.

Your last questions ask about the hardest thing about living as a hermit and what it is important for people to know about this vocation. I am not sure I can give you a single thing that is hardest about this vocation. Some things are hard during some time periods and other things are hard at other times. For instance, the meaningfulness of eremitical life is a major question hermits must come to understand and that understanding is often a struggle. We trust that God has called us to this vocation and the Church has verified that call as best they can; she has consecrated and commissioned us to live and explore it. We have to live into the truth of this and explain to ourselves and sometimes to others as well how it is our lives are meaningful and a gift to the Church and the larger world. 

Sometimes the tedium associated with this life is most difficult as we live our faithfulness in the everyday ordinary things we must do again and again. And again and again. And too, for some of us, the suffering associated with illness or disability can be significant and lonely; it is isolating in a way that militates against the silence of solitude and must be redeemed and transfigured by God's love. Finally, I find the demands of the inner work I do regularly can be very difficult, especially as unexpected depths within me open up and flood my present with pain. Ironically, with this last also come some of the most exhilarating times of grace and Divine victory so as much as I might dislike aspects of it, the work itself is compelling.

The most important thing I think people should know is that this vocation is about personal truth and transparency, living the truth of who one is while becoming ever more transparent to God (because God is a constitutive part of our existence). It is not about escape or quiet relaxation (though relaxation is very real too); it is an intense life that is constantly surprising as God draws one deeper into the Mystery He is. As I said in another post, I want others to understand this is a true (though rare) vocation. It speaks to every person about who they are, the place of God in that, and the importance of letting God be God as the priority of our lives. I think all these things are things people fail to understand about eremitic lives.

On Witnessing Effectively to Suffering

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, I noticed that you have a disability and a problem with chronic pain and that was part of what you claimed to have brought to the Church in seeking profession and consecration under c 603. You don't say a lot about this very often and I wondered why not? If suffering is important to the eremitic life, why don't you speak about your own suffering?]] 

Thanks for your questions. It has been a long time since anyone asked me a similar question. In that response I wrote the following (I am posting it again here since it was written in 2008 and has not changed much) from Personal Questions on Vocation:

[[The reason you do not hear about the personal reasons that brought me to an understanding of this vocation is that while illness or injury remain problematical on a daily basis (this is mainly true of chronic pain), they do not define who I am. Especially I am no victim. Instead, my life is defined in light of God's grace and who that has made me; I want very much for that to be clearer to readers of my posts than these other things. God wills that I live as fully and lovingly as I can in spite of them. He has (with my cooperation) brought wonderful people into my life who have assisted in this including doctors, directors, teachers, pastors, friends who accommodate me in various ways, et al. In all these cases they have helped and challenged me to grow beyond an identification with illness and pain, and into an identification with God's grace, fullness of life, and growing personal holiness. Unless that is clear in what I write, live out, or otherwise proclaim, the suffering itself is meaningless and certainly not edifying; on the other hand, if the effects of the grace of God which transfigures both suffering and life IS clear in my writing and living, then there is rarely any need to focus on the suffering, and doing so would be a disedifying distraction!

[[Do you think it is important for people to know how to suffer? Do you think you have a responsibility to teach people how to suffer or to speak about your suffering?]]

While I think it is important for people to learn to suffer, and while I think suffering well is one of the things we are least capable of today, I am of the opinion that the way to teach (model, or witness to) that is NOT by focusing on suffering itself. In particular, speaking about my own situation is rarely necessary (or helpful) except when it is important to remind someone what is possible with the grace of God. For instance, occasionally a client will wonder if healing is really possible, or if it is possible to transcend a given set of circumstances. In such a situation I will refer to my own illness or pain. Here my own suffering is important, but only so long as it does NOT dominate my life or define me, and only in order to underscore the possibility of healing, essential wholeness and humanity along with the capacity to be other-centered and compassionate in spite of negative circumstances. God's grace ALWAYS heals and brings life out of that which is antithetical to these things, so what one wants to witness to is the transformation of one's life as one moves from faith to faith and from life to more abundant life. His love ALWAYS transfigures our reality, not least because he is WITH US in ways which remind us of how precious we are to him, how much he wants for us, how much he longs to share with us, etc.

Even in situations where it is helpful to speak of one's suffering one needs to recall that it's a lot like a single microdrop of skunk spray: a very little goes a very long way and "scents" everything in its path --- for a very long time!! Also, if you think about the stories of suffering that really inspire and move you, they are ordinarily the stories where courage, patience, joy, wholeness, dignity and selflessness predominate and the pain or suffering is recognized but allowed to disappear into the background. They are the stories where humanity triumphs (and this means a person living from the grace of God); they are not exercises in navel gazing or detailed and repetitive accounts of one's pain. Suffering well is, after all, about courage, about affirming life and meaning in spite of destruction and absurdity, and especially, it is about LIVING AS FULLY as one is able. 

There is no way to do this if one focuses on the suffering per se. This kind of focus is ALWAYS self-centered and can be temptingly and distractingly so both for oneself and for others; it is ALWAYS a bid for attention to self (even when appropriately used this is the case). It is also focused on the thing which God's grace helps overcome rather than on the effects of that grace (or the one who gives it). Neither of these (self-centeredness, or a focus on evil) is generally edifying, and can be quite disedifying except in certain limited circumstances. The question is always what does one want to witness to; viz, what do you want others looking at, God's grace and the possibilities for hope and wholeness or one's own self, brokenness, and suffering? For these reasons if one MUST refer to or focus on these latter things one must ALWAYS do so rarely and briefly.

What I am saying is that in "teaching" (I would prefer to say assisting or encouraging) people to suffer well, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to teach them how to live, how to pray, how to give themselves over to God's grace, and especially how to cope so that life and not pain per se is the focus. In my experience, a sure way to FAIL to suffer well (or to fail to inspire someone to bear their own pain well) is to focus on the suffering per se. By the way, "teaching" someone to suffer well presupposes one DOES that oneself, and I wonder how many of us can say that is honestly true of us? It is another reason to focus on life, on hope (both of which are the result of God's grace), and on placing oneself in God's hands so that he may redeem and transfigure the situation as far as possible. We need this encouragement and focus on a continuing basis as much as anyone we might witness to.]] 

In Cornelius Wencel's book on the Eremitic Life, he writes: [[But the hermit's days are not free from tears, pain, and sadness. Just the opposite --- tribulation remains present in the way of eremitic pilgrimage. The Word we respond to, however, is the One who has created us and who is constantly renewing our youth with his love. So to encounter the pain of our existence is to get another impulse to search, to listen, and to respond even more actively and faithfully. In this way we can be motivated to open ourselves up even more to the radiating presence of the Lord, whose glory is fully revealed in the shadow of the Cross. The voice that calls and the answer that we give never separate us from the refreshing air of this space. In fact, the fullness of the eremitic life is nothing else but the contemplation of God's magnificence that flashes at the intersection of the bars of the Cross. Any other perspective must be incomplete and even false.]] The Eremitic Life, pp 49-50.

Like anything else in Christian life, witnessing effectively to suffering involves a paradox. It means witnessing more directly to the life, love, and joy found in God in the midst of one's suffering! It recognizes that God counters human suffering with these realities, that God does not will or send suffering per se, rather, He transforms it with His presence (that is, His grace). This does not mean denying one's suffering, of course, or that suffering can help us open to God's saving love, but the emphasis is never on the suffering per se (except, perhaps, as one works through it in the privacy of one's meeting with one's Director or in one's prayer)! And even then, the light will shine through to the extent that one's work or prayer is truly graced and God-centered. I believed this in 2008 and believe it still --- even more emphatically. I hope this is helpful.

Following up on the Hiddenness of the Eremitical Life

[[ Dear Sister, what you wrote in your last post about the hiddenness of the hermit vocation was very striking to me. Is this a new position or the intensification of one you had come to before?]]

Thanks for writing. The position is a deepening of something I have known for a while now. It looks like I began writing about hiddenness with a post in 2008 on essential hiddenness and a call to extraordinary ordinariness and followed that up with others. I began to focus on hiddenness again around August of 2014 and wrote on the difference between the value and the utility of eremitical life. I put up several posts in the Summer of 2015 so I am going to repost one of those below. All of this recent work, and some of the earlier stuff, comes from the coincidence of questions regarding anonymity, accountability, and my own continuing inner work --- what my Director might refer to as the deepening of one's participation or sharing in the Mystery of love and life ---that is, the Mystery at the heart of reality we call God.

Witnessing to the God who Saves:

[[Sister Laurel, when you write, "in every person's life God works silently in incredible hiddenness," I wonder. Is this what the followers of Francis de Sales mean by "interiority?" I spoke with [a Sister friend] a few months ago - and she asked me "How is that interiority coming?" I didn't know how to answer her, but I thought it might be something like this.]] (There were other questions included in this email about the distinction between being the gift and using gifts. Some reflected on the idea of merely being present to others and being gift in that way. I focus on those here as well.)

 

While it is true I am saying the hermit is a gift simply in being present to others, I am saying more than that as well because quite often (in fact, most of the time) a hermit is present to no one but God. Before you go out and do, before you are present to or for others in any way at all, and even if you never go out to others, I am saying that God is at work in you healing and sanctifying. That, as I understand it,  is the witness of the hermit life. That is its special gift or charism.  We say this with our lives; whether we ever speak to a living soul, pray for another person or not (though of course we will pray for others), whether we ever write another word, or paint another picture, or use our individual gifts in any way at all, we witness to the Gospel  and to the God who makes us whole and holy simply by being ourselves as redeemed.

Extending this to you and all others it means that should you (or they) never take another person shopping, never make another person smile, never use the gift you are in any way except to allow the God who is faithfulness itself to be faithful to you, THAT is the hiddenness and the gift I am mainly talking about. Yes, it involves the hiddenness of God at work in us but that is the very reason we ourselves are gift. We witness to the presence of God in the silence of solitude, in the darkness, in the depths of aloneness, etc. We do that by becoming whole, by becoming loving (something that requires an Other to love us and call us to love), by not going off the rails in solitude and by not becoming narcissists or unbalanced cynics merely turned in on self and dissipated in distraction. We do it by relating to God, that is, by allowing God to be God.

Cultivating this sense of God at work in us, emptying ourselves (or being stripped by circumstances and learning to see this as an incredible gift) so that we only witness to God, allowing ourselves to let go of anything but God as the source and validation of our lives is, I think at least, the heart of cultivating a sense of interiority. Interiority itself is our life of Communion with the God who is the creator, source, and ground of that same life. Its focus is God and includes his redemption of us, his healing, sanctification, and intimacy. When I wrote here before about developing a spirituality of discernment I was also writing about cultivating interiority. That is why resisting discernment while speaking constantly about “discerning” is actually a resistance to the development of interiority; if one cannot deal with one's feelings and all that is going on within them, then neither can one claim to be a discerning person with a healthy interiority.  If and to the extent one does not see the whole of reality from the perspective of the light and life of God, then to that extent one has not developed a genuine interiority. (I will have to ask my pastor about St Francis de Sales' own take on interiority! I simply don't know Francis well enough.) 

Most of us witness to all of this by using our gifts. Hermits (and especially recluses) do it by flourishing in an environment that really does say God alone is enough. In this environment the gifts we have possessed from birth and for whose development we have often spent time, money and effort in education and training may well be largely irrelevant. When I speak of us being the gift I mean that the hermit's very life and capacity for love says God is real, faithful, and an intimate, integral, and even inalienable part of our deepest reality. My eremitical life is not about me, my intelligence, my persistence (and stubbornness!), my creativity (or lack thereof), my musicality, or any other specific talents that may also be present. It is about God as source and ground, God as faithful lover, friend and sovereign, God as redeemer who will never let go of us but instead transfigures us so we truly image God. That is what makes my life a gift --- even, and maybe especially, when I do not touch anyone directly, even when I reject the role of "prayer warrior" (which seems to me to emphasize a kind of worldly perspective on the primacy of doing over being), even when chronic illness allows for no ministry at all but only my own hungry and even desperate openness to God in weakness and incapacity.

The church that professed and consecrated me under a new and largely unprecedented canon witnesses to this truth. The existence of canon 603 itself witnesses to this eremitical truth and describes the gift it represents under the heading “the silence of solitude”.  My bishop and delegate witness to this by coming to know me and the way God has worked in my life, as well as by professing me and continuing to allow me to live this life in the name of the Church. This witness to the providence of God at work in the silence of solitude is why canonical standing and the relationships established there in law are so vital. The church continues to esteem eremitical life as a pure, even starkly contemplative instance of the abundant sufficiency of God. God is the gift this life witnesses to precisely as it turns its back on --- or is stripped of --- every gift it otherwise ‘possesses’.  And of course, this is also why c 603 must not be misused or abused as a stopgap solution for those with no true eremitical vocation. To do so is, for instance, to risk honoring selfishness and spiritual mediocrity ("lukewarmness") or institutionalizing cowardice and misanthropy. The eremitical life is a generous one of giving oneself to God for the sake of others. But it is also rare to be graced or called to witness in this particular form of stripping and emptying (kenosis).

As I noted here recently, I once thought contemplative life and especially eremitic life was a waste and incredibly selfish. For those authentic hermits the Church professes and consecrates, and for those authentic lay hermits who live in a hiddenness only God can and does make sense of, the very thing that made this life look selfish to me is its gift or charism. It is the solitude of the hermit's life, the absence of others, and even her inability to minister actively to others or use her gifts that God transforms into an ultimate gift. Of course, in coming to understand this, it is terribly important that we see the "I" of the hermit as the "We" symbolized by the term "the silence of solitude". It is equally important that we never profess anyone who does not thrive as a human being in this particular environment. In other words, my life, I think, is meant to witness starkly and exclusively to the God who makes of an entirely impoverished "me" a sacramental "We" when I could do nothing at all but allow this to be done in me.