[[
Dear Sister, I was thinking about the issue of anonymity and accountability and the way not using identifiable names contributes to confusion for readers. Let's say I know you are one of only two or three diocesan hermits in California and I read about a canonical hermit lady in California who is sociopathic, narcissistic, and personality disordered, for example. I would not associate you with the diagnosis and that could lead me to think perhaps the person making the accusation was talking about one of the other one or two hermits. That would hardly be fair to them, nor to me as a reader! What if I was considering asking one of you to work with me, either because I desired to become a c 603 hermit, or because I wanted spiritual direction? Or what if I wanted to manage my own disability and thought you had some answers I needed. It could keep me from asking you to work with me because of the uncertainties raised --- and that just might be a crucial misstep in terms of my own vocation! Do you hear what I am trying to explain? When "the Catholic Hermit," "Joyful Hermit," or "the Complete Hermit" or whoever it is is trash-talking some canonical hermit, and refuses to say who they are by name, particularly when what is being said is inconsistent with what readers know of the person themselves it is uncharitable to them as well as to the hermits being tarred with the same brush. I don't think you have spoken about this aspect of the problem yet, have you?]]
Such a great analysis! My sincerest thanks for raising this perspective!! No, I have not done this myself before, and yes, I absolutely hear and agree with you. I have tried to approach related issues through the discussion of the nature of eremitical hiddenness and the fact that c 603 does not necessarily call for anonymity. I then broadened the answers to some questions I received to a discussion of not just the public and ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation, but how accountability for those things can be inimical to the practice of anonymity. I probably took some persons' questions in surprising directions, but I still never managed to raise this dimension of the whole problem.
Yet, I certainly felt it! There have been several times when I have been reading something about a c 603 lady hermit writing a blog for x many years and thought, "That sounds like me (right number of years, right state, right sex!" and as I read on, the stuff there was so patently unrecognizable and inapplicable to me, that I dismissed the first thought as impossible. Anonymous accusations can be neither entertained nor responded to adequately, not by the one being referred to (whoever that is!), nor by anyone else. Eventually, people begin to doubt anyone who might be being accused, any group member (in this case, c 603 hermits), and the whole category of hermits comes under a cloud. It may well be that that is part of what the accuser really wants, that they are less concerned with discrete bad acts of a single hermit as they are out to get c 603 itself. The problem is none of this can be known because the accuser has insisted on remaining anonymous (therefore can't even be contacted for clarification), and has extended anonymity (of sorts) to others. In recent weeks one accuser began to post pieces that identified several c 603 hermits. Only a couple were praised for living their hermit lives authentically. This helped me to see that perhaps it is c 603 itself that is the target, but along with almost every c 603 hermit living consecrated eremitical life in the US as well. What had been happening by innuendo has now happened in a more open way. And yet not openly enough!!
 |
| Marymount Hermitage, Mesa, ID |
Hermits have been easily identifiable by the information provided on Joyful Hermit Speaks. Several folks came to my blog that way and 2 of these asked about the truth. Several others wondered if this section of this or that video might be referring to Sister M Beverly at Marymount Hermitage, Mesa, ID (Diocese of Boise) or to the hermits in Fort Wayne (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend) and asked if I had any knowledge of them or concern about them myself? (I have written about Marymount Hermitage in the past -- positively -- and have been told by a diocesan hermit I know well and trust implicitly that she personally knew one of these Fort Wayne hermits (Sister Jane Brackenbush), had worked with her in another capacity; this person affirmed that she does have a genuine eremitical vocation and that this was known years ago, but nothing more than that. So yes, writing negatively about someone anonymously (both the writer and the subject of their writing) does an injustice to readers, and to many others besides the person who was the subject of the piece. It causes doubt and confusion, creates hesitancy, and in my book, is sometimes simply dishonest. All of this reminds me of the reasons Satan is identified as "the accuser." Anonymity in all of this serves the demonic.
In your analysis and question, you addressed this from the position of a reader considering contacting one of the people who might or might not be involved in a report where the accused goes unnamed. Your question captured the vast harm that can be done by such practice, and far more effectively than I have done until now! Thanks very much for your question! It is important and one we may need to spend more time with. For instance, should canonical hermits who are mentioned on this blog be named? What about candidates who are seeking canonical standing? Should we at least name their dioceses or is all of this an invasion of privacy? How do we deal with the anonymous accusations being put up by someone on a blog or in their videos?
A note on the accusations leveled against me: At this point I have to say my diocese has never mentioned the matter of Joyful's calls to them, neither to me nor to my Director. If Joyful ever called the Diocese of Oakland (and I believe she did because it seems she also called the Archdioceses of San Francisco and Detroit thinking I was responsible to my former bishops who had gone to those places as Archbishops) they told Joyful I am a c 603 hermit (meaning I was in good standing) and it sounds like they challenged her to take legal action if she thought she had a case. So, as far as I am concerned, the matter has been closed for five years. If Joyful continues to post on this, well, the matter is still closed insofar as both the Diocese of Oakland and I are concerned.) Meanwhile, thanks for the challenge you have implicitly set!! I hope others will contribute their thoughts on the matter!
.jpg)
Posts
