On Why c 603 was Promulgated and Dealing with Abuses of the Canon

[[Dear Sister Laurel, it makes a huge difference whether c 603 was promulgated to deal with abuses [or] whether it was meant to recognize a vocation in a new way. I mean if c 603 was meant to recognize a vocation as a state of perfection (your term), then that's really different from establishing a canon to deal with abuses by hermits. Canon 603 does not include sanctions, does it? That argues to me that it is not meant to deal with abuses. It establishes a vocation in law, describes that vocation, and also what it means for it to be established in law, is that right? Too, should people criticize c 603 for not being used to correct failures to live the canon? I mean it's not meant for that is it? So, what happens with vocations consecrated under c 603, don't really live their Rule or live according to the canon itself?]]

Perceptive questions. Thanks! Yes, it makes a great deal of difference on WHY a canon was promulgated as to what we expect from it. If they are created to deal with abuses a couple of things will be true: 1) there will be a canonical form of life already established that needed a way to deal with abuses, and 2) the normal sanctions that apply to any form of consecrated life are insufficient. There is one narrative being put out there that c 603 was meant to deal with abuses in solitary eremitical life. The problem with that narrative is that 1) solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church had pretty much died out, 2) In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, there was no provision for solitary hermits, so there were no such vocations needing correction, much less enough to require a new canon establishing disciplinary norms, 3) lay hermits (hermits in the lay or baptismal state alone) are free to live any way they want because their vocational paths are not ordinarily established in law (their lay state itself is established in law), and 4) Without established norms that apply to a vocation, one cannot be said to be abusing or breaking those norms. Until the Church spells out what solitary eremitical life looks like in law, there simply is NO accepted normative form of this life to be abused.

You are exactly right with c 603. It is meant to establish an eremitical vocation to the consecrated state in law. It does not include sanctions. Instead, it lists elements that are essential to it. But note well, these elements are not narrowly defined, nor are they necessarily even obvious or self-evident in their meaning. Moreover, the canon includes the requirement for a Rule the hermit candidate writes herself based on her lived experience and the way God has been at work in her life. In this, she takes the individual elements and creates a tapestry of the way they are lived in her own life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is up to the diocesan team (including a c 603 mentor when possible) and bishop, to work with the person over a given period (usually the time it takes to write a really sufficient Rule) and also read and discuss the Rule with the candidate as part of their discernment and formation of this specific c 603 vocation. What I am saying here is that implementing c 603 in any diocese requires care, time, and significant investment by a diocesan staff that is willing to be educated on life under this canon just as the candidate herself is open to such a process. When this is done, the canon itself is more than sufficient to guide and govern such vocations. As I have said before, I believe the authors of c 603 may have written even better than they knew. I regularly return to the canon and my Rule to guide me in living this life more and more deeply and well.  I have heard the same from other c 603 hermits.

If someone is really not living the canon (and the others that also apply for c 603 vocations), then the diocese will take steps to correct the problems as is possible. If correction or rehabilitation is not possible, or the hermit fails to respond as her Bishop requires, then the diocese can take steps to dispense the hermit's vows. The process is appealable, and it is far more likely that a resolution will be found between the hermit, her delegate, the bishop, et al. The situation must be serious and different solutions might well be tried before a diocese decides to dispense vows. Since the hermit's delegate usually knows her/him better than the bishop does, she will likely be able to be of significant assistance in shining light on the situation and finding workable solutions. (I am convinced that few c 603 hermits actually fail to live their vocations; more often there may be a situation that prevents them from living their Rule --- illness, finances, family requirements (aging parents, etc.)) Usually, these situations are temporary and can certainly be resolved short of dispensation.

One thing I want to underline in all of this is that it takes knowledgeable people to discern 1) when a problem really exists, and 2) how serious this problem is. For instance, one person online continues to post various claims that I do not live the canon myself and that my diocese disavows responsibility for me. None of her claims are true. She makes somewhat similar accusations against other c 603 hermits, all without knowing them, their Rules of Life, the way they have written about c 603 therein, the content of their work with their superiors and others on various issues, and she does all this based on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the nature of c 603 itself. My own diocese apparently chucked the accusations in the trash, so to speak, where I believe, they truly belonged. In any case, the problem leading to action by a diocese must be real, verifiable, and serious. When this is so, the hermit's diocese will work with the hermit to achieve a creative and adequate resolution which, if at all possible, will protect this hermit's specific vocation and c 603 vocations more generally.