Once Again on Standards for Canonical and non-Canonical Hermits: Potential Discussion Topics

[[Dear Sister, thanks for your response to my questions. I had a different idea about a list of requrements or standards. I am enclosing a list of the kinds of things that were included in the video I watched. Here is the list. Perhaps you could comment on what you think of these standards and of making them universal for all hermits in the Church.]]

1. Should a hermit do a video log (vlog) or have a blog? Does it make a difference if the hermit is canonical? What are the implications of such a move for the faithful wishing to pray there?
2. Is anonymity better than being ID'd?
3. Should "Traditional historical hermits" get their hermitages designated a "place or house of worship"? by the Bishop?
4. Should hermits wear religious habits?
5. Should hermits live alone? Is solitude a somewhat flexible term allowing for lauras, etc.?
6. Should they use post-nomial initials such as Er Dio of CH?
7. Should the spiritual director be a priest or brother ? Could it be a "girl friend" in a religious community?
8. Should transgendered persons or persons otherwise sexually disordered be consecrated as hermit?
9. Should psychological testing be required before admission to profession and consecration?
10. Who should guide and supervise hermits?
11. Should hermits have benefactors or be self-supporting?
12. Is it appropriate to charge for spiritual direction? Should hermits even do spiritual direction?
13. What kinds of jobs are allowed?
14. Should hermits teach courses at their parish? Bible or Scripture? Or should they be cleaning the Church alone at night?
15. How would universal standards be enforced?
16. What do we do about corpulent or obese hermits and their guilty vice of gluttony?
17. Should hermits get involved in politics or controversial topics that could lead them to anger, despair, or depression?
18. Do the USCCB and other English-speaking bishops' conferences need to create a list of such standards or requirements?

Thanks for supplying this list; I see better where your questions were coming from. I will keep these topics in mind for the future because, as you might be aware, I have written about a number of them over the years, sometimes multiple times. At this point, I think the best way to proceed is to suggest that you and other interested readers look first for past discussions from the labels on the right. Then, if you (or anyone else) want to discuss any of these topics further here, you can feel free to raise specific questions or issues in a separate context, and we can go from there. 

Unfortunately, some of these questions are important for the way they reflect on the person raising them as issues rather than on the substance of the question itself; for instance, at least one of them attributes motives to situations or persons no one but the person and God can know. None of us reads minds or souls so, for instance, attributing a physical condition (corpulence) to personal sin (gluttony) is completely out of bounds. So is calling someone's director or delegate their "girlfriend"-- as though there is something improper or unprofessional about the relationship. Only one person I know of has written this way in the past. It was wrong then and is wrong now; it reflects more on the questioner's biases and animosities than it does on anything happening in eremitical life today.  

One question you have listed about a bishop constituting a hermitage as a house or place of worship is entirely new and interests me. I have not heard of this before (though I expect it is linked to becoming 501(c)3) and would need to determine if it is even canonically possible. (Diocesan hermits can, if they can meet the civil requirements, become 501(c)3, but I was unaware of the idea that a hermitage becomes a "place of worship".) I'll do some research on this and see whether it would be a good topic to write about further than I have already done. (Cf articles on becoming 501(c)3.)