Respecting "the Most Humble of all Vocations"

[[Sister, are you aware that another hermit claims hermits never needed or wanted respect, so your argument that c 603 came about so the hermit vocation could be respected is invalid? What seems to be the point is that hermits are "the most humble of all vocations" and have never needed respect. Have you addressed this? Have you reversed your opinion?]]

Thanks for writing. I am aware. The main posts of this came up a couple of years ago, and I responded a couple of times around then. I have not only NOT reversed my opinion on this; my opinion has intensified as I have come to a more mature understanding of the vocation's ecclesiality. This vocation, when lived well and as the Church understands it, is worthy of respect. Every vocation and every person making a commitment to live such commitments deserves respect. I am not talking about seeking an unwarranted degree of prestige or recognition. With regard to c 603, I am speaking about a particular pathway to union with God, which is rare and countercultural and requires a demanding commitment to perseverance in the grace of God.

I don't see how humility necessarily means one cannot expect a vocation to be respected. After all, humility is a form of truthfulness, and a loving form of truthfulness at that. It does not mean denigrating oneself, but regarding oneself appropriately in light of who God makes us to be and the potential we carry within us for becoming God's true counterpart in our world. It seems to me that requiring respect for a vocation is really an appreciation of the way God works in and through us. Calling for respect for this vocation reflects an awareness of the dignity that belongs to the human person as a child and dialogical partner of God. That is certainly what led Bishop Remi de Roo to bring the question of making solitary eremitical life a canonical form of consecrated life to the attention of the Church Fathers at Vatican II. He knew the Hermits of St John the Baptist and highly regarded what they brought to and meant for the Church. It took the Church almost another 20 years from De Roo's intervention before Canon 603 was promulgated after a number of drafts and correlative discussions. 

The essential point, I believe, is that the countercultural life we call eremitical is significant for the life of the Church,  for appreciating the dialogical nature of the human person, seeing clearly what it means to say the will of God is to be Emmanuel, and understanding that Jesus' entire life and death could be thought of as a desert existence no matter the number of people he taught, healed, preached to, or fed. He is the model of what it means to be a hermit and what Peter Damian called an ecclesiola, a little Church. All of this is part of the witness of the hermit's life, and while certain external conditions listed in the canon are necessary, it is the inner life of the hermit with God that is the heart of the vocation. It is this that we respect, and the reason the vocation is seen as necessary to the life and well-being of the Church. 

Two additional points: First, I am aware that you have quoted someone on the notion that hermit's vocations are the most humble of vocations, and, while I agree they require humility, I dislike comparisons of the type provided. It seems to me that once we start saying one vocation is more humble than others (much less the most humble of all others!), we have adopted a more worldly way of regarding them. Secondly, I'm pretty sure I am repeating what I have already written about this matter, so please check out other posts on the labels found at the bottom of this post.