The Heart of the Church Revealed: Pope Leo Blesses Disabled Child and is Similarly Blessed

After writing last night's post referring to potential vocations to Chronic Illness and Disability, I came across this picture of Pope Leo XIV with the headline "Pope Blesses Disabled Child". What I want to make clear is that this picture is a startlingly vivid picture of the heart of the Church. If you don't see a contemporary version of the Pietà in this picture, please look again. Spend some time in lectio with it! If you want to understand the mystery of the hiddenness of the solitary eremitical vocation and its significance, consider the life of this precious child and her relationship with God. What do you think most people see in or do with this question? What do you think Pope Leo saw as he held her? 

Chronic Illness and Disability: Allowing Jesus to come to Full Stature in our Lives

[[Dear Sister, thank you for writing about diocesan hermits with chronic illnesses and disabilities. I think I am beginning to understand why hermits desired legal standing or legitimacy. When you think of being about the salvation of the world or being ecclesial, are you thinking about modeling a life where the chronically ill and disabled become central to the life of the church? I am disabled and have never thought about becoming a hermit, but for sure I know what it means to live a life cut off from the rhythm of most people's lives. Are you saying that my life can be one in which Jesus comes to full stature?? That would really be saving for me!! I have mainly thought that since I couldn't work or produce much, my life was of little or no value, and it didn't matter that I am well-educated. 

I hear you saying that by making the hermit canonical and consecrating them, the church takes lives that seem to be of little value and affirms them at the very heart of the church!!! WOW!! If that is what you are saying, then that is amazing!!! It has nothing to do with arrogance or pride, does it? . . . until I read your last post, what you were actually saying hadn't clicked with me. Too, I hadn't realized that many c 603 hermits live with disability. Am I getting what you are saying?]]

Wow!!!  Many thanks for your comments!! I am so glad you read the recent post and decided to write!!! Yes, you have really heard what I was saying. Absolutely, I believe you can become a person in whose life Christ comes to full stature. I don't know the details of your disability; however, I do believe that you can, with the grace of God, become authentically human (the universal task every person faces) and someone whose life glorifies (reveals) God as Emmanuel. While, of course, you don't need to be a hermit to do that, I believe the example of c. 603 hermits -- whether or not they are disabled --- can provide an inspiring example to those whom our world marginalizes. Hermits live apparently unproductive lives of deep vulnerability and profound existential questioning. This is the way to authentic holiness. No, it has nothing to do with pride or arrogance. Instead, it encourages genuine humility (loving honesty) and raises to God-given dignity those whose calling is to live the way of the Cross in relative hiddenness.

Long ago I wrote that while the church may do well in ministering to the chronically ill and disabled, it was not at all good at recognizing or nurturing ministry of the chronically ill and disabled. (I now think even my first conclusion is questionable.) I published a single article in Review for Religious on Chronic Illness and Disability as vocation, and potentially as eremitical vocations, but am only now returning to this theology in light of my own experience, and also as part of other writing I am doing. Thanks for the links to the post on Bishop Remi de Roo and diocesan hermits. I stopped watching Joyful's videos once she stopped calling herself a Consecrated Catholic Hermit or a Religious (cf., Diocesan Hermits as Widely Accepted Pathway). . . .. I haven't yet listened to your links. I deleted them from your post until I can do that -- probably tonight and tomorrow. If there is something I should respond to in that video, I will do so after I have had time to digest the contents. Again, thank you for reading this blog and sharing some of your own situation. Sorry this response is so brief.

Proclaiming the Cross of Christ: On the Importance of the Desert and Desert Vocations

[[Hi Sister, I wondered why you stressed that your vocation was a desert vocation. What is so important about the desert? I know that hermits get their name from the Greek for desert -- I read that here, and other hermits talk about it too- but why is that so important? You don't actually live in a desert, and you aren't in some deserted place, so you are not saying a literal desert is necessary. You don't believe that God can only be met and followed in a desert vocation, do you? Do you think that God can be followed better in a desert vocation? And that brings me back around to my first questions. Why are the desert and the hermit vocation so important?]]

Thanks for asking these questions. Because you have already read some of what I have written on this topic, it helps me to see the somewhat different direction they are leading. I appreciate that. What is most important about a desert vocation is that it represents a place where several forms of essential encounter occur and, because the desert leaves one vulnerable in a way that doesn't allow for many distractions, these encounters cannot be easily avoided or left superficial. Thus, these forms of encounter are radical, foundational, and call for a relatively all-consuming commitment from the desert dweller. In the desert, one meets oneself, both one's true and one's false self. One also meets God, and in this encounter, is called to entrust one's entire self to Him in a process of self-emptying (kenosis) and transfiguration. Finally, one meets the existence of evil, the presence of sin and death, failure, distortion, temptation, and all that can lead us to choose or turn away from God and the fullness of life he offers. The desert is the place where the fundamental choices between life and death, freedom and bondage, and despair and hope are presented to us most radically. That means that it is also the context in which the choice for or against God and one's truest humanity can be similarly made.

One way to think about this whole process, and what is at stake in desert spirituality and desert vocations, is to see it as allowing Christ to come to full stature in our lives. Likewise, it refers to us coming to full stature in Christ. As one author puts it, the desert is a "Geography of Growth," ** and as is true in Christianity generally, the Cross is the ever-present measure and standard of desert existence. It marks an event of unprecedented abjection and alienation, and at the same time, it celebrates the divinization and consequent glorification of what had previously been known as godless. This means that in the desert, as was the case with the whole of Jesus' life, hermits are those committed to a life where God's power is perfected in weakness (2 Cor 12:9), where Divine justice is done in God's mercy, and where self-emptying leads to the fullness of meaningful existence. 

In Christ, hermits are committed to posing the deepest and most searching questions of their lives. They confront and live out questions of life and death, meaning and meaninglessness, isolation and communion; in this way, they become those who receive and embody the answer whom God is for every human being and the whole of creation. The desert (which, in NT theology, includes mountains and seas, as well as the grassy slopes associated with the feeding of the multitude, etc.) is the privileged context in which all of this occurs. 

So, no, I am not necessarily speaking of a literal desert as the home of the hermit. Many human experiences are desert experiences and make it possible to live a desert existence. For instance, chronic illness and disability represent such an experience. So would poverty, joblessness, homelessness, and similar states of loss and deprivation. Whenever and wherever we are thrown back upon our own fragile and limited resources and are confronted by existential questions of meaninglessness and the threat of nonbeing, we have entered the desert with its critical invitation to entrust ourselves entirely to God and to allow the paradoxical Gospel of Christ's Cross to transform us into a new and truly free creation. While God can be met and embraced anywhere, I do believe that the desert, with the radical vulnerability it entails, is uniquely suited to encountering and being embraced by God at the depth that coming to radical faith and our truest humanity require. This is why the desert plays such a central role in both the Old and New Testaments.

Every vocation witnesses especially to some dimension or multiple dimensions of the Gospel. We call these dimensions "charisms" not only because they are spiritual qualities, but because they are gifts of God to us, to his Church, and to the larger world. The hermit vocation brings the desert and Christ's Cross right into the center of the Church with a unique vividness and challenge. As a result of the hermit's witness, it becomes and will continue to become more impossible to marginalize desert experiences like chronic illness, disability, poverty, etc., within the Church. This in turn means that those whom the world devalues, marginalizes, and otherwise excludes find a central place in the Church's life and proclamation of the Gospel of hope. It is no accident that many canonical hermits once considered "unsuited" for apostolic religious life because of chronic illness and physical disability found their true vocations as solitary hermits under c. 603 and identify profoundly with the Cross of Christ and the radical hope it brings to our world. 

** "Geography of growth": this characterization of the desert in the Scriptures is from The Wilderness Years by D. Michael Gross.

James Finley and Merton's Palace of Nowhere

 [[Hi Sister, do you know James Findley (sic)? I wondered what you thought of his work. Thank you.]]

Thanks, I do know Finley's work, yes, though I don't know him personally. I first met his work by reading The  Awakening Call, and also Merton's Palace of Nowhere. I had already read most of Thomas Merton's work and was moving into contemplative prayer and life. I think Finley's work is quite good and rooted in lived experience. I appreciate his acquaintance with mainstream Catholic Theologians like Bernard Lonergan, and his deep acquaintance with spiritual direction (both as director and directee), the healing of complex and developmental trauma, and his esteem for ordinary reality and the way God interpenetrates that as the One who wills to be Emmanuel. One video that might introduce you to some of these characteristics is the following:

I would recommend you begin with Merton's Palace of Nowhere if you are interested in reading Finley from "the beginning". You will get a good introduction to prayer, the nature of contemplation, dimensions of John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul, and a pretty good introduction to mysticism and the way it differs from pseudo-mysticism. In all of this and more Finley is comfortable with paradox so I think he provides a way for readers not yet there themselves, to get comfortable with paradox and its central place in Christianity.

The Parable of the Vineyard Workers and the Generous Vineyard Owner (Reprise)

Today's Gospel is one of my all-time favorite parables, that of the laborers in the vineyard. The story is simple --- deceptively so, in fact: workers come to work in the vineyard at various parts of the day all having contracted with the master of the vineyard to work for a day's wages. Some therefore work the whole day, some are brought in to work only half a day, and some are hired only when the master comes for them at the end of the day. When time comes to pay everyone what they are owed those who came in to work last are paid first and receive a full day's wages. Those who came in to work first expect to be paid more than these, but are disappointed and begin complaining when they are given the same wage as those paid first. The response of the master reminds them that he has paid them what they contracted for, nothing less, and then asks if they are envious that he is generous with his own money. A saying is added: [in the Kingdom of God] the first shall be last and the last first.

Now, it is important to remember what the word parable means in appreciating what Jesus is actually doing with this story and seeing how it challenges us today. The word parable, as I have written before, comes from two Greek words, para meaning alongside of and balein, meaning to throw down. What Jesus does is to throw down first one set of values -- one well-understood or common-perspective --- and allow people to get comfortable with that. (It is one they understand best so often Jesus merely needs to suggest it while his hearers fill in the rest. For instance, he mentions a sower, or a vineyard and people fill in the details. Today he might well speak of a a CEO in an office, or a mother on a run to pick up kids from a swim meet or soccer practice.) Then, he throws down a second set of values or a second way of seeing reality which disorients and gets his hearers off-balance. Instead of "a full day's pay for a full day's work" (note the merely implicit quid pro quo), Jesus' vineyard owner offers "a full day's pay" whenever the person accepts the new job.

This second set of values or new perspective is that of the Kingdom of God. Those who listen have to make a decision. (The purpose of the parable is not only to present the choice, but to engage the reader/hearer and shake them up or disorient them a bit so that a choice for something new can (and hopefully will) be made.) Either Jesus' hearers will reaffirm the common values or perspective or they will choose the values and perspective of the Kingdom of God. The second perspective, that of the Kingdom is often counterintuitive, ostensibly foolish or offensive, and never a matter of "common sense". To choose it --- and therefore to choose Jesus and the God he reveals --- ordinarily puts one in a place which is countercultural and often apparently ridiculous.

So what happens in today's Gospel? Again, Jesus tells a story about a vineyard and a master hiring workers. His readers know this world well and despite Jesus stating specifically that each man hired contracts for the same wage, common sense says that is unfair and the master MUST pay the later workers less than he pays those who came early to the fields and worked through the heat of the noonday sun. And of course, this is precisely what the early workers complain about to the master. It is precisely what most of US would complain about in our own workplaces if someone hired after us got more money, for instance, or if someone with a high school diploma got the same pay and benefit package as someone with a doctorate --- never mind that we agreed to this package! The same is true in terms of religion: "I spent my WHOLE life serving the Lord. I was baptized as an infant and went to Catholic schools from grade school through college and this upstart convert who has never done anything at all at the parish gets the Pastoral Associate job? No Way!! No FAIR!!" From our everyday perspective this would be a cogent objection and Jesus' insistence that all receive the same wage, not to mention that he seems to rub it in by calling the last hired to be paid first (i.e., the normal order of the Kingdom), is simply shocking.

And yet the master brings up two points which turn everything around: 1) he has paid everyone exactly what they contracted for --- a point which stops the complaints for the time being, and 2) he asks if they are envious that he is generous with his own gifts or money. He then reminds his hearers that the first shall be last, and the last first in the Kingdom of God. If someone was making these remarks to you in response to cries of "unfair" it would bring you up short, wouldn't it? If you were already a bit disoriented by a pay master who changed the rules of commonsense (distributive justice) this would no doubt underscore the situation. It might also cause you to take a long look at yourself and the values by which you live your life. You might ask yourself if the values and standards of the Kingdom are really SO different than those you operate by everyday of your life, not to mention, do you really want to "buy into" this Kingdom if the rewards are really parceled out in this way, even for people less "gifted" and less "committed" than you consider yourself! Of course, you might not phrase things so bluntly. If you are honest, you will begin to see more than your own brilliance, giftedness, or committedness; You might begin to see these along with a deep neediness, a persistent and genuine fear at the cost involved in accepting this "Kingdom" instead of the world you know and have accommodated yourself to so well.

You might consider too, and carefully, that the Kingdom is not an otherwordly heaven, but that it is the realm of God's sovereignty which, especially in Christ, interpenetrates this world, and is actually the goal and perfection of this world; when you do, the dilemma before you gets even sharper. There is no real room for opting for this world's values now in the hope that those "other Kingdomly values" only kick in after death! All that render to Caesar stuff is actually a bit of a joke if we think we can divvy things up neatly and comfortably (I am sure Jesus was asking for the gift of one's whole self and nothing less when he made this statement!), because after all, what REALLY belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God? No, no compromises are really allowed with today's parable, no easy blending of the vast discrepancy between the realm of God's sovereignty and the world which is ordered to greed, competition, self-aggrandizement and hypocrisy, nor therefore, to the choice Jesus puts before us.

So, what side will we come down on after all this disorientation and shaking up? I know that every time I hear this parable it touches a place in me (yet another one!!) that resents the values and standards of the Kingdom and that desires I measure things VERY differently indeed. It may be a part of me that resists the idea that everything I have and am is God's gift, even if I worked hard in cooperating with that (my very capacity and willingness to cooperate are ALSO gifts of God!). It may be a part of me that looks down my nose at this person or that and considers myself better in some way (smarter, more gifted, a harder worker, stronger, more faithful, born to a better class of parents, etc, etc). It may be part of me that resents another's wage or benefits despite the fact that I am not really in need of more myself. It may even be a part of me that resents my own weakness and inabilities, my own illness and incapacities which lead me to despise the preciousness and value of my life and his own way of valuing it which is God's gift to me and to the world. I am socialized in this first-world-culture and there is no doubt that it resides deeply and pervasively within me contending always for the Kingdom of God's sovereignty in my heart and living. I suspect this is true for most of us, and that today's Gospel challenges us to make a renewed choice for the Kingdom in yet another way or to another more profound or extensive degree.

For Christians every day is gift and we are given precisely what God knows we need to live fully and with real integrity if only we will choose to accept it and the definitions it entails. We are precious to God, and this is often hard to really accept, but neither more nor less precious than the person standing in the grocery store line ahead of us or folded dirty and disheveled behind a begging sign on the street corner near our bank or outside our favorite coffee shop. The wage we have agreed to (or been offered) is the gift of God's very self along with his judgment that we are indeed precious, and so, the free and abundant but cruciform life of a shared history and destiny with that same God whose characteristic way of being is kenotic. He pours himself out with equal abandon for each of us whether we have served him our whole lives or only just met him this afternoon. He does so whether we are well and whole, or broken and feeble. And he asks us to do the same, to pour ourselves out similarly both for his own sake and for the sake of his creation-made-to-be God's Kingdom.

To do so means to decide for his reign now and tomorrow and the day after that; it means to accept his gift of Self as fully as he wills to give it, and it therefore means to listen to him and his Word so that we MAY be able to decide and order our lives appropriately in his gratuitous love and mercy. The parable in today's Gospel is a gift which makes this possible --- if only we would allow it to work as Jesus empowers and wills it! 

C 603 Challenges: When Bishops are Replaced by New Bishops

[[Dear Sister, while you didn't address this directly, you intimated the existence of potential problems when the bishop who professed and consecrated a c 603 hermit is replaced by another bishop. I understand a diocesan hermit can't just move to a new diocese, so can't follow this bishop, but what happens if, as you say, the new bishop has neither the time, the inclination, nor the appropriate expertise to supervise a solitary hermit? You have stressed the ecclesial nature of the vocation and the synodal nature of the relationship between hermit and diocese, so it seems a real problem if the hermit is willing to live her vocation on these terms, but the diocese would rather forget their c 603 hermit(s) even exist(s). Am I imagining a real problem or a non-existent one?]]

Really important questions, and I am grateful you have asked them after all these years! I have not taken on this constellation of questions on this blog because, until recently, my main information on it was anecdotal. One of the most "dangerous" (or perhaps "tricky") times in the important ecclesial connections that are part of the diocesan hermit's vocation occurs when a bishop dies, moves to another diocese as Archbishop, or is otherwise replaced by another ordinary. Whatever the cause of the replacement, diocesan hermits are pretty much the last persons considered on the list of those needing the new bishop's attention. By itself, that need not be a problem, but when a new ordinary comes into office, it is typical (at least in dioceses with a single bishop) that all other significant points of contact for the hermit will also be changed. The bishop's secretary changes; vicars for religious usually do the same. There will be new Chancellors and Vicar Generals, and few or none of these will be likely to be familiar with an established c 603 hermit in the diocese. That is even more true if the hermit's consecration was more than a few years in the past.

My own diocese clearly thought about some of these difficulties in asking me to select someone to act as a delegate for myself and the diocese/diocesan bishop. During one change in episcopal office (there have been five bishops during these years), the outgoing bishop assigned the Vicar for Religious, who already knew me, to meet with me either routinely or in case of special need until a permanent replacement (new bishop) was assigned. In that way, the interim bishop did not have to worry about me in any way, and I had an additional point of consistent contact with the diocese itself besides my delegate, as did Sister Marietta, my delegate. But over the years, new bishops came in, bishops' secretaries shifted to other offices and departments or left the chancery altogether, one Vicar for Religious died, a co-Vicar eventually left for another diocese, and some offices went unfilled for a time -- or simply ceased to be extant due to lack of adequate personnel. Additional difficulties can occur when an incoming bishop has no real sense of what "supervision" of a c 603 hermit actually means, or when diocesan "gatekeepers" (secretaries, for instance) who don't know the hermit have no real sense of why that person should need to meet personally with the new bishop. Some dioceses fail to include diocesan hermits in their directories, which leads to greater difficulties in setting appointments with the local ordinary or other diocesan personnel. It also means the diocese cannot easily refer others to the diocese's c 603 hermit(s) if they are called for this.

I have heard any number of stories from hermits who have tried to work out their relationship with the diocese, and especially with the bishop. Sometimes, bishops refuse to meet one-on-one and will only meet with all the diocesan hermits as a group. Few dioceses have more than one hermit, but when they do, this arrangement is not necessarily helpful because each vocation is incredibly individual, and each hermit really needs to be known in the same way. Moreover, real trust between bishop and hermit is rooted in personal knowledge, takes time to solidify, and thus, at least some of their meetings need to be one-on-one. All of this represents another reason delegates are such an important option in assisting a diocese to carry out its appropriate oversight for such a significant and little-understood vocation. I have never met a bishop who feels c 603 calls for too much from him or is an onerous responsibility -- whether out of a false sense of self-importance, or for any other reason. Most of those I know currently -- usually through candidates and those seeking information -- understand and honor the significance of the vocation, and that number is growing all the time. 

I have met or heard about incoming bishops for whom c 603 is a surprise --- especially if they learn of it through meeting their own c 603 hermit for the first time. (This was my experience (and his!) when I first met Oakland's current bishop.) Recently, the stories I hear are much more positive than in the canon's earlier history, with bishops seeking to treat c 603 candidates and consecrated hermits in the pastoral way the canon calls for. After all, solitary hermits with an ecclesial vocation really need these connections to be vibrant ones, even though actual meetings between bishops and hermits will be infrequent (once or twice a year). Most of these dioceses use delegates (usually religious women and men, other bishops, or Vocation personnel and Vicars). On the other hand, there are still way too many dioceses that refuse to even consider c 603 vocations, or that don't understand the significance of the vocation sufficiently to give them the appropriate supervision they call for.

The c 603 hermit needs to grow in her ecclesial sensibilities and place in the diocese and universal church. The diocesan role was envisioned to be central, whether for this reason or others (e.g., subsidiarity in regard to the exercise of ecclesial authority). Most of us turn to others who strengthen, support, educate, and help direct our growth in this. These may include pastors, spiritual directors, local religious communities, friends in the consecrated state, other c 603 hermits, including those in other countries, and so forth. It is unfortunate when the hermit's chancery excludes itself from such an arrangement. No one is served well when this happens, but that is especially true not only for the solitary consecrated hermit, but for the vocation itself and the local Church it is meant to nourish and serve. Brief though this post is, it points to one of the most important constellations of problems facing c 603's continuing use in the Church. Hopefully, this will raise some more specific questions to continue what is a new discussion here.

P.S. I should have noted, in the situation you describe with a bishop moving to another diocese, if he is doing so as that diocese's new Archbishop, a hermit might well "follow" him with his permission. If he were merely moving to another diocese without becoming its new Archbishop, then the permission of the second diocese's Archbishop would also be required. Significant discernment would be necessary by both the hermit and her bishop/proposed new Archbishop.

New Camaldoli Hermitage Evacuation Update

Dear Oblates and Friends, Thank you very much for your prayers and concern for the community of New Camaldoli as the wildfires continue here in Big Sur. We are grateful for the many messages of concern and prayer we have received during these difficult days. As our area is presently under an Evacuation Warning because of the Plaskett Fire to the south of the Hermitage and the Timber Fire continues to burn to our north, we decided it was prudent to evacuate and close the Hermitage before the situation became more urgent. Members of the monastic community and staff are safe and being well cared for.

We have been deeply touched by the prayers and expressions of support we have received from so many people. Please continue to hold New Camaldoli in your prayers, but also let your prayers extend to our neighbors throughout Big Sur, especially those whose homes and livelihoods are threatened by fires. We pray also for the safety of the firefighters and emergency personnel working in difficult and dangerous conditions, and for their families who wait and worry for them. We are profoundly grateful for their courage, dedication, and service to our community as they work to protect the Hermitage and this beautiful and fragile part of the Big Sur coast.

For the time being, the Hermitage remains closed while the fire is active and the evacuation warning remains in place, and we will announce reopening plans when it is appropriate to do so.

With gratitude for your prayers, friendship, and support,
Fr. Ignatius 

Prior - New Camaldoli Hermitage

With New Camaldoli already empty, Fr. Ignatius, walks alone from the church to the waiting car after entrusting the Hermitage and all it holds to God. He would be the last monk to leave

On the Adequacy and Supposed Inadequacy of c 603

[[Hi Sister, I watched a video about you and c 603 that said the canon was ineffective in correcting problems with hermits, and so, what was the use of the canon anyway? The person creating the video noted that if a hermit wanted to choose their own spiritual director, they could do that, and the canon, or maybe the bishop, had nothing to say in the matter. I thought they were saying again, what was the use of a canon law that did nothing anyway? As I say, the whole video (Leaving an Ugly Situation) seemed to be about you and canon 603 and said that your Diocese didn't even know who you were when this person called them about you. It raised a ton of questions for me [about hermits and their dioceses], but I wanted to ask here about the inadequacy of Canon 603. Do you think that's the case? I don't think I have ever heard you opine that the canon is insufficient or inadequate; have you? How would you respond to someone putting up a post like the one mentioned?]]

Thanks for the questions. I will answer those that are relatively new and skip the others for now. Unfortunately, when the author complains that c 603 does not deal with hermits whom a diocese has complaints about or who live their vocation badly, and for that reason, "what's the use of such a canon?" it's a lot like saying "that hammer is ineffective at drilling holes, so what is the use of having such a tool?" Similarly, saying that "c 603 does not specify who can be the hermit's spiritual director, etc." is a lot like complaining that a dictionary doesn't dictate (or legislate) how a writer must compose an essay. The point in either case is that c 603 does what it is meant to do. It was not created to discipline hermits or to chart the exact steps a consecrated hermit must take in her decidedly individual relationship and journey with God. It was created to establish in universal law -- and thus "raise" an ancient and still relatively little-known and inadequately valued vocation to the consecrated state of life.

Other canons and canonical processes are dedicated to doing the kind of thing your author decries c 603 for not doing. If someone is truly not living their vocation, there are canonical mechanisms for dealing with such a situation. If one's spiritual director is not sufficiently fitted to work with this vocation or this candidate/hermit, the diocese can even request the candidate (or hermit) find someone more suitable and provide specific referrals if that would be helpful. Still, c 603 is a wonderful combination of the "sine qua non" and the personally defined and necessary. It provides for a vocation of hardly-to-be-imagined depth served both by significant constraints and an awesome flexibility and responsiveness to the Holy Spirit. This means that c 603 reflects both the universally valid and the truly individual and deeply personal in a way that tries to assure the hermit/candidate neither falls into the worldly distortion of individualism nor slides into the anti-Christian pettiness and blind rigidity of legalism. 

Likewise, therefore, the canon expects the creative collaboration between Church and candidate/hermit as both together explore the face and importance of solitary eremitical life in today's world. It seems to me that c 603 invites a startlingly vivid embodiment of the process of synodality where both hermit and Church together walk their own vocations in a mutual and mutually enhancing freedom most would regard not only as authentic, but as prophetic. One partner's freedom enhances the freedom of the other and both challenge and inspire the other to truly be who God calls them to be. The Church learns from the hermit's lived experience while the hermit's own vision of and response to her vocation is also shaped by the ecclesial sensibilities revealed and entrusted to her by that same Church. Written over a period of several years during this journey of discernment with the local Church, the Rule of Life required by c 603 brings together what cannot be relinquished by either the Church or the solitary hermit committed to living the vocation given by God to both the Church and the hermit as a means to authentic humanity and union with God. In this way, Canon 603 does a great deal of work and allows for other canons in the Church's code to play their own roles when and as genuinely necessary. 

No, I don't believe c 603 is deficient. I do think it is inadequately understood, and that is where some experienced c 603 hermits will be a great help to the Church in the future. Most especially, the Church requires the assistance of those who understand the canon not merely as a norm (remember canon means "norm") or piece of ecclesiastical legislation they have learned about from the outside in, but instead as an astounding topographical map of an existential journey they have made or are making and therefore understand from the inside out. Once the canon is appreciated in this way, criticisms of its putative inadequacy and negative evaluations of its reasons for existing fall away.

As a final note, I have responded before to the accusations made against me in the video you referred to. If you wish to read that, you will find the post here: Misconceptions and whole cloth untruths. Several posts written during the Summer of 2024 are linked to the topics discussed in that post.

Why Not Describe Living With Chronic Illness More Often?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I wondered why you don't describe living with chronic illness more often. You don't give much sense of what living with intractable seizures and chronic pain is like. Isn't that important to you? Don't you think it would be important to your readers? I know you said that speaking about these things goes a long way and isn't necessary, but I am curious about how you live life as a hermit in such circumstances. I think that's important. Don't you?]]

Thanks for your questions. I am especially glad you have read what else I have already said about this, especially the part about how a little bit of this kind of sharing goes a long way and is usually not especially necessary except to signal lived experience, the need for prayer, or to indicate one might be helpful to others experiencing something similar. I do believe that the question of how one lives a hermit life in the presence of serious chronic illness is an important one. My own decision is to witness to the life I live, and to give less space to the obstacles/potential blessings that hinder and result from that life. Think of it this way. If I were traveling along a desert trackway and tripped over a rock, I might well describe how serious the fall I took was and how it changed my plans for the present. I would not necessarily speak about the rock's dimensions, color, composition, age, or rarity, and I would certainly not describe this every time I mentioned having once taken a serious fall that affected my life as a hermit.

I think that readers of this blog, and those who might be familiar with my other writing or teaching, will come to understand that over the years I have come to understand chronic illness as a potential vocational path, an example of desert existence and liminality, a way of life that marginalizes, provides unique perspective, opens one to the Gospel in significant and vivid ways, and intensifies the yearning we each have to become fully, authentically, and meaningfully ourselves in spite of our limitations. In other words, my experience of chronic illness points me directly to God and my own yearning for fullness of life with God in Christ. These are the things I write about, the things that are truly important to me and (I sincerely think!!!) to God. They are the things that allow me to write about the very full, even unimaginably rich life that c 603 involves in its hiddenness. They are the things that allow some aspects of uncontrolled seizure, the difficulty of managing medications and other treatment modalities, and the struggle associated with intractable chronic pain to assume places of grace in my life. This, in turn, opens my life to the white martyrdom (witness) of the hermit and enriches the life of the Church and others as well.

You have said you are curious. That's great. If you have specific questions about living with chronic illness, dealing with medications, or working with a huge variety of clinicians, please ask them. If you have specific needs to ask the question and understand the answer, please state those needs and ask the question!! If the question or answer violates boundaries of privacy, propriety, comfort, etc., I will be sure to let you know while saying what I can. (Mostly, of course, I'll just say what I can.) Some questions I could answer privately, but not on this blog. If that's sufficient for you, then great, ask away!! Your questions could really be helpful in indicating what would be useful for readers beyond what I have already written, and I would be grateful to you for them.