Canon 603: Normativity and the Prevention of Distortions, Abuses, Counterfeits and Frauds

[[Sister, you wrote that Bishop Remi de Roo gave several different reasons for asking the II Vatican Council to make eremitical life a state of perfection and include it in canon law. Could you please post these here? I could not copy them.]]

Sure. They are 1) The fact of a growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. Question continues:

[[I can see where these really are positive reasons for establishing Canon 603. Was it also a way to regulate the growth of the vocation or minimize distortions or abuses even if these weren't the reason the Canon came into existence? Thank you.]]

Yes. to point out the normative and ecclesial nature of canon 603 vocations is to say that the Church desires to respond to the Holy Spirit in authentic ways. This also therefore means that abuses, distortions, disedifying stereotypes, and destructive eccentrics or eccentricities cannot mask themselves as Catholic hermits or the stuff of canon 603 life as well as that the Church has a stake in being sure this does not occur. The big difference between noting that canon 603 ALSO helps prevent abuses and saying that it actually grew out of an attempt to deal with abuses should be clear. Since these elements are something of an informal vision of the place of the eremitical vocation in the Church, and since they are positive and ecclesially focused, they too underscore that the flip side of the positive normative nature of the canon involves the prevention of abuses.

What remains true however, is that unless the Church was (and is) faced with a true gift of the Holy Spirit  in eremitical life no canon would be necessary; nor would any exist. The Church could simply ignore (as "hermits", not as needy people!) the fraudulent or counterfeit "hermits" populating the various wildernesses (including internet sites!) of the world. The corollary then is that with this canon (i.e., this norm) the proliferation of counterfeits and frauds alongside those very few authentic vocations who consider this vocation seriously because of the canon, makes recognizing, exploring, and honoring the normative nature of the canon even more critical. While it is not meant to validate eccentricity and inauthenticity, it does pique the interest of many lone individuals who will never be professed accordingly for these same reasons (and better ones as well!).** As former detective Monk might say, in this regard Canon 603 is both a blessing and a curse.

I am not entirely sure about the idea that the canon was meant to regulate the growth of such vocations if by that you mean it was meant to prevent there from being lots and lots of them, for instance. The Church knows this is a relatively rare vocation and that few are called to human wholeness in this way. However, the specific non-negotiable  or defining elements of the canon do prevent just any lone pious person from thinking of themselves (much less portraying themselves publicly) as a hermit just as it prevents some of the practices which would surely proliferate without it: e.g., solitary apostolic religious for whom being a hermit is a "metaphor" for their lives, misanthropes, and others seeking to validate their strangeness or their failures at charity and relationships by applying the word "hermit" to their lives, Saturday-only contemplatives, married hermits, and any number of other examples I have mentioned in the past 7 years.

You may have noticed that I posted an answer to the question as to whether the Episcopal solitary was the same as the RC Hermit. In fact, it turns out that the Episcopalians use a canon which is sort of a catchall for unusual cases --- cases in which a person is not professed as part of a recognized Order or Community, for instance. While the solitaries I know personally in the Episcopal Church live lives which resemble my own in all the elements Canon 603 requires of the hermit, the Canon under which they are professed does NOT spell out these elements in the same way Canon 603 does. Thus, while I don't know if the Episcopal Church has problems with Bishops professing individuals as "solitaries" even if they do not live a desert spirituality, this too makes it clear that Canon 603 does limit the growth of the vocation to those persons who DO live its central and non-negotiable elements.

** Should anyone doubt that Canon 603 (and those professed under it) has subsequently led to MANY people seeking to be professed accordingly one story might help here. I was speaking to a Vicar for Consecrated Life about his diocese's experience with hermits, hermit candidates for profession, etc. This diocese has professed one diocesan hermit in the history of the canon, and that was only within the past decade. However, he said that every month (he may have said every week, I can't recall exactly now) people approach the diocese seeking to be admitted to profession as diocesan hermits. None of them has gotten as far as this one diocesan hermit in regard to the process of discernment and admission to public profession. (Note well that this is a diocese open to having diocesan hermits.)

If we take the lowest average possible while omitting periods of holidays and possibly the Summer months (and my sense is this is a fairly conservative number) that means that of at least 100 or so persons seeking admission to profession as a diocesan hermit in the past decade only 1 has been professed under canon 603 in this one diocese. Many dioceses of course have professed none and some have actually determined they will profess none in the foreseeable future. (There are significant pros and cons to this decision.) A few have professed several (we sort of laughingly call them "hotbeds" of eremitical life!). I think this too indicates that Canon 603 does naturally limit the growth of this vocation --- and rightly so. It also indicates, I think, why it is important to write publicly about this canon and the meaning of its central or defining elements. Some of these people will  actually one day become diocesan hermits if they can only come to understand and embrace the life it defines. Others never will, while a number of others probably never should.

Will Canon 603 disappear due to the many Abuses it has Suffered in its short life?

[[One lay hermit has said that because of "all the abuses" of canon 603 by canonical hermits and Bishops, the church will one day go back to having only one pathway of hermit life. She says that Bishop's (sic) leniency and lack of knowledge about the lives of eremitical saints or rules of life have allowed dissident nuns to be professed in some dioceses when others [bishops] like her own would never allow them because they are too visible, read books by heterodox nuns, etc. . . . even while orthodox candidates are prohibited from being canonically professed because they must work in hospitals. She forecasts the situation will continue to require more and more laws because of such abuses. It seems like she believes one day the Church will just get rid of c 603 which only came to be to prevent abuses anyway but she didn't [specify] this. How accurate is this perception and how reasonable this opinion?]]

Hmmm, this hermit's version of the situation sort of makes me want to check to see what books I have either mentioned reading or recommended here!

But seriously, I think that first of all it must be granted that canon 603 is a new (31 year old), demanding, and at the same time, flexible canon governing a little-known and less-well understood vocation which, as I have mentioned just recently, combines non-negotiable elements with the requirement that a hermit write her own Rule. Some problems associated with the common requirement that a hermit be self-supporting in some way have occurred for instance; this requirement does mean that Bishops differ on things like the amount of active ministry or other work outside the hermitage a hermit may do --- though all tend to prohibit full time work, especially outside the hermitage. Others problems have occurred because the central elements of the canon must be read from within the desert and hesychastic traditions if they are to be understood, and Bishops and would-be hermits have not always done so. When I spoke of some Bishops needing to learn that "the silence of solitude" was a Carthusian term this was part of what I mean here. Have there been abuses or at least misuses? Yes, and I would call one or two of these doozies! However, I would not call the number high. In fact, to suggest the canon has been fraught with abuses to the extent that it will simply go by the wayside is alarmist nonsense I think.

What is more the case is that there have been occasional mistakes made as Bishops and chanceries continue to determine what authentic contemporary vocations which embody traditional essential elements look like on the ground. These mistakes, however, are more like growing pains than actual abuses and because there are so few hermits in an absolute sense, they are of greater import for the faithful and the vocation itself than they might be otherwise. As the canon gets older, however, and examples of authentic contemporary solitary eremitical life become more numerous, more prevalent, as well as better established and known, and as the problematical issues involved in practical implementation of the canon which have not and cannot really be specifically dealt with by the canon itself are explored by those living the life,  or by theologians, canonists, and historians, the misuses of the canon as well as simple misjudgments or mistakes will diminish and outright abuses (which are truly rare) will cease. I should note that it is precisely because the Church has not multiplied laws that ambiguities and unclarities continue or remain.

At the same time I think we must be careful to not identify legitimate diversity or variation as "abuses." Hermits have always differed from one another: some are scholars, some are not; some are very conservative in various ways while others are less so. Some are completely reclusive or anchorites while others are more peripatetic or at least more involved in their parishes; some are writers and spiritual directors while others, of course, are not. Some strike us as eminently sane and others strike us as complete nutcases. They may all be authentic hermits.  We must realize that canon 603 allows for genuine diversity even as it remains normative of eremitical life in the Catholic Church. What we must let go of is the notion that canonical standing is necessarily related to legalism or that admission to canonical standing under canon 603 is equivalent to a diocese's or bishop's imprimatur or even a nihil obstat on a book --- only applied to a person. It is not.

"Canonical Standing" is not really "Canonical Approval"

You see, as my response to an email last week noted, the use of the term "approval" in the phrase "canonical approval" is misleading and more than a little superficial when it leads to these kinds of notions. It should probably be used only very cautiously to indicate "approval for admittance to profession and canonical standing". Otherwise, "canonical standing" is the better phrase. After all, what the church does in extending or admitting to canonical standing is not precisely the same as "approving" the person's theological preferences, taste in reading material, or even their orthodoxy (though we can of course presume they are faithful Catholics!). Instead the church has discerned the presence of a Divine vocation and is admitting the person to the constellation of stable relationships which will continue to mediate this very call to the person and, hopefully, allow her to respond with fidelity, integrity, and grace. What approval exists does so for the sake of admitting the person to a place of  ecclesial trust and commensurate obligations with regard to this specific vocation in the life of the Church.

Neither does the church thereby say that THIS person has status in the church whereas, for instance, the lay hermit has either a lesser status or none at all. They both have status in the church (meaning they each have standing in law and are (or, in the case of a lay hermit, are already) initiated into a state of life; as I have said a number of times, status in this case is not a matter of social priority or different positions in a merely social hierarchy); in one hermit this occurs by virtue of the sacrament of baptism alone, and in the other hermit by virtue of baptism and a new consecration which involves the acceptance of the rights and obligations linked to additional canon laws and the relationships these imply.

It is true that bishops, like anyone charged in the Church with nurturing, protecting and discerning the existence and quality of a vocation, exercise some subjectivity in professing and consecrating hermits, but my own (admittedly limited) experience is that generally they move beyond their own personal biases or theological preferences and look to the good of the vocation itself. Neither, again, can we identify legitimate mistakes or missteps as abuses. For instance, occasionally some bishops will profess very young adults as solitary hermits only to find when s/he seeks a dispensation from her vows and/or desires to start or enter a community that the c 603 or solitary eremitical vocation tends to be a second-half of life vocation and that the young person usually does better entering an eremitical community. At worst this is simply a mistake --- if in fact, it even qualifies as that.

Abuses, on the other hand, occur when the non-negotiable elements of the canon are  actually disregarded or treated as optional or merely "metaphorical." (By the way if one cannot live these elements one's supposed orthodoxy hardly matters.) As we discussed recently, one of the reason for blogs like mine is to discuss the nature of canon 603 and of profession and consecration under this canon from the perspective of lived experience. What I write comes out of my reflection on my own vocation and how the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and world today with regard to this form of eremitism. Other diocesan hermits are also contributing by sharing their own experience with their bishops.

Proliferation of Laws and the Disappearance of C 603??

I honestly don't have a clue what the hermit you are referring to is talking about when s/he suggests there is or has been some proliferation of rules to combat abuses. That simply is not happening --- nor is it the way the Church deals with difficulties on such a small scale. At most what we see with regard to canon 603 are anecdotes about experiments (or trials) with the canon in specific dioceses which resulted in problems along with calls for informal guidelines on specific topics (age, formation, work, insurance, ministry, etc). These guidelines will again come from lived experience gained through dialogue between Bishops, canonists and hermits in their dioceses. Still, I don't foresee a proliferation of rules --- not with regard to eremitical life under canon 603 --- and certainly I don't foresee a proliferation of canons per se. With history and lived experience will come wisdom, and with wisdom, resources (commentaries, dissertations, guidebooks, articles, even blogs (!) etc) that dioceses may draw on and which can guide further prudent and inspired (discerning) usage of canon 603. Even so, ordinarily Bishops and those that assist them in their discernment will have the final word here --- not another law or laws. They will use or refrain from using both these resources and canon 603 as they deem wise in each individual case and they and their curia will grow in their own ability to determine appropriate usage and evaluate the candidates that come before them.

More specifically, I don't see canon 603 going anywhere or disappearing from the Code of Canon Law. It will continue to be used more and more wisely and prudently across the board --- which will free some who have hesitated to use it at all to go ahead when authentic vocations come their way. What is unquestionable is that it is an important piece of legislation which stops the gap in universal law regarding one of the most ancient, rare, and significant forms of Christian existence in the life of the church. It helps protect a gift of the Holy Spirit; any other way of seeing it is inadequate at best. Further, by the way, it is not the second of two pathways to eremitical life; it is the third of three main avenues, lay (non-canonical), semi-eremitical (usually canonical and associated with congregations), and diocesan eremitical life (canonical and solitary) --- each admitting some variation or personal diversity.

Neither, as I have now written several times, is establishment in law really merely a Johnny-come-lately idea whose birth was due to abuses or the desire for social status by some unhappy lay hermits. Eremitical life since at least @ the 5th C. has often been lived under the supervision of diocesan Bishops, or other local ordinaries (e.g., Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, etc). Correspondingly, dioceses and regions had canons and statutes regulating these vocations on the local level. To suggest otherwise is historically (and ecclesiastically) naive. Canon 603 differs because it is a universal law and a precedent-setting one at that. For these reasons I have to say I think the hermit you referred to is mistaken in her conclusions, more than a little overly-cynical in her analysis, and inaccurate in her perceptions and predictions.

Continuation of a Conversation of the Normative Nature of Canon 603

The following post is a continuation of a conversation begun in email regarding my own online presence and the seeming harshness of my criticism a couple of years or more ago of the Archdiocese of Boston for using canon 603 as a stopgap means of professing Sister Olga Yaqob. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is not about Sister Yaqob per se (I continue to think she is an amazing person and a fine religious), but about the  appropriate implementation and meaning of canon 603. The OP's comments and questions are italicized.

Sister Olga is amazing in her willingness to plunge into work that kept her fed, and then had a chance to live in solitude on her days off. So her definition of hermit might be equally true as yours, and she carried her hermitage in her heart, as saints of encouraged. Her choices were limited.

Yes, you are correct that her choices were limited just as they are for all of us seeking to live LIVES of eremitical solitude. Canonical hermits, however cannot go out and get full time jobs outside the hermitage nor can they be satisfied with one day of contemplative prayer a week. Those too are limitations which the very nature of their lives, personal and public commitments, and the canon which governs these impose. Canon 603 hermits are not wealthy --- at least generally speaking. They do live poor lives and quite often live at a subsistence level.

They mainly work from within the hermitage (or on the property) and do a variety of things to keep body and soul together. Some do receive disability or other subsidies (depending on the country, etc) but all mainly and often only work from within their hermitage doing any number of things consistent with their contemplative and solitary life. Typically, if a person cannot do this, it is understood by dioceses as a sign that the vocation is not one they can pursue at this point in time. It is sometimes seen that they may therefore not be called to eremitical life just as it is also the analogous (though reversed) case that those who cannot work full time as religious or who are disabled, for instance, are ordinarily unable to enter a religious congregation. While it might be a good idea to have dioceses assist perpetually professed hermits to live their lives so that more folks CAN pursue a truly eremitical life (there is a debate about this among hermits and others), there is NO real debate that full time work outside the hermitage is incompatible with eremitical life as the Church understands it.

What Sister Olga saw as a valid definition of eremitical life you see is not the real question. What constitutes the normative vision of the eremitical life is defined clearly in canon 603 according to which she was (as the rest of us are) obligated to live and shape her own life. That canon is clear: a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world. Canon 603 does not define an eremitism of the heart ONLY. It defines a life measured both externally AND internally, institutionally and personally in these terms. Olga's life at BU did not meet this criterion by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that she has dropped any mention of canon 603, does NOT refer to herself as a hermit, as well as the fact that her diocese has stopped referring to her profession as made under canon 603 suggests to me she knew this to be true and agrees with this assessment --- as, I think, did Boston and a lot of folks who questioned the situation --- including faithful, diocesan hermits, other Bishops, canonists, Vicars for Religious, etc. In any case she has moved on and continues to do wonderful things with her life.

I can see the unusual circumstances Sister Olga was in, and she probably felt far more solitary being in a strange country, and trying to stay close to the Church, than many other hermits. I do not think Canon 603 is necessary to protect a hermit, and the Holy Spirit can handle this without laws, and has risen up this type of vocation since the beginning of the Church, so I do not think you need to be worried about it, as you offer your viewpoint.

I agree that Sister Olga's circum-stances were difficult and the way she dealt with these is one of the things that makes her so admirable. The problem here, however, is that feeling solitary is not the same as being a hermit. MANY people today are isolated and marginalized. Many feel alone and disconnected from their families, homelands and cultures. Nonetheless the intensity of Sister Olga's feelings (or those of these many others) is somewhat beside the point; we do not call the isolated, marginalized, and lonely "hermits" unless they also ARE truly hermits, nor do we automatically profess and consecrate them under canon 603 as a stopgap solution to their situation.

One does not need to be professed as a religious (much less a hermit) in order to "stay close to the Church" (we baptized ARE Church) and there is no apparent reason Sister Olga could not, for instance, have embraced consecrated virginity for women living in the world as a way of life if she was looking for a form of consecrated life which allowed her to live fully in the world while serving the Church through active ministry --- unless of course she (and/or her Bishop) was looking, for instance, to eventually create a religious community and seek canonical standing for that. (In such a case c 604 would not have worked and c 603 was not meant for such a purpose either.) As for needing the canon or not, I have argued and continue to argue that the canon is precisely the way the Church assists the Holy Spirit to raise up authentic solitary eremitical lives. It is not that the charismatic and the canonical conflict. Instead they come together in this ecclesial vocation where law serves love.

You speak of Sister Olga as an acceptable exception to this eremitical norm. The problem of course comes when every Bishop in every diocese decides someone he knows should also be counted as an exception. Canon 603 describes a rare vocation; we must accept that fact. It also describes an infinitely valuable vocation which is a gift (charisma) of the Holy Spirit. We must also accept and honor that fact with our actions and policies. Using canon 603 to profess and consecrate exceptions to the rule is an inevitable way to empty the canon of meaning and vitiate the gift this vocation actually is. The canon is not there to accommodate folks who simply cannot be professed any other way --- unless of course they ALSO have a truly eremitical vocation; it is not there to give lonely folks a way to belong (though it assuredly often ALSO does this). It is there to profess those relatively rare instances of eremitical life raised up by the Spirit which the Church considers NORMATIVE of the living eremitical tradition.

There are probably far more personal differences and definitions than a canon law could capture, and that is where the bishop has the authority to work with it the best he can. It is wonderful the bishop gave Sister Olga a sense of belonging. I cannot imaging being in her position.

Actually, I find that the canon is beautifully written not least because it strikes an amazing balance between normativity and flexibility. It is composed of 1) certain non-negotiable elements and 2) the requirement of a personal Rule which applies or configures these elements in the way which is personally best for the hermit herself. There is a vast variety in the way c 603 hermits live the non-negotiable elements of the canon/life. The canon is thus a wonderful example of law and love combined as an expression of truly responsible freedom. Still, the point is that it is a canon; it is a norm for the way the Church understands the solitary eremitical life lived in her name. The hermits professed this way are meant to be exemplars or paradigms of a particular way of life. Again,the canon is not a stopgap way to profess anyone who cannot or will not join a congregation.

I think I can see the root of the confusion, at least mine, when you said Canon 603 was written in 1983. So this is not an ancient church law with a long history of defining it, and now you are in the arena trying to define it. You are defining it with use of the internet, while others may define it differently, not encouraging internet activity. 

Yes. Canon 603 is indeed a modern canon; there is no precedent for it in the Code of Canon Law. That means 1) that it is not the revision of something from the 1917 Code and 2) it supersedes any local diocesan statutes which may still be on the books from throughout the centuries. I believe it is clear in some ways regarding what it calls for even though it does not define these terms. For that reason although I don't need to create a definition it is often important to spell out the history of the vocation and the meaning of the terms used within it (which I think is what you mean) so that it is not seized upon as a canon which applies to just ANY lone person or just ANY isolated and marginalized life.

For instance, stereotypes of eremitical life can blind people to the fact that the life is a healthy one, or that in the main hermits have always tended to live on the margins (and sometimes in the center) of society (rather than in very deep deserts) and offered both the fruits of their skills (in agriculture, for instance), sold goods (created things, art, calligraphy, woven mats, etc), offered advice and spiritual direction (think of anchoresses and their windows which were central spiritual  hubs in medieval towns), or otherwise interacted with their culture and times in ways which 1) protected an essential and contemplative solitude,  2) witnessed to the fact that this vocation is lived in the heart of the Church as well as for the sake of others, and 3) served as a kind of prophetic presence to the Church as whole.

Similarly, because a person does not KNOW the history of the canon or is unfamiliar with eremitical life does not mean the terms of the canon can be defined anyway at all. After all, these terms really DO have meanings just as the term "Catholic Hermit" has a particular and normative meaning within the Church.

But it is understandable that people are literally ignorant of these meanings or (in less understandable and more unfortunate circumstances) choose to ignore them; for this reason it means their definitions may need to be made clear by someone knowledgeable about the eremitical tradition and especially about the history and nature of canon 603. Thus, for instance, a Bishop --- even if he is a canonist --- might not know that "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term with a particular range of meaning both far broader and more intensive than mere "physical solitude" and "external silence". Certainly individuals who become intrigued with c 603 as a possible way of  "getting professed while living alone" don't usually know this. Likewise, "stricter separation from the world" has a meaning but it is not "isolation," "reclusion," (at least not usually), nor "separation from and disdain for created reality as a whole."

So yes, I am doing some of this with the aid of the internet. It is a way of preserving my own eremitical life of the silence of solitude while contributing to the development (or at least the understanding of this new piece) of the living tradition I am publicly committed to. Other hermits explore the same constitutive elements of their lives (and the canon) every day; a number have blogs which allow them to share their reflections on these and other matters for the edification of the Church. Each one does so with the knowledge and approval of her superiors, and I would wager, each one does so in a careful and discerning manner because she values the gift this vocation is to the Church and world.

Followup Question: Resistant to Canon 603 in one's Heart of Hearts

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I am shocked that anyone who feels the way the person does in the post about Bishops requesting they become a canon 603 hermit would even consider such a thing. But aren't there stories about superiors asking people to do things like this despite their not wanting to? True, they don't happen so much anymore but I know I have heard some. What would happen if the person became convinced that God was calling her to this because her Bishop asked her to accept profession?]] (cf, Sickened by being Called)

Hi there yourself! Of course it is very unlikely today that a Bishop would do as you describe. Most dioceses have at least a handful of people who really desire to be professed in this way and a Bishop would be far more likely to discern a true vocation from among these before he would turn to someone who speaks about the vocation itself in such negative terms or who truly feels sickened by the thought of being professed in this way and personally having such a vocation. To be frank, were a Bishop to act in this way it would be a slap in the face of those who deeply desire such profession and have presented themselves in good faith for discernment with the diocese only to be deemed unsuited for an extended discernment process or for admission to profession itself.

It would be insulting to those dioceses who have professed candidates in good faith or to diocesan hermits who both love their vocation and are committed to canon 603 as a legitimate and significant instance of the development of such. Further, it would not be the healthiest thing for the person being professed and could well lead to a failed vocation, compromised conscience judgments, and thus too, to actual sin. Finally, it would set a terribly destructive precedent regarding how discernment takes place, how we gauge the presence of a vocation, how the Holy Spirit works in these matters, how we conceive of authentic obedience or the theology of grace, and a number of other issues including the question of the validity and edifying quality of such a "commitment" or the vows used to embrace it. So let's be clear that on any number of grounds, spiritual, theological, pastoral, and canonical, Bishops and their curia would generally find such an arrangement completely inappropriate and even offensive.

A Change of Mind and Heart?

But your question shifts things a bit. What if the person truly became convinced she should do this because of the Bishop's desire to profess her?  In such a case SOME of the problems would drop away or at least be diminished. For instance, we would not need to be as concerned about the validity of the vows, of creating a disedifying situation for the diocese, nor so much about potentially creating or colluding in a situation where the individual could be compromising or violating her own conscience judgments. But to really be sure of the truth of her conviction, other things would also have to change. The individual would need to accept whole-heartedly that the vocation was the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church; she would need to esteem it and its developing nature. She would need to reject the idea that any variations present generally indicate an abuse of the canon and come to clarity that variability from diocese to diocese may well indicate the result of the Church's response to the Holy Spirit.

She would need a correlative change of heart as well. She would really need to be convinced that this was the way God was calling her personally to achieve human wholeness and holiness. She could not only not be "sickened" by the vocation but would probably need to evidence some personal enthusiasm for and imagination regarding its place in and possibilities for fruitfully addressing the contemporary church and world. In other words she would need to appreciate the gift or charismatic nature of the vocation both personally and generally. Flowing from this she would likely need to demonstrate a sense of responsibility, gratitude,  joy, and freedom at being called to this. Finally, she would absolutely need to give every evidence that she believed all of this in her heart of hearts and was truly desirous of committing her whole self  for the rest of her life to God in this way and to the vocation itself as an inspired way of serving the Church and the world. In other words, she would need to give evidence that petitioning for admittance to profession as a diocesan hermit was an act of profound discernment and obedience, not simply a matter of doing what someone else thought was a good idea --- even if that person is the Bishop of the diocese.

Discernment and Obedience in the Past and Now

Yes, there are many stories about people taking on tasks because others desired it. There are numerous stories about superiors desiring something and  "subjects" accepting this as the will of God. More, we have had people accepting roles as Priors, Abbots, Abbesses, Bishoprics and even the papacy for reasons they thought constituted signs of the will of God while also admitting grave reservations about the truth or prudence of such a thing. Just recently in light of Benedict XVI's resignation we remembered the story of Celestine V, a hermit who was convinced to become Pope but who resigned his office within just a few months for the good of the Church. Despite doubts, Celestine had accepted the will of the non-conclave electors putting an end to a two year process of election. Good came from Celestine's election AND his resignation, but it seems that the deeper doubts and desires proved to be the truer pointers to or signs of the will of God in Celestine's life --- at least in the long term! Too often in the history of the Church obedience was defined in terms of doing what one was told and discernment was simply treated as synonymous with "hearing what the superior desired."

Today we recognize that discernment is a complex or at least demanding process of hearkening (listening and responding) to the presence and will of God; in ecclesial vocations (Religious life, ordination, consecrated virginity, diocesan eremitical life) it is truly a mutual process where the Bishop and his staff listen carefully to the candidate, to those who know the candidate well including psychologists, physicians, pastors, directors, to their own minds and hearts, to God and his Church (tradition and history) while the candidate listens carefully to God, to her own mind and heart, to the Church (especially on the tradition and history of her proposed vocation), and to those she is working with at the chancery. Obedience too is not a simple matter of merely "doing what one is told". Because it is a serious form of  hearkening to the voice of God one needs to truly honor all the ways that voice comes to us. In a profession of vows there must be a sense that every person actively involved in coming to this has listened attentively and is responding to the voice of God in this situation. Otherwise the result will not be edifying (it will not build up the Church in love --- much less the Kingdom!) and may even become a scandal.

The meaning of the term "Stopgap vocations"

As a result of a recent  and simplistic mischaracterization of my position on another blog (Cloister Outreach), I wanted to clarify what I mean when I object to using Canon 603 as a "stop-gap vocation" and why that is. Let me be clear that I do not object to hermits becoming cenobites at some point in their religious lives. If a hermit feels genuinely called to do that at some point after discerning and living an eremitical life in good faith for some time, then well and good. But that is not what the term stopgap vocation implies nor is it the situation I have been concerned with.

The term stopgap means just what it says, something is being used to stop (close) the gap which exists between an immediate situation and  the ordinary options which exist to address or resolve the situation. An emergency tracheotomy is a stopgap solution to a more lasting and ordinary solution to the problem of respiratory problems due to blockage of the airway, for instance. Taping two pieces of broken eyeglass frames together is a stopgap solution to the problem of broken spectacles until one can either get the frames repaired or buy new ones. Employing untrained and incompetent people to fill security posts at the airport in a time of increased fear and terrorist threat is a stopgap solution. In the area of vocations when someone seeks to live a cenobitical (that is, a communal) life and to be publicly professed and consecrated as a cenobitical religious but have a number of mishaps in making this happen, turning to canon 603 to get themselves publicly professed and consecrated is a stopgap solution to the problem --- especially if they are doing so with an eye towards becoming a community when that becomes feasible in financial and other ways down the line. It is also an abuse of canon 603 which is meant to govern, profess and consecrate those who have seriously discerned a LIFE vocation to solitary diocesan eremitical life. Beyond this it is dishonest and COULD actually be a fraudulent act depending on circumstances.

Another example (and one which is ordinarily much less sinister but still requires caution) would be someone who is forced to leave religious life because of health issues and who seeks to use canon 603 to continue in public vows and consecration without actually ALSO and SUBSEQUENTLY discerning a true vocation to eremitical solitude. (As I have said many times, eremitical solitude is more than simply living a pious life alone and the call to eremitical solitude must be discerned separately from a call to ordinary monastic solitude or from one's own coming to terms with such loss.)  Similar but once again more sinister examples involve those who have failed at community life but who still want to be "Sisters" or "wear a habit",  those who have failed at life (work, relationships, schooling, individuation in general) and who are looking for a socially acceptable and even estimable way to validate that, and so forth. For many, canon 603 seems to offer a solution to their quandary. Again, however, in each of these cases (except perhaps that of the person who has been forced to leave religious life by illness -- a situation which requires extra caution and discernment) Canon 603 is being misused and the entire idea of a LIFE vocation with solemn commitments and consecration is being betrayed.

If one attempts to use Canon 603, which is geared to SOLITARY eremitical vocations and their protection and governance, to get someone consecrated so that they can THEREAFTER form a community of hermits and skip all of the necessary canonical steps to approval as an institute of consecrated life, this is using Canon 603 as a stopgap solution to the problem. Not only is this a betrayal of the Canon itself, but it is a betrayal of the charism or gift quality the vocation to solitary eremitical life brings to the Church and World. (Please see other posts on the charism of the vocation, or on "the silence of solitude as charism" and "the redemption of isolation" for an understanding of what I mean here.)

At the beginning of the history of Canons 603 and 604 some provinces (the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, etc) refused to profess and/or consecrate anyone according to canons 603 and 604 (consecrated virgins living in the world). They rightly worried that these canons could be used as fallback options or that they really indicated a merely fallback "vocation" for those who failed at religious life and they did not want that. Abuses can and have occurred with c 603 and 604 but the value of these canons and the vocations they govern cannot simply be denied as a result. Even so I know of a couple of other dioceses who have joined LA in its boycott of such vocations precisely because of such abuses. Of course, authentic vocations are also a reality and the Church recognizes this. Unfortunately, the misuse of canon 603, for instance, by those seeking to use it as a stopgap means to consecration could continue to be the basis for greater and greater caution in this regard and even to a functional or virtual suppression of its use. It is really imperative pastorally as well as theologically and spiritually that we do not allow such abuses and misuses to occur.

In any case, I hope my usage is clear, and the nature of my concerns regarding the importance of this abuse are demonstrated in the above, however briefly that may be.

Appreciating the Charism of Diocesan Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, I can see why Bishops might choose to profess an individual who is not really a hermit and ask questions like, "Besides, who will it hurt?" Isn't it more important to deal pastorally with the individual than to be concerned with an abstract idea of a vocation? If a person wants to serve God and do it as a "hermit", why shouldn't he be allowed to do this? I really don't see who it would hurt. After all hermits don't minister to people and are shut away from contact. Isn't this up to Bishops to decide?]]

Thanks for your questions. I am linking this post to another one on the charism of the diocesan hermit and the relation of the life to the exaggerated individualism and narcissism of our culture. I don't want to repeat everything I have already said there so please click on the title of this post to be taken to that one for further reading. 

The Charism of Solitary Eremitical Life

In attempting to clarify why I am not speaking about a mere abstraction but rather concrete circumstances where the eremitical vocation is particularly effective and redemptive perhaps I should restate what the charism or gift quality of the solitary diocesan hermit is to her parish, diocese, and the church and world at large. I tend to point to the canon 603 essential element, "the silence of solitude" as that unique gift. There are a couple of reasons for that. First, we in the first world live in a culture of exaggerated individualism and narcissism. While people living in community combat this problem by their accent on community life and its importance in authentic humanity, hermits participate in this "battle" in their own way, namely by living a life of "the silence of solitude." Eremitical solitude is not about living alone, but living alone WITH God and FOR others. It emphasizes and reveals that human beings are not made to live individualistic or narcissistic lives but instead are completed by God and called to give their lives FOR others. Eremitical solitude is a paradoxical reality and a gift to a world disintegrating under the influence of individualism, narcissism, and a notion of freedom which really means the license to do anything one wants without regard to (or for) others.

Secondly, we live in a world where people live longer, where consumerism and productivity are the major markers of the supposed meaningfulness and value of one's life. Often then people in such a culture have lost (or never had) a sense of the meaningfulness of their lives apart from work, family, etc. Some are bereaved, some are chronically ill, some are isolated elderly, some are prisoners, etc. Hermits do not buy into the consumerist, productivity-as-measure-of value perspectives. At the same time they are physically as isolated as any of the people mentioned above. What is different is that they say with their lives that meaningfulness is a function of one's relation to God and that they are infinitely precious because God holds them to be precious. Through the grace of God the hermit's life takes physical isolation and transforms it into solitude ---- a communal or dialogical reality measured in terms of relationship with God. The experience of eremitical solitude is the experience of meaning, completion, and authentic humanity which is capable of giving to others. Not least, hermits say to people that the redemption of isolation is possible and that even those who cannot compete as consumers or "producers" can live incredibly meaningful and generous lives which contribute to the well-being of society.

Thirdly we live in a world of unrelenting, ubiquitous noise. People not only don't know what silence is, they fear it, think it unnatural, and avoid it at all costs. Most people believe that silence means turning off the TV while listening to an iPod or something similar. Businesses deal with noise by overlaying it with another layer of noise; office buildings pipe in music meant to soothe and distract from silence but also to distract from the constant noise. The problem with this, however, is that unless we have silence in our lives we never learn to truly listen --- especially to the voice of God in our hearts. Articulate speech requires silence, music requires silence if it is not to be mere noise, and human beings require silence if they are to come to the full articulation of selfhood. Hermits attest to the fullness of silence and the silence of solitude.

As I have written before, [[As a hermit I am not silent (or solitary) for instance, because woundedness and pain have rendered me mute and cut off from others, but because silence and solitude are the accompaniment and context for profound speech and articulateness. Silence is part of the music of being loved completely by God; it is a piece of allowing the separate notes of one's life to sound fully, but also to be connected to one another so that noise is transformed into a composition worthy of being heard and powerful and true enough to be inspiring to others. It is an empowered silence and solitude, the silence of solitude, which finds its source in God's love and reflects relatedness to God and others at its very core. Something similar could be said of all of the elements which comprise the life described in Canon 603. The eremitical life, especially in its freedom, is one of relatedness and love in all of its dimensions.]]

Hermits know all of this because, by the grace of God, they live it daily. They live the physical solitude of eremitical life without significant  distraction. They live the silence of others' absence, for instance, and discover it leads to a world of amazing presence --- the presence of God in the ordinary and in their own hearts. They say with their own lives that each person is infinitely valuable, that life is hopeful, no matter the stage or conditions which mark or mar it. Thus, hermits commit to living their vowed lives of stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop and those he appoints as delegates precisely as a significant gift (charisma) God has given to his Church and world. Unless one sees the gift this life is, they will not appreciate it or live it with integrity.

Professing Individuals Who are not Hermits and Will not live Eremitical Life

However, if one DOES understand the gift this life is, they will not profess those who  are not called to live this precise gift. Everyone can learn to tolerate and many even to love silence, but very few are called on to live the gift of eremitical "silence of solitude." To profess those who are not called to this is to short-circuit their own true vocations --- the paths they are summoned to embrace to become fully and authentically human. Eremitical solitude is especially dangerous here since so few are called to authentic humanity in this way.  Those who may be newly bereaved, or yet significantly psychologically wounded, or chronically ill and still needing to deal effectively with this reality will find that eremitical solitude demands more than they are capable of giving at this particular time. Solitude is often needed in all of these situations but ordinarily it is solitude as transitional reality, solitude preparing the way for a reinvigorated or reinvented way of relating to others in more ordinary community. Again, to profess such persons prematurely and with inadequate time and discernment will not serve them well and could be damaging. In any case, I would dispute that there is anything truly pastoral about doing so.

And of course professing those without an authentic call to eremitical solitude means professing those whose lives will not be able to witness effectively to the gift which the silence of solitude really is to the isolated and marginalized of our world. There are such inauthentic vocations today: "hermits" who watch hours of TV in order to distract themselves from illness and isolation; "hermits" who really want to be living in community and ministering full time and whose "solitude" and life of "assiduous prayer and penance" is lived out mainly with a desert day per week; and so forth. To whom do these lives effectively speak? Certainly not to the persons mentioned in the section above this one. It is arrogance and presumption to think that such lives can be called "eremitical". Professing inauthentic vocations may well involve the person professed in a life of hypocrisy, failure, and even therefore, significant sin. More, far from serving God, it is a disservice --- to God, to the vocation itself, and to those who need the gift of the "silence of solitude" because they live full time lives of isolation --- to call such vocations "eremitical." In an individualistic and narcissistic world such professions only extend and intensify the reign of individualism and narcissism within the very vocation meant to stand clearly against them. In short it is a betrayal of God, of God's own gift to the Church and world and, at least potentially, it hurts many people! This is hardly a pastoral approach to the matter nor to the person seeking to be admitted to profession.

The Ministry of the Hermit

While it is true that diocesan hermits do only some limited ministry outside the hermitage (if they do any at all), their lives are a ministry. Eremitical ministry is not so much about what one does as who one is in and with and through God in the silence of solitude. It is not true to suggest that professing people without an authentic vocation will not matter much because hermits are shut away. To the degree they are separated from others physically their lives MUST still speak to others effectively and faithfully --- especially to those who are themselves isolated in some way. This is an integral part of a vocation: God calls, we answer with our profession and lives, and God through his Church commissions us to minister in his name and the name of the Church.

Are Bishops the ones who ultimately determine the matter of who is professed in their dioceses? Yes, but they do so within the constraints of the Canon (603), and the eremitical tradition --- which includes the life experience of contemporary hermits who truly help clarify the nature and establish the limits of the vocation in our contemporary world. Bishops are required to listen carefully to these, to discern carefully with regard to an individual seeking profession under canon 603, to have a clear sense of the gift or charisma this vocation is and to whom, and only then to make decisions which respect all of these elements. Bishops especially cannot disregard any of these elements and simply use the canon as a stopgap means to profess an individual who cannot be professed in any other way, who simply desires it for inadequate reasons (wearing a habit, being a Religious, using a title, validating a failed or merely isolated life, etc), or who wishes to use this profession as an entrance into consecrated life so s/he can then do something else with that life (like founding a community, gaining access to ministries she might not have had access to otherwise, etc). Allowing such professions would actually be a betrayal of the Bishop's own commission to seek out, protect, and nurture new forms of consecrated life --- at least if new means something more than novel, transitory, and disedifying.

I  hope this helps.

Rejecting Eremitical Vocations vs Creating Readiness for Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
      it seems to me that if Dioceses don't agree that Diocesan Hermit candidates have adequate formation then they should just not profess them until they HAVE adequate formation.  I mean that doesn't seem like rocket science to me! Also how can they simply make a blanket judgment against the vocation itself? So what is the diocesan responsibility in forming diocesan hermits? Is it really possible for solitary hermits to get sufficient formation themselves with a bit of help from a spiritual director? Thank you.]]

Well, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Reaching the conclusion you have is not rocket science, is it? First, a diocese is not actually responsible for forming a hermit; they are primarily about discerning the nature and quality of the vocation present before them. However, if a diocese believes the person requires more formation before being admitted to profession, they do need to work with resources available to the hermit to help her determine a plan so that she can get this formation. Thus, a diocese needs to be specific with the individual involved with regard to what areas in which she is deficient , what kinds of things would help with these, and so forth. The reference to needed formation cannot be vague nor can it replace actual discernment on the reality of the vocation itself. For instance, it is not okay to make an aspirant for profession jump through a number of formative hoops if the diocese has already determined she is not called to be a diocesan hermit and will not be admitted to profession. The only way this could work is if the diocese is honest with the person, says they are truly open to seeing things in a new way once the formation issues are taken care of, and then follows through with that.

It is true that sometimes elements in formation can clarify areas of the candidate's life which have caused questions about the reality or nature of a vocation, but in such cases the candidate must know that admission to profession is in serious doubt and that while further formation may assist in clarifying matters and even help take care of areas which lead to doubt, at the same time they may not change the doubtfulness. Honesty and good faith communication is imperative in such instances. Dioceses have not always been good at achieving this kind of openness in communication.  A candidate must agree to get the formation they need --- especially since they bear the brunt of any expense or time commitment required.

How can dioceses make such blanket judgments against vocations per se? Excellent question but not one for which there is a single answer. Some Vicars for Religious (few I hope!), for instance, do not value the contemplative life; if this is so, eremitical life will seem even less valuable. Some Vicars and even Bishops may have seen abuses of canon 603 and have been put off by these. Some dioceses realize that, despite the fact that dioceses do not form hermits, working with hermit candidates involves a long-term commitment to the person as well as a kind of patience and expertise their usual work may not require. They may not be up to that for a single vocation which is rare and seemingly not very fruitful or contemporary. Also, the process of discernment here involves a life with which few Vicars or even Bishops are really familiar in any meaningful sense at all. It is not uncommon for the same stereotypes which plague the world at large in regard to hermits to also plague chancery staff. Some dioceses may indeed have had several poor candidates show up at the chancery door looking for a sinecure, or may even have professed someone and had it turn into a nightmare for everyone involved. Communities have ways of socializing (forming) and supervising members at least partly simply by living with them and also may ask them to leave before perpetual vows. With hermits and consecrated virgins the same safeguards do not exist so the diocese itself needs to be patient and careful over a longer period of discernment.

If a hermit is admitted too soon to perpetual or even temporary profession, especially if the diocese doing so has not confirmed the adequacy of formation (or don't even know how to do so), if the diocese has insufficient knowledge of the eremitical tradition and life,  or if they are unwilling to invest (and demand) the appropriate time for the formation of a solitary eremitical vocation (which the hermit herself must secure), then the eremitical vocation itself is endangered. In such cases I would say better there be NO professions than bad ones. Even so, a blanket refusal to profess anyone is obviously not optimal or even acceptable in the face of canon 605 (which requires Bishops be attentive to new forms of consecrated life) and the movement of the Holy Spirit with regard to true vocations. There are sound solitary eremitical vocations in a number of countries; dioceses must become aware of that and learn from them. Meanwhile, solitary hermits have gotten the formation they have needed to live this life --- and most have done it "on their own" with assistance and mentoring they themselves have acted to include in their lives. Most of the time diocesan hermits are partly formed in religious life and only late discovered a call to solitary life. Still, while it is a longer and more difficult process for those who have no background in religious life, it is generally possible for individuals to come to all that is necessary to live this life by themselves with the assistance of a director and an openness to doing what is necessary to learn and grow theologically, spiritually, and humanly.

What is at least equally essential however, is that dioceses themselves become educated in regard to the eremitical life (especially the solitary eremitical life). They must, for instance, know the difference between a hermit and a pious person who lives alone; they must have done some work in jettisoning the common stereotypes associated with the term "hermit" --- but also be proficient in spotting those same stereotypes when they show up in a candidate who has just arrived on the chancery doorstep. They must have a sense that hermits are created by time as well as by and for  the  silence of solitude and be able to allow those to do their work in a candidate's life. They must have a sense of the normally extended time frame for moving through a discernment process and not be tempted to ignore it --- an act which disrespects the vocation and fails to act with charity towards the candidate. Finally they must understand the central elements of Canon 603, especially the silence of solitude and its function as charism of the eremitical life. As already noted, bishops are called and canonically required to be aware of and foster new forms of consecrated life. While it is a serious commitment in time given the rarity of these vocations, chancery personnel (Bishops, Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, Vocations directors, etc) must foster a readiness to patiently discern and assist such vocations instead of simply rejecting their possibility out of hand.

Solutions to using Canon 603 as a Stopgap Way to Profession

  [[Dear Sister,   Does the situation in the Archdiocese of Boston happen a lot? Is there a real problem with eremitical vocations that are not genuine?Is this one of the reasons there are so few of them? Is it  one of the reasons that dioceses don't always want to profess diocesan Hermits? What is the solution to this?]]

I can't say that situations like the one in the Archdiocese of Boston (cf Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: Abuses of Canon 603)  happens often. In some ways I think this was pretty unique. Remember that there are fewer than 60 or so diocesan hermits in the United States so in an absolute sense diocesan hermits aren't professed or consecrated very often. A few countries have more, most have far fewer. This is partly a function of the fact that the vocation itself is really a rare one.

As I have written before, it is unusual for a person to be called to achieve fullness of humanity and genuine holiness apart from the more usual relationships and activities in which integrity and holiness are formed. While hermits live at the heart of the Church and while we have friends, directors, pastors, and delegates who help support us in our growth, we truly are formed in the silence of solitude. That is the milieu in which we are most at home, where we are healed and challenged beyond what the world outside the hermitage affords. We are CALLED by God to achieve fullness of humanity in this way and to witness to the place of the silence of solitude in every life. Significantly, as I have said many times, this is not a life of individualism, selfishness, narcissism, or misanthropy, but instead is the way in which we come to love most fully and effectively. The problem of course is that it takes a significant period of time to determine which is the case for a particular petitioner for admission to profession under Canon 603 and yes, mistakes are made and we see these in folks who are no more hermits than I am a professional violinist! (I play at the violin, usually quite well, but I am no where near being a professional player.)

You ask about the reasons dioceses don't always want to profess individuals under canon 603. While there are a number of reasons, I think it is true that they boil down to concerns over the authenticity of a call to the silence of solitude, yes. I was reminded today of something I had been told several years ago, namely, that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (and possibly the entire province including the Archdiocese --- implied in all further references to the Archdiocese)) decided a number of years ago (perhaps 20) that they would not profess anyone as a diocesan hermit under c 603 nor would they consecrate any women as CV's under canon 604. The reason given had to do with the perception that these were "fallback" vocations --- vocations chosen by those who had failed at religious life or life in general. 

A related reason given was the lack of adequate formation of these persons. Of course this kind of blanket generalization, especially in such a cynical form, is nonsense and fails to take the history of these vocations into account, but there is a real danger and a nugget of truth behind it; it is one I have written about many times here, namely, the tendency to use Canon 603 as a stopgap option by individuals to seek profession or by chanceries to profess individuals that do not have a true eremitical vocation. (A related danger is the tendency to use Canon 603 as a means to form a community. With Canon 604 there is the danger of consecrating those who really do want to be nuns and reject the secular  -- "in the world" -- nature of the C 604 vocation. Canon 604 is not about creating "diocesan Sisters".)

While I disagree with the Archdiocese/province of Los Angeles's conclusions and the reason given for them in this regard (I think it is cynical and completely inaccurate in some cases), I also have to say that I respect their clear sense that solitary eremitical vocations are truly rare and that great caution should be exercised in admitting anyone to profession or consecration under canon 603. Still, like every other diocese, Los Angeles and the Archbishop and Bishops of the Archdiocese, indeed the entire province, are charged with DISCERNING the reality of such vocations and, under canon 605, with being open to new forms of consecrated life. 

It is not right to make a blanket decision to refuse to profess or consecrate ANY vocations under these canons. It could be considered a rejection of the wisdom of the Church as a whole and the movement of the Spirit at work among the Baptized more specifically. It certainly shows an unawareness or lack of appreciation for the history of Canons 603 and 604. One would hope that this policy has changed in the past years and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (etc)  has dealt more sympathetically, prayerfully, and carefully with possible vocations. Doing so does not need to mean they have professed anyone beyond temporary vows --- if candidates for c 603 profession have even gotten that far, for instance, but it does mean they need to have worked to implement canons 603 and 604 in intelligent, informed,  and  Spirit-driven ways.

What is the Solution to the problem of Stopgap Professions?

What is the solution to problems of using canon 603 as a stopgap access to profession or what Los Angeles/province termed a "fallback" solution to failures in living life generally or religious life specifically? It seems to me there are several pieces to such a solution but all are functions of time and experience: 1) adequate knowledge of the vocation itself provided by the eremitical tradition and by hermits around the world who are living TRUE eremitical lives of the silence of solitude and by their Bishops; this would include  a clear understanding on the part of both the diocese and the hermit of the charisma or gift this vocation is to the Church and world, especially to those who are isolated in some way, 2) a discernment process which is adequate to shake out experiences of solitude which are transitional, rooted in deficiencies rather than potentials, are not yet mature or eremitical, etc, 3) a set of initial formation requirements which an individual may meet with the normal assistance of her SD, and a few others over a period of 5-7 years; 4) the demand that the candidate write her own Rule based in her own lived experience of the solitary eremitical vocation and that this be assessed not merely by canonists but by those in formation work and/or spiritual direction in their congregations, 5) interviews by Vicars, Bishop, psychologists (if it seems necessary or especially helpful) along with recommendations by spiritual directors who have worked with the person for a period of years, pastors, etc.

One piece of this last element might be assessment by formation personnel from a monastery the hermit candidate might visit for extended periods (say a month or two) once a year for 2-3 years if this is at all possible. (I consider it desirable in any case for urban hermit candidates to spend at least a month in the silence and regularity of a monastery not least to see how they do with this kind and degree of silence but also to educate themselves on what they are to foster in their own hermitages in spite of its urban context.) Finally, since inauthentic vocations seem almost always linked to a desire to wear a habit, be clothed in the cowl, etc, and since the habit is a sign of public commitments, rights and obligations, I would suggest that dioceses forbid or refrain from giving permission for the wearing of the habit (even in the hermitage) until the person has reached temporary profession (the cowl or other prayer garment is given only at perpetual profession anyway). There is really no reason for someone to be wearing a habit apart from the actual profession with its assumption of public rights and obligations. The requirements of poverty are easily met otherwise.

No solution is infallible and discernment is an art rather than a science but it seems to me we ought not be professing anyone who does not show a real aptitude for lifelong eremitical solitude or who is without a clear understanding of the significance of this vocation for the church and world. Again these are both functions of time and experience in eremitical solitude. The desert Fathers and Mothers have written famously that a hermit must dwell in her cell and her cell would teach her everything. That bit of wisdom is entirely true. It does not imply complete reclusion but it does imply that  the silence of solitude  is the charism of the diocesan hermit which she must understand intimately, esteem, and appreciate sufficiently to commit to it for life. It is true that we cannot make persons wait forever for admission to profession (or decisions on whether that will occur) but solitary eremitical life is a different matter than vocations to life in community. By definition it takes time to develop and differentiate from other forms of solitude and solitary life.

Thus, again, I recommend that a person who already has some experience of living in solitude before approaching her diocese be required to live as a lay hermit under consistent and skilled supervision for five years or so for mutual discernment. (I would suggest a religious be given this role and that s/he meet with the hermit regularly including in the hermitage itself.) I suggest that if all of the above interviews and pieces of discernment go well, that the person be admitted to temporary profession for a period of 3 years. (At this point she should have written a Rule she will live out and reflect on for those three years.) If this too goes well, and the person and those she speaks with are clear that she is maturing in this vocation, then I recommend either renewal of these vows or admission to perpetual profession. (At this point the hermit may need and be encouraged to make some changes to the Rule which reflect a greater understanding of the vocation and what she personally needs to do to live it faithfully.) This equates to a process which takes at least 8 years to reach perpetual profession --- though all of it demands the person live as a solitary hermit. At the end of the process we might then see a more-mature hermit professed for life.

If at any point this process seems to point in a different direction the person can decide 1) to live as a lay hermit, or 2) decide to leave eremitical life altogether. None of this will be a waste of time so long as everyone is honest and deals compassionately and in complete good faith with one another. After all, the hermit life itself is about the journey more than the destination; it is about being comfortable with and trusting God in the desert sojourn. A period of growth in solitude, so long as it is not unduly prolonged without true supervision and discernment, will be helpful in whatever vocation the individual eventually pursues. Besides, being too anxious about the destination (e.g., perpetual profession, wearing a habit, being given the cowl, etc) and being unable to come to terms with the journey itself in a church learning what this vocation really means in the contemporary world, is not a good sign in a solitary eremitical vocation.

Implications of Abuses of Canon 603 on the Diocesan Level

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
you have written that Canon 603 hermits are solitary hermits and that while they can come together in a laura, they cannot form a community in the proper sense. You have also written that canon 603 is not meant to be a stopgap means of achieving profession on the way to another vocation. While all that makes sense to me isn't it true that the Archdiocese of Boston has a diocesan hermit perpetually professed in 2005 who is now the superior general (Mother) of a new community? Are you aware of the situation I am currently speaking of? I am from Boston and was confused at this Sister's approach to eremitical life. You may remember I wrote you back then. But given what you have written about using c 603 as a stopgap means of profession and other things, I am now even more confused. Can you clarify things for me?]] (Redacted for this blog)

Thanks for your letter. I do remember your email from about two or three years ago. While I did not write about the situation specifically here (at least not by name of Archdiocese), it was one of the reasons I subsequently wrote posts about c 603 misuses and abuses, the use of Canon 603 as a stopgap means to profession, etc. (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Solutions to Using C 603 as a Stopgap way to Profession)  At the time the situation you ask about raised a lot of questions and as I may have mentioned then, your own were not the only ones I received. What was at issue then was a diocesan hermit who was working full time as head of campus ministry at Boston University and later became Chaplain for the University's student body. Now, to be very clear, Sister Olga had an amazing background, was much-loved, worked very hard and, as I have noted before, is someone I would personally be really privileged to know. The problem then was that she was no hermit, despite being professed under canon 603. Since admission to profession under canon 603 was not her decision or responsibility, I cannot point to her as the source of the problem. Instead, it seems to me that it is more likely that she became caught up in something that was not truly right for her or for the solitary eremitical vocation under canon 603.  The responsibility for professions under canon 603 falls ultimately to the (Arch)diocesan (Arch)Bishop.

Looking at Sister Olga's Story:

A little of Sister Yaqob's story is important --- not least because it points up the exceptional person she is. Sister Olga had come here to study from Iraq. She was not Roman Catholic but had begun a congregation of Sisters in the Assyrian Church of the East. After she came here she became a Roman Catholic. However, this was something of a problem since she could not remain a professed religious in light of this change of affiliation. Canon law had two and only two options she might have pursued which deal with the consecration of individuals apart from communities. The first was canon 604, the canon for consecrated virgins living in the world. In such a case, however, the CV is not a Sister, does not have public vows, does not wear distinguishing garb, etc. She belongs to the order of Consecrated Virgins, but is not a religious and cannot begin a religious congregation. The only other option was and is Canon 603. However, this canon governs solitary eremitical life, not merely any form of pious solitary living. As you and others made clear, it seemed to everyone looking on that Sister Olga, who once claimed the term "hermit" as a "metaphor for her life", was not living an eremitical life. A description of her life noted that she set Saturdays aside for contemplative prayer and solitude and mainly worked full time at the University in a highly social job.

For whatever reason, her Archbishop had professed her in 2005 under canon 603 then, and this raised serious questions for others all around the country and the world. Some dioceses heard from people who wanted to make vows, wear a habit, and work full time outside the "hermitage" (residence) in a similar way. They were completely comfortable committing to one day of contemplative prayer per week, never mind the LIFE the canon demanded, and some had had experiences which isolated them so that they felt okay about using the term hermit as a metaphor for their lives --- just as Sister Olga had characterized  her own life. Bishops mainly refused to admit them to profession under canon 603, and rightly so.

Yet this raised serious questions for those wishing to become canon 603 hermits.  I  received several questions, letters, or emails from people wondering how, if an Archbishop could profess a person involved in full-time ministerial activity as a University chaplain as Sister Olga certainly was, their own Bishops could refuse to profess them because they were "not living an eremitical life" or needed to work full time outside the hermitage. One of these persons was living an essentially eremitical life but still needed to work alone at nights outside the hermitage. It was a difficult situation. Still, some were professed and so today we have "hermits" living primarily non-contemplative lives given mainly to active apostolates instead of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance and stricter separation from the world. The precedent was destructive and even yet threatens the vocation itself --- a vocation canon 603 was designed to protect and nurture. Thus, it continues to be problematical.

Where we Stand Today

Current descriptions of Sister Olga's life today mention her perpetual profession in 2005 but they do not mention that her vows were made under Canon 603 nor that she was (and perhaps still is) professed therefore as a diocesan hermit. It may be that her eremitical vows were dispensed, but apparently no new public vows have been made. It sounds like the Archdiocese has decided to allow the entire diocesan hermit portion of Sister Olga's life and profession to slide into the oblivion of forgetfulness in order to avoid further stumbling blocks for folks both within and outside her diocese. However, the situation still raises significant problems canonically and a number of questions are left unanswered by such silence and obscurantism.

You see, diocesan hermits cannot allow their lives to morph into ministerial religious lives. There is often a constant pressure to do more active ministry for one's parish or diocese and most of us feel some pain or regret in needing to say no (or to fail to offer to serve in various ways) because we have embraced a contemplative vocation to solitude which is much less understood and whose value is much less evident to those around us. This example of the Archdiocese of Boston thus makes living c 603 with eremitical integrity much harder for those of us who are tempted to become more active in a directly ministerial way. At the same time, c 603 hermits cannot (as I have been told at least) simply transfer their vows to a congregation. They must be dispensed from them, discern another vocation and then be admitted to vows within the congregation according to universal canonical procedures and time frames.

In fact, diocesan hermits cannot even move to a new diocese without the permission of both ordinaries involved. Though they are diocesan hermits wherever they visit and anywhere in the Church, their professions are very specific and circumscribed by a form of diocesan stability. And, though this second point (moving) is not directly applicable to Sister Olga's situation it points to the narrow constraints involved in Canon 603 profession and of course it could become significant should Sister Olga Yaqob seek to leave Boston as her new community grows. After all, if her vows are still canon 603 vows, then a new Bishop will be placed in the position of accepting a non-hermit living according to a canon governing eremitical life. Consider the precedents and questions this would raise in the new diocese!!!


As it apparently stands, the situation in Boston also raises the issues of hypocrisy and non-comp-liance: namely, if a diocesan hermit ceases to live an eremitical life she can (and should) certainly be dispensed from her vows. That remains true even if one discerns and embraces a new and different vocation to ministerial religious life . One has still ceased being a hermit and is living as though they are no longer bound by either an eremitical Rule or eremitical vows nor by the canon governing such vocations. How can one ask the Bishop of a new Diocese to merely accept such a situation (and the person's vows) and turn a blind eye? How can one ask a  new incoming Archbishop to do something similar?

And what of other newly-fledged congregations who would like to take short cuts in becoming canonical? Should canon 603 be used to profess at least the superior/moderator of such congregations? Why not if it was once appropriate in  the Archdiocese of Boston and there is still someone living out public vows made under canon 603 but now doing so as the founder of a new community? Why pay attention to expert commentators on c 603 and its history and nature, who note lauras are permissible but that these should not rise to the level of communities? Why not simply use c 603 as a stopgap means to profession for any and all individuals desiring admission to public vows never mind whether they live anything remotely resembling eremitical life? Why, that is, should we not simply turn a blind eye to the gift of the Holy Spirit which c 603 seeks to nurture, govern, and protect?

Protecting against the Repetition of this Situation

As part of the hermit's own vow formula, some dioceses require the specification that these vows are made as a part of responding to the grace of a solitary eremitical vocation.  The wisdom of this requirement is clearer to everyone involved with the canon as time goes on. Further, since canon 603 governs solitary eremitical vocations which allow for coming together in lauras but not the establishment of communities per se, it seems clear that a hermit should be dispensed from her vows in order to begin a community. Further, as one dispensed from her vows she cannot ordinarily simply begin a canonical foundation. Not only does she cease to be a vowed religious in such an instance, but ordinarily, any community she begins will need to move through the same stages any other aspiring group needs to move through: private association of the faithful, public association of the faithful, and, if all goes well over time, institute of consecrated life. This process is not only codified in law but reflects simple prudence.

Because of all these factors the extraordinary situation in Boston is still a thorn bush of difficulties. It is understandable, I think, that 1) Sister Olga dropped the pretense of being a hermit to fully affirm the truth of what she is apparently more truly called to, and 2) the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed all this to merely slip from view and memory by focusing  (a) on the fact of vows while omitting the fact that they were solitary eremitical (c 603) vows and  (b) on the new community. Diocesan hermits and others, however, are interested in and perhaps could be said to have a right to know how the situation is resolved canonically because this has significant implications for how the diocesan eremitical life is lived out concretely.

The primary reason for bringing all this up is to make sure that canon 603 is never misused in this manner again. Sister Olga (or Mother Olga as she is now known) is an exceptional person (and apparently an exceptional religious) and it makes sense that the Archbishop of Boston was particularly open to accommodating her in some way -- especially given her history, her faith and people skills, and her ethnic background and skills in Arabic language and Iraqi culture. I very much appreciate the integrity Sister Yaqob has personally shown in leaving the diocesan hermit designation behind. However, professing her using canon 603 was a serious mistake which threatened the diocesan eremitical vocation in the process.

The secondary reason for bringing this situation up then is because the canonical questions it raised are still with us and require answers. Similarly, the pastoral questions it raises are also significant and, in part, will only be answered over time with the education of the episcopacy and church as a whole regarding the nature of the solitary eremitical vocation along with a history of well-discerned professions which ensure the integrity of the life which canon 603 governs. At some point the Archdiocese of Boston also needs to clarify publicly how they resolved this situation. Sister Olga's eremitical profession could have been determined to be invalid, for instance, but if that proved to be the case then what is the canonical standing of Sister Olga now and what precedent does her situation vis-a-vis the new community set for other aspiring founders and communities? Aspiring hermits? Remember, Sister Yaqob cannot have made canonical vows as an individual under any canon but 603. Again, the situation is a thorn bush of difficulties and unresolved questions.

I know this doesn't really clarify what is largely still obscure for many of us, but hope this is of some help.