Once Again on c 603 and the Reasons it was Created

[[Hi Sister, why do you say that c 603 was not created to deal with abuses of eremitical life? It seems reasonable to me to create a law to deal with abuses and if there were hermits in the church I bet you there were abuses!]]

Hi there, and thanks for the question. I last referred to this idea in Should Hermit Vocations be Respected? What I said there is: [[. . . the Church chose to make the solitary eremitical vocation a canonical one. She did so because she believed it to be a gift of God to the Church and showed that she esteemed this vocation precisely as a gift of God, not because hermits were giving her problems (in fact, solitary hermits had almost totally ceased to exist in the Western Church; all the Church had to do was to ignore any that remained to ensure that death spiral was completed). Even if this was untrue, one does not give someone canonical standing simply to correct abuses. Besides, without officially recognizing (and thus, esteeming) hermit life in law, what abuses would there be?? A standard or norm must be established in law before there can be abuses.]] 

As you can see, I mainly argued canonical standing primarily had to do with the Church's esteem for the vocation. Remi de Roo had become Bishop Protector of about a dozen hermits who had left their monasteries after long years of solemn profession because their monasteries did not allow for hermit life in proper (i.e., their own congregational) law. There was no canon (universal) law on eremitical life. In the Middle Ages and some later the Western Church had hermits and anchorites and these were mainly regulated by diocesan laws administered under the local Ordinary, however, by the 16th - twentieth centuries, solitary hermits were dying or had mainly died out. (They never died out in the Eastern Church, possibly because hermits were always linked to a monastic community.) This primary reason is rooted in simple historical fact.

The notion that c 603 was created to deal with abuses only makes sense if, 1) there was a universal norm (canon) that defined the normative eremitical life, and 2) the Church was being plagued in some way by numerous canonical hermits or people calling themselves hermits and living in disedifying or destructive ways --- for instance, by preaching heresy or somehow seducing people away from the faith or their ordinary obligations. However, this was not the case. In later centuries, there were almost no or no canonical hermits while heresy was dealt with under existing canons and people who were otherwise problematical were dealt with through normal civic and ecclesiastical channels, not least the Sacrament of Penance.

It is important to ask oneself some basic questions: Without such a norm or canon, who says what is an abuse? Who says what is essential? Who defines what is healthy or witnesses to the values the Church sees as critical for such a way of life? And of course, if there is no official hermit vocation, why would the Church care if some relatively rare "weirdos" lived such an eccentric life so long as their begging, toll management, forestry, wandering, and other activities did not detract from the life of the Church? Yes, some bishops established norms in their own dioceses for local anchorites and hermits, but there was never a canon in universal law before c 603. There was no norm, no defined lifestyle, no set of defining elements, and no paradigm people needed to embrace if they were to be considered an authentic hermit. And there certainly was none that established someone in the consecrated state of life as a hermit.

Paul's insight on the fact that before the law there was no sin holds here too. Before there is a normative canon defining hermit life, there can be no abuses of hermit life. There are just a huge variety of ways of living as an individual, only some of which the Church might consider eremitical if she felt there was a reason to do so. Moreover, one does not consecrate someone who is not living their life well in order to correct the way they are living. That is simply nonsense. It's a little like taking heretics and making them Papal theologians in order to correct their theology. Not a very well thought-out  solution!  The canonist who is reported to have said c 603 originated to deal with abuses seems to have been under the impression that the 1917 Code of Canon Law provided for hermits. Had that been true his explanation might have made sense, but since there was no mention of hermits in the 1917 Code, it does not do so. Can canonical standing provide a way to deal with hermits not living their commitments (once there are such things)? Yes, of course and c 603 does that, but that was not primarily why it was promulgated, nor does it include any mention of sanctions itself.

Should Hermits or their Vocations be Respected?

 [[ Hi Sister, Joyful Hermit is putting up videos (cf  Joyful Hermit Speaks) saying that if a hermit needs to have their vocation esteemed and celebrated at a public liturgy, maybe they should wait to become a diocesan hermit until they understand the vocation better. She suggested it is up to the hermit to tell the Bishop that saint hermits would never agree with a public Mass and lots of people [attending], etc. I heard her saying that it is up to the hermit to take responsibility about where and how her consecration would occur, so, the whole piece is about telling the bishop what is appropriate!! I also heard her challenging diocesan hermits who had public Masses with numbers attending of lacking not only understanding of the hermit vocation but also humility as well.]]

Thanks for writing, and for the link. I watched the video and I essentially heard what you did. It seems to me that this video was apparently in partial response to my post on the appropriateness of celebrating hermit professions at Mass. The idea that a hermit who has been admitted to profession and (in time) even to consecration by this local Church would tell her diocese (Canonists, liturgists, Vicars, and Bishop), that despite what the Rubrics for the Rite of Perpetual Profession say, the hermit knows better and that having a Mass (when appropriate) is up to her, is completely ludicrous to me. This is an ecclesial event, not merely a personal one!! In any case, JH's position proves the case, I think, that she does not understand what it means to have an ecclesial and public vocation with responsibilities to the Church (the People of God) and rights they have granted to her.  

Your referent makes this all about c 603 hermits demonstrating a lack of humility, both by agreeing to a public Mass and in petitioning for and accepting canonical standing in the first place. She rails against anyone respecting a hermit or esteeming a God-given ecclesial vocation and claims that no self-respecting hermit (pun intended) would ever desire this. She claims that if a hermit needs esteem, then perhaps they are not ready to become a c 603 hermit. 

But to whom is she speaking? No one is talking about hermits needing to be esteemed in some unhealthy way! No one is talking about a hermit demanding a public Mass, seeking canonical standing, or anything else because they need esteem or the respect of others in a disproportionate and egoistically-driven way!! On the contrary, we are speaking about the fact that every person both deserves and needs respect as a human being. This is a fundamental need that is vital to our being able to love ourselves or others as well as allowing ourselves to be loved by others. In the work I do, respect is recognized as an essential need, as necessary to health and life as air and water and food and sunshine. If a hermit cannot admit that they need and are due respect -- just as every other person in, or dimension of God's good creation needs and deserves respect --- then they are apparently so completely out of touch with their own God-given and divinely-valued humanity, that they should give up even the pretense of being a hermit!! They will only ever be a parody or caricature of such a thing --- and God knows, we have had enough of those through the centuries!

I am thinking of the words of the Magnificat. [[My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior, for he has looked with favor on (or, he has esteemed or regarded) his lowly servant, and from this day all generations will call me blessed! The almighty has done great things for me and Holy is his Name.]] When I write about the Church coming to esteem the eremitical vocation as a gift of God, I am writing about regard for the favor, esteem, or regard of God's grace. Never were a woman and her vocation given more respect or held in higher esteem. At the same time, never was there such a humble woman!! The two things are not contradictory, they do not cancel each other out somehow; they belong together. To know (in that deep Biblical sense of the term,) that one's vocation means to be aware that one is favored by God, does not mean one lacks humility. It is a simple recognition of truth which is the very root of humility. To accept that from God, including through the mediation of the Church, and doing so in joy and love is the act of a humble person!!!

Yes, there have been unhealthy forms of spirituality throughout the centuries and so-called "hermits" have been among their most notorious representatives. Some were guilty of self-loathing and, I would argue, some forms of penance or asceticism were the outworking of such self-hatred. All this is part of the reason the Church took such a long time to recognize eremitical life as a potential state of perfection or consecrated life. However, the notion that c 603 was only created to prevent abuses and not to demonstrate esteem for a divine gift to the Church is blatant ignorance. To suggest as well that no real hermit needs God's favor or regard -- much less that of the Church!-- or that they should not need to be able to respect themselves, in turn, is to deform the vocation into something destructive and incapable of serving either God or others. Instead, it betrays the eremitical vocation and the God who is its author.

One of the witnesses hermits give is to the singular favor God holds for and reveals (or at least seeks to reveal) to every individual no matter how ill, weak, poor, inadequate, etc they might be otherwise. God esteems each of us, calls us to be his beloved,  loves and cherishes us with an everlasting love, and completes us so we might witness to all of this for the sake of others. God respects or values our humanity sufficiently to become one of us and to welcome us into God's own life in the Ascension. I wrote recently about the glorified bodily existence we will one day know in God's eternal presence. God esteems us in this way; he loves us dearly and calls us to be his adopted daughters and sons. He sends us out as disciples of Christ to minister (and hermits he sends into solitude to become ministers --- embodiments of the very ministry they are called to.). Can we really suggest that none of that demonstrates respect, esteem, or regard? Can we really affirm that we do not need respect, esteem, or regard from God (or from others, including our colleagues and superiors) simply to stand on two feet and face the day?? 

To repeat the position that kicked off your referent's comments on this, the Church chose to make the solitary eremitical vocation a canonical one. She did so because she believed it to be a gift of God to the Church and showed that she esteemed this vocation precisely as a gift of God, not because hermits were giving her problems (in fact, solitary hermits had almost totally ceased to exist in the Western Church; all the Church had to do was to ignore any that remained to ensure that death spiral was completed). Even if this was untrue, one does not give someone canonical standing simply to correct abuses. Besides, without officially recognizing (and thus, esteeming) hermit life in law, what abuses would there be?? A standard or norm must be established in law before there can be abuses. In any case, esteem for this relatively rare gift of God to the Church was why c 603 came into existence; it was the reason Bishop Remi de Roo made an intervention at the Second Vatican Council to ask the Church to recognize eremitical life as a call to a state of perfection or consecrated state. De Roo had come to know this vocation through the dozen or so hermits he served as Bishop Protector for in British Columbia; as a result, he recognized the prophetic gift to the Church this vocation is. 

In the celebrations the Church holds, the one being celebrated is never primarily the hermit herself (though she is also being assisted to embrace, and thanked for saying yes to God's call as she returns self-gift for self-gift); it is God who is being celebrated and what God's gift of Self means for people in our world. The hermit who is being consecrated by God celebrates this by receiving God's gift of self, a gift that consecrates specially, within an assembly of the People of God. That is why it is appropriate to do this at Mass! Mass is the place where we are quintessentially recipients and God is the Giver par excellence; it is the place where we are each made a unique part of the People of God and God is made real in space and time in, with, and for us! What an appropriate context for the consecration of a canonical hermit!! In terms of this more limited discussion, however, let me simply repeat, a canon 603 vocation, like any other gift of God, is worthy of respect, especially when we contrast this contemporary vocation with the centuries-long background of eccentric and misanthropic stereotypes that populated the world through the centuries --- and evidently in some ways, into this one as well.

Understanding and Preventing Abuses of Canon 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it that bishops and others misuse canon 603? Have you thought much about this? I wonder how it is we can prevent this from happening, whether by bishops or by those who are not hermits at all. Have you written about this already?]] 

Thanks for your questions! In light of several of my recent posts I think it is clear that they are important questions, and perhaps as neuralgic today as they were in the days of the first implementation of canon 603. So while, yes, I have written about this in the past, it is probably time to look again at the problems involved and the multi-part solution.

Your first question gets to the heart of the matter: "Why do bishops misuse or allow the misuse of canon 603?" is the way I would restate it. (There are many reasons individuals seek to be professed under canon 603 only one of which is valid --- namely, they have discovered they are called to human wholeness and holiness as a hermit and now wish to bring the gift of this call to the whole Church and world in the way only a public and ecclesial vocation can do.) That is, they seek to live this gift for the sake of others and others are allowed to know and take encouragement from this. However, it is up to the church (via bishop and his curia/staff) to discern both the genuine presence of this gift and the call to live it canonically. For this reason, I changed your question so that the weight and focus of it falls to the seeker's bishop. So, why do bishops misuse or allow the misuse of canon 603?

I think in the main the answer must be ignorance. It may be the bishop knows nothing really of the canon or its history. Sometimes they may not know anything substantive rather than merely superficial about eremitic life itself. Sometimes, even when they know something of eremitical life, they do not understand its charism, the unique way it is a gift for the individual hermit and for others, and they may have no sense at all that this is truly a significant vocation entrusted to the church by God. Added to ignorance there may be degrees of arrogance and carelessness as well then --- and here I mean carelessness in both the sense of "I couldn't care less" and in the related sense of sloppiness or negligence in discernment, implementation, supervision, etc. This is only logical because the carelessness we sometimes see with bishops who abuse or misuse canon 603 necessarily follows from a failure to understand either the nature or significance (especially in the sense of the charism) of the vocation itself. One cannot value appropriately what one does not understand, and one cannot treat with appropriate attentiveness what one does not value.

For me the most significant form of ignorance is a failure to understand the charism or gift quality of the vocation. I identify this as what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude" because it is unique to this vocation not only as context for the life, but also as its very goal and in this way, it becomes a gift to church and world (cf Silence of solitude as charism). Hermits recognize the call to wholeness and holiness is realized in the quies and shalom achieved by the individual in communion with God. This union of human and divine lived toward and realized in an eremitical context is what we rightly identify as the reality of true silence and the fullness of solitude. Where we are one with God our hearts are whole and at rest, just as where we are truly with God we are one; our hearts are not seeking or striving for meaning, nor do they cry out in anguish or groan in emptiness. (The anguish of compassion is another matter entirely!) In union with God we are truly ourselves and that self is a covenantal or dialogical event. This is what makes the solitude the hermit lives in and towards so very different from isolation. Too, it is from this eremitical silence that the song that is the hermit is spun out and into our world. And how desperately our world needs the witness of such lives!!

But how very few, relatively speaking, are those called to human wholeness and holiness in this specific way! While all are called to union with God and made to become God's very prayer in our world, very few are called to achieve this via eremitical life. Bishops need to understand this. They must learn to appreciate the gift the eremitical vocation is, not seeing the hermit as a kind of "prayer warrior", another, though perhaps, more subtle way of gauging the meaning of a life in terms of productivity and even busyness, but rather as a vivid illustration of the fundamental truth that we are each completed and find our lives to be supremely meaningful in our communion with God --- something which comes to us as grace as we learn to rest in God in the silence of solitude. I think few bishops come close to understanding the gift of the eremitical vocation in this way, and for that reason, they fail to see how much such vocations have to offer a society and culture where so very many are marked and marred by isolation and struggle with a sense of emptiness and meaninglessness in their lives. 

Without such a vision of the vocation's nature and charism it is a small step to bishops treating c 603 vocations as though they are unimportant, able to be used as stopgap solutions for problematical priests who, despite all their seminary discernment and training are unsuitable for parish ministry in the contemporary church, to serve as a canonical slot into which they shoehorn cranky nutcases who might be appeased and quieted with consecration, or a relatively obscure sinecure into which a "failed religious" who wants to continue in active ministry might fit without making waves for anyone. Each of these represent ways c 603 has sometimes been used by bishops, and each is marked by ignorance and a correlative arrogance and carelessness. The most common result of such a lack of vision, however, is the profession of lone isolated individuals who may be pious and well-intentioned, but who are not, and will never be hermits in anything more than name only.

How do we prevent this from happening? 

I don't have an answer to the question of prevention. I have been asked in the past if canon 603 needed to be enlarged, or if there need to be more canons created, and once or twice whether the church needed to publish some other document on the vocation. At this point I would like to see some instructions** not only on the significance and charism of the vocation but also on who one admits to profession along with some suggested time frames for such a step. For instance, that one is already a (lay) hermit in some essential sense and approaches the diocese only after living as such for at least five years for a discernment process which will last anywhere from 2 to 5 years before admission to temporary vows, is one of these. (Someone coming from a background in religious life still needs a meaningful period of transition, discernment, and formation as a hermit though the number of years required for this are likely to differ.) 

I would also like to see some general instructions on what it means to write a Rule of Life and the amount of time such a project requires and why. Especially I would like dioceses and candidates to understand that writing a liveable Rule requires experience living the life as a prerequisite, and also that writing several Rules over a period of years can assist the hermit, her director, and the chancery as well with both discernment and formation. So, to answer the question I once said no to, perhaps there is a need for a document of instructions on the nature and appropriate use of c 603 along with commentary on the central elements of the canon. Many bishops have taken the time to educate themselves on this specific vocation and implementation of the canon has worked well for them in the occasional vocations they have admitted to consecration.  However, abuses and misuses will probably still occur even in the presence of such an instruction; it will not stop misuses until and unless bishops and others working with candidates for c 603 profession take it (and other forms of education) seriously and use them to instruct inquirers and those admitted to serious discernment. Only in such cases will such an instruction put an end to the ignorance that leads to abuse and misuse.

** Note: A reader reminded me of a resources document put out in 2002 by CICLSAL which was helpful and open to development. My thanks to him. There is certainly room for c 603 hermits/dioceses to share their wisdom re living and implementing canon 603 along with their ideas on this document and the ways it might be enhanced today.

Canon 603 Used as a Stopgap Rather than as Recognition of a True Eremitical Vocation?

[[Dear Sister, in light of your last post,  would you consider someone describing themselves as a "sort of monk-missionary" and their place of abode a "hermitage" to be a hermit? Also, if a priest had a history of difficulties with his bishop and parish ministry, does it make sense for his bishop to admit him to profession under c 603? (I know of a pretty public case where this happened and the bishop outlined the difficulties in a public letter and then admitted the priest to profession just 5 months later! That does not make sense to me!! Neither does saying: [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life. Isn't a hermit a contemplative no matter what limited ministry they undertake? Aren't they supposed to have discerned a contemplative vocation before they discern an eremitical one?)  

I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me save the ones on profession as compared to avowal for another time. Your note on the priest's self-description makes me think we are speaking of the same rather sensational case. One of the reasons for a careful and relatively long discernment and formation process is to make sure the person really is a hermit, understands herself this way, and is comfortable identifying herself with this descriptor before the Church professes and consecrates her as a canonical hermit under c 603. Using the "hermit" label isn't initially easy for most of us. That is not only because of the rarity of such vocations and the need to work out the shape of such callings in our own lives, but also because of all of the stereotypes associated with the life and all of the nutcases similarly associated with this designation. 

It takes time for one to come to understand c 603 and the solitary eremitical vocation, and even more time before candidates are ready to assume a constructive, faithful, and creative place in the eremitical tradition of the Church. They must see themselves truly as a hermit before they can be allowed to embrace the specific rights, obligations, and legitimate expectations others have of those who are hermits in the consecrated state. Only at such a point would such a person be ready for profession (including temporary profession). What I mean when I say they must see themselves in this way is that they must resonate in their deepest core/self with the term "hermit" and know that God has called them to such a life and especially, that they will not be using c 603 as a stopgap solution for other reasons.

By the time one is professed either one is a hermit or one is not. What I mean here is that either one's profession represents the true self-gift of a hermit (even a novice hermit) or it is a lie. One is not, for instance, a "kind of monk/missionary", or a "sort of a contemplative", or "a kind of loner"; one is (or should be) a hermit and one is entrusting oneself to God to continue making one ever more profoundly into the hermit one knows oneself to be by the grace of God's call. If one begins one's professed eremitical life thinking one is a "sort of monk/missionary" rather than a hermit, (especially if this is the truth of the matter) one can and will grow into more of a "sort of monk/missionary" --- one who is neither this nor that, and certainly not more deeply into life as a hermit. Canonical profession and consecration as a hermit demands that one consciously represents an expression of a particular vocation with a rich and significant history. One may not (will not!!) be a perfect hermit, but one must honestly know one's deepest, truest self by this term.

This, by the way, does not mean one's eremitical life is identical to that of another's but it does mean that one lives a recognizable expression of canon 603 even when there are individual variations involving prayer, limited apostolic ministry, and spirituality more generally. Neither does it mean that one is not growing into one's eremitical vocation. One may be a novice hermit or a potential candidate for profession, and one may be a mature hermit involved in limited ministry within one's parish, for instance, but one is still growing as a hermit in one's core identity. It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit. For one to describe oneself as a sort of "monk/missionary" is the self-description of someone who is not yet and may never become a hermit --- whether or not c 603 has been utilized.

Let me say too that as soon as I hear this kind of designation by someone whose Rule of Life has been approved by their bishop, I have to wonder what is going on. When the supposed hermit writes just 2 years before profession under c 603, [["That [improvement of my Mother's illness] was my indication that I was ready to move on to either religious life or [life] as a diocesan hermit or to take an[other] assignment [as a parish priest],". . . But no assignment came]], the use of c 603 sounds like a way of getting out of a difficult situation, not the mature discernment of a true vocation, much less one ready for profession and consecration, but simply another secular priest's "assignment". Thus, what is being described could be fraud at worst (or ignorance at best). In either case, the canon is being abused by the putative "hermit" and ultimately by his bishop for some reason other than what it is meant for. Whatever is vocationally true in this specific case, to misuse c. 603 in this way is disedifying at best and even scandalous at a time when the Church, and especially the episcopacy, is increasingly being looked to for a capacity to image the humble God of truth and scrutinized for abject failures to do so.

In the case you referenced your facts are correct. The letter outlining an apparently rebellious priest who cannot serve in parish ministry, who (according to his Abp's letter) will not show up for meetings with his superiors, and who 'bad mouths' that same bishop and his staff for being unjust, condoning illegal acts, etc., was written just 5 months before the same priest was reportedly professed as a diocesan hermit. (Yes, I checked with the diocese to be sure of the priest's status under c 603 and they provided his profession date.) Moreover, this "hermit's" Rule was only approved temporarily (for one year) in 2020, which means the priest in question was professed without an approved Rule, and perhaps, therefore, without having lived an eremitical Rule for several years before being professed. 

I too noted where this priest wrote recently; [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life.]] You are entirely correct in your objections to this comment; it is not an eremitical life he is describing nor does he seem committed to maturing in one. The usual and necessary pattern of growth into eremitical life is to first become a contemplative, then develop into a contemplative craving greater solitude and silence, and only then, if one discerns this is the way the call to the silence of solitude must be lived, does one move even more deeply into this reality as a hermit --- all of which happens long before one petitions to be admitted to even temporary profession under c 603. I continue to think that this priest and perhaps his bishop thought that as long as he was already a diocesan priest all he had to do was become a hermit in some limited  or nominal sense and could be professed under canon 603, making him a diocesan (priest) hermit and giving him some superficial but merely apparent grounds for not fitting into parish ministry or diocesan life.

Summary:

Tom Leppard, see posts

From what I have read by both the man and his bishop I continue to think this is the case because NO ONE was busy living canon 603, coming to understand it deeply, or discerning the vocation or ascertaining the adequate formation of a diocesan hermit. What the bishop, for instance, was busy doing was struggling to find assignments for this priest when folks kept sending him back to his diocese; the priest, for his part, was demanding to be assigned somewhere or to something including religious institutes or eremitical life under c 603! For awhile this priest identified himself as a diocesan priest hermit. On the diocesan clergy role where the man's assignment is ordinarily given, this priest's name is now followed by "Diocesan Hermit." Treating c 603 as something one can "assign" an intractable priest to would make sense of the lack of discernment, lack of adequate formation or understanding of canon 603, etc. 

If I am correct and this had merely been treated as a bishop's assignment with an abbreviated "profession" (if I can use that term) consisting of a vow of simplicity (whatever this means!) merely added to a priest's already extant promises of celibacy and obedience to his bishop could also make a weird and limited sense --- though not in terms of canon 603 or the profession required by the Rite of Religious Profession ordinarily used in this regard! And all of this would indicate that neither the bishop nor the priest involved were treating an eremitical vocation under canon 603 as a serious vocation. Everything published on the situation makes it seem that c 603 and eremitical life itself was merely seen as a canonical slot from which a difficult or troublesome priest could carry on as before, free from parish responsibilities with a new standing in law and (perhaps) with a somewhat more contemplative dimension to his active life. It seems to have been a way to accommodate an abject individualism which is exactly contrary to solitary eremitical life. 

This is the only way I could make sense of the time frames and things I read from those involved. It also appears there was more arm twisting or extortion in all of this than I have discussed here, but the bottom line for me is that c 603 appears to have been abused in this case and whatever putative profession was made is disedifying for that reason and may well be invalid. Had I been able to find any article by the priest's diocese explaining the vocation, the longer than usual discernment and formation which it requires, the admittance to profession, and something of the reasons this priest felt called to pursue this, the situation might have seemed differently to me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any celebration and explanation of such a significant public event. (If anyone knows of such, please send it on and I will correct this post as appropriate.)

The Diocesan Hermit: Some Considerations by Therese Ivers, JCL

 I said I would speak to a canonist or two and see if they would be willing to weigh in on the issue of c 603, lauras vs communities, etc. Well, I was able to have a long conversation with a canonist this last weekend and she wrote a piece for her own blog which (as she and I talked about) I am also posting here. The author is Therese Ivers, JCL and her blog is: Do I Have a Vocation? As readers can see, I think the author and I are in general agreement on the basic characteristics of a laura as opposed to a community. 

The one dimension Ivers brings out which I had not spelled out explicitly myself is the temporary nature of a laura. (I realize much of what I have written necessarily implies this but Therese is definitely a step (or three!) ahead of me here. Regarding the diocese's responsibility in formation, both initial and ongoing, Ivers and I are also in essential agreement; I believe, however, we may differ on the way this responsibility is exercised. Meanwhile, I very much appreciate the various comments she has made on candidates for profession, discernment, formation, the desert fathers and Mothers, and so forth. Please note, I do add one element to the lists of distinguishing qualities Ivers supplied below, namely, spirituality; the approach to diverse spiritualities differs significantly from laura to community. The one thread that runs throughout Iver's analysis is the significance and uniqueness of the c 603 vocation. Emphasis on formation, discernment, the continuing role of the bishop, and the individual nature of the vocation are dimensions of this extraordinary significance. My sincerest thanks to Therese for sharing her work and time in this!

“Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything!”

In the early centuries of the Church, men and women fled to the desert as the Church’s first hermits. Christianity had become the official religion of the empire, and as a result of external prosperity and growth, Christian praxis became lax in the cities. Virgins, hermits, and ascetics grew in numbers to fill the vacuum of those intent on a life devoted to the sole focus on the service of Christ in a life of perfect chastity lived in the manner of their respective calling.

It should be noted that these were hard-core practicing Catholics who were familiar with their faith and extremely familiar with those things “in the world” that could distract them from their focus. In today’s language, we would say that these men and women were “well catechized” or “well formed”.

Hermits were no exception to the general quality of being “well catechized”. Nevertheless, not all were prepared for life in the desert or to the specific challenges of their calling. As a result, “mentors” naturally arose when hermits of great fame for holiness began to accept followers in their lifestyle. Likewise, hermits began to gather together at times for communal exercises albeit infrequently. How else would we know the doings of various hermits through the sayings of the Hermit fathers and mothers?

Some clusters of hermits (many lived at great geographical distance from each other but could be considered a “cluster” or “group”) eventually self organized and consolidated into proper monasteries. Others retained their proper eremitical character which consisted of individual hermits who lived their own very distinctive lifestyles who occasionally met up with one or more hermits. Clusters of such individuals came to be known as “lauras”. [The word lauras or lavras, in case I have not said this recently, comes from the Latin word for pathways; it was the pathways that linked these hermits and their individual hermitages to one another that defined such "clusters". SrL.]

Today, we have two forms of individual consecrated life in the Latin Church. One is that of hermits (canon 603) and the other, the portion of the order of virgins (canon 604) who are not also members of a religious institute. There are many myths about both forms of life, which have arisen for many reasons, particularly because of a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the vocation to be a hermit or to be a spouse of Christ respectively. The purpose of this article is to discuss some aspects of the eremitic vocation that is not always clear to those who are not cognizant of this vocation.

Individual Life Lived “In the Silence of Solitude” is the Primary Reality or Framework Designated by Canon. 603

As some people are aware, my original proposal for my doctoral dissertation in canon law was centered on the “Silence of Solitude” aspect of canon 603. It encapsulates the solitary lifestyle which is permeated with the mental and physical silence required for the “desert” substitution which provides the backdrop of the intense grappling of the soul with itself and heavenly -and not so heavenly- things.

Solitude, or a “stricter withdrawal from the world” is not a mere metaphor. It requires a similitude to the desert in which an individual is not rubbing shoulders with people on a daily basis [with the exception, perhaps of attendance at daily Mass if this is called for in the hermit’s rule]. Encounters with people should be infrequent, even in the running of a guest house, which should have periods of unoccupancy to facilitate the solitude of the hermit manager.

This is not a “religious of one” paradigm in which a hermit is free to do apostolic activity willy-nilly. On the contrary, the lay hermit (or diocesan hermit) is expected to be extremely withdrawn from the everyday hustle and bustle of the world. This includes apostolic works.

Some individuals imagine that they can live as a “caretaker” for someone else and live authentically as a hermit. Again, this is simply not the case. Caring for another person on a daily or frequent basis goes against the solitary nature of this vocation. But it is compatible for reasons of age or illness for the lay or diocesan hermit to be cared for, as there is a profound difference between caring for another in their daily necessities and being cared for in daily necessities when one is unable to do so.

The implication for a “laura” is also clear. That it is not the responsibility of individual hermits living in a laura (inside their individual hermitages) to administrate long-term care for an elderly or chronically ill fellow-hermit, and that provisions must have already been made and executed for the long term care of such hermits in appropriate facilities or with relatives [ideally Catholic].

A Word on Lauras:

Although it is possible for diocesan hermits to gather together in a geographic place, a laura is intended to be strictly distinct from a religious eremitic or semi-eremitic institute. Here are some of the key differences: (Apologies to Therese Ivers, because here she has a great chart laid out side by side; I couldn't use that here (space limitations) so I have set these two sets of characteristics out sequentially.)

Religious Institute:

• Common Superior to whom obedience is vowed who is not the bishop
• Common purse; the institute is jointly responsible for the wellbeing of the religious from the day of entrance until their deaths.
• Common rule of life
• Meals in common. Meals are eaten together in a refectory or at the same time in the hermitage.
• Communal Office or synchronized hours designated at common times [e.g. the horarium is the same for every individual even if the office is said alone in the hermitage such as in a Carthusian charterhouse]
• [In addition I would add here the single spirituality which characterizes an Institute and in which members are formed. An Institute of Consecrated Life will serve as a paradigm of a particular spirituality and its founder/foundress; it stands within the living tradition of this particular current of spirituality and consciously reflects and extends it. Thus a community will be Franciscan or Carmelite, or Camaldolese, and so forth. (SLO'N)]

Lauras:

• Obedience directly to the bishop as superior is professed
• Each individual hermit has their own bank account, retirement funds, health care and other insurances, and is expected to manage their finances individually. The individual hermit is expected to be independent regardless of whether they stay in a laura all their life, leave of their own accord, or are asked to leave.
• Individual rule of life that has been lived outside of the laura and which will be observed before, during [and even after] life in a laura.
• Generally meals should be taken alone and within the cell even if cooked for the whole laura. What is eaten, how it is eaten, and when it is eaten will be autonomously decided by the individual hermit.
• The individual hermit recites the liturgical hours or other prayers [non-cleric hermits are not obligated to say the liturgy of the hours and may in fact choose other forms of prayer to occupy their time] within the hermitage. This prayer-cycle is individualized for the growth of the hermit and therefore is highly unlikely to be synchronized with other hermits.
• [In addition to Therese Iver's list I would add here that there is no single spirituality beyond the general desert spirituality of the solitary hermit. A laura does not inculcate, much less form persons in a single spirituality like Franciscan, Camaldolese, Carmelite, etc. Instead it welcomes a diversity of spiritualities which will exist in harmony within a desert framework marked by the charity (in both rigor and flexibility) of the Desert Ammas and Abbas. Since a laura as such does not engage in the initial formation of hermits, and since it is a second half of life vocation, there is no concern with forming novices in a particular spirituality. (SLO'N)]

A laura, is in short, a temporary living arrangement of independent diocesan [or] lay hermits who maintain their own rule of life, finances, hermitage, etc. on a piece of property. It is not the “ideal” way of living to which a canon 603 hermit “aspires” but is merely an arrangement that can be permitted for the good of hermits on an ad hoc and temporary basis [even if such an arrangement de facto lasts decades]. Practically speaking, the numbers of hermits on the property in a laura should be limited as it would become too unwieldy to have over a handful unless the property is vast and perhaps owned in trust by some entity that rents out hermitages.

Canon 603 is not intended to encourage the formation of lauras, but is primarily focused on the actual solitary vocation for which membership in a laura may be a help or a hindrance. In any and all events, membership in a laura cannot be a condition for profession as a hermit and it must always be the result of a voluntary and seriously discerned path on the part of the experienced and [ideally] already professed hermit who believes it may be of benefit.

Unfortunately, due to greater familiarity with religious institutes, dioceses may have an incorrect understanding of the difference between a laura and a budding religious institute. This may cause abuses of canon 603 when a “hermit” is really an aspiring founder/ess of an eremitical or semi-eremitical religious institute. If the “hermit” really intends to be a religious founder, then the steps for the founding of a religious institute are to be utilized and the “vocation” tested.

As a canonist, I have heard all too often the opinion that the “ideal” hermit is one who has membership in a laura. To the contrary, I would say that membership in a laura by its very nature would merely be a temporary living situation for a diocesan hermit. The diocesan hermit cannot escape the hard work of crafting a personal rule of life over the course of several years – I consider the minimum for this to be at least 7-9 years as a prudential measure not unlike the requirement for final profession of contemplatives to have had no less than 9 years of formation reasonable. [Emphasis added to original]

This rule of life cannot be a mere appropriation or light tinkering of existing rule(s) of religious institutes or even that of other hermits. It must result from experimentation and the self-knowledge of what is helpful for this particular person in his/her struggles in “the desert”. This hermit must know what a balanced lifestyle for himself looks like and that will not be identical to that of anyone else.

The relationship between the hermit and his/her bishop is a direct one, as the bishop is the lawful superior of the diocesan hermit. This remains true even in a laura, as the position of hermits in a laura is that of equals among equals. Any “leadership” position would be only to assist with certain communal exigencies of living on the same property; real authority is not canonically granted. The diocese continues to have the obligation of furnishing continuing formation and supervision to the individual hermits, whether they belong to lauras or not.

If a diocese thinks it can “escape” its responsibilities to hermits by abdicating its duties to a fictitious “superior” of a laura, then it is gravely mistaken. The hermit has the right to direct access to his/her lawful superior who is the bishop, any “delegate” notwithstanding and the bishop has the obligation of knowing the individual hermits in his diocese.

Initial and Continuing Formation of Hermits

The problem faced by hermits today, whether they be in the pre-formation/candidacy stage, initial formation stage, or post-profession stage, is that of formation. This is a complex reality as “living in the cell” is a large part of the formation process. But it is not the only part of the process. For diocesan candidates or hermits, the diocese has an intrinsic and serious responsibility to provide initial and ongoing formation to its hermits. This must be tailored and adapted to the reality that there will be no “companions” or live-in superiors to ensure continued growth of virtue and of wholeness in humanity of the hermit.

The individual hermits themselves have a grave obligation of growing in the practice of virtue, growing in prayer, widening their understanding of sacred scripture, theology, etc. They also need to be well aware of their own holy patrimony in the Church, and steeped in the mindset of the desert fathers/mothers.

Given the complexity of all that has been said above, the bishop, whose duty it is to carefully discern with those who believe that they may have a vocation to the eremitical life, should consult with true experts on the eremitic vocation. It is not enough for the people tasked with assisting the bishop in the discernment of eremitic vocations and/or formation to be ordained or possess a diploma in theology [unless their role is to give formation in say liturgy or theology]. Bishops should collaborate with those who actually know the canonical and practical framework of the vocation for viable candidates and those in need of continuing formation.

Likewise, the eremitical vocation is not a mere matter of the internal forum. It is a public vocation even if it is lived in solitude and therefore it has a visible framework. Thus, it is highly inappropriate and a grave abuse to relegate all work with the individual aspiring hermit to the “spiritual director”. The division between the internal forum and external must be maintained and those entrusted with roles in either must be suitably competent in their area.

While this may sound intimidating, it is the Church’s intent that both parties do their due diligence and not shirk their individual responsibilities. The bishop has the obligation of authenticating and promoting true vocations to the hermit life and the hermit aspirant has the obligation of discerning and following their vocation even if the diocese refuses to profess hermits for valid or invalid reasons. Someone called to the silence of solitude will do it regardless of whether the diocese is willing to profess hermits.

On Monastic and Eremitical Life in the Future

[[Dear Sister, Sorry for the back to back questions. Recently I was on retreat at a Trappist monastery. During vespers on the last day of my retreat I took a good look at the monks in choir and realized that due to the age of the monks and the lack of vocations that this monastery (barring a miracle) will be gone in 10 or 15 years. It made me incredibly sad. I also realize that this will be the case for most monastic communities throughout North America (and probably Europe too).  While there are a few happy exceptions to this trend (many of which are very traditional) I fear monastic life is dying and with it many beautiful traditions and more importantly much wisdom that will not be passed on to a future generation of monastics. This realization raised many questions for me. I would love your opinion on them:

 

1) Do you think the growth in the hermit vocation is a response to the general collapse of religious life after the Council?]]
 

Thanks for your questions. I am still working on the one prior to this one so no problems that you wrote again. In fact, it's a help to me and I am grateful. First though, let me say that I definitely don't see what is happening to religious life as a "collapse". What people became used to was actually not the norm but an exaggerated instance of numbers. We know that the average life cycle of a congregation is ordinarily around 150 years. This is typical for Apostolic or Ministerial congregations which are founded for specific ministries and needs. For monastic congregations the shift in numbers does not mean the monastic life is dying out, much less "collapsing". Monastic life has evolved over time, throughout time and will continue to do so. Today, for instance, the popularity of oblates represents a shift in the form in which monastic values are embodied but they depend on vowed monastics so a shift in numbers here may point to a new form of monasticism with greater presence among the covenanted laity but not without vowed representation and (perhaps) leadership. Most of the religious I know recognize that even when communities die (or, better said perhaps, achieve the completion of their historical lives and missions) their charism continues if the congregation has worked to provide for this, and they trust that God will ensure the continuance of religious life itself in whatever form that will take. I agree with that view of religious life as providential --- which certainly includes monastic life itself.

 

Regarding the upsurge in eremitical life, no I absolutely do not see it as a result of some sort of "collapse" of monastic life  While the Trappist community you saw was ageing and perhaps dying out, that is not the case generally. Even so, the upsurge in eremitical life, to the degree these vocations are authentic, is more representative in the Western Church at least, with the Church's new-found esteem and provision for this vocation in canon law. The vocation never died out in the Eastern Church and I believe the Western Church would not have experienced the dearth of vocations it did had it recognized the vocation universally in law or truly esteemed it as the Eastern Church has done right along. Another source of authentic eremitical vocations is the countercultural, paradoxical, and prophetic reaction to individualism (and several other "isms") so prevalent today. Canon 603 defines an ecclesial vocation which is individual but not individualistic. I sincerely believe that  the hermits I know who live their lives as consecrated Catholic hermits, and thus as those publicly professed (whether  in community or under c 603) have, out of the love of God, embraced an essentially ecclesial vocation in profound reaction to the dis-ease of individualism (and those other "isms") which so afflict our culture.

 

[[2) It seems most hermits look to communal monastic life for their inspiration by adopting the charism of these communities as the inspiration/grounding of their lives as hermits (i.e. Camaldolese, Carthusian, Cistercian).]]

 

Remember that monastic life grew out of (and sometimes was an attempt to protect the very best impulses of) eremitical life and a radical discipleship, not the other way around. However, that said, it is also true that in monastic life we see preserved and developed the values and spirituality of eremitical life, particularly the communal or ecclesial seedbed leading, for instance, to authentic solitude and "separation" from the world. We look to monastic life because it ordinarily provides the necessary formative context for human growth and spiritual maturity which allows one to hear an authentic call to the silence of solitude in eremitical life. The larger Church, per se, does not ordinarily do this where once it did. So, for instance, if we want to understand values and praxis central to eremitical life, values like silence, solitude, assiduous prayer, penance, the evangelical counsels, the value of manual labor, the importance of community for solitude (and vice versa!), etc., we mainly have to turn to monastic houses and communities. Generally speaking, silence and an understanding of, much less an esteem for solitude-in-community simply cannot be found in parish churches. Contemplative life (which eremitical life always is) itself tends to be found and supported effectively in community, (and again generally speaking) not in contemporary parishes. Regular prayer (Divine Office, contemplative prayer, the cultivation of the Evangelical counsels, and life rooted in Scripture or the Rules of Benedict, Albert, et al., also cannot generally be found in parishes.)

 

[[3) What effect do you think the collapse of monastic life will have on the hermit vocation? It seems to me that without a connection to a living monastic tradition the hermit life will become unanchored.]]

 

While I don't believe eremitical life will disappear, I believe it will become even rarer if monastic houses disappear. Canon 603 allows for hermits who are formed mainly within parishes or dioceses, but these vocations are truly very rare. What is crucial to them is not merely the silence of solitude but the fact that the values of eremitical life are embedded in and supported at every point by the life of the Church itself. Camaldolese hermits "live alone together". Diocesan hermits live the silence of solitude only with the support of a parish and diocesan structures but also may find these insufficient and require the more intense and explicit contemplative life of the monastery for support and inspiration. Eremitical life must be anchored or rooted in specific practices and values; these are most fundamentally ecclesial, spiritual, and human values not merely monastic; but at the same time they have been lived and embodied most faithfully and consistently in monastic life. To the degree people can really find these values in their local churches (or in accounts of monastic life, etc) eremitical life will continue as the rare vocation it is. Paradoxically, at the same time, to the degree people find these values to be important but threatened to disappear from the local Church, eremitical life will continue to arise as a prophetic reality, just as it did in the days Constantine published the Edict of Milan and inadvertently triggered the rise of the Desert Fathers and Mothers.  

 

Unfortunately, I believe the existence of authentic eremitical vocations will be more threatened by ignorance and individualism than by the growing loss of numbers among those living monastic life itself. Today, dioceses sometimes (maybe often) fail to distinguish between lone individuals and authentic hermits; this leads to the undiscerning and unwise profession of "vocations" which cannot persist except as aberrations of eremitical life. Eremitical life is marked by great freedom and no hermit is identical to any other, but license and freedom are not the same things. To the degree diocesan staff don't understand eremitical life and mistake it for merely being someone who lives a relatively pious life alone, candidates discerning eremitical life may substitute individualism for eremitism without noticing what is actually happening.

Importantly, we cannot treat hermits as though they are something other than rare. Eremitical life is simply not the way most people come to human wholeness or genuine Christian discipleship. Especially, we cannot see them as the replacement troops for diminishing numbers of cenobitical religious. The two forms of religious life are related but not interchangeable and dioceses will need to resist the impulse to treat them identically or to look for numbers in either form of religious life. Similarly, we cannot allow c 603 vocations to be replaced by individuals who actually reject Vatican II and the wisdom it codified and is now found embodied to some extent in the post-Vatican II Church. (I say to some extent because I believe Vatican has not been adequately received by the Church yet.) Vatican II is part of the Church's authentic Tradition and we cannot allow individuals who reject that part of the Tradition to isolate themselves from the contemporary Church while taking refuge in a canon which was actually made possible by the Vatican II Council and it's call for the revision of Canon Law itself. I think this specific use of canon 603 represents a particularly disreputable form of individualism which cannot be validated as diocesan eremitical life.

[[4) Finally, it seems to me that growth and vocations in the monastic life is mostly among communities that are quite traditional (i.e. using pre-Vatican 2 liturgies). I don’t think dismissing them, as some do, is the answer. The monks and nuns of these communities are well educated, hard working and living their monastic life with integrity. In short, they are “doing and living it.” And they have been for decades. They aren’t a flash in the pan. It seems that if monastic life is going to survive then the future belongs to these communities as they will be the only ones in existence. What are your thoughts regarding this phenomenon and what implications, if any, will it have for canon 603 hermits?]] 

 

I don't believe the pre-Vatican II monastic communities will be the only ones in existence in the future. I think in this matter you have overstated your case. At the same time, I recognize that Canon 603 itself with its clear effect upon eremitical vocations is, again, a direct result of Vatican II and its return to earliest Christian sources and impulses. If the pre-Vatican II monastic communities you mention are to continue and be something the post Vatican II church can learn from, they will have to do so in dialogue with the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and with contemporary monastic life. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence of a desire to embrace such dialogue by the communities you are referring to.

Canon 603 hermits may draw from some of the values found in monastic life lived in these congregations and houses, but c 603 eremitical life remains the fruit of Vatican II and is shaped charismatically by the same Holy Spirit that occasioned Vatican II and inspires all authentic monastic and consecrated life. (By the way, as something of a postscript I should note that monastic houses don't necessarily lose members because they are inauthentic in their living of monastic life, and neither is it automatically true that the traditionalist communities you are speaking of gain members or demonstrate continuing numbers because they are living authentic and healthy monastic life. The situation is very much  more complicated than that and once again numbers are not the guiding criterion here any more than they are with eremitical life.)  

These are my initial thoughts on the things you have written about. I think of it, therefore, as the first step in a continuing dialogue. I hope you find it helpful.

On Solitary Hermits, C 603, and Stable states of Life

[[Hi Sister Laurel, did you see the story about the hermit profession in the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese? The story says two of these hermits live together. I wondered how that might work if the vocation is one of silence and solitude.]]

Yes, I did see the article. Several things about it surprised me. The first was that two of the women were living together; a second surprising thing was the specification of three canonical hermits in the diocese (if the number is correct it suggests a young woman professed several years ago may not have persevered). A third was that Bishop Kevin Rhoades has professed a relative "lot" of hermits in a fairly short amount of time (his tenure as Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend is only a few years and he has admitted four people to at least temporary profession under c 603).

Your question is a good one since c 603 is meant to govern solitary eremitical vocations. Lauras (colonies of no more than three) are permitted but these may not rise to the level of an actual community or institute of consecrated life. (cf Jean Beyer's work on this including his comments in Coriden'sThe Code of Canon Law, A Text and Commentary.) This means each hermit in such a colony should have her own Rule, her own bank account and source of income, her own horarium, spiritual director, diocesan delegate, etc. In lauras, hermits may come together regularly (usually weekly) for walks or Sunday dinner, festal offices, and daily Mass, but otherwise, their lives are lived in cell. This ordinarily includes daily office, meals, recreation, study, lectio, etc. All of these "requirements" would certainly hold for two diocesan hermits living together in the same residence. If the two women really are solitary hermits (as they are supposed to be under c 603) and not a couple of Sisters living a communal life (no matter how contemplative or prayerful) while using c 603 as a stopgap way to achieve canonical profession, then a few things will need to be true. First, the residence must be large enough for each to have an entirely private and silent prayer space or cell where she prays, does lectio, says daily office, sleeps, eats, studies, and recreates. (A staggered schedule could allow each woman to cook and eat in the kitchen/dining room separately from one another and a separate, dedicated library could allow for both to read or study in shared silence and solitude.)

The Sisters could, if mutually agreeable, come together occasionally for office and dinner on Sundays or significant feasts just as they might schedule significant time together for shared prayer, a walk, a shopping trip, etc once or twice a week perhaps. They could also travel together to daily Mass, but conversation, if any was necessary, would also need to be minimal and each person's need for silence respected. Moreover, each one would need her own Rule and director along with absolute freedom and diocesan support in discerning the needs of her own solitary eremitical life; while accommodations would be required for the shared times and premises, the individual Rule would need to be sufficient for the Sister's own life as should her income, etc, should she be required to leave this residence. The possible reasons are several: the other Sister dies,  either one decides she needs to leave eremitical life, either person discerns she requires a more physically solitary situation, the rhythms and nature of the two calls to solitary eremitical life are simply too different from one another, and so forth. Another reason includes changes in health which are substantial enough to affect both members of the house. More about this is below.

Without these things, neither woman would be living an eremitical life and significantly, neither would be able to accommodate any divine call to greater reclusion --- which is an integral part of an eremitical call. (The need for greater reclusion can occur from time to time as well and this would have to be given priority over the already-scheduled times together.) Especially critical in the case of two older hermits is the provision for health care (including in-home caregivers) affecting one of the two hermits. For instance, one hermit should not be automatically expected to provide these things for the other while the presence of in-home caregivers could also considerably impact the silence and solitude of the second hermit's life. In a religious institute like the Carthusians, brothers and sisters provide all the care an elderly hermit or nun requires, but this critical responsibility which no Carthusian would turn over to an outsider does not fall to a single person. The eremitical vocation to the solitude of all the others in the Charterhouse is preserved while their communal commitment to being family for one another is also carefully maintained.

Likewise, in a laura of diocesan hermits, the cells are a sufficient distance from one another that visitors (caregivers, for instance) do not impact the others. Some lauras actually require a hermit needing full-time medical or in-home care to move to a nursing facility or infirmary. This may seem heartless or lacking in charity but in point of fact, it protects the vocations of the other solitary hermits. Remember these hermits are NOT professed as part of a community; their vocations are to solitary eremitical life. They neither have Sisters to care for them in this way nor are they necessarily called to do something similar for other members of the laura. The allowance of a laura for canon 603 hermits is something additional meant for mutual protection and support in solitude but it is not an essential part of the life defined by canon 603. It does not and must not change the nature of the vocation itself which is that of the solitary eremitical life. What I am saying here is the situation described in the diocese of Fort Wayne could certainly work for these two hermits but everyone must be clear about what each person's vocation really consists. Sufficient solitude and personal freedom to respond to God's call could be ensured but there are some significant caveats and also, some significant provisions for each Sister's vocation, both in the present and in case of future need, must be assured.

By the way, I should add here as a kind of postscript that in the case of a serious illness, a solitary hermit living with another Sister might, with the assistance of her Bishop and SD, discern that for the space of a few weeks or months, it is important for her to assist the ill Sister to the best of her ability or tolerate others coming into the hermitage to care for her. Charity, it might be determined, required this. This might well necessitate a temporary suspension of parts of the Sister's Rule, for instance, which the Bishop may grant. However, it is also the case that as with work outside the hermitage, everyone should continue discerning the impact of this arrangement on the Sister's own health and vocation. Should either of these begin to suffer, or should the situation become more extensive in its demands of time and personal commitment, the Sister who is not ill should be free to say she cannot continue to assist in this way or even accommodate further intrusions in the hermitage's privacy or functional "cloister". A suitable resolution for both Sisters would need to be found, and the diocese which approved or even encouraged the common living arrangement would absolutely need to assist in this. Of course, this would be very difficult on a number of levels for all involved but this is one of the problems which could well be encountered by c 603 ("solitary") hermits who choose or are encouraged to live together.

[[My second question is why would the Church allow some consecrated Catholic hermits with private vows to live without legitimate superiors, move wherever they wanted and at the same time require other consecrated hermits with public vows to live in the same diocese where they were professed? Don't all consecrated persons have to be accountable to superiors and live where they are permitted? Anyway, it hardly seem fair that some consecrated hermits could live anywhere and others would be tied to a [specific] diocese. Joyful hermit at the blog A Catholic Hermit wrote that this is the way things are though.]]

First, let's be clear: hermits with private vows (unless they are ordained) are dedicated lay hermits. They are not consecrated hermits and have no right to call themselves Catholic hermits because they have neither been extended nor accepted the legal (canonical) rights and obligations associated with living the eremitical life in the name of the Church. Hermits who are publicly professed and consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church have been extended and accepted the public (canonical) rights, and obligations as well as the implicit expectations of every member of the Church who rightly sees her profession as a public matter. (N.B., priests who live as hermits without public vows either under c. 603 or as a member of a religious institute, are ALSO not consecrated hermits; they are ordained and hermits (hermits in the ordained state of life) but they are not members of the consecrated state of life.)

Moreover, as I have also written here a number of times, public profession initiates one into a stable state of life. This means a number of things but mainly it means a series of legitimate relationships that are absolutely necessary for the accountable and authentic living of her commitment which are essential to the life itself. Part of this means such persons are not footloose and fancy-free. They are not and cannot be the equivalent of gyrovagues or Sarabaites so critically viewed in the Rule of St Benedict simply moving wherever the "spirit" moves them. They are tied to place and to superiors in some substantial way. With religious communities (institutes), for instance, the erection and suppression of houses associated with the institute are established according to canon and proper law. Such houses are approved by the institute's superiors and either the local Bishop or the Apostolic See and members live in these houses or, with proper consideration and permission, in the same area or diocese. (cf cc 606-616)

Somewhat similarly, secular or diocesan priests are incardinated into a diocese --- another instance of the Church's concern for stable relationships and accountability. They cannot simply move from diocese to diocese as they please while acting as a Catholic priest. Diocesan hermits are responsible to the local bishop who is their legitimate superiors. As I have noted here several times, in a kind of excardination and incardination, she may move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit if the Bishop there agrees to receive her as a diocesan hermit and act as her legitimate superior. Otherwise, such a move would find her vows either dispensed or rendered "invalid" (no longer binding) by the substantial change in her circumstances.

In all of these cases consecrated and ordained life requires stable relationships and ways of assuring accountability to the local and universal Church in whose name these persons live their lives. The reason a person with private vows can move wherever and whenever without reference to law or legitimate superiors is precisely because her commitment is a private one rather than a public one.  Such a person is not publicly accountable for the eremitical life or tradition and has not been initiated into a stable state of life that would specifically allow for that. Lay hermits live their lives in the stable state into which they are initiated with baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. But to live as a consecrated Catholic hermit requires other stable relationships commensurate with a new stable state of life marked by additional rights and obligations.

Because hermits in the lay state have neither been extended nor accepted additional rights or obligations beyond those of baptism this also means such a person has no right to style him/herself as a consecrated religious, a Catholic hermit, a professed religious (the term profession itself, by the way, implies public commitments and initiation into a stable state of life) or anything similar. What you describe would indeed be unfair. It would be inconsistent, and disedifying. Frankly, it would be hard to understand why any hermit would seek profession under canon 603 if the biggest difference between her vocation and that of a lay hermit with private vows is the fact that a lay hermit is free to do anything she wants whenever and wherever she wants without legitimate accountability while the publicly professed hermit is constrained by legal relationships and canons. In any case, don't be concerned about apparent unfairness; the situation you described or cited is simply not rooted in fact.

Once again it is important to remember the Church values and is directly responsible for vocations to the consecrated state in very specific ways. She is careful about anyone using the term Catholic to designate a vocation, enterprise, or institution without ecclesial authorization to the point of creating canons that prohibit this. Again a Catholic hermit, Catholic theologian, Catholic priest or religious, etc, must ALL have been granted the right to refer to themselves in this way. Baptism gives a person the right (and obligation) to call themselves and live as a Catholic. The other specifications (Catholic hermit, Catholic nun, Catholic priest, Catholic friar, etc.) require the admission to and acceptance of further legal (canonical) rights and obligations because these terms don't simply mean "a Catholic who is also a priest, nun, hermit, etc". Again, the use of the term Catholic in these examples and many others means someone who lives this vocation in the name of the Church and as an official representative of this very vocation. Such persons are directly accountable every day of their lives for the ecclesial commission the Church has extended to them. Not so with those whose commitments beyond their baptismal consecration are private rather than public.

P.S., I have added one final question from another person to this post since I don't really want to write about it separately. I hope you don't mind; it deals with the same post you asked about so it fits very well here.

[[Sister Laurel,  is it true that first and final vows are not documented in the Church's institutes on eremitical life? I read this online and thought I would ask, [[However, this is yet one example again, of how bishops vary in attitude and norm for those they canonically approve or receive what they might call "first vows" (first or second or third or final vows are not actually required nor documented in the Church institutes on eremitic life).]]


First of all as I have noted in the past, the Church speaks of canons, norms, universal (canon) and proper (particular) law to refer to what this poster calls "institutes". The Roman Catholic Church does not use institutes in the way this poster does. Instead, in c 603, for instance, when the Church says, "besides institutes of consecrated life", she means "besides canonical congregations, communities and orders". The term "institutes" means societies, in this case, those of consecrated life.

The use of institutes in the poster's sense has its roots in a misreading she once did of c 603 when she inserted the definite article "the" in the phrase already cited: "Besides the institutes of consecrated life. . ." This allowed her to mistakenly think of institutes as statutes and argue that c 603 was only a proviso that applied to some solitary consecrated hermits but not to others. Again, c. 603 is the norm for ALL solitary consecrated hermits in the universal Church. There are no solitary consecrated hermits (solitary hermits in the consecrated state) apart from c 603 hermits.

Secondly, and to answer your direct question, while canon 603 does not mention first vows but merely profession using vows or other sacred bonds, other canons in the New Code dealing with religious life DO refer specifically to temporary profession and perpetual profession. C 603 hermits are not bound by only one canon, but by those binding religious in the Roman Catholic Church more generally. Meanwhile, conferences of Bishops rightly hold that the eremitical life requires long testing and discernment which makes temporary profession at least prudent if not absolutely necessary. Hermits themselves know that admission to perpetual profession without long preparation is imprudent; temporary profession, though not strictly necessary with canon 603, is the usual way to become knowledgeable about what living the vows really means. Moreover, a profession by its very nature must be temporary or perpetual, and c 603 clearly requires a public profession. It is a mistake to say that such a practice including final or perpetual profession of vows or other sacred bonds and the necessary preparation for these are not actually required or documented.