Followup Questions: The Meaning of "Institutes" and other things

[[Hi Sister, so when c 603 says, "Besides institutes [not the institutes] of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life," she is specifically recognizing solitary hermits who are publicly professed to be religious? Is this part of the reason c 603 hermits are not allowed to form into communities? Do some people fail to recognize c 603 hermits as religious? Is it usual for communities to call themselves institutes? It is not a terminology I am familiar with and the blog you referred [readers] to seems to understand "institutes" as meaning some kind of statute or law or something. She misquotes the canon with "Besides "the institutes" of consecrated life. . ." and also writes, "CL603 has some additional requirements beyond what all consecrated Catholic hermits must live per the institutes of the Catholic Church," and "all Catholic hermits must profess the three evangelical counsels according to the institutes of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." [Also] why if we are all consecrated does the phrase "consecrated life" or "consecrated religious" only refer to those with public commitments?]]

Really excellent questions! Yes, when canon 603 speaks in this way it is outlining the specific new canonical reality known more commonly today as the solitary consecrated or diocesan hermit. In this canon the Church is saying, as commentators made clear in the Handbook on Canons 573-746, that for the first time hermits with no ties to a congregation or institute are to be considered religious. These hermits have entered the consecrated state of life through profession (which is defined by the church as the making of public vows) whether they come from the lay or clerical states; they live according to an approved Rule of Life and under the supervision of the Bishop who is their legitimate superior. Other canons will apply to their lives therefore, but c 603 defines the central or "constitutive" elements of the solitary canonical eremitical life.

In other words, canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" added to other "institutes" of the Catholic Church (I agree this does sound as if the person you are citing believes "institutes" are like statutes to which the elements of c 603 have been added but the use is unclear; unfortunately the error is made less ambiguous in a later post where she mistakenly writes, "The two previous posts cited the appropriate institutes and laws. . ." so it seems to me this blogger is possibly confusing the term "statutes" with the term "institutes"). In any case c 603 is instead a new canon defining a new though also very ancient form of consecrated life for the first time ever in universal law, namely the solitary diocesan eremitical life which stands side by side with Institutes (communities) of consecrated life. Religious who are publicly professed under other canons (CIC, 573-746) and their institute's proper law are not bound by canon 603 at all. Nor are lay hermits though they may well find it instructive and helpful in structuring their own lives .

You see, persons desiring to enter a semi-erem-itical institute were already able to do that apart from this canon while those desiring to create actual communities (groups with common Rule, common superior, common constitutions, common habit and finances, etc) will find the processes by which they can do so also exist apart from canon 603. As you rightly point out, canon 603 is not meant for the establishment of institutes or communities in this sense; lauras (colonies of already-professed diocesan hermits) can be formed so long as they do not rise to the level of an institute or community. In such lauras the hermits will retain their own Rule, their financial independence, and so forth while accommodating and contributing to the needs of the group as is reasonable. Individuals professed as members of an institute do not retain their vows should the institute dissolve or be suppressed --- though transfer to another institute is possible. Hermits professed under c 603 retain their vows and obligations should a laura dissolve or be suppressed. They cannot transfer these to an institute. Thus, they must retain the elements of c 603 (their own Rule, etc) as individually worked out even when they form a laura. (cf posts under label, canon 603 Lauras vs Communities) By the way, canon 607.2 defines an institute this way: [[ A religious institute is a society in which, in accordance with their own law, the members pronounce public vows and live a fraternal life in common. The vows are either perpetual or temporary; if the latter, they are to be renewed when the time elapses.]] Thus c 603 hermits are solitary hermits who exist as religious beside (as well as and alongside members of) institutes of consecrated life.

It tends, as far as I am aware, to be the case that the term "institute" shows up in official documents like consti-tutions and things. Most of us have never heard anyone ask a religious, "What institute do you belong to?" We are used to hearing and using terms like community, congregation, or order for instance. But institute is a universal term which allows canon law to speak of the conditions which bind every canonically founded group or community in the Church without getting bogged down in their differences. It also has the value of indicating this is a reality founded by human beings with an institutional structure as well as a charismatic nature. I don't know much more about the history of the term than that. In any case, in c 603, the reference, "Besides institutes of consecrated life. . ." does not mean besides other canons or statutes referring to consecrated life. It means besides (along with) congregations or communities (etc) of religious, the Church now recognizes diocesan hermits or anchorites in law.

While every baptized person in the Church is consecrated in baptism, relatively few enter what is called the consecrated state of life. This means that the person takes on additional legal and moral rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism. Today we refer to those consecrated in baptism as laity because in baptism they are consecrated as part of the Laos tou Theou or "People of God". To say one is part of the laity is an incredibly important statement which identifies a commission of tremendous significance. This is not merely an "entrance level" vocation. The "consecrated state of life" or "consecrated life" is a reality one enters first by the combination of self-dedication (profession) and Divine consecration and through these, by taking on additional public (legitimate or canonical) rights and obligations through public profession and/or consecration. This is not a "step up" from baptismal consecration if "step up" means "superior to". Instead it is a public specification of one's baptismal commitment centered on a specific and "second" consecration by God in which one is enabled to respond to the specific grace of this way of living within the People of God or Laos tou Theou.

To speak of lay hermits is to speak of those living the eremitical life by virtue of their baptismal consecration alone either with or without private vows. To speak of a consecrated hermit is to speak of those who have thereafter entered the consecrated state of life through public profession and this new or second consecration (which is solemnly celebrated only with perpetual profession). As I have said a number of times here, the consecrated hermit is also referred to by the terms "Catholic Hermit" because s/he is explicitly commissioned by the Church to live the eremitical life in the name of the Church, or "diocesan hermit" because his/her legitimate superior is the diocesan Bishop. While she of course still belongs to the Laos and is laity in one sense (hierarchically speaking she is not a cleric so she is lay), vocationally speaking she is also a "religious" or "consecrated person" as a lay person with private vows alone would not be.

(By the way, I don't know anyone who currently denies c 603 hermits are religious. As noted above, canonists in the Handbook on Canons 573-746 make it clear that canon 603 extends the use of this designation to those without a connection to an institute. When canon 603 was first promulgated hermits professed accordingly were distinguished from religious hermits, that is from hermits belonging to communities or institutes of consecrated life; one would read canonists who said "canon 603 hermits are not religious", but over time usage has changed and greater clarity has emerged on this issue by virtue of analysis of all the canons which apply to c 603 life and the similarity of this form of vowed life to that of all religious.)

Because those in the consecrated state of life are commissioned to live a specific form of life (eremitical, religious, consecrated virginity) in the name of the Church and because this is associated with specific public rights, obligations, and expectations on the part of the whole People of God (and the world!), the term "consecrated life" tends to be reserved for these forms of life alone (also cf CCC paragraph 944, [[The life consecrated to God is characterized by public profession of the evangelical counsels. . .in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.]].

What's the Big Deal?

 [[Dear Sister, why is it so important to make clear that there is a difference between consecrated hermits or canon 603 hermits and lay hermits? There is one person [cf., A Catholic Hermit] who claims to be writing for hermits who wish to be consecrated religious hermits by making private vows. She says, "This nothing hermit has also reflected and been reminded to encourage all aspiring Catholic hermits, to keep in mind we are consecrated religious eremitics called to live and keep our valid private vows. Regardless which of the now two Church-approved paths (privately or since 1983 publicly expressed vows), we ought prayerfully live daily and nightly the three evangelical counsels, and all else asked of hermits, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church."  Shouldn't she just be allowed to do this? I mean what does it matter? What harm can it do? They would still be hermits.]] (emphasis added)

Because I have already explained the difference between private and public vows in other posts here I really don't want to do that again.  It seems though that some of this is still unclear. The central issue is not merely about whether or not vows are expressed privately or publicly. In fact that is not the issue at all since private vows can be made in front of many people and public vows can be made in relative secret if the need exists. To continue to insist or imply this is the essential difference between public and private vows, as the person you have cited does, is to perpetuate a distortion of the truth. Instead the central issue is whether vows lead to new legitimate rights and obligations or not. What is at issue when we speak of private versus public vows is whether they establish the person in a public vocation or instead represent a private commitment. In other words, in distinguishing these two forms of vows the Church is concerned with whether or not, through the mediation of the Church, the person is initiated into another state of life (religious and/or consecrated life) for which they are publicly (that is, both morally and legally) responsible.

The person you are citing (who does read this blog, by the way) does and is certainly entirely free to disagree with what I write about many things, but in this matter I am not merely expressing my own opinion. What I have explained is simply factual and centers on the way the Church herself uses the terms "consecrated hermits", "professed religious", "profession", and so forth". What the Catechism of the Catholic Church writes about "consecrated Life" and hermits has to be understood in light of the glossary which provides definitions of fundamental terms that might otherwise be misunderstood (cf especially "vows", and "consecrated life) ; the definitions there make it clear that paragraphs 920-921 which fall under the heading "consecrated life" refer specifically to those entering the consecrated state of life as solitary hermits, not to lay hermits. These hermits always make their commitment via public profession but they may not always use vows of the evangelical counsels to do so. Some may use "other sacred bonds" to make their profession. Some may use the classic monastic vows (stability, conversion of life (which includes poverty and chastity), and obedience rather than the more typically Franciscan triad. Since 1983 these publicly professed solitary hermits exist as religious besides (along with) already recognized institutes of consecrated life.

I have also explained that there are three paths in the Church today to pursue eremitical life, not two: 1) publicly professed and consecrated life in a community (that is, an institute) of hermits (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Sisters of Bethlehem, etc); this "semi-eremitic" option has existed for more than twelve centuries, 2) consecrated life under canon 603 (solitary diocesan eremitical life); this establishes in universal law what many dioceses anticipated and allowed through the authority of the local Bishop throughout Church history; these hermits are solitary hermits and are not professed as part of an institute of religious life (the Church's term for a congregation, community, or Order); finally there is 3) lay eremitical life (extant in the church since the 4C). The first two of these require public vows (which can be made without any notoriety, especially in countries where the person would be persecuted if their profession and/or consecration were known) and they establish the hermit in a public vocation no matter the hiddenness of the life, The third is a private commitment (even if made in public before hundreds of people) and does not change the person's state of life. If they were a lay person before these vows, then despite the unquestioned validity of the (private) vows, they remain lay persons afterward. (Similarly, if they were clerics they remain clerics and if already religious they remain religious.)

Because the canonical rights and obligations of these forms of eremitical life differ despite the fact that they are each truly eremitical it is important that people seeking to live this life be able to make a wise and accurately informed discernment on which of these is truly what fits one's own vocation. Some people have absolutely no desire to live their vocations in the name of the Church, some have no interest in representing or extending a living tradition in the contemporary world, many have no desire to have their lives supervised by the church or to live under superiors or with regard to canon law; others refuse to jump through the hoops necessary to become publicly professed and consecrated hermits, and some simply are not able to do these things in a representative and credible way, for whatever reason.

What's the Big Deal with Distortions of the Truth?

This is not the first time I have been asked, "What's the harm?" What you are asking, whether you realize it or not is, "What's the big deal with allowing distortions of the truth?" You are also asking, "What harm can living a life (or encouraging others to live a life) of pretense do?" You see, so long as the way to becoming a consecrated or Catholic hermit in the Catholic Church is invariably through public profession and (with perpetual profession) consecration overseen and mediated by the Church, the person you cited is perpetuating a falsehood. So long as initiation into the consecrated and religious states of life is ALWAYS mediated by the church in a public act and represents an ecclesial vocation, the person you referenced is living and fostering a lie.

Moreover, so long as this person is distorting language and texts to read in ways the Church did not intend simply because she believes she has the right to her opinion on the meaning of these same terms and texts and then writes that her individualistic understanding and praxis can be considered appropriate for others, she has crossed the line into a seductive fraud --- a fraud which she hopes and encourages other vulnerable persons to adopt while unaware of the truth. The point is the notion that someone can become a consecrated religious hermit or a "professed religious" or a "Catholic Hermit" merely by making private vows is simply not true. When this notion is perpetuated, and especially when it is done by someone falsely claiming to be a Catholic Hermit, that is a hermit living her life in the name of the Church, it can mislead others and hurt them, just as believing in and acting on lies often hurts those who have done so --- except that here the Church has been nominally and wrongly implicated in the lie.

We are sensitive today to people acting in the name of the Church committing crimes, hypocrisy, immorality of all sorts. And rightly so. When someone appends Catholic to their vocation, workplace, project, or whatever, the Church herself can be smeared by anything offensive associated with that enterprise; for that reason she has a say in whether their use of the characterization Catholic is acceptable or not. That is why the Church has legislated in Canon Law that no one will use the name Catholic without explicit permission from the appropriate authority. It is why we sometimes see online radio or TV stations deprived of the name Catholic by the local Bishop. If a Catholic priest does something seriously wrong then the Church herself is besmirched; if a Catholic theologian writes against the resurrection then the Church herself is implicated in his/her actions because s/he acted in her name and she is responsible for the mission that allows this theologian to call him/herself a "Catholic Theologian". The same is true with Catholic monks, nuns, religious sisters, brothers, and hermits. All of these have been publicly commissioned to live their lives in the name of the Church. All of them are supervised by the Church and are specifically answerable to the entire Church. Moreover, they are careful of hypocrisy in their own lives and sensitive to frauds within their ranks; they are equally sensitive to more overt frauds pretending to be religious living and acting in the name of the Church.

So, my answer to your first question is no, the person you cited should not simply be allowed to encourage others to pursue or live a lie without at least an attempt to correct the falsehoods and distortions she perpetuates. She should especially not be allowed to do so while claiming the credentials, "professed religious", "consecrated hermit," "consecrated religious", or "Catholic hermit." To do this is to potentially distort peoples' discernment processes with false information. It is at least potentially, to waste months and even years of their lives in following a lie. It is to set these people up for marginalization and rejection. It is to encourage them to be seen as incredible, as frauds, or even as deluded persons, or as those who could not pursue an eremitical vocation in the usual ways and so, made something up instead. It is to lead them to believe the Church herself sees them as consecrated religious when this is not true. More, it is to encourage them to deny the very vocation God may be calling them to, namely lay eremitical life. In an age of the Church which is recovering a strong sense of the significance of baptismal consecration and lay life of all sorts it is seriously misguided to encourage others who are, vocationally speaking, lay persons to think of themselves as consecrated and professed religious. Because this person's understanding of the eremitical vocation (cited in your question) doesn't even recognize the existence of lay hermits, it implicitly says that being a lay person is not really good enough even though the person decides either not to pursue or is not discerned to have another vocation which is entered through a public commitment besides baptism.

Similarly, others who have a vocation to consecrated eremitical life might never even pursue it because they think they are already living it. A life given over to such a foundational pretense, though it might instead have been one of significant ecclesial witness, could be unlikely thereafter ever to be admitted to such a position of trust by the Church. Similarly, catering to someone's desperation to be allowed to live a religious life or "to belong" or "have a niche in the Church" or whatever it is that drives them to embrace these kinds of fictions will prevent them from dealing maturely and effectively with the roots of their need. It is simply not charitable to encourage people to embrace and live a lie. It is neither charitable to them nor to those to whom they seek to minister. It is not respectful of them or their real vocations. It is not respectful to the truth or the God of Truth who gifts us with both lay and consecrated vocations; nor is it respectful of the Church which is responsible for mediating these varied gifts through baptism and the public professions and consecration of those called to live them in credible and pastorally responsible ways.

They Would Still Be Hermits:

You write that they would be hermits anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. With private vows this is less certain. I have said before that because many self-defined lay hermits are not supervised, may not be formed in the life or committed to ongoing formation, may have insufficient direction and knowledge, etc., they may simply be living a pious life alone --- a life that differs very little if at all from that of others who live alone and pray before meals and bed. In such a case calling themselves hermits perpetuates a destructive fiction which makes the vocation itself incredible.

Even more problematical are those lay hermits who mistake isolation for solitude or whose spirituality is a thinly veiled "celebration" of self-hatred, bitterness, and rejection of God's good creation in the name of a misunderstood notion of fleeing or hating "the world". Some aspiring "hermits" I have spoken to spend hours watching TV, others use the designation "hermit" as an excuse to spend their days painting or writing or just kicking back, etc. (Many true hermits ALSO write or paint, etc. I am not referring to these! They are hermits (or monks and nuns) first of all and their writing or painting is integrated into this, not vice versa.) Others simply want the garb or the title or desire a way to "belong" in the Church they have already been baptized in. While it is sad when a person cannot accept themselves or a lay vocation, none of these things mean the person is called to be a hermit much less do they make the person a hermit, lay or otherwise.

At the same time however, I know several lay hermits who are paradigms of the eremitical vocation. I expect there are many more. These hermits inspire and challenge me. At least two of them were religious and received their formation, both initial and ongoing, over a period of years. The others spent time studying theology, spirituality, and prepared themselves for significant ministerial roles in the Church before discerning a call to eremitical solitude. Each of these meets regularly with a director and has done so for years. Each is integrally connected to the Church, whether through a parish, monastery, or retreat house. Each of them knows firsthand what it means to be a hermit and how this differs from being simply a lone pious person. Each of them understands themselves as part of a profound and ancient tradition and feel responsible for continuing that in our contemporary world. Because I know these individuals and because I know many people, including a number of isolated elderly, or chronically ill persons who would be wonderful hermits if they only knew the vocation is a vital and contemporary one, I value the lay eremitical vocation and its potential. But I am not unrealistic about its limitations or challenges. As with many things, these limitations may allow exceptional individuals to succeed beautifully while the rest of us need the help and challenge associated with public standing, but equally, they may merely lead to an exceptional failure.

Credibility is the Bottom Line:

My sincerest desire is that I never have to write about the distortion of language involved when lay hermits call themselves consecrated religious, "Catholic Hermits" or "professed religious" again. But unfortunately, so long as people are blogging this way, people who do not know the language very well are going to be seduced by the prospect of avoiding the hoops canonical hermits must negotiate or the scrutiny and constraints they must embrace and still call themselves "consecrated religious hermits." When these same writers submit that canon 603 is a departure from and even a betrayal of the eremitical tradition, then from time to time I will probably continue to get questions from their readers --- and I will probably need to respond yet again.

Canonical hermits, whether professed in community or as solitary hermits under c 603, and whether they come from the laity or the clergy make significant sacrifices in order that their lives are credible representations of a living eremitical tradition and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The constraints on their lives --- canon law, Rule, constitutions, legitimate superiors, commitment to regular and competent spiritual direction, ongoing formation, and public vows --- as well as their commitment to the life giving sources of the Church (Scripture, Sacraments, etc) are all traditional necessities they have freely embraced to be sure their lives are credible and lived with integrity. For most of us these things are also sources of great joy, graced resources which help nurture the maturity and fruitfulness of lives consecrated by God and commissioned in the name of the Church. Even so, for someone to forego all of these and still claim the name "Catholic Hermit" even while ignoring and distorting the way the Church herself uses this term is offensive and dishonest. It is also the very essence of the self-centered and individualistic worldliness which the consecrated hermit is publicly committed to reject with her entire life.

Dedicare vs Consecrare, Half-way States, and Related Questions

Dear Sr. Laurel, I want to commend you, first of all, for your most erudite and intelligent posts, esp. regarding the "Intercessors of the Lamb" and all that has gone on. Fabulous! However. I have become very heavy of heart in reading your commentary on the status of "Public Associations of the Faithful". I have a copy of Fr. Gambari's book stating that those in Public Associations of the Faithful, while not belonging to an Institute of Consecrated Life, do indeed live a consecrated life, within the framework of a Public Association; they are considered to be consecrated "theologically" while not "canonically", as members of an Institute of Consecrated Life, acknowledged by the Church.

For those of us who have made vows, under the diocesan bishop, in an Association of the Faithful, Public, there is a "midway" point; it is not considered to be 'public' in the same way as a diocesan institute, a diocesan hermit, nor in the case of a consecrated virgin consecrated by a bishop (realizing that this is not a "vowed" state, but a consecrated state); Fr. Gambari makes it clear that those in this situation are considered "consecrated persons" but not those in an institute of consecrated life.

I think you may be too rigid in your definition of what consecrated life entails. From my understanding, a man or woman may make consecration to the evangelical counsels under a bishop without belonging to an institute of consecrated life, while not belonging to either the order of hermits nor of consecrated virgins. There is a "half-way"...of diocesan oblates....those men or women who would make consecration to the evangelical counsels at the service of a Diocese under a bishop who would not belong to an institute of consecrated life nor any of the ancient orders. I'm just bringing this to your attention. You are doing great work in making these matters known. Please do not take this as a criticism of what you have said. I am just offering this to you as further information. ]]

Dear Father,
I can understand your concerns and the depth of your feelings here. I actually know them first hand from both sides of the dedicare/consecrare distinction. The theological dimension of any significant form of dedication or commitment should be recognized and esteemed. Again, as I have said before, there is nothing insignificant about lay life, nor about private or non-canonical vows. (And by private vows I mean any vows the Church herself does not regard as public and which do not bind in LAW or create necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church as public vows do. The latter is also true of non-canonical vows made by members of non-canonical communities.) There is no doubt that there is a serious moral and theological dimension to EVERY vow, resolution, act of personal dedication, etc. Fr Gambari's work MAY be attempting to do justice to that dimension, as well as looking at the diverse ways the Spirit moves in the Church. I don't know (the book is out of print and I have not read it).

But I do know that Vatican II worked mightily to reverse elitist trends and get the laity to embrace their part in the universal call to holiness. If, beyond the vows and promises associated with the sacraments of initiation, laity feel called and wish to make commitments which specify their baptismal consecration, and if they truly require these to live their baptismal commitments fully (the reasons here would need to be substantial for additional vows or promises), then those commitments should be regarded. However, this does not mean these commitments are synonymous with initiation into the consecrated state of life any more than it means Baptism per se signifies entry into this particular state. Nor should it mean this. Were this to happen we simply would continue to foster the sense that lay life is not a significant calling to holiness, that is, it is not, in and of itself, special or capable of representing an exhaustive form of discipleship. I am afraid all this talk of "middle" or "half-way" states makes me feel that the realization of the mandate of Vatican II in regard to the laity is still very far away --- and I say this as a theologian, not as a canonist, for I am emphatically NOT the latter.

Let me respond to one of the specific examples you gave, and also note that in doing so I have consulted with a canonist on some of what I am saying here. I will start with the issue of diocesan oblates. I have never heard of such a thing so it sounds like a local practice. It is unclear from your description whether these are individuals or a group of people. At this point, let me assume it refers to individuals who may be akin to what is sometimes called a "diocesan sister". In such a case we would be speaking about a potentially new form of consecrated life not yet recognized in Canon Law, similar to the male equivalent to consecrated virgins perhaps -- which some would like to see recognized as a new form of consecrated life. While a Bishop may (and in fact is encouraged to) discern "new forms of Consecrated Life" these forms must, according to Canon Law (c 605) be ratified by the Apostolic See before being considered new forms of consecrated life. (The authority to do this is specifically reserved to the Holy See who amends Canon Law with a Motu Proprio. Bishops may not do so on their own. On the other hand, Institutes of Consecrated Life MAY be erected by a Bishop when the Apostolic See is consulted but this requires a formal Bishop's decree.)

In such cases the titles, etc which are associated with the consecrated state MAY be extended to individuals or groups while the Church discerns the nature of the vocation at hand but unless and until the Church mediates God's own call to enter the consecrated state of life to the person through public profession, the individuals themselves still remain in the lay state. Their dedication of themselves to God is a significant specification of their baptismal vows nonetheless. Legitimate and valuable speculation about "theological consecration," (or what I have heard referred to as "passive consecration" as opposed to "active consecration") and reflection on the moral dimension of personal dedication to God may occur among theologians and canonists, but this cannot and ought not be confused with what is identified by the Church at this point in time as entrance into the consecrated state of life. In terms of Canon Law there is indeed an anomaly with regard to secular institutes (which have semi-public vows), but here members remain lay (or ordained). They do not enter the consecrated state of life.

Once again, the rule (exceptions mentioned below are cc 603-604) is that the consecrated state is entered by public vows (which means more than that these vows are made in public even if witnessed by the Bishop). Public vows are RECEIVED (not simply witnessed by someone) in the Name of the Church and are canonical vows which bind legally in ways private vows do not. (So, for instance, as part of the vow formula of public profession and consecration, and with the person's hands in the Bishop's own, a sentence like the following will be included: "I ask you, Bishop_______, as Bishop of the Diocese of_______*** to accept my vows in the name of the Church and to grant me your blessing. May the Word of God which I touch with my hand today be my life and my inspiration, this I pray.") Except for the anomaly already mentioned all other vows, no matter the venue in which they are made or who is present, are private.

*** (N.B This part of the formula may refer to the legitimate superior with authority to act in the name of the Church who may not be (and usually is not) the Bishop. However, the person MUST have the authority and the intention of receiving public vows in the name of the Church.)

Theological and Canonical speculation and reflection may lead eventually to changes in Universal Law and to the Church publicly affirming new forms and expressions of consecrated life. However, as it stands now the distinction between entering the consecrated state through profession AND the mediation of God's own consecration of the person, and remaining in the lay state with significant dedication of one's life to God even through the use of private vows, is linked to public vows except in two cases. These are, consecrated virgins (no vows at all) and those relatively unusual diocesan hermits making their public commitment through sacred bonds other than vows. These stable forms of life are both specifically recognized and provided for in Canon Law and their associated rites of profession or consecration are public in the canonical or ecclesial sense of that word. At this point in time there are no other exceptions, no other new and stable forms of consecrated life recognized by the Church. As the CCC affirms after noting that every person is called to live the evangelical counsels (par 915): [[It is the profession of these counsels within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.]]

Given the confusion and even concern caused by the (sometimes indiscriminate and injudicious) use of habits by the HIOL and triggered by their suppression, not to mention the thousands of cases of people calling themselves "consecrated" while adding "though privately," mistaking private vows for public ones because they are witnessed by a priest during Mass despite the fact that these do not bind in Law in the same way public vows do, adopting religious garb on their own initiative, etc, and especially given the very clear and assiduously maintained distinction between dedicare and consecrare in the documents of Vatican II, I believe the CCC and Canon Law leave no wiggle room for half-way states in this specific regard. I strongly believe we should use the second Vatican Council's language here and respect the distinction it clearly maintained, just as we should work harder on assisting everyone to truly and seriously regard the place of the lay state in the universal call to holiness and as a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world.

While the proliferation of associations and institutes which desire to be institutes of consecrated life MAY represent the work of the Holy Spirit with regard to potential and diverse expressions of consecrated life, they may also (or instead) be a piece of the Church's heritage of failure to esteem lay life adequately and its propensity to make the lay state a kind of second or third-class reality in the Church. Only through mutual discernment will this be determined and groups either remain lay or be publicly recognized as part of and their members be initiated into the consecrated state; until and unless this discernment occurs the positing of half-way or middle states (which supposedly represent neither the lay nor the consecrated state) seems detrimental to the challenge of adequately regarding lay life. It is theologically problematical, canonically unjustified, and, it seems to me, does an injustice to both the lay and consecrated states. I do promise to read more about this (especially if I can find a copy of Gambari's book) and consult further with the canonist I mentioned. In the meantime, many thanks for your email.

Were the Hermit Intercessors Religious?

[[Dearest Sr Laurel, The 56 didn't stay in a motel. They were in a Benedictine Retreat House. Now they were somewhere in Iowa [if i am not mistaken] and they'll be moving to Blair, NE, in a former campus dormitory. I feel that you're (sic) post lacks compassion for these former hermits. You seem to forget that they were in a religious community. You seem to attack even the obedient hermits {okay call them metaphorical hermits] by telling them they were never religious. This alone creates confusion. Some may even think they are deceiving people even from the start. Some may think they are fake brothers and sisters.

Now in your recent post, it seems that you discourage people to donate to the destitute former intercessors although you have clarified this at the end of your post. Yes they are part of the laity now, so they mustn't receive any support now? But they were in a religious community before, took vows of poverty and now they have nothing. Some of them are old now and have no family to return to. So, because they are laity they must be sent to charity homes for the aged? Some of them left their jobs because they entered "Religious life" so, they must be sent back to the world again because they are laity and we must not care for them now from now on? There's a great possibility that they'll be founding another community. Fr. Baxter has said that.]]

Thank you for the corrections regarding the motel, and the note on the dormitory. I have made the appropriate correction in the original post. I haven't seen where the former HIOL has published anything yet on this latter issue outside their request for money and their comment that it is difficult finding a place large enough for 50 plus people, so thank you for this information. I am sorry my last post seemed to lack compassion. There is no doubt the plea for longterm corporate assistance did not sit well with me. Because of that, and because they are pertinent, I should correct you on a couple of points. First, I do indeed discourage people from contributing to the support of the former HIOL as a group or "community", especially without demanding a good deal more transparency and clarity before doing so not only on the part of the former HIOL group of 56, but of the IOL, Inc. Secondly, and especially important, however, is the simple fact that the HIOL were never religious. I am not the source of confusion here, nor am I attacking anyone in clarifying their canonical status. Certainly there is nothing wrong with being a member of the laity (i.e., lay STATE in the vocational sense). Neither should it be seen to be an attack or somehow demeaning in pointing out that someone was a member of the lay state rather than the consecrated state.


So again, the HIOL were members of a Public Association of the Faithful. They did not have canonical (public) vows, were not members of an institute of consecrated life, and their vows, though made in good faith and a serious personal commitment, could be simply dispensed at any time by their pastor or bishop, and without the canonical process of public vows. It is not simply that they are NOW lay persons; they have been lay persons right along (and not merely in the hierarchical sense of that term which applies to non-clerics, but in the vocational sense which distinguishes between lay, ordained, and consecrated faithful). As I noted earlier, they were allowed the use of habits and titles AS THEY DISCERNED with the Church whether or not they would ever become an institute of consecrated life and be admitted to the consecrated state of life, but that eventuality was NEVER assured.

None of this means people should not contribute to them if they choose but simply that they should be clear the HIOL were not religious. Neither does this necessarily point to deception or pretense (although I personally find continuing references to "vowed members" as opposed to other lay members somewhat and perhaps purposely unclear (or maybe just confused) since ANY lay person may make private vows at any time which have the same gravity as those of any HIOL; further, they may do so do so on their own initiative without mutual discernment, permission from anyone, or anyone actually receiving those vows. The term vowed is ordinarily reserved for those with PUBLIC or canonical vows because they are initiated into the consecrated state by their profession and have their entire lives PUBLICLY defined in these terms, something that private vows do not do. Again what all this means is not that HIOL vows were insignificant (they were quite significant) but instead that the members of the HIOL were not religious, and need to be VERY clear in the future about their identity and category of canonical standing especially when they request assistance. Perhaps it will help if I quote rather extensively here from a canonist who specializes in consecrated life to back up what I am saying.

[[Reasons Why Knowing the Canonical Status of a Community is Important

1. Only members of Diocesan-right or Pontifical-Right Religious Institutes are religious and enjoy the rights of religious and the obligations of religious. Vowed members of such Religious Institutes are in the consecrated state. The Intercessors of the Lamb, contrary to popular opinion, were NEVER a religious institute and its members were not in the consecrated state. “Consecrated” or vowed Members had some of the trappings of religious life: a habit, vows, chapel, statutes, etc., but they were not recognized in the Church as true religious. Why? Because they were in the more risky (to discerners) stage of being a Public Association of the Faithful.

While they had the intention and hope of eventually following some kind of consecrated lifestyle in a form approved by the Church, the Intercessors of the Lamb had the same status as any other Public Association of the Faithful (think Legion of Mary, Worldwide Marriage Encounter, etc.). A good percentage of Public Associations of the Faithful who wish to become a Religious Institute or evolve into a Secular Institute or a Society of Apostolic Life simply fold, fizzle out, are suppressed, or disintegrate for a variety of reasons. Oftentimes, it is because there are unhealthy practices within the community, shady financial practices, personality struggles, etc. The bottom line is that even people with vows in a Public Association of the Faithful remain lay (if non-ordained) because they are not in a Religious Institute.]] Therese Ivers, JCL, Diocese of Sioux Falls.

In fact, I believe that there has been some serious imprudence on the part of the lay board who was meant to govern the HIOL, and possibly on the part of the community's leadership as well. Any person who is discerning a vocation with an Association of the Faithful should realize that the position of the organization is tenuous as best. Even (and perhaps especially) in making private vows of poverty in such an organization there probably should be some sort of provision for members who must leave or who are left high and dry should the organization dissolve or be suppressed. I am not in the least suggesting the former HIOL were disobedient (nor, however, that obedience -- or cooperation with the Archbishop -- should be rewarded financially), but I think we must be clear on the nature of the group and ask some serious questions about the MORAL and possibly legal obligations of IOL, Inc, as well as the imprudence of being wholly unprepared to pick up the financial pieces in case of the group's failure --- especially if asking for assistance from the laity generally distracts from demanding IOL, Inc act responsibly and morally in their regard.

In saying this I am assuming that the HIOL were clear on the private nature of the vows they took, and clear on the risk attached to being part of a still-discerning Association of the Faithful. (If they were not the situation becomes even more serious and irregular.) And while I can understand they would ask for emergency assistance, I have been very surprised that they seriously appear to expect the laity to support them for an indefinite period, provide luxury items like cars, trucks, computers, printers, and the like, or that they have not considered that their current circumstances will seriously effect the way they have been able to live their lives --- just as it would when any Association of the Faithful fails for whatever reason. Thus, it is not that I don't want former HIOL's assisted financially per se --- especially as emergency assistance; what I want is the appropriate people doing that and in the most appropriate way (namely, individually not corporately) given the (now former) canonical status of the group.

Further, in pointing to what I consider a serious example of imprudence on the part of HIOL leadership or perhaps abdication of responsibility by the IOL,Inc (I don't know which is involved or if both are) I will refer to one warning sign put forth by another Canonist, Peter J Vere, JCL, MCL. It is taken from a list of warning signs used in evaluating new groups. Vere writes that discerners et al should be cautious regarding groups evidencing, [[5. [a premature] insistence on placing all goods in common: While the Church has a history of associations and religious orders in which members place all their goods in common, the decision to do so should come after a reasonable period of careful discernment. Placing one’s goods in common is not for everyone, and the consequences of such a decision are lifelong. Additionally, the potential for abuse by those who administer the common goods is great. Therefore, canonists frown upon any insistence by an association that its new or potential members place their goods in common.

Due to the fact that modern times see less stability in common life, with members sometimes opting to leave after a number of years, the most prudent handling of goods in common is to place them in trust until a member dies. That way, if the member leaves, the goods are available to meet his or her needs outside of the community.]] (Emphasis added)

The link to the rest of this article will be found on Therese Ivers' site, "Do I Have a Vocation?" (More than this this point may be applicable so people should definitely take a look at it!) Ivers is also planning a series on the HIOL/IOL, Inc and people really should stay tuned. Strictly canonical questions can be directed to her as well.

As far as forming another community goes, everyone needs to be clear that this will continue to be a (Lay) Association of the Faithful, and possibly a private association before it becomes a public association in the beginning. It will have no different standing in law than any other Association, and vows made by members will remain private vows unless and until the Archbishop erects the group as an Institute of Consecrated Life and admits members to public vows where they actually assume the RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CANONICAL VOWS. Remember that there are literally hundreds of such groups extant at this point. Most desire to be ICL's at some point and some are headed by persons who long to be "foundresses". Many have private vows but have not yet received permission to adopt the habit "on loan" against the day they are made ICL's -- nor will they ever.

Most dissolve or are told they cannot continue by their local ordinary because of all kinds of irregularities and eccentricities. Do they have a right to expect the laity of the Church to support them as groups (or even members individually) nonetheless? Do they have the right to expect the laity to support them while they start out? I don't think so. Emergency help (counseling, social workers, financial aid, etc) especially for those who are too elderly to work should be made available, but I do personally think that those who are elderly and/or incapable of working should apply for government assistance (just as those who ARE publicly (canonically) professed sometimes need and are expected to do when they age or become infirm --- for neither dioceses nor laity support these persons). Those who are capable of working should do so of course, just as any other lay person is expected to do --- even if they believe they are called to contemplative lives or even to lives of eremitical solitude --- again, just as those with canonical vows (including diocesan hermits) are required to do --- and absolutely as every other person in the Church with private vows must usually do when in need.

It is possible that the Church will need to rethink the wisdom and prudence of the custom (for it is only custom) of allowing Public Associations of the Faithful who wish to become Institutes of Consecrated Life (etc) to adopt habits and titles prematurely (say, before it is sure that a Bishop WILL erect the group as an ICL, etc), or make vows which give up all property or the right to such, etc, as a result of this situation. Habits and titles are properly associated with the assumption of public rights and responsibilities, and generally too, with initiation into the consecrated state (exceptions, for instance, include novices who are allowed to wear the habit of the institute as they prepare for profession because they do indeed have some rights within the congregation which candidates do not have. They signal this to the rest of the Church along with the fact that they are indeed immediately preparing for public profession by adopting modified religious garb (e.g., white veil, no ring or community emblem associated with final profession). The confusion that is being generated in this case amongst average church members, and in fact, which is being insisted on as truth (as in your own email to me) in order to justify assistance and so forth is significant and a matter for concern I think.

On the Question of Relief for Former Hermit Intercessors and the Fund for Retired Religious

Perhaps this should be two separate posts, but the first issue segues into the second and also helps explain my ambivalence or outright antipathy to the first question. For that reason, and for now at least, I will keep these together. Also, if my opinions on the first question (supporting the former Hermit Intercessors) changes, I will post that as soon as I can.


I admit to having felt torn on the issue of financially supporting those 50 some former Hermit Intercessors who are now staying at a retreat house. (Temporary assistance while they transitioned to ordinary lay life was not a problem at all, and I was pleased to see the Archdiocese of Omaha assisting in this. Ongoing support was the issue.) However, these former HIOL have published a letter now appealing for assistance and they put their needs at $25,000 per month to take care of rent (for a place large enough to house all 56 of them), utilities, food, basic living expenses, etc.

They also list things they will be needing "once they are settled" like computers, printers, furniture, cars, trucks, gift cards (to buy whatever they need), phone cards, etc. And I find my ambivalence changing to outright antipathy. I wonder, for instance, just why the rest of the laity (because after all, these are lay persons who are no longer in the same category as groups like the Knights of Columbus even) should be footing the bill for this? Further, there is no indication that this is a merely temporary situation, no notice that the members of this lay community will be working to support themselves or whether they will continue to need to live from the charity of others indefinitely, etc. Granted, the group claims a couple of thousand other laity who were Companions or Associates of the group and if they want to assist and are able to do so, then they should, but I honestly cannot get my head or my heart around the idea of the laity in general supporting a group of other lay people in this way who are not, never were, and may never be a religious congregation with public vows.

At the very least I personally would want a LOT more information about what went on to cause the breakup, how the HIOL have been supported in the past (because, God knows, their campus and nearby holdings hardly speak of poverty or fledgling communities to me), and what the Archdiocese itself is doing for them (and not just financially, but in terms of what could become a kind of fast-tracking them to public association status again and why. Again, this is my own ambivalence speaking). I would also want some answers about prudent provisions for the future and why they weren't made --- as is the case usually in any actual religious congregation for candidates, novices and anyone NOT perpetually professed in public (canonical) vows. (For instance, why has everything been turned over to the IOL, Inc before public vows were even allowed much less made? Why was nothing set aside (perhaps in some escrow account) in case a person should need to leave the group for some reason? Does the IOL, Inc have NO legal obligations to members who are now destitute? Do they plan to exercise any MORAL responsibility for helping their former members transition to ordinary lay life? And beyond this, why is this smaller group NOT planning to transition to ordinary lay life UNTIL they can find a way to regroup and support themselves? It would certainly be expected of any other lay group in the Church.)

So, at the risk of seeming more heartless than I already may let me remind readers of the ordinary circumstances of consecrated, publicly vowed religious men and women in the church (including contemplative nuns and monks). You already know that diocesan hermits are expected to support themselves in some way and can expect no financial assistance from their dioceses. We routinely sign a waiver of claim at perpetual profession which says clearly we 1) will maintain financial independence and 2) will not expect the diocese to be responsible for our actions or expenses. In fact, the ability to do this is a central piece of discerning a vocation to diocesan eremitism, and the inability to do so argues against the person having such a vocation at this point in time. But it is a widespread misunderstanding that religious congregations (institutes of consecrated life with public vows and obligations) are actually SUPPORTED by the Church. This is something I hear even today despite the number of times I have heard it addressed. Religious congregations generally live from the support of the working members, and as the median age of congregations has risen and the number of younger Sisters and Brothers has declined, it has become harder and harder to stretch these salaries to support the entire community and the ministry they do. It is estimated that by 2019 the number of religious above the age of 70 will outnumber those below it by 4:1. (By the way, this whole dynamic is one of the reasons communities are unable to accept disabled or otherwise unwell persons, and a piece of the reason older vocations are only cautiously accepted by some congregations.)



Some retired members receive social security (though it should be remembered that religious never paid into the system until around 1972 --- given the fact that they each earned on average far less than $75 per month, they simply were too poor and there were no provisions in law for those with public vows of poverty). Some receive Medicare or Medicaid for medical expenses, and some may be eligible for SSI, a supplemental payment of @$800 a month which, while usually available to the disabled, is meant to help the truly destitute live when they cannot draw ordinary social security benefits or the amount is VERY low. (In CA, for instance the current SSI payment for any disabled person is $840, a combined amount from State and Federal government, which is meant to pay for ALL needs the individual has each month: rent, utilities, food, transportation, clothes, insurance, etc.) In other words, it is their entire income except that those who can work a bit are allowed to earn $65. Beyond this every dollar must be returned to the State or Federal government because it is seen to indicate there is no real need for the SSI payment in such cases. I will tell you that ALL gifts of money, no matter how small, COUNT AGAINST this income, and religious congregations are assiduously honest in accounting for such gifts. So, if Sister needs a new sweater, for instance, friends are asked to give her a sweater rather than the money to buy one.

Some people believe that religious congregations in such circumstances deserve it. If they had really lived their vocations, really lived as religious and not "given up their habits, etc" they would have lots of younger members to support the older retired and infirm ones. But this is patent nonsense (not to mention a rather pagan way of looking at reality). These are congregations of religious men and women who have literally given their lives for the Church and World and are now struggling to continue their lives and work in that same Church and world. They receive no direct financial assistance from the Church in any way whatsoever and NEVER HAVE (except of course whatever the laity have given!!). Meanwhile, despite being the teachers, nurses, social workers, spiritual directors, pastoral ministers, etc etc etc, of most adults in the Church they are either forgotten or their real need (which includes the need of the congregation as a whole to live and minister on) remains largely disregarded. Once a year there is a collection in each parish benefiting a fund for relief of retired religious. Over the years they have collected money, which, when parcelled out averages a one time payment of about $640 for every religious man and woman.



So, I am not saying do not contribute to support the former HIOL, though I would certainly suggest you demand more answers and information before doing so. I am saying that there are thousands and thousands of retired men and women religious who have lived public vows of poverty, chastity and obedience for their entire adult lives and whose congregations now need assistance, not simply to support and care for these members BUT TO CONTINUE MINISTERING EFFECTIVELY TO THE CHURCH AND WORLD WHILE THEY DO SO. And this is the really crucial part of things. These retired religious do not want assistance for themselves, and their congregations are more than happy to provide for their own Brothers and Sisters. As in any family, it is a labor of love and familial responsibility. But doing so (not to mention the anxiety attached to doing so) can detract from the capacity of the congregation to minister and to thrive as a whole, and this is something we all have a responsibility to help prevent if possible.

The bottom line here? PLEASE consider supporting the Retirement Fund for Religious. It is not simply a worthy cause, but one which contributes to the health and vitality of every established religious congregation in the Church. Check out their website for important FAQ's and more detailed explanations and data than I can give!

Question on Private vows: Consecrare versus Dedicare

[[Sister O'Neal, you have written about the difference between private vows and public vows as the difference between a person consecrating themselves to God, and God consecrating the person. Are there actual church documents that indicate such a difference? Isn't consecration consecration whether private or public? (I have private vows so the question is important to me.)]]

Your questions are excellent and they point up an area where my own writing and speaking here has been imprecise. In part, in earlier posts I drew a distinction between active and passive consecration because of the work of another writer on consecrated life, but that may not be adequate. This is because I had not looked at the original language used in several church documents in some time, so your question gave me the chance to do that. The results are significant and will actually cause me to change the way I speak about this matter in the future. In particular, I will no longer speak of a person consecrating herself to God, and try to reserve the term consecration for an action of God only --- for in the strict sense making holy or setting apart as a member of the consecrated state is something only God does; consecration is a divine and not a human action. (Accepted common usage allows one to speak of consecrating something or oneself to God though, but this is really misleading and confusing. What remains true, whatever usage one eventually adopts is the two kinds of ACTION must be distinguished from one another.)

It is in the documents of Vatican II where one finds a clear distinction between what is a divine action and what is a human action. In Lumen Gentium and Perfectae Caritatis, for instance the verb consecrare and noun consecratio are never used for the human element in profession. When the human element is meant, these documents use terms like, se devovere, mancipare, and dedicare. (I have not looked at JP II's Vita Consecrata closely or in the original Latin in this particlar regard, so I can't yet speak to that.) As noted above, what is clear though is that the pertinent documents of Vatican II draw a distinction between consecration, which is something God does, and dedication (etc), which is the corresponding human action involved in profession. Now, if this latter usage is true of the human element in public profession, it is equally true in private profession. At the same time, what is missing in private vows besides the calling forth in the name of the Church is the entire prayer/rite of consecration which is part of perpetual or solemn public profession. This is true whether or not one uses "consecration" in the broad and common sense of dedication or not.

When one is consecrated to and by God through the mediation of the Church in a formal and juridical act, one is set apart in a new state of life ("status"), viz., the consecrated state. Through ecclesial mediation one is changed; it is sometimes spoken of as analogous to the change being effected in the consecration of bread and wine. (I have seen this analogy used by dioceses and archdioceses in explaining the nature of the consecration of a woman in regard to the Consecration of Virgins and, though I would define this change in the person cautiously and specifically in terms of being made fit to receive the graces, rights and obligations of a new state of life, I adopt it here.) Private vows do not involve such mediation by the church or such an act of transformation even though one is (presumably) led by God to make such vows. What this essentially means is that private vows ordinarily mark a continuing lay vocation (that is, it involves no change in state of life); public vows mark a vocation to the consecrated and/or religious state (status). Both involve the significant dedication of self to God and are meaningful and important vocations; both are presumably embraced as responses to the Holy Spirit, but they differ at the same time.

Your own private vows are a specification and intensification of your baptismal vows; your dedication to God is significant, and I personally hope you will reflect on and find ways to share what they mean for the lay vocation. It is actually too bad that while we have the reality of private vows and many lay people with such vows, most of the writing and reflecting about such things are done by priests and religious! This is especially true, I think, in a world so thoroughly secularized and needing the witness of those who resist this secularization while remaining firmly within the world of ordinary temporal affairs. However, it is also true because while the church esteems the lay vocation, she has a long history either of not doing so adequately or of mainly leaving the reflection on it to those who are not part of the lay state. The result is a failure to hear how truly important the lay vocation is from the inside of that vocation --- and that is always sadly inadequate. If, for instance, I write about the importance of the lay eremitical vocation it always raises the question of why it is I did not choose to live as one then. The same inadequacy results often when some people make private vows because on some level they are actually not affirming their own lay vocation; instead they are affirming they do not believe it is "enough"; religious life is better, lay life (they believe) is an entry level vocation only. Unfortunately, until Vatican II, the Church made this way of thinking all-too-easy. So, again, I hope you will find ways to reflect on and write about your own vocation. I believe both it and your own doing this are critically important to many more people than you might know.

Whether one adopts the distinction between passive and active consecrations mentioned in Centered in Christ (Roberts, OCSO), continues to use "consecrate" in the broad and common sense of dedicating to God, or adopts the less ambiguous and (I think) theologically more adequate conciliar linguistic distinction between consecrare and dedicare (etc) to underscore the differences involved, what remains true is that in private vows one is not initiated into the consecrated state. This particular setting apart requires an act of God, and that is one which the church clearly teaches is always mediated by the Church in a public and juridical (canonical) act; it is another (and even the primary) reason vocations to the consecrated state are called ecclesial vocations.

I hope this helps. As always, if this raises more questions or is unclear in some way, please get back to me.

The Unique Charism of the Diocesan Hermit

I received a question about the issue of canonical status, specifically why is it some hermits seek canonical status --- viz, isn't it a matter of pride, of self-aggrandizement and the refusal to live the hiddenness appropriate to the eremitical life? I would like to answer this question, but I would also like to frame my answer in terms of the unique charism of the diocesan (C 603) hermit. It does no good to simply deny the truth of the assertions in the question. Instead it must be seen that canonical status fosters a particular charism in ways non-canonical status does not.

As I have written a while back, it is not unusual to hear stories about hermits or aspiring hermits who approached their dioceses requesting to be admitted to eremitic profession under canon 603 (the ONLY way for a solitary hermit -- as opposed to one belonging to a congregation --- to make public profession), and who were told "no" for a variety of reasons. Some of these are completely legitimate, relating as they do, to the hermit herself, her competencies, maturity, stability, spirituality, and so forth. Others are much less legitimate: "one does not need to be professed to be a hermit," (this is strictly true but may be misleading) "canonical status is contrary to the statuslessness of the real hermit," "you can do and be the very same thing by embracing solitude as a non-canonical hermit," etc. While it is surprising to hear diocesan officials (who usually ARE canonical themselves in one sense or another!) saying such things, these assertions do raise a number of questions, not only about canonical status and the nature of public profession and consecration, but about the unique charism of the diocesan hermit.

Public Profession or Private, Canonical Status or Non-Canonical, Does it Matter?

It might be well to deal with some basic questions first then. What is the difference between public vow and consecration and private vows and dedication? Well, to begin with this is NOT simply the difference between vows made in a darkened, relatively empty church and those made in one filled with people! It is not about notoriety or lack thereof. Private vows are undertaken by making vows in the presence (not in the hands of) one's priest, spiritual director, et al, in which one commits (dedicates) oneself  to God to live according to specific values. The commitment is serious and real, but it does not cause the person making it to enter a new state of life (religious or the consecrated state of life), nor does it constitute them in a new juridical standing under canon or civil law. One can be dispensed from the vows at anytime by one's pastor, and one lives one's life as a private person --- not in the sense of remaining behind the scenes, so to speak, but in the sense of living and acting or ministering in one's own name, not in the name of the church or as a public representative of this life. In a private profession one dedicates one's self to God (a significant act!) but one is not consecrated by God via the Church, that is, one is not permanently set apart by God in this particular way through the mediation of the Church.

In public profession and consecration the situation is different. First of all "public" does not merely refer to the presence of the public at the ceremony --- although it is appropriate that the profession be attended by the public! "Public" here does not point to or imply notoriety just as "private" does not point to the lack thereof. It points instead to a profession which establishes the professed in a public role with legal rights and responsibilities. One has a right to represent the religious or consecrated (in this case, the eremitic) state publicly and in the name of the Church in whose authority the professed was admitted to vows and had those vows received. For the Sister living in community, for instance, with public/canonical profession she acquires specific rights within the institute or congregation (voting rights, right to hold office, to be entrusted with certain tasks, etc). Further, while one professes vows publicly during perpetual profession the person is consecrated by God. Again, both the individual's dedication of self and Divine consecration mediated in each case by the Church are present during perpetual public profession. Not so in private vows or dedication.

A note on the term "Canonical Status"

The questions which prompted this blog entry are not uncommon. Recently I read a blog piece which attributed the motives of pride and a love of notoriety to those hermits who specify they are diocesan or canon 603 hermits, or who seek this standing. These hermits were played off against those who supposedly more authentically accept the hiddenness of the eremitical life and seek not to be "somebodies" but to be "nobodies." I think this kind of characterization is unfortunate, but there is a common misunderstanding about the term "status" in the phrase canonical status at the root of such analyses. In ordinary usage, "status" refers to a relative ranking in church or society. One has status if one is ranked higher than others, for instance. But this is only one meaning of the term and it is NOT what is denoted in the phrase "Canonical status." Instead the word refers to a kind of standing under the law; it means literally, "canonically legal standing," or "standing in canon law." This is the case because it comes from the Latin status which refers to "state" and points to a new state of life. Hermits who have gone through the often protracted process of discernment and been admitted to profession under canon 603 share a new standing in the church. Not only have they entered a new state of life, but they represent this state and the eremitical vocation in an official way in the name of the Church.

Note well, that the church herself recognizes the existence of both non-canonical and canonical hermits. She does so in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not a matter of one kind of hermit being better than another kind of hermit, or one having greater relative ranking over the other, etc, but it IS the case that one has a public and legal standing under canon law, while the other does not. While it may be difficult to eschew the idea that one is of a higher rank than the other, it is something we should consciously try very hard to do. In any case, even if it is difficult to avoid this altogether, it is a misunderstanding we should try dilligently at least not to exacerbate.

Legal Standing: A Matter of Obligations, Responsibilities, and Rights.

The question this all raises for me is this: "In light of public profession and consecration, and canonical standing, what can necessarily be expected of the canonical hermit which IS NOT necessarily expected of the non-canonical hermit?" I think this particular question reframes the issue of public vs private and canonical-vs non-canonical in a more positive way. It also points to the fact that solitary hermits with canonical standing, despite all the similarities in fundamentals, have a somewhat different charism than those hermits who live in community or as non-canonical hermits. It is a charism which is related directly to the rights and responsibilities which attach to their state. In reflecting on my New Year's resolutions a few entries ago I wrote:

[[ The diocesan hermit does NOT belong to herself or even only to God; she belongs in a special way to her parish and diocese.) The Camaldolese describe this part of their own charism as "living alone together." For me I suppose it is more a matter of being alone together since I do not live with parishioners and yet, I am joined in communion with them in several different and profound ways.]]


So what is it my diocese and parish, my Bishop and Pastor, et al have a RIGHT to EXPECT from me BECAUSE of public profession and canonical status? First, they have a right to expect me to live my Rule of Life with real integrity. In that Rule I make certain claims about eremitic life, about silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and the grace of God --- as well as a commitment to a life that is ordered accordingly. They have every right to expect my life to embody the truth of those claims and commitments in a way which is edifying to them. (I should note that since the Rule itself is approved by the Bishop, people have a right to expect it to be soundly based both theologically and spiritually, and capable of being adopted by others as well.) I also made vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which characterize the content of my life in terms of Jesus Christ and a mutual responsive and responsible love which will not (and will not be allowed to) die, and which also summons every Christian to something similar. They have every right to expect to be able to see the truth of these vows in all that I am and do. They have a right to expect to see me growing in these (or at least to trust that I AM doing so!), reflecting on them and sharing the fruits of this reflection in whatever way is appropriate not only in the parish, but in the diocese and the wider church community as well. And of course, they have every right to have my life be of direct fruitfulness and benefit to the diocese and parish. More about this in a bit.

More generally, parish and diocese have a right to expect the following characteristics of me: 1) wholeness --- psychological, spiritual, and personal. The vocation to eremitism is a vocation to wholeness, personal maturity, compassion, reliability, stability, and authentic sanctity rooted in the incarnation. It is not a vocation to eccentricity or instability, misanthropy or personal indulgence and selfishness. It is reasonable to expect I will take advantage of every resource necessary to attain and maintain these characteristics. 2) professional competence --- every hermit has a mission and a ministry even if these are only evident in her prayer per se. Above all, it may be reasonably expected that the hermit is a woman or man of prayer, that s/he is a contemplative for whom the life of prayer is primary and underlies, supports, and informs everything else. It is never an afterthought, never a postscript to a life of apostolic or pastoral zeal and activity. This said, most hermits, however, do come in contact with others in additional pastoral capacities. Canonical status says the Pastor, the Bishop, and indeed, anyone who approaches the hermit has every right to trust that the hermit is spiritually sound, and trained adequately (or capable of determining the need for more training or education) in whatever areas of endeavor she engages: spiritual direction, adult education, retreat work, etc. They have a right to expect that simple prayer requests will be met, and met with compassion, discretion, and sensitivity. (Obviously one impaired under #1 above, would be unable to meet these simple requirements.)

They also have the right to expect: 3) appropriate spiritual and theological formation: for those hermits who write, publish, are involved even in limited catechesis or faith formation, or do retreat work or spiritual direction, these are essential. Of course, they are essential in the hermit's day to day life in cell as well. Without them the hermit is apt to go off the rails entirely in one way or another. Spirituality requires good theology, good theology issues in and is supported by mature spirituality. The two go hand in hand and the hermit needs both if she is to touch others' lives fruitfully, and also of course, not only to survive the struggles of the hermitage but to mature into sainthood there.

4) Oversight, direction, and accountability: A canonical hermit is responsible directly and/or legally to several other people.There is her pastor who, while not a legitimate superior, ordinarily does assume oversight regarding her activities in the parish, and extends opportunities to her on the basis of need as well as her own interests and competencies. There is her Bishop who has canonically approved the hermit's Rule and is her legitimate superior to whom she is bound by a vow of obedience; (the vow is made to God but in the hands of the Bp and for this reason the hermit is responsible to him). The Bishop may delegate the day to day responsibility for the hermit's integrity, well-being, growth, etc to another (religious, Vicar, priest, etc) and thus, establish them as superiors or quasi-superiors. Evenso, the hermit meets with the Bishop regularly, maintains interim contact by email or post, and generally keeps him apprised of her situation. The canonical hermit is accountable both generally (to God, the universal and the local church) and more specifically to whomever assumes the role of legitimate superior in her life. There is her spiritual director who, like the pastor, has ordinarily recommended the hermit for perpetual profession and consecration, who meets regularly with her, and who therefore understands her and assists her to grow in and remain faithful to her vowed commitments, prayer, personal development, etc. Finally, if the canonical hermit has affiliated with a Congregation, Institute, or monastery, as an Oblate or Associate, she will be responsible in a more casual way to her prioress, abbot, oblate chaplain, associate director, etc. To all of these people in various ways, and with varying degrees of legality, etc., the hermit is accountable.

And finally, the members of my parish and diocese have the right to expect 5) that a life lived for God more generally will be a life lived for them specifically. I believe the members of my parish (and diocese more generally) have a right to expect my vows to God to signify my willingness and availability to give my life for them, not only in prayer, penance, silence and solitude, but in whatever ways my gifts allow within this specifically eremitic framework. The corollary here is that my vows make me a public person, no matter the essential hiddenness of my life, and that, I personally believe, gives my pastor the right to call on me in ways which are appropriate to a diocesan hermit. The same is true of my Bishop. For instance, if there was a candidate for eremitic profession who needed mentoring or occasional contact, and together we agreed this would be reasonable for me to undertake, I believe it would be a part of the charism of the diocesan hermit.

All of these expectations point to the gift the diocesan hermit is to the Church and world. They point to a life lived for others and meant to assist in their redemption. They point to a person who has assumed a life in solitude to reveal God's presence there. They focus especially on the richness and generosity of the life because eremitical solitude contrasts so completely with the narrowness and self-centeredness of isolated living. They remind us that many many people exist in physical separation from their dioceses and parishes and yet belong intimately. Many of these pray regularly and even assiduously in ways which allows the Church to continue her mission in the world. And for those who have not yet discovered the difference between isolation and solitude, or who have not yet discovered the way God's presence can transfigure human isolation, the diocesan hermit especially is a gift who lives out this particular good news. In short, these necessary expectations serve the gift the diocesan hermit is to her local and universal church.

In saying this, I think I have my finger on the unique pulsepoint that marks the heartbeat of the diocesan hermit as somewhat different than that of monastery-based or non-canonical hermits. While it is true that everyone would need to exercise real care and discernment in taking advantage of this dimension of the vocation, I genuinely believe this is part of the unique charism of the diocesan (canon 603) hermit. Overall, I see the diocesan hermit as a RESOURCE for the diocese and parish, not only as a still point of contemplative and intercessory prayer (which they should assuredly be in every instance), but as an official representative of a unique and rare vocation to consecrated life which proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Church --- a church which needs it, and needs to know it consciously. She will represent this vocation to others, not only in fundamental and essential hiddenness, but publicly. (Note that part of the public consecration of the diocesan hermit, as I have also commented on in other entries here, is the canonical granting of (or clothing with) the cowl or other prayer garment. At every liturgy she attends this garment marks her in a way which symbolizes essential hiddennness, but ALSO in a way which says she is here in the midst of the assembly as "their hermit". It is a paradoxical symbol I think, one which says both hiddenness and availability in one breath. Ideally, the cowl (or prayer garment) sets the hermit apart and recalls the essential solitude of her life, but not as a wall or hedge which shuts others out. Instead it points to something very old being made new and embodied in new and relevant ways to a Church which needs both dimensions, the ancient and the new, the solitary and the communal, the contemplative and the apostolic or evangelical. The diocesan hermit includes these others in her life even while maintaining an essential hiddenness and solitude)

Let me reiterate (because it is so easy to misunderstand on this point) that I am not implying, much less saying that the canonical hermit is better than the non-canonical hermit. Neither am I saying she necessarily represents the eremitical life better than a non-canonical hermit might well do. But canonical standing does say to others that this person represents this vocation on behalf of the church, or in her name. It does say that this SPECIFIC vocation (not the eremitic vocation generally, but THIS person's vocation) is authentic and tested, that it has been discerned by many people over a period of years and is of God. It says that this person has accepted this call and committed herself to living it out faithfully, and that further, there is every reason to believe she will really do that with the grace of God over the span of her entire life. Finally, it says that she will live her life FOR the others who are her parish and diocesan community. A non-canonical hermit may do all of these things, but there is nothing in her situation per se which obligates her in the same way public profession and canonical status do, or which necessarily allows others to look at her commitment in the same way they MUST be able to do with one canonically professed and consecrated.