What Do You Like Most about Eremitical Life? (Updated)

I was asked the following question again this last week and rather than trying to answer it again and anew, I am reprising the original answer from 8 years ago and adding one more paragraph to update it. 

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I wondered if you could explain what you like best about the eremitical life? Since you don't do a lot of active ministry that would provide variety, I am assuming that is not a favorite part, so what is? Maybe this is not the best way to ask the question. I guess I am really wondering what part of your life is most enriching or what part you look forward to every day especially if every day is the same because of your schedule. I hope you can understand what I am asking here. Thank you.]]

Now that is a challenging question! It is not challenging because I don't know what I look forward to each day or really like, but because there is no one thing I like best. I guess saying that out loud gives me the key to answering your question then.  What I like best about eremitical life is the way I can relate to God and grow in, with, and through him in this vocation. This is also a way of saying I like the way this vocation allows me to serve the Church and world despite or even through the limitations I also experience. Each of the elements of my life helps in this and some days I like one thing more than another but still, that is because each one contributes to my encounter with God --- usually in the depths of my own heart --- in different ways, to different degrees, on different days.

So, on most days I love the silence and solitude and especially I love quiet prayer periods or more spontaneous times of contemplative prayer which intensify these and transform them into the silence of solitude --- where I simply rest in God's presence or, in the image I have used most recently, rest in God's gaze. It is here that I come to know myself as God knows me and thus am allowed to transcend the world's categories, questions, or judgments. Sometimes these periods are like the one prayer experience I have described here in the past. But whether or not this is true, these periods are ordinarily surprising, or at least never the same; they are transformative and re-creative even when it takes reflective time to realize that this has been happening.

Another thing that I do each day which is usually something I really love is Scripture, whether I do that as part of lectio or as a resource for study or writing. Engagement with Scripture is one of the "wildest rides" I can point to in my life. It is demanding, challenging, and often exhilarating. Sometimes it doesn't speak to me in any immediately dramatic way. But it works on my heart like water on something relatively impervious --- gradually, insistently, and inevitably. Other times, for instance when reading Jesus' parables or other's stories about Jesus, or even the theological reflection of John and Paul, I have the sense that I am being touched by a "living word" and brought into a different world or Kingdom in this way. It always draws me in more deeply and even when I have heard a story or passage thousands of times before something speaks to me on some level in a new way, leads to a new way of understanding reality, or shows me something I had never seen before.

A third piece of this life I love and look forward to is the writing I do. Some of this is specifically theological and there is no doubt that my grappling with Scripture is important for driving at least some of my writing. Whether the writing is the journaling I do for personal growth work, the blogging I do which, in its better moments is an exploration of canon 603 and its importance, a reflection on Scriptures I have been spending time with, or the pieces which can be labeled "spirituality," they tend to be articulations of what happens in prayer and in my own engagement with Christ. One topic I spend time on, of course, is reflection on the place of eremitical life under canon 603 in the life of the Church herself. Since I am especially interested in the possibility of treating chronic illness as a vocation to proclaim with one's life the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a special vividness, and since I have come to understand eremitical solitude as a communal or dialogical reality which is especially suited to the transfiguration of the isolation associated with chronic illness, etc, I write a lot about canon 603 and the solitary eremitical vocation.

A second area of theology I return to again and again is the theology of the Cross. I remember that when I first met with Archbishop (then Bishop) Allen Vigneron he asked me a conversation-starter kind of question about my favorite saint. I spoke about Saint Paul (wondering if perhaps I shouldn't have chosen someone who was not also an Apostle --- someone like St Benedict or St Romuald or St John of the Cross) and began to talk about his theology of the cross.  I explained that if I could spend the rest of my life trying to or coming to understand his theology of the cross I would be a happy camper. (I have always wondered what Archbishop Vigneron made of this unexpected answer!)

I saw incredible paradoxes and amazing beauty in the symmetries and strangely compelling asymmetries of the cross and I still discover dimensions I had not seen. Most recently one of these was the honor/shame dialectic and the paradox of the glory of God revealed in the deepest shame imaginable. I have written previously about God being found in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. This paradox is a deepening of that insight. The Cross is the Event which reveals the source even as it functions as the criterion of all the theology we have that is truly capable of redeeming people's lives. It is the ultimate source of the recent theology I did on humility as being lifted up to be seen as God sees us beyond any notions of worthiness or unworthiness. My life as a hermit allows me to stay focused on the cross in innumerable ways, not only intellectually (reading and thinking about this theology), but personally, spiritually, and emotionally. That is an incredible gift which the Church --- via the person of Archbishop Vigneron and the Diocese of Oakland --- has given me in professing and consecrating me as a diocesan hermit.

There are other things I love about eremitical life (not least the limited but still significant (meaningful) presence and ministry in my parish (or in other dioceses and faith communities); today I continue to teach Scripture and it colors everything else I do, whether in cell or outside it); both teaching and spiritual direction (including work with candidates for c 603 profession) are also related in one way and another to the person I am in light of living contemplatively within the Divine dialogue I know as the silence of solitude. One of the things which is especially important to me is the freedom I have to live my life as I discern God wills (cf added paragraph below).

Whether I am sick or well, able to keep strictly to a schedule or not, I have the sense that I live this life by the grace of God and that God is present with me in all of the day's moments and moods. It doesn't matter so much if writing goes well or ill, if prayer seems profound or not, if the day is tedious or exciting, all of it is inspired, all of it is what I am called to and I am not alone in it. This means that it is meaningful and even that it glorifies God. I try to live it well, of course, and I both fail and succeed in that, but I suppose what I love best is that it is indeed what I am called to live in and through Christ. It is the way of life that allows me to most be myself in spite of the things that militate against that; moreover it is the thing which allows me to speak of my life in terms of a sense of mission.  The difficulty in pointing to any one thing I most like about eremitical life is that, even if in the short term they cause difficulty, struggle, tedium, etc., all of the things that constitute it make me profoundly happy and at peace. I think God is genuinely praised and glorified when this is true.

Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF

I want to add one more paragraph to this piece that was first published in 2015. On June 2nd, I begin the 8th year of a relatively intense kind of personal formation and growth work (PRH) with my Director. Spiritual direction was always important to me, but this particular kind of work was not. I resisted it and though it was written into my Rule because I recognized something of its importance, I struggled to value it appropriately. Today, I need to note that, for the purposes of living this life well and coming to love the work itself, a very big shift has taken place. I now associate the freedom of the eremitical life with the freedom to do and benefit from this kind of work. It is central to my vocation. Every day it is a means by which God works in my life to heal and strengthen, to challenge, console, and just generally to call me to wholeness and holiness in Christ. There is no other part of my life as a hermit that this work does not touch or qualify toward greater depth and maturity. It is part of my prayer, my penance, and is absolutely necessary for achieving the silence of solitude I recognize as the goal and charism of this life; daily it schools me to obedience, to becoming truly attentive and responsive in a contemplative key. It is central to my encounters with God and my own deepest Self every single day. Days on which I meet with my director are especially graced --- even when they are particularly difficult, painful, grief-filled or joy-filled and triumphant (and sometimes they are all of these during the same session)! All of this leads me more and more into the inner reality of the silence of solitude and the communal life of the Trinity that are the goal and gift of eremitical life.

I hope this gives you something of an answer to your question. I have kind of worked my way through to an actual answer --- from the individual pieces of the life that are most life-giving to me to the reasons this life as a whole is something I love. I hope I have managed to convey that even when the schedule is the same day to day, the content is never really the same because at the heart of it is a relationship with the living and inexhaustible God. Your question focuses on the absence of variety and in some ways, the absence of novelty (neos). But really there is always newness rooted in the deeper, qualitative newness (kainotes) of God and of who I am called to be in God.

To catch a glimpse of what I mean by that, imagine plunging into the ocean at different points within a large circle. The surface looks the same from point to point but the world one enters in each dive is vastly different and differently compelling from place to place. So, following the same daily horarium (schedule), I sit in the same chair (or use the same prayer bench/zafu) to pray; I work at the same desk day in and day out. I open the same book of Scriptures and often read the same stories again and again or pray the same psalms, and so forth. I rise at the same hour each day, pray at essentially the same times, eat the same meals at the same hours, wear the same habit and prayer garment, make the same gestures and generally do the same things day after day. There is variation when I am ill or need to leave the hermitage, but in the main, it is a life of routine and sometimes even tedium. What is important to remember is that the eremitical life is really about what happens below the surface as one is empowered to open oneself to God, and allow (him) to become God-With-Us, even as (he) makes of us a new Creation. This really is where the action is, so to speak! It is the reason the classic admonition of the Desert Fathers, "Dwell (remain) in your cell and your cell will teach you everything," can be true and the only reason "custody of the cell" is such a high value in eremitical life or stability of place such a similarly high value in monasticism.

Happy Fourth of July!!

Each year this day reminds me that Christians have much to tell America about the nature of true freedom, even while they are grateful for a country that allows them the liberty to practice their faith pretty much as they wish and need. Too often today, however, Freedom is thought of as the ability to do anything we want -- without real regard to others or their similar call to Freedom. Understood this way, freedom (license) is the quintessential value of the narcissist. Unfortunately, the pandemic our global community continues to face has revealed just how prevalent is the valuing of liberty (a license our founders did not enshrine in the Constitution) over genuine freedom; we are seeing it both touted and modeled by our leading politicians and their supporters.

And yet, within Christian thought and praxis freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. It is the direct counterpart of Divine sovereignty and is other-centered. I believe our founding fathers had a keen sense of this, but today, it is a sense Americans often lack. Those of us who celebrate the freedom of Christians can help recover a sense of this necessary value by embracing it more authentically ourselves. Not least we can practice a freedom which is integrally linked to correlative obligations and exists for the sake of all; that is, it involves an obligation to be there for the other, most especially the least and poorest among us so that they too may be all that God has called them to be. We act and struggle to allow everyone to have a voice, indeed, to have their own voice in their lives and workplaces, in the political and other choices they make and seek to ratify in voting their minds and hearts.

In the past several years, the wearing of surgical masks and sheltering-in-place have become small but powerful symbols of this kind of freedom and its correlative sacrifice for the sake of others. And yet, how difficult these relatively minor inconveniences have been for so many of us. Many simply refuse to put others first (or consider them at all!). And yet, the truth remains that one way we celebrate this holiday is by refraining from any usual practices which endanger others and our planet --- eschewing fireworks wherever it is unsafe, maintaining social distancing, working for the rights of all, etc. In so doing we demonstrate our freedom to be loving persons who, despite minor inconveniences like masking and continued social distancing, are only ourselves and only truly free in interdependence with others and all of creation.

But today the United States is in danger of choosing to "protect" our freedom by refusing to open ourselves to "the other". In significant ways it defends racism and the way it is exercised in law enforcement and symbolized in monuments to past historical figures whose legacy is stained, at best. This year the refusal to be open to the other took the form of a refusal to accept the results of a legal election and a concerted effort to subvert the results of that election climaxing in the desecration of our Capitol's most powerful symbol of freedom in a riot that killed and/or injured capitol police and others. In all of this we have forgotten that we are free only insofar as we are open to loving others, to sharing our lives and our freedom with the other, the alien. Like love, personal freedom is lost when we fail to extend it to others and make "neighbors" of them. 

Once we build walls against the other so too have we walled ourselves into the narrow confines of our own fear, ignorance, or selfishness. Authentic freedom always seeks the freedom of the other, including the freedom to let everyone vote their consciences without unfair constraints. It is expansive and, to  some extent, missionary in nature. And it is sacrificial. While the boundaries of American freedom involve borders and finite resources that must be honored and husbanded, its heart is global and so must its vulnerability be. 

 All good wishes on this anniversary of the birthday of our Nation! May God empower us to live up to the obligations of the freedom, both personal and national, which we recognize as both Divine gift and human responsibility. And may we celebrate the interdependence we are sometimes still only just learning to associate with this Freedom ! 

"Happier Hermit" Reflects on Freedom from "Masking"

In January of 2020 I posted an article about Regina Kreger, a lay hermit who unofficially took the name Felicity upon making private vows as a lay hermit. Fittingly, Regina/Felicity has a blog called Being a Happy Hermit, and yesterday she posted an article there entitled "Happier Hermit." It is one of the best posts I have read illustrating what hermits recognize life in a hermitage makes possible, namely, the absence of masking (no, not physical masking due to COVID!) --- where "masking" is something Felicity points out we all do at least from time to time, and especially in certain situations.

 While hermitages are not the only place or situation in which an absence of masking is made possible, their essential nature is defined in terms of this phenomenon. Even the idea of a "stricter separation from the world" is about the absence of masking or the transparency that life in a hermitage makes possible. Thomas Merton referred a number of times to the same experience in eremitical life when he wrote of the lack of pretense, or even the bone deep sanity one finds there. Some readers might remember that he wrote about the impossibility of remaining insane (and here he was speaking about all the forms of pretense and personal dishonesty life ordinarily allows or even demands) in the face of the deep sanity of the forest or desert. I more routinely use the term "transparency" or even humility (a form of loving honesty) to speak of this significant form of sanity. It is an important expression of authentic freedom, namely the freedom to be ourselves and to take the same kind of delight in our own and others' truth that God takes.

Felicity, a fine writer (and authentic hermit it seems to me), illustrates the meaning of all of these terms and descriptions in her post: Happier Hermit. She routinely posts thoughtful and profoundly insightful posts illustrating significant dimensions of eremitical life. For instance, on the occasion of the renewal of her vows this month she posted about why eremitical life is not a stopgap or fallback calling for her in: Solitude. She summarizes this by saying loudly and proudly, "I'm NOT settling!!" I recommend folks give her blog a second and third look (and a first, of course, if you haven't done that yet)!! Meanwhile, my congratulations to Felicity/Regina on the renewal of her vows and best wishes and prayer as her eremitical adventure continues, (soon to be) "somewhere" in Europe instead of Maryland, USA, or even in Spain.

Laetare Sunday: Embracing Stricter Separation from the World as a Way of Rejoicing in our call to Authentic Humanity

This afternoon I attended a retreat (virtual) offered as a gift by the Mission San Jose Dominicans. The presenter was Father Jim Clark from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It was a significant piece of an especially rich Advent season marked by the way my own inner work has come together along with resonances with Scripture from the Mark class and reflection on Canon 603 and the concept of stricter separation from the world --- something I mentioned in an earlier post because of the role it played in the renewal of my vows and in the notion of Sabbath as well. In today's retreat the presenter spoke of becoming our truest or authentic selves and of incarnating God in the process --- ideas which will certainly be familiar to readers of this blog. It reflects that process of kenosis (self emptying) I have sometimes described as "becoming wholly transparent to God."

In speaking of "guarding the heart" and "preparing the way of the Lord" Clarke referred to being careful of or avoiding anything causing us to lose sight of who we truly are. What struck me most about this was that it is a very good way to speak of what canon 603 calls, "stricter separation from the world". Ordinarily I define "the world" in the sense used by the canon in terms of anything "which resists or is antithetical to God in Christ (or to the love of God)" but this notion that "the world" could also be defined in terms of "anything causing us to lose sight of who we truly are" and are called to be was new to me. I have certainly approached this insight but never really saw or articulated it so directly before.  What I came to see  regarding what canon 603's stricter separation from the world requires of us is that it serves our focused journeying toward the realization of our truest selves and that it is primarily a positive element in the canon and in the spiritual life in so far as it helps prevent us from losing sight of who we really are. Also, of course, in and of itself stricter separation from the world can and inevitably will be misunderstood without this correlative and primary focus on the true or authentic self which God summons into being at each moment of our lives.

Father Clarke's presentation began with Mary Oliver's poem, "The Journey", which set the tone and key of the entire presentation:

One day you finally knew

what you had to do, and began,

though the voices around you

kept shouting

their bad advice—

though the whole house

began to tremble

and you felt the old tug

at your ankles.

"Mend my life!"

each voice cried.

But you didn't stop.

You knew what you had to do,

though the wind pried

with its stiff fingers

at the very foundations,

though their melancholy

was terrible.

It was already late

enough, and a wild night,

and the road full of fallen

branches and stones.

But little by little,

as you left their voices behind,

the stars began to burn

through the sheets of clouds,

and there was a new voice

which you slowly

recognized as your own,

that kept you company

as you strode deeper and deeper

into the world,

determined to do

the only thing you could do—

determined to save

the only life you could save.

Learning to leave all of those distracting, distorting, and falsely defining voices behind to attend to that one new voice which is truly our very own, the voice of God which dwells within us as our deepest truth, our truest identity, and which calls us by name to truly be, requires we embrace a process of kenosis. It is a process in which slowly the stars begin to burn through the clouds that have surrounded us and prevented clarity; in fact, it is a process in which life begins to burn within us ever more abundantly if our journey is on track. But to stride deeper and deeper into the world of that authentic voice or call, will mean embracing a stricter separation from anything that obstructs our view of and commitment to becoming our truest selves. This really is the process of Advent. It is the process of the inner (growth) work I have referred to occasionally here; and it is the process and meaning of stricter separation from the world called for by canon 603 and echoed in our similar Sabbath practice. 

There is pain, struggle, and darkness in this kenotic process, but ultimately, it is marked by a profound freedom and joy as we embrace God and the deepest selves God creates within us. During this third week of Advent rejoice in the Advent journey. Rejoice as Isaiah call us to do in today's first reading and let us never lose sight of the God-given splendor of the one God calls us to be.

Rejoice heartily in the LORD,

in God is the joy of (our) soul;

for he has clothed (us) with a robe of salvation

and wrapped (us) in a mantle of justice,

like a bridegroom adorned with a diadem,

like a bride bedecked with her jewels.

Non-Canonical vs Canonical Eremitical Life: Which Involves Greater Freedom?

[[Sister Laurel, is it possible to be a hermit in the Catholic Church and not be subject to any institutionalization or any canon law? Would this be a greater degree of freedom than canonical status allows for?]]

Thanks for the question. If you are speaking of canons which directly refer to eremitical life, yes one can be a non-canonical or lay hermit, that is, a person embracing eremitical life in the lay state. However, to the extent one is a baptized Catholic and in the lay state, one is still subject to canon law and there are still requirements which apply to every person in the Church by virtue of their baptism. That means every person belonging to the Church will be subject to some degree of "institutionalization" if by this you mean the responsibilities and praxis which are part and parcel of belonging to an institution. If one wants no part of this one would need to leave the Church.

The question regarding the degree of freedom of one state vs the other one seems naïve to me. It is also misleading and gets one off immediately on the wrong foot. Again, freedom in Catholic theology is the power to become and be the persons we are called to be. Thus, if one is called by God to achieve authentic humanity in the eremitical life  one will need to discern whether one is called to do this in the lay or the consecrated state. In other words one will discern which one is the way of greater authentic freedom. For those called to consecrated eremitical life the greater number of canonical rights and obligations will not result in less but in greater freedom. For those called to eremitical life in the lay state, the canonical obligations of the consecrated state might be onerous.

If you have read earlier posts you will remember the example I gave of learning to play violin. Training the hands, fingers, wrists and arms, as well as the ear and heart and mind to function in all the ways needed to play real music and to transcend the printed page (while one honors that at the same time) takes a lot of work and involves a tremendous number of constraints. For the beginner these seem onerous, but as time goes on more and more one will begin to experience a kind of freedom to make music beyond what one could have even imagined was possible. The constraints remain precisely because they are the vehicle through which one is enabled to transcend one's own inabilities and limitations and release the potentiality one has for tapping into the music which sings through oneself and the universe. At this point they no longer feel like constraints; they are the wings with which we fly. In mastering (and thus, honoring) these constraints, one and one's violin become a single instrument attuned to and capable of mediating the miracle we call music, but also, therefore, the realities we identify as God, love, beauty, truth, order, harmony, disharmony, meaning, humanity, pain, joy, grief, and so many associated emotions and sensations. Constraints or limitations are necessary for transcendence to be realized; they are an intrinsic part of authentic freedom.

When I was discerning between lay eremitical and consecrated eremitical life, lay eremitical life seemed to me to represent less authentic freedom than canonical eremitical life. This was partly because of the way the world at large militated against the eremitical life. A context within which eremitical life could be lived fully and where it was truly valued seemed necessary if I was to live it as I felt called to do in the face of the world's enmity or lack of understanding --- and also in the face of the common stereotypes and caricatures of hermits we find everywhere --- including in the church. Remember that to some extent this is what the desert Abbas and Ammas also sought in their attempt to live a radical Christianity. They sought a more stringent and (in its own way) supportive environment for their "white martyrdom" than the "anything goes" world in which Christianity had come to belong "all too well".

I was also sure that I was called to live this life as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church for the sake of others, and I felt less free to live that in a non-canonical state. Fortunately, the Church agreed with this discernment and admitted me to profession and consecration --- something which continues to serve as a significant element of genuine freedom to explore the depths and breadth of this life --- especially when there are difficulties which lead to some degree of self-doubt. Others will, quite validly, make a very different discernments and decisions. The bottom line here is that authentic freedom is related to what one is called to by God; it cannot be determined merely by measuring the number or type of norms to which one will be subject. To proceed in that way is merely to ensure one never even takes the violin out of the case, much less risks discovering and slowly coming to the incredible freedom God offers in learning to negotiate the constraints which eventuate in the transcendent realm of union with Godself.

On Eremitical Freedom and the Place of Limited Institutionalization

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I appreciate canon 603 and the vocation it defines and governs. However, I am a lay hermit who regards the freedom of eremitical life even more than that. It seems to me that when something like eremitical life is institutionalized we lose the freedom it is so famous for. So when you write about the rights, obligations, and expectations linked to canonical standing I hear the clinking of chains and the destruction of a vocation with the limits imposed by canon law. I know you don't agree with this and I am not really expecting you to respond to it but I hope you see how counterintuitive it is to say, "Yes, I have accepted the constraints of canon law and done so while respecting the traditional freedom of the eremitical vocation."]]

Thanks for your comments. I will respond to them only briefly with brand new material because, while I will also reprise a post I wrote fairly recently (January 2020), I need to comment specifically on your point about something being counterintuitive. Remember that in Christianity there is a good deal which is counterintuitive: it is in weakness that we find strength most fully revealed, earthen vessels that are the most worthy vessels of an inestimable divine treasure (true whether we are talking about the Incarnation or our own participation in that), wealth in poverty is counterintuitive, as is glorification in abject shame or overarching success in failure, etc, etc. Some would argue that these paradoxes which stand at the heart of Christianity reveal a truth that is often, perhaps always, counterintuitive.

Freedom in Christian theology is also counterintuitive which is why it is often rejected or mistaken for license. Freedom is the power to become/be the persons we are called to be by God and it will always involve constraints. Always. Similarly, eremitical solitude is a form, albeit a unique one, of community. That this is counterintuitive is one of the reasons individualism is often allowed to replace eremitical solitude and freedom. So yes, I disagree that the (careful and limited) institutionalization of eremitical life destroys it (ask any Carthusian or Camaldolese or Carmelite hermit if they believe (careful) institutionalization does so!). Freedom  to become and be the persons we are called to be, especially when that means communion and union with God, requires constraints; it requires structure, support, and the kinds of limitations that make sure there is integrity, focus, and perspective. (I apologize for the related comments on fraud in the post reprised below. When I have more time I will try to edit that out.)


[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive.

In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church has found to insure maximal responsiveness to God and be maximally fruitful for the Church, the world, and of course for one's own call to human wholeness and holiness. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God Who blows where she will; the second is not, it is worldly (or fleshly) as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make. . . .]]

Happy Fourth of July!!!

Each year this day reminds me that Christians have much to tell America about the nature of true freedom, even while they are grateful for a country which allows them the liberty to practice their faith pretty much as they wish and need. Too often today, however, Freedom is thought of as the ability to do anything we want. It is the quintessential value of the narcissist. Unfortunately the pandemic our global community faces this year has revealed just how prevalent is the valuing of liberty (a icense our founders did not enshrine in the Constitution) over genuine freedom; we are seeing it both touted and modeled by our leading politicians and their supporters.

And yet, within Christian thought and praxis freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. It is the direct counterpart of Divine sovereignty and is other-centered. I believe our founding fathers had a keen sense of this, but today, it is a sense Americans often lack. Those of us who celebrate the freedom of Christians can help recover a sense of this necessary value by embracing it more authentically ourselves. Not least we can practice a freedom which is integrally linked to correlative obligations and exists for the sake of all; that is, it involves an obligation to be there for the other, most especially the least and poorest among us. This year, the wearing of surgical masks and sheltering-in-place have become symbols of this kind of freedom and its correlative sacrifice for the sake of others. We celebrate this holiday by refraining from usual practices which endanger others and our planet --- eschewing fireworks, maintaining social distancing, etc. In so doing we demonstrate our freedom to be loving persons who are only ourselves and only truly free in interdependence with others and all of creation.

But today the United States is in danger of choosing to "protect" our freedom by refusing to open ourselves to "the other". In significant ways, it defends racism and the way it is exercised in law enforcement and symbolized in monuments to past historical figures whose legacy is stained, at best. We have forgotten that we are free only insofar as we are open to loving others, to sharing our lives and our freedom with the other, the alien. Like love, personal freedom is lost when we fail to extend it to others and make "neighbors" of them. Once we build walls against the other so too have we walled ourselves into the narrow confines of our own fear, ignorance, or selfishness. Authentic freedom always seeks the freedom of the other. It is expansive and, to some extent, missionary in nature. And it is sacrificial. While the boundaries of American freedom involve borders and finite resources that must be honored and husbanded, its heart is global and so must its vulnerability be. 

 All good wishes on this anniversary of the birthday of our Nation! May God empower us to live up to the obligations of the freedom, both personal and national, which we recognize as both Divine gift and human responsibility. And may we celebrate the interdependence we are sometimes still only just learning to associate with this Freedom ! 

On Lay, Clerical, and Consecrated Solitary Hermits

[[Dear Sister, given what you wrote about hermits as a valuable vocation whether consecrated or lay, canonical or non-canonical, am I correct in believing you accept Joyful Hermit's vocation as a hermit? Is your difficulty just that you contend she does not have the right to call herself a consecrated Catholic Hermit or do you believe her whole life as a hermit is "counterfeit" or fraudulent"? Do you consider c 603 as the only way to really be a hermit? If a hermit considers c 603 to be a form of "shackles and baggage," does the Church require they be professed anyway? Is there a difference between having a vocation blessed and the consecration that occurs in c 603 profession? "Joyful hermit" (aka "Catholic hermit") wrote about a lot of this in her blog recently. (cf., Refocus: New Spiritual Director) I wonder what people are to do when they are unsure of whether or not a person is a consecrated or Catholic Hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. The issue I have written about directly and by name with regard to Joyful Hermit  and her various public blogs is the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the consecrated eremitical state of life is only entered with public profession. This can occur in a religious community or, for solitary hermits, by making profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop under canon 603, but it is never done with private vows. If one wishes to call oneself a consecrated Catholic hermit then we all expect them to be using the same language or terminology and theology of consecrated life the Church uses. I have never asserted that "Joyful hermit" is a counterfeit hermit. However, she asserts she is a consecrated Catholic hermit and thus implies she is living her life in the name of the Church;  she also claims she is not a lay person in the vocational sense but is a religious. In this specific regard she is counterfeit. She is claiming to be and presenting herself on her blog and other places as something she is not. Unfortunately, she instructs others to become "Catholic Hermits" in the same way.

Vatican II made and maintained a distinction between dedication (which is a human act and can use private vows), and consecration (which is properly an act of God only mediated through legitimate superiors in the Church). While we use "to consecrate" loosely as a form or dedication, the truth is the Church  maintains a distinction between consecration and dedication. The distinction becomes important whenever someone with private vows starts claiming to be a consecrated religious, a consecrated hermit, a Catholic hermit or religious, etc. Public profession comes with canonical rights and obligations and also the grace to live these; private vows remain private acts of dedication; they are significant but they do not rise to the level of consecration.

Since the author of the blog you cite. is privately vowed but not professed (profession is an ecclesial act that includes but is also larger than the making of vows; it is a mediated and juridical act of the whole Church) and since she claims to be able to tell folks how to become Catholic Hermits via private vows, I take serious exception to what she writes on her blog in this specific regard. My concerns stem from the fact that I have heard from folks who followed her advice and were hurt (or at least badly embarrassed) in the process. I completely accept that Joyful is trying to live an eremitical life. She is entirely free to do this just as any lay person is free to do. Likewise, she is free to grow in her own lay vocation and eremitical life as we all grow in our vocations. But to reiterate, what she (or any other hermit with private vows) is absolutely not free to do is to represent herself as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" or a "consecrated religious". She is neither a Catholic hermit nor a person in the consecrated state of life; she is a lay person in both the vocational and hierarchical senses of the term; thus, I tend to limit my direct criticism of her blog to this single issue.

"Shackles and Baggage"

I have read the post JH put up re her conversation with her new spiritual director. I hear him saying the same things I have been writing about in one way and another for the past 10 years and more, namely, one does not need to be professed under c 603 to be a hermit in the Catholic Church. One needs this to be a solitary hermit of and for the Catholic Church. One can certainly be a hermit in the lay state and indeed, most hermits in the church have been lay hermits (the church did not admit solitary hermits to the consecrated state until 1983); most hermits always will be lay hermits (i.e., most hermits will never be consecrated). The Church recognizes this even as she continues to value such hermits. Contrary to some confusing material Joyful posts about this, nothing suggests that c 603 has been meant as the only way to become or live as a hermit. Nothing suggests the Church will ever assert lay persons cannot live as solitary hermits in the future unless they are professed and consecrated under c 603. This would actually infringe on the freedom lay persons have in the Church. In any case, that is not the point nor is there any indication it is a concern for the church. (On the other hand, the church is certainly concerned with hermits claiming to be professed and consecrated hermits when they are not, but the answer to that situation will never be requiring lay hermits to submit to consecration under c 603 against their will or personal discernment.) To do that destroys the nature of vocation as a personally truthful reality and gift of God.

JH's SD has apparently observed that for her c 603 is a matter of shackles and baggage. It would be a serious mistake to generalize from this limited truth to the idea that canonical eremitism shackles all hermits or places unnecessary burdens on them.  For some of us, c 603 is a means of freedom to live eremitical life. We take on the rights and obligations of the vocation with joy and seriousness; we live our lives as the means of living God's will and serving the Church and world. We also thus take on the title Catholic Hermit or consecrated hermit; we become religious. C 603 for us is neither a matter of shackles nor is it an unnecessary burden. For us, the yoke of canonical standing under c 603 is easy and light and makes eremitical life possible and meaningful. Jesus graced us with this yoke and we embraced and bear it with joy. For us, it is a source of genuine freedom.

JH is quite clear she is not called to this. Instead, she lives eremitical life in the lay (baptized) state alone and, given her extensive criticism of c 603, apparently will do so the rest of her life. That is wonderful; I sincerely wish her well in this!! But what is also true is that the Church will never oblige her to do otherwise; a competent SD will never do such a thing. Nor have I ever argued c 603 is the only way to be a hermit in the Catholic Church. It is, again, the only way to be a solitary hermit living this life in the name of the Church. Joyful is entirely free to live her lay Catholic vocation in whatever way she desires so long as she does so honestly in a way that honors her baptismal commitments.  (One must petition and enter into a process of mutual discernment which may take years before one can be admitted to profession and consecration. NO ONE is obliged to undergo something like this if they do not truly feel called to do so.) The priest hermit whom Joyful is now working with illustrates this point with his own life. He is ordained and lives eremitical life in that (clerical) state, but he is not a consecrated hermit despite his ordination or the fact that he received his bishop's blessing. Innumerable hermits and anchorites have done the same in the lay or clerical states and the Church has appropriately esteemed them. She will continue to do so!

Blessing vs. Consecration:

You asked about the difference between the blessing the bishop gave the priest in Joyful's narrative and consecration (or, for instance, between the blessing she received when she made private vows and consecration through the mediation of the Church). As I noted above, these are not the same thing. Consider that in the Rite of temporary profession, the making of vows concludes with a blessing by the celebrant. In the Rite of Perpetual Profession, however, this simple blessing is replaced by a solemn act/prayer of consecration. Consecration and solemn or perpetual profession represents the event with which a person is initiated into the consecrated state of life and assumes the full rights and obligations associated with this. Until this moment (and until this occurs for any religious) the fullness of rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state are withheld. Someone making temporary profession accompanied by a simple blessing has not yet been fully initiated into consecrated life; for those living in community certain rights are withheld even though the person is much further along than they were as novices or candidates.

The call and the prayer of solemn consecration in conjunction with the making of solemn or perpetual vows are the essential parts of the act of solemn or perpetual profession. In this profession a person is fully initiated into the consecrated state; they are made to be a consecrated person with the second consecration adding to baptismal consecration. The graces associated with this act are different than those associated with temporary profession (and certainly than those associated with private vows.) There is an ontological change in the person and she forever becomes a consecrated person with different rights and obligations, and different expectations by the Church and with all the graces necessary to live this new identity.

One other difference exists between a simple blessing even when this is done by a bishop, and the consecration associated with perpetual profession; namely, in blessing a person or enterprise with a simple blessing the priest (even as a bishop) does not intend nor (in the case of a priest who is not a Bishop or his delegate) does he have the authority unless specifically delegated by the local ordinary to consecrate the hermit. For that matter, the hermit is not prepared to become a consecrated person in the Church. Bishops, meanwhile, bless people all the time; in doing so they do not usually initiate the person into the consecrated state --- nor, despite their authority to do so when certain qualifications are met, do they intend to do so. Further, in a simple blessing, the one being blessed does not intend (and is relatively unprepared) to enter the consecrated state of life. So, yes there is a vast difference between a blessing and consecration itself.

What is One to Do?

I have written about what one is to do when they are uncertain whether or not a person is really a consecrated hermit before. If one desires to clarify this the first step is to ask them. If questions persist, ask them if their vows are public or private. If private they are not consecrated. If there is still a question ask them in whose hands they made their vows or ask them which Bishop perpetually professed them. A diocesan hermit can move to another diocese but she will remain a diocesan hermit only if the bishop in the new diocese agrees to accept her vows. The bishop doing so will become the hermit's legitimate superior; there are canonical bonds established in the public profession. So, a hermit making a canonical vow of obedience will exist in terms of relationships capable of ministering to the hermit via the ministry of authority.

If a c 603 hermit moves to another diocese, then unless a bishop agrees to receive her formally, the hermit's vows cease to be valid or publicly binding due to a material change in the context of the vows themselves. The c 603 hermit who is not relieved of her vows in these ways remains consecrated (God's consecration cannot be undone) but she no longer exists in the consecrated state of life. N.B., the hermit needs to ascertain the bishop's agreement before making the move. To do otherwise is to cause the canonical vows to cease to be binding because of a material change in them (they are made in the hands of the local ordinary of her home diocese; she is a hermit OF the Diocese of _____ ). Similarly, before moving and being accepted by another bishop she will need her current bishop to affirm she is a consecrated hermit in good standing in her current diocese.