Once Again on c 603 and the Reasons it was Created

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon 603: a Paradigm for all Hermits

[[When we examine the now two Church-allowed hermit paths, we can see the challenges in each, but the greater challenge to me has remained that of living as a hermit unknown, unnoticed, non-acclaimed. Yet despite many trials and errors, I remain God’s beloved consecrated hermit--and a Catholic hermit. Indeed, some have stated that a privately professed hermit must not call him- or herself a “Catholic hermit” if not a diocese CL603 hermit. It does not matter, other than why cut off all the Church’s hermits who have lived and died living this more rare but special vocation when until recent times, there was no created church law establishing other than what always had been?]] 

Hi Sister, I wondered if you had seen this post and if you had any opinions on it. I wonder how the author can say "It does not matter" while it sounds like it matters a lot to her! Does Canon 603 cut off all who have lived and died as a non-canonical hermit? Was there no church law regarding hermits before c 603? I remember you saying there was but not universal canon law. Is this so? Thanks!]]

I have seen this passage before, yes. I agree that the assertion of an identity as a "consecrated Catholic hermit" despite never having been admitted to consecration as a Catholic hermit by anyone in the church with that authority and/or intention, does seem to matter a lot to the author. She is a Catholic and a hermit but does not live her eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. This is because using the term "Catholic hermit" to indicate a normative quality to the vocation requires someone with both authority and intent to establish one in law as a Catholic hermit. That, in turn, means extending the legal rights and obligations of a canonical (or public**) vocation to someone and the person to whom such rights and obligations are extended must also embrace these in law; this all occurs in the Rites of canonical Profession* and Consecration mediated by the Church in the person of the local ordinary. That the author has not met these requirements is significant given her claims. What is unclear to me is the reason she presses these claims since the Church recognizes all authentic forms of eremitical life in whatever state of life (lay, consecrated, or clerical) as laudable.

Before Canon 603, the main canonical provision for eremitical life was to join a congregation of Catholic Hermits (Carthusians, Camaldolese, some Carmelites, et al.). As you note, in individual dioceses in some centuries bishops did approve the lives of anchorites and cared for them if benefactors failed. During the Middle Ages there were local (diocesan) canons from place to place to regulate things in some ways (there was no universal Canon Law at this time). Otherwise, except for the orders/congregations of canonical hermits, the "traditional" form of solitary eremitical life was lay, not consecrated. Vocationally as well as hierarchically speaking, the Desert Abbas and Ammas were lay hermits --- they lived eremitical life in the lay state. So was every hermit who lived as a solitary hermit (that is, who was not part of a religious congregation) until 1983. Canon 603 recognized the value of solitary eremitical life after Bishop Remi De Roo intervened at Vatican II to ask for such recognition. De Roo requested that the eremitical vocation, which was so positive in his lived experience, should be recognized as a state of perfection, just as all religious life was recognized and established. 

But it took time to do this. There was the need to reflect on the lives of notable hermits and develop a list of characteristics a solitary hermit would live, just as there was the need to create a normative way of governing this life so it was truly exemplary --- not perfect, of course, but exemplary. Almost 20 years after Vatican II ended, the Church published a revised Code of Canon Law and for the very first time in the history of the Church, the solitary eremitical life was recognized in universal law as a state of perfection (that is, it was included as a consecrated state of life with those so consecrated recognized by the Church as Religious); thus it was defined in a normative way in Canon 603.

It is not that non-canonical hermits are being cut off, diminished, or disregarded. That seems to me to be a cynical and inaccurate representation of the facts. The long history of exemplary holiness and prophetic presence of such hermits is precisely what called for a Canon recognizing the value and dignity of this calling as an ecclesial vocation belonging to the Church. These hermits taught the Church this and made the way for Canon 603 as an eventuality!! The normative portrait of eremitical life in Canon 603 is drawn from the lives and wisdom of such hermits; in fact, it honors them!! At the same time, the Church is careful in discerning and governing eremitical vocations not only because these are significant gifts and more difficult to discern than vocations to life in community,  but also because the history of solitary hermits is ambiguous with evidence both of great holiness and disedifying or even scandalous eccentricity. 

The Church wants hermits to live this vocational gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and she recognizes the support and guidance of the Church are important if individuals are to live such vocations well. After all, eremitism is neither about being a loner nor a too-common, sometimes rampant individualism. Instead, it is lived within the dynamic and demanding context of the ecclesial community with its long history of non-canonical hermits as well as canonical eremitical congregations and (now) solitary canonical hermits. At the same time, the Church knows that hermits of whatever stripe can be a prophetic presence challenging the Church herself to an ever more radical living out of the Gospel. Canon 603 celebrates and witnesses to this as well. 

This became clear as the Church recognized the significance not only of the Desert Ammas and Abbas but also of both the anchoritic and eremitic vocations on a diocesan level through various eras of her history. Bishops created statutes and devised liturgies recognizing and embracing these vocations because of this recognition. (For instance, recall the rite praying for and blessing the anchorite and her cell, as well as closing her within her anchorhold; note the ways diocesan bishops exercised responsibility for the upkeep of the anchoress when the local community or benefactors failed to do so; consider also the way the right to wear a hermit's tunic or the license to preach and solicit from others as a hermit, came in these same centuries, from the local ordinary.)  Still, what was necessary to truly demonstrate that all such vocations were valued throughout the church in all eras was the hermit's recognition in universal law. 

Bishop Remi De Roo

That only occurred in 1983 with the promulgation of Canon 603. Still, the majority of hermits will likely remain non-canonical. I would argue that it is now easier to live as a non-canonical hermit precisely because the church recognizes the eremitical vocation as such canonically and has made these instances of it a normative and consecrated state. With canon 603 every eremitical vocation, whether non-canonical or canonical is raised to a new visibility and valuation in the Western Church. Canon 603 is still under-utilized and likely will be so for some time to come. Not everyone will or should become a canon 603 hermit or thus live this vocation in the name of the Church, but those who live their eremitic vocations as non-canonical hermits can be grateful that for the first time in almost 2 millennia, the Western church has honored the eremitical vocation in universal law. 

This requires that canonical hermits live the normativity of their vocations well and humbly for they do so for all hermits. They reflect on the terms of Canon 603 for the benefit of every hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical. If canonical, they have embraced ecclesial responsibilities in making Profession and accepting Consecration through the church's mediation, and each one will demonstrate aspects of the life any hermit should be open to learning from. Of course, non-canonical hermits must also live their chosen callings well and humbly. If they choose not to be canonical hermits or are refused admission to canonical standing, I believe they must still let themselves learn from Canon 603 and those professed and consecrated accordingly -- as well as from hermits in eremitical congregations. From before the time I first knocked on the chancery door seeking profession (@1985) to consecration in 2007 (about 23 years), I reflected on c 603 and learned from it despite having been given little hope my diocese might ever implement it for anyone. I also learned from the Camaldolese and others. 

Whether living as a non-canonical or canonical hermit, it was the vision of eremitical life the Church recognized as normative that was important for my own faithfulness and growth in the eremitical vocation. I hope that all hermits can understand the importance of both the Canon and those exploring eremitical life in a canonical/consecrated state. They do this not only for God and the Church more generally, but for all hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical. Because C 603 represents the normative vision of what the Church considers to constitute eremitical life,  to live this life canonically is not about prestige, but about responsibility. This is the meaning of status in the phrase canonical status or standing. Acceptance of this standing and correlative responsibility is reflected in the right to call oneself a Catholic Hermit and such rights and obligations are never self-assumed. Again, they are given by the Church to those whose vocations they have also discerned.

* Profession is a broader act than the making of vows. It is a public act of and for the Church in which an individual commits him/herself to the rights and obligations of a new state in life. Usually, this is done through the making and reception of canonical (public) vows. In final, perpetual, or definitive profession, through the reception of the individual's vows and the prayer of consecration, the Church mediates God's consecration of the person. This sets him/her apart as a sacred person and constitutes his/her definitive entrance into the consecrated state.

** Public in this context refers to the public rights and responsibilities undertaken in a public (canonical) commitment, not to the place this commitment takes place, nor to the number who attend it. Likewise, private means that legal (public) rights and obligations are not extended to nor undertaken by the hermit involved.

Bishop Remi de Roo Dies at 97

Bishop Emeritus Remi de Roo

Bishop Remi de Roo, the bishop who made an intervention at Vatican II in order to have eremitical life recognized as a "state of perfection" died on February 1st at the age of 97. I was fortunate enough to meet Bishop de Roo at a presentation he, Bp John Cummins, and Ecclesiologist Massimo Faggioli gave at St Mary's College in March of 2013, and to thank him especially for his work with eremitical life --- work which led to the eventual inclusion of canon 603 in the Revised Code of Canon Law. De Roo became Bishop Protector of the group of about a dozen monk-hermits who had left their solemn vows to live as hermits, a story I have told here a number of times. (cf., Recovering Excitement over Vatican II)

When we met, Bishop de Roo asked if I had come to canon 603 life with a background in religious life --- which he seemed to expect (or at least hoped!) to be the case. I replied yes. My favorite story of that afternoon and evening, however, came when we were preparing for the celebration of Mass. De Roo (Bp Emeritus of Victoria) was concelebrating with Bishop Emeritus of Oakland, John Cummins, and as we were preparing to process in, with two Bishops and other clergy, et al., folks were holding a brief conversation about who followed whom, and who would do what, including where and when folks were stopping to bow. I was carrying the Lectionary in the procession and Bishop de Roo turned to me and said, "You are carrying the Gospel; you bow to no one!!" I will never forget that!

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord! And let perpetual light shine upon him!

The following biography was taken from Le Croix. 

Bishop Remi J. De Roo, Canada's last surviving English-speaking bishop to take part in the Second Vatican Council was a social-justice advocate and an outspoken person for change in the Catholic Church. The former bishop of Victoria died February 1 at the age of 97. Bishop De Roo was known to be outspoken on a variety of subjects -- from celibate priesthood and the ordination of women into the priesthood to unbridled capitalism.

In 1962, when he was 38, he became the world's youngest Catholic bishop and shepherded Victoria for 37 years. Bishop De Roo retired in 1999 at the mandatory retirement age of 75. When he retired, Bishop De Roo was Canada's longest-serving bishop. Archbishop J. Michael Miller of Vancouver said Bishop De Roo "will long be remembered as one of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, an ecclesial event that was a great grace for the Church.

A younger Bishop Remi de Roo

"Bishop Gary Gordon of Victoria said Bishop De Roo "was able to bring the first-hand experience of Vatican II into the lived experience of our diocese, and continued in ministry up until well into his 90s."Bishop De Roo brought to the diocese and the Church in Canada his passion for promoting "the council's desire for the Church to grow into the fullness of the people of God in dialogue with the world, especially in the realm of the social teachings of the Church," Bishop Gordon said. As bishop, De Roo visited as many of the indigenous people of his diocese as possible and maintained a close relationship with them for the rest of his life -- and was even made an honorary chief.

Bishop De Roo attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council in Rome, where he had already been for further studies and for his doctorate in sacred theology from the Angelicum University in 1952. He described attending the Vatican II sessions as "a voyage of discovery that would radically alter my whole outlook on reality" and "it was indeed a time of euphoria". Even after his retirement, Bishop De Roo continued to travel and lecture about the council which he said affected him. He referred to himself as "a pilgrim of the Second Vatican Council".

On returning to Victoria from the Council, Bishop De Roo began greater laity participation in carrying out programs for the diocese. He was a promoter of the permanent diaconate and the role of the laity as being "more than a secondary one of assistance to the clergy. "The late bishop spoke against the laypeople's tendency to look to clergy for answers to all moral and religious questions. He complained that bishops were "far too engrossed in administration" and too little concerned with pastoral problems. He also stressed the spiritual guidance of priests.

Traditional and conservative Catholics were upset with Bishop De Roo for his support for married and female priests. As an advocate for social justice, Bishop De Roo frequently called for economic justice in public policy making. In 1992 Bishop De Roo co-authored a controversial book In the Eye of the Catholic Storm with former nun Mary Jo Leddy. In 2010, The Vancouver Sun named him B.C.'s fourth most influential spiritual leader of the century for provoking a national debate in 1984 "when he accused (former prime minister) Pierre Trudeau of exacerbating the "moral crisis" of unemployment" and for "encouraging his diocese's 70,000 Catholics to experiment in worship styles and enhance the role of women."

Follow-up on Why Canon 603?

[[ Dear Sister, thank you for answering my question on Canon 603. I had read the following passage which seems to disagree with some of what you wrote: "What was it that made people, possibly hermits themselves, in the early 1980's, entreat a Church law to designate and recognize a category? That was an interesting decade following upon two previous interesting decades. Laws are made to stop abuses or to introduce something that people want." Could you clarify whether it was to curb abuses or to beg for something hermits wanted that caused the Church to create canon 603? Also, did this entreaty happen in the 1980's or at another time?]]

 Thank you for continuing the discussion. I'm not sure where you locate the disagreement. However, to be clear, I don't know if the hermits under Bishop de Roo's protection asked him to intervene at Vatican II, but it would make sense if their discussions with him --- especially in light of the anguish they had had to go through in order to leave their monasteries and establish themselves as hermits apart from  monastic life --- had included the possibility of a genuine appreciation of the eremitical life by the universal Church. Even so, the intervention at Vatican II occurred in the mid- sixties, not in the 1980's and was informed primarily by Bishop de Roo's appreciation of the eremitical life as he came to know it through a dozen or so hermits living in a laura in British Columbia. Neither can just anyone in the Church simply ask in an effective way for the Church hierarchy to create a law/canon.

Again, Bp de Roo's intervention listed at least a half dozen reasons for recognizing the eremitical life as a gift of God to the Church with significant prophetic and evangelical elements. He did not, so far as I can find, speak of abuses of eremitical life, nor would he have asked for recognition for a vocation for such a reason. It is far more effective to allow a lifestyle to remain unrecognized and thus too, relatively unknown if one wants to deal with abuses. Further, the solitary eremitical life had largely died out in the Western Church; again, abuses were not an issue until after canon 603 was promulgated and at that point they became an issue mainly for dioceses and candidates who did not really understand the distinction between a lone individual and a hermit. From the failure to draw this significant distinction come instances of inauthentic "hermits" and premature or unwise professions which  do not last or edify. Such unwise and premature professions also lead to a fundamental distrust of the canon and the tendency of dioceses to refuse to profess even really strong candidates. (There is a refusal to truly discern vocations on a case-by-case basis; discernment is never entered into and the canon is dismissed as speaking of "stopgap" or "fallback" vocations rather than being recognized as creating the norm for authentic solitary eremitical life.)

A Little on Witnessing to a Love that Does Justice in the Face of Tyranny

 [[Dear Sister, I am new to your blog and I haven't explored it very much. I am surprised to find a hermit writing about current events. Do you really not hate ISIS? I think I do. I think I shouldn't but I can't control what I feel when people kidnap and threaten to burn children alive! But here are my real questions. From other articles it seems that your vocation is pretty new and not very well known. I know we don't have any Canon 603 hermits in our parish or diocese. How many of you are there in the US? Do Canon 603 hermits exist in other countries as well? Are there many of them? Do you mind if I ask other dumb questions before I read much of your blog?]]

Welcome to Stillsong Hermitage's blog then. To be honest, I don't write very much about current events but I was asked to write about the situation in Syria and I was very moved by the murder of the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. That this occurred just as we were preparing for Lent and the ritual of being marked with the sign of the cross in ashes made things immensely more weighty in my own mind and heart. Add to that the fact that I was just beginning to read the Scriptures with eyes more newly sensitized to the place of honor-shame in Middle Eastern cultures and to see many of Jesus' encounters with family, religious leaders, and so forth as violations of honor, occasions leading to dishonor and shame for some, and you can see why these stories had a special poignancy for me.

You see I have recently come to understand freshly the difference between what guilt-sin-individualist cultures like ours and honor-shame-collectivist cultures like those of the Middle East perceive as honorable. Consciences in these two types of society are formed in vastly different ways from one another. It is not necessarily that consciences have been turned off, as a friend recently commented to me, but rather that they are formed very differently, namely as an instance of group conscience according to what the group determines to be honorable or dishonorable. In light of this I came to see even more clearly how Jesus could be crucified or the cross could be a symbol of the most abject dishonor/shame an individual could know. I have also recently been freshly sensitized to the epidemic quality of shame in our Western culure and to how extraordinarily thin in number and depth have been the reflections of systematic theologians on this aspect of the Gospel and Cross of Christ despite the fact that exegetes regularly remind us that the Gospel writers focus on not the physical pain Jesus experienced but the shame associated with his crucifixion.

These and other threads came together for me recently within a short period of time and all of them were and are critically important. We have either lost or never had an adequate sense of how very counter cultural Jesus and the Kingdom he proclaimed were and are. If we are to begin to understand ISIS and to deal with them adequately we must recover and/or cultivate this awareness. If we are to love our enemies as well as our brothers and sisters in the faith, we must understand this. I suppose it is particularly ironic that a very small piece of this reflection on current events in light of Jesus' Kingdom message and behavior comes from a diocesan hermit living a relatively hidden and certainly silent and contemplative life. But this really is the role of contemplatives and hermits in the Church. Living in silence at the center of existence makes this possible and sometimes, anyway, even imperative. I am reminded of something Thomas Merton once wrote:

I make monastic [eremitical] silence a protest against the lies of politicians, propagandists, and agitators, and, when I speak, it is to deny my faith and my Church can ever seriously be aligned with these forces of injustice and destruction. But it is true, nevertheless, that the faith in which I believe is also invoked by many who believe in war, believe in racial injustices, and believe in self-righteous and lying forms of tyranny. My life must, then, be a protest against these also and perhaps against these most of all.

Of course, in the situation with ISIS the self-righteous and lying forms of tyranny are not those of the Church nor of Islam. But they are those of religion more generally. It is against just this kind of tyranny that Jesus stood, and against which we should stand in our own lives today. This is the reason theologians often distinguish religion from faith. Faith does not allow us to hate. Often it calls us to be weak and lacking in control but still it empowers us to love. This is so because it is rooted in trust in God's love and the power of that love to create justice. So, ordinarily my own protest is carried out in silence and prayer. Martyrdom, witness, takes many forms. When so many threads some together as happened recently, it may be time to speak.

Numbers of Canon 603 Hermits in the US and Elsewhere:

As for your "real" questions. . . numerically the diocesan hermit vocation is quite rare. While there have always been hermits --- especially in the Eastern Church (their course has been more variable in the Western Church, sometimes dying out altogether) --- diocesan hermits only came to be a possibility in 1983 with the publication of the Revised Code of Canon Law. The model and original impetus for the establishment of this new form of consecrated/religious life was a group of about a dozen hermits who had once lived solemn vows as monks in community; when they discerned a call to solitude they each had to leave their monasteries and solemn vows and become secularized; this was because there was no provision in their own congregation's proper law for solitary life, nor was there any provision in canon law --- the more universal law of the Church. Eventually they came under the protection of Bishop Remi de Roo who came to see the significance of their vocation. Bishop Remi then made an intervention at Vatican II sincerely pleading with the Church Fathers to recognize the eremitical life as a way of perfection. Nothing happened at Vatican II but the plans for a revision of Canon Law were initiated and these eventually included Canon 603 which provides for solitary consecrated hermits in universal law for the very first time.

In the US there are about 80 diocesan hermits, perhaps a small number more or fewer. The Vatican has begun to include numbers of c 603 hermits in their statistics on religious and consecrated life but I don't think any have yet been published. In some countries there are none at all. I have a friend in New Zealand who is a diocesan hermit; she is the only one there. In other countries, France and Italy, for instance, there are more than in the US but the number is still relatively small. Because canon 603 is part of a universal Code of Canon Law binding on the Universal Church, not just a single diocese here or there (as was once the case with hermits or anchorites in Europe, for instance), there are now diocesan hermits all over the world. As you can see though, relatively speaking diocesan hermits are an infinitesimally small percentage within the Universal Church.

Finally, please don't worry about questions being "dumb". I have asked in the past for folks to pose whatever questions they have. A few people do that and some even ask questions on an infrequent but more or less regular basis. They are all very helpful to me. For instance in a post I put up earlier I was able to answer a question about the meaning of the term "institutes". It never occurred to me that word could be a source of misunderstanding for someone reading canon 603 ("Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life. . .") but it was a really great question because it made something clear to me I had not known. I think all questions can do that but quite often it is the most obvious ones that don't get asked and could be most instructive for readers, and for myself as well! So while I do encourage you to read posts linked to the labels on the right of this blog, please know all questions are more than welcome.

Fraudulent "Catholic Hermits": Is it a Big Problem?

[[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] (redacted)

No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a  supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through paypal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little-understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and  had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:

A number of monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the  contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.

When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and reflect today part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.

So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in BC to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws.

The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, understanding the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly, but that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.

My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:

I have been interested in all of these issues since I decided to pursue admittance to canon 603 profession --- now about 30 years ago ---  and as I grow in this vocation, in my appreciation of it and of the wisdom and beauty of the canon which governs it, my interest remains --- but for rather different reasons. It took me 23 years to work out for myself many of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph; now I am able to give back to the larger Church community in ways that I sincerely hope allow others to more fully understand and esteem this vocation. Most important is what I have said over the past few days (and the past several years!!): this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. In particular it can witness to the fact that the isolation and marginality so many experience today can be redeemed by one's relationship with God, just as it stands as a prophetic witness against the individualism, narcissism, and addictions (especially to media and to remote, packaged, and soundbite-approaches to reality and relationships) which almost define the world around us today. However, frauds, counterfeits and curmudgeons can get in the way of or detract from this witness --- not least because, unless they are simply ignorant, they are generally mired in pretense and self-centeredness which makes the vocation incredible.

One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.  

To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".

 Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us

As I consider this then, I suppose the problem of frauds (or counterfeits) is certainly more real than when I first sought admission to profession under canon 603 (the canon was brand new then and few knew about it), but for most of us diocesan hermits the real issue is our own integrity in living this life and allowing the Church to discern and celebrate other instances of it rather than dealing with the sorry pretense and insecurity which seems to drive some to claim titles to which they have no right. What serious debate takes place does so on this level, not on more trivial ones. The question of fraud is an important one for the hermit both personally and ecclesially because as Thomas Merton reminds us all: [[The . . .hermit has as his first duty, to live happily without affectation in his solitude. He owes this not only to himself but to his community [by extension diocesan hermits would say parish, diocese, or Church] that has gone so far as to give him a chance to live it out. . . . this is the chief obligation of the . . .hermit because, as I said above, it can restore to others their faith in certain latent possibilities of nature and of grace.]] (Emphasis added,  Contemplation in a World of Action, p. 242)

In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay hermits who identify themselves as such) might well embrace true solitude in  the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)

You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).

On Recovering (or Renewing) an Excitement and Hope for Vatican II

Well, the day before yesterday was one of those days where amazing things happen ALL day long. First, there was the inauguration of a Pope who holds the poor and marginalized in his heart and gives them priority in his theology and pastoral focus --- the first inauguration since that of John Paul I where I felt true excitement and hopefulness for the papacy, the reform of the curia, and the eventual health of the Church; it was the first inauguration where I was moved by the simplicity (and beauty) of the liturgy, the vestments, etc, and so, was reminded of the Christ I know myself. It was an inauguration in which I heard the Gospel proclaimed in Greek --- which took me back to school days --- and where the Homily spoke of caring for creation and one another as good stewards of God's own love and life in what was a typically Franciscan way.

I was taken back to school days too when, in the afternoon, I went  to a symposium at my old college on Vatican II featuring the Church historian Massimo Faggioli speaking about his book, The Battle for Meaning. Also in attendance were Bp John Cummins (Bp Emeritus of the Diocese of Oakland) and Bp Remi De Roo (Bp Emeritus, Victoria, BC and a Bishop who attended all four sessions of Vatican II). Now, some readers of this blog may recognize Bp Remi's name from pieces I have written on the history of Canon 603, especially for his intervention at the Second Vatican Council on the contribution of the eremitical life to the life of the Church. (cf the labels to the right and below for associated articles here) I had never met Bp De Roo, but I had read his intervention at the Council and he has been something of a hero of mine because of his support of the eremitical vocation.

So, I had emailed a Brother at the college and asked if there might be a chance to meet Bp De Roo to thank him for his place in establishing this vocation in the contemporary Church. That was arranged and I was able to hear the story from him directly, a story I have told here before and will summarize again: When religious were forced to leave their congregations and vows in order to follow a call to eremitical solitude Dom Jacques Winandy, a Benedictine monk and (eventually) another 11 or so of them ended up on Bp Remi's doorstep. He was named Bishop protector of a project allowing these hermits to live in a laura (individual dwellings, etc.) and try to live this vocation. It was the beginning of a resurgence of the eremitical vocation in the Latin Church. Later he gave (wrote) one of the interventions at Vatican II and, though none of the Council documents included eremitical life, the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) recognized the vocation in canon 603 partly as a result of Bp Remi's efforts.

Bishop Remi De Roo

Mass and Dinner with the participants and Brothers of the College followed and I was able to catch up a little with people I had not seen since I had graduated or been in the MA program there, I also met Brothers who had not been there when I was in school as an undergraduate or MA student. I had not anticipated this but it was a real joy. One of my old classmates was among those presenting at the afternoon session and it was wonderful to be able to talk with her, to attend Mass with her and extend the sign of peace during the celebration. It was also wonderful to hear Bp De Roo proclaim the Gospel and give the homily. Bp Remi has been a champion of Vatican II throughout the years and is known for his clear position on the primacy of conscience as well as his support of the sacramental nature of marital intimacy. He recently (September) published Memoirs of a Vatican II Bishop which (despite having just now read only half of it) I recommend.

At the evening presentation Bp Remi, along with Bp John Cummins and Massimo Faggioli spoke of the greatest achievements of Vatican II as well as what was still to be done in their estimation. Bishop De Roo spoke first of his conclusion that what John XXIII had wanted to happen with Vatican II HAD happened, namely, a new Pentecost.  He developed the same ten points as signs of this achieved new Pentecost as he used to indicate what was still necessary, namely,  our need to develop a spirituality of Vatican II. The ten points marking both achievement and remaining need?  1) a view of revelation centered in the person of Jesus Christ, not in propositions, 2) reclaiming and reading the Scriptures as the basis of our spirituality, 3) the recognition that real sanctity is a question of relationships, first with God and then with all others, 4) reclaiming our Baptismal dignity, especially a sense of the priesthood of all believers. Here Bp Remi reminded us there is only one "class" in our Church, that of disciple of Christ.

He continued: 5) a redefinition of the nature of genuine morality in terms of responsible freedom rather than as a matter of embracing moral precepts. Here Bp De Roo stressed the uniqueness of the conciliar statements on conscience --- not in terms of content, for that was entirely traditional, but in terms of the Council affirming this teaching clearly in its own documents; 6) A morality measured in terms of co-responsibility for all. (Bp Remi reminded us of Vatican II's statement that the laity/laos (the whole People of God) has right and sometimes the obligation to speak to pastors regarding their needs), 7) the commitment to the Kingdom or Reign of God. The Church is here as a servant of this one single work, the building of the Kingdom. Thus, the Church is always to be about dying to self so that God's Kingdom might truly come; (this was also the topic of Bp Remi's homily, the single work of God).

8) the universal call to holiness is something all need to clearly embrace, 9) Bp Remi encouraged us to ask ourselves, "Have I heard the call to mysticism?" Here he spoke of developing a heart attuned to God in prayer and of the need for everyone to really develop this; 10) a clear recognition and embrace of the notion of what Vatican II called the "hierarchy of truths." We cannot treat every truth as though it is important as every other truth. We cannot treat every practice as though it is as critical as every other practice. That is not Church teaching.  When I ask myself how many of these points are central to life in my hermitage, parish, and/or diocese (or even how many of them turn up in much of my writing here and other places) I have to say I am very hopeful and gratified.


Both Massimo Faggioli's and John Cummin's presen-tations were excellent too and I hope to post more about those soon. They dealt with the same questions. What was especially encouraging was the ongoing work occurring re Vatican II, the continued commitment to its reception by the Church, and a clear statement that the Council had been kidnapped --- not at the Council itself as its sometimes said, but later by those who suggested ANY competent theologian ever bought into a theology or hermeneutic of rupture, or, for that matter that the Council documents were ONLY in complete continuity with the whole of Tradition. There was both continuity (of course!) and discontinuity; no competent theologian ever affirmed anything else, or could competently affirm anything else. Faggioli's phrase for the notion that this was not the case was "science fiction" --- and insulting science fiction as well.

There is still a great deal of work to do, of course, and damage has been done to the aims of the Council in the past decade and more, but Vatican II was the occasion of a new Pentecost and, as we can see from Francis' election --- where conservatism is not a problem so long as the Church acts as Christ and truly and effectively proclaims the Gospel with its life and structures, from the almost universal desire of the Cardinals for reform of the Curia (cf. comments by Walter Cardinal Kasper on this matter recently), and from the excitement at every level of the Church over Francis' WAY of doing business, as well as from comments by Massimo Faggioli, we can trust in the Spirit as well as that "the genie cannot be stuffed back in the bottle."

Followup on Visibility, and Betrayal of the C603 Vocation

I received a response (well, really more of a reaction) to my post on the visibility of hermits, canonical standing and their supposed betrayal of the clear meaning of the Catechism, and Canon 603. It was sent by email the day before yesterday morning by someone who reads blogs on eremitical life, but included no specific question --- and in fact no comment at all. I suspect she felt the post rather spoke for itself and left her a bit speechless as it did me as well. It begins with a quote from the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), paragraph 921, and raises questions of fact, competency, and character, among others. I will mainly respond to the questions of fact in this post and have omitted some of the venom and most of the language of personal attack.

[["...HIDDEN from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because HE [Christ] is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One" (emphases added).

I do not know what is so difficult to comprehend in the fact that hermits are called to be HIDDEN from the EYES of MEN. This surely means among other externals, not to be displaying oneself either in signature religious garb or other visibilities (the outer does not the inner make), promoting oneself, placing oneself as authority and expert above others, self-identifying with inventive order initials (hermits are not order religious), nor to seemingly fixate upon being the vociferous solo voice of hermit vocation and life. Why not benefit self or others by writing about a hermit's spiritual life: the spiritual battle, the glory of Christ, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, the praise of God and salvation of the world to which hermits are supposed to devote their lives?

It is not about labels, identifying garb, temporal technicalities squeezed from scouring the canon laws, attempts to create yet one more exclusive group, politicizing or institutionalizing a vocation not ever intended to be anything other than what the Catechism and the actual Canon Law 603 states. This law of 1983 was revised to clarify and guide, perhaps in some instances those who had vocation confusion or over-stepped ego decorum. Just because a person or group is canonically approved by one Bishop, the viability and voracity (sic) of a hermit's actual living the vocation may stray into questionable practices.]]

The Preliminaries: The Catechism and the Code of Canon Law

In responding to these comments it is probably important to note that the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism function very differently from one another in the life of the diocesan hermit (and for that matter, in the life of the Church). For instance, the diocesan hermit is professed under Canon 603 and legally obligated to embody (respect and fulfill) its specific terms with her life. As I have said a number of times the Canon lists essential and non-negotiable elements which MUST be honored by hermits, and for that matter, by Bishops as well in discerning, professing, and supervising such vocations. The Catechism on the other hand is a summary statement of the general nature of eremitical life (religious, lay, and diocesan) as it is found in the church and though somewhat useful in teaching, in the main, it is far less helpful to hermits living into their vocations than it is to those generally unfamiliar with the vocation. For them, it is cursorily descriptive but not prescriptive. In the CCC, paragraphs 920-921 do in fact describe an essentially hidden and even mostly unknown vocation, and the description should certainly be attended to and not disregarded, but they do NOT have the force of law for the diocesan hermit that Canon 603 does.

Also, despite the fact that I write mostly about Canon 603, it is NOT the only canon that is applicable or binding in the diocesan hermit's life. For instance, while all of the canons I will mention here apply to those professed in institutes of consecrated life, CC 662-664 (obligation to follow Christ as highest rule of life, ongoing conversion of heart, etc.) clearly apply to anyone living a consecrated life. The same is true of others: in some dioceses, c. 668 (cession of administration of goods) is held to apply to hermits making vows of poverty, as c 669 often is (wearing of the habit). Canon 673 (the responsibility to witness to consecrated life) is held to bind the diocesan hermit, and so does c 674 (requirements pertaining to contemplative life) especially. C 678 (authority of Bishop) binds the diocesan hermit of course (though seeming superfluous perhaps), as do a number of other canons.

Because of this diocesan hermits have obligations that are not described in the Catechism paragraphs cited, nor delineated in C 603. These affect the way "hiddenness" is understood and lived out, for instance. One who is charged with the responsibility of witnessing to consecrated life, or who is invested with the habit will live out this hiddenness a little differently than a lay hermit with none of these legal obligations. The point is simply that one cannot read C 603 in a vacuum whether that vacuum be linguistic, canonical, theological, spiritual, philosophical, etc etc. Diocesan hermits especially cannot and do NOT do so, and to accuse them (or any one of them) of scouring canon laws for technicalities and squeezing meaning or justifications from them because of some legalistic bent, or somehow betraying the simplicity and humility of their vocations because they actually attend to and reflect on ALL the canon law which governs their lives is completely off-base, naive, and uncalled for.

While the blogger is free to hold an opinion on what hiddenness actually looks like and what it allows or disallows, it would be more helpful in an actual discussion to provide reasoned arguments rooted in genuine expertise rather than simple ungrounded assertions. After all,"It (hiddenness) SURELY means this because I say it means this" is not very compelling. Neither is, "the Canon was intended to mean this because I say it was." When the facts are wrong (see below) and these ungrounded assertions essentially conflict with the way Bishops, Vicars, Canonists and even the Sacred Congregation generally understand the vocation or Canon and what these may and may not allow, then there are good reasons to doubt the cogency of that opinion. With regard to all of the material externals decried by this poster, NONE OF THEM are simply appropriated without at least one's own Bishop's approval.

For instance habits, cowls, and post-nomial initials all are assumed only with one's Bishop's permission and sometimes at his request. They are not "self-assumed." Nor is the designation, "Catholic hermit." Not every diocesan hermit wears a habit or a cowl, for instance, but the simple fact is most do at least the former and in every case, the practice was permitted or even requested by the local ordinary. Not every hermit uses post-nomial initials, but most do of one sort or another. In my case, and that of a number of others, we use Er Dio or Erem Dio (or even just ED) which stands for Eremita Dioecesanus (diocesan hermit). It is very specifically meant as an alternative to initials which might seem to indicate that one is part of a religious order (Franciscan, Carmelite, etc.) even while it points to public consecration. In any case, it was approved initially by Archbishop Vigneron in 2008 after serious consideration and consultation and has since been allowed by a number of other Bishops in several countries. None of these things is adopted carelessly or unthinkingly, and the motives for doing so (or desiring to do so) are scrutinized by all involved.

The Heart of the Matter: The Reasons Canon 603 was Promulgated

Finally, a relevant correction in the supposed "facts" set forth in this blogger's post: Canon 603 is not a revision of anything. It is a completely new Canon with no true precedent in universal law. It was not included in the Code to correct abuses ("over-stepped ego decorum"??), but rather because Bishops who had firsthand experience of hermits in their dioceses and this vocation's lack of inclusion in the earlier Code or church documents, BEGGED Vatican II to address this lack in its own Council documents. They also pleaded for its inclusion in what would become the Revised Code of 1983. Even in Perfectae Caritatis, the early drafts included no mention of the anchoritic/eremitical life. When this plea was first made by Bishop De Roo it happened that monks and nuns who discovered a valid call to solitude later in their religious lives were required, if their communities made no provision for eremitical life in proper law, to leave their vows and consecration behind and pursue the eremitical vocation outside religious or consecrated life. In other words, despite being called to an intensification of solitude which grew within and could be considered a deepening or development of their consecrated state, hermits could only pursue this vocation by leaving their communities and accepting secularization. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "vocation confusion" as the blogger above rather offensively puts it. It is actually the esteemed way to eremitical life St Benedict describes in the Rule of Benedict.

Several other reasons were given by Bishop De Roo for including hermits in the Revised Code of Canon Law in order to rectify their omission from the 1917 Code. These included: 1) The fact of growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. (This is something post-nomial initials help do, by the way, as does the habit, etc.) Remi De Roo was the Bishop protector of a colony of 10 -12 hermits. He wrote about these benefits and needs on the basis of the lives lived by these hermits and others and "earnestly request(ed)" the Council "officially recognize the eremitical life as a state of perfection in the Church." (taken from Vita Eremitica Iuxta Can 603, p 137 reporting on Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol iii, pars vii, pp 608-609)

If we look at all the reasons Bishop de Roo gave for the inclusion of something like Canon 603 in what would become the current (1983) revised Code, two things stand out in light of the complaints made by the above poster: 1) a needed law to correct abuses is not mentioned; abuses are not mentioned at all in fact, and 2) each of the reasons have something to do with hermits witnessing to or representing something important of which the Church and world needed to be aware. There is absolutely an essential hiddenness about this vocation, but at the same time (as has always been true really) the vocation is lived in dialogue with the Church and the world as a whole. Further, institutionalization of the vocation was a way of correcting injustices (for instance, the kind of required secularization in order to follow this call already mentioned) and allowing in Law for a vocation that was in a state of growth and renewal. It was therefore a dynamic vocation that Bishop de Roo described, one which was even an evolving one as hermits explored the very traditional life of the desert Fathers and Mothers (et al) and --- as was mainly true of the desert Abbas and Ammas --- doing so in a way which was prophetic, contemplative, ecumenical, and eschatological (as hermits battled evil) in terms of the contemporary world and its needs.

Thus, Canon 603, when it was finally promulgated had all this history at its back, as well as the history of the eremitical vocation more generally. While the Canon could certainly be used to correct abuses if necessary this was not the reason for its inclusion in the Revised Code. Thus too, Canon 603 did not merely spell out non-negotiable elements that would look the same in every eremitical life. Instead, it combined these with the requirement of the hermit's OWN Rule (or Plan) of Life and the relationship with the diocesan Bishop which generally ensured not only the fidelity of the life, but its vitality, flexibility, and creativity as well.

In What Regards is this Blogger Correct?

Of course, the poster is absolutely correct when she says the following: [[It is not about labels, identifying garb, temporal technicalities squeezed from scouring the canon laws, attempts to create yet one more exclusive group, politicizing or institutionalizing a vocation not ever intended to be anything other than what the Catechism and the actual Canon Law 603 states.]] Diocesan eremitical life is not about any of these things. Nor is Canon 603. However, the diocesan hermit is bound to consider the place in her life of Canon Law, identifying garb, networks of other diocesan hermits that may help address problems or concerns lay hermits do not share, and so forth. She is bound to explore the parameters of ALL the Canons which apply to her life even if she is not called to share this exploration publicly. She is obligated to do whatever she can to live this life with integrity not only in its essential hiddenness but in in its prophetic and public aspects as well. As I have noted before this vocation is a paradoxical one. It is also diverse in its expressions and only the hermit living the life from within the grace and challenge of the consecrated state and with the assistance of her director, delegate, diocesan Bishop, pastor, etc. can determine what shape this must take in HER own call and response.

Further, she is correct in suggesting that one may start out fine and go off track. Negotiating the tensions implied in Canon 603 is not always easy: the problem of supporting oneself while living a full-time eremitical life of the silence of solitude, maintaining an essential hiddenness while also witnessing to the consecrated life (habit, cowl, blog, etc.) can lead to real errors. Each hermit works these things out with her Bishop, director, and delegate. Again, this is one of the reasons for something like the Network of Diocesan Hermits which allows for dialogue between hermits, candidates for profession, and even between hermits and dioceses. We sincerely want to minimize errors and live this life with the greatest integrity possible, but that also means honoring the diversity that is truly allowed us by the Canon(s) and called for by the Holy Spirit! Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation