Bishop Remi de Roo and Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Dear Sr Laurel, Thank you for writing about the way the presence of privilege can lead one to greater humility. I have been listening to someone who clearly has problems with diocesan hermits. I think the truth is that she has problems with you and can't get past those, but I digress. I wanted to ask you about Bp Remi de Roo and the indigenous people of Canada. Do you think Bishop de Roo failed members of the Indigenous People of Canada via the schools the Church ran? I remember hearing a story about de Roo being made a chief of some indigenous tribe in Canada. Have you heard about that?

Thanks for your question. I don't have any details on whether Bp Remi failed the indigenous people of Canada or not, though I am aware of accusations, but yes, I have heard the story you mentioned and can fill in a few details on that. I believe it makes the likelihood of Bishop de Roo failing indigenous people difficult to assert because their esteem for him was something that meant a great deal to him. Further, as a Bishop he decried the "colonial amnesia" Canadians sometimes showed and stressed the tragedy that was the Church's participation in such "cultural domination"; Bp Remi notes in his own writing that all of this abominable treatment by missionaries was rooted in an inadequate reading and understanding of the Gospel, as well as a failure to recognize that God had preceded missionaries on their ambitious journeys and that they had misread and denigrated the symbols God had inspired and "fashioned with indigenous hands." But, regarding the esteem the Indigenous People showed de Roo, here is what he writes about the honor they showed him:

One of the most heartwarming encounters I had [with the First Nations Peoples of Vancouver Island] was a special event sponsored by several tribes that live in this territory. It took place on February 14, 1963, and was held in the huge Longhouse in the TSawout East Saanich Indian reserve near Sydney. It began with a ceremonial canoe ride, recalling the arrival of the first bishop, Msgr Demers. After the welcome by one of the leaders, I was invited to plant a large wooden cross fashioned from a cedar tree. We then processed to the longhouse, where a large crackling fire had been lit at both ends of the building. Chiefs from several tribes made speeches marking their accord with the purpose of the ceremony. I, in turn, presented a woolen blanket to each orator. Then two elderly women approached and placed a decorated blanket on my shoulders. "Now you are one of us," was the theme of the comments made by several of the Chiefs. I was given my new name, "Siem Le Pleet S'HWUWQUN," which translates as, "Great High Priest White Swan" indicating that I was now formally adopted into the [Indigenous] race.(Chronicles of a Vatican II Bishop, pp 82-83

Bishop de Roo goes on to note on another occasion,  

The Native Peoples gave me more than a new name. I am one of the few white people who have gone through the initiation into the native race. I'm a blood brother, not just an honorary chief. Of that I am very proud because it gives me a link with Canada which is more than an immigrant status. It's a link with these people who are the original Canadians. I'm very conscious of the fact that we are in their home here, enjoying their hospitality. We owe so much to the Native Peoples who are the original Canadians. . . The fact that Confederation was born in a context of and injustice towards the Native Peoples, we must right that wrong; otherwise, our Canadian democracy has nothing to say to the rest of the world. ("Keynote Speech," Mosaic's annual general meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, September 23, 1986.)

Bishop Remi's funeral

So, while I don't know whether Bishop de Roo failed Indigenous Peoples from the infamous schools run by the Church, I recognize a sensitivity and mutual esteem between him and them that militates against the truth of such accusations. Given that Remi de Roo was ordained and consecrated as Bishop in 1962 and the Indigenous Peoples' adoption ceremony took place not quite a year later in 1963, it sounds like Bishop de Roo had a good relationship with the Indigenous Peoples of Vancouver Island before he was made a Bishop. And given the way he spoke about these Peoples in 1986, 23 years later, and just 13 years before he retired from his See, the idea that he failed them in some egregious way becomes truly doubtful. 

I also believe he was the simple (and truly wealthy) man I met in Northern California, as he portrayed himself or was portrayed in several books. He was wealthy in Christ, in the richness of his commitment to serve God and the Church, and in the love so many had for him and he for them. The picture of his coffin at his funeral also says to me that he was buried as he lived and conveyed himself. I think he was an example of religious privilege leading to, as well as inspiring, greater and greater true humility. Until this recent discussion, I mainly esteemed Bp de Roo for helping move the Church to codify the eremitical life in universal law. Now, however, I recognize freshly just what an exemplary Church leader Bishop de Roo was, and in some ways, still is. I pray I can do half so well in my own public (canonical) life of eremitical hiddenness and praise!!! What perfect timing to return to all this freshly during Holy Week!! God is indeed so very good!!! Thank you for your questions, and my thanks to all those who prompted me to read and write about this once again!!

Holding Privilege and Humility Together by the Grace of God

[[Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my questions on ecclesiality. I think I understand that a vocation is ecclesial because it serves the Church in a particular way. I also think I am beginning to understand that the solitude a hermit lives is one that is part of a larger relatedness within the Church. Right? What is a little harder for me to understand is how seeking a certain kind of privilege in the Church can be about humility. I know that when I think of being called to live eremitical life in the name of the Church --- a phrase I got from your blog --- it causes me to feel a little shaky and awed that God might be working this way in MY life. Is this what you mean when you refer to this privilege inspiring humility? I grew up thinking that to be humble meant thinking badly of myself or denigrating myself and thinking of others as superior to me. But you are not talking about humility in that way, are you? Is it possible to think of one's vocation as important and still be humble? ]]

Thanks for writing again! Yes, you are essentially right in what you say of solitude. Also, you have answered your own last question with your description of what happens when you think of being called to live eremitical life in the name of the Church. You say you get shaky and feel awed. I have a friend who gets goosebumps and feels kind of shivery when she recognizes deep truth. I wonder if you aren't having a similar response to this sense of your own vocation?! You don't seem to me to be saying you are full of pride (vainglory) and a sense of being better than others!! You seem to me to be describing exactly the kind of humility divine vocations provoke or inspire in us when we realize that God has called us to serve in a particular way, and that way is way beyond anything we thought we were capable of, especially by ourselves! You are aware, it seems to me, of what God is doing in your life and also with your life. I think that is a genuinely humbling experience. 

Actually, I know that is a humbling experience!!! What is a danger to such genuine humility is our own sense of inferiority!! In my own experience, the thing that can especially prevent one from allowing God to work in and through one in a specific way is clinging to the kind of pseudo-humility that is really a form of denigration and an expression of inferiority. (Even worse, it can be great pride masking itself in terms of self-denigration and inferiority!!) What we do when we fall into this kind of pseudo-humility is to deny the effectiveness of Divine grace. What we do in these times is to tell God that he can't call us in this way, he can't possibly use us to serve him in this way! We are too little or inept or "nothing", or simply too great a sinner to be used for such a role!!! We essentially tell God to look elsewhere, to someone better, or wiser, or cleverer, than we are!! Now that is pride!! Imagine telling God that you can't possibly be both privileged and humble, you can't possibly live a vocation in the name of the Church without becoming all puffed up with pride!!! It's a small step to telling God that no one can be called to serve him in this way and remain humble—a not-so-subtle way of telling God he's crazy, that sin really is victorious over Christ, and to stop calling people to ecclesial vocations!!!

Humility is about being grounded in God. It is a form of loving honesty that reflects the awe (your word!!) occasioned by an awareness of who we are and what we do with and through the grace of God. My own appreciation of the ecclesial nature of this (c 603) vocation grew only as my own capacity for genuine humility grew. I do not tend to lack humility when I speak of the privilege of living an ecclesial vocation "in the name of the Church" because I know I am speaking of a constellation of obligations or responsibilities that I have freely assumed for God's sake and the sake of God's Church and world. I do, however, lack humility when I am afraid to affirm that God could or has called me to such a vocation despite having sensed a divine call!! I lack humility when I deny what the grace of God has done in Christ, and can do, and has therefore done with me in this way!

One feels called by God when one truly feels a yearning to live an eremitical life in the name of the Church. Those who are seeking something else will reveal themselves to those doing discernment with them, as has sometimes happened with this and probably every other vocation in the Church. In c 603 vocations, it tends to happen when bishops who are asked to profess someone without such a vocation simply say, "Whom could it hurt? It's an insignificant vocation! It's hidden away so no one will know or be hurt by such dishonesty or by the hermit's own personal problems!" But of course, a lot of people, and the vocations themselves, are hurt in this way! Imagine bishops telling people that a vocation lived in the heart of the Church, and responsible for revealing this heart to the Church itself, can be filled by someone who doesn't believe they are called to this! It would be like a heart surgeon replacing a heart valve with paper clips and chewing gum and expecting the heart to stay healthy and the whole organism to live! I have been involved with such a case myself. The person was clear s/he did not feel called to be a hermit, and had never lived as a hermit, but felt called to "Public profession," in service to a contemporary cultural agenda. His/her bishop became complicit in this despite being aware of the fundamental dishonesties involved; he professed this person, and together they denigrated a vocation that is both infinitely meaningful and incredibly fragile. This short-sightedness, dishonesty, and abject willfulness are also faces of the lack of humility. 

But none of this is what you have described or feared in approaching what may well be your own vocation. Yes, you are seeking to be consecrated in a way that is associated with particular ecclesial privileges. But these privileges are also responsibilities and obligations you accept in and through the grace of God. The hermits who had Bp Remi de Roo as their Bishop Protector may have been open to accepting certain religious privileges, but these were men who knew well that such privileges were responsibilities and obligations they had already lived wholeheartedly for the good of God's People and creation during their years under solemn vows. While I can't say whether or not they urged Bp Remi to bring this up to the Vatican or at the Vatican Council II, and while I don't think this was on their minds when they left their monasteries, it wouldn't be surprising if, in the face of discussions with Bishop de Roo, they might well have recognized that perhaps God called them to eremitical life after long years in the monastery precisely to get the Church to recognize the value of the eremitical life and allow for it in universal law. 

As you move forward, I hope you never lose your tendency to feel awe and get shaky as you consider what God and you together are doing with your life! Through the grace of God, it is possible to hold privilege and humility together in a way that edifies the entire People of God!! Please feel free to write again. Know I hold you in my prayers, especially in this regard!!

Follow-up Questions on Bishop Remi de Roo

[[Dear Sister, I have read what you said about Bishop de Roo in the past so I was familiar with the story. I liked the way you put some things this time around and thought they were especially helpful in understanding why the Church made a canonical form of eremitical life. (Sorry, I can't copy the text from your blog.) Part of it had to do with the paradoxes involved in the life. . . . I don't know if this is also about paradox, but I have questions about Bishop De Roo. Did you know he had some financial problems in his diocese?  I don't think you are idealizing him, but were you aware of the problems he got the Diocese of Victoria into?]]

Hi good questions, and important. Yes, I was aware of the problems that occurred with Bp De Roo over a land deal. He wrote a book about this (I think it was his account I read, but it was a while ago) and there was at least one other book I read about it all by Patrick Jamieson. There were two sides to the story (at least and of course!). In the book I read by Jamieson, a Catholic journalist, there were five major claims about Bp De Roo being made regarding financial mismanagement, questionable investments, etc. Most of these focused on a land deal the bishop was involved in that would have made money for the Diocese of Victoria". The Church, after de Roo's retirement, stopped making mortgage payments, and the debt soared due to penalties, etc. What was discovered by Jamieson was that the really concerted attempts to vilify Bishop began in 2000, immediately after he had retired in 1999. 

Concerning the land deal mentioned above, seven years after de Roo retired, it was decided in court (in the US, where the land was) that de Roo had made a solid investment in the land involved. There had been no mismanagement. The violation of the contract with a US businessman by the Church was unjustified, and the Church needed to work with the plaintiff to recoup his investment. The plaintiff desired to do this without hurting the Church if that was possible. The Church, however, appealed the decision and, as I recall the situation now, the decision was eventually sustained. In any case, it is clear that Bishop de Roo was not involved in much of this, and his place as an administrator was vindicated. The situation was similar to the other four areas of dispute and allegations. Jamieson refers to these as "myths" in his book.

What Jamieson also noted was that the accusations of fiscal mismanagement always seemed to come from the same small group of people who resented de Roo's attempts to implement the conclusions of, or drawn from, Vatican II. Whether or not this was true or accurate, there is no doubt that de Roo was a "reformist" or progressive Bishop and theologian, and a small traditionalist faction formed that attempted first to block changes and then, to vilify de Roo. The idea of discrediting progressive bishops was not novel, though it was unusual in the Canadian Church. Still, it was real, and it seems to me that Bp de Roo was pulled into this after he had retired with allegations of fiscal mismanagement during his tenure as Bishop of Victoria. 

In another area of concern, while I don't know details regarding the extent to which Remi de Roo was involved in the clergy abuse scandal, I do know the book he wrote about it and the quality of his response. The book is called Cries of Victims and Voice of God. There is no doubt Bp Remi dealt with this profound problem and scandal as has every bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, and better than many. What comes through in the book is de Roo's deep compassion and grief as a prominent Church leader who loves God, the People of God, and his own priestly vocation. The title of this book alone tells one what he valued primarily, and what guided whatever he did in this area. He wanted (the Church) to hear the victims, and he wanted the voice of God to be heard and acted on by all. From what I know of the man and Bishop, this reflected his character; this was who he was. 

As you say, I am not idealizing him. There is no need for that because I don't think I am naive in my assessments of what he did at Vatican II and in the Diocese of Victoria. Until now, I have written only about his role as the bishop-protector of a group of hermits in British Columbia. That is the context in which I met Bp de Roo, and the topic we very briefly conversed about. It is also the only topic that has been relevant to the questions raised and answered here. Even so, precisely because I esteem him (and am grateful to God for the role he played in getting c 603 promulgated after Vatican II), I have read about problems he was at least purported to have caused or failed at. What I have discovered is that, generally speaking, in complex situations, he was often not actually culpable for or of the accusations made. What I have also discovered is that even when there was some entirely understandable and regrettable episcopal failure or inadequacy (we really do not expect bishops to be entirely successful in everything they attempt), it was de Roo's admirable character that still shone out. 

I have told this story before, but perhaps it is a good time to tell it again. Before a celebratory dinner on the day I met Bishop de Roo, we had a Mass. Bp John Cummins was there (another attendee of Vatican II and good friend of de Roo from the days of the Council), Bp de Roo, some other clergy, and religious who were participating in some way in the liturgy. I was to carry the book of the Gospels in the entrance procession. We did a brief practice to see who went where in the procession line, who bowed when, and who went where next. It was a quick, matter-of-fact, and quiet kind of strategic "scramble" before we settled in to truly pray the liturgy. As the presiders were talking about these logistics, Bishop de Roo turned to me and said, "You carry the book of the Gospels. You bow to no one!!" Was Bp de Roo throwing his weight around as a bishop here? Was this about pride or prestige? No, it was about priorities, and I believe Bishop de Roo's were revealed very clearly in that moment.

On the Church's Regard for the Eremitic Vocation and c 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, was your vocation under this new canon created or caused to be created by a dissenting Bishop? Did he do this because a group of hermit lobbied to force the Church to respect them and their vocations? I heard this from a hermit who does videos.]]

Thanks for your questions. From my perspective, the views you are asking about are erroneous and unhelpfully cynical. Bishop Remi de Roo was not a dissenting bishop. He was a supporter of Vatican II and a whole-hearted supporter at that. Vatican II is a significant part of the Tradition of the Church, and that is true even though it is a relatively recent addition to that Tradition that recovers some very early Tradition. I suppose if one is not particularly in agreement with Vatican II, particularly in its anti-clericalism and its universal call to holiness, one might call Bp de Roo a dissenter, but I would suggest that this is simply not the case.

Secondly, Bp de Roo was Bishop-protector for a group of hermits (a laura) in British Columbia who had left their communities and vows because they felt called by God to even greater solitude than their monasteries allowed, and eventually came together in the laura in BC. This is sometimes seen as the natural progression of the monastic life, so it ought not surprise us. Most of these men had been Benedictine monks for many years, but living as hermits was something their congregations' (or monasteries') proper or particular law did not allow. They loved their various communities and were completely committed to "seeking God" as every Benedictine commits to do for the entirety of their life, but in this particular matter, they found themselves having to leave their monasteries and vows in order to seek God in eremitical solitude. 

Had they wanted the Church's respect, they certainly chose a funny way of going after that. After all, they let go of everything having to do with such a choice, let go of legal standing and positions of influence, relinquished years and years in solemn vows and consecrated life, and chose to be secularized to seek God alone in stricter solitude. (Remember, the Church in the West had no universal canon law governing eremitic life, and hermits, as a vital reality, had almost died out. These men clearly followed God into obscurity in the very best Gospel and Desert fashion. Only over time did they come together in British Columbia, and then, only over time did Bishop de Roo become their Bishop Protector.)

Bishop Remi worked with these men for a period of some years, and he knew their lives to be a significant gift to the Church. Through the centuries, Bishops in the Western Church had established local canons to allow for hermits and anchorites in their dioceses, but there had never been a universal law recognizing the vocation. As a result of his experience with these hermits, Bishop Remi de Roo was impressed with the vocation, and as one of the youngest Bishops at Vatican Council II, he made an intervention supporting the recognition of hermit life as a state of perfection. He gave a number of very positive reasons justifying this petition. As I have noted before, these included: 

• 1) The fact of growing renewal of the eremitic 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, and a dedicated seeking of God that forms the basis of every Christian life or vocation and witnesses to the truth of the Gospel in a particularly vivid way, 
• 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially in dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity, but also in conversations with Protestantism, supporting the place of lives dedicated to prayer) 
• 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels are limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. (This is something post-nominal initials help do, by the way, as does the habit, etc.) Remi De Roo was the Bishop protector of a colony of (more than) 10 -12 hermits. He wrote about these benefits and needs based on 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)
• I would add another reason Bishop de Roo became more aware of after Vatican II, namely, that in a world where individualism is both destructive and was well on its way to becoming the epidemic it is today, it was important for the Church to recognize that eremitism is antithetical to individualism! This could be done by giving hermits canonical standing in the Church.

When God gives the Church a gift, the only appropriate response is to honor and celebrate it. Bishop Remi recognized the gift and sought to have the Church recognize and honor it universally by providing for it in law for the first time ever. Vatican II led to the revision of the Code of Canon Law, and in Advent of 1983, this revision included two "new" (and ancient) forms of consecrated life: c 603, solitary eremitical life lived under the local bishop's supervision, and c 604, consecrated virginity for women living in the world. There is no sense at all in anything I have been able to read on the subject that the hermits under Bp de Roo's episcopal protection lobbied for this in any way. Certainly, this had nothing to do with some kind of egoistic and vainglorious clamoring for prestige or status.

The eremitical vocation is profoundly countercultural. It isn't an easy vocation, and it needs the support of the Church it both serves and reflects. C 603 hermits live a hiddenness that is very real. They declare with their lives that the journey to union with God is at the heart of every person's call to authentic humanity, and they signal the hiddenness of this pilgrimage in a way that is provocative and, so, paradoxical. Again, by definition, the world militates against such a vocation. The Church, of course, is called to be "in the world but not of it"; hermits are among those called by God to make very sure the Church is true to this calling. We don't do this by running from the world that is God's good creation, nor by turning away from the Church that is an embodied (sacramental) reality rooted in history as well as in eternity. Instead, we do this by rejecting enmeshment in that which is resistant to Christ and embracing a solitary solidarity that is contrary to individualism. 

The Church's recognition of and regard for such vocations (ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state under c 603, for instance) not only assists in the proclamation of the Gospel (every hermit proclaims the truth of the risen Christ and God as Emmanuel in the extraordinary ordinariness of her life here and now), but also helps the Church maintain its own countercultural integrity and witness in the power of the Holy Spirit -- even though the world sometimes makes that very difficult. This public consecrated vocation is not about prestige or status, but instead, the granting and acceptance of standing in law, the canonical embrace of a place of radical humility which the world simply does not understand.

Once Again on Bishop Remi de Roo and the Origins of C 603

[[ Dear Sister, were the original hermits under Bp Remi de Roo unhappy with life in their monasteries? Were they disgruntled because of Vatican II in some way? Were they fighting against their superiors? There's a story being posted by another hermit claiming Bp de Roo was a dissenting Bp and was unhappy with Vatican II, and the group of women hermits that came under him were pushing him to lobby for them to become hermits when their superiors didn't want for them to become hermits. The story continues that they wanted to force the church to give them prestige and status of some kind and got Bishop de Roo to lobby for that under canon law. I read your version of the story and wondered if maybe you had put a good spin on things because you liked Bp de Roo. Do hermits really want status and prestige and to be respected?]]

The way I have told the story in the past is the way I understand it to have taken place. Monks (please note), long in solemn vows, found themselves called to greater silence and solitude than their monastic life allowed, and their proper law (i.e., the law proper to a specific Order or monastery) did not allow them to live as hermits. If they wanted to do that, they had to leave their vows, be secularized, find an appropriate living situation, and embrace eremitic life outside their monasteries. No one was disgruntled; no one was contending with his superior. No one wanted to leave his vows or monastic life. However, they had discovered a divine call to eremitical solitude after long years of disciplined lives of prayer in the monastery and desired to follow that call. (Remember that eremitic life was often considered the goal or height of monastic life.) 

Unfortunately, because the proper law of their monasteries had no provision for this, they either had to dismiss what they felt was a divine call or leave their monastery and embrace eremitic life outside it. But Canon law (universal law)  had no provision either! (This is decades before C 603.) Thus, they moved from the relative security of the monastery and their long commitment to God in that life to lives as hermits in the larger world in order to pursue the even greater solitude God called them to.

In what I consider risky acts of real faith, courage, and sacrifice, these men sought the dispensation of their solemn vows** and release from the consecrated state from the Vatican; trusting God alone, they left their monasteries -- their homes for decades in some cases -- and began living as hermits. Eventually (@1965), about a dozen such men came together under Bishop Remi de Roo as their Bishop Protector and set up (or joined) a laura (colony of hermits) in British Columbia. This was no quest for status or prestige. It was an extension and even an intensification of their monastic vocation to seek God! Because of his experience with these men, Bishop de Roo found eremitical life edifying (i.e., capable of building up the church) and a gift from God; for that reason, he made an intervention at Vatican Council II seeking to have the eremitical life recognized as a state of perfection. (We now use the terms state of consecrated life or consecrated state.) He outlined about eight or ten reasons the Church should recognize eremitic life in this way. 

Nothing happened at VII itself, but the council made the reform of the current Code of Canon Law necessary, and work began on that. When the Revised Code was published or promulgated in October of 1983 (almost 20 years later), the Church Fathers had included c 603 dedicated to the solitary eremitical life. Even later, CICLSAL, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (now Dicastery, DICLSAL), allowed for solitary hermits to join together in lauras, though these were not to rise to the level of a juridical community. (There are other limitations on these lauras or lavras, many of which were developed by the Bishops of Spain for hermits there. For instance, a lavra could not have more than three c 603 hermits.)

I have written about the Church recognizing the vocation and holding it in regard. In doing so, neither I nor anyone knowledgeable about the situation that I am aware of has suggested that hermits themselves desired, much less lobbied for, prestige or status (beyond desiring standing (status) in canon law appropriate to an ecclesial vocation!), nor that they sought to "force" the Church into anything. Should hermits be respected? Of course, just as we respect any person, vocation, or the One who is their source. In any case, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be respected. It is a universal human need and one of the most fundamental ways we truly love ourselves and one another. There are outmoded ways of thinking about humility that pair it with humiliation and treat it as though it is identical with a terrible self-image and corresponding denigration of self. Genuine humility, however, is about a loving and honest self-knowledge and self-valuation, especially as this is reflected in the infinite love of God, who delights in each of us.

Bishop Remi de Roo, I believe, was the youngest bishop at Vatican II. He attended all four sessions and found his life completely turned on its head by the changes made there. Far from disagreeing with it, he was energized by it and completely on board with the movement and reform in the Church that resulted. As far as I can tell, he spent the remainder of his life trying to implement Vatican II consistently as he experienced the Holy Spirit calling him and the Church to do. (When I met him a few years ago, he was doing a presentation with my former bishop, who had also attended VII, and Massimo Faggioli, a Church historian, speaking about Vatican II and, as I recall, its continued implementation.) Despite his eventually resolved diocesan financial difficulties, he worked for justice throughout his tenure as bishop. This included efforts to accomplish both the greater involvement of the laity and the correlative decrease in clericalization in his local Church, support for the ordination of women, and the development and maintenance of a strong and sensitive relationship with the indigenous people of Canada. 

____________________________________________

** One exception to the need to seek a dispensation and the secularization experienced by most of these monks was Dom Jacques Winnandy, who, with Brother (later, Father) Lionel Pare in 1964, was allowed by his Abbey to start a laura*** of hermits. Formerly an Abbot at Clervaux (Belgium), he came to, and lived in, British Columbia as an elder of the laura until 1972, when he returned to a hermitage near his own Clervaux Abbey. He lived as a hermit there for another 25 years until about six months before his death at Clervaux Abbey. (Source of above picture: Brandt, M. Charles. "A monk of the Diaspora." The New Catholic Times: 5 Jan 2003.) 

*** A laura established today under c 603 does not and must not rise to the level of a juridical community. These hermits (in 1965) lived individually, but under an elder as part of the Hermits of St John the Baptist. Again, Bp Remi de Roo became their Bishop Protector and was edified by their lives.

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 and, for serious cases, the Diocesan Tribunal.

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 were none that established someone in the consecrated state of life as a solitary 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 by allowing for the hermit's supervision, 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).