Tracing the Roots of Canon 603: A Brief Look at Hermits in the 13-14 C

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I've read what you wrote about why c 603 came to be, but what about before c 603? Isn't it the case that people could just go off and become a hermit on their own just because God called them to this? Isn't c 603 something of a novelty? Because hermit life is so old I think people should be cautious about taking on a form of the life that is novel. You can understand that, can't you? Also, I think [the hermit you disagree with on all of this] has a point about wearing habits like those in religious communities. Is that another novelty you came up with because you had been a religious in a community?]] (Redacted from much longer email)

It may surprise you, but c 603 is not absolutely unique. Yes, it is binding universally and establishes hermits in law in the consecrated state and that is new (there was no mention of hermits in the older 1917 Code), but there have been canons in the Church before that bound hermits from this or that diocese in very much the same way c 603 does today. Because I don't much like copying long texts from other sources here, what I would like to do is quote a couple of paragraphs from a book including hermits and recluses of the Middle Ages that touches on the way hermits were regarded, the authority of the local bishop, and the service of investiture with the habit. This is a summary without detailed examples --- though these are available for the asking. I may also add something about the nature of the hermitage and solitude in the hermitage that also conflicts with the person you have referred to in your question, but that depends upon time. Since it is an important issue I could also hold it for another post.

Writing about hermits in the early 14 C and before, Edward L Cutts says in Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, [[ A man could not take upon himself the character of a hermit at his own pleasure. It was a regular order of religion, into which a man could not enter without the consent of the bishop of the diocese, and into which he was admitted by a formal religious service. And just as bishops do not ordain men to holy orders until they have obtained a "title," a place in which to exercise their ministry, so bishops did not admit men to the order of Hermits until they had obtained a hermitage in which to exercise their vocation.]] (page 98)

Cutts then examines the nature of a vow made by a hermit. The form is taken from the Institution Books of Norwich, lib.xiv. fo.27a: (I have translated this into contemporary English just for this article.) [[I, John Fferys, not married, promise and avow to God, our Lady Saint Mary, and to all the saints in heaven, in the presence of you reverend Father in God, Richard bishop of Norwich, the vow of chastity, after the rule of Saint Paul the hermit. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.]] (dated in the Chapel of Thorpe) (pp 98-99)

Here I simply want to point out the similarities between c 603 professions and this one. The Church today takes the time to discern the nature and quality of the vocation before them, she makes sure that the candidate for profession can take care of herself (i.e., is self-supporting in some substantial and stable sense), has a proper place to live where she can carry out her ministry, and requires that she writes a proper Rule of Life in light of which she will live her profession. John Ferris, above, apparently was able to use the Rule of Saint Paul the Hermit, but all of this including the ascertainment of Ferris's unmarried state (part of what I often call "the canonical freedom" to enter another canonical state of life) is familiar to anyone with a knowledge of c 603. For many years now, I have been accused of supporting a way of eremitical life that is a distortion of the "tried and true" way of becoming a hermit, namely, by just going off and becoming one, but here, in an example from 700 years ago it is very clear that c 603 has picked up in a careful and faithful way, something that was already established in the Church in the early Middle Ages at least. Canon 603 is not novel except in what it establishes in universal law.

Cutts also summarizes the service for habiting and blessing a hermit (from "Officium induendi et benedicendi heremitam"). This is taken from the pontifical of Bishop Lacy of Exeter (14C.) [[It begins with several psalms; then several short prayers for the incepting hermit, mentioning him by name. Then follow two prayers for the benediction of his vestments, apparently for different parts of the habit; the first mentioning 'hec indumenta humilitatem cordis et mundi contemptum significancia," -- these garments signifying humility of heart and contempt of the world; the second blesses "hanc vestem pro conservande castitatis signo,"-- this vestment the sign of chastity [in celibacy]. The priest then delivers the vestments to the hermit kneeling before him with these words, "Brother, behold we give to thee the eremitical habit (habitum hermiticum), with which we admonish thee to live henceforth chastely, soberly, and holily; in holy watchings, in fastings, in labours, in prayers, in works of mercy, that thou mayest have eternal life and live forever and ever." And he receives them saying, "Behold, I receive them in the name of the Lord; and promise myself to do so according to my power, the grace of God, and of the saints helping me." Then he puts off his secular habit, the priest saying to him, "The Lord put off from thee the old man with his deeds;" and while he puts on his hermit's habit, the priest says, "The Lord put on thee the new man, which after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness." There follows a collect and certain psalms, and finally the priest sprinkles him with holy water and blesses him.]] (Op Cit. p 99)

There are numerous descriptions of the nature of the eremitical habit in this particular chapter of Cutt's book, but they are all pretty similar in certain ways. They tend to have a tunic, scapular, and perhaps a cincture as well as a hood or cloak with hood. Some have TAU crosses, many take up the hermit's staff, and the colors of these various habits differ, though blue, brown, black and grey are prominent. Cutts also refers a bit earlier in the chapter to habits worn according to Papal authority for the "Eremiti Augustini" which are constituted the same way though with white tunic and scapular and (for choir or going out) a black cowl and large hood. 

Habits were important, as they are today, because people of all ranks and stations became hermits and most hermits dealt with those from all ranks and stations. Let me point out briefly then that while a habit signifies poverty, it also allows a person to move easily between various social strata without having to be concerned with "dressing the part". In this sense too, the habit is a sign of stricter separation from the world and its various strata. For the purposes of this post, however, what I really want to make clear is that the clothing of a hermit in a religious habit is not new with me or even with c 603 itself. It goes back much further than the Middle Ages. Though I have only referred back as far as the 13C here in this post, I have noted before that the giving of the hermit's tunic is linked even to the Desert Fathers and Mothers.

I sincerely hope this is helpful to you and gives you a different perspective on what is novel or not in c 603 eremitical life and in what I write here. While I believe there are some relatively novel things about what I write here, I also believe they are deeply rooted in the living tradition of eremitical life and assist hermits and dioceses in discerning, forming and living these vocations well in a way that is truly edifying for the entire Church and world. After all, c 603 has to be contextualized to be understood, not just in terms of contemporary life, but also in terms of the whole history of eremitical life. I will hold for another post what Cutts has to say about the nature of hermitages and solitude, especially regarding the variety of ways solitude was provided for in hermitages. In this too you will find c 603 and what bishops allow are not so novel as all that.

How Can Bishops Profess Hermits They do not Know?

[[Hi Sister, I read that you waited for a long time to become a diocesan hermit, In my diocese we got a new bishop and within a few months he professed a hermit. Our former bishop never professed anyone. How can one bishop take a long time and another one profess someone in a short time? Isn't there some sort of standard about knowing a candidate before one professes them? How can it take one person many years and another person only a few years or even only a few months? Too, how can a Bishop profess someone they hardly know? I heard about one bishop who did this with a young hermit and she failed. I guess that is the same question about standards. Can I ask you one personal question? Were you ever directed or supervised by a Sister from an unrecognized community? I don't mean any offense, someone suggested your delegate was from a community that might not even be real religious maybe. I believe the point was c 603 talks about bishops supervising the hermit and maybe that yours wasn't acting as the canon required.]]

Thanks for your questions. I think your first one is another new one, never asked here before, so thanks! (It really is cool getting new questions!!) First of all, it is important to understand that in most dioceses, at least if they have Vicars for Religious or Vicars for Consecrated Life and Vocations offices (not all dioceses are large enough or have large enough staffs for these), the bishop is rarely the first one to work with a candidate. In fact, he may only meet the candidate when others are ready to recommend her for profession. At this point the person may have been meeting with chancery personnel for anywhere from 5-10 years.  (Some will have met for even longer.) This ordinarily means that a formation team including Religious, priests, canonists, and sometimes now, another c 603 hermit, will mentor the candidate hermit (and the rest of the formation team). 

So, when someone is working this way, it may happen that the bishop retires and is replaced by another bishop before the person is ready to be professed. Sometimes bishops in this situation, will leave the final decision for admission to profession of the candidate up to the next bishop. When these kinds of things happen it may appear to those looking on from the outside, that the candidate is not really known to the diocese or to the new bishop when they are professed --- at least if one only looks at the known dates involved: e.g., New bishop on 9/24, first profession of hermit on 11/24). What is true in this is that the diocese has known the candidate for much longer than just 2-3 months, but we may be unaware of this.

It is true that the newer bishop will not know the person well (and certainly not as well as the formation team does), but this is simply another reason bishops often ask the hermit to choose a delegate who will serve as representative to the diocese and to the hermit both. Remember that the first bishop also would not know the hermit well, or at least not as well as the Vicar for Religious who has been working with her all those years. Canon 603 requires that one live this vocation under the supervision (or some translations may say direction) of the bishop, but what this supervision consists of is not spelled out. So, for instance, if a person serves as delegate and knows the hermit well, if she has the appropriate expertise to guide her hermit life, and is available to the bishop whenever he wants to check on things or to meet for a conversation, that can be  a very satisfactory way of working out the canonical requirement of supervision. One thing I have not mentioned is the fact that the hermit is entrusted with this vocation. She has shown the diocesan personnel how she lives eremitical life and why, and they have come to trust her and what is usually a relatively long history of this.

The bishop does interview the candidate, sometimes several times in the year or so before profession, and he has her Rule of Life and other pertinent documentation and references. In my experience, a bishop trusts those who know the hermit better than he does, especially current and past Vicars, pastors, and spiritual directors, and he also takes the time he can to get to know her better one-on-one as well as through her writing (if she is published). Remember that c 603 is recognized as calling for temporary profession of vows, meaning these vows will ordinarily last for from 3-5 years and can be renewed before admitting the hermit to perpetual profession and consecration. There is ordinarily a great deal of time available to catch errors or problems that need to be worked out. Moreover, during the years, a bishop will come to understand eremitical life better as the hermit herself grows in the vocation and shows him the hows and whys of this; this mutual influence and education is the best way, I think, for a diocese to grow in its understanding of c 603 vocations.

In my own situation, there have been five different bishops here, including one interim, since I first petitioned to be admitted to c 603 consecration. There is no doubt that some have been more involved in supervision than others. From things I have heard from other diocesan hermits in other dioceses, this unevenness is not uncommon. At the same time, as I have written recently, the Diocese (Vicars for Religious) and then Bp Vigneron asked me to choose a delegate who would work more closely and more frequently with me than any bishop might be able to. When Bp Vigneron wanted to speak to me about something he contacted Sister Marietta, and he contacted her for her opinion on matters. Supervision need not look like some non-canonical hermits imagine it. Again, canon 603 is flexible and it is up to the diocesan bishop to decide what this term of the canon will mean. So long as he takes his role seriously and cares for the hermit's vocation, he is fulfilling the canon's prescriptions.

Regarding your last question, while this is repetitive, let me say that my main delegate (Director) has been Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF (Sisters of the Holy Family is a Papal Congregation). She has been my delegate from @ 2005 to the present,; more recently, serving as co-Director (Advocate) is Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. I have mentioned them both before, but here is a bit more about them. Sister Marietta has served in parish CCD work, as Novice director in her congregation, and has been in leadership of her congregation for 10 years as well; she began and ran Holy Family Center, a small retreat center focusing on Adult personal and spiritual growth, has been a licensed educator in PRH and is highly skilled in personal growth work and spiritual direction. I have known Marietta since @1982 when she agreed to be my spiritual director. Sister Susan, formerly a teacher, was Vicar for Religious and Assistant Director of Vocations for the Diocese of Oakland when I began to become a hermit. She then went into retreat work in Malibu (Serra Retreat) and directed this at the Old Mission Santa Barbara. Susan now serves (yet again!) on her province's leadership team (the Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity) and as the local minister for their retired Sisters in Santa Maria, CA. The congregation's Generalate is in Rome. 

As I have pointed out a number of times now, my Bishop is allowed to supervise me in any way that works for him and for me. My diocese asked me to choose a delegate who would serve both me and the diocese and bishop when the bishop was not available, but also just generally to take on this role of supervising more directly than most bishops can do. Both of these Sisters know me well, are available whenever I need them, and are trusted by the diocese. The arrangement works very well and is something I encourage other dioceses and diocesan hermits to consider implementing.

Uncomfortable Questions and Answers!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it you don't want a bishop or priest supervising or directing you? If canon 603 says that you are to live under your bishop's direction then why don't you let him to do that? Why do you use a woman from a dissident [religious] community as a spiritual director? You write a lot about c 603 but how can you do that if you don't live the canon yourself? I want to support Joyful Hermit because she suffers so much and all for the love of God. She hasn't even been approved by the church like you have and lives a heroic hermit life. You should be ashamed for harassing her!!]]

Thanks for writing. I've decided to post your questions and answers because I keep getting similar ones. They require more than a private email response if others are going to stop writing me with the same kinds of questions. However, let me say that if you are a friend of Joyful's, or if you want to support her, I would encourage you not only to learn the truth yourself but that you help her to face (and tell) the truth as well. Because asking me directly is the first step toward this goal, I want to answer your questions but let me ask you some questions as well. For instance, what besides what you have heard from Joyful makes you think I do not want my bishop to supervise me? Have I ever said or written such a thing? The answer to that is of course not! I am a c 603 hermit and I have committed to live the canon as fully as I can. That includes accepting diocesan bishops' supervision of my life. That said, let me point out that neither I nor any other c 603 hermit can control our bishops and the way they supervise or fail to supervise this vocation!! If Joyful ever truly becomes a c 603 hermit, she will not be able to do that either.

Remember, when one's bishop retires or is moved to be made an Archbishop, for instance, they are replaced by someone who may not be prepared to supervise a hermit, and some bishops are simply unwilling or unable. My own diocese was very wise in requiring me to choose a delegate who would work with me on behalf of my bishop. (And no, the chancery did not require that this person be a priest!) As already noted, Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, serves both the diocese and me in this way and so does my co-delegate, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. Both are qualified to do this for me and for the sake of this vocation in ways most bishops cannot even imagine doing themselves. I have written about the competence and quality of both of these Sisters recently, so feel free to look those posts up if you are interested in the truth about them. It is not as Joyful has imagined it. But to be blunt, very little of what Joyful has imagined (i.e., fantasized!) about me or others she has maligned in her videos, is anything even remotely near the truth. 

As I have written now several times, a bishop is not asked to be a c 603 hermit's spiritual director but to supervise her living out of her vocation. If the word director is used in a translation of c 603, it does not mean spiritual director. Since a c 603's bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior, he, in fact, cannot be her spiritual director. That would lead to conflicts between internal and external fora. Instead, he is asked to supervise this ecclesial vocation and there are no rules specifying how that supervision must be carried out. In the arrangement my own diocese specified, I think I am better served than if I had only been supervised by the bishop.

As I have also written several times now, the use of a delegate who has a closer relationship with the hermit works very well for both the diocese and the hermit; it also maintains the distinction between internal and external fora. Joyful has a single narrow idea of what the canon means by supervision or direction, and if a diocese uses a different understanding of supervision, she declares this to be evidence the hermit is not following the canon. But let me again be frank. Joyful also does not demonstrate any real understanding c 603 --- not the reasons for its existence, not its nature, not the language it uses, and not the life it defines and governs.  She has never met me, nor corresponded with me regarding the supposed issues with me she raises and she claims she does not even read this blog. She doesn't know me nor understand my life nor how I live it; all of that and more means she is in no position to say I don't live the canon (nor most of the other things she claims about me).

You are correct that Joyful has not been approved for admission to c 603 profession. She is not a consecrated or Catholic Hermit, despite what she claims. That takes the church's admission to profession and consecration and commissioning to live the vocation in the Church's name. While Joyful has petitioned that this standing be granted to her, it has not happened yet, and may never happen. (Here I have to ask you, if Joyful is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, why would she seek admission to profession and consecration under a canon she reviles as inadequate ("full of loopholes") and a destructive influence on traditional eremitical life?) 

And if she is never admitted to c 603 standing then where's the harm?  She does not truly feel called to this specific vocation or even believe in its value; it should not be a great disappointment or source of suffering if she is not admitted to profession. Perhaps more importantly, she can continue living as a non-canonical hermit and write about it in a more compelling way than she could ever do with c 603, the canon she so reviles. Granted, to do this effectively and credibly, she would need to adopt the Church's own distinction between consecrated (canonical) and non-canonical eremitical life, and she would need to espouse this as a significant lay vocation in her case. (For priests it could be a significant clerical vocation.) As Joyful's friend or supporter, you could assist her with that. 

Beyond that, though, the best way any friend or supporter could help Joyful, I think, is to get her to stop drawing gratuitous conclusions about peoples' motivations, presumed behavior, faithfulness to their vocation, state of their soul, etc. She does not and cannot know these things without the person sharing them with her or confirming them for her. If she has questions about how someone understands or lives eremitical life, or why they do what they do, then please encourage her to write that person directly and ask them as you have done to me!! You see, while I find your questions somewhat rude and entirely spurious (they are rooted in untrue assumptions), I absolutely respect that you posed them directly. Thank you for that.

On Supervision of c 603 by Bishops, Eremitical Hiddenness, and Calls for Anonymity

[[ Hi Sister, were you aware that because of the Brother Christian Matson situation, someone is now putting up videos saying that bishops do not have the time or the understanding to supervise diocesan hermits and canon 603 should be "tabled until the bugs can be worked out?" You have raised some similar concerns, haven't you? If canon 603 requires diocesan hermits to be under the supervision or direction of their bishop, and bishops are so busy, how does such a one direct a hermit? I guess the video I saw made me wonder if c 603 is even possible for bishops to fulfill? Also, aren't hermits to remain hidden and anonymous?]]

Hi there and thanks for your questions. Yes, I am generally aware of the situation. It is not a new criticism. Thanks for making contact, however. Please read some of what I have already written about delegates as those posts will fill out what I will say here. The Lexington, KY situation indeed demonstrates how little some bishops and many canonists as well (!) understand the c 603 life --- at least before they have to deal with candidates for c 603 profession. Even more importantly though, it demonstrates how little they regard this vocation, the centuries and history it took for c 603 to be created and promulgated, or the time and effort many dioceses have spent in trying to implement the canon wisely and faithfully. In particular, as I have written before, bishops' lack of understanding of the charism or gift-quality of this vocation is at the heart of any disregard for or misuse of it shown not only by Bp Stowe but also by others in the past (cf., Archdiocese of Boston, Archdiocese of Denver, et al.).  Thus, it might be helpful to you to read more recent posts on charism as well.

I have written about some of what you raise in your questions and agree to some degree, yes, but contrary to what the video you reference apparently asserts, canon 603's terms do not necessarily mean that ongoing supervision by a bishop cannot use intermediaries to assist him in this; often, humility and true regard for the vocation, in fact, seem to call for such "delegation"! As I wrote recently, and have written before, in @2006 my own diocese (Oakland, then-Vicars for Religious, Revs. Raymond Breton and Robert Herbst, OFM Conv.) asked me to choose someone who would act as a delegate for myself and the diocese. That person was meant to be able to meet with me as needed and contact the bishop in the same way. (In my experience the Bishop can and does also contact the delegate if he wants to communicate something to me.) At the same time, the hermit is usually going to meet annually with the bishop himself (more frequently if there is a need) so the two things together seem to be sufficient for intelligent supervision or direction (not spiritual direction!). Others have found this to be true as well. Supervision can therefore mean, "done with the assistance of competent professionals", and of course, because Bishops are so busy and oftentimes, themselves are not expert in formation or spiritual direction, that is precisely the model dioceses generally use. It means that the Bishop's role in directing c 603 vocations is more than possible, though it ordinarily requires the assistance of others with appropriate expertise and an openness to learning.

Adding to this Model today:

Today, we are adding to this model, the model used by the Desert Fathers and Mothers, namely, the addition of mentorship with already well-established and experienced diocesan hermits. This is the suggestion included in Ponam in Deserto Viam. In particular, this mentorship can be very effective in assisting with discernment and the initial formation of candidates. In the model I have been working on, a competent c 603 hermit works with a small diocesan team to assist in the discernment and formation of these vocations. The initial contact is ordinarily made by the candidate or their Vicar for Religious and the c 603 hermit discerns whether or not they can work with the diocese in this regard. If they can, they will accompany the candidate in assisting them to write a liveable Rule of Life. At the same time, they will be available to the diocesan team or chancery staff to educate them on the nature of c 603 and the life it describes and governs.

For ongoing post-profession supervision, the person selected need not be a c 603 hermit or a hermit at all. Still, for the period of initial formation, it is important that the diocese at least look to a diocesan hermit as a resource for the diocese and hermit candidate. Canonical hermits from other traditions (Camaldolese, Carmelite, Benedictine, etc) can also work here, though it seems to me they need to be in touch with a c 603 hermit to help with dimensions of discernment, formation, and diocesan education (education of those who will be responsible for admitting this person and those who come after them to profession and consecration) that are unique to c 603 life itself.  For instance, the vow of poverty will likely need to shift from the way it looks in community, establishing oneself in a parish and finding resources for daily living will also differ to some extent. The major temptations, stresses, transitions, and challenges of c 603 life may also be best understood by another c 603 hermit.

Remember, all of this is not about "working the bugs out," so to speak. C 603 represents a vision of solitary eremitical life that names the essential elements of any authentic eremitical life. There is a learning curve in determining how to implement it intelligently and faithfully, particularly in a world where silence is rare and individualism and isolation have generally supplanted real solitude. Add to that a tendency in the Church to not truly understand or appreciate contemplative life itself while it stresses active ministry, and eremitism seems to be an anachronistic way of living with little relevance to the contemporary church or world. In light of all of this, the learning curve can be steep. That does not mean the canon has "bugs", as you quote. Rather, it is another indication that the Fathers of the church who composed c 603 wrote better than many have seen. Eremitism is a countercultural vocation. That implementing it takes time, experimentation (which includes mistakes), and creative input from the whole church, including those living eremitical life in all its forms, shouldn't be surprising. 

Hiddenness and Anonymity:

You ask about hermits remaining hidden and anonymous. Let me be clear, hiddenness is not mentioned in c 603, the normative legislative text defining this form of life for the Church. It is part of a descriptive section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is not legislative and refers to a major dimension of the heart of the hermit's life with and in Christ. I have written here a number of times regarding hiddenness including my sense that it is a derivative characteristic and also that it has more to do with one's life and ministry being hidden in Christ rather than open as it is in apostolic ministry so I would invite you to check these posts out. As far as anonymity goes, that is neither required nor even necessarily a value of c 603 life. Remember that c 603 defines and governs a public vocation defined by public rights and obligations. (These rights and obligations give a public vocation its character as public!) If one wishes to remain anonymous for some good reason (say for safety's sake), one is still responsible for at least making clear in what diocese one was professed and remains in good standing. (One's bona fides must be made known to whatever extent one claims to be a Catholic hermit living eremitical life in the Church's name.) 

If one refuses to do this much, or truly cannot for safety's sake, for example, then I would argue one should not be doing other activities in public either (including online videos). This is particularly true so long as one represents oneself as a Catholic hermit, diocesan hermit, consecrated hermit, consecrated religious, and the like. All of these are public and ecclesial vocations entered with public profession. They all imply both a specific content, along with ecclesial "vetting" and the right to minister in specified ways in the name of the church. The people to whom one ministers (i.e., speaks, writes, teaches, opines, preaches, etc.) have a right to know with what authority (generally speaking) this occurs, and thus too, to what extent (again, generally speaking) one can be trusted with the precious dimensions and vulnerabilities of one's life.

Followup Questions: On Professing and/or Consecrating Transgendered Persons to Consecrated Life

[[Sister Laurel, you said you opposed the proposed profession of a transsexual. You also said you did it for reasons apart from the person's sexual identity. What you outlined was a pattern of fraud, duplicity, and dishonesty. That raises several questions for me: 1) was there a profession; if not, why is it an issue? 2) is it possible that the bishop does not (or did not) know the person seeking profession was and is a transsexual? What I was thinking was that if it were me I might keep it quiet and maybe play dumb. I know you don't like the question, "Who could it hurt?" but if the person lives as a hermit and doesn't publicize that they are transsexual, maybe they could remain a good hermit without bothering anyone. Maybe that was what the bishop involved was thinking.

3) In what way did you oppose the profession? I can't see you picketing outside the cathedral on the day of profession (just kidding) so what do you mean?! I was also uncertain why you said one does not make vows to gain more data. 4) Aren't temporary vows made while one is still discerning a vocation? Shouldn't they be made exactly to gain more data? I think my last question is a what if question. 5) If you discover there has been a profession, now, several years after you opposed this, what will you do? 6) Do you feel the same way you did when you first opposed the profession? 7) Isn't it possible the person you described has discerned a real eremitical vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions; I've added numbers and divided things into two paragraphs for readability. I have also opted to use feminine pronouns throughout (except for bishops) because that is the form I ordinarily use in my blog pieces; the alternatives open to me are way too clumsy and unreadable. Also, any initials used in this piece were chosen at random. (I picked a couple of scrabble tiles for this!) Finally, while the church's position on professing and consecrating transgendered persons is fundamental to the situation prompting your questions and at least implicit throughout this post, except concerning the idea of using profession under c 603 to achieve justice in the church (one must ask for whom?!), I mainly prescind from a direct discussion of the issue itself here.

The background: 

 Yes, I outlined a pattern of fraud, and dishonesty in the use/abuse of canon 603 and the vows/profession being planned or proposed. I should also have noted I found a kind of desperation and glibness that set this person up both to manipulate and to be used herself. You see, the person seeking profession and I had spoken of the options open to her during a serious correspondence in 2019, as well as about various peoples' opinions that the church's teaching on the profession of transsexuals was going to change. She had been given a great deal of false encouragement regarding potential changes in church teaching and I thought this did her a distinct disservice in its clear lack of candor or realism. 

When she and I began to correspond again in 2022, she had spent extended time as a guest in a couple of monasteries and/or congregations. In one case, when the bishop of the diocese in which the congregation was located became aware of the situation, they were required to make her leave. C____ described this as personally devastating. Though not an actual member of the Order she had been allowed to wear the habit and having to divest herself of this was something that hurt her very deeply. Once out of her guestship (she could never have truly experienced a novitiate) with the congregation, she continued to style herself as a religious and to introduce herself with the usual formal title along with a new religious name in public and correspondence.

As noted above, C___ suffered from several experiences involving the unreasonable raising and (unfortunately) necessary subsequent dashing of hopes and expectations during just these few years; this may have exacerbated an (increasing?) resistance to accepting the truth of what the church herself (not just this or that priest or religious) was saying to her regarding her ability to enter consecrated life. It was my impression that, at least partly because some within the church raised her expectations unreasonably, C___ continued in her efforts to find a way to make public vows. Eventually, she located and moved to a diocese with an amenable bishop and enlisted him to assist in accomplishing C___'s will. 

The Questions:

So, with this added background, let me give your questions a shot! 1) Has there been a profession? The answer to that is apparently yes, though I don't know the details of it and only learned of it this week (in part because of a directory listing C___, and in part because of a spate of visitors from the area of C___ chancery, residence, cathedral, etc). The diocese involved has not publicized it in any way except to list C___ in their directory as a diocesan hermit apparently living on a local monastery's grounds. Remember that even with temporary vows, diocesan hermits have been entrusted with a public ecclesial vocation with specific rights and obligations. Remember that this also means that people from this diocese and parish (and indeed, from the entire church) have a right to certain expectations regarding c 603 and this candidate, not least, that the profession was seriously, honestly, and conscientiously discerned as God's chosen way to wholeness and holiness for this person, as well as that the brother/sister professed exemplifies a commitment to chaste love in their foundational manliness or womanliness, (cf. Professing a Transsexual?) the capacity for profound obedience to God, to God's church, and faithfulness to and regard for her teaching --- particularly regarding consecrated life. In the situation at hand, I think there are doubts about each of these points.

Was the Bishop Knowledgeable?

The bishop knew of C___'s transgendered status. C___ said she had been entirely open with him in this and that the two of them were looking at profession under c 603 as a matter of justice in the church. I also mentioned it when I wrote the bishop as well as that I would prescind from the issue of sexuality and focus on the misuse and abuse of canon 603 itself except where C___ raised the issue herself. I was advised by a second canonist to write not only C___'s bishop, but the metropolitan and Nuncio to the Vatican as well with a summary of the issues this proposed profession would raise. I did that, so yes, C___'s FtM transsexual status was known. I also wrote C___ directly and reminded her of what she had written during our original correspondence or published in interviews around the same time. In that C___'s very real Spirit-breathed vocation was evident; she would have to give that up if she chose to pursue profession under c 603 and live solitary eremitical life faithfully in all of its depth and dimensions. She would also need to find that eremitical life itself involved a personal fulfillment that was deeper and richer than the more apparent vocation she would be required to give up if she continued to vows under c 603. And ordinarily, she would need to explore and gain a true sense of this before admission to vows.

You see, whether temporary or perpetual, vows imply the gift of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit to God. We make vows not to do initial experimentation and discernment, but rather, because in the process of discernment --- sometimes over long years, both the candidate or novice and those discerning with her have come to reasonable clarity that this is indeed the way God is calling the person to human wholeness and holiness. Yes, temporary vows allow for further discernment, particularly as one moves into a new situation with new expectations and responsibilities. But one makes temporary vows with the same sureness one makes perpetual vows, giving the whole of oneself without reservation or reserve. More importantly in this situation, one does not admit another person to vows without the sense that this is God's call they are answering, and more, that they are answering that call appropriately. To do otherwise is to indicate one does not regard this person's growth and sanctification (God's making them whole and true) as an authentic human being. Yes, post-profession, of course, there will be continuing exploration of the vocation for the candidate, but it will be an exploration of one's deepest self and the depths of the vocation in which one is professed and made transparent to God and God's love!!

Unfortunately, none of this comports with C___'s own account of her dicernment, nor were the reasons she gave for seeking profession under c 603 an adequate reason to make vows of any sort. After noting that "Frankly, I still feel called to community" and "I hope I will be given brothers" maybe even returning to the community I lived with. . . C___ explained it this way: [[The available position [i.e.,  the only canonical "slot"] that feels closest to the identity I have discovered within myself is that of hermit. . ..I don't know yet if that position will lead to the discovery of a new vocation [i.e., I don't know if profession under this canon will lead to the discovery that God is truly calling me to be a hermit], but I can't know until I have begun to explore from it. In the meantime we are going to experiment for a year and see how the exploration goes. If exploring from the position of a hermit does not work, then very well -- we have gained that data and can reorient. If it does ring true, then we will have gained that data. we're constantly checking in with each other, discerning, reassessing, and trying - together - to find the next right step.]] 

Again, all of this kind of experimentation and exploration needs to take place before profession, and a lot of it before a candidate even knocks on the chancery door to petition for admittance to a mutual discernment process and eventual vows and consecration. No one is ever admitted to profession until and unless everyone involved in the discernment and formation process agrees this is God's call. Why should C____ require what no one else is ever given to discern an eremitical vocation? Most candidates instinctively (or quickly come to) understand and accept that they must explore eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit long before seeking admission to public profession. Many bishops and chancery staff, especially those with a background in formation, are even more keenly aware of this! Most seekers also recognize they might be wrong in what they have discerned and may need to humbly discern anew. 

But not in this case! After all, what C___ sought was not the ecclesial recognition and commissioning of a long or even a newly-sensed eremitical vocation but public ecclesial standing itself with the freedom to continue her artistic activity (what I believe was and likely is her real vocation) outside the hermitage and lobby for "justice". C___ was honest that she was settling for public standing within the best canonical slot she could find (likely because no monastic communities, nor their necessary discernment processes are involved directly though this was what she truly desired and is still aspiring to). But settling in this way is not discerning, and making even a temporary profession in these terms is not a canon 603 profession. It uses c 603 as a stopgap to living a fiction and compounds that with an invalid and potentially sacrilegious act. Even more, C___'s bishop, though a religious whom I wrote prior to the profession with detailed summaries of these and additional concerns, was knowingly complicit in this. This is what disturbs me most about the situation. 

Could this Person Discern a True Vocation to Eremitical Life?

Yes, though I think it is unlikely, it is not entirely inconceivable that C___ will one day discover a true vocation to solitary eremitical life, but not before living it consciously, authentically, and faithfully for some years. There are recognizable and sometimes overlapping stages to this vocation; one moves through a process of becoming a person of prayer, to learning to pray contemplatively, to another stage of becoming a contemplative, and then to a stage involved in discerning the presence and meaning of deeper and more extensive desires and needs for silence and solitude; additionally one needs to discover that one is fulfilled by God as a man or woman precisely as a hermit in the silence of solitude. Even after all of this one will still need to discover which eremitical context is best for living this life authentically and well. Will it be non-canonical eremitical life or canonical? Part of a community or solitary? It is typical (and usually necessary) for those becoming diocesan hermits to have lived in the silence of solitude for some years before approaching their chanceries with their petition to be professed and allowed to live eremitical life as it is normatively understood. 

Because this vocation "belongs to the church" before it belongs to any individual, once one has approached her diocese, she will engage in a mutual discernment process with a small team from the chancery; this team may also include a c. 603 hermit consultant or other experts to assist with discernment and formation. Once admitted to this process, and as an integral part of the process, the candidate herself will take time to write a liveable Rule based in her own lived experience and reflecting the non-negotiable elements of c 603. This Rule, throughout the entire process of writing, can (and I sincerely hope will) become the basis for conversations with and contributing to an inspired discernment and other assessments by the formation team. C 603 requires significant experience in a solitary eremitical setting; it is this experience coupled with an understanding of the terms of Canon 603 that makes potential diocesan hermits capable of writing their own Rule or professing the Evangelical Counsels required by the canon. 

It was telling then, that C___, just a month and a half before the proposed profession, could not articulate for her own Rule of Life the way she understood and lived Evangelical poverty. Though honest about not having discerned an eremitical vocation, she actually asked me to help the Sister writing her Rule with an appropriate vow of poverty. (N.B., C____ noted that the Sister doing the work was not familiar with living poverty in an eremitical sense under c 603. Unfortunately, neither was C___ though she proposed to make a vow binding in conscience and law in just six weeks or so!) In such a case, precisely because the vocation belongs to the church before it belongs to any individual, the bishop and diocesan staff are responsible for understanding and regarding the vocation itself; they must do so sufficiently to at least try to prevent such inadequate discernment and formation.

As a bit of an excursus, let me note that besides the ability to write a liveable Rule, one of the things I personally look for when discerning with someone regarding their call to eremitical life is the experience and fruits of a redemptive experience integrally tied to this specific context. This may come slowly over time in a pattern of smaller "highs" and lows, or surprise one with a more abrupt and pronounced inbreaking of God's powerful love. In whichever way this occurs, if we are to conclude someone is truly called to solitary eremitical life, that person must have met Christ within the hermitage context and have been brought to a degree of wholeness and holiness they have truly found nowhere else, in no other life context. One's life itself must then proclaim the freedom and compassion of the Gospel lived in the silence of solitude. I admit I cannot see how this can happen when everything is built on a series of lies (including those one has either wittingly or unwittingly told oneself) and has been conditioned by a foundational agenda shrouded in secrecy. Eremitical hiddenness is not rooted in dishonesty, fraud, hypocrisy, bad faith, or secrecy. Instead, it is the result of having one's personal truth bound up in an ineffable intimacy with the deepest Mystery we can know and be known by. It is from this place of intimacy that the most profound truth of ourselves becomes both transparent to the God who dwells within us and entirely visible to those who know us.

Next Steps and the real and potential disservice done to others: 

Your fifth question is the most difficult one. What more can I do? What more am I called to do, if anything? There is no doubt the fact of the profession makes the situation more problematic than when I answered the questions in the last post on all of this. I became aware of the profession unexpectedly. As a result, my feelings in the matter have intensified and become more complex, particularly those concerning the bishop responsible here.  For that reason, I will continue to pray about everything and likely ask for assistance in considering what is necessary and possible. That can include conversations with canon lawyers, the USCCB (members and committees), and even representatives of DICLSAL. At the very least the situation requires clarification regarding the validity of vows already made. You see, from my perspective, this profession has done a serious disservice not only to the person admitted to profession dishonestly, but to the vocation itself, and to the People of God who should be able to trust the seriousness, faithfulness, and honesty with which bishops are called to approach implementing canons like ##603-605. 

I believe it could also become a significant disservice to other members of the diocese in question who may also be admitted to c 603 profession (or other forms of consecration like that of c 604) while trusting the church has done a really competent discernment. (The fact that the church discerns this vocation with us can be particularly reassuring in times of struggle and self-doubt. Usually, this allows one to persevere despite difficulties. But what happens when the diocese shows it is truly careless in dealing with questions of discernment and formation of vocations?) Similarly, it could do a disservice to others who find themselves turned away from admission to profession and/or consecration even though they have the same qualifications (or lack thereof) as C___. And consider if bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop is permitted in something like this for one person without the vocation, then what of others with similar "medical history", avocations, desire just to get professed, and ability to relocate at will? How far will the solitary hermit vocation be stretched and distorted to accommodate these persons in the name of some agenda-driven "justice" before it ceases to have any real meaning at all? The situation raises many questions; these are but a few of them.

Summary:

For the present, in this specific situation, here is where things stand. A Catholic Bishop and one who sought him out --- now identified as Bishop John Stowe and Cole Matson--- acted fraudulently and without regard for the 603 eremitic vocation itself, for its true nature and charism (gift quality), or for those who might be either directly or indirectly affected by this act to accomplish an agenda the church herself regards as illegitimate. Fraud was done to achieve "justice," though at the expense of diocesan credibility and more, at least possible damage to the vocation itself. Thus, again, I see it as a very serious matter with the potential for significant destructive fallout. Though I never thought I would find myself saying this, I would almost rather see bishops refusing to implement c 603 for anyone at all than indulging in this kind of travesty.

___________________________________________

Postscript 5/21/2024 In light of the events on Pentecost, I have added the appropriate names to the summary in this post. 

What Happens to a Canon 603 Hermit if a New Bishop is Installed?

 [[If, for example, a (diocesan) hermit had a new bishop come to the diocese, and that bishop did not want (diocesan) hermits, the (diocesan) hermit would need to find a diocese in which the bishop was accepting hermits under his direction, and relocate.]] 

Dear Sister, is this quote true? I read it on a hermit's blog. . . . I checked with someone at the chancery and they said they would need to check with someone else, but they also thought not. Just wanted to check with you as well. I am not up to moving to a new diocese, particularly if it means uprooting every part of my life as this would!! Especially, I am not up to starting this process all over again in another diocese.]]

Thanks for writing. I am glad you decided to check this out. Your chancery contact was correct in his/her impression. The quote is mistaken.

If a diocesan Ordinary is replaced by another, and that new bishop doesn't want to profess hermits under c 603, he doesn't generally have to do so --- except in one case. Even then it would be a matter of acting in good faith and charity to complete something begun under his predecessor, not a matter of having no choice. Suppose a hermit has been temporary professed under c 603 in the hands of his predecessor and has continued to live her vocation in a faithful way. In that case, she should be able to count on being admitted to perpetual profession in a timely manner by the new bishop so long as she and those responsible for her vocation continue to discern that diocesan eremitical life is her vocation. If that hermit is already perpetually professed, however, the new bishop needs to accept that it is his role to supervise this vocation in some substantive way. This specific vocation comes to him with his assumption of responsibility for the diocese, and he needs to accept that, no matter how personally challenging he finds this. The hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated does not have to uproot, search for a willing bishop, find another SD, locate housing, parish, etc., and incur the expense of such a move simply because one bishop does not want to use a Canon that is already in effect in universal law.

I have not run into a case where someone who is either preparing for profession or who has already made a temporary profession is simply left high and dry when a new bishop is installed. I am aware of one situation where the Archbishop will be retiring in another year or so; even so, in this specific case there has been an auxiliary bishop overseeing the individual's progress; the general sense is that the candidate can confidently continue on with the process of discernment and formation she has been working through for more than a year and a half now and do so under the auxiliary. Hermits seeking profession under canon 603 do not move through the process all at the same speed, and they are not ready for profession at the same time. One of the things we are trying to get dioceses to recognize is that writing a liveable Rule -- as required by the canon --- takes significant experience and time. The process of discernment and formation is more individualized for this vocation than any other I know. The process of writing a Rule helps with both of these, both for the candidate and for the discernment team. Chanceries do tend to know some of this and act in good faith regarding admission to profession.

Further Considerations and Possibilities:

Your own situation raises the difficulties of moving to another diocese very clearly. The demands they would place on you to continue following this vocation would be inordinate and unacceptable, especially given both CC 603 and 605 that are universally binding within the Church. You have not said whether you are temporary professed or not, but I do agree that even if you are in temporary vows now, moving to another diocese would essentially mean starting over again. I think that would be true even if your current bishop and those others who have worked with you over the years wrote glowing recommendations. I think it is really important that you find a way to ease your concerns in this matter as much as possible. If the new bishop is not here already, get an appointment with the current Ordinary as well as with the chancery personnel who have been working with you during the past years, and apprise them of your concerns. 

If they can assure you your own discernment/formation process will continue without the prospect of it being derailed because of a new bishop, then excellent! If this assurance cannot be given, another option might be for the diocese to anticipate perpetual profession and celebrate this before your current bishop leaves office. If this is not possible, however, try to get a sense of what you still need to do so that you are ready for that step as soon as possible. If you are working on your Rule, then try to get an assessment of where that is still weak or incomplete. There are posts on writing a Rule on this blog, including a new post on "the basics". Much of writing a Rule has to do with sufficient experience and reflection. What you include in your Rule will be used by your diocese to help determine your own readiness for perpetual or definitive commitment. Do get some specific answers from vocation personnel in regard to their own work with you. At least this will help ensure both they and you are clear about your progress and any concerns regarding your vocation.

And, of course, if you are already definitively professed and consecrated, you have nothing to worry about in any case. Still, if the incoming bishop does not want C 603 hermits, one thing you may want to consider is that he may also not plan on supervising your vocation as C 603 calls for. Neither may he be able to do so. In that case, if you have not already done so, I recommend you ask your current bishop to approve a delegate with whom you will meet in place of or in addition to the local ordinary. Hermits ordinarily choose their delegate, but some bishops will assign them. In either case, a delegate serves as a quasi-superior and can ease the burden on the bishop by meeting with the hermit more frequently than bishops can ordinarily do. I work very closely with my delegate(s) and that has seen me through various bishops and degrees of availability. Moreover, since my co-delegate(s) are both women Religious with backgrounds in formation and leadership, our level of sharing is greater than it might be with a bishop I see but once or twice a year. Just something to consider.

On Bishops' Supervision of Hermit Vocations and the Importance of Life Commitments

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, I have several questions about the requirement of Canon 603 that bishops supervise the life of the diocesan hermit. What does this mean? I mean that the canon reads "under the supervision of the bishop" and seems to be talking about the whole scope of the canon. So does it mean he meets regularly with the hermit and assumes an active supervisory role or that he acts in other ways to assure the hermit's well-being, and such? Also, what happens when a new bishop comes into the picture --- does he simply inherit responsibility for the hermit or can he ask the hermit to go through some vetting process all over again? I have read [someone] who believes this is important and should be implemented. What happens when a bishop chooses not to oversee the hermit's vocation, does that ever happen? What I am thinking is that the supervision of the bishop might refer just to the initial discernment and formation but not to ongoing discernment. Would you agree?]]

Thanks for the questions. I have answered some of them in the past, so please do check out the labels in the right-hand column for further information. As I read the Canon it establishes a relationship of mutual responsibility between the hermit who is to be a diocesan hermit, and the bishop of the diocese. I don't think anything else makes sense. One cannot profess and consecrate a person to eremitical life lived under the supervision of the local bishop and then allow them to go without such supervision!! However, you raise a very good question when you ask what such supervision must look like. Must it be a hand's-on direct supervision where the bishop meets annually or bi-annually with the hermit (or even more frequently if the bishop has the time and inclination), or can the job of direct supervision be placed in someone else's hands? The canon is not specific here and leaves things up to the discretion of the bishop it seems to me.

When I was petitioning for admission to (perpetual) profession, the Vicars for Religious (we had two under Bishop Vigneron) asked me to select a "delegate" who would serve as a "quasi-superior" on my behalf and on behalf of the bishop and diocese. I would be unlikely to be meeting particularly frequently with him, and they wanted to be sure both I and the diocese were served by what we tend to call today, "the ministry of authority". A canonical hermit is not a lone wolf. She is not professed and consecrated and then turned loose to do whatever she wants in whatever way she wants. She has rights and obligations she is expected to meet. Even more importantly, because of her stricter separation and significant silence and solitude, she requires someone who will come to know her well and work with her in terms of her vocation so she is genuinely a hermit living an ecclesial vocation in and towards the silence of solitude central to C 603 and any eremitical vocation. Usually, bishops are simply not the best people to fill such a role. I am more grateful than I can say to Archbishop Vigneron and to the Vicars for Religious for requiring such an arrangement prior to perpetual profession!!!

Because of this, I have only needed to meet with the bishop once a year or so. For that matter, it would likely be enough for my delegates to do so to give him an accounting of my own vocation as they see it. (I have 2 Religious Sisters who serve as co-delegates or Directors.)  Even so, bishops need to learn from their diocesan hermits and it is ideal for bishops to meet with the hermit's delegate(s) and also with the hermit approximately annually. Sometimes, however, when new bishops come into the picture things fall through the cracks. Since I first petitioned for admission to c 603 standing, my diocese has seen 5 bishops. One of these professed and consecrated me, one was merely interim and had the Vicar for Religious communicate with me, two inherited me from the bishop who professed me, and of these two, one met with me annually (more frequently if I needed to do so), and the other, though introduced to me, informed that he was my legitimate superior, and assured that the diocese had all of my contact information, has simply been less available than the others, nor have I pressed the issue. Fortunately, my co-delegates serve me and the diocese well in keeping their fingers on the pulse points of my life, calling, and work so this has not been problematical.

So, I have had bishops that assume direct responsibility for my vocation and others that supervise my vocation less directly. I think both arrangements, presuming both involve real communication with hermits and/or delegates, work well. What is not acceptable in terms of the canon and the vocation itself is for a bishop to refuse to accept any responsibility for a hermit who is publicly professed in his diocese --- and I have certainly heard stories about this kind of situation from across the country. Usually, this occurs when a new bishop is ordained or installed. Sometimes he has no experience with hermits at all and does not understand the vocation; sometimes he may not believe in the vocation itself; sometimes he seems to believe he is just too busy (and perhaps too important) to meet with a lowly hermit by him/herself and seeks to meet with any diocesan hermits present in the diocese as a group. And sometimes things just fall through the cracks (which can include the gatekeepers to the bishop's appointment calendar, etc.) 

The bottom line in all of this is that Canon 603 legislates a vocation that is to be lived under the REAL supervision of the local ordinary. If the hermit assumes rights and obligations in making profession or being consecrated under this canon, so too does ANY bishop who takes on the reins of diocesan leadership in a diocese with c 603 hermits --- no matter how he feels about c 603 or those professed accordingly! Regarding the idea that when a bishop moves on, retires, dies, etc., and a new bishop assumes leadership of the diocese, any diocesan hermit should go through the vetting typical of initial formation and discernment yet again, let me say straight out that that is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. Remember that we are dealing with the church's own theology of consecrated life and that with initiation into the consecrated state of life one is initiated into a STABLE state of life where a life commitment can grow in whatever direction and to whatever depth and extent God wills it. The situation you have described would completely vitiate any sense of stability or persistent meaningfulness in such a vocation. It would thus, also compromise one's ability to grow in it as exhaustively as one is called to do. For this one needs a truly perpetually binding commitment.

Bishops DO die; some become Archbishops and move to an Archdiocese, while others retire or ask to be moved to another diocese or Military Ordinariate (now Archdiocese). Since beginning to live as a hermit @ 1984, I personally have seen 5 bishops go and come. Should I really have been made to redo professions again and again? And what of consecration? God consecrates on the occasion of one's perpetual profession and one enters the consecrated state of life. Yes, the state can be undone, but not the consecration!! Why would we act in such a way with what is both a hardy and a fragile gift? And what about what we recognize as admission to PERPETUAL profession? Do we simply admit to temporary profession again and again and never allow the person to make a definitive or life commitment leading to God's own consecration of the person for the whole of her life??? 

Our world is changeable enough. We really do need people making various life commitments. More, we need to believe in the possibility of life commitments!! We need to be able to celebrate them in ways that really recognize their value to the church and the whole of society! I have watched Sisters dealing with the completion of their congregations' work as numbers dwindle. It is both one of the saddest and most inspiring things I have ever experienced. Day in and day out Sisters renew life commitments and pour out their lives in light of these professions. They do not say, "Wow, this is difficult, this isn't what I signed up for. At the end of the year, instead of making vows again, I will just leave for something easier"!! Other Sisters recognize the difficulty of living together with all kinds of personalities -- especially as everyone ages. Life commitments don't allow them to say, "You know, Sister x is really a pain in the behind (and well she might be!); let's ask her to go through another mutual discernment process and get her out of here when the time comes for her vows to expire." No, they have life commitments, not just to serve the church, but to love one another and to serve one another in community!! It is the quality of the commitment that keeps us going forward and growing more deeply rooted when things become difficult or take turns we never anticipated or expected.  Love requires commitments and I think to pour out one's whole heart --- one's whole being --- one requires a perpetual or definitive commitment.

There is a kind of quantum leap made between a temporary profession and a definitive, solemn, or perpetual profession, even though we always make vows with the idea that we are called to them the rest of our lives. While discernment is always part of our daily lives, we do not continue to anguish over or consider things in the way we do before making a definitive/life commitment. That has been done, usually several times before admission to perpetual profession. Once we have committed ourselves for the whole of our lives, the discernment shifts focus from some version of [[Do I or do I not truly have this vocation?]] to variations on [[What is my place in this stream of vocational tradition? How do I live this historical reality out with integrity in this time and this place?]] In community life, discernment involves questions about the direction, growth, and leadership of the congregation, the nature and shape of the congregation's charism and mission, how one is uniquely called to carry these into the world, and so forth. In eremitical life, there are similar questions regarding eremitical tradition, the nature and charism of the vocation, the important values brought to this world in this space and time, etc. Once a definitive commitment has been made, one lives into the vocation as one whose entire life has been summoned to it and given over to it and to the God who gives it to the world through us. One now knows oneself as "gift-bearer" in a way the temporarily committed simply cannot do.

With regard to hermits per se, if a bishop is leaving the diocese and the publicly professed hermit is only temporary professed, yes the incoming bishop could ask for a new discernment process; he could ask for a longer period of temporary vows --- which means he could ask the hermit renew a temporary commitment so that he might be truly sure of this vocation himself before admitting to perpetual profession. What is more likely is that the outgoing bishop will admit such a hermit to perpetual profession before he leaves, assuming the recommendations of all involved in working with the person encouraged this. If the hermit is not yet professed but it is clear as it can be that she has this vocation, then the departing bishop can admit to temporary vows. It is unlikely the incoming bishop will not listen to the people working with the candidate and their recommendation to admit to perpetual profession when the time for that comes. We act in good faith in entering into such processes of discernment and formation, and we trust that everyone will act in a similar way as the process unfolds. 

Sometimes that trust is betrayed, and sometimes mistakes are made in discernment while formation can be inadequate and require more attention. Yes. (Though formation will always continue throughout one's life.) There is a reason the Bishop's Decree of Approval/ Rule of Life said in regard to my own Rule, [[I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life.]] Yes, the remainder of the decree was entirely positive, but when dealing with Divine Vocations we can only do what we can truly do. Everything, including ongoing discernment and formation, and the deepening of the vocation, must be left in God's hands. What we know is that God calls persons to such vocations and consecrates them perpetually to his service and love. We must trust this I think, and respond as corresponding grace empowers us to do. 

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

Bishops and Delegates as Contrary to the "Supreme Independence" of a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, in your last post [09.September. 2022, On Needing People] the questions asked something about the supervision of the bishop being contrary to the vocation of a hermit. I don't think you answered that so let me ask it again even if it is not what the original questioner had in mind. I have always thought of hermits as supremely independent --- being able to walk away from everything and everyone to live alone, but c 603 requires one live one's life under the supervision of a diocesan bishop. You have written about having a delegate who serves you and the bishop in meeting with you regularly. Isn't all of this contrary to the supreme independence of the hermit? Thanks!!]]

Thanks for continuing the conversation and for taking it further than the original poster did. As you will no doubt guess, I am going to disagree with your position, not only because I differ somewhat (mainly in emphasis) on your understanding of hermit life but more, because I think you and I have different notions of independence.

In the first place, I don't think of a hermit as one who leaves everything and everyone "in order to be alone". I think of a hermit as having done these things to seek and live in communion with God and, therefore, to be the truest and fullest Self s/he can be. The purpose of the life is not about being alone, nor about being hidden, or poor, or any number of other things; the purpose of the life is to put God first, to allow God's will to love us fully and unconditionally to be realized in our one very singular and infinitely precious life. Yes, this will mean being alone, poor, hidden, chaste, celibate, and any number of other things, but all of those serve this foundational purpose; they must not be mistaken for it. There is a second half to this foundational purpose, namely, in real ways the hermit leaves everything and everyone and seeks to live in Communion with God and to become and be the truest, fullest, self she can be for the sake of others. 

Hermits are, first and foremost witnesses (martyrs) to the Love of God that is the deepest need of and sufficient for every person. We "leave everything and everyone" to the extent and in the way we do so in order to live in the silence of solitude (life with God alone) so that others may also know that God alone is enough (i.e., only God can create, sustain, and complete us as persons). I want to be clear that hermits are not the only ones who witness to this truth; for instance, men and women religious also do so, but they image the way that occurs in community and hermits image this truth in the vividness of the silence of solitude. (Both hermits and cenobites live community, silence, and solitude, but they do so differently with different emphases in their lives.) Again, who the hermit is and what the hermit does, is meant to be a gift and ministry to and for the sake of others; she lives her life for the sake of others -- beginning with God's own sake.

So, with that important piece in place let's think about the term independence and especially its sense in Christian theology. To be truly free is to be empowered to be the person God wills us to be. It is to be able to live authentically and fully, the potential which is ours by virtue of our creation by God. There is a "free from" dimension to this empowerment as well as a "free for" dimension. For the person who exists in and through God in Christ, and to the extent this is true, there is freedom from sin (that is, from estrangement from God, self, and others), from ego, from much of the woundedness our lives in space and time cause us. This means too then, that there is the freedom to be Oneself for God, for the sake of God's good creation, and certainly for the sake of all who are precious to God. The hermit's freedom is very much this kind of freedom in both senses and dimensions.

If what one calls independence is ruled by ego, it is not genuine freedom. If we are not free to receive our lives as gift or others in a similar way, we do not know genuine freedom. If we are not free to give ourselves generously, to love and trust others in ways that empower them similarly, we are not truly free at all. Because we are only human as part of a community, because our humanity is a gift of God which is realized in and through our love of God and others and theirs of/for us, we need these same others if we are to be free. God is a community of love and God wills to draw us into that same reality; indeed, he has made us for this. By definition, humanity itself, and human freedom therefore is defined in terms of such community.

All of this makes the solitude of the authentic hermit incredibly paradoxical. To the degree it is genuine, it will be an expression of our seeking and being in intimate community with God, with our deepest selves, and, in other ways, with others. No matter what else we walk away from, we cannot walk away from God or our deepest selves without betraying the very nature of our existence as human, and too then, our vocation and its solitude in the process. By extension, we cannot walk away from others --- though most of the time we relate to them differently than most people do.

The vocation I have begun describing here is both difficult, rare, and, as noted, incredibly paradoxical. It is easy to mistake it for the isolation and misanthropy that marks the loner in today's society because externally these two can look a lot alike. When one doesn't know that (seeking and receiving) communion with God is the primary motivation and goal of the hermit, it is easy to imagine that the vaunted "eremitical freedom" means the freedom to walk away from every relationship and responsibility and do whatever one wants whenever one wants to do it. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the word "hermit" has been used in these two antithetical ways, again based on some externals alone. But authentic eremitical life is demanding, and because communion with God (being loved and loving in return in the way God loves and empowers one to love) is a difficult goal which requires the whole of one's life, it really does require supervision and work with a skilled spiritual director, etc., to keep one moving forward in receiving and embodying one's deepest truth.

Sin is, in the way I have defined it above, easy; refusing Life, which is always a gift of God, allowing it to slip away, choosing counterfeits and substitutes is easy. Holiness (being true to God and to one's deepest self in order to love as God loves), requires discipline, patience, commitment, and love --- including the love of those who know us and God, and who can help empower us to choose and continue to receive Life at every turn. In my own life those persons are a rare and precious gift. They include those who have agreed to serve me as spiritual director, as well as Director or delegate on behalf of my bishop and diocese to be sure that this vocation is lived well and in a way which is edifying to the life of the church and the understanding of all the faithful. 

The irony is that I could never be a hermit as c 603 defines one and as Christian tradition understands us without the assistance of others. I could never live the aloneness of a hermit with an ecclesial vocation by myself. To say with my life that God alone is sufficient for us, requires not just being embedded in the People of God and in God's own life, it requires those others who mediate God's love to me and remind me of those for whom I live as well. Even as a recluse (were I to find myself called to this even rarer form of eremitical life) I would require others, and that means others to and for whom I would feel grateful, those I would pray for, come to know in one way and another, and whose lives would therefore enrich the tapestry of my life as integral threads composing dimensions of my solitude. 

I'll stop this here, because I think I could keep writing for quite a while on this critical paradox. If you haven't read the following post, you should give it a look. It approaches some dimensions of this response -- becoming human, becoming holy, etc. -- with different imagery. That might be helpful to you. Inner Work and transparency to God As always, please get back to me if you have additional questions!