Once Again on c 603 and the Reasons it was Created

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Canon 603 Replace other Forms of Eremitical Life?

[[Dear Sr Laurel, why don't you think c 603 will take the place of other forms of eremitical life? Do you know other hermits living that in the lay state? I  think maybe it would be a good idea if you could introduce them once and a while here on your blog.]]

Thanks very much for writing! Your questions are good ones. First of all, my belief is rooted in the relative rarity of eremitical vocations generally, and because of the relative infrequency with which canon 603 has been used in the past 37 years not only generally but in my own diocese. There are a variety of reasons for this rarity of vocation and infrequency of the canon's use so let me point a few of those out. 1) simple ignorance of what an eremitical vocation is: people believe being a hermit is a way of justifying "anything goes" and substitute various stereotypes for eremitical life. Some of these are lone individuals whose lives are motivated by escape or isolation. Some of these believe eremitical life doesn't differ from their ordinary lives lived alone, so, for instance they do not reflect or live a desert spirituality.

Some simply want to be a religious without the responsibilities or expectations which come with life in community (I.e., in an institute of consecrated life). They have not lived in solitude, experienced the redemptive character of a life lived in the silence of solitude, nor is the silence of solitude a charism they have embraced for the sake of the Church. Some have needed a way to validate lives of personal failure and misanthropy, etc. One once wrote me he wanted to reserve the Eucharist in his space but saw no other reasons to become a hermit. Still, he was willing to consider it --- though his reasons were inadequate at best. 2) Misusing the Canon in other ways: some wish to create religious communities by using this canon first and then gathering others around them. This is not an uncommon desire from some approaching their dioceses seeking profession under c 603. The church has other well-established ways to create institutes of consecrated life and commentators on canon 603 are clear it is meant for solitary eremitical life. A final reason (and perhaps the most fundamental) is that human beings come to wholeness in relationship with others. Solitude is a rare form of community and few are called to achieve wholeness or holiness in this way.

While all of this has been going on and dioceses have been working with those they consider suitable for profession, many more individuals have come seeking information and accompaniment by their dioceses in discernment. Even so, vocations to consecrated solitary eremitical life are rare. For instance, though some dioceses have professed several hermits over the years, I was told my own diocese has heard from somewhere around 120-144 inquirers in the past 10-12 years and none have been perpetually professed or consecrated. Each of those persons is still entirely free to live non-canonical eremitical life in the lay state or (if a cleric) can try to do so in the clerical state (it is very rare for bishops to allow priests to become hermits); a number could try entering a community of hermits. 

If only half of these 144 lived as non-canonical hermits successfully, my diocese would still have more than 70 non-canonical hermits right now and only one diocesan hermit. We also have a large community of Camaldolese oblates in Northern CA as well as a small Camaldolese Monastery in Berkeley as part of our diocesan resources related to both Benedictine life and hermits. The Monks in the monastery are also consecrated hermits and contribute to the lives of oblates; meanwhile, most oblates are not hermits in any sense but some few are interested in living eremitical lives. This snapshot of a small part of my diocese indicates that eremitical life in this contemporary local Church might be quite vibrant and likely to carry on into the future. However, the bottom line remains that the number of consecrated hermits will always be quite small relative to non-canonical hermits.

I should point out again that c 603 grew out of a situation where monks discerning eremitical calls in their later years and after many years in solemn vows, were required to seek dispensation and secularization. To sacrifice so much for eremitical life called for the Church to give this series of monks' experiences some real attention and regard. Bishop Remi de Roo became bishop protector of about a dozen hermits. Eventually from this came his intervention at Vatican II, and then the revision of the Code of Canon Law with canon 603. The Church did not expect for there to be hordes of consecrated hermits taking the place of lay hermits. What they meant to provide was an option for the rare instances of solitary hermits called to live this in the consecrated state of life. For this reason too, along with the historical fact that most hermits have always been a lay vocation, I believe non-canonical hermits will continue to live eremitical life not least because they don't feel called to the consecrated state. After all, Vatican II stressed the importance and place of the Laity in the Church; non-canonical hermits drawn from the laity are a significant and longstanding instance of the eremitical life the church is meant to esteem

Raven's Bread is a newsletter some of us get. It is open to anyone interested in solitude or the eremitical life. I read with interest the sharing of lay (that is, non-canonical) hermits and solitaries. There is a growing interest in the eremitical life and it is real in every state of the Union and in many other countries. Regarding your suggestion of presenting or introducing some of these hermits on this blog, I like the idea and will do what I can to do something about that. Perhaps some will write and volunteer for a brief bio and picture. If I find someone like Regina whose story is so inspiring I will consider posting it. In any case, I'll give your suggestions some thought and see what might work. Thanks very much for writing.