Who Educates Bishops re C 603?

[[ Sister Laurel, who educates bishops on Canon 603 vocations? (Is educate the right word here?) If the church intervenes in the Cole Matson case will Canon lawyers be the ones to determine further time frames, etc? Can you see any place for increased time frames being made requisite?]]

Important questions! Bishops will continue to be educated (yes, I think that's the correct word!) in this vocation by those living it authentically and having been identified by their dioceses as being called in this way. Similarly, they will continue to be educated by chancery personnel who have direct and significant contact with such vocations (meaning Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, etc, who have discerned and helped in the formation of such vocations). It is my fervent belief that the church ought not succumb to the temptation of approaching c 603 as somehow deficient and then trying to resolve that deficiency by adding time frames and stages to the canon itself.

Consider in the Lexington case how truly abysmal the knowledge of c 603 or the vocation it governs was and perhaps still is. That was so, not only on the part of the local ordinary but also (and perhaps more fatefully!) on that of the canonist consulted in the matter. This is not a deficiency adding mandatory years or stages will resolve. In the main, the problem was not that of additional time or canonical stages, but rather of ignorance, and the studied resolution to use c 603 in a way contrary to the living charism it codifies despite having been instructed otherwise. A person came to Bishop Stowe with the proposal to use c 603 as a stopgap means of admitting him/her to public profession. S/he was aware that this could be done and had been done in the past, especially in the early years of the Canon's life; moreover, s/he knew all of this because I had written about it and s/he had read my blog for at least ten years. To complicate things, Bishop John Stowe bought into the proposal with the same question I have answered here several times, viz., whom could it hurt? Whom Does it Hurt? Meanwhile, the canonist consulted offered little substantively in response to this question apparently providing a legal loophole instead. While one hopes for better from those entrusted with the implementation of this canon, this is a rare vocation and a little-understood one.

And of course, that is the point! The solution is education and the only ones who can truly educate chancery personnel in this are hermits living (and living into) authentic vocations. To a lesser extent, chancery personnel with experience in discerning with a diocesan hermit will be helpful in this kind of education as well. Gradually bishops will come to see the character and quality of the vocation in front of them as they and other chancery staff meet with the candidate for profession, and this is as it should be. Of course, diocesan personnel need to read and consult on this matter as well. As I have written before, when I was first working with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF (Vicar for Religious), she and another Sister from the chancery took a trip to New Camaldoli in Big Sur to consult with the Prior there. Susan had one major question, namely, what would it take for a person to live a healthy eremitical life?  Years later, after I had met with Archbishop (then Bishop) Vigneron for the first time regarding my petition to be admitted to profession, he said, "Now I have to go and learn a lot" --- not only about this vocation but about me, my writing (including my Rule and published articles, which he had purposely not read yet), etc. I thought it a wise observation and I was very glad he took that tack! 

It seems to me that both Sister Susan and Bishop Vigneron recognized the Holy Spirit could be doing something new with Canon 603 and were open to taking extraordinary steps to be sure it was well-implemented. (For Sister Susan and her companion to take such a long drive from the Diocese of Oakland to Big Sur to meet with the Prior in person remains strongly suggestive of the kinds of steps dioceses need to take in order to educate themselves re solitary eremitical life. Of course, today, the church's history with the canon is more extensive than it was in the mid to late 80's, and some of us are willing and now able to assist dioceses in working with candidates so that both the candidate and the chancery personnel themselves grow in understanding of solitary eremitical life. Still, education is the key.

You asked if I could see any use for increased requisite time frames and my answer is yes, in one case. I believe that there should be a minimum time frame of five years before a person is admitted to even first vows under the canon. I believe this could apply even if the person has a history of religious life, because the transition to solitary eremitical life is still significant. If one is called to this vocation, five years will not be onerous but will be given over to growth and coming more and more to embody the values central to c 603 in any case. At the same time, diocesan personnel will be able to work with the person regularly and will be able to learn about the candidate, as well as about the depths and breadth of the canon itself. But it seems to me that apart from this minimum time frame, the multiplication of stages, etc., are simply unhelpful and could give a false sense of progress when the person is no closer to becoming a hermit at all. Jumping through such canonical hoops may simply tell us the person is desperate to be professed publicly and is a good "canonical hoop jumper", but not that they have heard or responded with fidelity to a divine call to desert existence!

On Writing a Rule of Life: Additional Suggestions --- the Basics

While I don't want to bore readers by repeating what else I have said about writing a Rule, and while I want to refer folks to all of that as valuable, I sometimes hear from or work with people who are struggling with the task and need a bit more help. Yes, a Rule should deal with the elements of the Canon and yes, the Rule should reflect the way God works in one's life --- and, if possible, the way God has done this over a number of years, but what if it still all feels unwieldy, and, because of the richness or complexity of one's life, it is unwieldy? How should one proceed then? Here are a few suggestions: First, begin with the basics. 

If you are planning on writing a Rule for life under Canon 603, begin by writing a separate document that addresses the central elements of the Canon. This will not be your Rule, but it will contribute greatly to your ability to write such a Rule. (Even if you are not planning on being professed and consecrated under Canon 603, the central elements will speak to the life you are living as a hermit.) Those elements are 1) assiduous prayer and penance, 2) stricter separation from the world, 3) the silence of solitude, 4) the Evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity in celibacy, obedience), 5) embracing this calling for the salvation of the world and the glory and praise of God, 6) under the supervision of the local ordinary, 7) according to a Rule of Life one writes oneself. So, to begin with, choose one or two of these elements to focus on. (I recommend beginning with a couple of the first four.)

Once you have done this, answer the following questions for each element. First, what is it?? If you have chosen assiduous prayer and penance, to reflect on and write about, for instance, be sure to define how you understand all of the terms in that phrase. What is prayer? Penance? How do you understand these things now, today? What does the Canon call for by requiring assiduous prayer and penance? What does assiduous mean in this element? What does it NOT mean? (For instance, it may or may not mean saying prayers all day; certainly, assiduous penance is unlikely to mean wearing a hairshirt or cilice or refusing to take the medicines one needs to feel and be well!!) Write as much as you know personally about these terms. Secondly, how do you live this element of the Canon today? Describe all the elements of your life that are part and parcel of  "assiduous prayer and penance". Do not write about what you hope one day to live but what you live today. This is no place for idealizing things. God is at work in your life and appears to have brought you to this place. Articulate and claim how that is happening now, today.

With some elements of the canon, defining what they are is more challenging. For instance, did you notice that that canon does not read silence and solitude, but rather, "the silence of solitude"? While this term includes external silence and physical solitude, it is also more than these. Thus, you will need to define the individual terms that make up the element required by the canon, and you will also need to define the larger element that is more than the sum of its parts. If you don't understand this personally yet, define what you can and say how you live what you can define, but make a note for yourself about what you have not yet defined! It is something you will need to understand and write about before admission to perpetual profession. 

Something similar is true for "stricter separation from the world". What does the term, "the world" mean in this phrase? This is not what some folks think it means and it is not even what some religious and monastics have said from time to time!! What does it not mean, or at least, not primarily mean? How about the word stricter? Stricter than what? What limits can or even must legitimately be put on the term "Stricter" -- assuming it does not mean absolute!? "Separation" needs to be looked at as well. What is healthy separation (generally, for most hermits, and also for yourself), and what is not? For some, this term calls for complete reclusion and a support structure to assist in this, while for others, complete reclusion would result in the destruction of one's psychological health and vocation. I think you see what I mean when I speak of answering the questions, "What is it?" and "How do I live it?" Again, no idealizing. Keep your writing in the present!

The third question I suggest you answer with regard to each central element of the Canon is, "Why is this important?" Various ways of looking at this question include: why is it important for religious life generally? How about eremitical life more specifically? Why is this element important for the Church or her witness to Jesus Christ and the Gospel? Does it bring a special clarity or vividness when lived by a hermit? Are there any groups of people for whom a hermit's living this will be especially important and in what way? And finally, why is this important for your own life with God? In what ways has this element helped you to see and grow to be the person God has called you to be? What allows you to speak with confidence that this is what God has called you to? Whatever further questions help you to say why this element is important and thus needs to be included in both the Canon and your own Rule can be added as needed. In any case, allow these questions to rumble around inside yourself until you have clear answers to them. As you continue discerning and being formed in this vocation, do as Rainer Marie Rilke suggested to the young poet and "live the questions"! 

Doing so may help you answer the fourth question I suggest you answer, namely, how have I grown in my understanding and living out of this element of the vocation? I have told the story before that I did not even include stricter separation from the world in the first Rule I wrote for my diocese. There were several reasons for this including the fact that I didn't understand what this meant or asked for from me and that I wasn't sure I saw the need for such a stance toward "the world". However, the next time I wrote a Rule (during prep for perpetual profession) I included this element and my growth in understanding and living this element was significant! It was a question that had indeed roiled and rumbled around inside of me as I read more widely on the topic and grew in my vocation.  Because I took the elements of C 603 seriously this one was one of the questions I definitely lived as I approached all aspects of my life prayerfully.

Once you have done this exercise for all of the elements including each vow (or their correlative values) included in C 603, you will find you have a major portion of the heart of your Rule already complete and you will be able to draw on this document as you actually compose your Rule. I would urge you to take your time in this. If I were working with someone to assist them in writing a Rule, I would expect this stage of things to take at least a year or two. At least I would not be surprised were that the case. One will need to research terms and their usage throughout the history of eremitical life,  and in religious life more generally. One will need to reflect on and pray about these terms, make decisions on levels of validity and importance, and then, try them on for size over time. One will need to articulate why one lives whatever definitions of each element one does, and why one rejects or finds other definitions or understandings unhelpful or even unhealthy. All of this takes time, research, prayer, reflection, discussion with those who accompany one in one's journey toward profession and consecration or private avowal, and then too, the struggle to put all of it into words that reflect one's own vision of what it means to live out the terms of Canon 603 or solitary eremitical life in the 21st Century.

I'll return with more suggestions in the future. Some of these will be about the essential elements the Canon does not mention but which need to be reflected in an effective Rule of Life --- things like work, recreation, relationships, support systems (including spiritual direction and oblature with a specific monastery, etc.), finances, and more. For now, consider this part 1 of "Additional Suggestions".

Purpose of Stricter Separation from the World

I have received an email asking a question I wrote about in 2011, so I am reposting this response here. I am hoping it leads to further questions, not least, those that will help to clarify the validity of stricter separation from "the world" in an eremitical life. I am thinking about a couple of sentences in a new document from CICLSAL re c 603 I believe this begins to address: [[The hermit who distances [herself] from the world does not flee out of fear or contempt. [She] lived in the world and is called, Christianly, to seek to love it and to look at it with the eyes and the love that God revealed to us in Jesus. . .one separates oneself from the world to save it, one moves away to integrate it. The exterior become interior, the distant becomes near, the excluded is desired included. This is why separating does not mean fleeing.]] par 24 The Hermit Life Form in the Particular Church. "Guidance" CICLSAL, 2022.

[Dear Sister, what is the purpose of "stricter separation from the world" in your life? You have mentioned it as an element of hermit life, but I really don't get it. The Sisters I know are deeply involved in this world and it seems to me it is what Christ was all about. Can you help me understand?]]

Great question! I have written a little about stricter separation from the world, especially what it does and doesn't mean, so I would invite you to check out labels leading to those articles for additional thoughts. But you are correct, I have not really written about the purpose of stricter separation, nor have I spoken explicitly about the validity of this approach in spirituality --- which does indeed seem rather different from Jesus' usual way of doing things. In fact, "stricter separation from the world" was not something I would have chosen myself without circumstances which led me to understand it differently than I did as a young Sister. As your own comment suggests, at first or second glance, it hardly seems to comport with a Christian perspective which honors the incarnation and the sanctity of all creation in Christ. For me it always sounded selfish and lacking in charity --- not to mention in generosity!

It is important to remember that separation from the world means first of all separation from that which is resistant or uncongenial to Christ, and that it involves detachment from that which promises fulfillment, meaning, and hope apart from him and the God he mediates. This sense of the term "world" refers to anything which is untrue, distorted, resistant to life, to love, and to all the rest of the values which constitute life in God. But it is not God's good creation, therefore, from which we mainly separate ourselves. It is "the world" of falsehood, chaos, and meaninglessness, and this means that it is not something distinct existing merely outside of ourselves, but instead a reality which is intimately related to the darkness, woundedness, distortions, and sclerosis (hardness) of our own hearts.

Keeping this in mind, there are several reasons then for embracing stricter separation from the world. The first is that such separation distances us from the constant reinforcement of values, behaviors, expectations, and so forth which bombard us otherwise. Consider all the things we each see every day that tell us who we are and must be --- despite the fact that almost none of them are consistent with the values of the Kingdom of God! The second reason has to do with allowing ourselves the space and time --- and the silence and solitude --- to meet ourselves without all the supports, props, and distractions of "the world." It is hard to see ourselves for who we really are otherwise. Once the props are down or removed, we come to experience our own poverty. When we are not measuring (and in fact CANNOT measure) success, integrity, fruitfulness, etc., according to the terms constituting, "the world" we come face to face with what we are really all about. So, the first part of stricter separation is all about reality checks. Conversion, after all, requires confrontation with truth.

The third and most fundamental reason for stricter separation from the world is to allow the space and time needed for a meeting with God. If our hearts (and so, our very selves) are, in part, darkened, distorted, sclerosed and untrue, they are also the place where God bears witness to himself and the truth of who we are. All the elements of the eremitical life, including stricter separation, are geared towards the meeting (and eventually, union) with God which verifies (makes true), heals, and brings to fullness of life. It is in this meeting that we learn how precious we are despite our very real human poverty, here that we learn how constant and secure God's love, here that we begin to have a sense of what we are really capable of and meant for. It is in this meeting with God that we come to know genuine freedom, come to experience an imperishable hope, and are commissioned to go out to others to summon them to something similar.

There is a fourth reason for stricter separation from the world then. We must step away from the distorted perspectives and values that constitute "the world" in order to love it better. We leave it in order to be made capable of affirming the deeper truth and beauty of the world around us. We come to know everything in God and that leads us to see with God's eyes. Hermits assume a marginal place so that they may also serve a prophetic function by speaking the truth in a way that affirms the world's deepest and truest reality. It will also summon to conversion. Stricter separation from "the world" allows us to love God's world into wholeness. It is a servant of true engagement and commitment. Stricter separation from "the world" is a tool for loving the whole of God's creation; it is neither escapist nor selfish and cannot be allowed to devolve into these. Abba Evagrius said it this way, [[The monk is someone who separates himself from all so that he can be united to all.]] Treatise on Prayer #124.

But why a LIFE of stricter separation from the world? Hermits witness to separation from the world as a basic dynamic assisting us to come to the freedom that results from being the person God makes us to be. The hermit reminds us again and again of the primacy of the foundational relationship that grounds our being, and of the task of individuation it summons us to achieve on a day-by-day basis for the whole of our lives. We are made for life with God and we are made for a life loving the whole of God's creation. That requires some separation from the world and the rejection of enmeshment with it. Hermits say this particularly clearly with their lives.

Thanking God for Law that Serves Love!

[[ Hi again Sister Laurel! There is someone writing against you though she doesn't use your name; while I don't want to draw you into an argument I wondered what you thought about the following thesis: "The fruit in past hermits gives us guidelines by noticing their lives lived -- not any canon laws for there were none, nor . . .on some created church laws centuries after Jesus instituted his Church, never Himself speaking of laws positively except the Law of God which is the Love. All other church laws Jesus pointed out as hypocrisies and missing the point of God Himself. . ."]]

Thanks for your questions. First, I agree completely that some hermits' lives are instructive in major ways for those of us living the life today. The Desert Fathers and Mothers and many others come to mind here. On the other hand, there are many hermits throughout the centuries that have distorted eremitical witness and lived caricatures of authentic hermit life. Additionally, and to be frank, I think the thesis regarding law and Jesus' attitudes toward law represents either a very naive reading of texts or an anachronistic twisting of the Scriptures in order to take a swipe at those who support or write about c 603, or canon law more generally. I doubt I am the only one writing about c 603. 

It sounds to me like the author you cited is used to reading Scripture in a somewhat fundamentalist way, but whether that is true or not, there are some things that must be corrected. First, Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and to loose. In part that could (and over the centuries has implied) the authority to make laws to govern both the Church as a whole and individual segments of the Church. Second, Jesus never treated law per se as hypocritical. He was harsh with the Scribes and Pharisees who opposed him (not all did), but he esteemed the Law itself as a gift of God; moreover, he kept it himself, though not in a slavish way which was careless of the way it tended toward and required greater fulfillment and transcendence. 

Just a few weeks ago we heard a Gospel in which Jesus cured a leper and told him to show himself to the priests so the Law might be fulfilled. The laws that isolated the leper were meant for the good of society in a world with no answer to contagions of all sorts. The law Jesus referenced in this reading served love because it allowed the leper to be reintegrated into the society his disease had isolated him from.  Even so, while Jesus recognized Law as a good, he also recognized that people could be hypocritical and also, that laws could be interpreted or formulated and implemented in ways which were oppressive and unjust --- the precise opposite of what the Law of God actually does. So, Jesus treated law as good, a Divine Gift, but he also demanded that law serve Love -- as it was meant to do.

While I am not a canonist and tend not to be much interested in canon law except for canon 603 and the other canons which pertain directly to my vocation (I am very interested in these and what people write about them!), my sense is that these specific canons and canon law more generally were codified to function as law serving love. I think the Church generally (though not unfailingly) does the same and requires law in order to serve love effectively. I write about canon 603 precisely so it can be better understood and implemented by dioceses in a way which serves love both for and in those persons called to solitary consecrated eremitical life and for those to whom they minister in the silence of solitude.

We cannot deny that the Church is, in part, an historical reality made up of historical elements including sinful people. Our God loved historical existence enough to create it, to call it good, and to become incarnate to dwell with his People. One day the Kingdom of God will be fulfilled "on earth as it is in heaven" and law will not be necessary, but until then, until we are all perfect rather than struggling to grow in perfection, church or canon law is a gift of God meant to and capable of serving Love. For some hermits it provides a needed "space" in which authentic eremitism as an ecclesial vocation may be lived in and for the benefit of a world that itself has little space for or understanding of hermits. We can thank God for it as well as for the Decalogue and law of all sorts!!!

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

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

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

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

One day you finally knew

what you had to do, and began,

though the voices around you

kept shouting

their bad advice—

though the whole house

began to tremble

and you felt the old tug

at your ankles.

"Mend my life!"

each voice cried.

But you didn't stop.

You knew what you had to do,

though the wind pried

with its stiff fingers

at the very foundations,

though their melancholy

was terrible.

It was already late

enough, and a wild night,

and the road full of fallen

branches and stones.

But little by little,

as you left their voices behind,

the stars began to burn

through the sheets of clouds,

and there was a new voice

which you slowly

recognized as your own,

that kept you company

as you strode deeper and deeper

into the world,

determined to do

the only thing you could do—

determined to save

the only life you could save.

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

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

Rejoice heartily in the LORD,

in God is the joy of (our) soul;

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

and wrapped (us) in a mantle of justice,

like a bridegroom adorned with a diadem,

like a bride bedecked with her jewels.

Is Canon 603 Being Implemented More Appropriately in the Present?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, Given what you have written about the short life of canon 603 and the way diocesan representatives are learning to implement it, do you think  it is being used more appropriately now than it was in the past? Are there ways the Church could improve in this?]]

That's a great question but one that is difficult to answer except in terms of anecdotal impressions. I know that dioceses have greater resources available to them because of the hermits already professed and consecrated according to this canon than was the case early on; this includes a number of hermits who have lived this life for some time in ways that are edifying to others and who can assist dioceses. They also have greater access to the experience of dioceses more generally with relation to this canon. Some have done well with it, some have greater failure rates, and a few at least have failed to even attempt to implement this canon. Some of this has changed the way dioceses use the canon and in this I have seen improvements. For instance, the use of this canon for individuals who really want to live community life and not solitary eremitical life has apparently diminished; at the same time very few true lauras (which differ from communities) are now being established much less succeeding. In other words, the focus is rightly on solitary eremitical life and that is the reason the canon was promulgated. Additionally the use of canon 604 in its place, something that happened very early in the history of these two canons, now seems not to happen at all; dioceses are very clear today that c 603 and c 604 describe vastly different vocations even when some aspects overlap in similarity. More and more it seems to me, canon 603 is being used for true eremitic vocations and not merely to profess lone individuals who could not be professed in community or who are simply unwilling to give up what is necessary for this to happen. 

Similarly, I think it is being used less frequently for those lone individuals who are isolated from others, from the church, and perhaps too from themselves; instead this kind of candidate tends more and more to fail to be admitted to profession and consecration under canon 603, which I think, is a very good thing. Longer periods of discernment and the greater use of temporary profession without automatic admission to perpetual profession three to five years later now allows time for such persons to truly transition into eremitical life in the heart of the church if they truly have eremitical vocations.  And finally, it seems to me that more and more the canon is being used to profess second half of life vocations to solitude rather than younger persons --- especially those who must still live with their parents to undertake such a life. Generally speaking (there are a couple of exceptions, I think), younger persons should be encouraged to join semi-eremitical communities rather than embracing solitary eremitical life. Of the persons I have seen professed under this canon these latter are some of the most questionable. One wonders what happens when the parents die and the "hermit" is required to live a self-sufficient life under vows, particularly when eremitical profession occurred before the person finished their education, worked full-time, and negotiated the other stages of adult individuation.

When canon 603 first was published there was a flurry of interest. I don't know that this interest has fallen off in any steep way, but it is clear to me that dioceses have mainly taken care in professing people in these recent years and that is always a very good thing. With regard to dioceses which have simply refused to implement the canon, these were initially wise in their wait-and-see refusals but are now more and more becoming simply recalcitrant; for this reason, some vocations to consecrated solitary eremitical life are being lost. Still, better this than that non-eremitical lives seeking to use c 603 as some sort of stopgap when no other way to profession and consecration are open to folks. (Here, distinguishing clearly between the Roman Catholic canon 603 from the Anglo-Catholic canon 14 for "solitary religious" who are not necessarily hermits is an important step forward.) As a result of better discernment, and a better sense of what solitary eremitical vocations look like --- meaning that dioceses tend not to simply profess anyone seeking this until they have shown the patience, initiative, and spiritual maturity required for a lifelong commitment to the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance --- I think the faddish quality of canon 603 has diminished significantly.

Areas of Possible Improvement in the Implementation of Canon 603: The Role of Bishops

Yes, there are certainly some areas that could be improved on with regard to eremitical vocations under canon 603. The most critical one, I think, is in the provision for meaningful and regular supervision and ongoing formation of already professed hermits. The canon is clear that these lives are to be lived under the supervision of the local ordinary. The one complaint I hear time and again is that new bishops coming into a diocese do not have time for, nor much want to meet with c 603 hermits in a way we really need. I feel fortunate because when I was approaching profession the Vicars for Religious at the bishop's behest asked that I choose someone to act as a delegate for the diocese, someone who would be a "quasi-superior" for me and who would serve both the bishop and myself as my regular contact person since I would only be able to meet with the bishop annually or so. Over the years this has proved absolutely invaluable. I now have "co-delegates" (we tend to use the word Directors instead) --- one of whom takes the lead and the second who keeps in touch and is ready to step in as Director should anything happen to the other. (For instance, both of these Sisters have been in leadership in their own congregations and during this time it may fall to the other Sister to take the lead as my Director. But this arrangement also provides for illness and other circumstances as well including potential conflicts in matters of internal and external forums.) 

When new bishops come into the diocese (I have lived as a hermit under 4 bishops and a diocesan hermit under 3 with one interim bishop), I will simply continue meeting with my Director(s), and (usually) the Vicar for Religious in case of need, until the new bishop is able to meet with me. (I continue meeting with my Director(s) in any case since I would ordinarily meet with my bishop once a year unless there is a specific need otherwise.) It provides continuity in terms of ongoing formation in one's vows and is especially critical when a new bishop is less able or (perhaps) is even unwilling to meet regularly with a hermit. When I have the need, or there is something which concerns the vocation more generally, either I or my Director can contact the bishop to advise him and work out whatever is needed.

But some hermits have not had such an arrangement asked for by their dioceses and these hermits are sometimes left bereft of sufficient diocesan contact or supervision with real (i.e., legitimate) authority --- especially when new bishops "inherit" them because they are perpetually professed and consecrated. To be left in the lurch this way while trying to faithfully live a consecrated life is certainly not what canon 603 calls for nor is it wise or helpful, especially for ecclesial vocations to eremitical solitude. The need for people who truly assume the ministry of authority in one's life (and here I do not mean a heavy-handed authority which supplants individual responsibility but rather, a ministry of real knowledge and love!) is critically important in such an ecclesial vocation while the failure to provide adequately in this way by bishop who may "inherit" c 603 hermits is a failure of charity and episcopal responsibility as well. Hermits are vowed to obedience to God in the hands of their bishops; to live their vows, and grow in the ways such a vow allows for, requires a bishop (and/or his delegate) do his/her part.

Since bishops change at least occasionally, the possibility of a c 603 hermit falling under the governance of a bishop with no interest or time to act as legitimate superior is always a possibility. Here a delegate who is a consistent and regular presence in the hermit's life and who has the expertise to serve in the ministry of authority at the bishop's behest is critically important. Still, because a hermit in perpetual vows remains consecrated and bound by her vows no matter the changes in diocesan leadership bishops must assume their proper place in the supervision of such vocations. Thus, if we desire such vocations to persevere and succeed in glorifying God and serving as the gift to the Church the Holy Spirit makes them, it is a problem which needs to be addressed -- perhaps at the level of CICLSAL or others in Rome since this seems to occur more than occasionally. Besides the other areas I have mentioned above, this is the one I hear most complaints about. There are a couple of others but, if you don't mind, given the length of this post, I will follow up with those at another time.

Requirements for c 603 Vocations; Vocations vs Vocational Pathways

 [[Sister Laurel, does Canon Law say a hermit has to be at least 30 years old? I saw that on a video along with the idea that a hermit doesn't need to have a Mass for profession; they can have a service and use some kind of sign (like a crucifix) or something. I couldn't find these in Canon Law (or the Catechism) but I am not a canonist. Are there other requirements for eremitical life in canon law?. . . Also, I wondered about the idea that God gives a vocation to every person. Are you saying when you write about ecclesial vocations, that sometimes vocations are not simply given by God directly to the person?

I am asking because if the Church says someone is not called to be a consecrated hermit does this mean God has not given the person a vocation at all? I believe that God calls every person and I think I understand what you mean when you say the discernment must be mutual but when the Church discerns a person does not have a given vocation don't these two things conflict? What I mean here is how can God call us to one thing if it depends on the Church saying yes, they agree we are called to this? When the Church makes a mistake and says, "no, we disagree" do we still have our vocation or do we need to accept we have no vocation? Thanks!!]]

Requirements for Consecrated (canonical) Eremitical Life:

Well, I am not a canonist either but I can say that neither of these things is located in canon law in relation to eremitical life (c 603). Public professions (especially final or solemn professions) are rightly celebrated at Mass according to the Rite of Profession for Religious. The Church considers Mass the exactly right place for such an important celebration of life commitments. She doesn't specify this with regard to eremitical life per se because it is well known and understood as a general principle in a Church whose highest spiritual aspirations are most clearly embodied and celebrated in the Eucharist. As for the age requirement canon law says nothing about this except that those being accepted by religious congregations for entrance must have completed their 17th year. I assume this is the legal requirement for c 603 as well; however, at the same time it is pretty well understood that eremitical life is a second half of life vocation. Thus, while canon law does not provide age requirements for c 603, a young person seeking to become a hermit would do better to join an eremitical or semi-eremitical community where they can get the assistance, and direct supervision, modeling, mentoring, etc any neophyte to religious life requires. Dioceses are apt to reflect this insight in their own praxis.

Neither does canon law or the Catechism for that matter say what garb or symbols can be used. With profession the hermit may receive a Breviary, habit, prayer garment (cowl for perpetual profession), ring, crucifix, scapular, or some other symbol of the life. Any of these might well be received at Mass. Some are appropriately given at temporary profession while some symbols (the cowl or ring, for instance)  are appropriate only with perpetual or solemn profession. By the way, because c 603 hermits are diocesan and solitary rather than members of a congregation, it is entirely inappropriate for a hermit under canon 603 to assume the name Carmelite, Franciscan, Dominican or other canonical Order or the initials associated with these, or to use a proprietary habit for a recognized canonical Order or congregation. Bishops cannot grant such proprietary habits to the hermit nor can they allow them to be assumed by a hermit in the diocese.

Excursus on the Right to Wear Proprietary Habits:

Excursus: The right to wear proprietary habits, which are associated with the specific congregation's charism, founder, etc. can only be granted by the Order/congregation themselves. Since they have the right (and obligation) to discern who is truly called to their community and who, with formation and "testing", can identify themselves as Franciscan, Carmelite, Camaldolese, etc (which means they act in the name of the Church  and the Franciscan, Carmelite, Camaldolese Order/congregation, etc.,) so too do they have the sole right to determine who will be garbed in their habit. It is deeply arrogant (and perhaps equally ignorant since those who do this generally do so out of naiveté) for a hermit who is unformed in a particular charism and spiritual tradition and not clothed by the Church (the Order itself) in a proprietary habit to assume the habit associated with that tradition. End Excursus.

Other Requirements for Admission to Consecrated Life:

The other requirements for admission to consecrated life (including eremitical life) include: one "not be bound by vows of matrimony [this would include vows followed by civil divorce but without a decree of nullity], not already be a member of another institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life and not be under the influence of force, grave fear, or malice." (As noted in another post, "malice" may include lying about some aspect of one's life which is critical to living an eremitical life.) Dioceses can probably set guidelines for their hermits, especially for what regular program of discernment, and formation they will follow along with the assistance of diocesan personnel. Certainly there will be things needed to find a person suitable to even pursue a process of discernment and formation as a diocesan hermit; these can be determined on a case by case basis simply because certain things may look different given differing contexts in each life.

For instance, a serious chronic illness may be a sign that God has called a person to the silence of solitude of eremitical life; for another person the very same chronic illness might be a sign (when seen within the context of their entire life) that eremitical life is escapist, isolationist, and/or otherwise imprudent for that person. The diocese has the right to make the best discernment they can make in each case even when these requirements are not canonical.

When our own Discernment and the Church's Discernment Conflict:

Your last comments and questions about vocation are very fine. And yes, I think you do understand the very difficult notion of mutual discernment and the mediation of a vocation by the Church herself.  If God gives every person a vocation and if some vocations are ecclesial, how are we to understand the experience of feeling called to a particular vocation when the Church says no? There are only a couple of possibilities: 1) the person's sense of call is somehow mistaken, or 2) the Church is mistaken in her judgment that someone is not called to a specific ecclesial vocation. As you identify with your questions it is the implications of these mistakes a theology of vocation must address. For instance, if a person or the church is mistaken in their discernment and judgment can the person "miss" or even lose her vocation? Is she condemned to forever feeling she cannot be what/who God calls her to be? While I completely understand the tremendous pain of having the Church decide one is not called to an ecclesial vocation I think it is important we remember that, 3) our truest or deepest vocations are even more profound and more lasting than the concrete paths which lead to the fulfillment of these vocations -- including the paths constituted by ecclesial vocations.

I recently had occasion to say to someone that 1) it was possible to be prevented from embracing a vocation one felt called to because the Church does not concur that one is, or even can be, truly called to it, but that, 2) at the same time God's will can still be done. How can this be? This paradox is true because God does not, first of all, call us only to one vocational path but to something much more fundamental and transcendent, namely, authentic humanity. If pathways are closed to us for some reason does this mean we cannot achieve authentic humanity? No, of course not, because God continues to call us --- not necessarily to the pathway that is closed to us but to humanity nonetheless. Our own faithful and creative response to God's continued creative summoning results in new pathways opening to us in which our deepest or truest vocation may be fulfilled. At every moment we are meant to discover the ways open to us through which we may become truly human. What I know from my own experience is that there have been any number of pathways to this which were closed to me for one reason and another. When I look back at each of them I know that each could have been a way I could have achieved the fullness of authentic humanity and I desired them profoundly --- even as they closed to me; at the same time I know that other pathways opened up to me as I responded to God's summons in spite of these closing pathways.

Eventually eremitical life opened as an undreamt of possibility to me and then --- with some long-term obstacles or difficulties conditioning my response -- consecrated eremitical life. At each point in my journey I had to let go of some pathways I had thought were definitive of who I was called to be. Sometimes these pathways were linked to elements in my life which were then relativized; these elements remained dimensions of my life but no longer were (or could be) the focus or the main way to fulfillment as other dimensions of my life assumed greater (or at least clearer) importance. Through it all, the times of loss, rediscovery, new discoveries and new creation by God, the call to be myself in the Gospel of Jesus Christ remained. I learned to respond to that call with the best pathway open to me at the time.

And  eventually I also discovered that throughout this long journey of loss, rediscovery, and reappropriation, that nothing at all was truly lost, that each pathway (no matter how far it took me or in whatever way it stayed with me or was left behind) carried me further towards authentic humanity. It is as though my life was composed of a number of major pieces (music, violin, theology, love of language, prayer, Jesus Christ, teaching, chronic illness, the desire to serve, the felt desire for religious life, etc) which could be combined in innumerable ways but the framework of the "puzzle picture" was the call to authentic humanity. At one point in my life violin dominated and controlled the way the puzzle pieces came together, at another teaching, at another apostolic religious life (with a view toward teaching!); theology became a pedal tone underlying everything when it wasn't the dominant focus or melody itself, and throughout the whole of my adult life chronic illness was either a dominant tone or a piece of everything, etc. Now, 50 years after I first entered religious life, though chronic illness remained a defining element, and though my life came to look nothing like I had pictured it through the decades, I recognize my deepest self in this eremitical call and see clearly how each of the central elements of all those various pictures is still present and has shaped my response to God and the call to be myself!!  God is faithful and calls us to ourselves no matter the apparent obstacles. All things work for good for those who love God.

Summary on Vocation versus vocational pathways:

Again, my answer is that no, we do not ever lose our most fundamental vocation. We can resist it, lose sight of it, even reject it, but nonetheless God continues to call us and this call is creative. If we are faithful to this call even as various pathways don't work out or are closed to us, God's will can and will still be done. But it is important to remember that God is primarily concerned with us as persons and not with abstract vocations.  Each of those possible pathways may have felt like they were also God's one and only will for us, but God's will is both deeper and beyond the conditioning circumstances that shape our lives. We cannot continue to focus on a particular pathway (a specific puzzle piece) while missing the deeper call --- though we can hold the pathway as a possibility which may open to us in the future as we pursue our deepest calling to authentic humanity. We can miss a pathway; we can be deprived of a pathway by circumstances (including mistakes made by the church); but the vocation is held by God beyond all historical circumstances and is something that can be fulfilled in history so long as we too are obedient (attentive) to it and faithful to the creative love/summons of God.

Today I can say God worked my whole life to produce the heart of a hermit. I was amazed to discover that within the past three years. Every twist and turn in my life has been important in the graced formation of this heart. But to be honest I have to say it is also the heart of a teacher and (perhaps) a professional violinist; it is the heart of a contemplative and an apostolic religious, a hospital chaplain, spiritual director, theologian, and so forth. Some of those pathways were closed to me, but the love of music, learning and teaching, theology, Scripture, prayer and life with and in Christ lived for the sake of God and others, are the puzzle pieces which combine today to create my own unique eremitical life.

I know this response was long, but your questions are significant. I hope it is helpful.

On Accepting Necessary Medical Assistance and Eremitical "Hiddenness"

 [[Dear Sister, Thank you for writing about chronic illness and the ways one might need to adjust or change their prayer because of it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone write about this before. It makes sense. I always just thought you (one) prayed as always when sick and then I got on my own case if I was unable to do that! It makes a huge difference when prayer is understood as God's active presence and our openness to that presence!! I have some other questions about what happens if you are disabled for some reason. If you need special assistance for a time because of your illness are you allowed to have people come into your hermitage? Are there any limitations on medical needs or assistance which apply because of a requirement that you remain hidden from people? How about for someone living as a hermit with private vows??]]

Thanks for your comments on my earlier posts. I think we need to do a better job educating folks about praying in various situations and developing a kind of repertoire of prayer forms and resources. Also we need to be sure folks understand that prayer is God's work within us and can certainly do that if we are ill or otherwise unable to follow our Rule or horarium. God is the supreme Consoler or Comforter so when we are ill if we allow God to be with us and rest in him what more could God will or we want?

Regarding special assistance in cases of medical need --- of course I am allowed to get what help I need so long, generally speaking, as my insurance will pay for it and my physicians/other clinicians order it. If it is medically necessary there is nothing in canon 603 or my own Rule which prevents this. Were my family located close by perhaps I would expect some assistance from them if and as they were capable of it. As it stands I would ask friends in my parish and from other venues to assist me as they could. Similarly, I would pay someone to come in to do necessary work if and as I could afford to do that. The point is that even (or especially) as a canonically professed hermit the Church would expect me to do what I need in order to heal well and to live as full a life as I am capable of. I remind you that hiddenness is NOT a canonical requirement of the eremitical life. It is an important but derivative quality describing a contemplative life lived in the silence of solitude and stricter (not absolute) separation from the world. This does not mean it is unimportant, but merely that the Church does not demand or require hiddenness as a primary characteristic; were it otherwise hiddenness would be listed in the canon (legal norm) defining the essential characteristics of the vocation.

Granted, I know I wouldn't like to be dependent on assistance to the level it might actually be necessary in situations of medial need, convalescence, etc, but morally I believe I am required to accept whatever degree of assistance is necessary in order to be well enough to live my vocation fully and fruitfully. For me this acceptance would be a bit of a cross I would need to embrace for the larger perspective of my own life and vocation itself. Thus, the acceptance of assistance by others is not just a medical requirement but an ethical one; to refuse it in the name of "hiddenness" is to place a relatively vague descriptive catechism term above the canonical requirements which define the legal and substantive contents of diocesan hermits' professions in the hands and name of the Church and have priority over pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

With that in mind it strikes me that it would be even less justifiable to make "hiddenness" (whatever this word actually means --- because it is never actually defined!!) as a reason for limiting necessary medical and social assistance for the non-canonical hermit living in the freedom of the lay state. This is not to suggest private vows are not significant, but it is to reiterate they do not create public rights and obligations which might be given precedence over one's rights and obligations as a lay person. (N.B. When a Rule is approved by the c 603 hermit's bishop and canonists one of the things looked at are places where the hermit is claiming or creating obligations which might be unhealthy or disedifying; such obligations would not, generally speaking, be allowed.) Moreover, when an unforeseen situation threatening a hermit's health arises, neither the hermit's delegate/Director nor her bishop would refrain from dispensing (mitigating or allowing the hermit to mitigate) at least on a temporary basis, whatever part of the Rule is necessary to allow genuine healing and appropriate medical care.

In situations which are equivocal and require discernment and discussion, it is the canonical framework which assures necessary discussions are had and appropriate discernment is reached. My own delegate assures I have someone with whom this can occur. To suggest (or be told by a privately dedicated (or vowed) hermit) that such a hermit might be "obligated" to forego the assistance and relationships needed to allow the same care/healing as a canonical hermit -- despite the fact that s/he has no public obligations beyond those binding any other lay person --- would be to suggest or be told something that has no basis in fact, law, or reason. Instead it represents an individualistic interpretation of a too-vague catechism term, which interpretation the Church would reject as contrary to canon and moral law. Of course, such an individual might decide to cut herself off from relationships, medical assistance, family ties, etc in the name of her own understanding of eremitical life, but this is not a matter of the Church obligating her in this way or accepting a public commitment which  might so obligate her in certain circumstances.

All of this points to another situation in which the assumption of public rights and obligations occurring with Baptism or beyond this with public profession and consecration is of critical importance and distinction from a private commitment, even when using vows. When, as noted in earlier posts, we speak of a stable state of life we are speaking of a life with stable structural, legal, relational and institutional elements. In light of this post, that can be expanded to include the fact that such stable states ensure that the life being lived in the name of God and the Church is lived according to divine, moral, and canon law. When questions arise as to which obligations have precedence, for example, stable states of life will ensure the capacity and obligation for adequate consultation and discernment. In point of fact, one central characteristic of a relatively non-stable eremitical life is an individualism (including the absence of canonical obligations beyond those of baptism) which therefore may not allow and does not sufficiently require adequate medical and pastoral consultation and discernment to ensure divine and moral laws are observed in a genuinely edifying way.

A point of clarification:

Please note, in what I wrote above about relatively unstable states of life I am not referring to lay life per se; again, lay life represents a stable state of life rooted in baptism characterized by a particular freedom marked by specific rights and obligations. I was specifically referring to instances of eremitical life lived in the lay state while claiming to be obliged to the requirements of consecrated eremitical life without ecclesial initiation into the grace or the support and institutional structures of this stable state of life.

To falsely claim to be bound, for example, to the "hiddenness" of consecrated eremitical life without also being obligated to the pastoral consultation or discernment inherent in the consecrated state, and to do so in a way which prevents one from getting adequate medical care and the social assistance genuinely consecrated hermits are allowed (or even obligated) to accept by way of mitigation or exception is to betray the stability of both the lay and consecrated states of life. One cannot pretend to be bound by (or graced in a way which allows one to be bound by!) the rights and obligations of the consecrated state unless one is bound by ALL of these, including the right and obligation to be obedient to the ministry of authority embraced, authorized, and exercised by legitimate superiors or the divine and moral law these individuals help serve in the consecrated hermit's life.

On My Own Decision to Pursue Consecration Under Canon 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you discerned whether to live your eremitical vocation as a lay hermit or as a canon 603 hermit didn't you? What made you decide to go for canon 603 or to not settle for lay eremitical life when that was looking like what you would need to do because of your diocese's hesitance to profess anyone under c 603? I know you say both vocations are valuable so I wondered why you chose to jump through the hoops it took to get canonical standing, especially given the long wait this entailed.]]

This is a great question (thanks for reading up in this blog; it shows in your question!). While I haven't talked about this for some time I have posted on it in indirect ways so I hope you'll look for those posts. It was natural for me to look to canon 603 profession and canonical standing as the way to establish one in an ecclesial vocation, not only because of my background in religious life, but because of my background in theology. I also had some experience of  non-canonical religious life which ostensibly used regional service roles as the means to governance but lacked any authoritative structures to deal with problems with community-wide implications. I saw several times where people without leadership (service) roles, but who were very much "power people" in their local communities and thus, in the community as a  whole, took advantage of situations to exploit or otherwise act unjustly toward those they disagreed with or perhaps didn't like.

These exploited or badly-treated persons had no canonical protections in such situations nor did they have any meaningful recourse to leadership or governance structures. There was an attractive but naïve idealism in this community, but idealism alone can't always deal with concrete situations; as a result there were some significant failures in justice. This was one of the first times I clearly saw that law could serve love -- particularly when idealism was inadequate to deal with human sinfulness and will-to-power. When the community shifted from a relatively neutral non-canonical to an anti-canonical stance things were exacerbated and my insight into the positive and complementary role of law made me consider the role and importance of canon law more than I had up until this point. Thus, when I began reading in canon law (1983) the New Code had just come out. I discovered both canons 603 and 604 on eremites/anchorites and consecrated virgins, as well as canon 605 which is addressed to bishops encouraging openness to new forms of consecrated life. Already a contemplative and still in community, I began thinking and reading about eremitical life then and it captured my imagination. A year or so later contacted my diocese for the first time about professing me as a hermit. Then began a long process of meeting with a Vicar in the Archdiocese of San Francisco who understood c 603 and then regular meetings for 5 years with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF who became the Vicar for Religious and Vocations director for the Diocese of Oakland.

Eventually (during these five years) the diocese decided it would profess no one under c 603 for the foreseeable future --- a shock to Sister Susan and to myself --- because neither of us were informed of the decision in a timely way. By the time we were both informed, I was established as a hermit and it suited me well. Whether in community, as a c 603 hermit, or as a lay hermit I knew I would continue living eremitical life. I remember telling my director that I wished the Church would recognize how the Holy Spirit was working in my life (structured according to c 603) but if she would or could not I would continue living as I was. And so I did. Lay eremitical life would have been fine, had it seemed God was calling me to that --- but I eventually decided I needed to approach Bp John Cummins again before he retired and try to get my situation "regularized". I had learned I personally needed the structure of canonical standing and profession to live eremitical life in the heart of the church and continued to be struck by what it meant to be part of an ecclesial vocation and all that meant. That whole process took some time (lost letters, lost files, misfiled missives) and John Cummins had left office before the Chancellor contacted me to apologize and put in a word with the new Vicars for Religious. It took 23 years from the time I first knocked on the chancery door (so to speak) to the day I was perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit in 2007.

So why go through all the hassle? Why not live as a lay hermit? I was very clear about how God was working in my life with a call to eremitical life and that clarity deepened over the years. It was especially clear given my celibate experience, flourishing in silence and solitude, and what I experienced as a nuptial relationship with Christ. Moreover, I knew that if this vocation could function as a context for growth and real freedom for me it might well do that for others --- but only if dioceses were not afraid to use the canon and if they could see that eremitical life was a true vocation. You see, the world in which we live is tremendously individualistic, consumerist, and marked by isolation. Eremitical life is a paradoxical expression of life in prophetic witness against these things --- but the demands on dioceses for determining the distinction between these is significant. Yet, without its specifically ecclesial context this prophetic quality of authentic eremitical life cannot, it seems to me, be made as clear  as the hermit needs to do.

The freedom of the hermit requires a framework which establishes this both in the church and vis-a-vis society and the larger world. Canon 603 provides such a context. It represents a protective and challenging structure which defines eremitical life and the freedom thereof in contrast to a dehumanizing individualism, and contra the isolation and consumerism of so much contemporary life. Consecration under c 603 gives  one permission to explore the freedom of the Gospel lived in and towards the silence of solitude in the very heart of the church. This is a very great gift to the hermit and to the world. I felt called to live this this gift of God and its paradoxical witness not only so others could see what the Holy Spirit was doing in the church generally with this vocation, but in my own life as well.

Eremitical life is salvific for some of us. It has been salvific for me --- especially in its power to transform various forms and degrees of isolation into eremitical solitude. I believe others could benefit from this, both from the example of what canonical hermits live and from my own story. Some very few might find vocations to eremitical life while others might see a prophetic witness to the power of the Gospel in their own state of life. I don't live eremitical life because I wanted to do this or because it validates isolation or some misguided individualism. I did not choose canonical standing because I like canon law (though I think canon 603 is a thing of real beauty). I do it because via eremitical life God has been at work redeeming and transfiguring my life and I must honor and witness to that --- and I must do that in a way which says law serves love, reasonable structure protects real freedom, and living all of this in the heart of the Church through her People and institutions (including canon law, legitimate superiors, etc) can give witness and serve as challenging to the Church as well. Not everyone has my background or needs canon law to do all of this. I did and do; for this reason I chose to jump through all the hoops associated with becoming a consecrated Catholic Hermit, that is, a canon 603 hermit who lives an ecclesial eremitical life in the heart, name, and on behalf of the Church.

On Inner Work and the Importance of Having Healing Well in Hand Prior to Profession

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I wondered about the inner work you refer to having undertaken during the past 2+ years. . . . Does every hermit do this kind of thing? Did you need to do this because of difficulties you were having with your vocation?  .  . . I don't mean to pry but if a person needs to undertake this kind of work should their diocese profess them? . . . Please, I really don't mean to offend but you also write that candidates for profession to your life should have their healing pretty much in hand before profession. Do you still believe that?]]

Thanks for your questions. I understand where you are coming from and take no offense so please don't be concerned. First, I continue to believe that candidates for profession under canon 603 should have their own personal healing well in hand before approaching a diocese to petition for admission to profession and consecration. One must be relatively whole if one is to adequately discern or to commit to such a call --- perhaps even more than one needs to be in other more usual life contexts and commitments. Secondly, the inner work I have referred to over the past couple of years can be beneficial to anyone seeking to grow more fully into the persons they are called to be but who, over the years of their lives have been wounded in ways which may prevent a full, even exhaustive, response to God's call and presence. I don't know anyone who has not experienced some, even some very significant trauma or situations which wound personally and can prevent or at least hamper this kind of openness and response or "obedience." In fact, the inner work I have been referring to is geared to assisting every person to respond to God's presence and achieve an integrity of personhood which otherwise might remain merely potential.

At the same time I undertook this work when it became clear that there was significant essentially unhealed trauma I had grown up with and which needed to be addressed. I did so understanding that there was some risk this work might actually lead to the conclusion I was not really called by God to this vocation, but also, on the other hand, I  appreciated that it was this very eremitical vocation that provided the time, motivation, and resources to do this work; more importantly, I think, it provided the personal, moral, and even the legal (canonical) obligation to do so as one publicly vowed to obedience and desiring to live the depth of the silence of solitude as well as "the privilege of love" identified as the core of Camaldolese life. Paradoxically then, I realized I was willing to risk discovering this was not my vocation precisely because I was in touch with the profound call of this vocation to personal wholeness and integrity. And over the past couple of years through this work I have only been confirmed in my conviction that it is in the silence of solitude that God calls me to an abundance of life I could not have imagined. So, while this work does not radically change my position on hermits having personal healing well in hand before petitioning for admission to profession and consecration it does nuance my position.

One of the truths hermits sometimes recognize in rare cases is that they have been made ready for embracing a vocation to the silence of solitude for a very long time. This is not merely a matter of temperament but of formation by the combination of life circumstances and the grace of God.  I came to see clearly that God accompanied me throughout my life, that (he) helped me understand and, in fact, be very sensitive to the difference between isolation and solitude from the time I was very small, that (he) gifted me in profound ways that actually suited me to a life of eremitical solitude as much as these gifts might have suited me to a life of apostolic activity in the academy or elsewhere. Tom Merton once wrote (perhaps tongue in cheek) that "hermits are made by difficult mothers"; Carl Jung once wrote that sometimes extraordinary and difficult circumstances can lead to a maturity which is surprising in someone who is so young. Analogously, extraordinary circumstances can suit one to eremitical life --- though it has to be emphasized these can also wound the person in ways which make her incapable of responding to such a call or even be unsuited to it. Since the externals of either case (i.e., life in solitude) can look similar or even identical it requires careful discernment --- and the assistance of those with experience in formation, etc., to determine the true character of the vocation with which one is dealing.

The discernment needed in such cases is clearly significant, personally demanding --- and very rewarding. What absolutely must be evident to those involved in this process if they are to determine the hermit really is called by God to this vocation is that the person is genuinely embracing a call to human wholeness, has experienced the redemptive love of God in eremitical solitude in a significant way, and are compelled by personal integrity and faith to follow the work to its conclusion. I have noted this before here, but now I can be clear about the source of my conviction. With eremitical life specifically, coming to human wholeness involves a call to do this in "the silence of solitude". If one cannot do this or if one's growing wholeness and holiness makes one less able to remain peacefully in their hermitage, then one may need to leave eremitical life. If, however, this environment of eremitical solitude is clearly redemptive and the healing or sanctification one experiences as a hermit lead even more profoundly into the life of the hermitage, one's vocation will be confirmed.

But what if one is not (or is no longer) called to eremitical life? I believe that if one is not suited to eremitical solitude, living in this way will not have the same salvific character. Further, one may be unlikely to see the work required for healing to be a matter one must personally embrace because it is morally required by this vocation and one may therefore eschew it.  In such cases, one will also have to submerge or even deny parts of themselves which are absolutely essential for personal wholeness and a life of responsive or obedient love.

More, as one undertakes the work required and experiences the healing it can effect in and of itself (that is, no matter the context), one is increasingly unlikely to be able to return to a physical solitude that may have been more mute isolation or escapism than what canon 603 describes as or allows to be called the silence of solitude. Eremitical life would simply not (or no longer) be healthy for one or what one could tolerate. Growing wholeness and fullness of life developing from the work undertaken will lead one to be increasingly unable to embrace the constraints of eremitical life. A more positive way of saying this is to note it will not represent the realm of freedom one really needs to be fully themselves, fully human. One will certainly not be able to truly know eremitism as a gift of God with which God gifts one either for one's own abundant life or for the sake of the Church and world.

Regarding your first questions, every responsible hermit works regularly with a spiritual director and beyond this, I have to trust that every publicly professed hermit will undertake the work or therapy or whatever it takes to fully respond to the vocation with which they have been entrusted once it becomes clear such work is called for. Certainly canonical hermits, hermits who have thus accepted the obligations and rights associated with eremitical life lived in the name of the Church, will generally be unable to eschew the necessary personal and inner work needed to embrace the life God summons them to within the hermitage or as someone with an ecclesial vocation. As I have noted before, I have been very fortunate in having a director who is specially trained in PRH and who was able to offer me the unique accompaniment needed to work through significant unhealed trauma even as she was able to keep her finger on the pulse of my vocation and assist in my ongoing formation. I do believe, however, that if one knows this kind of work is needed she should undertake it before admission to profession; it is entirely imprudent to forego it because of the effect healing has on the whole person.

While your question about this is a good and logical or understandable one, I was not having difficulties with my vocation. In truth, it was the fact that I was doing well in it which, at least in part, led me to realize the need for this work and gave me the courage to undertake it, risky though it might be to that same vocation. As hermits  find in the silence of solitude, one must face oneself squarely in light of the love of God. A solitary life of prayer will uncover more and more any need for healing or forgiveness.

As my director and I continue the work and deep healing God wills for me, and as I come to know and embrace my whole self even more completely in light of this work, I have experienced an even greater sense of eremitical call specifically as a diocesan hermit embedded in a parish community; with this my excitement regarding canon 603 and its implementation in the Church has grown significantly. I wish I had undertaken this work before profession (or at least known clearly it was still needed) as is prudent and ordinarily necessary, but I am grateful to God my very vocation made it possible as well as necessary that I undertake it now and that it in turn has led to the reaffirmation of an ecclesial call to the silence of solitude.