Once Again, on the Importance of Charism, Discernment and Formation of C 603 Vocations

Despite the circus-like hoopla over the "coming out party" and revelation of so-called "diocesan hermit" Cole Matson's transgendered status, several really central elements of the story, and thus too, of the vocation which is supposed to be at the heart of the matter, are getting lost in the shouting. The pious justificatory spin and congratulatory backslapping over Matson's "heroic faith" and the apparent coup he and Bishop Stowe have accomplished in the name of "justice" in the church have distracted almost everyone from the main issue in their use of canon 603.

Canon 603 describes a rare and significant vocation that is a gift of God to the church. It deserves better! Not least, it deserves to be represented by someone who has, over long preparatory years, truly discerned such a vocation as their God-given life calling. Similarly, it deserves to be supervised by a bishop who understands and regards such a calling at least sufficiently not to betray and distort it by allowing the canon defining and governing it to be used as a legal loophole to accomplish an agenda the church considers illegitimate. Even were the cause a righteous one, c 603, and the full-time life vocation it defines and governs should not be betrayed in the egregious way Cole Matson and Bishop Stowe have admitted to doing in the Lexington situation. This is not the way we treat divine gifts.

In my life, I identify what c 603 calls, the silence of solitude as the charism of solitary eremitical life. This is so because first of all, I identify solitude with more than physical aloneness (I see it as a "place" of quiet and wholeness where the noise of human woundedness, struggle, and pain have come to rest in the deepest truth of the life, love, and peace of God). It is also so because I identify silence less with a still-essential external silence and more with hesychia or stillness that results when one's life is rightly ordered in terms of one's relationships with God, self, and others; for these reasons, the silence of solitude represents the completion and fullness of life in relationship that occurs when God completes one and she exists in communion with God and God's creation (including one's own deepest and truest self).  This completion and fullness is a gift of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the authentically eremitical life of prayer, stricter separation from the world, silence, and solitude. The word charism reflects this gift quality (gifts = charisma) and provides a unique form of community (covenant) that is absolutely foundational for other more common forms of community.

Generally, as most will know, a religious congregation's charism refers to a unique gift quality their life and ministry represent for both Church and world; this charism is given to the institute as the Holy Spirit acts in conjunction with human beings to meet significant contemporary needs.  In c 603 life, both charism and ministry are defined in terms of being the person that is created in and comes to personify or embody the silence of solitude. You see, when I think of eremitical life and especially that under c 603, assiduous prayer and penance are not unique to it, nor is stricter separation from the world. The Evangelical Counsels are not unique to it either, although all of these elements are gifts of God to the hermit and others in the church. The one central element of c 603 which, it seems to me, orders all other elements towards significant contemporary needs is the silence of solitude.  Always more than the sum of its parts, the silence of solitude takes up all of the other elements of the eremitical life and the hermit herself and transforms these into a new creation who (that) can effectively proclaim the Gospel to every person. 

I see the silence of solitude as a countercultural reality that speaks not only to Religious but to anyone seeking reassurance that the isolation of alienation that so marks and mars our world can be borne creatively and transfigured and transformed in the process.  Eremitical solitude is antithetical to alienation and isolation; it is relational through and through. The silence belonging to this solitude is neither the part-time "peace and quiet" of the dilettante "hermit", nor is it the anguished cry of emptiness of the misanthrope, but a distinct song that rejoices in God's love as that love-in-act completes us as human beings and we come to live in union with God and the whole of God's creation. Eremitical life teaches us that the term "silence of solitude" refers not just to the context in which one lives and grows in this life, but to the human person made whole and holy through the power of the Holy Spirit therein. It refers to what occurs when we are healed of the wounds that cause us to cry out in anguish or withdraw in fear and exhaustion from the struggle to live fully. It is the human being as language event brought to her most perfect and powerful fulfillment in God. All of this belongs to the promise c 603 embodies when its vocation is carefully discerned and faithfully lived. 

Think what it is like to sit quietly with a friend, without strain or competition or the need to prove oneself or be anyone other than the person we are while resting in the presence of that other. That moment of selfhood achieved while at rest in the life and presence of a friend (and, in part made possible by that presence) is one of the silence of solitude. We all recognize such a moment as one in which alienation is overcome, the noisy striving of everyday life is quieted, and the human potential and need for profound relationship is, for the moment, realized. When the hermit rests in and enjoys the company of God in a similar way, when, that is, she becomes God's covenant partner and allows God to be hers in all she is and does, something similar but even greater and more definitive occurs. It is this that I believe c 603 recognizes as the silence of solitude; moreover, it is something every person yearns for and hermits witness to with their lives. Thus, I identify the silence of solitude as the context, goal, and charism of the eremitical life.

Does the fact that my life is charismatic and has a specific charism make a difference for me? Yes, absolutely.  For instance, because I have a sense of the charism of my vocation it means recognizing that my entire life is lived for others even in the absence of active ministry and therefore, that the call to wholeness and holiness in silence and solitude can never be allowed to become or remain a selfish or me-centered reality. It means recognizing and committing to living this vocation well because, as Thomas Merton once said, this life "makes certain claims about nature and grace"; to live it badly is to fail to allow it to witness to the truth of such claims, namely, that whoever we are and in whatever situation or condition, our God delights in and desires to complete us and bring us to fullness of life with and in God himself. 

In the midst of the present situation involving the dishonest use of canon 603, it also means insisting that dioceses and candidates understand this charism so that vocations to c 603 life are perceived as significant and needed vocations, and discernment and formation processes (both initial and ongoing) are undertaken carefully with equally significant rigor. Hermits are those who are called by God in our original and often pervasive brokenness to witness to the truth that only God completes us, only God makes us who we are called to be, only God can transfigure and make us whole in and as what c 603 calls the silence of solitude.

When we forget the charism of this vocation (or any other vocation for that matter), we open the door to professing and consecrating those who can neither live nor witness to others as a c 603 hermit is called to do. I have been convinced for some time that it is in neglecting the charism of this vocation (that is, in forgetting that this vocation has a charism and is essentially charismatic) that we open the door to fraudulent hermits and stopgap vocations that are disedifying, scandalous, and even sacrilegious. Once dioceses identify and commit to honoring the charism of this vocation, they will have a better way of faithfully discerning and aiding in the formation of authentic vocations to eremitical life under c 603. Understanding the gift quality of any vocation helps one to live it well and to commit to growing in this ability for the whole of one's life.

All that said, it is particularly difficult to have this charism and this vocation being hijacked and distorted as a means to notoriety in the service of an ulterior motive! Almost nothing I can think of could betray this vocation more vividly or significantly. 

On What is Tried and True in Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, what would it mean for someone to refuse to become a consecrated hermit under c 603 because it "is not  tried and true over the years and centuries"? . . . What needs to be "proven"? In the blog piece I read this seems to be built on the idea that because it is a canonical form of life it doesn't allow for sufficient freedom?]]

Thanks for your questions! I have already written several times recently about the freedom canon 603 creates or helps empower.  But, "What is "tried and true"? It's a very significant and complex question. This is so because hermits as a whole don't have the best pedigree in terms of what is "tried and true". There is often no agreement on the purpose of the life, the motivations necessary, much less the central characteristics of such a life or what its goal is. Life lived in caves, on pillars, locked away from all contact --- sometimes from childhood, sometimes peripatetic and never pausing in roaming, lauras (colonies) of hermits, semi-eremitic communities, and solitary hermits --- there is really no end to the variation or number of possibilities. If someone were to fill in the following, "The tried and true way to be a hermit is ____", the responses would be all over the map.

The definition of the term hermit can be drawn any number of different ways, some healthy, some not, some edifying, many more disedifying. Some have been drawn from portraits of rugged, even heroic individualism, others from notions of authentic humanity and the social nature of the human being. Some have been gentle, creative, and ecologically sensitive human beings; others might well have been raised by hyenas for all their hermit lives reveal. Some are misanthropic, selfish, or embittered and motivated only by a desire for isolation and diminishment; others are drawn from various examples of Desert life marked by their generosity and compassion, as well as their faith and impulses to prophetic integrity.

Yes, there are hermit saints and religious founders like Benedict, Francis, Bruno, and many others who spent at least some time as hermits, but nonetheless, these, along with contemporary hermits like Thomas Merton are generally seen as exceptions in what today is mainly seen as 1) eccentric, 2) anachronistic, and 3) irrelevant. The idea that eremitical life could be a way of proclaiming the Gospel to contemporary persons is, understandably, one that is remote at best ---and that is also true even for bishops and chancery staff entrusted with implementing Canon 603 in wise ways. When speaking of what is tried and true in eremitical life we actually have to pare away a lot of  what we know about hermits, anchorites and solitaries through the centuries because much and maybe even most of what went by the name "hermit" (or cognates.) was neither edifying (it did not inspire or build up the Body of Christ) nor worthy of being identified with the Gospel of Christ.

The Church's Response to this Varied Phenomenon:

All of this is one reason the Church has never recognized the eremitical vocation on a universal level. The absence of a universal codified set of canons is another. During the centuries bishops in individual dioceses, especially in the Middle ages did implement measures to allow and protect anchorites, preaching by hermits, and so forth in local churches. They did so cautiously and asserted limits -- not only because they valued eremitical life but because so much that is disedifying or irrelevant is connected to the phenomenon we know as eremitism. Apart from the Desert Fathers and Mothers, who lived their lives as a prophetic protest against the worldliness of the post-Constantinian Church, or in connection with religious orders, the really memorable examples of eremitism, the people folks could point to as paradigmatic were hardly ever more than examples of eccentricity and misanthropy --- and if they were more or other than this no one knew it unless there was heroic sanctity which became known, for instance.

 In the 20 C. several different examples of eremitical life as an authentic vocation came to the attention of the Church Fathers. Of course there was Thomas Merton who was not at first permitted to live as a hermit, had to consider transferring to the Camaldolese, found himself blocked in this too -- though, in order to keep Merton, his Trappist community offered alternatives and provided helpful accommodations to help meet his need for greater solitude. There is no doubt the church as a whole was, or at least became, aware of this. Prior to Vatican II and over a period of time, a dozen Monks in solemn vows left various communities or houses who had no option for eremitical life in their proper law. Their communities did and could not accommodate their discerned calls and made secularization necessary.

These former monks, whether in their resulting lay or clerical states of life, became hermits and came under the protection of Bishop Remi de Roo. They established a laura in British Columbia. Eventually, as a result of his first hand experience with these hermits, Bishop de Roo made an intervention at Vatican II praising eremitical life and seeking to have it become a recognized form of consecrated life (a "state of perfection"). Vatican II did nothing directly but they ordered the renewal of the Code of Canon Law. The revised code was published in October 1983. It recognized for the first time in universal law solitary eremitical life in Canon 603 and provided a means for establishing solitary hermits in the consecrated state.

 With canon 603 we have to argue that finally the Universal Church has found a way to define and recognize solitary eremitical vocations and ensure that the very best of eremitical tradition is lived today by those the church consecrates. She recognizes and for the first time has created a way for individuals who are not part of an institute of consecrated life (or not part of an institute allowing for eremitical life) to live this vocation as consecrated persons with the rights, obligations, and the grace appropriate to such a vocation. That is an epic shift in matters and people recognize that. In my own lived experience this provides an important and better way of living eremitical life than on my own as a lay hermit, for instance, and as I have written many times here, some just recently, one which ensures the freedom appropriate to authentic eremitical life meant to witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It raises to the consecrated state of life that which is "tried and true" in such a life.

Even those critical of canon 603 don't appear to dispute this. Thus, I will also note that in the post you referred to (Back in the Saddle) even the author there now in a new diocese and continuing her newest blog, was still (or again) clearly -- albeit briefly -- considering seeking consecration under canon 603.  I think it is striking that she does this after many blog posts and videos condemning c 603 (and, some hermits professed accordingly) and suggests once again that it might just be the will of God for her. Equally striking is the way she refers to its central elements (the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, lived for the salvation of the world, etc) as important in defining her life. I think that suggests that she, though a consistent critic of c 603, also understands it as an important and positive change in Church law and praxis worthy of modeling one's life on. At the very least it seems to suggest she really believes the canon, as noted above, makes normative essential ("tried and true") elements of eremitical life. In this I agree with her: canon 603 is a model for eremitical life in the Church whether for hermits in the lay or clerical states, or those publicly professed and consecrated under the canon.

What is "Tried and True"?

 Solitary hermits can choose to be professed/consecrated under c 603 or live eremitical life in the lay or ordained states. (Again, there are also hermits in canonical communities not using c 603 but others.) Whichever state the person feels called to, whatever state of life the person chooses, what is "tried and true" (or what are characteristics of the "tried and true") are the elements listed as essential in the canon, namely: the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, a life commitment to the evangelical counsels and a self-composed Rule all lived under the supervision of someone capable of doing this. This last may be ongoing spiritual direction or regular work with one's pastor, for instance; it will also include active participation in the life of the Church (sacraments, liturgy, etc.). For those who are consecrated hermits supervision is a canonical process and involves the bishop and his delegate. The Church has recognized that these are necessary elements in living a healthy eremitical life that is more than a self-centered withdrawal from society.

What c 603 was crafted to assure is the vocational quality of the life as well as its ecclesiality. What I mean by this is that the if the call to be a  hermit is to be lived as a vocation the Church recognizes and commissions one to live in her name, this call will be discerned by more than the hermit herself. Given the high incidence of eccentric lives of escapism and isolation through the centuries, and numerous forms of anti-social life today (e.g. cocooning) having a discernment process in which the Church participates along with the would-be hermit is also something that has proven necessary. The second element, ecclesiality, is an extension of this. Over the years I have written about several other dimensions of ecclesiality.

First the eremitical vocation I am discussing, like other ecclesial vocations, belongs to the Church, not the individual; it is mediated by the Church and entrusted to the individuals she consecrates to live this in her name. For this reason, although there are differences in the way a hermit exercises her membership in the Body of Christ, this is overseen by those directly serving the Church and the vocation, viz, bishops, delegates, Vicars for Religious or for Consecrated Life, and (more indirectly) pastors. The way and frequency with which the hermit participates in community, Sacraments, liturgy, and so forth are all discerned and supervised. And all of this is because the Church allows the faithful to look at the eremitical vocation with genuine expectations that hermits will be edifying, that they will proclaim the gospel with their lives, that the Church will work to ensure all of this (and herself be edified by it) even when the hermit's life is clearly prophetic as were the lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers!

These things are what is "tried and true" in regard to eremitical life and now, the central elements of canon 603 codifies these in universal law. It took the Church almost 2000 years to do so but canon 603 evolved from a long history of lives which were sometimes significantly edifying and all-too-often extravagantly disedifying. Moreover, she did this during a period of heightened individualism, selfishness, and personal isolation from others. This is important because canon 603 distinguishes what the Church recognizes and honors as solitary eremitical life from so much of what passes for normal in contemporary society.

So, while canon 603 is relatively new (1983), it is a summary of what the Church recognizes as essential if an eremitical life is authentic and avoids the mistakes of history; it will be a life of stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels, a Rule of Life rooted in the hermit's lived experience and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Finally, it is a life which is directed by those competent to do so and is supervised (for those canonically consecrated) by the Church herself because this vocation has, finally, been understood to "belong" to the church and to be both too vital,  fragile, and precious to be lost.

Once Again on the Importance of Canonical Standing in Nurturing and Supporting the Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister, I wondered if one of the reasons you support canonical standing for hermits has to do with the difficulty and importance of people understanding that solitude is more about communion or community than it is about isolation? What I was thinking was that it takes people to discern whether one is living an isolated life or one of eremitical solitude and the individual might not even know the difference. I also wondered if countering stereotypes of hermits is part of this same need for canonical standing or Church approval. Is this the reason the Church requires the hermit to jump through so many "hoops" to be professed canonically? I think you have written about this some. Lastly, I wondered if your own distinction between isolation and solitude as a "unique form of community" is rooted in your own experience of isolation or of growing to maturity in eremitical solitude? I don't think you have said much about this.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are excellent and it is very cool to hear you were wondering about this! I think I have written about all of these things except perhaps my own experience with/of isolation; I know I did some writing about the importance of canonical standing in On Hermit Ministry and the Call to Become God's Own Prayer and there may be another recent article that did the same. You might check under the label "solitude vs isolation" to see some of the ways I have approached this topic, especially as the place of the Church's discernment is revealed; the same is true of the label "eremitism as ecclesial" (or variations of this). One clarification, I do think canonical standing is important for hermits who live their vocations in the name of the Church, and I believe that strictly speaking, eremitical life is a gift of God to the Church and World which needs to be governed and supervised --- not always easy with such a prophetic vocation, but necessary nonetheless. At the same time I believe that many more than these relative few (consecrated/canonical hermits) are called instead to be lay hermits and to live eremitical life with the aid of spiritual directors and the support of their parishes; I also believe that the Church and world can and should benefit significantly from these lay eremitical lives --- no less than they do from the lives of consecrated hermits.

Difficulties in Discerning the Difference between Isolated Persons and Hermits:

That said, I do agree that there can be a significant difficulty in discerning the difference between an isolated person and one who has been embraced by and herself embraced eremitical solitude. (Remember that Merton writes poignantly about the necessity of solitude herself opening the door to the one who would be a hermit!) It requires a real knowledge of the person's heart and her commitment to and relationship with Life, Truth, and Love,  not merely a sense of the external silence and physical solitude of the person's life. I also agree that the process of discernment associated with the relatively long journey toward eremitical profession and consecration (always public or canonical in nature!) is a central way the Church lays bare and resolves this difficult question on a case-by-case basis. But the general difficulty remains and is evident even in newsletters, etc., which are meant to support and nurture eremitical vocations per se. One of the reasons I am not particularly enthusiastic about the self-identification so prevalent in forums like that of Raven's Bread (a newsletter for hermits, solitaries, and others who love solitude), for instance. is because just about anyone can call themselves a hermit and never feel a need to draw important distinctions regarding motivation, personal woundedness vs relative wholeness, historical and ecclesial understandings of the vocation, or to attend much to the tradition of eremitical life.

In today's excessively individualistic society everything from  an intolerant or self-indulgent cocooning to agoraphobia and misanthropy can be subsumed under the rubric "eremitism" in order to attempt to validate expressions of selfishness and woundedness while escaping the need for responsibility to Church and world in regard to a vocation which is meant for the edification of others via a unique proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This tendency to re-brand any number of social deficiencies and "disorders" as "eremitism" because solitude is defined only in terms of physical aloneness goes hand in hand with the tendency to rebrand or redefine license as authentic freedom. But eremitical solitude is only partly about physical solitude; at its heart it is about communion -- communion with God, with oneself, and with all others, communion which vividly defines the nature of the human being as a covenantal reality and human freedom as the counterpart of divine sovereignty.

In any case, just because someone says, "I am a hermit" in today's world does not mean they are one --- at least not as the Church understands the term; you are exactly right in pointing to the need for discernment in this. Even more important than the distinction between solitude and isolation in the need for canonical standing is the way in which this distinction is achieved and the reality it witnesses to in the authentic hermit: namely through her experience of the love of God in Christ which heals and transforms isolation into solitude. Because the canonical hermit is very specifically called and commissioned to live a solitude which vividly and consciously proclaims the life and love of God, the mutual discernment of the canonical process is necessary and helpful for all eremitical vocations. This is so because such a vocation results in wholeness, holiness, and a freedom expressed in compassionate self-gift rather than an isolation associated with personal woundedness, lack of freedom, a lack of generosity, and the incapacity for compassion or sacrifice. Distinguishing between these dimensions (solitude vs isolation, healthy withdrawal vs unhealthy withdrawal) in oneself is difficult; they can co-exist, especially in the beginning of an eremitical life when so much is ambiguous and still needs to be sorted out, integrated, or formed.

Fooling Ourselves and Misleading Others: The Importance of Mutual Discernment

Moreover, apart from this, our ability to fool ourselves and justify isolation --- especially by applying a label like "hermit" to validate this, by uncritically comparing ourselves to "hermits" of different centuries with different (and sometimes less valid) or actually unhealthy sensibilities and spiritualities, or (when unhealthy withdrawal or selfish isolation are met with skepticism or concern) by concluding, for instance, that we are simply misunderstood by "the world" which we believe we are somehow superior to spiritually or otherwise --- is simply too easy to do. But in these situations the so-called "hermit" will never witness adequately to the power of the love of God which unites her with all God loves; she will never be able to proclaim the Gospel in the unique way a hermit called to human wholeness and holiness will.

It takes others to assess and assist the hermit in assessing the real nature of her physical solitude, her deep motivations, her understanding of the nature of the vocation itself, the place of her relationship with God in Christ and others, and her own wholeness and holiness, if they are to truly discern the presence of an eremitical vocation. This has always been true in the church but it is much more urgent since canon 603 and the possibility of dioceses accepting hermit candidates without long formation in religious and/or monastic life.  Further, because of the individualism of our society, eremitism looks like many other things today  but at its heart it is generously (sacrificially) countercultural. Thus, because it is lived for others it is not a facile rejection of the world outside the hermitage nor an expression of spiritualities which falsely hypostasize and demonize "the world". (See posts re Thomas Merton's treatment of the notion of "the world" for explanations of this.)  Countering this false and destructive approach to the world around us and other stereotypes and misconceptions is certainly a part of the importance of canonical standing and the sometimes-lengthy discernment those seeking profession require.

After all, how can a church be expected to profess individuals to a genuinely compassionate and generous eremitical life without making sure the distinction between isolation and eremitical solitude is something candidates for profession and consecration have come to understand on the basis of long-experience, prayer, and even struggle to love effectively while embracing the life of a hermit? I sincerely believe the "hoops" we often refer to having candidates jump through are not usually onerous and are completely reasonable as the Church attempts to adequately embrace and celebrate the gift which God has given her in the midst of a world so often marked and marred by individualism and license. This is especially true given the uniqueness of each vocation and the way each candidate serves to educate the Church on the way the Holy Spirit brings individuals to an authentic eremitical vocation.

My Own Experience of the Distinction Between Isolation and Eremitical Solitude:

Your question about my own experience of isolation and growing to maturity in solitude is very perceptive. I insist that solitude is a unique experience of community partly because I have experienced the unhealthiness or destructiveness of isolation (physical, emotional, etc.) and its antithesis in the healing character of solitude,  partly because psychology and theology stress the importance of human relatedness (theology stresses this is our very nature), and partly because my own growth in solitary eremitical life (including the inner work I have undertaken over the past couple of years with my director) have each underscored this in its own complementary way.

Taking all these things together I would say I have been exploring the distinction between isolation and solitude for the whole of my life; I began long before I began doing so in a conscious way by focusing on eremitical solitude as a result of the publication of canon 603 in 1983. A number of factors made this necessary, not least significant childhood experiences of isolation and the effect of medically and surgically intractable epilepsy from the age of @ 19.  Similarly, the really positive influences in my life have underscored the communal nature of solitude along with the solitary pole of all community; that has been especially true with violin and orchestral playing, but also with academic work in Theology, my experience of community in religious life, work with physicians and others, and the gift of friendships, parish relationships, etc.

Without the deep and extensively-rooted sense that solitude represents the redemption of isolation, or the profound experience of being communal at our core, I do not know how I could have made sense of eremitical life or embraced it as a divine vocation. Thomas Merton's Contemplation in a World of Action captured my imagination but it did so because it spoke to and built on my life-experience of isolation vs. solitude. Without the experience of having the whole of my life being called to this particular form of self-gift, or the sense of the significance such a life holds where even many discrete gifts and talents are relinquished in order to witness to the way God alone creates, calls, and completes us as covenant partners in a relationship foundational for authentic human being, I could only have rejected eremitical life as the epitome of an unhealthy and inhuman withdrawal. For a host of reasons through the whole of my life I have been uniquely sensitized to isolation and marked with a hunger for genuine solitude. The inner work I have undertaken as part of spiritual direction is a commitment to being made more and more whole and holy in this kind of deeply relational or communal solitude.

By the way, in my emphasis on the ecclesial nature of this vocation this same dynamic is a defining element. While it is true that I often speak of ecclesial vocations in terms of ecclesial rights, obligations, and stable and governing structures, the communal nature of every such vocation is at the heart of the term "ecclesial". Ecclesial vocations represent vocations summoned forth by God from the "called ones" constituting the ecclesia. We say canonical hermits live eremitical life in the name of the Church and by that we mean such hermits are specifically authorized to live these vocations in the power and as an instance of the presence of the ecclesia. In other words, all such vocations are commissioned by the Church; they are nourished by, embraced on behalf of that community and missioned by and for that same community as well as those outside it; finally they are lived in a way which edifies (builds up) the faith community/ecclesia. While it does happen, it is hard for me to conceive how someone claiming to be called by God to be a canonical hermit could  honestly accept consecration to this ecclesial vocation if she failed to appreciate the communal dimension of her solitude and was committed to an individualistic isolation instead of eremitical solitude.

Followup Question: Ancient and Contemporary Hermits, Ancient and Contemporary Asceticism

[[Dear Sister, in the history of hermit life isn't it true that hermits went out into the wilds without ways to support themselves and often had to live barebones, subsistence lives? Are hermits today not allowed to do this? I am asking because you have criticized the living arrangements of a lay hermit who seems to have taken on a project much like ancient hermits might have done and had no one to assist her. I think of some of these hermits as heroes and find their motivation completely inspiring, especially if they felt drawn into the desert by the Holy Spirit and were faithful to that call. So what is the difference between the situation you wrote about recently and these more ancient vocations? Isn't this kind of asceticism acceptable any longer?]]

Thanks for your questions and your very good points. First, let me say I generally agree with you about the ancient hermits you refer to. That is especially true if we are talking about folks like the Desert Mothers and Fathers from @ the 3rd-4th Centuries, the original Carthusians, the Camaldolese, etc. All of these hermits lived eremitical lives of serious asceticism and poverty. The deserts they entered required they make do with what they had at hand and that they live their faith commitments in and through such circumstances. Today the Carthusians continue to live similar lives --- though ordinarily in established Charterhouses with the basic means for healthy lives given to God alone. While people reading the stories of these hermits today might not understand what motivated or motivates them, I think most would find the accounts of their lives and foundations to be powerful witnesses to being driven by something greater than ordinary life seems to provide. One may not understand what moved these hermits but I think most would admire their courage and persistence.

What moves me most when I read or read about these ancient and contemporary hermits is that the hardships they lived, the asceticism they undertook all fade into the background in light of the reasons they undertook these things and their accounts of what they found in their quests. Specifically, the circumstances in which they found themselves did not detract from their eremitical lives, nor were they the focus of these lives; they were a part of the soil in which these lives were fruitful. As a result these hermits (or those who author the accounts we have of their lives) write not primarily about the difficult, even miserable conditions in which they found themselves but about the God who held them securely in spite of these conditions and the struggles they required. More, they do so in ways which are coherent and compelling. In other words, they lived lives faithful to their sense of God's call; they prayed assiduously and worked and grew in their gratefulness to God. They assisted one another, were faithful to a call to solitude and, when a situation was truly unlivable or manifestly unhealthy, they moved on and lived their call elsewhere. So, while asceticism was essential and sometimes simply unavoidable anyway it was the eremitical or "desert life" itself in which one is fulfilled in God which was the focus of their efforts; it is this redemptive content that is the compelling and clear center of their witness --- their living, writing, apothegms, and the accounts of those who write about these hermits.

The questions I had been asked earlier focused on the role of the diocese in allowing a diocesan (solitary consecrated Catholic) hermit to live in uninhabitable, and even harmful situations or circumstances. What I tried to stress was that a diocese will allow a hermit she has publicly professed to purchase and remodel a house in order to have a hermitage, but that it cannot become a fulltime project which detracts from the hermit's ability to live her Rule or to live a fully and abundantly human life --- especially in the long term. Dioceses can and do allow hermits to build hermitages but they also require prudence in the details. This is only appropriate. Remember that dioceses have to discern the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them; beyond this they must supervise, protect, and nurture such vocations. If an individual is going into substantial debt, living a more and more isolated life, and injuring themselves or exacerbating existing conditions and illnesses needlessly all in the name of creating this "hermitage" then something has gotten skewed, namely, the living of a healthy eremitical life itself has lost its priority and been replaced by concern for one's hermitage itself.

A hermit can make a hermitage of almost any habitable dwelling place. I am thinking now of a chapter written by a Trappist hermit at the Abbey of Gethsemani in KY. (Paul Quenon, OCSO, In Praise of the Useless Life, A Monk's Memoir) In this section devoted to the "Our Golden Age of Hermits" at the Abbey, the author describes the great variety of hermitages found on the Abbey grounds in the years following Thomas Merton's death. Besides Merton's own cinderblock hermitage, hermitages were built in a variety of places out of a variety of materials. Fr. Flavian's was built of cedarwood and was small and isolated but with large small-paned windows taking up most of a couple of walls; Dom James' hermitage (which was designed and built for him after his years of service as Abbot by one of the brothers) was constructed with three wings constructed of steel and glass and cantilevered from a concrete base. The base contained the kitchen, bedroom, and bath, while one wing was the chapel, another a porch and entrance, and a third a living room. As one approached the hermitage from the Abbey all one could see was a pyramid of stone with a slot for a window. (Dom James retired to this hermitage that was a 30 minute drive from the main abbey buildings. He was notably frugal in terms of heating and other expenses, including food; later he was assaulted by intruders and moved back to the abbey infirmary where he would be safe from additional harm.).

Br Odilo built a hermitage from scraps from other projects; some monks lived in trailers, one in an old "pig house"; Brother Rene's 16'X8' hermitage was made from the scraps of wood left over after the abbey monks made cheese boxes and it was roofed with corrugated metal; it had neither electricity nor running water but it provided the place where Br Rene could pray and rest in solitude as his own life required. His regular physical needs were taken care of in the abbey itself so the extreme poverty of the hermitage was not problematical in this way. I am also reminded of a contemporary Camaldolese who, in setting up a solitary hermitage, decided to convert a utility shed of the type used today for tools, etc. He rents living space from another person, but the shed is his hermitage and allows him time and space in privacy and solitude; it is snug and comfortable for this use, but it is not habitable and he will spend no time making it so.

Folks hearing the story of any of these hermits would rightly wonder if that story focused on the details of the hermitage, the struggle to build it, the terrible expense and injuries incurred in its building, the hermit's exacerbated chronic pain and illness occasioned by the conditions of his solitude. The point, of course, is that the hermitage itself was of less concern than the call to the silence of solitude and the life of solitary prayer. People find or build a place they can live such a life, but they do not give over years of their lives building the hermitage at the expense of their health or the life they are committed to live in the process. A diocesan hermit's diocese/bishop would never allow this, nor should they I think.

Simplicity? Sacrifice? Asceticism? Frugality? Yes, of course. But these will necessarily involve limitations on the time and energy spent on the hermitage itself. If versions of these are embraced in a way which detracts from one's ability to live the very life they are committed to living, no diocese would or should permit it. Similarly, I also think it is prudent of dioceses to insist that diocesan hermits have a reliable way to support themselves. Dioceses may (but are not required to) assist in times of emergency and temporary need but it is important that the hermit be responsible for her own support and legal decisions --- not least so dioceses are not to be left liable for expenses, injuries,  etc., when something untoward happens.

Again, this is all about living and protecting a vocation which is a gift of God. Not all historical forms of asceticism have been edifying, nor have all forms of suffering or isolation. It seems to me that we are more sensitive today to what are healthy forms of these, or what are forms which speak primarily of redemption rather than of sin/brokenness; it also seems to me that the Church, in approving certain eremitical vocations and disapproving others demonstrates this sensitivity and insists that canonical or public eremitical vocations witness to the redemption that comes to each of us through and in Christ.  I hope this is of assistance to you.

Followup on the Paradox of Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, are you saying in your post on the paradox of canon 603 [Paradox of Canon 603] that lay or non-canonical hermits should  have the same kinds of structure built into their own lives as canonical hermits? I don't mean they should exist in law (de jure) but that they should have people who fill roles similar to those your Bishop and delegate fill for you?]]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I don't know anyone, especially those trying to live contemplative lives in the depths of both their own heart and God's own heart who can do this without the checks and balances provided by relationships like those with a spiritual director, pastor, friends, and church more generally. It becomes even more important for those proposing to go off on their own in relative isolation from others. As Dom Jean LeClercq (20C.) notes in Chapter III of Alone With God, [[There must be a vocation. To recognize it, we must know what it is not. The illusion of false vocations is by no means unreal.]] Nor are these less unreal in our own century!

Even with authentic and carefully discerned and formed vocations one piece of wisdom the Church has shown for centuries in her approach to actual recluses is that they are only allowed within certain established Orders or Congregations --- and those with a healthy and long eremitical history. The vocation is encouraged in these congregations, as are other forms of greater solitude which do not rise to the level of actual reclusion, but those allowed to become recluses are "vetted" for spiritual as well as psychological health and maturity. The actual call to reclusion is mutually discerned with the leadership of these congregations according to guidelines established in their own proper law. In the Camadolese constitutions part of the section on reclusion reads:

By the unity of faith and charity, the recluse remains in community with his fellow monks and with all: "The Church is at the same time one in all and all in each; simple in plurality by the unity of faith, multiple by the bond of charity and the variety of gifts; because from the One come all" (St Peter Damian's letter #28 sometimes called "Dominus Vobiscum", section 11) . . .The prior is to prudently ascertain whether the monk who requests this permission has the necessary human, psychological, and spiritual maturity. 

The experience of reclusion shall be granted at first for determined, brief periods of time; however, the reclusion can be suspended when the recluse or the prior finds there are legitimate motives for doing so. The prior shall show fatherly concern for the recluse by assisting him with frequent personal visits and guaranteeing him the necessary quiet. For his part, the recluse must know he remains always united to the father of the community by obedience. Constitutions and Declarations of the Camaldolese Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict pp 25-26

In the history of eremitical life Paul Giustiniani (Camaldolese) once determined that because the Church had changed her own praxis regarding reception of the Sacraments and participation in ecclesial life solitary eremitical life could no longer be considered legitimate. Dom Jean LeClercq cites Giustiniani: [[The second kind of hermits are those who, after probation in the cenobitic life, after pronouncing the three principal vows and being professed under an approved Rule [note well the structure and formation required here], leave the monastery and withdraw to live all alone in solitude. . .Such a life. . . is more perfect than the cenobitic but also much more perilous. It permits no companionship but requires that each be self-suficient. Therefore it is no longer permitted in our day. The Church now orders us to hear Mass often, to make our confession, and to receive Communion. None of those can be done alone.]] LeClercq, Alone With God, "Forms of Hermit Life"

Instead Giustiniani called for the establishment of lauras of hermits, colonies of hermits whose individual hermitages were linked by paths (hence the name lauras) whereby the dangers of solitary eremitical life could be avoided and the benefits of community (including Rule, superiors, vows, liturgy, etc) could be shared. Centuries before, the Camaldolese founder, St Romuald, traveled around the countryside where, according to the sound of some accounts, he found "hermits" behind every bush or in every cave mostly doing their own thing without benefit of Rule, vows, or superior (mentor, director, etc). He was appalled by what he found, not only because of laxness or its similarly unhealthy counterpart in penitential rigor, but because of the individualism and eccentricity which was so very prevalent in such instances and many others. One of the primary efforts Romuald made was to bring hermits together or at the very least to establish them under the Rule of Benedict according to the example of his own life --- something which will have far-reaching consequences in the regulation of their lives.

You see there are two distinct dangers to the eremitical life prevalent throughout this history and the whole history of eremitism itself. The first is that eremitical life will be swallowed up in community life. This is largely what happened as cenobitism replaced the life of the desert Fathers and Mothers. Later cenobitism came to distrust the impulse to eremitical solitude. The second is that eremitical life will merely become an instance of individual pique, whim, distortion or delusion that separates itself off from the vision and life of the church in any sense at all, etc.

We see this in hermits who reject the necessary ecclesial dimension of this vocation and buy into a "do-your-own-thing" kind of "spirituality" --- whether they do so as progressives, conservatives, or eccentrics more generally. SS. Romuald, Peter Damian, Paul Giustiniani all dealt with both of these dangers and so has the church throughout her history in statutes established more and less locally by dioceses throughout the centuries to clarify and protect the vision of eremitical life she perceives as a gift from the Holy Spirit.. In the contemporary Western Church canon 603 is the contemporary solution to this problem codified in universal law --- at least insofar as people determine to live, whether de jure or de facto according to the church's own vision of what eremitical life means and entails.

It seems to me that those who do not seek to become canonical hermits, to whatever extent they desire to live eremitical life within the Church as true daughters and sons of the Church, will structure their lives according to the single norm for eremitical life that exists in universal law. While they may not have legitimate superiors they will have spiritual directors and pastors to help them journey safely and profoundly into the depth of their own hearts and the heart of God. They will have a few trusted friends who will confront, console, and challenge them with the truth they see in their lives. They will participate in and make integral to their lives the Church's own Sacramental and liturgical life. They will have some sort of Rule as well as an understanding of and commitment to the elements of canon 603 that pertains to all eremitical life in the Church.

Especially they will avoid the individualism so decried by the Camaldolese founders and reformers mentioned here and honor the fact that an authentic vocation to solitude depends on community even as it is cautious not to be swallowed up in it. Similarly they will acknowledge and honor the flip side of that coin, namely, that community requires solitude and the Church needs those living a solitary life. Hermits cannot be healthy or authentic without the Church nor will the Church be healthy without hermits. This too is an implication of the passage cited from St Peter Damian's letter, Dominus Vobiscum above. Paul Giustiniani says the same thing; it is cited in LeClercg's essay on "The Hermit's Vocation: Role in the Church" in Alone With God.

On Secular Hermits, Habits and Titles, and Persistence in Dealing with Dioceses

Dear Sister, I wonder if you could help me think about the following passage from a hermit who describes himself as a secular hermit? I have deleted the name from the passage. I guess I wonder if it is really all right to adopt a habit and a religious name simply because one wants to. Though I am not a hermit I would like to do that but I wonder if it is right or very prudent. I also wonder if it is true that diocesan personnel have neither the time nor the expertise in canon law for such foolishness as individuals who desire to become diocesan hermits. This hermit writes: [[ I am free to live as I choose, and to call myself whatever name I like and to wear whatever clothing I want. I choose to live as a religious under vows and a rule, I call myself brother . . . and I wear a habit without a collar to witness to Jesus. There are not too many dioceses that have hermits or recognize them as such, and diocesan personnel, I am told, have neither the time nor the expertise in Canon Law for such foolishness.]]

On the Designation "Secular Hermit"

Thanks for your questions. I understand your unease with this person's statements --- at least as they are cited here. They make me uneasy too. First, one thing you did not ask me about and that is the term "secular hermit". This person is using the term secular as the opposite of religious but that is not really accurate. Religious men and women live lives that are separated from the world (saeculum) in specific ways while others live their lives "in the world" and are called to be "in it but not of it." These latter folks became known as "seculars." Further, "religious (n.)" became set off against "seculars" and unfortunately Religious men and women were seen to be called to a higher holiness than those Baptized Christians living their vocations in ministry in and to the world. Secularity became associated with secularism and then, mistakenly, identified with it. Despite the lessons of the Incarnation, holiness was seen to be the province of those who were "separated from the world."

Today we realize that the situation is much more complex. Vocations are not so neatly differentiated and the Incarnation reminds us that the entire world is Sacramental and meant to be brought to fullness if God's Kingdom is to be truly realized and God is to be all in all. We recognize a universal call to holiness whether that call means one builds oneself into the world of family, business, economics, politics, etc, or whether one makes vows which separate oneself (that is, qualify one's life) in significant ways from or to the world of relationships (consecrated celibacy), power (obedience), and commerce (religious poverty). One person whose vocation is more especially marked by a "stricter separation from the world" than most other persons,whether Lay or Religious, is the hermit. In other words, I don't think we can speak of secular hermits. One may be in the lay state, the consecrated state, or the clerical state, but if one is a hermit who lives the elements of canon 603 (even without public vows), one is not secular.

On Habits and Titles

Habits are no longer ordinary garb. For good and ill they are ecclesial symbols. They have meaning because the Church and the people who have worn them in season and out have invested them with meaning. Because of this when people see them they have the right to certain expectations. They have the right to expect the person in the habit has accepted all the legitimate and moral obligations attached to the (rights of) wearing of such garb. They have a right to expect that person to have formally and legitimately accepted a place in the long tradition of martyrs, ascetics, virgins, and hermits who have worn such habits through the centuries and many times suffered because of it. They have a right to expect the person to be precisely what the habit says they are --- publicly professed men or women whose vocations have been discerned and mediated by the Church. They have a right to expect the person is available to them because of all of this because the person acts (and is commissioned to act) in the name of the Church who, in real ways, also supervises their vocation and generally affirms them as worthy of peoples' trust in pastoral matters.

As I have written before, even hermits did not simply adopt a habit on their own. The desert Fathers and Mothers were given the habit by elders and those elders could take the habit away again if the person failed to live their vocations with integrity. In the Middle Ages it became common for Bishops to give their consent to persons wishing to adopt the habit of the hermit. Again, habits were seen as significant and their wearing was regulated --- even at a time when there was no universal Code of Canon Law, and a somewhat varied theology of consecrated life. The same is true of titles. In the Roman Catholic Church the titles Brother or Sister indicate something specific --- not so much personal status or standing as the way the Holy Spirit is working in the Church's life through specific persons and states of life.

So, while it is strictly true that a person can pretty much wear and style themselves any way they like in public (though even civilly there are significant exceptions to this rule) it is not true that they can do this without disparaging the meaning of these things (Habits, titles etc.) or betraying the expectations which are associated with them in the eyes of believers and the entire world. Habits and titles do not simply indicate what the person believes of themselves; they indicate ecclesial vocations and witness to something which has been made to be true in the People of God. Now, if the person who wrote this was wearing a habit and using a specific title privately (silly as this might seem), that is ONLY in his own hermitage and no where else there would be no problem. He is completely within his rights. However, if he goes out, attends Mass, etc, or even blogs under this name with pictures of himself in his habit, the practice is problematical at best. In my opinion a Catholic does NOT have the right to do this --- first because s/he has not accepted the commensurate obligations that are part of doing so, and secondly out of charity to others who might be misled. One of the most fundamental things Christians are responsible for is truth in advertising --- which we also call transparency and which allows our lives to be Christ's truth for others.

I understand both this person's feelings about thinking of himself as a religious and dressing the part --- especially if he has been refused admission to public profession --- which sounds like it is the case. I also understand your own desire to do so. In the first case it is very difficult to feel called to something in one's own heart and have the institutional church disagree. One wants to find a way to live the truth of who one is while coming to terms with what one experiences as a rejection of one's deepest self. On the other hand, some people argue that they wear the habit because they esteem it or because they want to witness to religious life when many Sisters no longer wear the habit. The problem is that the very act of pretense (for in these cases one is pretending to something one has no right to) does not indicate genuine esteem nor does it witness to religious life or the God of truth. It is not the case that one can adopt ecclesial titles and garb  and expect to be recognized in terms of the ecclesial meaning of those while thumbing one's nose at the canons and customs which govern these things within the church. Certainly one cannot do so and pretend to esteem consecrated life in that very ecclesial community.

Diocesan Personnel and the Diocesan Eremitical Vocation

I have sometimes written that not all dioceses are open to having diocesan hermits. I have also written that diocesan personnel tend to have neither the time nor the expertise to form hermits. Finally I have also written that it often takes an extended period of time to discern and form hermits in preparation for temporary or perpetual vows. (This is not the job of the diocese but the work of the hermit herself with her director and, sometimes, others in cooperation with God.) However, what is not generally true --- at least not in my experience --- is that diocesan personnel are insufficiently expert in Canon Law (they may not specialize in consecrated life, but that is a somewhat different question). And, while there are certainly anecdotes about Vicars who say they do not believe in eremitical life, neither is it generally the case that they treat people wishing to become hermits as though they are pursuing some sort of foolishness.

It is true that dioceses do not routinely admit individuals to profession as diocesan hermits. It is true that they tend to be demanding about the signs of genuine vocation as well as cautious about anything that might signal stereotypical distortions or destructive eccentricity in persons seeking to be professed. It is true that some do not believe much in contemplative life and even less so in hermits --- mainly because they misunderstand solitude as isolation and eremitical life as essentially selfish. But, except in this latter situation, I have not known any dioceses to reject good candidates out of hand; they might well extend periods of discernment, require regular meetings with Vicars or vocation directors as well as all kinds of recommendations (Spiritual director, pastor, physicians, psychologists, etc), but generally they do not treat possible vocations as foolishness.

One must be patient with a diocese if one is the first person/hermit they have seriously considered professing under canon 603. They have a lot to learn not only about eremitical life generally, but about Canon 603 specifically and the way it is implemented along with the kinds of stories dioceses have about their own experiences with hermits thus professed. Even if one is not the first hermit the diocese has professed the diocese will also need to learn a lot about the candidate for profession both before they make recommendations regarding further formation requirements and during the process of discernment which is associated with formation. And they will need to assess how such vocations will be supervised and lived out in their diocese.

On Patience and Persistence

One must also be persistent in one's efforts to be admitted to public profession. It may take some time before a diocese is clear they have a good candidate, or before they have done enough research to even know when this is the case. A single letter to the diocese requesting profession under Canon 603 will not usually be sufficient. One of the things a diocese will want to know is whether or not c 603 is being used as a stopgap way to get to wear a habit and be called Brother or Sister. In other words, they will rightly expect a person to live as a hermit whether or not public profession is in their future and to show all of the characteristics genuine hermits demonstrate: not only a commitment to all the elements of Canon 603 which are absolutely foundational, but to whatever is necessary for continuing growth in this vocation: self-discipline and individual initiative, spiritual direction, reasonable involvement in the parish community, ongoing formation (education, growth in prayer, greater responsibility for the eremitical tradition itself, regular retreats, consultation with other hermits or experts who can assist them in this, and above all, growth in humility (which is a function of truthfulness), authentic humanness (holiness), and one's capacity to love others.

While I am not telling candidates or potential candidates to nag their dioceses, sometimes it does take real persistence to get an adequate hearing. One needs to be honest and ask clear questions about what one is hearing from a diocese. But whatever occurs one needs to carry on honestly living one's response to God --- and if one feels generally called to the life described in Canon 603 then one needs to live that as a lay hermit without habit or title --- either with the diocese's aid or  in spite of its lack. In time the situation may change in various ways. Discernment and growth does not stop -- no matter what the diocese's response is.

I hope this has been of some help to you. You might also check Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: Difficult Questions When Dioceses Decline to Profess

Saturday (or Part-time) Hermits Once Again: What's the Big Deal??

[[ I agree that full-time work is incompatible with the EXPRESSION of the eremetic life. The only caveat is that many folks are called to it but just can't swing it financially. As for them, their options are a monastic expression or simply a 'non-canonical' (if I'm saying that correctly) expression of their vocation without worrying about whether they are recognized by the Diocese/Bishop or not. I really don't understand the hang up about this. If you are able to be a hermit on Saturday only, want to wear a habit--go for it! I don't understand all the angst. Why do we look to some imprimatur from Mother Church for our vocations? The church has room for all of us. Just go out and live your life and stop worrying whether you are fitting under a particular canon or not. Mon Dieu! Are we Pharisees? Go out and preach the gospel in whatever way you must---whether or not there is an example for it---and, of course, if you dig down far enough, there are always champions of the church that have faced the same circumstances and made it work. ]]

Thanks for your comments. Let me be clear that when I write about eremitical vocations I almost always clarify them with terms like "diocesan", "Lay", or "religious", and sometimes as semi-eremitical as well. In the post you are commenting about I referred to diocesan hermits but I need not have. In this case I can't agree with you about "If they are able to be a hermit on Saturdays only, want to wear a habit, then go for it" (etc). What you have just described is not a hermit of any expression. It is a person taking a day off and playing dress-up in the process.


Someone who says it is possible to be a hermit only on Saturdays and that such a person should just wear a habit, call themselves a hermit, and just generally "go for it," does not understand the idea of an ecclesial vocation generally nor the idea of what a hermit truly is specifically. (Another alternative is persons who speak this way are really poking fun at my posts, and I certainly don't think that is the case here.) It is possible I am simply misunderstanding the point which is that everyone needs silence and solitude in their lives and taking off time on Saturdays to devote to this is a good thing. If this is what you are saying, then I agree but I would point out you are not really speaking about a person being a hermit.)

But let me be completely honest about how I hear your comments: what you have said seems to me to be analogous to saying to a woman, "If you want to be a mother and can only take care of children on Saturdays, then by all means do that! Change out of your business clothes, babysit a child (even your own!) on Saturdays, and feel free to call yourself a mother." Or perhaps the analogy to marriage would work here: "You want to be married but can only manage to do that on Saturdays? Well, put on the ring, grab the guy, make life vows (or not) and "go for it." Hermits are people who live eremitical LIVES for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Yes, there are different expressions of this, but they are expressions of something specifically meaningful and responsible in terms of a life commitment, not expressions of nothing (or just anything at all).

As for angst over whether the Church gives her approval or not, here the expression of eremitical life does matter. A person who wishes to live as a hermit without any of the specific rights or obligations of canonical standing can certainly do so in the lay or non-canonical senses. As I have written before, baptism itself gives such persons the right to do so and no further discernment or approval of the Church is required. This has certain limitations of course (including no right to publicly wear the habit, which is an ecclesial symbol), but it also has a different level of freedom with regard to others' legitimate expectations and so forth.

However, for diocesan, or religious eremitical life --- ecclesial vocations which the church herself is involved in nurturing, mediating, and governing --- then the Church's formal participation and approval is necessary at every point. This is because in these instances the hermit cannot discern such a vocation alone and lives her eremitical life in the name of the Church. She represents the eremitical vocation (and becomes responsible for personally continuing a long tradition) in a public and canonical (legal and normative) way. In none of these cases would a person just going off and "being a hermit on Saturdays ONLY" actually be a hermit. The only thing they would truly be doing as far as I can see is emptying the term of meaning and trivializing the lives of those who DO live full-time lives of assiduous prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world in the the silence of solitude --- especially those who have been publicly entrusted with and assumed all the rights and obligations which are part of such an ecclesial vocation.

You see, it is not merely a matter of "fitting under" a canon or finding one I fit under. It is a matter of discovering a vocation to eremitical life and then allowing one's life to be molded into a complete response to that. Beyond this initial determination, one would then need to discern whether one is called to do so in the consecrated state or not. If not, then one lives as a lay hermit. If so, then one is speaking not of a merely individual vocation, but an ecclesial one, and one would prepare to embrace this fully. If one then discerns a vocation to diocesan eremitical life rather than religious eremitical life one seeks profession under Canon 603 and in doing so, is both invested with and assumes all the rights and obligations which attach to to such a life. No one is forced to do this, but if they do, if the Church decides they are genuinely called to this and if such persons are admitted to profession in this way, then yes indeed, the Canon does define and govern their lives (as do a number of other Canons as well). Living the life with integrity means respecting and exploring this every day in every way, as the saying goes.

Why All the Angst?? The Pastoral Import of Canonical Standing

But, as you ask, why all the angst? I've written about this before under the idea of necessary expec-tations and charism, but let me draw out a picture of "why the angst?!" Let's take the two examples of eremitical life outlined in your own email and mine: 1) a person takes off on Saturdays for some prayer time, dons a habit, and calls himself a hermit even adopting the title "Brother." (What he does the rest of the week, exemplary or apostolic as it may be, I have no clue, nor does anyone else.) He then goes forth to proclaim the Gospel as he can. 2) a person lives the silence of solitude (and the rest of the elements of Canon 603) on a full time basis. She publicly vows her entire life to God (and so, to all those he cherishes) and is consecrated in a way which signals the grace to live this life. She is invested with the habit and given the right to the title Sister by the Church who recognizes the meaningfulness and import of these things. She then goes out to proclaim the Gospel within this context. Both persons identify themselves as hermits, one is a lay person and one is consecrated. One does so according to his own understanding of the term, the other according to the Church's understanding and traditional meaning of the term.

Meanwhile, their parishes have a large number of chronically ill and frail elderly on fixed incomes, most of whom are isolated from the parish as a whole or the surrounding communities in significant ways: none of them can work, few of them can drive or get away from their situations on a weekend, and none of them can take a day (or even an hour) off from their state of chronic illness or frail elderliness. What they do know is that they might be called to lives of prayer and solitude, lives which represent a kind of counter-cultural witness even. They are looking for someone who can proclaim the Gospel to them in a way which is specifically helpful in their situations. They think (and their pastor agrees),  that surely a hermit will be able to witness in a way which helps us makes sense of lives of poverty and isolation, whose witness will assist in negotiating the transition from isolation to solitude, who can reminds them that a life of physical, financial, and personal poverty can still be rich in God alone and all God makes possible.

So which hermit should the pastor call on to assist these parishioners in this? Which hermit should he call on as a true representative of desert spirituality? Which hermit has accepted freely and fully all the dimensions of the eremitical life which allows him/her to witness truthfully and EFFECTIVELY to these poeple? Which hermit knows intimately the struggles of full-time solitude or silence? Which one has dealt with these and does so day in and day out along with all the other demons which attack the solitary person from within our own hearts or from the surrounding competitive, workaholic, productive and consumerist world? Which one will be able to effectively proclaim the Gospel to these people? (And NB, I could have contrasted the Saturday-only hermit with any full-time lay hermit and most of the points would have been the same here.)

You see, going out and preaching the Gospel is not merely a matter of proclaiming a canned text or message to people one does not know. It is not a matter of proclaiming the unconditional love of God without applying that in the way one knows it intimately oneself AND in the way people NEED to hear it. Instead proclaiming the Gospel means proclaiming with one's life the TRUTH of the way God has worked and is working in it so that others might find hope and meaning in that. As St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary." Proclaiming the Gospel, I would suggest, also does not allow for pretense and the "hermit" in the situation you described appears to be all about pretense --- at least with regard to calling himself a hermit, donning a habit, etc. He cannot relate particularly to the situation these people are in or the good news they really need to hear. He does not live full-time solitude nor has he assumed any of the rights or responsibilities of such a life (the habit in the scenario you described is little more than a costume he takes up to play a role on weekends.) And yet, the habit and titles (Brother as well as hermit) give these people the right to expect he WILL BE ABLE to speak to their situation in a helpful way from his own life experience. They have the right to expect these things to mean something --- not least a counter-cultural life of total dependence on God lived on the margins of society in the silence of solitude.

This is why all the angst over Canonical standing. Such standing generally indicates the acceptance of rights and obligations by those who are discerned to have such a call, etc. It is not because we are Pharisees, but because law often serves love. It does so in this case. By the way, I would personally disagree that many people are called to diocesan eremitical life but just can't swing it financially. I do agree that those who are able-bodied and need to work full time are not called to diocesan eremitical life at this point in time, but then, as you say, they can enter a religious eremitical community --- something which is NOT ordinarily open to those who are disabled or chronically ill. Regarding the other points you bring up, benefactors, etc, I will hold those for another time.

All my best.