Implications of Abuses of Canon 603 on the Diocesan Level

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
you have written that Canon 603 hermits are solitary hermits and that while they can come together in a laura, they cannot form a community in the proper sense. You have also written that canon 603 is not meant to be a stopgap means of achieving profession on the way to another vocation. While all that makes sense to me isn't it true that the Archdiocese of Boston has a diocesan hermit perpetually professed in 2005 who is now the superior general (Mother) of a new community? Are you aware of the situation I am currently speaking of? I am from Boston and was confused at this Sister's approach to eremitical life. You may remember I wrote you back then. But given what you have written about using c 603 as a stopgap means of profession and other things, I am now even more confused. Can you clarify things for me?]] (Redacted for this blog)

Thanks for your letter. I do remember your email from about two or three years ago. While I did not write about the situation specifically here (at least not by name of Archdiocese), it was one of the reasons I subsequently wrote posts about c 603 misuses and abuses, the use of Canon 603 as a stopgap means to profession, etc. (cf, Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Solutions to Using C 603 as a Stopgap way to Profession)  At the time the situation you ask about raised a lot of questions and as I may have mentioned then, your own were not the only ones I received. What was at issue then was a diocesan hermit who was working full time as head of campus ministry at Boston University and later became Chaplain for the University's student body. Now, to be very clear, Sister Olga had an amazing background, was much-loved, worked very hard and, as I have noted before, is someone I would personally be really privileged to know. The problem then was that she was no hermit, despite being professed under canon 603. Since admission to profession under canon 603 was not her decision or responsibility, I cannot point to her as the source of the problem. Instead, it seems to me that it is more likely that she became caught up in something that was not truly right for her or for the solitary eremitical vocation under canon 603.  The responsibility for professions under canon 603 falls ultimately to the (Arch)diocesan (Arch)Bishop.

Looking at Sister Olga's Story:

A little of Sister Yaqob's story is important --- not least because it points up the exceptional person she is. Sister Olga had come here to study from Iraq. She was not Roman Catholic but had begun a congregation of Sisters in the Assyrian Church of the East. After she came here she became a Roman Catholic. However, this was something of a problem since she could not remain a professed religious in light of this change of affiliation. Canon law had two and only two options she might have pursued which deal with the consecration of individuals apart from communities. The first was canon 604, the canon for consecrated virgins living in the world. In such a case, however, the CV is not a Sister, does not have public vows, does not wear distinguishing garb, etc. She belongs to the order of Consecrated Virgins, but is not a religious and cannot begin a religious congregation. The only other option was and is Canon 603. However, this canon governs solitary eremitical life, not merely any form of pious solitary living. As you and others made clear, it seemed to everyone looking on that Sister Olga, who once claimed the term "hermit" as a "metaphor for her life", was not living an eremitical life. A description of her life noted that she set Saturdays aside for contemplative prayer and solitude and mainly worked full time at the University in a highly social job.

For whatever reason, her Archbishop had professed her in 2005 under canon 603 then, and this raised serious questions for others all around the country and the world. Some dioceses heard from people who wanted to make vows, wear a habit, and work full time outside the "hermitage" (residence) in a similar way. They were completely comfortable committing to one day of contemplative prayer per week, never mind the LIFE the canon demanded, and some had had experiences which isolated them so that they felt okay about using the term hermit as a metaphor for their lives --- just as Sister Olga had characterized  her own life. Bishops mainly refused to admit them to profession under canon 603, and rightly so.

Yet this raised serious questions for those wishing to become canon 603 hermits.  I  received several questions, letters, or emails from people wondering how, if an Archbishop could profess a person involved in full-time ministerial activity as a University chaplain as Sister Olga certainly was, their own Bishops could refuse to profess them because they were "not living an eremitical life" or needed to work full time outside the hermitage. One of these persons was living an essentially eremitical life but still needed to work alone at nights outside the hermitage. It was a difficult situation. Still, some were professed and so today we have "hermits" living primarily non-contemplative lives given mainly to active apostolates instead of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance and stricter separation from the world. The precedent was destructive and even yet threatens the vocation itself --- a vocation canon 603 was designed to protect and nurture. Thus, it continues to be problematical.

Where we Stand Today

Current descriptions of Sister Olga's life today mention her perpetual profession in 2005 but they do not mention that her vows were made under Canon 603 nor that she was (and perhaps still is) professed therefore as a diocesan hermit. It may be that her eremitical vows were dispensed, but apparently no new public vows have been made. It sounds like the Archdiocese has decided to allow the entire diocesan hermit portion of Sister Olga's life and profession to slide into the oblivion of forgetfulness in order to avoid further stumbling blocks for folks both within and outside her diocese. However, the situation still raises significant problems canonically and a number of questions are left unanswered by such silence and obscurantism.

You see, diocesan hermits cannot allow their lives to morph into ministerial religious lives. There is often a constant pressure to do more active ministry for one's parish or diocese and most of us feel some pain or regret in needing to say no (or to fail to offer to serve in various ways) because we have embraced a contemplative vocation to solitude which is much less understood and whose value is much less evident to those around us. This example of the Archdiocese of Boston thus makes living c 603 with eremitical integrity much harder for those of us who are tempted to become more active in a directly ministerial way. At the same time, c 603 hermits cannot (as I have been told at least) simply transfer their vows to a congregation. They must be dispensed from them, discern another vocation and then be admitted to vows within the congregation according to universal canonical procedures and time frames.

In fact, diocesan hermits cannot even move to a new diocese without the permission of both ordinaries involved. Though they are diocesan hermits wherever they visit and anywhere in the Church, their professions are very specific and circumscribed by a form of diocesan stability. And, though this second point (moving) is not directly applicable to Sister Olga's situation it points to the narrow constraints involved in Canon 603 profession and of course it could become significant should Sister Olga Yaqob seek to leave Boston as her new community grows. After all, if her vows are still canon 603 vows, then a new Bishop will be placed in the position of accepting a non-hermit living according to a canon governing eremitical life. Consider the precedents and questions this would raise in the new diocese!!!


As it apparently stands, the situation in Boston also raises the issues of hypocrisy and non-comp-liance: namely, if a diocesan hermit ceases to live an eremitical life she can (and should) certainly be dispensed from her vows. That remains true even if one discerns and embraces a new and different vocation to ministerial religious life . One has still ceased being a hermit and is living as though they are no longer bound by either an eremitical Rule or eremitical vows nor by the canon governing such vocations. How can one ask the Bishop of a new Diocese to merely accept such a situation (and the person's vows) and turn a blind eye? How can one ask a  new incoming Archbishop to do something similar?

And what of other newly-fledged congregations who would like to take short cuts in becoming canonical? Should canon 603 be used to profess at least the superior/moderator of such congregations? Why not if it was once appropriate in  the Archdiocese of Boston and there is still someone living out public vows made under canon 603 but now doing so as the founder of a new community? Why pay attention to expert commentators on c 603 and its history and nature, who note lauras are permissible but that these should not rise to the level of communities? Why not simply use c 603 as a stopgap means to profession for any and all individuals desiring admission to public vows never mind whether they live anything remotely resembling eremitical life? Why, that is, should we not simply turn a blind eye to the gift of the Holy Spirit which c 603 seeks to nurture, govern, and protect?

Protecting against the Repetition of this Situation

As part of the hermit's own vow formula, some dioceses require the specification that these vows are made as a part of responding to the grace of a solitary eremitical vocation.  The wisdom of this requirement is clearer to everyone involved with the canon as time goes on. Further, since canon 603 governs solitary eremitical vocations which allow for coming together in lauras but not the establishment of communities per se, it seems clear that a hermit should be dispensed from her vows in order to begin a community. Further, as one dispensed from her vows she cannot ordinarily simply begin a canonical foundation. Not only does she cease to be a vowed religious in such an instance, but ordinarily, any community she begins will need to move through the same stages any other aspiring group needs to move through: private association of the faithful, public association of the faithful, and, if all goes well over time, institute of consecrated life. This process is not only codified in law but reflects simple prudence.

Because of all these factors the extraordinary situation in Boston is still a thorn bush of difficulties. It is understandable, I think, that 1) Sister Olga dropped the pretense of being a hermit to fully affirm the truth of what she is apparently more truly called to, and 2) the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed all this to merely slip from view and memory by focusing  (a) on the fact of vows while omitting the fact that they were solitary eremitical (c 603) vows and  (b) on the new community. Diocesan hermits and others, however, are interested in and perhaps could be said to have a right to know how the situation is resolved canonically because this has significant implications for how the diocesan eremitical life is lived out concretely.

The primary reason for bringing all this up is to make sure that canon 603 is never misused in this manner again. Sister Olga (or Mother Olga as she is now known) is an exceptional person (and apparently an exceptional religious) and it makes sense that the Archbishop of Boston was particularly open to accommodating her in some way -- especially given her history, her faith and people skills, and her ethnic background and skills in Arabic language and Iraqi culture. I very much appreciate the integrity Sister Yaqob has personally shown in leaving the diocesan hermit designation behind. However, professing her using canon 603 was a serious mistake which threatened the diocesan eremitical vocation in the process.

The secondary reason for bringing this situation up then is because the canonical questions it raised are still with us and require answers. Similarly, the pastoral questions it raises are also significant and, in part, will only be answered over time with the education of the episcopacy and church as a whole regarding the nature of the solitary eremitical vocation along with a history of well-discerned professions which ensure the integrity of the life which canon 603 governs. At some point the Archdiocese of Boston also needs to clarify publicly how they resolved this situation. Sister Olga's eremitical profession could have been determined to be invalid, for instance, but if that proved to be the case then what is the canonical standing of Sister Olga now and what precedent does her situation vis-a-vis the new community set for other aspiring founders and communities? Aspiring hermits? Remember, Sister Yaqob cannot have made canonical vows as an individual under any canon but 603. Again, the situation is a thorn bush of difficulties and unresolved questions.

I know this doesn't really clarify what is largely still obscure for many of us, but hope this is of some help.

Importance of Spiritual Direction for Hermits

[[Dear Sister Laurel, How important is it for a hermit to have a spiritual director? How do I find one? Can I work with one online? Also, will a diocese profess me without one? I am a hermit  by which I mean I live alone and avoid people, but I do not have a director; neither have I worked with one before. My parish priest hears my confessions but he says this is not the same as spiritual direction and has suggested that if I am serious about being a hermit that I get a spiritual director. He said to check out your blog and see what I thought. He also encourages me to get more involved in parish activities and relationships with people in the parish. Would a spiritual director help me decide about these kinds of things?]]

Stillsong Hermitage Oratory

Hi there,
      First, my thanks to your parish priest for recommending this blog to you. I think you will find a lot of material that will be helpful on your journey, whether or not you ever live as a lay or consecrated hermit --- or even if you continue simply to live alone. Check out the labels in the upper right hand column and you should find stuff of interest. If not, do as you have already done and email me with your questions.

For the Hermit Spiritual Direction is Indispensible

      Second though, your questions. A good spiritual director is critical even indispensable to a hermit. No diocese will profess you without one, and more than that, no diocese is apt to treat your petition to be recognized as a hermit and admitted to canonical profession seriously without a history of spiritual direction and a recommendation from your director --- and rightly so. When living in eremitical solitude, especially as a solitary hermit, there are so many ways things can go awry that a good director really is necessary. After all, the human heart is an ambiguous, complex reality. By definition it is the place where God bears witness to himself, but it is also a wilderness where one battles with demons --- the demons of anger, jealousy, fear, bitterness, resentment, boredom or acedia, etc, etc that can truly defile. A director can be immensely helpful in all of this, and in assisting us to grow into persons of authentic and profound love and sanctity. Similarly one needs to negotiate the shifts that come with prayer, and  discern the significant decisions which need to be made regarding what one is called to in this area or that. For instance, you speak of avoiding people and living alone; a good director can help you determine the authentically eremitical motives for these things and tease apart the more unworthy reasons we may live alone or avoid people. She can assist you in discovering the difference between eremitical solitude and simply living alone as well; together over time you can discern what it is God is truly calling you to whether than means how you personally will live eremitical life authentically or something else entirely.

Finding a Director

      Regarding finding a director and working with one online, let's start with finding one. My suggestion is to speak to people in your parish and diocese who are already working with a spiritual director and ask them about who that is. Most Sisters have directors, many priests do as well while many Sisters as well as some priests do direction. (It is not the same as hearing confession as your pastor clearly understands.) Retreat Houses in your area will know of some directors and may even have one or two on the premises. Your chancery office may have a list of directors in the diocese --- though I have found these are not always kept up to date. Another source of listings in your area is Spiritual Directors International. Not every director belongs (usually because of the annual fee) but you will get a good listing of folks who fit the bill in your area so it can be a jumping off point. Finally, if you have any seminaries or theological schools in your area most programs in pastoral theology or ministry require students to have a director so you can always check with  them and see if they have a list of prospects. You will especially want a director who is knowledgeable about contemplative prayer and life (they do not need to be contemplatives but they need to be contemplative prayers), and knowledgeable about the difference between eremitical solitude and simply living alone. Some background in psychology is helpful as well. If you are considering becoming a diocesan hermit they should also have some background in formation and what it means to live the vows. What is most important is that they be persons of prayer in spiritual direction themselves; access to a supervisor is also very helpful.

On Working with Someone by Phone or Skype

Sisters of Bethlehem

        I do not recommend working with a director online or by email and to be very honest, unless the director is very well-known and regarded by competent directors, I would personally distrust them if they accepted clients online except in the most carefully judged exceptions. I will say that this is especially true if the person they are working with is a "hermit" or desires to be a hermit. Spiritual Direction is a particularly intimate and intense relationship which requires face to face meetings whenever that is possible. While this is a help to the director it is far more important to the directee who really does deserve the best such a relationship can be.

While I have some clients I work with by phone or skype when people live a distance from me, I also tend to require regular face to face meetings whenever they can be arranged. That means traveling here for these clients, but I have found it is an important and even necessary arrangement. Occasionally I will accept a client for phone or skype-only meetings, but that person will have a history of  receiving spiritual direction somewhere in their ongoing formation and be clearly able to benefit from the relationship even without face to face meetings. Sometimes I have clients that move out of the area; usually it seems a good idea to continue working together and we do that via skype or phone; it tends to work better than with someone I don't know except through skype, for instance, because we already know each other well. In working with persons who desire to be hermits it is, I would argue, even more important for face to face meetings, as well as meetings in the hermit's own hermitage from time to time. Directing a hermit candidate is a bit trickier in some ways until the relationship is well-established so I especially recommend these folks find a director in their own region or area and take the necessary time to build the relationship.

The Need for Friendship and Parish Involvement

        It is interesting that your priest suggests you get more involved in the parish and in relationships there. Since he has read my blog it sounds like he might regard the eremitical vocation and reject some of the common stereotypes hermits fall prey to. If this is so it means his suggestions could be very well taken. In contrast to some stereotypes solitary hermits need friendships and solid relationships with their own parishes and members thereof. This does not mean they can be with their friends as often as they would like or invite them over to the hermitage more than occasionally (though hospitality remains a desert value which must be honored), but it does mean that eremitical life is a healthy, loving, full life in God and for that reason being an integral part of the parish, even if one is rarely present beyond Mass, is important for the hermit and for the parish. In other words,  misanthropes and curmudgeons need not apply!! I would suggest you speak with your pastor about why it is he has made his suggestion. If he has a real appreciation of the vocation and concerns about your own tendency to "avoid people" as you put the matter, I think you should listen to him. I know that for me personally, the description re "avoiding people" is a red flag. It is about the negative or peripheral rather than the positive or central dimensions of the life. But I don't know you at all and this is a blog, so at this point your comment is merely a red flag, nothing more than that.

        Working with a spiritual director would indeed help you to discern what is going on in your own life and heart and also how it is God is calling you to serve him and those he loves and considers precious. It may be that you are called to eremitical life and to all that involves (including relationships, parish life, and a solitude which is rich with the Word and life of God. It may simply be that solitude for you is a transitional phase of your life; if so working with a director will help you move through this phase creatively and in a way which witnesses to the grace of God. By all means, take your pastor's advice and talk to him frankly about his own perceptions. You need not agree completely but they will factor into your own discernment and your work with your director.

Followup Questions on Writing a Rule of Life: Should Bishops Write the Hermit's Rule?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I wanted to thank you for what you have written about writing a Rule of Life. I have been able to find a little bit of information online about this, but your own blog has the most information so far. I am not a hermit but I like the idea of living according to a Rule of Life and your posts have been really helpful. I do have a question. You have written about the benefits of writing one's own Rule and doing so on the basis of one's lived experience. You have also said that people should not write a Rule without having lived the life for some time. But what about someone writing a Rule FOR a hermit? Recently I read about a new diocesan hermit whose Bishop wrote her Rule. I guess you wouldn't agree with that practice. Am I right? Can you see this working in individual cases? Should it become a regular (no pun intended) practice for Bishops?]]

Objections to Bishops Writing a Diocesan Hermit's Rule: How the Rule Functions

Well, you are correct that I don't think the practice of having a Bishop write one's own Rule is a good way to go or a good precedent to set. There are several reasons for this. First, the Rule is usually used by dioceses not only to assess the way a person lives solitary eremitical life, but it is an excellent piece of discerning the quality and type of vocation before one. Not least, it is a fairly good way of assessing the candidate's strengths, deficiencies, and relative readiness for profession to a vocation which is strongly dependent upon the hermit's own ability to act independently and maturely in her obedience to God's will in her life. After all, she cannot grow in this vocation otherwise, especially since her contact with superiors is relatively infrequent. Besides, Bishops change and will differ in the degrees of involvement they can have in any hermit's life; there must be a strong pattern of inner-directedness and appropriate autonomy in a diocesan hermit's life before she can be admitted to vows of any sort. The capacity to write a Rule for oneself reflects one's own degree of formation, one's conscious awareness of her own spiritual needs and disciplines, the way she specifically embodies the central values or elements of canon 603 and the eremitical tradition more generally, as well as the way she sees her own life affecting the life of her parish and diocese and vice versa.

Secondly, the Rule is not simply a list of do's and don't's; it is not merely or even primarily legislative. It is meant to be a document which reflects one's own inspired vision of the life, why it is significant in the 21st century, how the various pieces of living it fit one's own story and are shaped by that, and how generally God has been present to one along with how one best responds to Him in a call to the silence of solitude. The negotiation of the tension between eremitical traditions and the needs of the contemporary world and church are the hermit's to achieve. She will do so in dialogue with others --- including her Bishop and delegate, of course --- and especially she will do so in a prayerful, discerning way, but this negotiation IS her vocation and a large part of the charism (gift) she brings to the church and world. No one can do it for her.

Thirdly, as I have said before, while both of the following are essential, a Rule is intended first of all, to inspire one to live their vocation and only secondarily to legislate how one lives it. It is meant to provide a personal way to assume one's own place in the eremitical tradition and that means that only a hermit who has lived the life and is sensitive to its values, charisms, rhythms, freedom, constraints, and history is apt to be able to write an adequate Rule for herself. Associated with this is the fact that a hermit comes to conscious awareness of and terms with much of the tradition, her own life, and the shape of God's call to her in the actual writing of a Rule. The process of doing so (living and growing in the life, consciously reflecting on this, and then articulating in writing what makes that possible or what it obliges one to) is an intensely formative process and it is one I would hate anyone, but especially a diocesan hermit, to miss. Since some of these hermits have not been formed in religious life it becomes even more critical they not miss this intensely formative process and experience.

Problems with the Practice of Bishops Writing a Diocesan Hermit's Rule

Now, what about a Bishop writing the Rule for a solitary hermit? There are several problems I can see with this. First, most Bishops have neither the expertise nor the understanding of the eremitical life to do this. Not only are they apt to write the same Rule for one hermit as they write for another (simple lack of time and knowledge of the individuals will lead to this), but they are apt to write a list of do's and don't's --- a primarily legislative document rather than a document which is geared to 1) inspire, challenge to greater and greater understanding of the eremitical tradition and one's place in it in the 21st century, or 2) one which will serve as a guardrail allowing one to journey freely, creatively, and relatively safely through the wildernesses of that journey.

Secondly, if a Bishop is the one writing the Rule, that seems to suggest the candidate does not have the necessary experience to do so herself. After all, hermits have been required to do this themselves since 1983 and the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law, and in the main they have been doing so effectively. One of the most significant things we see in listening to the way Rules are shaped is how truly individual they are even while they represent the eremitical tradition and canon 603. This individuality within tradition is an actual piece of the charism (gift quality) of solitary eremitical life to the church and to the world and we ought not short-circuit the work of the Spirit nor take this piece away. Thirdly, if the Rule does not really fit the candidate particularly well in certain areas but is required for the person to be admitted to profession, it then raises questions for me as to how free the hermit candidate is to say no to what does not work for them and to write in that which does. Down the line, such hermits are apt to find themselves living a Rule which does not actually suit their own individual pattern for growth in Christ and they actually may not be able to fulfill the Rule they are vowed to fulfill.

Possible Alternatives to Bishops Writing Rules for Hermits

Having said this I think a Bishop could well write a set of guidelines for ALL hermit candidates in his diocese --- just as he (or someone he delegates) might do for a laura when several diocesan hermits come together to live in solitude. But, when established for solitary hermits, these would not be a Rule, only general requirements on what should be included, reflected on, and fleshed out in light of one's own lived experience. In the situation you mentioned (that is, if the one I am aware of is the same one), as I understand it, the Bishop wrote a draft of a Rule and the hermit was able to modify and edit it as she needed to. So long as the Bishop was not, for instance, demanding certain prayer forms (chaplets, the entire Divine Office), a certain frequency of attendance at Mass beyond some realistic standard which honors the needs and obligations of solitude, a fully specified horarium, etc, and so long as these guidelines do not curtail the important discernment the hermit herself is required to do as something inherent to the vocation itself, this could work. Also, as long as the Bishop makes it entirely clear that the hermit should edit and shape this draft in light of her own experience and in light of her own needs it could be acceptable --- though, I continue to think, less adequate than a hermit writing her own Rule.

One Sister with a background in leadership and formation I spoke with about this (and after I made the above comments in the original draft of this post) pointed out that a Bishop might well provide a Rule to a candidate at the beginning of a period of discernment and then, after a period of five years  or so, expect the hermit-candidate to write her own Rule prior to accepting her for admission to profession.  I think it is a VERY good idea. I would add that another revision might well be made before perpetual profession as needed (I believe it often will be). Moreover, I would suggest another Rule be written at the two or three year point rather than the five year point as one approached the possibility of temporary profession. This would allow the diocese a much better sense of the way the vocation is developing, the maturity with which the hermit is making the tradition her own, the degree to which she is living it out in dialogue with parish, universal church, and the contemporary world, the way in which she negotiates both the essential or non-negotiable elements of the life and the need for flexibility, the degree to which this is truly the vocation Canon 603 governs, and the world needs, etc. Not only would such a solution serve the diocese's own discernment in the matter, it would allow the candidate or hermit to educate the diocese (and chancery!!) about what a contemporary eremitical vocation is all about. Finally, it would give the hermit or candidate the needed opportunity to enjoy the formative and (for those truly called to the vocation) the confirming experience writing such a Rule usually is.

Summary of Objections

However, otherwise, no, I absolutely do not think Bishops writing hermits' Rules should become a regular practice (pun definitely intended!!). I dislike it as a precedent at all. Canon 603 is sufficient and hermits have done well by tailoring their own Rules to their lives and stories. This is especially true when Bishops are admitting sufficiently experienced and mature candidates to profession. Again, they have to be aware that not everyone who lives alone is called to eremitical life, and that freedom is one of the hallmarks of mature spirituality and especially mature eremitical spirituality. If someone has not got the experience to fulfill the requirement of c 603 regarding the writing of a Rule (I am emphatically not referring here to the hermit you mentioned by the way), then they are probably not ready for profession either. Further, Bishops, I think, have to be humble enough to admit that they do not really ordinarily understand the vocation sufficiently nor have the expertise to write an eremitical Rule. This would be especially true for Bishops who are not from a religious congregation. Most are canonists and as I have said before, knowing what is allowed (or not prohibited ) canonically is not the same thing as knowing what is vocationally prudent or appropriate, especially for a given individual.

Canon 603 Misuses and Abuses: Part 1, Lauras vs Communities

[[Hi Sister, your last post raised additional questions for me so I am writing to see if you can answer them. You said that lauras are very different than communities of hermits. Can you say what these are? You also described the flexibility of the eremitical life and described conditions that allowed for such flexibility. It seems to me though that these same conditions can lead to abuses and misuses of C 603. Has this happened? Is it common? Is Canon 603 itself enough to prevent such abuses or does the Church need something from Rome like the other poster mentioned --- a document like Vita Consecrata?]]

WOW! Now THESE are really great questions. They actually capture the concerns of a number of diocesan hermits with various areas of interest who feel proprietary about this vocation, not out of ego, but because they recognize how fragile is this vocation which is the work of the Holy Spirit. Diocesan hermits wish to honor the work of the Spirit and do so in a way which contributes to an understanding of a vocation which is at once RARE and infinitely valuable while also contributing to its integrity and authenticity. Because of this we are aware of abuses or misuses of Canon 603 --- usually stemming from an understandable (though not excusable) ignorance of its central elements or the very nature of eremitical life itself. Such ignorance (which occurs on every level, from the merely curious, to candidates, to canonists, to Vicars for Religious, to Bishops) allows the canon to be used to justify profession of individuals who are not hermits and may never be hermits. But let me answer your questions and get back to this as part of those answers. I am going to break these into more than one post, one on the laura/community distinction, and one addressing the remainder of your questions!

Canon 603 and Lauras vs Communities

First, let me reiterate that Canon 603 is meant to foster, nurture, and govern solitary eremitical lives, not the lives of hermits living in community. The first thing that Canon 603 says by its very existence is that the Church has recognized the ecclesial validity and significance of the existence of solitary hermits and wishes to protect them. Canon 603 believes in solitary hermits, and affirms that indeed, the Holy Spirit calls individuals to authentic eremitical life in a solitary way whether in deserts, on mountain tops, or even in the unnatural solitudes of urban life. Canon 603 is an implicit affirmation in her belief that human isolation can be redeemed and transformed into true solitude and that one does not need to be part of a religious community (or even a laura!!) to live eremitical life authentically and fully. Further, given the prevalence of parishes and dioceses and the access of the Sacraments and Christian community, as well as Canon 603's insistence on an approved Rule and the supervision of the local Bishop, the solitary eremitical life is more possible than it has been in the past. (Remember that Paul Giustiniani once concluded that solitary eremitical lives could no longer be considered legitimate because of the need for and Church requirements regarding regular participation in the Sacraments. He posited lauras as the answer.) Finally, it is important to remember that for various reasons eremitical life has always been threatened to disappear in two primary ways: either it "becomes" and is absorbed into cenobitical life, or it is suppressed or simply dies out. Canon 603 is, in its own way, a law which is meant to prevent both of these eventualities and the reasons which lead to them.

The first way is by allowing for lauras but NOT communities. Now, let's be clear that the Canon does NOT itself specify this allowance. Everything about the Canon is geared to the solitary eremitical vocation. Commentators however, do recognize that the Congregation for religious (CICLSAL) in Rome acknowledges lauras to be a possibility and they have allowed this as an option FOR THOSE DIOCESAN HERMITS WHO DECIDED TO COME TOGETHER IN THIS WAY at the discretion of the local ordinary. So the first element in determining the difference between a community and a laura is the recognition that a laura is not a place where a non-hermit may go to be formed as a hermit. In a Canon 603 laura, then it seems to me that there would be no postulancy, novitiate, juniorate (or their correlative superiors or formation personnel), etc. It would be, by definition, a place where SOLITARY hermits who are already professed according to Canon 603 with their own Rules of Life, their own spiritualities, ministries, interests, confessors, directors, and delegates, etc, may come together to mutually support one another in greater physical solitude and solidarity than would be possible otherwise.

Thus the structure of the laura would be minimal. A set of approved guidelines or "house rules" to ensure the solitude of the place, provision for some common prayer and meals at regular intervals, a set of rotating charges or chores which are to be done on a regular basis, and a general expectation of common regard and assistance may be all that is required. Each hermit would generally follow her own horarium and work and pray on her own. Except for communal meals to which each would contribute in some way, each hermit would be responsible for her own food, cooking, etc. I am envisioning a laura without a priest so attendance at Mass would be part of the hermit's regular participation in a parish community. (Liturgies of the Word with Communion would be extensions of parish liturgies.) In general the laura would not be the place a hermit entertained friends, but if the grounds are sufficient, there is no reason occasional friends could not come for walks and quiet talks, or even a meal and period of recreation, etc. Meetings with spiritual directors and delegates could take place at the hermitage whenever these need to be scheduled (or not, as the hermit works out). The hermits would generally be free to come and go as they individually needed without answering to anyone at the laura so long as their obligations there were otherwise met and folks were informed of and understood the basic itinerary and contact details. (A sign out sheet would be an easy solution here.)

Access to phone, computer, media, internet, etc is determined by the hermits' OWN Rule of life. Similarly, each hermit would continue to maintain individual bank accounts and be responsible for her own needs and expenses. Some portion of each hermit's income could be given to cover common expenses, rent, and/or upkeep, but these hermits would remain solitary hermits, responsible for their own personal and living expenses, healthcare, etc, in all the ways any other diocesan hermit would be. They would also, therefore be allowed to earn money doing spiritual direction or whatever else they are skilled at and this money would NOT become part of the common pot. (Given the frequency with which lauras fail for whatever reason, it is important that the individual hermits, who remain professed in the diocese, be able to move to other places on their own if necessary. The provision for individual earning and bank accounts is something specifically addressed in the Guidelines for Eremitical life by the Diocese of La Crosse.)

Significantly, there would be no general superior here. Delegates (quasi superiors who serve both the diocese and the individual hermit) will more likely (and far more prudently) be drawn from religious or others outside the laura. Confessors and spiritual directors are also chosen by the hermit in complete freedom from those outside the hermitage. The choice of ministry, recreational activities, friendships, degree and nature of parish participation, etc are up to the hermit so long as these choices do not impinge on the solitude of the hermitage itself or the individual hermit's own Rule and solitary way of life. Whether hermits are spiritual directors, writers of icons, authors, medical transcriptionists, etc, since they carry these activities out as solitary hermits, the laura is neither responsible nor liable for problems which might occur as a result. Only the hermit herself is so liable --- as would be the case for any C 603 hermit anywhere. And, as mentioned above, the laura is not a house of formation. Hospitality might (and, in the desert tradition, should) be offered if there is an adequate way to do so, but that is a very different matter than becoming a house of formation!

Similarly, there is no concerted common garb, spirituality, mission, or ministry here (though the garment given at perpetual profession besides the habit may be the same or similar for all hermits in a given diocese). The laura might be composed of diocesan hermits from Carmelite, Benedictine, Camaldolese, Carthusian, Trappist, Franciscan, or other spiritual traditions. Habits, when habits are worn at all, might reflect any of these or none of them. Each hermit will live out the diocesan hermit's charism of "the silence of solitude." This is the gift she brings to Church and world but the way in which she embodies this in presence and ministry to others can and will likely differ one from another. A Canon 603 laura will be rich and diverse in terms of spirituality with no single or predominant vision of reality or even of eremitical life beyond that articulated in Canon 603.

Why the concern?

As you might be able to tell, I believe that there are communities of hermits today professed under canon 603 which merely call themselves lauras in the sense truly allowed by Canon 603. I think this is a mistake and a betrayal of the Canon and the vocation it governs. Some members of these actually consider the Canon "impossible" and suggest that it is inadequate to live a good eremitical life (although these persons are professed under it and have committed themselves to living out an eremitical life in accordance with it). Some mistakenly argue that commentators note that Canon 603 allows for communities. (Beyer, who is misquoted by one of these persons for instance, explicitly notes that lauras are permissible but should NOT rise to the level of communities.) Some, in a rather different situation, want to be or belong to a community from the beginning and use Canon 603 to get individual members (or themselves) professed on the way towards this. This actually crosses the line from betrayal of the canon and vocation it defines to outright fraud. The question at bottom of all of these instances is whether we really believe that solitary eremitical life is possible or not. The question is important because there are millions of isolated persons in our world who could be given great hope if the answer is yes. Either "the silence of solitude" --- that is, the silence of a simple and committed solitary life lived in union with God --- is possible for the individual who lives without benefit of formal community, or it is not. Canon 603, by its very existence and formulation, says that it is.

This is one area where the Canon is not specific even though everything in the Canon is geared towards the solitary hermit and the Canon itself was formulated with this specific vocation in mind. History tells us that the solitary eremitical vocation is fragile but vital and significant. Canon 603 is a way of protecting and governing such vocations and the gift they are to the Church and World, especially to isolated individuals everywhere --- individuals with no chance or even desire of becoming religious or living in community, or to those individuals who need the model of solitude and contemplative prayer of what are sometimes disparagingly called "freelance" or "solo" (rather than solitary) hermits right there in their parish communities. Canon 603 nurtures and protects a unique eremitical charism then, but this is one place where unawareness of this charism leads to misuse and abuse of the canon. It is also a place where greater clarification and education might be prudent. As I have stated before, it is one thing to argue for the canonical possibility of something, that is, it is one thing to argue that the law does not specifically preclude that thing, and entirely another to argue for its prudence in light of the gift it is to Church and world.