Once Again on c 603 and the Reasons it was Created

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Canon 603?

Hi Sister, I found the following questions written to another hermit but I couldn't find an answer anywhere. Could you answer them? Also, I especially wondered if there were no formal or institutionalized forms of eremitical life before 1983. The person writing this question seems to say there was only one traditional form of eremitical life until then and the 1983 canonical form is somehow a perversion or at least a negation of the "traditional form". 

Here is what I read: [[But I do sense and have cited instances noticed, of the division that is being created, plus some detraction even if subtle or recently reworded. Eventhough you state correctly that the centuries-and-into-antiquity style of hermit vocation should not be demeaned, the traditional historic way of hermit life is in effect being negated or presented/treated as illegal by virtue of having the relative recent, diocese hermit path "legalized" by a canon law with procedural structure created by humankind, albeit clerics, but perhaps some who wanted this structure and stature developed, lobbied for and assisted in the creation of the canon law.

So again, to re-cap; my sincere appreciation if you can shed light at least on the reason why a canon law to legalize and make public, organized, and structured a diocese hermit vocation--was determined necessary to begin with, or who promoted the diocese hermit or "by law" type of public profession into the hands of a bishop over private profession in and consecration by God?]]

::Sigh:: I have written about this an awful lot over the past 17 years or so, so let me be brief and point you to past posts. First of all, while one form of eremitical life is called canonical (because it is an ecclesial life that is normative of what the Catholic Church understands such a life to be) and another is called non-canonical (that is, not normative nor appropriately governed as such vocations need to be), this does not mean the second one is "illegal" (nor that those living it are not leading exemplary lives the church respects). Only one person I know of has called the lay eremitical vocation illegal; she did that in a way that tended to demean her own non-canonical vocation and I wrote a piece against this. Later, I had the sense she thought I had said lay eremitical vocations were "illegal".

Some forms of eremitical life have been made canonical (normative) for hundreds and hundreds of years --- long before there was a universal Code of Canon Law. These include monasteries or hermitages associated with the Carmelites, the Carthusians, the Camaldolese, and so forth. In the Middle Ages anchoresses and anchorites (women and men) as well as hermits (always men) were supervised by local bishops and practices governing anchorholds including liturgical praxia were developed as were regulations for hermits seeking permission to wear the hermit tunic or preach openly. In such cases, local dioceses had canons (norms) regarding such vocations, despite the lack of a universal code in their regard. So, no, it is not the case that there has been only one kind of hermit living "traditional" hermit life on their own until 1983 when Canon 603 came to recognize the new possibility of consecrated solitary eremitical life.

Bishop Remi de Roo

The Church, however, came to recognize that God had entrusted her with all forms of eremitical life, and she had failed to sufficiently regard the solitary eremitical life as well as it deserved. Perhaps she distrusted these solitary hermits; perhaps she felt they were too hard to regulate or even shepherd. Sometimes, eccentricity replaced authenticity and individuality detracted from one's participation as a member of the body of Christ. (Paul Giustiniani wrote that solitary hermits were no longer valid given Eucharistic and other sacramental changes in the Church.) 

Whatever the reasons (and there were likely many along the lines noted!) when long-solemnly-professed monks discerned callings to live lives of eremitical solitude, they had to leave their congregations and seek laicization so that they might live as hermits because their congregations did not include this option for members in their proper law. About a dozen of these monks came together as lay (or ordained) hermits under Bishop Remi de Roo in BC, who became their bishop protector and eventually gave a very perspicacious intervention at Vatican II regarding how the Church should esteem these vocations. De Roo recognized that this tiny group of men represented the tip of a potentially very large iceberg and wanted the Church to esteem these vocations as they deserved.

During Vatican II seemingly nothing happened as a result of De Roo's intervention --- none of the documents even mentioned eremitical life. Still, in light of the shifts in church life, attitudes, and praxis brought about by Vatican II, the Code of Canon Law needed to be rewritten. Amid this re-writing, the Church added canons 603-605, recognizing solitary hermits, consecrated virgins living in the world, and the bishop's responsibility to remain open to new forms of consecrated life respectively. What the Church has tried to do with Canon 603 is honor the solitary eremitical vocation as a gift of God to the Church. She has come to recognize its importance to her life and she has provided a canonical (normative) way for individuals who feel called to live this way, to be professed and consecrated by God through the Church's mediation. Hermits whose consecration and professions are canonical become Catholic Hermits, meaning they are permitted to live their lives in "the name of the Church" as God has called them to. Such vocations are mutually discerned while such an identity (Catholic Hermit) is a right and obligation entrusted to the person by the Church herself in a public (canonical) Rite of consecration beyond that of baptism. 

I am convinced that by making the solitary eremitical vocation canonical, the church will say to all genuine hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical, that the church esteems such vocations as a gift of God to the world. At the same time, the Church has recognized that this vocation is a difficult one and relatively rare since few human beings will be called (or able) to achieve the fullness of authentic humanity in the silence of solitude. Far more frequent will be those who seek isolation or individualism, who say with Charlie Brown, [[ I love humanity!! It's People I hate!!]], or who are seeking escape in what contemporary culture calls "Cocooning". The reason for Canon 603 is to codify and provide for the supervision of an ecclesial life that is truly given over to love --- the love of God, of self, and of the whole of God's creation. Hermits generally need such a context if they are not to slide into these forms of eremitical "heresy" or even "apostasy". Common knowledge recognizes and reflects this tendency to distortions and selfishness in all of the stereotypes and derogatory notions it holds regarding what constitutes a "hermit". The establishment of stable forms and states of consecrated life is the task of the Church, and C 603 is part of this achievement for those called to solitary eremitical life.

As I think again about "Why Canon 603?" I remember that when I first googled hermits what showed up was a long list dedicated to "hermit crabs". Second, came all of the eccentric or stereotypical references to "hermits" --- misanthropes, psychopaths, social failures, and so forth. Finally, there were a very few references to authentic hermits whose lives witnessed to a serious commitment to God and authentic humanity lived for the sake of the other. Over the past 40 years, C 603 has become part of helping others reconsider the nature of healthy eremitical life and appreciate the importance of the silence of solitude in every life.

Please check the labels to the right of this post to find similar responses. See especially Canon 603 - history.

Canon 603: a Paradigm for all Hermits

[[When we examine the now two Church-allowed hermit paths, we can see the challenges in each, but the greater challenge to me has remained that of living as a hermit unknown, unnoticed, non-acclaimed. Yet despite many trials and errors, I remain God’s beloved consecrated hermit--and a Catholic hermit. Indeed, some have stated that a privately professed hermit must not call him- or herself a “Catholic hermit” if not a diocese CL603 hermit. It does not matter, other than why cut off all the Church’s hermits who have lived and died living this more rare but special vocation when until recent times, there was no created church law establishing other than what always had been?]] 

Hi Sister, I wondered if you had seen this post and if you had any opinions on it. I wonder how the author can say "It does not matter" while it sounds like it matters a lot to her! Does Canon 603 cut off all who have lived and died as a non-canonical hermit? Was there no church law regarding hermits before c 603? I remember you saying there was but not universal canon law. Is this so? Thanks!]]

I have seen this passage before, yes. I agree that the assertion of an identity as a "consecrated Catholic hermit" despite never having been admitted to consecration as a Catholic hermit by anyone in the church with that authority and/or intention, does seem to matter a lot to the author. She is a Catholic and a hermit but does not live her eremitical vocation in the name of the Church. This is because using the term "Catholic hermit" to indicate a normative quality to the vocation requires someone with both authority and intent to establish one in law as a Catholic hermit. That, in turn, means extending the legal rights and obligations of a canonical (or public**) vocation to someone and the person to whom such rights and obligations are extended must also embrace these in law; this all occurs in the Rites of canonical Profession* and Consecration mediated by the Church in the person of the local ordinary. That the author has not met these requirements is significant given her claims. What is unclear to me is the reason she presses these claims since the Church recognizes all authentic forms of eremitical life in whatever state of life (lay, consecrated, or clerical) as laudable.

Before Canon 603, the main canonical provision for eremitical life was to join a congregation of Catholic Hermits (Carthusians, Camaldolese, some Carmelites, et al.). As you note, in individual dioceses in some centuries bishops did approve the lives of anchorites and cared for them if benefactors failed. During the Middle Ages there were local (diocesan) canons from place to place to regulate things in some ways (there was no universal Canon Law at this time). Otherwise, except for the orders/congregations of canonical hermits, the "traditional" form of solitary eremitical life was lay, not consecrated. Vocationally as well as hierarchically speaking, the Desert Abbas and Ammas were lay hermits --- they lived eremitical life in the lay state. So was every hermit who lived as a solitary hermit (that is, who was not part of a religious congregation) until 1983. Canon 603 recognized the value of solitary eremitical life after Bishop Remi De Roo intervened at Vatican II to ask for such recognition. De Roo requested that the eremitical vocation, which was so positive in his lived experience, should be recognized as a state of perfection, just as all religious life was recognized and established. 

But it took time to do this. There was the need to reflect on the lives of notable hermits and develop a list of characteristics a solitary hermit would live, just as there was the need to create a normative way of governing this life so it was truly exemplary --- not perfect, of course, but exemplary. Almost 20 years after Vatican II ended, the Church published a revised Code of Canon Law and for the very first time in the history of the Church, the solitary eremitical life was recognized in universal law as a state of perfection (that is, it was included as a consecrated state of life with those so consecrated recognized by the Church as Religious); thus it was defined in a normative way in Canon 603.

It is not that non-canonical hermits are being cut off, diminished, or disregarded. That seems to me to be a cynical and inaccurate representation of the facts. The long history of exemplary holiness and prophetic presence of such hermits is precisely what called for a Canon recognizing the value and dignity of this calling as an ecclesial vocation belonging to the Church. These hermits taught the Church this and made the way for Canon 603 as an eventuality!! The normative portrait of eremitical life in Canon 603 is drawn from the lives and wisdom of such hermits; in fact, it honors them!! At the same time, the Church is careful in discerning and governing eremitical vocations not only because these are significant gifts and more difficult to discern than vocations to life in community,  but also because the history of solitary hermits is ambiguous with evidence both of great holiness and disedifying or even scandalous eccentricity. 

The Church wants hermits to live this vocational gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and she recognizes the support and guidance of the Church are important if individuals are to live such vocations well. After all, eremitism is neither about being a loner nor a too-common, sometimes rampant individualism. Instead, it is lived within the dynamic and demanding context of the ecclesial community with its long history of non-canonical hermits as well as canonical eremitical congregations and (now) solitary canonical hermits. At the same time, the Church knows that hermits of whatever stripe can be a prophetic presence challenging the Church herself to an ever more radical living out of the Gospel. Canon 603 celebrates and witnesses to this as well. 

This became clear as the Church recognized the significance not only of the Desert Ammas and Abbas but also of both the anchoritic and eremitic vocations on a diocesan level through various eras of her history. Bishops created statutes and devised liturgies recognizing and embracing these vocations because of this recognition. (For instance, recall the rite praying for and blessing the anchorite and her cell, as well as closing her within her anchorhold; note the ways diocesan bishops exercised responsibility for the upkeep of the anchoress when the local community or benefactors failed to do so; consider also the way the right to wear a hermit's tunic or the license to preach and solicit from others as a hermit, came in these same centuries, from the local ordinary.)  Still, what was necessary to truly demonstrate that all such vocations were valued throughout the church in all eras was the hermit's recognition in universal law. 

Bishop Remi De Roo

That only occurred in 1983 with the promulgation of Canon 603. Still, the majority of hermits will likely remain non-canonical. I would argue that it is now easier to live as a non-canonical hermit precisely because the church recognizes the eremitical vocation as such canonically and has made these instances of it a normative and consecrated state. With canon 603 every eremitical vocation, whether non-canonical or canonical is raised to a new visibility and valuation in the Western Church. Canon 603 is still under-utilized and likely will be so for some time to come. Not everyone will or should become a canon 603 hermit or thus live this vocation in the name of the Church, but those who live their eremitic vocations as non-canonical hermits can be grateful that for the first time in almost 2 millennia, the Western church has honored the eremitical vocation in universal law. 

This requires that canonical hermits live the normativity of their vocations well and humbly for they do so for all hermits. They reflect on the terms of Canon 603 for the benefit of every hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical. If canonical, they have embraced ecclesial responsibilities in making Profession and accepting Consecration through the church's mediation, and each one will demonstrate aspects of the life any hermit should be open to learning from. Of course, non-canonical hermits must also live their chosen callings well and humbly. If they choose not to be canonical hermits or are refused admission to canonical standing, I believe they must still let themselves learn from Canon 603 and those professed and consecrated accordingly -- as well as from hermits in eremitical congregations. From before the time I first knocked on the chancery door seeking profession (@1985) to consecration in 2007 (about 23 years), I reflected on c 603 and learned from it despite having been given little hope my diocese might ever implement it for anyone. I also learned from the Camaldolese and others. 

Whether living as a non-canonical or canonical hermit, it was the vision of eremitical life the Church recognized as normative that was important for my own faithfulness and growth in the eremitical vocation. I hope that all hermits can understand the importance of both the Canon and those exploring eremitical life in a canonical/consecrated state. They do this not only for God and the Church more generally, but for all hermits, whether canonical or non-canonical. Because C 603 represents the normative vision of what the Church considers to constitute eremitical life,  to live this life canonically is not about prestige, but about responsibility. This is the meaning of status in the phrase canonical status or standing. Acceptance of this standing and correlative responsibility is reflected in the right to call oneself a Catholic Hermit and such rights and obligations are never self-assumed. Again, they are given by the Church to those whose vocations they have also discerned.

* Profession is a broader act than the making of vows. It is a public act of and for the Church in which an individual commits him/herself to the rights and obligations of a new state in life. Usually, this is done through the making and reception of canonical (public) vows. In final, perpetual, or definitive profession, through the reception of the individual's vows and the prayer of consecration, the Church mediates God's consecration of the person. This sets him/her apart as a sacred person and constitutes his/her definitive entrance into the consecrated state.

** Public in this context refers to the public rights and responsibilities undertaken in a public (canonical) commitment, not to the place this commitment takes place, nor to the number who attend it. Likewise, private means that legal (public) rights and obligations are not extended to nor undertaken by the hermit involved.

Normative vs non-Normative Vocations: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits and the Misuse of Terms Like Illegal or Illicit

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, what is an "illegal" or "illicit" hermit? In your post on April 12, 2023 you wrote about non-canonical vocation to eremitical life as ancient and of continuing value. I wondered about someone who believes his own eremitical vocation was rendered illicit or illegal because it is not a c 603 vocation. You may not understand why he would say this but it seems like he feels what was the traditional form of hermit life was made illegal when c 603 came into existence. That seems to be what he is saying.]]

Thanks for the question, but I don't know what that is. Seems to me someone asked something similar several years ago. I will need to look through some older posts to see if I can find that. If I can't locate it I will need to get more information from you. The truth, however, regarding the language of canonicity is pretty simple in the Catholic Church. A canon is a norm and when something is made canonical it means that thing, whether a collection of Scriptures, a form of life, a particular office, a set of requirements, etc., is normative according to the church's understanding of something; on the other hand, non-canonical means not normative according to the church's understanding of the thing. By virtue of baptism alone one can live an eremitical life in any way they believe is appropriate for them and feel called to do. However, one is not a Catholic Hermit because what one lives is a private matter and one doesn't live this life, nor is one called to do so, according to all of the norms (standards) governing canonical eremitical life. One does it instead by virtue of one's lay state and the freedom one has in Christ. 

In this case, one dedicates him/herself to serve God in the eremitical life. S/he may make private vows of some sort, but they will not rise to the level of religious profession, nor will they be public or canonical. Because these kinds of commitments (public, canonical) are absent, and because the canonical rights and obligations (along with the expectations granted to the faithful generally in regard to this vocation) are similarly absent, we call this kind of eremitical life non-canonical. It does NOT mean illicit or illegal nor do I know anyone who considers this to be the case. Again, it is simply not normative of ecclesial eremitical life (i.e., it is not canonical) --- though it may well represent an excellent instance of eremitical life and one any hermit can learn from. 

There are two other forms of eremitical life in the church and both involve public (canonical) profession and consecration by God mediated by the Church and are lived in the name of the Church. These are normative forms of eremitical life in the Church. Thus too, both are marked by legal or normative (canonical) rights and obligations that do not obtain in the first form of this life. Another way of saying this is to note that they are both canonical because they are forms of life marked by canonical rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism. The first is solitary eremitical life (members of which could become a lavra on a temporary basis) and the other is semi-eremitical (a canonical community or institute of hermits), where one's profession is made within the context of the institute. In both of these one makes a profession which, by the way, means more than the making of vows (an act of dedication, by the way). Sandra Schneiders, IHM, makes it clear that profession is a broader act than the simple making of vows. First it is a public act in which the individual takes on the kinds of rights and obligations mentioned above and does so as an expression and realization of a gift of God which has been entrusted to the Church and can only be mediated to one by the Church.

Secondly, then, an act of profession is an ecclesial act where the church extends to the individual the right to make such a profession, affirms them as called to live this in the name of the church, and establishes with various structures and offices a context meant to assure the gift is well-lived and continues the tradition into which the individual has been professed as a living, fruitful stream of the Holy Spirit. This differs from a private avowal which ordinarily involves no one but the individual(s) making the vows. Someone may witness such vows, but no one receives them on behalf of the church, no additional public rights nor obligations are entrusted nor taken on, no change of state occurs (there is no additional consecration by God** so one remains in the baptized state alone), and so forth. With private or non-canonical eremitical vocations vows or other forms of dedication don't even need to be made (though foregoing these might be unwise). Still, the dedication may be informal or formal (though still entirely private) --- depending on what suits the individual hermit. 

For canonical hermits profession is made in two ways, first, for solitary hermits, under c 603. When this canon is used, the profession is made to God in the hands of the local ordinary. Because we are speaking about the public assumption and entrustment of the hermit with ecclesial rights and obligations, the rite of profession (involving both profession and commissioning) is mediated by the church. The second way is to admit an individual to membership in an institute of consecrated life living eremitical life. This is familiar to us as admission into religious life and all that constitutes that. Individuals make their professions to God in the hands of the Prior(ess), Abbot (Abbess), of the order, that is in the hands of the general superior. (In both of these forms or eremitical life, perpetual or solemn profession God's consecration of the hermit is also mediated with a solemn blessing of consecration given by the bishop. Similarly, visible symbols of the new state, rights, and obligations, dedication and commission) This mediation continues throughout the entirety of the hermit's life. Hence, it involves canonical structures, an approved Rule, legitimate superiors, ecclesial requirements, etc., to allow the church to ensure this gift of consecrated life contributes to the holiness of the church.

All of this is recognized by the church in her (still relatively) new Canon 603. Here she extends to the solitary hermit who petitions and is accepted by her diocese for profession and then consecration, the standing that had been extended to religious institutes throughout the centuries. Individual dioceses had done some similar things in the late middle ages, usually in order to introduce some structure, obligations,  and responsibilities (i.e., norms) into the ranks of hermits traveling throughout the countryside, when bishops established statutes hermits had to commit to be allowed to represent themselves as hermits/anchorites or to preach and beg. But canon 603 goes further than these statutes for what c 603 does is establish the hermit in what was once called a state of perfection (now, the consecrated state) and allows a solitary hermit to be regarded as a religious despite not belonging to an institute of consecrated life. the Church did this not only to recognize the significance of the eremitical vocation, but to protect it and authentic vocations to it. 

Despite what sometimes seemed like hoards of solitary hermits (for instance, in Italy at the time of Romuald) and the number of institutes of hermits established over the centuries, very few of such institutes lived into the 20th Century and individual hermits became a rarity. Most well-known are the Camaldolese and the Carthusians, but there were also Carmelites, and some hermits within other institutes like the Trappists and Trappistines. Still, eremitical life was a rare and poorly understood vocation. After all, in the Western church, the eremitical life had almost died out. And of course, it was not so easy in the contemporary world to go off into the boonies and establish oneself as a hermit in the ways that were once possible. Moreover, our contemporary world often mistakes various other forms of life for the genuinely eremitical, including individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, agoraphobia, etc. 

Within the church herself,  contemplative life became rarer, genuine silence and solitude much harder to find, shifts in spirituality that themselves were healthy and the necessary emphasis on ministerial life threw shade on eremitical life. But monks and nuns continued to discover calls to greater solitude and silence than their life in community really allowed for. Eventually, in response, the church carved out a space for solitary hermits with c 603. The canonical requirements helped replace the institutes necessary for the Camaldolese and Carthusians, for instance. At the same time, no pre-existing forms of eremitical life were replaced by c 603. Instead, it created a new form of consecrated life. Those baptized and in the lay state could live eremitism in their lay state before c 603 and they still can! The same is true of clerics with their bishop's permission. Thus, no eremitical form of life, especially that made known by the desert Abbas and Ammas who embraced desert spirituality as laity, has been rendered illegal!!! To speak so is misleading and I consider it disedifying given the significance of non-canonical hermit vocations through the centuries. 

** Baptism represents a consecration of the baptized. When one is perpetually professed as a religious or c 603 hermit, a second consecration in the form of a solemn prayer of consecration is extended to the person making their profession. (In temporary vows, the solemn prayer of consecration is not found; instead there is a prayer of blessing.) We call this being initiated into the consecrated state of life. In this act God consecrates the person, the person does not consecrate herself to God. Instead, no matter the commonality of this language of consecrating oneself, the one making profession dedicates herself to God. Only God can consecrate, for God alone is holy and makes holy. Vatican II was very careful always to maintain the distinction between these two verbs, dedicare and consecrare (as well as similar terms).

Is Canon 603 Exclusionary?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you have written any number of times about what is unique about canon 603. I have never heard you saying that it excludes people from the consecrated state. Instead I have heard you saying that the church finally allowed hermits to be included in the consecrated state. Is this the case? Were hermits always understood to be lay persons? How about religious? How were they regarded? What I am most concerned with is whether canon 603 excludes people from being thought of as consecrated as one blogger is now arguing.]]

Thanks for your question and your summary of what you have heard me saying. I think you have heard me very clearly. When I emphasize the Desert Fathers and Mothers were a lay vocation my intention is not merely to be accurate and avoid anachronism, it is  also to point to how varied and significant lay vocations can be and have always been in the Church. But let's be clear, despite being rooted in baptismal consecration, these vocations were not understood as consecrated vocations in the way we use that term today. These and later hermits were not somehow part of the consecrated state (a different and even later category within the church). Hermits could be seen as consecrated when they were part of an institute of consecrated life and made vows within this context, but otherwise, they have not been seen as consecrated except insofar as the  whole People of God is consecrated in baptism.

Remember that the Church was pretty much always divided hierarchically into laity and clerics. Early on there were also ascetics, virgins, and widows. Monastic life pretty much overtook eremitical vocations by the sixth century. (The rise of monastic life from the 3rd C and Benedictinism beginning in the 6th C continued as the Desert Fathers and Mothers died out and eremitism continued as semi-eremitism in the Western Church.) Consecrated virgins outside of monastic life died out (was subsumed into religious life) by the 11th C.  Religious became unofficially a kind of third and median division in the hierarchical schema. In time this ambiguity was clarified. Vatican II and the revised Code of Canon Law especially said very clearly that religious are not a median division in the hierarchy of the Church, not a third or middle level, and that hierarchically speaking, Religious are part of the laity. Even so, solitary hermits were not regarded as part of the consecrated (Religious) life within the Church. Eremitical life was a diverse, often eccentric, or disedifying phenomenon which also had occasional saints, but it  was not considered an instance of consecrated life unless the hermits belonged to an Order or congregation of Religious.

What was significant re canon 603 was that for the first time in the history of the universal Church solitary hermits could be recognized in law as part of the consecrated state.  As I've written before, but with a different emphasis maybe, when Bishop Remi de Roo made his intervention at the Second Vatican Council he had been dealing with a dozen or more hermits who had had to leave their Solemn vows, leave their congregations, and be secularized because they could not be hermits according to the proper law of their congregations. That was the term used: secularized. It was the term meaning antithetical to the consecrated or Religious state. Even today we remember references to religious vs seculars. These monks had to leave the consecrated state and live the silence of solitude as hermits in the lay (or, if they were priests, clerical) states. This was the only possibility that existed in the Church. They could not leave their monasteries and expect to be considered to still be in the consecrated or Religious state. (At this point in history religious and consecrated are essentially synonyms; this changed with the reintroduction of consecrated virgins who were not religious (c 604) and consecrated hermits (c 603).)

In any case, though consecrated with what was called the "second consecration" they no longer existed in the consecrated state and there was no way within the Church to contend or achieve the opposite. Their vows had been dispensed, they had no legitimate superiors (though Bishop de Roo served them as Bishop Protector), and the church generally had no way to canonically govern or legitimately support their eremitical vocations or those of others like them unless they formed a semi-eremitical community under established canons. In other words, solitary hermits who had been secularized were unable to consider themselves consecrated hermits even if they had spent years in religious life and solemn vows.

It is important to understand what these monks had given up in order to live a call to eremitical life in the lay (or clerical) state; they had no other option in attending to God's call. Their situation, and that of others desiring to live lives as solitary consecrated hermits, meant there was a lacuna or gap in Church perception, practice, and law. The church needed to recognize the nature and value of the eremitical vocation in general (no matter the state of life), but particularly, she needed a way for solitary hermits, when this vocation was mutually discerned, to be initiated into the consecrated state with all that implied. Canon 603 was the result and it filled this gap. That occurred in 1983.

Canon 603 was not added as an option for those who liked law, were legalistic, or simply prideful. It was not added so Bishops could discipline recalcitrant lay hermits. (First, there weren't many in the Western church, and second, admission to the consecrated state is not the way the Church deals with difficult or troublesome people or situations.) It was added because the Church as a whole had never had a way to consecrate solitary hermits. Indeed, the Church had rarely wanted to do so! Some bishops had seen the value of eremitical life and taken anchorites under their care in the Middle Ages while other (mainly male) hermits wandered the land, sometimes helpful (ferrymen, foresters, etc.) and often simply eccentric or bizarre. While legends grew up around hermits (the source of most stereotypes) and some were considered quite holy, they were never part of the consecrated life of the Church because they did not belong to Religious Institutes.

When one reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one must be careful not to read it anachronistically. The same is true of Canon 603. It has never been meant to exclude hermits through history from the consecrated state (as though it could do so retroactively!). It was meant to fill a lacuna in Church perspective, practice, and law and make it possible for the first time ever in the universal church to constitute and recognize solitary hermits in law (canonically) as members of the consecrated state. In doing so it extended the category "Religious" to those with no connection to a religious congregation (Handbook on Canons 573-746) --- a very great change in the way the Church thought and practiced.

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.

On the Questions of Freedom vs License and Fraudulent Hermits

[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive. In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church defines it. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God; the second is not, it is worldly or fleshly as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make.

By the way, thanks for your patience. I know it has been a while since you emailed about all of this. It has been sitting unfinished in the drafts collection and other questions on the same topics made it especially relevant again. I apologize for the delay.

Why Canon 603?

[[ Dear Sister, is it true that Canon 603 was formulated or published in order to prevent abuses of eremitical life by hermits? Is Canon 603 important for other reasons than this? Also, has there been a history of problems with hermits and if so, why would the Church institutionalize such a vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have answered these in the past so let me refer you to past answers. One article you might find helpful in this regard is Fraudulent Hermits Throughout History from November 2015. This article notes there is a history in the Church of dealing with fraudulent hermits (though more fundamentally these were attempts to create norms for authentic eremitical life) and also outlines how canon 603 differs from these attempts, not only in scope but in nature and origin. There are earlier articles on the origin and history of canon 603 (cf label Canon 603 - history), most particularly which outline the positive reasons Bp Remi De Roo intervened at Vatican II in order to get the Church Fathers to recognize eremitical life as a "state of perfection" (a vocation to the consecrated state of life). (See especially, Followup on Visibility and Betrayal of Canon 603 for the first article I wrote here in which I remember listing the positive reasons given by Bishop De Roo.)

To answer your questions very briefly here, canon 603 was created because Bp Remi de Roo had experienced eremitical life as Bishop Protector of about a dozen hermits who had come together after leaving their solemn vows as monks. Their monasteries did not allow for eremitical life in their proper law so these monks had to leave their monasteries, their vows, and be secularized in order to pursue life as hermits. It was a big sacrifice but eventually they founded a laura and did so under Bp De Roo. He saw the significant contributions to the Church these vocations represented and wrote an intervention as Vatican II to support making this vocation part of those allowing for public profession and consecration. Almost 20 years later canon 603 was the result. Thirty-six years later c 603 is still a relatively unknown and less understood vocation.

I would argue the vocation is important for all the reasons Bp De Roo enumerated, but above all I would argue the vocation is important because it establishes solitude as antithetical to isolation or a selfish individualism; it also, therefore, gives an important example to isolated elderly and the chronically ill and disabled regarding the completion that is possible in God alone and so too, to the meaningfulness of any life rooted in God. Bp De Roo listed at least a half dozen positive reasons for the recognition of this vocation by the Church. Abuses, though sometimes problematical throughout the history of the vocation, were not listed as part of the origin of canon 603. The Church is not unaware of the problems with hermits in her history, but what is more compelling are the prophetic and witness values of this vocation. Hermits proclaim the Gospel of Christ with a peculiar vividness. As noted recently, in the lives of hermits we hear of (and see) a God whose power is perfected in weakness, who alone completes us in our authentic humanity, who loves us with an everlasting love, and who calls us to a radically countercultural life as Christians.

While we can't avoid speaking of the stereotypes, fraudulent versions, and distortions of eremitical life, the positive reasons for institutionalizing the vocation are much more important. At bottom the Church recognizes this life as a gift of God given/entrusted to the Church for her own life and edification.

On Canon 603 and Proliferating Laws on Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, I saw a video recently by a hermit who said the development of canonical standing was kind of humorous to her. After all, hermits are and always have been uncommon, unique individuals so that trying to apply laws to them seemed counterintuitive (my word, not hers!). The result, she seemed to be saying, was that there was a proliferation of laws, rules, and precedents correcting earlier laws and more and more trying to restrain and then correct errors. My question is about canon 603 in light of this video and the followup one which spoke of canon 603 being "manipulated". Is it an evolving thing and does it lead to more laws? Was it the result of past attempts to write laws for hermits? Did it correct abuses? Does law prevent you from being free as a hermit or from being an individual?]]

Thanks for your questions. There are other articles on similar questions so take a look at the topics to your right; check under the labels "canon 603 - history of" and "canon 603 and freedom". One article is entitled "On Herding Cats" which responds to a humorous description by a hermit in Australia. In general no, there have not been many canon laws regarding hermits. Canon 603 is the single canon regarding eremitical life existing in the Church's universal law. Neither is it a redaction of earlier canon law (the 1917 Code) which never addressed eremitical life at all. Canon 603 is a new thing; promulgated in 1983 it represents the first time ever eremitical life has been recognized as a form of consecrated life in the entire Church. Of course, throughout the history of the church individual bishops have sponsored or supervised hermits in their own dioceses. Local laws and customs developed from place to place before hermits largely died out in the Western church. Canon 603 then, far from representing an instance of proliferating laws, represents a single canon governing solitary eremitical life in the universal church and replacing any existing and varying statutes in individual dioceses.

Canon 603 and a Putative Proliferation of Laws, Rules, Precedents, etc:

I have been personally mystified by references to and accusations of supposed proliferating laws and rules when these were mentioned in the past because there is simply no such thing. But recently I heard a comment by someone about this which gave me a clue to what the person who posts most about this was actually talking about. Apparently she has been referring to the various terms that must be defined and understood in order to actually understand canon 603, the nature of profession, initiation into the consecrated state, the nature of a legitimate superior, what canon 603 means by referring to a bishop as the hermit's director, the meaning of the word "status" in "canonical status", and other such things. Because there was ignorance about the technical meaning of terms this commentator seems to have mistakenly taken explanations as "proliferating laws, rules, precedents, etc." So, for instance, one might speak of consecrating oneself to God, but find that despite the common (mis)use of this phrase Vatican II was careful and clear to speak of dedicating oneself while it distinguished that from "consecration" which is always and only God's own work.

Similarly one might speak of "professing" private vows only to find that for the Church herself, the term profession more accurately refers to a public act of dedication which is received in the name of the church and initiates one into a new state of life. Private vows are not an act of profession. Likewise, pointing out that the term "status" and the "desire for canonical status" refer to "standing in law" and the "desire for such standing" and not to some sort of social prestige or prideful desire, is not a matter of creating new rules or precedents; it is simply a matter of clarifying the meaning of terms already well-understood in the Church itself and undergirding a meaningful reading of canon 603. Spelling out the theological contexts for terms, or the historical context of something like canon 603 does not mean one is creating rules or precedents though it well may point out when one has used terms inaccurately and been led to misunderstand the nature of the Church's theology of consecrated or eremitical life.

Canon 603, a Way of Addressing Abuses?

Canon 603 was not promulgated to fight abuses; it was created to address a significant deficiency in the Church's theology and codification of consecrated life and respond to the way the Holy Spirit was at work in the Church; namely, it was promulgated to establish and include solitary eremitical life as a form of that life. Remember, as noted above, solitary eremitical life had pretty much died out in the Western Church. Congregations like the Carthusians and Camaldolese kept eremitical life alive within a disciplined and nurturing context but solitary hermits had nothing like this unless their diocese set some rules or customs for them. At the same time the few lay hermits that existed were relatively invisible to everyone; a canon to initiate them into the consecrated state so that one could contend with abuses would have been absurd and counterproductive. (One does not call attention to hidden abuses that harm no one, create a canon to raise those committing abuses these to a public vocation, and then use more canons to exclude these hermits from the consecrated state!)

In any case, when more than a dozen monks in solemn vows for years discovered they were called to greater solitude in the 20C, their communities could not accommodate hermits in their midst; the monks were required to either give up on becoming hermits or leave their vows and monasteries, become secularized and live eremitical life in this new context. The Bishop who became their bishop protector intervened at Vatican II regarding the great gift eremitical life was to the Church and asked the Council to recognize these vocations in law. Eventually (@20 years later) canon 603 was the result of Bishop Remi De Roo's intervention.

Canon 603 and Freedom:

My own experience of canon 603 is that it creates freedom, specifically, the freedom to live as a hermit in the heart of the Church without concern for what folks in the world around me think of that or expect. The Church, in the persons of my bishop and others discerned this vocation with me and affirmed me in it by admitting me to public profession and consecration. I do not need to worry whether this is my vocation and am free to explore its boundaries and shape in whatever way the Spirit calls me to do. Canon 603 sets forth the central elements which must be lived if one is to be a hermit as the Church understands this vocation but one of these elements is a Rule which the hermit herself creates on the basis of her own experience of responding to the grace of God over time in the silence of solitude. This means canon 603 is a wonderful combination of non-negotiable elements and personal flexibility and responsiveness. Since I understand freedom as the power to be the one whom one is called to be even (and especially) in the midst of constraints, this combination corresponds to and nurtures genuine freedom and individuality in one called to c 603 eremitical life. (Meanwhile, the non-negotiable elements, mutual discernment, and life under authority protects against an individualism which is rampant in today's culture.)

One question that may have been implicit in your question about c 603 being an evolving thing is whether canon 603 itself will become more complicated or whether new canons will be added to the Code (or sections to the canon itself) to clarify questions which may be problematical. My sense is no hermit needs additional canons or sections of canons added to the Code. On the other hand we do want to see education of bishops and vicars re the distinction between lone pious individuals and hermits along with accounts of what kind of formation and experience has been essential for those who have been professed for some time and which were necessary for these hermits' success under c. 603; similarly there should be some way to convey the kinds of time frames which are typically required for this vocation since these do not correspond to canon law for those in religious institutes.

Finally, one issue that comes up is the nature of a livable Rule and the time and experience it takes to actually write one that can be binding in law. I have recommended and continue to recommend writing several Rules over several stages of personal formation as a way of reflecting one's experience and stages of growth as one approaches profession; I recognize that such a project can guide assistance with formation and mutual discernment with one's diocese, but most dioceses know nothing of this. Still, the purpose of such a suggestion to dioceses is not to create more laws but rather to help dioceses ensure they are professing good candidates and also have a way to allow more candidates to participate in a formation and  mutual discernment processes which are 1) not onerous to the diocese, 2) is individualized and flexible for the hermit and, 3) is sufficiently informative for all involved in working with and evaluating the vocation at hand. When the candidate writes several Rules over time they pretty much guide their own formation, identify their own needs in this process, and give invaluable information to those who assist in formation and participate in a meaningful process of mutual ecclesial discernment.

Summary:

There has been no proliferation of laws, rules, or precedents with regard to Canon 603 except those precedents naturally resulting from the use of the canon to accommodate solitary eremitical vocations wisely. The explanation of technical terminology for those who are ignorant of such does not constitute the creation of new rules, laws, or precedents. Because one does not understand one is not initiated into the consecrated state by private vows, or that a person living eremitical life in the lay state is a lay hermit, this does not make explanations of such things "additional laws", made up terms, etc. Freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. There are always constraints in life. Canon 603 sets up necessary constraints as it empowers a more essential and edifying freedom to live eremitical life in a world which militates against it and authentic solitude in every way. Similarly it empowers individual eremitical life which is both traditional, countercultural, and flexible even as it militates against individualism.