On the Purposes and Nature of Canon 603

Dear Sister O'Neal, was canon 603 established to regularize hermits in the Western Church? Does the church refer to or have recluses any more? I am asking because of the following passage: [[It may be interesting to note that now, the Western Church has, as recently as1983, developed a means to regularize hermits (the term recluse has dropped from Church use) by creating CL603.  Thus, hermits who wish to receive bishop approval and be publicly professed under that bishop's direction within their given diocese, may do so. At this time, the canon regulization (sic) is not at all pressure upon hermits who may still prefer private profession of vows within the Consecrated Life of the Church.  Some bishops may prefer to not have hermits in their dioceses nor to deal with the regulized (sic) aspect of CL603, either; but I know of no statistics current on this point.]] I know there are problems with referring to "private profession" "within the consecrated life" of the Church so I am not going to ask you about that. Thank you.]]

No, generally speaking canon 603 was not promulgated to "regularize" solitary hermits in the Western Church. The church from diocese to diocese rather than with universal law had done (or tried to do) that in the middle ages in a number of ways. Primary among these was establishing common Rules for hermits and funneling many of them into monastic communities and such. (Remember that regularize and Rule come from the same root, regula.) As a result solitary hermits in the Western Church pretty much died out by the 15th or 16th Century. Canon 603 was established as a way of recognizing this significant but very rare vocation in universal law for the first time and allowing it to reveal itself on its own terms with ecclesial supervision. This was especially desirable because, as I have noted several times here, solemnly professed monks were discovering vocations to solitude after years in the monastery but because this was not an option for them under their institute's proper law, they had to leave their monasteries and be dispensed and secularized if they were to live as hermits at all. Bishop Remi de Roo and others argued at Vatican II that such a significant and prophetic vocation should be universally recognized as a "state of perfection." This finally occurred with canon 603 and the publication of the 1983 revised code of Canon Law.

Canon 603 serves to define eremitical life (c. 603.1) in well-accepted traditional terms and to provide for living it as an ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church under the supervision of the hermit's local bishop (c. 603.2). It is important to remember that this canon expects the hermit to write her own Rule rooted in her own experience of the way God is calling her to live this life. This is a necessary piece of the Church's discernment of the vocation and of readiness for vows. The bishop does NOT write the hermit's Rule nor is she forced to adopt an already-established Rule --- as was often the case in the Middle Ages. She lives the ecclesial definition of eremitical life in her own way according to her own rhythms, gifts, and needs, but she does so with the aid of a spiritual director and also a diocesan delegate who assists the Bishop in making sure the vocation is lived well and in a healthy, representative, and edifying way. There is nothing onerous about this arrangement for one called to this vocation precisely because eremitical life is not about simply doing as one pleases, but instead about responding to an ecclesially mediated vocation in ways which are edifying to the church even as they are life giving to the hermit.

Regarding recluses, the Church has not dropped the term. She uses it mainly for those very rare hermits who belong to certain Orders and are admitted to reclusion by their communities. The vocation to reclusion is supervised and supported by the congregation, particularly by the superior of the house where the recluse resides. Only the Camaldolese and the Carthusians are allowed to have recluses today. (This includes the Camaldolese nuns who are famous for supporting the vocation of Nazarena, a recluse who lived at the house in Rome.) A diocesan hermit who desires to become a recluse would need the permission of her bishop, recommendations by her spiritual director and her delegate along with significant support by her parish or diocesan community to make healthy reclusion possible. The urgency here is to maintain a specifically ecclesial vocation in which the hermit's vocation to authentic humanity is fostered. If solitary eremitical life is rare, vocations to genuine reclusion are rare to the nth degree but neither the vocation nor the term have been dropped by the Church. Instead, the Church is careful in allowing hermits to embrace reclusion and applies the term rarely.

Because she esteems the eremitical vocation as a gift of the Holy Spirit and understands not only how rare it is but also how easy it would be for misanthropes and other eccentrics to distort and misrepresent it the Church takes care to define it in universal law and to include it as a specific and new form of consecrated life. This means that not "anything goes". Misanthropes need not apply. Lone folks who are not actually embracing a life defined by the constitutive elements of the canon and who do not show clear signs of thriving in such a situation are not hermits despite the more common usage at large in our world. Meanwhile, those who have embraced an authentic desert vocation as canon 603 defines it cannot identify themselves as Catholic hermits unless the Church herself gives them this right in an explicit and public act of profession, consecration, and commissioning. Lay hermits (hermits who, vocationally speaking, are in the lay state, whether with or without private vows) exist and these vocations should be esteemed but they are not vocations to the consecrated state of life nor are they lived in the name of the Church.

Can we speak of canon 603 serving a regularizing purpose today? I suppose if one distinguishes the usage in history, recognizes the relative dearth of eremitical vocations in the Western Church over the past 4-5 centuries, and is clear about the extremely positive way eremitical life was spoken of in the interventions of Bp Remi de Roo at Vatican II and canon 603 subsequently came to be, it is possible to think of this canonical act of defining things carefully as an act of regularizing those who call themselves hermits. After all the canon is a norm which prevents misunderstanding, fraud, and hypocrisy and establishes a universal standard by which the whole Church can recognize and measure authentic eremitical life --- especially vocations to consecrated eremitical life. It brings such hermits under the norms of universal law and the structures associated with consecrated life in the Church. Still, we need to be clear that "regularization" was not the original or primary purpose of canon 603, especially when it is measured against the steps taken in earlier centuries to "regularize" the relative crowds of both authentic and inauthentic hermits who peopled Italy, England, Germany, etc.

Moreover, as noted above, given the canon's requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and thus its insurance of individuality, freedom, and flexibility in fidelity to a traditional and divine calling, even now "regularization" is a word we should probably use carefully. A delegate who serves the hermit and the diocese to protect in very personal ways the legitimate rights and obligations undertaken by the hermit in profession also suggests this. In particular, any suggestion that the canon is meant to shoehorn hermits into some kind of ecclesiastical or legal straitjacket which limits their freedom (or God's!) is one we should assiduously avoid. In my experience, with canon 603 we are faced with a norm which creates a kind of sacred space where an authentic vocation to solitary eremitical life may be recognized and flourish and where authentic human freedom is enabled to reach the perfection associated with holiness and communion with God. After all, one does not "regularize" a gift of the Holy Spirit; instead, one defines or cooperates with the Spirit in defining sacred spaces and mediatory "structures" or channels where God's gift may be formally hallowed and recognized as hallowing the larger context of the Church and world. I think canon 603 functions in this way.

Fraudulent Hermits a Problem Through History?

[[Dear Sister, I appreciate there are not a lot of fraudulent hermits out there. I also understand the reasons you claim that canon 603 was not made law because of abuses but have fraudulent hermits been a problem in the history of the Church? You wrote about a canonist being wrong if he said c 603 was developed because of abuses but I would bet there have been problems with this in the past.]]

Thanks for writing again. Yes, as I recall the canonist was reported to have said c 603 itself was a revision of something in the 1917 Code and also that it was developed in order to prevent abuses as well as to accommodate those who desired an "official stamp of approval". While the 1983 Code of Canon Law is a revision of the 1917 Code (which may have been what this canonist actually said) there was NO provision for hermits in the 1917 Code so c 603 per se is not a revision of anything in universal law. Neither was canon 603 itself developed to deal with abuses. Solitary eremitical life had pretty much died out in the Western Church --- at least in the contemporary Church. If there were lay hermits around they were neither a major problem nor instance of abuse of the eremitical life. Meanwhile the hermits that existed in semi-eremitical institutes like the Camaldolese or Carthusians were sufficiently governed by Canon Law and the institutes' own proper law (constitutions and statutes). A new canon would have been unnecessary for these reasons.

However in the history of eremitical life there have been various attempts to deal with both authentic and false or fraudulent hermits. Mark Miles documents some of this history in his Dissertation, Canon  603 Diocesan Hermits in the Light of Eremitical Tradition. He notes that until the Council of Trent (16th C) there were uneven attempts to deal with this form of life at diocesan synods -- though with the Gregorian reforms there were some papal attempts to tighten controls over this form of life. After the Council of Trent bishops were "encouraged to use whatever means necessary to reform the life of clergy and religious" and the result was that many countries "adopted the medium of the diocesan synod to regulate the relationship between hermit and priest, and hermit and bishop." Spain and France in particular adopted such means of regulating individual hermits including a pledge of obedience to the diocesan bishop. In the case of authentic hermits this was done "to offer security and protection" to these persons.

But fraudulent hermits (or those who were false in the sense of being inauthentic) were indeed a problem and a number of steps were taken to control this. In the sixth century hermits were seen as a kind of monk and were required to spend a period of time in a monastery in order to prove his vocation. Hermits who spent "strict training in a monastery" would then be allowed to leave to live as a "full solitary". Miles notes that only then would their "aversion to common life [be] seen as legitimate." (Though technically correct perhaps, I find the historical use of the term aversion here strikingly infelicitous!) After the Council of Trent Pope Benedict XIV proposed a set of norms for the hermits in the diocese of Rome and encouraged other dioceses to do something similar. This work by Benedict XIV recognized "four kinds of hermits that had existed up to that point: [those] linked to a religious order, [those] that lived as a group or congregation under the rule and direction of the diocesan bishop, those that lived completely alone and also under the direction of the bishop and finally, the false hermits." Miles DHET, 85 (Emphasis added.)

With regard to the last group, Spain (including its colonies and territories), for instance, generally required hermits "to be received and instituted in a legitimate way by the diocesan Bishop and remain obedient to him." Miles writes, "Those unwilling to follow this practice were outlawed in most parts of the territory (Mexico)." A number of punishments were associated with infringements of the established legal practice including excommunication (some dioceses in Spain) and in some "false hermits might even find themselves in jail." (Miles, 86) In most countries bishops were similarly directly responsible for the hermits living in his diocese. Minimum ages (40 years) were set by synods as were the permissions or prohibitions of single women pursuing this vocation, candidates were vetted, conditions for moving from one hermitage to another were established as were conditions re wearing a habit and the nature of the habit (e.g., it could not be the same as those worn by established and recognized congregations of monks), etc. Other conditions that were legislated included conditions of life in cell: women were prohibited entry, solitaries could not leave their cells and loiter outside, other situations leading to scandal were regulated and so were the norms for begging for alms. (Especially hermits were not allowed to range far and wide or beg at all hours. The vocation was solitary and sedentary rather than one of peripatetic mendicancy and this had to be respected.)

It seems clear from all of this that the term "false hermits" had two overlapping senses. The first was folks who were under no ecclesiastical authority or direction but who wandered the diocese calling themselves hermits, begging for alms, dressing in habits sometimes mimicking those of clerics and monks, and generally living a life of pretense in this way. The purpose of these varied diocesan norms was indeed to prevent false hermits of this type from operating with impunity. Additionally the norms helped protect the marriage bond and Sacrament of matrimony by preventing married persons from becoming hermits (all Spanish dioceses legislated this) and some excluded single women from living an eremitical life. (Thank God some other countries did not adopt this norm!) The second type of false hermit was as important, namely legitimate hermits who were giving scandal or substituting individualism for an eremitism the Church recognized as authentic. These too were living lives of pretense though it was the more serious pretense of hypocrisy and actual infidelity to an ecclesial commitment and commission.

The distinction between these norms and canon 603 comes from the fact that the contem-porary Latin Church had not had solitary hermits for at least a century and a half. Dioceses were not plagued with false hermits in at least the first sense. Moreover, as I have explained before monks in solemn vows were discovering eremitical vocations but had to be secularized in order to pursue their call to be hermits. Bishop de Roo wrote an intervention for the Second Vatican Council listing five positive reasons (cf On Betraying the Eremitical  Vocation) for recognizing eremitical life as a state of perfection. He was not proposing the Church deal with abuses. My objections to what the canonist was supposed to have said dealt with the application of general historical conditions to the development of canon 603 per se. In no way would I try to suggest diocesan canons were not formulated to fight abuses nor that c 603 could be used in this way if necessary, but the fact is that was not the situation leading to canon 603 itself. This is not why canon 603 was created and promulgated.

By the way, it is also important to note that contrary to the arguments of those who say c 603 is a needless and even destructive instance of increased institutionalization of eremitical life, when viewed against this background c 603 actually represents a less onerous and more flexible instance of canonical institutionalization than has often been the case in Church history. I would argue this is precisely because its roots are positive and an attempt to codify in some protective and nurturing way a precious and prophetic charisma of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the argument that canon 603 is a deviation from and even a distortion of the traditional practice of just going off on one's own to live as a hermit is even more clearly specious than I have demonstrated in the past. Far from being the norm for hermits in the Roman Catholic Church, the examples mentioned above point to a widespread ecclesiastical practice of discouraging or even prohibiting this form of eremitical life as "false". The Church has always acted (though perhaps not always carefully or consistently enough) in a variety of ways to protect a fragile but vital vocation from multiple kinds of "falseness." In this, and in other things, law is used in an attempt to serve love.

References in this article are mainly taken from the doctoral dissertation mentioned. I am not sure how available it is generally but again, the work is entitled, Canon  603 Diocesan Hermits in the Light of Eremitical Tradition by Mark Gerard Miles. Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome 2003.

Private Vows, the Normative Way to Become a Consecrated Hermit?

[[ Dear Sister, you said, [[As I have written many times here the unique thing about canon 603 is that for the very first time in universal law the solitary eremitical vocation is recognized in law as a "state of perfection"  and those consecrated in this way are recognized as religious in the RCC.  In other words, there were no solitary consecrated hermits prior to canon 603. Nor are there solitary consecrated hermits in the Western Church apart from canon 603. Canon 603 was created for the very purpose of admitting solitary hermits to consecration. Today the term lay hermit is used to distinguish those non-clerical solitary hermits who have not been admitted to the consecrated state under canon 603.]] (cf., Notes From Stillsong: Replying to Objections) Does this mean I cannot use private vows to become a consecrated hermit? I am asking because I read on A Catholic Hermit that I can just make private vows and this is the normative way to become a consecrated hermit.]]

Yes, that is precisely what it means. The author of the blog you mentioned is mistaken in her positions in this matter. In modern times and before canon 603 there were no solitary consecrated hermits. Apart from canon 603 there are currently no solitary consecrated hermits. There both were and are hermits who are consecrated as part of canonical communities (institutes or societies) according to the usual canons governing religious life, but canon 603 represents an entirely new possibility for solitary hermits who wish to discern and be admitted to the consecrated state of life in the Church. If you yourself wish to pursue consecration as a solitary hermit it will HAVE to be under canon 603; as I have noted here a number of times, there is no other option.

The creation of this option is the very reason canon 603 was promulgated. It is the reason Bishop Remi De Roo urged the Fathers of Vatican II Council to recognize solitary eremitical life as a state of perfection when seasoned monks desiring to live the silence of solitude were required to have solemn vows dispensed and be secularized themselves in order to embrace God's will that they be hermits. It is the reason dioceses struggle to discern such vocations and celebrate the occasion of these professions and consecrations. It is consistent with the fact that consecrated life (a public state in the Church) is never entered into with private vows or private commitments. Finally, the creation of Canon 603 is consistent with the Church's treatment of consecrated life generally and with all "stable (or permanent) states of life" which are marked by legal (canonical and public) rights and obligations. Thus it says specifically: "Hermits are recognised by law as dedicated to God in consecrated life if, in the hands of the diocesan Bishop, they publicly profess the evangelical counsels and live their Plan of Life under his direction" (Can 603.2) This is what is normative for solitary consecrated hermits in the Western (Latin) Church.

N.B., Private vows are never normative  in this way (meaning they are never held as a norm by/for the life of the Church per se any more than private revelations can be held as normative for that life); Nor can they be made normative precisely because they are entirely private. This is so because no one but the individual him or herself decides when private vows are to be used nor does nor can anyone oversee the meaning of their content or govern faithfulness to such commitments besides the individual him/herself; again, this is true precisely because such commitments are entirely private in every sense --- canonically or legally, ecclesially, and personally.

Were the Church (or perhaps a diocesan bishop) to say, for instance, "To be a hermit one MUST make "private" vows of the evangelical counsels (meaning, as the Church understands these Counsels)" this would be engaging in an incoherent act and/or changing the meaning of the term "private." In the latter instance such vows would cease to be entirely private (in fact they would need to become public) because they would involve mutual expectations, and obligations which would need to be supervised and appropriately governed. Were private vows truly private in every way and were it also held as possible to enter consecrated life in this way, it would be impossible for the Universal Church to write as she does in Lumen Gentium,  [[It is the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law, since it is the duty of the same hierarchy to care for the People of God and to lead them to most fruitful pastures.]] LG 44.4  Private commitments as private are ungovernable; neither can they ever represent a public or ecclesial witness within the People of God. It is critically important to see the fundamental incoherence of the position that one enters a public (canonical) state of life via a private act.

Questions?

If you have any questions about what you have read here or on the other blog mentioned, I would urge you to contact your chancery (Vicar for Religious or of Consecrated Life) or a canonist elsewhere. (There are canonists accessible here online like Therese Ivers who specializes in the law of consecrated life and is doing a doctoral thesis focusing on canon 603. You can find her at Do I Have a Vocation?) I have no doubt  whomever you contact will explain c.603 is the normative way to enter the consecrated state as a solitary hermit, that they will affirm that private vows (which do not constitute one in a stable or permanent state of life, are not received by the Church nor celebrated within the Eucharist) never initiate one into the consecrated state of life, and that they will affirm the new and unique place of canon 603 in creating the option of solitary consecrated eremitical life in the contemporary Church.

Besides, should you decide you wish to pursue a process of discernment leading to consecration as a Catholic hermit living his life in the name of the Church, canonists or Vicars for Religious in your chancery especially will be able to assist you in looking into this as well.

Will Canon 603 Become the Norm for All Consecrated Hermits?

[[ Is canon 603 a kind of experiment? Is it only used for some consecrated hermits? The poster at [link omitted] says that: "In today's Church, this is no small matter, and it seems that bishops and future hermits will desire this proviso. In time, it may become the norm for consecrated Catholic hermit profession."]]

Let me  first say (repeat) that today there are two routes to profession as a consecrated (canonical) Hermit. The first is as part of a congregation or community (an institute) of hermits like the Camaldolese or Carthusians. In such a case these religious, monks, and nuns live their consecrated lives under both Canon Law (universal law) and the congregation's own law (proper law) --- their Rule, Constitutions, and Statutes. In such cases while Canon Law already applies juridically to their lives in many ways, canon 603 does not. Sometimes institutes of consecrated life will allow an individual to live as a hermit. If they do, this will be because the institute's proper law (the law which is proper to this congregation itself only) allows this but the person is not professed as a hermit. The second route to canonical profession and consecration is as a solitary hermit under Canon 603. Other canons which are part of the Church's universal law of religious life will also apply to this individual but Canon 603 is the defining canon which provides for the hermit's legitimate superior and defines the hermit's proper law as a Rule or Plan of Life she herself writes.

Canon 603 is not an experiment although it is a relatively new canon governing a new (since 1983) and rare form of consecrated life, namely the solitary eremitical life lived outside or without membership in a community or institute of consecrated life. Despite the fact that those of us living it or those administering it are still finding our way with it together, it is not going to become the norm for consecrated Catholic hermits more generally. Those belonging to communities (institutes of consecrated life) already are bound to legitimate superiors and have proper as well as canon law to which they are bound through their vows. If someone in one of these groups wants to become a solitary hermit, they will need to pursue Canon 603 itself along with exclaustration and/or an indult of departure. Neither is it, then, a "proviso" one might or might not use and still be a solitary  consecrated hermit. Canon 603 is already the norm for solitary Catholic hermits. Solitary eremitical life is the new form of consecrated life that Canon 603 establishes in universal law. It is the very purpose of the Canon, nothing more or less, and nothing other. For further information, please see posts on Canon 603 -- history.

Meanwhile, privately vowed or dedicated individuals wishing to become solitary consecrated hermits (solitary canonical hermits) can see their chancery personnel for assistance in entering or petitioning to enter a mutual process of discernment and pursuing this under Canon 603. Chancery personnel may well explain to these individuals that they are lay persons and not considered consecrated hermits or professed religious; they will also explain the scope and purpose of canon 603 to be clear about what the person is petitioning to begin a discernment process in regard to. However, there is a chance that if a person shows up on the chancery doorstep insisting they are a consecrated hermit already, despite not being canonically professed, they will not be seen as a good candidate for discernment --- at least not at that point in time.

A Little on Witnessing to a Love that Does Justice in the Face of Tyranny

 [[Dear Sister, I am new to your blog and I haven't explored it very much. I am surprised to find a hermit writing about current events. Do you really not hate ISIS? I think I do. I think I shouldn't but I can't control what I feel when people kidnap and threaten to burn children alive! But here are my real questions. From other articles it seems that your vocation is pretty new and not very well known. I know we don't have any Canon 603 hermits in our parish or diocese. How many of you are there in the US? Do Canon 603 hermits exist in other countries as well? Are there many of them? Do you mind if I ask other dumb questions before I read much of your blog?]]

Welcome to Stillsong Hermitage's blog then. To be honest, I don't write very much about current events but I was asked to write about the situation in Syria and I was very moved by the murder of the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. That this occurred just as we were preparing for Lent and the ritual of being marked with the sign of the cross in ashes made things immensely more weighty in my own mind and heart. Add to that the fact that I was just beginning to read the Scriptures with eyes more newly sensitized to the place of honor-shame in Middle Eastern cultures and to see many of Jesus' encounters with family, religious leaders, and so forth as violations of honor, occasions leading to dishonor and shame for some, and you can see why these stories had a special poignancy for me.

You see I have recently come to understand freshly the difference between what guilt-sin-individualist cultures like ours and honor-shame-collectivist cultures like those of the Middle East perceive as honorable. Consciences in these two types of society are formed in vastly different ways from one another. It is not necessarily that consciences have been turned off, as a friend recently commented to me, but rather that they are formed very differently, namely as an instance of group conscience according to what the group determines to be honorable or dishonorable. In light of this I came to see even more clearly how Jesus could be crucified or the cross could be a symbol of the most abject dishonor/shame an individual could know. I have also recently been freshly sensitized to the epidemic quality of shame in our Western culure and to how extraordinarily thin in number and depth have been the reflections of systematic theologians on this aspect of the Gospel and Cross of Christ despite the fact that exegetes regularly remind us that the Gospel writers focus on not the physical pain Jesus experienced but the shame associated with his crucifixion.

These and other threads came together for me recently within a short period of time and all of them were and are critically important. We have either lost or never had an adequate sense of how very counter cultural Jesus and the Kingdom he proclaimed were and are. If we are to begin to understand ISIS and to deal with them adequately we must recover and/or cultivate this awareness. If we are to love our enemies as well as our brothers and sisters in the faith, we must understand this. I suppose it is particularly ironic that a very small piece of this reflection on current events in light of Jesus' Kingdom message and behavior comes from a diocesan hermit living a relatively hidden and certainly silent and contemplative life. But this really is the role of contemplatives and hermits in the Church. Living in silence at the center of existence makes this possible and sometimes, anyway, even imperative. I am reminded of something Thomas Merton once wrote:

I make monastic [eremitical] silence a protest against the lies of politicians, propagandists, and agitators, and, when I speak, it is to deny my faith and my Church can ever seriously be aligned with these forces of injustice and destruction. But it is true, nevertheless, that the faith in which I believe is also invoked by many who believe in war, believe in racial injustices, and believe in self-righteous and lying forms of tyranny. My life must, then, be a protest against these also and perhaps against these most of all.

Of course, in the situation with ISIS the self-righteous and lying forms of tyranny are not those of the Church nor of Islam. But they are those of religion more generally. It is against just this kind of tyranny that Jesus stood, and against which we should stand in our own lives today. This is the reason theologians often distinguish religion from faith. Faith does not allow us to hate. Often it calls us to be weak and lacking in control but still it empowers us to love. This is so because it is rooted in trust in God's love and the power of that love to create justice. So, ordinarily my own protest is carried out in silence and prayer. Martyrdom, witness, takes many forms. When so many threads some together as happened recently, it may be time to speak.

Numbers of Canon 603 Hermits in the US and Elsewhere:

As for your "real" questions. . . numerically the diocesan hermit vocation is quite rare. While there have always been hermits --- especially in the Eastern Church (their course has been more variable in the Western Church, sometimes dying out altogether) --- diocesan hermits only came to be a possibility in 1983 with the publication of the Revised Code of Canon Law. The model and original impetus for the establishment of this new form of consecrated/religious life was a group of about a dozen hermits who had once lived solemn vows as monks in community; when they discerned a call to solitude they each had to leave their monasteries and solemn vows and become secularized; this was because there was no provision in their own congregation's proper law for solitary life, nor was there any provision in canon law --- the more universal law of the Church. Eventually they came under the protection of Bishop Remi de Roo who came to see the significance of their vocation. Bishop Remi then made an intervention at Vatican II sincerely pleading with the Church Fathers to recognize the eremitical life as a way of perfection. Nothing happened at Vatican II but the plans for a revision of Canon Law were initiated and these eventually included Canon 603 which provides for solitary consecrated hermits in universal law for the very first time.

In the US there are about 80 diocesan hermits, perhaps a small number more or fewer. The Vatican has begun to include numbers of c 603 hermits in their statistics on religious and consecrated life but I don't think any have yet been published. In some countries there are none at all. I have a friend in New Zealand who is a diocesan hermit; she is the only one there. In other countries, France and Italy, for instance, there are more than in the US but the number is still relatively small. Because canon 603 is part of a universal Code of Canon Law binding on the Universal Church, not just a single diocese here or there (as was once the case with hermits or anchorites in Europe, for instance), there are now diocesan hermits all over the world. As you can see though, relatively speaking diocesan hermits are an infinitesimally small percentage within the Universal Church.

Finally, please don't worry about questions being "dumb". I have asked in the past for folks to pose whatever questions they have. A few people do that and some even ask questions on an infrequent but more or less regular basis. They are all very helpful to me. For instance in a post I put up earlier I was able to answer a question about the meaning of the term "institutes". It never occurred to me that word could be a source of misunderstanding for someone reading canon 603 ("Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life. . .") but it was a really great question because it made something clear to me I had not known. I think all questions can do that but quite often it is the most obvious ones that don't get asked and could be most instructive for readers, and for myself as well! So while I do encourage you to read posts linked to the labels on the right of this blog, please know all questions are more than welcome.

Canon 603 and Some Misconceptions

[[Sister Laurel, what does it mean to call canon 603 a "proviso"? Here is the passage [from something I read online] that has me confused, [[What is cited in The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the proviso of CL603, and by virtue and fact of the specific vows required of each state of life in the Church, should suffice to explain why consecrated Catholic hermits (and also the consecrated virgins and widows) are part of the Consecrated Life of the Church--although they can have originally derived from the Hierarchy or the Laity.  Likewise, consecrated Catholic hermits (virgins, widows, religious brothers and sisters) are not representative nor part of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, as in Holy Orders of priests and bishops.]] I am also confused by the following [also from something I read online] [[The Catholic aspiring to the consecrated state of life as an eremite, must then fulfill the requirements in profession of vows and live in accordance with the cited specifics in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of the institutes of the consecrated life of the Church.And, if the aspiring hermit requests and a bishop agrees, then to fulfill the additional provisions of Canon Law 603.]]

I can understand why you are confused. There are several problems with the first passage cited. First Canon 603 is not a "proviso". It is not a conditional statement or stipulation attached to an agreement. It is a norm which, by itself alone, provides for and defines a form of consecrated life lived in law and in the name of the Church. I don't know why anyone would refer to c 603 in this way unless 1) she does not understand the word proviso, or 2) she is trying to make of c 603 a conditional option added to a larger binding contract or set of statutes which then may or may not be used by a diocese at their discretion. In such a case she is simply mistaken in this. Granted, canon 603 is a Canon in the larger code of canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps it could bear the name "provision" since it provides for a singular form of consecrated life (though this fails to capture the normative nature of a canon) however, it does not have a conditional or provisional character. So, I understand and share your confusion with such a characterization. I think the poster's mistaken meaning is made clear in problem # 6 below.

The second area of difficulty is the division of the People of God into Lay and Hierarchy. The proper terms are ordinarily laity and clerics or laity and clergy or even lay persons and ordained. Though the entire Church is hierarchical we also technically refer to the hierarchy of the Church as the clergy from Deacon to Bishops and higher. When we refer to the consecrated state of life or "consecrated life" however, which can be drawn from either laity or clergy, the Church is very careful to point out that this does not constitute part of the hierarchical structure of the Church; this is important because once not so long ago our Mass prayers referred to priests, religious, and laity as though there were three castes and religious were part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. This contributed to the highly problematical notion that lay life was an "entry level" vocation and religious (or consecrated) life was a 'higher' vocation with priests being even higher.

Today we note that the term lay has two distinct senses, 1) a hierarchical one in which laity includes all baptized who are not clerics (this also implies all religious and consecrated persons who are likewise not also clerics), and 2) a vocational one in which those in the lay state are contrasted with both religious (those publicly professed), consecrated persons (those in the consecrated state of life), and the clergy (the ordained). So, for instance, vocationally speaking I am a religious and member of the consecrated rather than the lay state of life. Hierarchically speaking, however, I am a lay person. My pastor, for instance, is also a religious and member of the consecrated state of life vocationally speaking. Hierarchically speaking, however, he is a cleric or priest. Lay hermits (those with private vows or even without them) are lay in both the vocational and hierarchical senses of the term. This is why in sec 873ff the CCC notes, "The term "laity" is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church."

The third problem is that the Catholic Church does not presently have consecrated widows who belong to the consecrated state of life or the "consecrated life" in the Church. While this vocation existed in the ancient Church and Pope John Paul II wrote about it hoping it would be included in canon law to be made part of Church life once again as a public and ecclesial vocation, and while some Bishops have accepted the dedication of widows and are required to be open to "new forms of consecrated life" (c 605 requires this), Canon 605 also states that any new form of consecrated life must be ratified by the Vatican (the Pope). In the case of a vocation to consecrated widowhood this has not been done. It therefore does not represent a form of consecrated life in the Church today though there are significant hopes that one day this will change.

The fourth problem is with the reference to Catholic Hermits or other members of the Consecrated state not being representative of nor part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as are priests and Bishops. This sentence is confusing because it can be read two ways: 1) Consecrated Life is not representative of the hierarchy or 2) Consecrated Life is not representative of the Church nor is it part of the hierarchy. While the consecrated state of life does not constitute part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, those in the consecrated state are certainly representative of the Church herself. They are specifically commissioned to live out the various forms of consecrated life in a representative way in the name of the Church. Thus they are Catholic religious or Catholic hermits. Lay persons live the lay state similarly which is why they may call themselves Catholics or Catholic laity. The lay state is entrusted to them when they are consecrated in baptism and they are commissioned through the Sacraments of initiation to live it well. This means every member of the Church is representative of the Church in some way --- though I agree, they are not all of the hierarchy. Some are representative of the clerical state (Catholic priests and deacons). Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and Pope represent the hierarchy proper while all are part of the Laos tou Theou. Unfortunately, it sounds like the poster you cited could be arguing a form of clericalism which says only clergy represent the Church!


The fifth problem comes in your second citation and has already been written about in a previous post here. The term "institute" refers to a religious community or congregation of some sort, not to a legal norm, requirement, principle, or statute. Consecrated life has three basic forms, community life (both ministerial and contemplative in a variety of institutes), solitary eremitical life (c 603), and consecrated virginity lived in the world (c 604).

The sixth problem is related to problem #1 above. As noted above, Canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" appended to these other supposed "institutes" and requirements. It is the ONLY way in which a person can become a solitary member of the consecrated eremitical state of life and thus live that life in the name of the Church. If one wants to become a consecrated hermit without joining a congregation it MUST be through this canon. There is NO OTHER way. Neither oneself nor one's diocese can choose another option (say, private vows) nor treat this canon as optional or "provisional" and still allow one to enter the solitary consecrated eremitical state. This is what makes canon 603 so very unique; it extends the category "religious" and thus, the possibility of public vows and consecration to a person without any link to an institute of consecrated life. (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746, p. 55 on c 603.2)

The seventh problem is also related to treating Canon 603 as a set of "additional requirements" but more specifically suggesting these are added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other requirements or "institutes" of the Catholic Church. While the CCC is an important compendium of the teaching and life of the Church designed to give every Catholic a basic sense of what the Church believes and teaches as well as how her members live this faith, in regard to the consecrated eremitical life it is more descriptive than prescriptive. For hermits belonging to Institutes of Consecrated Life what is prescriptive of their life (what prescribes how they are to live while extending commensurate rights and marking their ecclesial obligations) is law, namely, canon law and the Institute's own proper law (her constitutions, statutes and Rule).

For the solitary hermit consecrated under canon 603 what is prescriptive of her life is similar: Canon law (especially c 603 but other canons as well), and her approved Rule (given a formal Bishop's declaration of approval). The Rule, which the hermit writes herself, serves as the c 603 hermit's own "proper law" while Canon 603 in particular especially represents universal law in her life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes dimensions of such lives but is not binding in the same way universal and proper law are. In fact, some parts of the CCC (like paragraphs 920-921) must be read in light of the Code of Canon Law (as well as the Catechism's own glossary), not the other way around! To put the Catechism in a more primary place and add c 603 as a "proviso" or an additional, conditional requirement, for instance, is to completely misunderstand the nature of the CCC, its relation to Canon Law in these matters, and especially then, the vocation to solitary consecrated eremitical life and the role of c 603 in that life.

Thanks again for your questions. They were excellent. For the time being I am going to distance myself from the continuing list of misconceptions being posted on the blog you have cited. Not only is it Lent, but I have some other writing, another project, and one other question to complete which means I won't be able to get back to you again for several days in case you have further questions; (it may be Saturday or later before I can do this). Besides, this matter of the distinction between lay hermits and hermits consecrated under canon 603 really has been explained here many times in one way and another, several times quite recently, and I am feeling a tiring and kind of sad futility in trying to clarify or even occasionally correct what may, at least for some persons who blog about this, really be a willful distortion and refusal to hear.

You see, it is one thing when a single critical  and canonically obscure or complex word is misunderstood here and there or when there is legitimate and honest disagreement between knowledgeable people; it is another when entire texts are wrested from their ecclesial context and twisted in a thoroughgoing way to conform to an entrenched delusional system. Your own question made me aware that perhaps the situation I was addressing was more the latter than the former so I am grateful you posed it for that reason too. The first kind of situation can and should be dealt with through discussion; both persons come away ahead then. The second cannot. While I feel strongly that canon 603 needs to be better understood, and more strongly that folks not be misled, it is that second kind of situation from which I need to distance myself.

Meanwhile, your own questions and those of any reader here are something I am happy to continue responding to --- though from now on it may be without the passages they cite. Thus, I encourage you to please feel free to check older posts under the appropriate labels if questions remain or are raised in the meantime.

Canon 603: Normativity and the Prevention of Distortions, Abuses, Counterfeits and Frauds

[[Sister, you wrote that Bishop Remi de Roo gave several different reasons for asking the II Vatican Council to make eremitical life a state of perfection and include it in canon law. Could you please post these here? I could not copy them.]]

Sure. They are 1) The fact of a growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. Question continues:

[[I can see where these really are positive reasons for establishing Canon 603. Was it also a way to regulate the growth of the vocation or minimize distortions or abuses even if these weren't the reason the Canon came into existence? Thank you.]]

Yes. to point out the normative and ecclesial nature of canon 603 vocations is to say that the Church desires to respond to the Holy Spirit in authentic ways. This also therefore means that abuses, distortions, disedifying stereotypes, and destructive eccentrics or eccentricities cannot mask themselves as Catholic hermits or the stuff of canon 603 life as well as that the Church has a stake in being sure this does not occur. The big difference between noting that canon 603 ALSO helps prevent abuses and saying that it actually grew out of an attempt to deal with abuses should be clear. Since these elements are something of an informal vision of the place of the eremitical vocation in the Church, and since they are positive and ecclesially focused, they too underscore that the flip side of the positive normative nature of the canon involves the prevention of abuses.

What remains true however, is that unless the Church was (and is) faced with a true gift of the Holy Spirit  in eremitical life no canon would be necessary; nor would any exist. The Church could simply ignore (as "hermits", not as needy people!) the fraudulent or counterfeit "hermits" populating the various wildernesses (including internet sites!) of the world. The corollary then is that with this canon (i.e., this norm) the proliferation of counterfeits and frauds alongside those very few authentic vocations who consider this vocation seriously because of the canon, makes recognizing, exploring, and honoring the normative nature of the canon even more critical. While it is not meant to validate eccentricity and inauthenticity, it does pique the interest of many lone individuals who will never be professed accordingly for these same reasons (and better ones as well!).** As former detective Monk might say, in this regard Canon 603 is both a blessing and a curse.

I am not entirely sure about the idea that the canon was meant to regulate the growth of such vocations if by that you mean it was meant to prevent there from being lots and lots of them, for instance. The Church knows this is a relatively rare vocation and that few are called to human wholeness in this way. However, the specific non-negotiable  or defining elements of the canon do prevent just any lone pious person from thinking of themselves (much less portraying themselves publicly) as a hermit just as it prevents some of the practices which would surely proliferate without it: e.g., solitary apostolic religious for whom being a hermit is a "metaphor" for their lives, misanthropes, and others seeking to validate their strangeness or their failures at charity and relationships by applying the word "hermit" to their lives, Saturday-only contemplatives, married hermits, and any number of other examples I have mentioned in the past 7 years.

You may have noticed that I posted an answer to the question as to whether the Episcopal solitary was the same as the RC Hermit. In fact, it turns out that the Episcopalians use a canon which is sort of a catchall for unusual cases --- cases in which a person is not professed as part of a recognized Order or Community, for instance. While the solitaries I know personally in the Episcopal Church live lives which resemble my own in all the elements Canon 603 requires of the hermit, the Canon under which they are professed does NOT spell out these elements in the same way Canon 603 does. Thus, while I don't know if the Episcopal Church has problems with Bishops professing individuals as "solitaries" even if they do not live a desert spirituality, this too makes it clear that Canon 603 does limit the growth of the vocation to those persons who DO live its central and non-negotiable elements.

** Should anyone doubt that Canon 603 (and those professed under it) has subsequently led to MANY people seeking to be professed accordingly one story might help here. I was speaking to a Vicar for Consecrated Life about his diocese's experience with hermits, hermit candidates for profession, etc. This diocese has professed one diocesan hermit in the history of the canon, and that was only within the past decade. However, he said that every month (he may have said every week, I can't recall exactly now) people approach the diocese seeking to be admitted to profession as diocesan hermits. None of them has gotten as far as this one diocesan hermit in regard to the process of discernment and admission to public profession. (Note well that this is a diocese open to having diocesan hermits.)

If we take the lowest average possible while omitting periods of holidays and possibly the Summer months (and my sense is this is a fairly conservative number) that means that of at least 100 or so persons seeking admission to profession as a diocesan hermit in the past decade only 1 has been professed under canon 603 in this one diocese. Many dioceses of course have professed none and some have actually determined they will profess none in the foreseeable future. (There are significant pros and cons to this decision.) A few have professed several (we sort of laughingly call them "hotbeds" of eremitical life!). I think this too indicates that Canon 603 does naturally limit the growth of this vocation --- and rightly so. It also indicates, I think, why it is important to write publicly about this canon and the meaning of its central or defining elements. Some of these people will  actually one day become diocesan hermits if they can only come to understand and embrace the life it defines. Others never will, while a number of others probably never should.

Fraudulent "Catholic Hermits": Is it a Big Problem?

[[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] (redacted)

No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a  supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through paypal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little-understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and  had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:

A number of monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the  contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.

When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and reflect today part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.

So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in BC to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws.

The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, understanding the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly, but that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.

My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:

I have been interested in all of these issues since I decided to pursue admittance to canon 603 profession --- now about 30 years ago ---  and as I grow in this vocation, in my appreciation of it and of the wisdom and beauty of the canon which governs it, my interest remains --- but for rather different reasons. It took me 23 years to work out for myself many of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph; now I am able to give back to the larger Church community in ways that I sincerely hope allow others to more fully understand and esteem this vocation. Most important is what I have said over the past few days (and the past several years!!): this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. In particular it can witness to the fact that the isolation and marginality so many experience today can be redeemed by one's relationship with God, just as it stands as a prophetic witness against the individualism, narcissism, and addictions (especially to media and to remote, packaged, and soundbite-approaches to reality and relationships) which almost define the world around us today. However, frauds, counterfeits and curmudgeons can get in the way of or detract from this witness --- not least because, unless they are simply ignorant, they are generally mired in pretense and self-centeredness which makes the vocation incredible.

One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.  

To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".

 Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us

As I consider this then, I suppose the problem of frauds (or counterfeits) is certainly more real than when I first sought admission to profession under canon 603 (the canon was brand new then and few knew about it), but for most of us diocesan hermits the real issue is our own integrity in living this life and allowing the Church to discern and celebrate other instances of it rather than dealing with the sorry pretense and insecurity which seems to drive some to claim titles to which they have no right. What serious debate takes place does so on this level, not on more trivial ones. The question of fraud is an important one for the hermit both personally and ecclesially because as Thomas Merton reminds us all: [[The . . .hermit has as his first duty, to live happily without affectation in his solitude. He owes this not only to himself but to his community [by extension diocesan hermits would say parish, diocese, or Church] that has gone so far as to give him a chance to live it out. . . . this is the chief obligation of the . . .hermit because, as I said above, it can restore to others their faith in certain latent possibilities of nature and of grace.]] (Emphasis added,  Contemplation in a World of Action, p. 242)

In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay hermits who identify themselves as such) might well embrace true solitude in  the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)

You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).

Canon 603's History presupposes Significant Formation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, in a recent post you spoke of "the bottom line" and you pointed out that canon 603 presupposed a fairly extensive background in monastic formation and life. I have read your discussion of the history of canon 603 before but this is the first time I have understood why this history makes such a difference to the way the canon is implemented.  When people complain that you are "institutionalizing" the vocation or write that canon 603 came to be because of abuses are they trying to avoid the demanding nature of the canon? Do dioceses understand the correlation between the history of the canon and the requirements for reading it rightly or implementing it appropriately?]]

First of all, of course, I don't know why people write what they write nor do I know what dioceses in general understand. I admit to being astounded by certain attempts to nullify or at least minimize the spiritual maturity presupposed by canon 603 and necessary simply to read it accurately. There are more than enough stories of eremitical professions which do not measure up to the background presupposed in the composition and immediate history of the canon. Some of these seem premature at best, some seem ill-conceived and an abuse of the canon at worst. Some have caused provinces to refuse to profess anyone according to canon 603. On the rest the jury is simply still out though many (of us) seem (and certainly strive) to be appropriate and edifying examples of the vocation. We are finding our way here, dioceses, hermits, all of us together.

I recall one account of the history of canon 603 which, as you say, asserted it came about because of abuses of the canons in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  (I have referred to it here at least two or three times.) Supposedly this account of things came from a canonist who should surely have known better. (This canon is entirely new, not the redaction or refinement of an existing canon.) One version of this reads: [[As a means of solidifying the norms for consecrated Catholic hermits and desiring to eliminate abuses, in 1917 (or was it 1918?) some further delineations were made by the Church. And in 1983 these were refined further for those whose superiors desire them, or the hermit desires or is led by God, to a public profession. That formalizes the profession through Canon Law 603.]] Another version from the same blogger is found along with a detailed history of the actual origin of the canon in my post: On Visibility and Betrayal of the c 603 Vocation.

Whatever the reason people write what they do, what remains true is that the history of the canon gives everyone a significant key to understanding the formation which the canon presupposes and requires. What is indisputable is that this formation is substantial and will not be attained by the majority of candidates and by a very much smaller number of inquirers. What is also true is that whenever this history is forgotten or neglected, the vocation protected and governed by canon 603 is in danger of being trivialized and the canon misused. When this happens it also ceases to be the gift God has given to the Church and world and may not only be rendered pastorally insignificant but incredible and a scandal.

But in some instances Bishops have really appreciated the vocation canon 603 defines and especially they have tried to respect and make normative the kind of monastic formation which is necessary no matter where one lives as a hermit. For instance, the French Bishops published a list of "statutes" for all canon 603 hermits (I am told the better translation of the original French is "considerations") which included requirements of 1) regular periods in a monastic community and 2) assigning a hermit to a monastery where they could get the formation and mentoring so vital to living this vocation well. My own suggestion that candidates and temporary professed spend  a month each year or so in monastic community was made independently of these "statutes" but came from my own experience of living the life. Still, I think we are on the same page in this regard despite coming at it from different perspectives.

While I believe this experience (or something similar which occasions a substantial break with one's old ways of living and represents a disciplined turn to assiduous prayer and solitude) is essential for most, I also recognize that a diocese has to deal with each candidate on a case by case basis. No matter how a person comes by it (for, relatively rare though they are, some exemplary eremitical vocations will never have set foot in a monastery), what cannot be forgotten is the degree of experience in solitude, personal formation, and discernment needed before one is admitted even to serious discernment with the diocese and certainly prior to temporary vows.

Unfortunately it sometimes looks as though dioceses do not understand the necessary correlation between the canon's history and the spirituality and degree of formation it still presupposes and requires. It is almost certain that persons without any background in religious life and no significant experience of solitude (including that physical solitude occasioned by chronic illness, etc which can sometimes lead to genuine eremitical solitude) mainly do not. (At other times, however, a diocese's understanding of this, coupled with the fact that dioceses do NOT form hermits, has made it necessary to rule out professing ANYONE according to canon 603.) Today's world fosters isolation and individualism --- both of which call for the redemption represented by genuine eremitical solitude. It does not naturally foster vocations to this kind of solitude nor does it make reading canon 603 intelligently (with the mind and heart of a monastic) particularly easy to do.

I am sorry I have not been clear enough in the past regarding why the canon's immediate history is so vital to the way it is imple-mented. Knowing this history is critical to reading the canon accurately. It prevents substituting anything at all for the non-negotiable elements of the canon and calling them "eremitical". It demands that the person admitted to discernment have transitioned to being a hermit in an essential sense; it requires that they have an experiential knowledge of what the canon refers to as "the silence of solitude" and that they are capable of writing a Rule which negotiates the tensions between the eremitical tradition and the contemporary situation BEFORE admission to profession. It suggests that they will have at least a rudimentary sense of how and for whom besides the hermit herself this vocation is a sacred gift!

Similarly the history of this canon supports the expectation that anyone admitted to profession will live the life with integrity and with an independence rooted in one's sense of being entrusted with this unique charism or gift of the Holy Spirit. Paradoxically this kind of independence depends upon formation and deep understanding and appreciation; these go hand in hand. I have written explicitly of the critical importance of understanding the vocation's charism in preventing diocesan misuses and infidelities by the hermit herself; it is also necessary to empower the kind of integrity and independence just referred to --- something far more positive and significant than merely avoiding infidelities. Understanding the vocation's immediate history is an equally critical piece of this.

Canon 603 as a Way to Correct Abuses?

Dear Sister, are you aware that there are different versions of the origins of canon 603 out there on the internet? One version I read recently said, [[The Canon lawyer discussed Canon 603, of 1983 and explained it was a revision of the 1917 Canon regarding eremitic life. He said that laws are created due to abuses and also because of desire by some to have "official stamp" of approval. Perhaps there have been those, he pointed out, who said they were going to live a life of stricter separation from the world or in prayer and fasting, but did not. The law provides for the Bishop to step in and correct the abuses, if the hermit has been publicly avowed, and those vows received by the Bishop. 


He said it is a legality, of publicly approving the hermit in the name of the Church, of it being of public record, regardless of how many were actually at the profession of vows. He said that may be just the hermit and the Bishop. But it is done in the name of the Church, with the Bishop saying he receives the vows on behalf of the Church. As for vows being made publicly but not received by the Bishop, that could not be in the name of the Church. This is what must be made clear, for this was the stumbling point. In St. Colette's time, she made vows publicly, and she was generally known as the anchorite, and her life exemplified this. Now, a person would not be seen as a hermit in the name of the Church. The public aspect today is that of the law, of the Bishop receiving the vows in the name of the Church, on behalf of the Church.]] So, who's right, you or the canonist?

Hi there,
      yes, I am very much aware of some of the misinformation available out there on the internet. I have actually responded to questions about this very passage in the past. You can find it here: canon-603-misunderstandings-of-origins-and-nature.html. Because your own question is repetitive, I am answering it again here partly because I am trying to learn to do internal links (and I especially apologize to regular readers for the repetition if this experiment fails!).

      Generally, what I discuss in that post is that I think the canonist is correct about the way some canons generally come to be as a response to abuses, but in this case (assuming the lay hermit quoting him has done so accurately) he is simply wrong. Not only is he mistaken about the history of the vocation by speaking as though canon 603 is a revision of an already-existing canon and by omitting any mention of Bp Remi De Roo or Vatican II (cf Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Visibility and Betrayal of the c 603 Vocation under section, "The Heart of the Matter) but he has not thought out this notion of bringing hermits under control by granting them canonical standing.  You see, this latter makes no sense for hermits who are privately dedicated; why give them standing in law when leaving them without standing actually significantly limits the impact of any abuses they may have embraced? (The positive affects of such a life are a different matter!) Such hermits are relatively few and far between. The contemporary Church is not overrun with them or with hermits of ANY stripe! Were this the case then indeed, the Church might want to create a canon regulating them. However, we still have to ask, if they are not canonically consecrated, what kinds of abuses could they possibly be committing? They have not accepted the public/canonical rights and obligations of the life (including a detailed Rule of Life and responsibility to superiors and community) so what could they be abusing?

      After all, without canonical standing the person is living a private vocation as hermit; they are not Catholic Hermits, and nothing they do as a hermit per se is done in the name of the church. A lay hermit might be eccentric or an adherent of a strange theology and spirituality. As baptized Catholics some of this might become a matter of concern to Church authorities who have the right to act appropriately in their regard, but this would occur because this person is a baptized Catholic, not because they are a lay hermit.  Of course one would hope that such hermits live their lives well in an edifying way, but their commitments are private matters and to be frank, they can be as eccentric or strange in their spiritualities as they like without significant impact on the ecclesial eremitical life itself. Let me give you an example. Recently another diocesan hermit sent me a story from his own area about a "hermit" (a person who lived in solitude) who stole regularly to allow himself to live. We both agreed that this guy gives hermits a bad name. However, at the same time this person in no way reflects on the eremitical vocation in the Church and diocesan hermits do not feel he reflects on their calls. He DOES represent part of a host of stereotypes diocesan hermits have to combat with their lives though.


      Of course it is hard to imagine the contemporary Church giving such a person canonical standing to correct his abuses!!! However, were the Church to do so by professing him publicly as a Catholic hermit, then indeed, everything he does would reflect on the vocation and his diocese. Moreover had this been a diocesan hermit the church would need to take action to correct his abuses --- and in serious circumstances like this she would most likely do so by dispensing him from his vows and removing his canonical standing as a hermit. So again, my answer to your question is that assuming this canonist was correctly quoted, he is incorrect. The Church does not give canonical standing only to immediately remove it again as a censure. She does not extend canonical rights and obligations to a small group of persons to gain control over miscreants. Canonical standing is a gift to the individual and to the Church insofar as it helps nurture and protect authentic eremitical vocations; that is the real bottom line here. The history of Canon 603 attests to this gift-quality as the origin of this vocation.

I hope this is helpful to you!

On Recovering (or Renewing) an Excitement and Hope for Vatican II

Well, the day before yesterday was one of those days where amazing things happen ALL day long. First, there was the inauguration of a Pope who holds the poor and marginalized in his heart and gives them priority in his theology and pastoral focus --- the first inauguration since that of John Paul I where I felt true excitement and hopefulness for the papacy, the reform of the curia, and the eventual health of the Church; it was the first inauguration where I was moved by the simplicity (and beauty) of the liturgy, the vestments, etc, and so, was reminded of the Christ I know myself. It was an inauguration in which I heard the Gospel proclaimed in Greek --- which took me back to school days --- and where the Homily spoke of caring for creation and one another as good stewards of God's own love and life in what was a typically Franciscan way.

I was taken back to school days too when, in the afternoon, I went  to a symposium at my old college on Vatican II featuring the Church historian Massimo Faggioli speaking about his book, The Battle for Meaning. Also in attendance were Bp John Cummins (Bp Emeritus of the Diocese of Oakland) and Bp Remi De Roo (Bp Emeritus, Victoria, BC and a Bishop who attended all four sessions of Vatican II). Now, some readers of this blog may recognize Bp Remi's name from pieces I have written on the history of Canon 603, especially for his intervention at the Second Vatican Council on the contribution of the eremitical life to the life of the Church. (cf the labels to the right and below for associated articles here) I had never met Bp De Roo, but I had read his intervention at the Council and he has been something of a hero of mine because of his support of the eremitical vocation.

So, I had emailed a Brother at the college and asked if there might be a chance to meet Bp De Roo to thank him for his place in establishing this vocation in the contemporary Church. That was arranged and I was able to hear the story from him directly, a story I have told here before and will summarize again: When religious were forced to leave their congregations and vows in order to follow a call to eremitical solitude Dom Jacques Winandy, a Benedictine monk and (eventually) another 11 or so of them ended up on Bp Remi's doorstep. He was named Bishop protector of a project allowing these hermits to live in a laura (individual dwellings, etc.) and try to live this vocation. It was the beginning of a resurgence of the eremitical vocation in the Latin Church. Later he gave (wrote) one of the interventions at Vatican II and, though none of the Council documents included eremitical life, the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) recognized the vocation in canon 603 partly as a result of Bp Remi's efforts.

Bishop Remi De Roo

Mass and Dinner with the participants and Brothers of the College followed and I was able to catch up a little with people I had not seen since I had graduated or been in the MA program there, I also met Brothers who had not been there when I was in school as an undergraduate or MA student. I had not anticipated this but it was a real joy. One of my old classmates was among those presenting at the afternoon session and it was wonderful to be able to talk with her, to attend Mass with her and extend the sign of peace during the celebration. It was also wonderful to hear Bp De Roo proclaim the Gospel and give the homily. Bp Remi has been a champion of Vatican II throughout the years and is known for his clear position on the primacy of conscience as well as his support of the sacramental nature of marital intimacy. He recently (September) published Memoirs of a Vatican II Bishop which (despite having just now read only half of it) I recommend.

At the evening presentation Bp Remi, along with Bp John Cummins and Massimo Faggioli spoke of the greatest achievements of Vatican II as well as what was still to be done in their estimation. Bishop De Roo spoke first of his conclusion that what John XXIII had wanted to happen with Vatican II HAD happened, namely, a new Pentecost.  He developed the same ten points as signs of this achieved new Pentecost as he used to indicate what was still necessary, namely,  our need to develop a spirituality of Vatican II. The ten points marking both achievement and remaining need?  1) a view of revelation centered in the person of Jesus Christ, not in propositions, 2) reclaiming and reading the Scriptures as the basis of our spirituality, 3) the recognition that real sanctity is a question of relationships, first with God and then with all others, 4) reclaiming our Baptismal dignity, especially a sense of the priesthood of all believers. Here Bp Remi reminded us there is only one "class" in our Church, that of disciple of Christ.

He continued: 5) a redefinition of the nature of genuine morality in terms of responsible freedom rather than as a matter of embracing moral precepts. Here Bp De Roo stressed the uniqueness of the conciliar statements on conscience --- not in terms of content, for that was entirely traditional, but in terms of the Council affirming this teaching clearly in its own documents; 6) A morality measured in terms of co-responsibility for all. (Bp Remi reminded us of Vatican II's statement that the laity/laos (the whole People of God) has right and sometimes the obligation to speak to pastors regarding their needs), 7) the commitment to the Kingdom or Reign of God. The Church is here as a servant of this one single work, the building of the Kingdom. Thus, the Church is always to be about dying to self so that God's Kingdom might truly come; (this was also the topic of Bp Remi's homily, the single work of God).

8) the universal call to holiness is something all need to clearly embrace, 9) Bp Remi encouraged us to ask ourselves, "Have I heard the call to mysticism?" Here he spoke of developing a heart attuned to God in prayer and of the need for everyone to really develop this; 10) a clear recognition and embrace of the notion of what Vatican II called the "hierarchy of truths." We cannot treat every truth as though it is important as every other truth. We cannot treat every practice as though it is as critical as every other practice. That is not Church teaching.  When I ask myself how many of these points are central to life in my hermitage, parish, and/or diocese (or even how many of them turn up in much of my writing here and other places) I have to say I am very hopeful and gratified.


Both Massimo Faggioli's and John Cummin's presen-tations were excellent too and I hope to post more about those soon. They dealt with the same questions. What was especially encouraging was the ongoing work occurring re Vatican II, the continued commitment to its reception by the Church, and a clear statement that the Council had been kidnapped --- not at the Council itself as its sometimes said, but later by those who suggested ANY competent theologian ever bought into a theology or hermeneutic of rupture, or, for that matter that the Council documents were ONLY in complete continuity with the whole of Tradition. There was both continuity (of course!) and discontinuity; no competent theologian ever affirmed anything else, or could competently affirm anything else. Faggioli's phrase for the notion that this was not the case was "science fiction" --- and insulting science fiction as well.

There is still a great deal of work to do, of course, and damage has been done to the aims of the Council in the past decade and more, but Vatican II was the occasion of a new Pentecost and, as we can see from Francis' election --- where conservatism is not a problem so long as the Church acts as Christ and truly and effectively proclaims the Gospel with its life and structures, from the almost universal desire of the Cardinals for reform of the Curia (cf. comments by Walter Cardinal Kasper on this matter recently), and from the excitement at every level of the Church over Francis' WAY of doing business, as well as from comments by Massimo Faggioli, we can trust in the Spirit as well as that "the genie cannot be stuffed back in the bottle."