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.

Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Profession under Canon 603

[[Sister, could the former members of the Hermit Intercessors become Canon 603 hermits? What would it take for this to happen?]]


This is a huge and complex question. In some ways though, it is a simple question as well. My own opinion is that a few of them, AS INDIVIDUALS, MIGHT, in time, discern a vocation to diocesan eremitical life, but given the situation at hand both they and the archdiocese (or their home dioceses if they return to those) must act with even greater caution than ordinarily. Canon 603 is not meant simply to provide a way to profess someone who has not been or cannot be professed any other way. It is not simply a fallback position when one vocational path fails -- for whatever reason. One must really discern a true vocation to eremitical life and beyond that, to consecrated eremitical life. Even more specifically, one must discern a call to diocesan (that is, SOLITARY) rather than religious eremitical life. From what I can see the "Hermits'" life is intensely and definitively communal, not to mention familial, and simply calling members "hermits" does not make them hermits especially in the sense Canon 603 uses the term. One may well be contemplative, for instance, without in the least being called to eremitical solitude. Beyond this, one may be called to religious eremitical life without being called to solitary eremitical life, whether lay or diocesan.

So, what would it take for this to happen? Former members interested in pursuing this option would need, again, to discern vocations to SOLITARY eremitical life (not merely contemplative life, and not life in community or even to religious eremitical life), and this would require at least several years AFTER transitioning out of the life of the Intercessors. They, like all potential aspirants for profession under canon 603 would need to discern whether they were called to live eremitical life as a lay person or with canonical vows and, if the latter, approach their own diocese with a petition to be admitted to profession and the beginning of a process of MUTUAL discernment. Sometime just before (or after) this they would need to write a Rule of Life based on their own lived experience of solitary eremitical life which they would submit for approval by canonists and the diocesan Bishop. And, as noted, they would need the diocese to discern the same vocation and admit them to canonical vows --- just as any other candidate or aspirant for Canon 603 profession must do.

Those who would be eligible to discern this would meet all the requirements diocesan hermits must ordinarily meet: they will be single (or if divorced, have received an anullment) and be otherwise unencumbered of minor or dependent children, etc. Note that I have heard of some diocesan hermits who work part time caring for elderly parents, for instance, but this is not universally accepted and the signs of eremitical vocation and readiness for canonical profession must be clear nonetheless, not simply for the individual and hierarchy mutually discerning the vocation before them, but for those to whom the hermit will witness and minister in and from the silence of solitude within the parish, diocese, etc.

In many ways then, the steps would be the same as for any other person, but the church hierarchy will be especially sure Canon 603 is not being seized on as a stopgap means of profession or a merely compensatory fallback position for someone who would much rather live in community, etc. In particular the Church would need to be sure that whatever individuals seek to live according to Canon 603 and who might THEREAFTER seek to come together in a Laura, have EACH discerned a vocation to solitary eremitical life and are not using Canon 603 merely to reconstitute a remnant of the Intercessors or find a merely alternative way back into habit and (finally, admission to public) vows!! The question which must be answered satisfactorily for everyone concerned (not least for diocesan hermits who HAVE discerned, are professed to, and live the life with integrity!) is "Why, if you truly feel called to this, did you not seek profession according to Canon 603 BEFORE the suppression of your group? Why now??"

Thus, the entire process of discernment from initial experimentation with the life through perpetual profession could well take the same time as it does for anyone else (from to 8-12 years or more) with no assurance that temporary, much less perpetual profession will actually occur until quite late in the process. Given the current situation especially, it would also probably be prudent -- if such permission was granted at all -- to allow such hermits to come together in a Laura for mutual support, etc, only AFTER perpetual profession under Canon 603. (I would argue this is necessary anyway for proper discernment and assurance regarding the solitary nature of the vocation, but that it is especially important in the former Intercessors' situation. After all, lauras fail far far more often than they succeed but the vocation and vows of the diocesan hermit remain nonetheless. Living the vocation without benefit of a laura, and without the formation of the laura must be possible for the individual hermit, but it is especially important for those whose whole experience of professed life is semi-eremitical at best, or for whom the term "hermit" was an ideal or metaphorical term only.)

Regular readers of this blog know that I have written in the past about the dangers of inappropriate use of Canon 603 to profess persons who have no real vocation to solitary eremitical life. I think your question is an important one because there will be a great temptation to "just profess" members under Canon 603 without appropriate discernment, or true understanding of the difference between solitary and communal or semi-eremitical life. This is a temptation former Intercessor members and hierarchy must take care to resist and avoid. Similarly the temptation to form a community and merely call it a laura to justify it (and get members professed) is equally problematical today, so the situation of the formerly privately professed members of the Intercessors of the Lamb raises this issue as well. There are very real differences between the two and sometimes canonists focus more on subtle technical or juridical elements to the exclusion of the substantive elements rooted in the nature (charism, mission) of the life itself. (I am thinking especially here of a dissertation on Canon 603 I read several months ago, and which I -- and some other diocesan hermits I know -- believe is especially flawed in this way. (It is helpful in others!) The dissertation argues for what is canonically possible in light of other canons but what is "possible" canonically is not always the same as what is prudent for or theologically and spiritually sound in terms of the solitary eremitical vocation itself.)

I hope this helps.