On the Importance and Contemporaneity of the Eremitical Vocation (Part 2)

 [[Hi Sister Laurel, I was surprised to find your blog. To be totally honest, I thought that hermits died out a long time ago. It is not that I don't believe someone should be able to go and cut themselves off from the world of relationships if they want to. I believe everyone should be able to do whatever they want so long as no one is hurt, but why would the Catholic Church elevate something like this to the point of consecration? I am sure that most people I know would be quite surprised to find out people choose to live as hermits today, and even more surprised to hear the Catholic Church supports and even celebrates such a choice. After all, the church is about community, and a hermit's life is not, right? So my questions are about whether or not eremitical life is anachronistic. Doesn't it really belong to another time, but not to the 21st Century? Is it meaningful (is it relevant)? Does it have anything to offer the non-hermit (or those who seek to become hermits) besides an escape from everyday difficulties --- if it even does that!? Can eremitical life be justified? Should anyone (you) even try?]]

I sincerely hope the first part of this answer (Importance and Contemporaneity of Eremitical Life) was generally helpful. What I tried to do was to outline the way in which I and the hermits I know or have read regard this vocation and its general importance in the 21C, or any century really. What I would like to say more about here are the questions of this vocation's justifiability and ecclesiality, whether or not it is escapist, and in what senses that word might or definitely does not apply. I also want to say something about the notion of freedom you raise in your questions, and whether hermits cut themselves off from the world, or from the world of relationships, and in what sense those actions are true. Many of these have been addressed in other posts over the years, and I'll try to add some links where I can, but perhaps it will be helpful to write about these again within the context of your basic questions about eremitism's justifiability and contemporary relevance.

I have argued that this vocation is not only not anachronistic, that is, it doesn't only belong to past centuries in terms of relevance, but that it is an important and, in fact, a prophetic vocation for the contemporary Church and world. The Church herself recognized this when, in response to Bishop Remi de Roo's intervention at Vatican II it revised the Code of Canon Law and added canon 603, thus allowing for the first time in universal law, the vocation of the solitary hermit as an ecclesial vocation and call to the consecrated state of life. In your question, you recognized the significance of such a move on the Church's part when you asked why the Catholic Church would raise eremitical life to such a place in the Church's life. 

Bishop de Roo had been the bishop protector for about a dozen hermits in British Columbia. These men had left their various monasteries and accepted laicization after many years in solemn vows because they experienced a call to greater solitude and had to leave their monasteries to follow this call. (Let me be clear; these men were often leaders in their monasteries and were not unhappy with monastic life, their vows, monasteries, or anything of the sort. They simply had experienced a call to greater solitude, and found that this call could not be accommodated under the monastery's own (or proper) law. Eventually, they formed a laura or colony of hermits. Because Bishop de Roo knew these men, their motivations, sensibilities, theologies, and vocations, he eventually wrote an intervention at the Second Vatican Council listing the important positive reasons the church should recognize this vocation as a state of perfection. The reasons he provided in his intervention are listed in, Visibility and Betrayal and at least one earlier blog post in late 2006 or 2007. 

Canon 603 and Ecclesiality:

One way of summarizing all of this history and its meaningfulness, is to point out that c 603 governs a form of life that is ecclesial; that is, it is a form of life that is not only part of the Church's patrimony, but is part of the Church's own holiness and contributes to the Church's health, both generally and specifically in terms of her prayer life, religious life, mission, and ministry. The canonical hermit's life reminds the Church and other religious (especially those in apostolic congregations) that before active ministry there must come a profound relationship with God. It is this relationship that allows the religious man or woman to love others as they ought to be loved in the midst of apostolic ministry. It is also this specific relationship that is mediated along with any other forms of giving that the religious does. The hermit's vocation does the same for cloistered religious and reminds them of the real witness of their lives, namely, a life in community lived for the sake of God and God's place in this world. And of course, the hermit does this for the entire Church, reminding us all that God comes first and can fulfill lives that are not wealthy, powerful, or possessed of much prestige in worldly terms. As I have noted recently, while the hermit may do some limited apostolic ministry, it is the inner journey to union with God that is essential to and definitive for the vocation.

Ecclesial vocations aren't simply lived within the Church; they are also lived for the sake of the Church, that it might truly be the church Jesus calls it to be. Those hermits who accept canonical standing with public vows and consecrations mediated by the local Bishop also embrace this dimension of the eremitical vocation in a public way. Non-canonical hermits live their vocations within the church, but they do not necessarily accept this dimension we call "ecclesiality" in the same way. Canonical eremitism, of course, is not the only ecclesial vocation in the Church, but the emphasis on the inner journey made possible by assiduous prayer, penance, stricter separation from the realm that is resistant to Christ or to Truth, and by the silence of solitude, sets eremitical life somewhat apart from the others, and allows it to emphasize something the others accentuate to a lesser degree or in a different way. As noted in earlier posts, it is the inner journey that allows us to confirm that the Gospel of Jesus' resurrection and God's unconditional Love, from which nothing including sin and godless death can separate us, are real and encounterable today. This allows canonical eremitical life to serve these other vocations and the Church as a whole. When we speak about the relevance or contemporaneity of the hermit today, ecclesiality is an important way of describing this.

Eremitical Life and Freedom:

In your question, you said you believed that anyone should be free to do whatever they felt like, so long as no one was hurt in the process. I believe that is the notion of freedom many people in today's world have. Let me point out that this is not the idea of freedom Christianity understands or embodies. Instead, Christianity defines freedom as the power to be the persons God calls us to be. This, in turn, is made possible by the Holy Spirit and God's unconditional love for us. Hermits live a regular life of prayer and penance, study, lectio, and limited ministry because they live a life focused on their relationship with God and on becoming the persons God calls them to be. One of the most important witnesses the hermit gives others is the fullness of life that is possible whenever God is put first. Some who read here know that one of the persons I have contended with most often over the years is an online self-designated hermit who calls herself a victim soul and writes almost interminably about the suffering she is experiencing. I have sympathy for her, but it is my understanding of eremitical life that it is not about suffering or being what has sometimes been called a victim soul. It is about living life with God. Yes, there will be suffering, just as there is with any life in this world, but eremitism is not a life OF suffering; it is a life of joy, meaning, and fulfillment --- countercultural as each of those actually is.

Canonical hermits (and likely all authentic hermits) are truly free. They are not free to do anything they want, of course. Their lives are constrained by vows involving the main areas of life, including wealth, power, and sex, and still they live lives I recognize as fulfilled because they are full of life, love, and meaning. They live according to a daily schedule, maintaining regularity and balance. They live a stricter separation from "the world," which includes but does not primarily mean separation from much of God's good creation; and yet, they are interested in, committed to, and engaged with that world for the sake of its well-being and the furtherance of God's Kingdom, nonetheless. All of these point to a fundamental freedom the hermit has to live a life as full and meaningful as possible within the framework of a desert context. Freedom, from this perspective, is definitely not about doing whatever one likes so long as no one is hurt. It is about living a responsible freedom where one's life is not only received daily as a gift of God, but also is given daily for God's sake and the sake of all that God loves and holds as precious.

Relationships, Escapism, and Eremitical Engagement:

Most hermits are not recluses, and even recluses in the Catholic Church are only allowed to be so within the context of a loving religious community that provides for such unique vocations. (The last I heard of recluses, only the Camaldolese and the Carthusians were allowed to have recluses. The last Camaldolese recluse I know of died a number of years ago in Big Sur, while the most famous might be Nazarena, a recluse living with the Camaldolese nuns in Rome.) All human beings need to be loved and to love, and for that reason, we all need others in our lives. We hermits say that "God Alone is Enough" for us, and we mean that in two related ways. First, only God is capable of completing us as human beings. Only God is sufficient for this. We are made for God, who is the ground and source of life, love, meaning, truth, beauty, and truly personal existence. Secondly,  our openness to and need for God make us open and responsive to all that mediates God to us in the incredibly varied ways the created world and other beings do that. What this saying does NOT mean is that human beings do not need other human beings, or can become truly human in complete isolation from others. Eremitical life has never meant to affirm such a notion of human being or of the nature of eremitical solitude. 

In my writing on this blog over the past 18 years, I have always drawn a clear line between isolation and solitude. I distinguish these two because one is life-giving and the other can deal death to the human being. I am personally sensitive to the distinction between these two and associate isolation with alienation and forced separation from the community of others. Hermits are more or less physically isolated from others; eremitical solitude requires this in order to spend time with God and the inner journey to healing, wholeness, and holiness we are each called to. However, we are not usually personally isolated from others, though we may not be as social as most people or able to spend much time with the people who are important to us. We are assisted in living this solitude by the Church and her liturgical and sacramental life, by spiritual directors, pastors, members of the larger community of faith, family members, physicians, and many others. I include among this significant group of people, especially other religious, and members of the virtual laura I am part of, as well as those I do spiritual direction with. It is not that I interact with these people every day or even every week or month of my life, but they are all a significant presence, and each one helps to focus my life on the defining relationship with God that makes me who I am and who I am called to be.

You suggested not only that a hermit's life is cut off from the world of relationships, but that it is not about community. I would argue that it is about community, though it is lived in eremitical solitude. In fact, I would argue (and have often done that here) that eremitical solitude is a rare and unique form of community dedicated to building the human family and the community of faith from the most important and original relationship extant, namely, that between the human being with the rest of creation and God. As for escape from everyday difficulties, there is no way c 603 life allows for or encourages that. The (canonical) hermit is self-supporting, publicly responsible, committed to the Church and society, and engaged on their behalf. She lives with the same limitations any other person does and perhaps a few more besides. What is most important to remember about this vocation is that it is identified by the Camaldolese in terms of the Privilege of Love. Indeed, I am not going to run for political office or travel to (or even stay home to do) a job forty hours or more a week, but, because I am called to stricter separation from "the world" in the specialized way c 603 uses that term**, it also means I am committed to God's will for the whole of this larger world. Thus, I stay updated on current events, work to ensure my education remains up to date, and I engage in whatever ways I can within the limits of my state of life to make our world all that God calls it to be.

So, this is the second part of my answer to your question. I hope it clarifies some things and raises more questions for the future. As always, if I have been unclear, please feel free to get back to me with comments and questions. Again, thanks for your questions. I enjoyed thinking about them freshly. I will post this before adding the additional links, so in the meantime, you can look at the list of topics on the right-hand column of the blog for additional information. All my best.

** The Church recognizes that "the world" in the c 603 phrase, stricter separation from the world, refers to that which is resistant to Christ, and not first of all to the larger world we identify with God's good creation. As a result, while the hermit is thus more strictly separated from aspects even of God's good creation, she is also well able to engage with and on behalf of that world within the limits of her state of life.

On the Beauty and Depth of c 603 (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Why concern yourself with the law once you're admitted under a law? I wondered if you could explain that. . . .]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and questions!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called to (and will need to) explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, in some ways, I have come to know the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 [now 17] years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course, they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. Canonists tend also to look at c 603 simply in terms of its legal dimensions, particularly seizing on (or sussing out) legal loopholes rather than reflecting on the vocation itself, [as happened in the Diocese of Lexington this last Pentecost. (2024)] More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit. One must be able to see the implicit depths and Mystery below the surface.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived experience and long reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit writes a liveable Rule confronts everyone participating in the process with the need for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find c 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance). Still, the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession. Certainly, it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs and thus perpetuates the vocations of solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements that mark this definition. It is here, however, that c 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery that grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true --- because canon 603 is not a once-used-now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more that opens onto the Divine, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

Bishops and Delegates as Contrary to the "Supreme Independence" of a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, in your last post [09.September. 2022, On Needing People] the questions asked something about the supervision of the bishop being contrary to the vocation of a hermit. I don't think you answered that so let me ask it again even if it is not what the original questioner had in mind. I have always thought of hermits as supremely independent --- being able to walk away from everything and everyone to live alone, but c 603 requires one live one's life under the supervision of a diocesan bishop. You have written about having a delegate who serves you and the bishop in meeting with you regularly. Isn't all of this contrary to the supreme independence of the hermit? Thanks!!]]

Thanks for continuing the conversation and for taking it further than the original poster did. As you will no doubt guess, I am going to disagree with your position, not only because I differ somewhat (mainly in emphasis) on your understanding of hermit life but more, because I think you and I have different notions of independence.

In the first place, I don't think of a hermit as one who leaves everything and everyone "in order to be alone". I think of a hermit as having done these things to seek and live in communion with God and, therefore, to be the truest and fullest Self s/he can be. The purpose of the life is not about being alone, nor about being hidden, or poor, or any number of other things; the purpose of the life is to put God first, to allow God's will to love us fully and unconditionally to be realized in our one very singular and infinitely precious life. Yes, this will mean being alone, poor, hidden, chaste, celibate, and any number of other things, but all of those serve this foundational purpose; they must not be mistaken for it. There is a second half to this foundational purpose, namely, in real ways the hermit leaves everything and everyone and seeks to live in Communion with God and to become and be the truest, fullest, self she can be for the sake of others. 

Hermits are, first and foremost witnesses (martyrs) to the Love of God that is the deepest need of and sufficient for every person. We "leave everything and everyone" to the extent and in the way we do so in order to live in the silence of solitude (life with God alone) so that others may also know that God alone is enough (i.e., only God can create, sustain, and complete us as persons). I want to be clear that hermits are not the only ones who witness to this truth; for instance, men and women religious also do so, but they image the way that occurs in community and hermits image this truth in the vividness of the silence of solitude. (Both hermits and cenobites live community, silence, and solitude, but they do so differently with different emphases in their lives.) Again, who the hermit is and what the hermit does, is meant to be a gift and ministry to and for the sake of others; she lives her life for the sake of others -- beginning with God's own sake.

So, with that important piece in place let's think about the term independence and especially its sense in Christian theology. To be truly free is to be empowered to be the person God wills us to be. It is to be able to live authentically and fully, the potential which is ours by virtue of our creation by God. There is a "free from" dimension to this empowerment as well as a "free for" dimension. For the person who exists in and through God in Christ, and to the extent this is true, there is freedom from sin (that is, from estrangement from God, self, and others), from ego, from much of the woundedness our lives in space and time cause us. This means too then, that there is the freedom to be Oneself for God, for the sake of God's good creation, and certainly for the sake of all who are precious to God. The hermit's freedom is very much this kind of freedom in both senses and dimensions.

If what one calls independence is ruled by ego, it is not genuine freedom. If we are not free to receive our lives as gift or others in a similar way, we do not know genuine freedom. If we are not free to give ourselves generously, to love and trust others in ways that empower them similarly, we are not truly free at all. Because we are only human as part of a community, because our humanity is a gift of God which is realized in and through our love of God and others and theirs of/for us, we need these same others if we are to be free. God is a community of love and God wills to draw us into that same reality; indeed, he has made us for this. By definition, humanity itself, and human freedom therefore is defined in terms of such community.

All of this makes the solitude of the authentic hermit incredibly paradoxical. To the degree it is genuine, it will be an expression of our seeking and being in intimate community with God, with our deepest selves, and, in other ways, with others. No matter what else we walk away from, we cannot walk away from God or our deepest selves without betraying the very nature of our existence as human, and too then, our vocation and its solitude in the process. By extension, we cannot walk away from others --- though most of the time we relate to them differently than most people do.

The vocation I have begun describing here is both difficult, rare, and, as noted, incredibly paradoxical. It is easy to mistake it for the isolation and misanthropy that marks the loner in today's society because externally these two can look a lot alike. When one doesn't know that (seeking and receiving) communion with God is the primary motivation and goal of the hermit, it is easy to imagine that the vaunted "eremitical freedom" means the freedom to walk away from every relationship and responsibility and do whatever one wants whenever one wants to do it. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the word "hermit" has been used in these two antithetical ways, again based on some externals alone. But authentic eremitical life is demanding, and because communion with God (being loved and loving in return in the way God loves and empowers one to love) is a difficult goal which requires the whole of one's life, it really does require supervision and work with a skilled spiritual director, etc., to keep one moving forward in receiving and embodying one's deepest truth.

Sin is, in the way I have defined it above, easy; refusing Life, which is always a gift of God, allowing it to slip away, choosing counterfeits and substitutes is easy. Holiness (being true to God and to one's deepest self in order to love as God loves), requires discipline, patience, commitment, and love --- including the love of those who know us and God, and who can help empower us to choose and continue to receive Life at every turn. In my own life those persons are a rare and precious gift. They include those who have agreed to serve me as spiritual director, as well as Director or delegate on behalf of my bishop and diocese to be sure that this vocation is lived well and in a way which is edifying to the life of the church and the understanding of all the faithful. 

The irony is that I could never be a hermit as c 603 defines one and as Christian tradition understands us without the assistance of others. I could never live the aloneness of a hermit with an ecclesial vocation by myself. To say with my life that God alone is sufficient for us, requires not just being embedded in the People of God and in God's own life, it requires those others who mediate God's love to me and remind me of those for whom I live as well. Even as a recluse (were I to find myself called to this even rarer form of eremitical life) I would require others, and that means others to and for whom I would feel grateful, those I would pray for, come to know in one way and another, and whose lives would therefore enrich the tapestry of my life as integral threads composing dimensions of my solitude. 

I'll stop this here, because I think I could keep writing for quite a while on this critical paradox. If you haven't read the following post, you should give it a look. It approaches some dimensions of this response -- becoming human, becoming holy, etc. -- with different imagery. That might be helpful to you. Inner Work and transparency to God As always, please get back to me if you have additional questions! 

On the Beauty and Depth of Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Once you're admitted under a law, why concern yourself with the law? I wondered if you could explain that. By the way, your anniversary of profession is coming up isn't it? Congratulations!]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and question!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called and will need to explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, I have come to know many of the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived-experience and long-reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit write a liveable Rule confronts everyone with the needs for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find canon 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance), but the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession, and certainly it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs, and thus perpetuates solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements which mark this definition. It is here, however, that canon 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery which grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true, because canon 603 is not a once-used now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

Postscript: Yes, it's a big week for me. I mark my birthday on September 1st, and celebrate the anniversary of my perpetual profession under c 603, the next day, 2nd Sept. Thanks for asking!

Whom Could It Hurt?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered why it is dioceses are so reluctant to profess hermits when they don't have to support them financially? I mean if money isn't the issue, then what is? Who will be hurt by professing someone if they don't quite fit the description of canon 603? When I approached my diocese they asked  that I live as a hermit under direction for a year or two, and then re-approach them. I don't see the need and I don't see the need for a spiritual director either! I have God and He directs me better than any human being ever could. I just don't get why it's a big deal to just profess someone if they desire it.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are important and timely. I heard someone ask the first one just a couple of weeks ago, and over the years I have been asked variations of it many times -- often without the reference to finances; sometimes a person will ask as you did, "Who will it hurt?" or, "What does it matter?" (Sometimes I have thought this bishop or that has professed someone they don't really believe is a hermit while asking themselves the very same question!!) All of these are questions usually raised by non-canonical hermits or by those who desire to be hermits and who may desire to be canonical. Sometimes the responses given by dioceses sour these persons on seeking canonical standing, and often the reasons are simply not understood or appreciated. When I heard the question two weeks ago it surprised me because of the reference to money. Your own question is surprising because it comes so quickly on the heels of that other one. The answer I gave two weeks ago was, "Because it is very rare for human beings to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude," and that is where I will begin here.

It is very rare for a human being to come to wholeness or authentic humanity in eremitical solitude; most of us are called to love and be loved in ways eremitical existence does not really allow for; the need for society is real and necessary for most people in ways it is not for the hermit. Nor is this merely about the difference between introversion and extroversion. It is about the meaningfulness and fullness of one's life. Moreover, for the Church to allow someone to live this vocation in her Name, she must be as sure as possible that the witness the person gives is similar to the witness given by Jesus in the desert: she must see clear signs that it is in the desert of eremitical solitude that one is, through the grace of God, victorious over the powers of evil and solidified in one's identity (one's authentic humanity and capacity to love) in God. Another way of saying this is to affirm that very few people are called to witness to the victory of the Gospel of Christ through the silence of eremitical solitude.

For the church to admit someone to eremitical profession and thus, to canonical standing, is to allow that person to live the life in her name; this means she sees clear signs that this vocation is leading this person to wholeness and holiness and that they will serve others with their witness. It also means the church is relatively well-assured of the fact that the one professed will be open and attentive to the directives of superiors and others in the church in order that this witness be the best it can be. This is why the discernment process for canonical vocations is mutual. The issue is not financial; it is one of authentic witness, and so too, of participating in the Church's own mission and the very great charism of eremitical life.

 The Richness of Canon 603:

Can 603 is not merely a brief description of eremitical life, though I agree it is that. More, though, it defines a vision one is called to embrace, a piece of the church's own spiritual tradition one is invited to represent afresh, a commitment one is called to make as an expression of the Gospel of God in Christ. When I have written about the central elements of the canon before, I have written about them as mysteries to be explored. (cf.,  Followup on Canon 603 and Freedom) Canonical standing is both the right and the obligation to engage in this specific exploration all the days of one's life; it signifies the right and obligation to do so in the Church's name -- not only for the sake of hospitality to God, and for the sake of the Gospel, but for the sake of one's own freedom, wholeness, and holiness in incarnating and witnessing to these things. Because of this it is important for the Church to be sure that the individual whose vocation is in question (i.e., being discerned) really does give every indication of being called to all of this and to authentic freedom (which includes the ability to love compassionately) precisely as a hermit who can live the vocation in the Church's name.

For instance, you say forthrightly that you "don't see the need" either to live as the Church asks you in this situation, nor to work regularly with a spiritual director.  As baptized you have every right to decide in this way that you will not be subject to the directives of the Church in these matters. But what you do not have the right to do is to reject these directives and at the same time expect to be granted the right to make public vows as a hermit who lives her life under the supervision of the Church, under regular spiritual direction, and who is therefore publicly bound to do so obediently in her name. The Church, in the person of your diocesan personnel, asked you to live a particular way for a year or two so that she could adequately discern the potential presence of an ecclesial eremitical vocation. She is not discerning a vocation to individualism with you, nor does she mistake the freedom of the hermit for the license of the individualist. When you ask whom could it hurt to profess someone anyway, the answer is, a significant number of people and the solitary eremitical vocation itself as it has been entrusted to the Church. Let me explain.

Asking to Profess a Commitment to a Specific Desert Existence for the Sake of Others:

Those who approach the Church requesting admission to perpetual profession, are asking to live a desert existence which is almost infinitely meaningful in Christ and the power of the Spirit. We do this because, in one way and another, we have known desert experiences throughout our own lives and learned that God is always there in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. We do this because these desert experiences have made us desirous of loving and witnessing to precisely such a God, and we do so for the sake of all of those others whose lives will find them at one time and another in various deserts or wildernesses with all of the constraints, dangers, deficiencies, and also the potentialities of such lives. We do not do so simply so we may do as we like. We accept the constraints and the great potential of this ecclesial definition of solitary eremitical life because, 1) we know this ecclesial vocation does not belong to us but to the church,  2) because we know that God is found in a privileged way here, and 3) because we appreciate that this Presence will make of our lives an instance of Gospel victory and freedom which can serve others in profound ways.

Individualism simply doesn't do this. If I am witnessing to someone who finds themselves in a desert or wilderness situation from which there is no escape --- say the desert of chronic illness, for instance -- I cannot "kick off the (relatively minor) traces" of canon 603 supervision and obedience, and expect my life to say anything important to this person. They are searching for a way to live their potential and to find freedom despite the serious and inescapable constraints of their illness. My life as a canonical hermit with its constraints and correlative freedom to explore the depths of God and humanity, witnesses to the possibility of doing so; life as an individualist rejecting the constraints of law, ecclesiality, and so forth, is far less likely to do so. Besides, as I pointed out in the article linked above, the foundational and essential elements of canon 603 are not merely constraining elements for the solitary canonical hermit, they are doorways to the Mystery of God and the Human person constituted in dialogue with God, and I embrace them as such.

Whom Does it Hurt?

To profess someone who does not feel called to embrace and, in fact, refuses to embrace these same elements, witnesses to something other than the c 603 hermit does --- whatever that is. It is damaging to the power of the canon's vision and witness to profess someone who cannot and does not witness to the very thing the canon stands for. One has a responsibility to discern how and where one best witnesses to the way God has worked and is working in one's life. The Church has an obligation to do the same with regard to canon 603. If one is called to witness to something else or to do so in another way, it would be irresponsible of the Church to admit one to profession under canon 603. (cf. Eremitism or Exaggerated Individualism?).

We do not honor the vocation or charism of a vocation (the way it is a gift of the Holy Spirit) by professing those we don't believe are truly called to come to human wholeness and holiness in this specific way. For that matter we demean their true vocations by doing so, just as we deprive those to whom their lives might otherwise speak, of this vocation's appropriate message and messenger. That is significant damage, damage to the Church's witness, to the vocation's power and relevance, and to those touched directly by this dishonesty; that is whom it hurts. And ultimately, because very few truly come to wholeness or holiness in this way or witness to the power of God to bring one to holiness and wholeness in this way,  the Church professes relatively few hermits under canon 603 (or in congregations). Again, it is a rare vocation which the Church honors, not in numbers, but in appropriate fidelity, care, and truthfulness.

On What is Tried and True in Eremitical Life

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

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

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

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

The Church's Response to this Varied Phenomenon:

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

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

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

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

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

What is "Tried and True"?

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

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

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

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

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

Follow up on Canon 603 and Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I just read your recent post on freedom vs license. I thought the examples you used re playing the violin or playing as an elite athlete on a basketball team were an excellent way to illustrate the distinction between these two ideas. I would have thought that canon 603 limited hermit freedom. While I don't know a lot about canon law I have always had the sense that it curtails freedom. What is it about canon 603 that makes it different from the rest of canon law? Does it really result in freedom for the hermit?]]

Thanks for your comments and questions. This will build on the post on freedom and license On Questions of Freedom and License so please bear the examples there in mind. Maybe this will surprise some folks but I suppose I have always felt the same way about canon law as you. I think I feel that way still with the exception of canon 603. I have lived as perpetually professed under this canon for over a dozen years now and I have experienced it as a source of great freedom throughout that time. Neither has anyone who might have done so (chancery personnel, bishop, delegate) interfered with that freedom by imposing requirements on me beyond my Rule or the canon itself. What makes canon 603 different to my mind are two things: 1) the essential elements are left undefined; they are mysteries to be explored and embraced, and 2) these elements are combined with a Rule the hermit writes herself based on her own lived experience. I think the way these two things come together in the power of the Holy Spirit is the key to a hermit being really and authentically free. They are also the thing which sets this apart from most other canons.

Regarding the essential elements, these have meaning in light of the  lived tradition and the lived life experience of the hermit. For instance, when I first read the canon (@ December 1983) I misread it as calling for, "silence and solitude," rather than "the silence of solitude" and lived those first realities mainly in terms of external silence and physical solitude, Only a while later did I come to see the canon said "the silence of solitude", a Carthusian  reality which is much richer than the sum of its parts; only much later had I moved from seeing this as just an environment in which the hermit lives to also seeing it as a symbol of the goal of life with God. Even later still I came to see this same essential term as a description of the charism (gift quality) of the solitary eremitical vocation, which, when understood by chancery personnel, could prevent problems in professing or dismissing candidates for profession. It took time to live into and truly understand this mystery. Something similar happened with the terms assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, and living this vocation for the salvation of the world.

Each term was and is absolutely central to the vocation, and yet the Church did not define them; some might have thought the meaning of these terms to be self-evident, or they might have given dictionary definitions and thought these sufficient. Either alternative would be a serious mistake. Though one is not free to create an entirely new meaning for these terms, each one embodies a whole world and constitutes an invitation to discover and explore this world of Divine power, presence, and love. Each also reflects a long and varied history of eremitical tradition and freedom and each one will call one to make choices pertinent to one's life circumstances and God's personal call to wholeness and holiness in light of these elements. Those who wrote the canon knew this, I believe; those who professed me expected me to come to deeper and deeper understanding of these mysteries as well as those of the evangelical counsels (which are themselves geared towards freedom) and live (and live into) them ever more deeply. The call to embrace and explore these mysteries was and is both a right and an obligation whose fulfillment was extended to me as well as empowered by the grace of profession and consecration. The bottom line here is that I was truly free to do this in whatever ways and according to whatever timetable worked best for me. Moreover, as I did this, as I entered more deeply into each mystery (and thus, into the world of God's love they opened to me), my own freedom to be the person God called me to be would increase.

A part of this deepening freedom and faithfulness involved the writing of a Rule the Church received  and officially approved with a Bishop's decree. This too is a non-negotiable part of the canon like the others mentioned above. The Rule was written and rewritten on the basis of my own lived experience and codified a particular vision of eremitical life which drew not only from my life experiences (including now the inner work I am doing with my Director), but from Camaldolese and Cistercian spirituality, as well as from the substance of the canon itself. Additional sources were the lives and spirituality of hermits through the centuries, but especially the Carthusians and the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and the Camaldolese St Romuald and St Peter Damian. The living out of this Rule has asked me everyday to grow in understanding, freedom, wholeness, and holiness. The writing  of this blog too has been a source of growth and deepening freedom. Canon 603 is at least indirectly responsible for my taking this project on and continuing it.

Another part of my experience of freedom with regard to canon 603 has been the Church's public commissioning of me to live this life. When everything around me and (sometimes) even within me seems to militate against the silence of solitude, I can remind myself of the mutual discernment process the chancery and I negotiated, the prayers for my vocation I know people offered and still offer, and my assurance that these things indicate the granting of a very real freedom with regard to the pressures acting against eremitical life. Canonical standing and God's own consecration which was mediated by the Church, results in freedom to resist other self-definitions and affirm the deep truth of self in God. What I want to stress in all of this is the degree of freedom c 603 and the Church herself gives me to discern various things within this eremitical context  I would not be free to undertake from outside it. When I fail in one way or another I don't  need to worry whether my own initial discernment of this vocation was accurate; the Church has weighed in on things and tips the scales towards an affirmation of this vocation and a renewed commitment to persevere. Finally, a central piece of the way c 603 has afforded me real freedom is the intense work I have undertaken with my Director. I would not have been free to undertake this in the way we have done it had it not been for canon 603 and the public commissioning associated with it. Likewise, as I have written recently, the ministry of authority which is a significant part of a canonical vow of obedience has been incredibly freeing as well.

I think it is important to understand that the freedom I have discovered and come to live more and more is not the freedom to be anything or just anyone at all. However, through canon 603 I have been made more truly free to be myself. There are constraints, of course and the ability to use certain gifts and talents is among these. Still. the rich sources of freedom which make up life under canon 603 are inspired by the Holy Spirit and they have led me deeper and deeper into the heart of eremitical life which in turn has made me even more free as hermit and as a human being. Canon 603, with its combination of essential or defining elements and a Rule I necessarily wrote myself with its dependence on my own lived experience and vision of eremitical life, created a realm of God-given space which I can explore and in which I could hearken to the voice and Word of God as I become the person God calls me to be. Remember that in Catholic theology freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. What canon 603 does in my life (and, I would argue, in the life of anyone truly called to this vocation) is to ensure me the invitations, space, and tools to become myself as I explore the heights and depths of life in communion with God.

To summarize then: I think that, generally speaking, Canon Law is meant to protect various realities in the Church. This always involves setting parameters or limitations --- but parameters and limitations which also define a realm of freedom. Again, one is not free to be anything at all but, if one is called by God to this, one is certainly free to be themselves as a hermit who lives this life in the name of the Church. Even so, I believe canon 603 is truly unique in combining the hermit's own Rule and other non-negotiable elements in a way which allows the hermit to explore the depths and heights of the mystery we identify as solitary eremitical life and thus, life with and in the God who inspires and empowers it. I find the canon to be genuinely beautiful in the way it is composed; it creates the necessary space for the Holy Spirit to work if one really has an eremitical vocation. (This is one reason its non-negotiable elements are built into the lives of non-canonical or lay hermits' lives as well.) I would not have thought these things were I looking at the canon from the outside in. But I have now lived this life for some time and things look differently from "within" or under canon 603 itself.