Can a Transsexual Person be admitted to Profession and Consecration Under C 603?

[[ Dear Sister, would the church profess or consecrate a transsexual (transgender?) as a diocesan hermit? I don't want to give more details. I just wondered if there are any hard and fast rules about this. Would you encourage a transsexual to seek profession and consecration under c 603? It seems to me that since there is no community, no one would be particularly troubled much less harmed by such an act. Are you aware of any transsexuals who are diocesan hermits? Thanks.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me begin with some comments about transgender persons and sacraments as a preliminary to answering your questions. This might give you an introductory sense of how seriously the church takes the question of allowing transgendered persons to be professed and consecrated as religious. From all that I have read about the church's stance on transgendered persons in this regard, two considerations are always raised: 1) the honesty or lack of honesty involved (including self-honesty, potential self-deception, or questions of personal transparency), and 2) the possibility of scandal. The person involved must be acting freely, openly, and transparently, and there must be no cause for scandal. Still, there is relatively little out there in writing from the church. In speaking about the sacraments, for instance, the church only speaks of baptism as clearly open to transgendered persons (and some dioceses may still be disputing that). After that, things become even more complicated. Even having a transgendered person serving as a godparent for someone is not without complications. While religious profession and consecration are not sacraments, admission of a transgendered person to these definitive steps of public commitment within religious life raises even more difficult questions that also revolve around the questions of honesty or personal integrity and scandal.****

Consecrated Life: A Call to Foundational Womanliness or Manliness

With consecrated eremitical life, some of these same questions apply whether we are speaking of semi-eremitical life or solitary eremitism under c 603. Remember that the profession of a diocesan hermit is a public commitment with public rights and obligations. This means the whole church has a right to hold certain expectations concerning the one being professed and/or consecrated. The most fundamental of these, no matter whether the person identifies as male or female, has to do with their foundational womanliness or manliness and their fulfillment**. Are they gifting God and the Church with their lives in this way because they (and those discerning with them!) sincerely believe they are being called to human wholeness and holiness (including a recognizable psycho-sexual maturity) in this state of life in Christ or is there something else at play here? Stated another way, are they embracing this life because they (and those discerning with them) feel assured that God's love for them calls and will bring them to psycho-sexual maturity, that is, to the highest expressions of manliness or womanliness one may achieve in this way or not? Will they witness to this foundational task and achievement as well as to the way God's non-gendered and self-sacrificial love makes it both a possibility and reality? 

First and foremost, a vocation to eremitical life is a call to human wholeness and holiness in loving dialogue with God in the silence of solitude. This can occur in the presence of various forms of gender dis-ease or gender dysphoria and other significant limitations. One gives the whole of oneself (including one's dis-ease) in the trust and expectation that God completes and makes one truly and fully alive in Christ with the abundant life promised in the Gospels. In fact, because the hermit gives up the use of so many specific gifts necessary for active ministry, this particular witness seems to me to be the essence of the eremitical call. The God of Jesus Christ is affirmed as the One who loves us just as we are and empowers us to love and live with whatever difficulties our lives include. We suffer with and in Christ in ways that witness to God's power to make sense of even life's worst apparent absurdities. We approach this promised achievement with hope that in giving ourselves totally (including what seems "broken" within us, so too will we find, complete, and transcend ourselves in Christ, and we do this for the sake of others who need and seek the same redemption and fulfillment.

The Church does not Recognize. . .

The church does not recognize that a person's fundamental manliness or womanliness (even as incipient) changes with gender-affirming transition. Moreover, the church identifies this fundamental given as consonant with one's sex at birth. Certainly, dimensions of one's fundamental manliness or womanliness are affected by hormones, genetic manipulation, and surgery, though in Catholic theology, these changed dimensions are not identical to a change in one's fundamental womanliness or manliness, one's foundational sexuality. Despite a person's profound and painful dis-ease with his or her assigned birth sex, that sexual identity remains a gift and a task s/he is meant to realize in psycho-sexual maturity within whatever given limitations or seeming inconsistencies there may be. Assuming no intersex problems cause physician errors in determining sex, the church's current teaching on admitting a suitable candidate*** to profession and consecration is clear: if one is born (or determined to be) female at birth, one must be professed and/or consecrated as a female; if born male, then profession/consecration must be as a male. 

Though this is a dimension of one's vocation most will recognize in terms of the vow to chastity in celibacy, when the church clothes the candidate in religious garb or styles the person Brother or Sister it also reflects this truth. Given the church's own teaching here, how is the church to clothe and address a transgendered person who was originally female for instance? Though fundamentally a woman in the church's eyes, does this person style herself as Brother  X_____ and represent a call to authentic manliness? 

The church sees a profound contradiction here on the most fundamental human level; what one claims (to be) and proclaims at profession conflicts with one's natural sexual identity, and for this reason, the church does not admit someone living as a transgendered person to profession or consecration. To do so would be dishonest and, if the professing bishop allowed the faith community to know about it in an entirely transparent way, it would cause significant scandal. (For that matter, were the bishop admitting a transgendered person to profession and consecration to knowingly withhold this from the faith community participating in the profession I think that too would legitimately cause significant scandal.)

In approaching your questions, I began with the most foundational element or dimension of the hermit's life because it is deeper and more extensive than the changes involved in gender-affirming transitions can change or achieve. It can be argued that the Evangelical Counsels and particularly the vow of chastity in celibacy (consecrated celibacy) can be understood in terms of this foundational identity as well as in other terms that may be more familiar to readers. Chastity in celibacy deals with integrity in relationships and the commitment to love others in the way Christ loved; thus, it also implies being true to one's fundamental manliness or womanliness to carry all of this out. As I understand the church's position, if gender (that is, the subjective experience of sexuality) fails to match one's sexuality (an objective reality not necessarily dependent upon or consonant with one's experience of one's sexuality), and one cannot love oneself as created and called to be, the ability to make a binding vow of chastity becomes problematic. 

Are there Currently Transsexual Diocesan Hermits?

I am not aware of any transgendered persons who have been professed or consecrated as diocesan hermits. I am personally aware of only one transgender person who sought profession under c 603 several years ago. I opposed his admission to profession (he is a trans male), but N.B., I did not do so based on the fact that he was transgendered  per se, but instead because he approached profession as a solitary hermit deceitfully and fraudulently. This person told me he (purportedly along with his bishop) planned on using the canon as a "matter [or way] of [achieving] justice" and was clear he was using the canon as a stopgap way to get publicly professed, something he knew from reading this blog is objectionable. (He claimed to have discerned a call to "public profession" but not to eremitical life; the church does NOT recognize such a call apart from particular forms of religious life which may then require public vows.) There were other issues as well (bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop, an intention to create (or join) a community after consecration, the use of temporary profession to experiment and "gather data" on whether or not this life was a fit at all, among others), and in each of these, some degree of pretense and bad faith were apparent. Thus too, the validity of such a profession would have been questionable at best. (One canonist who was consulted opined the profession/vows would be invalid (cf c 656.4 and On Withholding the Truth), while another suggested sacrilege could also be involved were such a profession attempted.)

As you might surmise, this instance of a proposed profession raises several important questions. The one I want to focus on here has to do with using profession and consecration as a means to take a stand on something one considers unjust in the church, or for any other reason than expressing and embracing a genuine sense of a call to consecrated life (and in this case, to solitary eremitic consecrated life). Canon 603 sometimes seems a simple canon for folks to seek profession under even when they have not discovered or discerned a truly eremitical vocation. Artists or scholars of all sorts might like to do something like this while they write or paint or work on dramatic, cultural, and research projects; sometimes such folks justify the peace and solitude needed for such careers in terms of a too-casually defined "eremitism".  Authentic hermits know that the heart of the eremitic vocation is not writing, other artistic pursuits, or research even when hermits may also do these things. To call these (much less oneself) "eremitical" simply because they require silence and solitude is a distortion of what eremitical life lived in the name of the Church is all about. Still, it is easy to "justify" this kind of distortion of the vocation by asking the question (along with its implied negative answer) that you have raised yourself, "Whom does it hurt?"

As I have written before in Whom does it hurt? (see also Fundamental Questions for a more recent response to the same question), and also On Intervening in Professions, any kind of fraud is harmful, particularly when it concerns an institution that depends on trust and Gospel witness to the truth as well as to what is possible when one lives for, with, in, and from God in the silence of solitude. I simply cannot see any justification in the kinds of deception present in such instances when one is (ostensibly) petitioning to live consecrated eremitical life in the name of the same Church one is essentially thumbing one's nose at in the very same act. That is especially true when other ecclesial communities (including sacramental ones like the Episcopal Church, for example) allow individuals to be publicly professed as solitary religious without concern for sexual identity or a requirement that these religious purposely live genuinely eremitical lives. As you can see, questions of personal integrity, transparency, and the potential for scandal are significant in matters like this. Thus, unless and until church teaching and praxis on this changes (something I do not expect to see), though I might encourage them to explore life as a non-canonical hermit, I would not encourage a person identifying as transsexual to seek profession and/or consecration as a c 603 hermit.

____________________________________________________

Notes:

Please note that language referring to trans persons is fluid and relatively idiosyncratic. For an introductory summary of how various terms are generally defined, please see https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression. Especially helpful is the discussion of the distinction between sexual orientation and gender.

**In Catholic Theology and in this blog essay, sexuality is used to refer to the most foundational call to womanliness or manliness, not merely in terms of superficial social roles and expectations or even in terms of mere biology. It is deeper and more expansive than these while, especially in terms of one's given biology, it remains generally consistent with these. In Catholic theology, the whole person is sexual. There are distinctively manly and womanly ways of understanding, feeling, and acting. Everything we think, or imagine, our motivations and perceptions of or responses to value are conditioned by the fact that we exist either as men or as women. Catholic theology affirms this is true even in the presence of gender dysphoria, and whether or not a person self-identifies as male, female, or some non-binary alternative (transgender, transsexual, mx, zie, or hir) precisely because this manliness or womanliness is deeper and more fundamental than gender identity itself. 

*** As  I understand it, a suitable candidate would need first to "detransition" and then live and discern the vocation just as any other person would do. The same conditions, requirements, time frames, and so forth would have to be met including medical and psychological testing. One would need to go through the usual stages of such a life, particularly concerning the development of a contemplative life that then calls for even greater solitude. There would need to be a special assurance that the candidate was not using c 603 in some ulterior way as a stopgap to profession.

**** The Vatican published a document on the impossibility of allowing transgendered persons to ordination and religious profession/consecration in 2000. I have not seen the paper, but merely a few references to it, because it was put out "sub secretum" and is not accessible to most folks. If anyone has access to a copy of this document, I would like to read it!! Please let me know.

Will Canon 603 disappear due to the many Abuses it has Suffered in its short life?

[[One lay hermit has said that because of "all the abuses" of canon 603 by canonical hermits and Bishops, the church will one day go back to having only one pathway of hermit life. She says that Bishop's (sic) leniency and lack of knowledge about the lives of eremitical saints or rules of life have allowed dissident nuns to be professed in some dioceses when others [bishops] like her own would never allow them because they are too visible, read books by heterodox nuns, etc. . . . even while orthodox candidates are prohibited from being canonically professed because they must work in hospitals. She forecasts the situation will continue to require more and more laws because of such abuses. It seems like she believes one day the Church will just get rid of c 603 which only came to be to prevent abuses anyway but she didn't [specify] this. How accurate is this perception and how reasonable this opinion?]]

Hmmm, this hermit's version of the situation sort of makes me want to check to see what books I have either mentioned reading or recommended here!

But seriously, I think that first of all it must be granted that canon 603 is a new (31 year old), demanding, and at the same time, flexible canon governing a little-known and less-well understood vocation which, as I have mentioned just recently, combines non-negotiable elements with the requirement that a hermit write her own Rule. Some problems associated with the common requirement that a hermit be self-supporting in some way have occurred for instance; this requirement does mean that Bishops differ on things like the amount of active ministry or other work outside the hermitage a hermit may do --- though all tend to prohibit full time work, especially outside the hermitage. Others problems have occurred because the central elements of the canon must be read from within the desert and hesychastic traditions if they are to be understood, and Bishops and would-be hermits have not always done so. When I spoke of some Bishops needing to learn that "the silence of solitude" was a Carthusian term this was part of what I mean here. Have there been abuses or at least misuses? Yes, and I would call one or two of these doozies! However, I would not call the number high. In fact, to suggest the canon has been fraught with abuses to the extent that it will simply go by the wayside is alarmist nonsense I think.

What is more the case is that there have been occasional mistakes made as Bishops and chanceries continue to determine what authentic contemporary vocations which embody traditional essential elements look like on the ground. These mistakes, however, are more like growing pains than actual abuses and because there are so few hermits in an absolute sense, they are of greater import for the faithful and the vocation itself than they might be otherwise. As the canon gets older, however, and examples of authentic contemporary solitary eremitical life become more numerous, more prevalent, as well as better established and known, and as the problematical issues involved in practical implementation of the canon which have not and cannot really be specifically dealt with by the canon itself are explored by those living the life,  or by theologians, canonists, and historians, the misuses of the canon as well as simple misjudgments or mistakes will diminish and outright abuses (which are truly rare) will cease. I should note that it is precisely because the Church has not multiplied laws that ambiguities and unclarities continue or remain.

At the same time I think we must be careful to not identify legitimate diversity or variation as "abuses." Hermits have always differed from one another: some are scholars, some are not; some are very conservative in various ways while others are less so. Some are completely reclusive or anchorites while others are more peripatetic or at least more involved in their parishes; some are writers and spiritual directors while others, of course, are not. Some strike us as eminently sane and others strike us as complete nutcases. They may all be authentic hermits.  We must realize that canon 603 allows for genuine diversity even as it remains normative of eremitical life in the Catholic Church. What we must let go of is the notion that canonical standing is necessarily related to legalism or that admission to canonical standing under canon 603 is equivalent to a diocese's or bishop's imprimatur or even a nihil obstat on a book --- only applied to a person. It is not.

"Canonical Standing" is not really "Canonical Approval"

You see, as my response to an email last week noted, the use of the term "approval" in the phrase "canonical approval" is misleading and more than a little superficial when it leads to these kinds of notions. It should probably be used only very cautiously to indicate "approval for admittance to profession and canonical standing". Otherwise, "canonical standing" is the better phrase. After all, what the church does in extending or admitting to canonical standing is not precisely the same as "approving" the person's theological preferences, taste in reading material, or even their orthodoxy (though we can of course presume they are faithful Catholics!). Instead the church has discerned the presence of a Divine vocation and is admitting the person to the constellation of stable relationships which will continue to mediate this very call to the person and, hopefully, allow her to respond with fidelity, integrity, and grace. What approval exists does so for the sake of admitting the person to a place of  ecclesial trust and commensurate obligations with regard to this specific vocation in the life of the Church.

Neither does the church thereby say that THIS person has status in the church whereas, for instance, the lay hermit has either a lesser status or none at all. They both have status in the church (meaning they each have standing in law and are (or, in the case of a lay hermit, are already) initiated into a state of life; as I have said a number of times, status in this case is not a matter of social priority or different positions in a merely social hierarchy); in one hermit this occurs by virtue of the sacrament of baptism alone, and in the other hermit by virtue of baptism and a new consecration which involves the acceptance of the rights and obligations linked to additional canon laws and the relationships these imply.

It is true that bishops, like anyone charged in the Church with nurturing, protecting and discerning the existence and quality of a vocation, exercise some subjectivity in professing and consecrating hermits, but my own (admittedly limited) experience is that generally they move beyond their own personal biases or theological preferences and look to the good of the vocation itself. Neither, again, can we identify legitimate mistakes or missteps as abuses. For instance, occasionally some bishops will profess very young adults as solitary hermits only to find when s/he seeks a dispensation from her vows and/or desires to start or enter a community that the c 603 or solitary eremitical vocation tends to be a second-half of life vocation and that the young person usually does better entering an eremitical community. At worst this is simply a mistake --- if in fact, it even qualifies as that.

Abuses, on the other hand, occur when the non-negotiable elements of the canon are  actually disregarded or treated as optional or merely "metaphorical." (By the way if one cannot live these elements one's supposed orthodoxy hardly matters.) As we discussed recently, one of the reason for blogs like mine is to discuss the nature of canon 603 and of profession and consecration under this canon from the perspective of lived experience. What I write comes out of my reflection on my own vocation and how the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and world today with regard to this form of eremitism. Other diocesan hermits are also contributing by sharing their own experience with their bishops.

Proliferation of Laws and the Disappearance of C 603??

I honestly don't have a clue what the hermit you are referring to is talking about when s/he suggests there is or has been some proliferation of rules to combat abuses. That simply is not happening --- nor is it the way the Church deals with difficulties on such a small scale. At most what we see with regard to canon 603 are anecdotes about experiments (or trials) with the canon in specific dioceses which resulted in problems along with calls for informal guidelines on specific topics (age, formation, work, insurance, ministry, etc). These guidelines will again come from lived experience gained through dialogue between Bishops, canonists and hermits in their dioceses. Still, I don't foresee a proliferation of rules --- not with regard to eremitical life under canon 603 --- and certainly I don't foresee a proliferation of canons per se. With history and lived experience will come wisdom, and with wisdom, resources (commentaries, dissertations, guidebooks, articles, even blogs (!) etc) that dioceses may draw on and which can guide further prudent and inspired (discerning) usage of canon 603. Even so, ordinarily Bishops and those that assist them in their discernment will have the final word here --- not another law or laws. They will use or refrain from using both these resources and canon 603 as they deem wise in each individual case and they and their curia will grow in their own ability to determine appropriate usage and evaluate the candidates that come before them.

More specifically, I don't see canon 603 going anywhere or disappearing from the Code of Canon Law. It will continue to be used more and more wisely and prudently across the board --- which will free some who have hesitated to use it at all to go ahead when authentic vocations come their way. What is unquestionable is that it is an important piece of legislation which stops the gap in universal law regarding one of the most ancient, rare, and significant forms of Christian existence in the life of the church. It helps protect a gift of the Holy Spirit; any other way of seeing it is inadequate at best. Further, by the way, it is not the second of two pathways to eremitical life; it is the third of three main avenues, lay (non-canonical), semi-eremitical (usually canonical and associated with congregations), and diocesan eremitical life (canonical and solitary) --- each admitting some variation or personal diversity.

Neither, as I have now written several times, is establishment in law really merely a Johnny-come-lately idea whose birth was due to abuses or the desire for social status by some unhappy lay hermits. Eremitical life since at least @ the 5th C. has often been lived under the supervision of diocesan Bishops, or other local ordinaries (e.g., Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, etc). Correspondingly, dioceses and regions had canons and statutes regulating these vocations on the local level. To suggest otherwise is historically (and ecclesiastically) naive. Canon 603 differs because it is a universal law and a precedent-setting one at that. For these reasons I have to say I think the hermit you referred to is mistaken in her conclusions, more than a little overly-cynical in her analysis, and inaccurate in her perceptions and predictions.

On Canon 603 Hermits and Some Supposed Drawbacks of Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I saw two videos on You Tube from someone called "J__H__" (name omitted by Sr L.). She writes against canonical status for hermits and says it is not necessary even though it may have been thought to be necessary by some well-intentioned Bishops. She also complains that there are all kinds of rules and laws coming to be about hermit life which in her opinion seem to trespass against the individuality of the hermit. I felt she believed that canonical hermits were at the mercy of their Bishops too. She gave the example of a young woman living a reclusive life according to the will of her Bishop and said that if another Bishop came in the young woman might find him changing her life from reclusive to something else. Is this true? I am sending you the links for the videos I watched. There are a number of others too.]]

Thanks for your questions. I am personally sorry to hear these videos are still available. (Yes, I was already aware of them.) I have received questions about them in the past -- though I knew of them anyway -- but nothing recently. I found that the videos I saw, which included the ones you linked me to, were full of misconceptions about canon 603 life, the history of canon 603, the reasons for the existence of the canon, etc. The questions you are asking touch on some of these issues.

The remarkable Balance of Canon 603:

To be honest I think canon 603 does an amazing job of protecting the individuality of  hermits professed under it. While it is true that there are non-negotiable elements which are part of the canon, namely a publicly vowed** and consecrated life of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, all carried out under a Rule the hermit writes for herself and lives under the supervision of her Bishop --- it is also the case that the Rule the hermit writes ensures that the non-negotiable elements as well as anything else which the hermit considers critical for her life are combined in a wholly individual constellation. These are then lived out under the supervision of the Bishop and (ordinarily) with the assistance of a delegate (a quasi superior) either the Bishop or the hermit chooses for this service role.

This combination of non-negotiable elements, individual experience and needs, along with supervision which is geared entirely towards assisting the hermit in these things, is an aspect of true brilliance in the composition of canon 603. It manages to allow for serious and mature individuality while protecting the very nature of eremitical life itself and the charisma it is for the contemporary Church and world. In other words, it protects the authentic freedom of the Holy Spirit and the Tradition that Spirit is inspiring now as a gift to the life of the Church --- just as the Spirit also originally was 1700 years ago and has done throughout the centuries.

When New Bishops Come into Office:

Regarding your question about new Bishops, I have received similar questions in the past so you might want to look those up as well. The basic answer is that a new Bishop will not unilaterally make serious changes in the hermit's life or Rule because that Rule has been approved canonically by another Bishop. (On the day of profession the hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Declaration of Approval because it becomes legally binding on the hermit.) If, for example, after meeting with the hermit, a new Bishop believes she needs to be seeing more or less of  her family, or needs to be either more or less reclusive generally, or any number of other things,  these beliefs would have to be based on serious concerns about the hermit's well-being and that of the vocation itself for him to demand changes. In such a case, especially if the hermit disputes these opinions, there will be continuing conversations with the hermit, as well as a conversation with her delegate; others might also be involved: Vicars for Religious who might know and have worked with the hermit, the hermit's pastor and, conceivably, the Bishop in whose hands she was originally or perpetually professed and under whose supervision she had been living for some time.What does not (and I would think, cannot) happen is that a Bishop who believes that all hermits should (or should not) be recluses (or whatever) can change the character of a hermit's Rule and life by mere fiat.

Your question had another problem (or constellation of problems) embedded in it. It seemed to indicate that the hermit is living a certain way because her Bishop demanded she do so in the first place --- possibly in order to be professed at all. In the video you referred me to JH did indeed seem to indicate that a young woman embraced this form of eremitical life because her Bishop mistakenly believed it was the only way to live an eremitical life. Assuming JH has her facts right, then a new Bishop, especially if he was more knowledgeable about the diversity and continuity of eremitical life, could indeed open up new possibilities for this hermit. Were he to sense that the young woman (assuming she truly made her vows freely) was living a Rule, elements of which she felt forced to embrace despite her own experience and discernment, the new Bishop would need to assist her to find a better expression of it. The same conversations mentioned above would need to take place and the diocese (perhaps through the assistance of the delegate) would need to work with the hermit to be sure she rewrote her Rule in a way which best suited her own unique call even as it protected the essential nature of the vocation and the non-negotiable elements of canon 603.

But let me be clear about two things: first, unless the hermit herself decided she was no longer called to live as a hermit and requested dispensation from her vows, the resolution of the situation comes from the hermit's own revision of her Rule so that it better reflects what is healthy for her AND for her vocation. Second, if the original Bishop was merely demanding the essential living out of the non-negotiable elements of the canon in ways which are typical of diocesan hermits everywhere with reasonable accommodations for home visits, contact with friends, horarium, prayer styles and patterns, etc, then the question would become one of whether or not the person was really called to this vocation. Here we have another reason dioceses should be sure candidates for profession have sufficient experience before writing a Rule which will bind them in law as well as a reason which argues against a Bishop being the one to author the Rule himself. It also argues for temporary professions as a matter of course *** and different Rules at each stage of the individual's growth in becoming a diocesan hermit.

Resolving Problems related to a Hermit Who is not living her Rule or the Elements of the Canon:

Let's also look at a similar question which might indeed come up when a new Bishop comes on the scene. If, after 2-3 meetings with the hermit, at least one of which has to do with the contents and living out of her Rule, and perhaps a subsequent clarifying conversation with the hermit's delegate, such a Bishop decides a hermit is not living her Rule with sufficient seriousness or integrity, then he has every right to explain the matter to her and demand that she make appropriate changes. If she is truly being lax then she will need to take necessary steps to resolve this; if changes in her physical health or other changes in her spirituality or her more general situation have led to parts of her Rule no longer working for her, then  she must write appropriate alternatives into the Rule and have these approved by the Bishop. The delegate may again have a significant role in assisting both the Bishop and the Hermit in such a situation. She may have a sense of resources the hermit needs to live her Rule with fidelity or be aware of concerns the Bishop is not; she can also assist the hermit to articulate the ways in which she will revise her Rule if that is part of the solution. (It is possible the new bishop perceives the Rule itself is not strict enough. That is a different situation and in such a case the bishop himself may benefit from education and more contact with the hermit involved.)

The point, however, is that in this situation as with the others mentioned, canonical standing sets up a series of relationships meant to allow the individual hermit to truly respond to her vocation as is best for her and as God truly wills. Canonical standing ("status") does not mean a position of privilege or superficial "approval". Instead it means that the persons involved have been granted legal rights and accepted legal obligations as well. This is not about legalism. The prudent use of law is simply the way genuine freedom is exercised and protected in both Church and society. Canonical standing protects the Church from the eccentricities and destruction of narcissism or excessive individualism of loners seeking to call themselves "Catholic hermits" while it protects diocesan hermits from the whims of those who neither understand nor approve of the vocation. Contrary to the points made in the videos you referenced, it is precisely the individual nature of eremitical life that calls for Canon 603. In this way the Church makes sure traditional eremitical life itself (and not some form of self-indulgent isolation or misanthropy) is being lived while making sure that the individual hermit has the support and genuine freedom required to do so.

** Some canon 603 hermits use sacred bonds other than vows just as Canon 603 allows for.
*** Individual cases may allow for perpetual profession without temporary vows preceding this commitment, but this will be a rare situation and this option is usually inadvisable.

The meaning of the term "Stopgap vocations"

As a result of a recent  and simplistic mischaracterization of my position on another blog (Cloister Outreach), I wanted to clarify what I mean when I object to using Canon 603 as a "stop-gap vocation" and why that is. Let me be clear that I do not object to hermits becoming cenobites at some point in their religious lives. If a hermit feels genuinely called to do that at some point after discerning and living an eremitical life in good faith for some time, then well and good. But that is not what the term stopgap vocation implies nor is it the situation I have been concerned with.

The term stopgap means just what it says, something is being used to stop (close) the gap which exists between an immediate situation and  the ordinary options which exist to address or resolve the situation. An emergency tracheotomy is a stopgap solution to a more lasting and ordinary solution to the problem of respiratory problems due to blockage of the airway, for instance. Taping two pieces of broken eyeglass frames together is a stopgap solution to the problem of broken spectacles until one can either get the frames repaired or buy new ones. Employing untrained and incompetent people to fill security posts at the airport in a time of increased fear and terrorist threat is a stopgap solution. In the area of vocations when someone seeks to live a cenobitical (that is, a communal) life and to be publicly professed and consecrated as a cenobitical religious but have a number of mishaps in making this happen, turning to canon 603 to get themselves publicly professed and consecrated is a stopgap solution to the problem --- especially if they are doing so with an eye towards becoming a community when that becomes feasible in financial and other ways down the line. It is also an abuse of canon 603 which is meant to govern, profess and consecrate those who have seriously discerned a LIFE vocation to solitary diocesan eremitical life. Beyond this it is dishonest and COULD actually be a fraudulent act depending on circumstances.

Another example (and one which is ordinarily much less sinister but still requires caution) would be someone who is forced to leave religious life because of health issues and who seeks to use canon 603 to continue in public vows and consecration without actually ALSO and SUBSEQUENTLY discerning a true vocation to eremitical solitude. (As I have said many times, eremitical solitude is more than simply living a pious life alone and the call to eremitical solitude must be discerned separately from a call to ordinary monastic solitude or from one's own coming to terms with such loss.)  Similar but once again more sinister examples involve those who have failed at community life but who still want to be "Sisters" or "wear a habit",  those who have failed at life (work, relationships, schooling, individuation in general) and who are looking for a socially acceptable and even estimable way to validate that, and so forth. For many, canon 603 seems to offer a solution to their quandary. Again, however, in each of these cases (except perhaps that of the person who has been forced to leave religious life by illness -- a situation which requires extra caution and discernment) Canon 603 is being misused and the entire idea of a LIFE vocation with solemn commitments and consecration is being betrayed.

If one attempts to use Canon 603, which is geared to SOLITARY eremitical vocations and their protection and governance, to get someone consecrated so that they can THEREAFTER form a community of hermits and skip all of the necessary canonical steps to approval as an institute of consecrated life, this is using Canon 603 as a stopgap solution to the problem. Not only is this a betrayal of the Canon itself, but it is a betrayal of the charism or gift quality the vocation to solitary eremitical life brings to the Church and World. (Please see other posts on the charism of the vocation, or on "the silence of solitude as charism" and "the redemption of isolation" for an understanding of what I mean here.)

At the beginning of the history of Canons 603 and 604 some provinces (the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, etc) refused to profess and/or consecrate anyone according to canons 603 and 604 (consecrated virgins living in the world). They rightly worried that these canons could be used as fallback options or that they really indicated a merely fallback "vocation" for those who failed at religious life and they did not want that. Abuses can and have occurred with c 603 and 604 but the value of these canons and the vocations they govern cannot simply be denied as a result. Even so I know of a couple of other dioceses who have joined LA in its boycott of such vocations precisely because of such abuses. Of course, authentic vocations are also a reality and the Church recognizes this. Unfortunately, the misuse of canon 603, for instance, by those seeking to use it as a stopgap means to consecration could continue to be the basis for greater and greater caution in this regard and even to a functional or virtual suppression of its use. It is really imperative pastorally as well as theologically and spiritually that we do not allow such abuses and misuses to occur.

In any case, I hope my usage is clear, and the nature of my concerns regarding the importance of this abuse are demonstrated in the above, however briefly that may be.

Cloister Outreach - Caveat Emptor, Once again

Dear Sister Laurel,
I wanted to thank you for your posts regarding Cloister Outreach (CO) on the Phatmass Phorum recently. I don't know if you are aware of it but CO put up an explanation of the situation you described in 2010  after contacting the Diocese of Charlotte to check on the claims made by the "foundress" of CO. It tells a very different story than the one you posted and claims you violated the privacy of the hermit-canonist you contacted in an attempt to undermine the Cloisterite Hermits' Foundation. The explanation reads:

[[Gemma, Cloister Outreach coordinator, had been handling the "legal" part of the Cloisterite Hermits, to include interactions with the canonist. Because of this, we thought that the local ordinary was aware of the project. However, due to Gemma's autism, and the complexities involved with the language of canonical legalities, she (Gemma) did not understand a particular phrase used as meaning that the canonist had separated herself from the project. This was entirely Gemma's fault--not due to stupidity, but due to autistic deficit.

As a result, the Cloisterite Hermits had persevered in the development of their charism (entirely legal under canon law), thinking the canonist had still been retained. Critics went so far as to contact the canonist and posting her information online--thus violating her privacy which we had fought to maintain, as per her request--in an attempt to undermine the Cloisterite Hermits' foundation. Due to the information that we were working with at the time, we were under the impression that the Cloisterite Hermits were a work-in-progress known to the diocese. Now that we know the actual situation, the websites will be amended to reflect such.]] Is there anything in your March 2010 story that needs to be amended in light of this?

Thanks for the question. The issue of Cloisters Outreach continues to crop up from time to time and I get questions about the projects occasionally --- usually because they mention using canon 603 or "becoming diocesan hermits", and similar things. I have tended not to respond despite accusations of defamation, libel, malicious intent, etc though these are either incoherent or groundless. I think two things need to be clarified in light of these public comments. First, in the conversation an associate had with the canonist (Sister Sheila Richards, ESA) Sister made it clear that her own conversations with Gemma (not the person's real name) involved Gemma's own vocation, not projects of CO, and further, that as soon as those few conversations threatened to go further afield, Sister Sheila broke off communication. It also should be noted that at the very first stages of such a project it is premature to be having complex legal conversations. No one yet knows what, if anything, will come of the person's idea. This means that there were no conversations regarding legal complexities using a language of canonical legalities and especially no single phrase meaning the Sister had "separated herself from the project." She, as she herself made clear, had never been involved in the project in the first place.

Second, the claims being made all over the internet did not say simply that the Cloisterite Hermits were a project KNOWN to the Diocese of Charlotte though that too was certainly wondered about. The claims stated that CO had the SUPPORT of the Bishop,  diocesan supervision, and that Cloisters Outreach, especially the eremitical expression, was being guided by Sister Sheila "every step of the way." As you may recall,when questions were asked, folks were urged by Gemma herself to contact the diocese directly with their questions. We simply did that. Twice --- in case an error had been made the first time.

Thirdly, Sister Sheila is both a canonist and a diocesan hermit who works for the Diocese of Charlotte. In each of these roles she is a public person with commensurate rights, obligations, and responsibilities. Given some of the stuff coming out of CO with regard to eremitical life, formation, spirituality, use of canon 603, etc, questions were being raised about her competence and prudence. Now, it is true CO never mentioned her name but one really has to ask 1) how many diocesan hermits are there in the US? (Fewer than 60 or so) 2) How many are canonists? (we are in very low single digit numbers now), and 3) how many of those work for the Diocese of Charlotte? (The answer is just one and her name is listed on the Diocesan Website as both canonist and hermit.) ANYONE could have identified Sister with about 20 seconds worth of googling on the basis of the information provided by Gemma's own posts so that hardly argues CO was bound to maintain her privacy or that I (et al) was the one who violated that bond! Even so, we spoke with Sister Sheila directly, and, given the questions raised about her role in CO and her competence and prudence, as well as for the issue of transparency (which has been singularly lacking with regard to Cloisters Outreach) thought it was important to name the persons with whom we had spoken.

Fourthly, were we trying to undermine the eremitical project connected with CO? Not really, but the answer also depends on the nature of the project. What we were really trying to do was be sure that people asked sufficient questions and got straightforward answers, if not from Gemma, then from the Diocese she had implicated in her projects. These needed to be answers that comported with the answers given to us by the Diocese of Charlotte. Beyond this CO's spirituality and theology needs to be assured as well as their formation programs, etc. These are important elements which must be vetted (and led) by competent people. Finally, there are options or (in the latter case) a specific avenue for individuals to become either lay or consecrated hermits in today's Church; there is no need for the kinds of things CO offers in this regard and in some ways association with Cloisters Outreach could actually prove a hindrance to those discerning a call to canon 603 profession/consecration. So, to the extent CO's eremitical expression seems built on sand rather than rock, it is true that I was not adverse to pouring a little water on the sand and letting nature take her course. After all, to the degree the foundation was sound, then nothing would have been harmed at all and they might even have been helped by the confirmation. So no, there was no attempt to undermine the foundation. There was, however, a definite effort to establish the truth and demand that CO stand on that truth and no where else.

One final comment. While I am sorry for anyone with a condition which makes his or her ability to participate in discussions of the complex canonical issues involved in founding a religious congregation difficult or impossible, it seems imprudent then that they would be the ones in charge of such a task. At the very least such a person should have had someone who was not similarly impaired along with them for such discussions (and, presuming any really took place, certainly after the first one!). It seems to me that such a person should also let the canonist know that they are handicapped in this specific way and, as far as possible, require things to be stated in ordinary language. My own experience with canonists, limited though it is, (1 Bishop, 2 Vicars for Religious, 1 friend) is that they are VERY good in explaining canonical matters in straightforward language; I even have the sense that they enjoy doing so (after all, they enjoy canon law and this, as it is in theology or any other field, is a sign of their true expertise). I don't personally believe any heavily technical/canonical discussions took place, but even if they did does failing to take prudent steps to be sure these discussions were fully understood argue for such a person's competence to lead such a project?

Nothing, as far as I am aware, in the original article needs to be changed. It was a simple statement of fact. I said at the time that I would be more than happy to publish more if those facts changed, but no one notified me of changes (they did make charges of defamation, libel, and claimed serious misunderstandings had taken place, and so forth, so I know they saw the post). However, the comments in the post you sent do require some response. I hope this has helped.

Solutions to using Canon 603 as a Stopgap Way to Profession

  [[Dear Sister,   Does the situation in the Archdiocese of Boston happen a lot? Is there a real problem with eremitical vocations that are not genuine?Is this one of the reasons there are so few of them? Is it  one of the reasons that dioceses don't always want to profess diocesan Hermits? What is the solution to this?]]

I can't say that situations like the one in the Archdiocese of Boston (cf Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: Abuses of Canon 603)  happens often. In some ways I think this was pretty unique. Remember that there are fewer than 60 or so diocesan hermits in the United States so in an absolute sense diocesan hermits aren't professed or consecrated very often. A few countries have more, most have far fewer. This is partly a function of the fact that the vocation itself is really a rare one.

As I have written before, it is unusual for a person to be called to achieve fullness of humanity and genuine holiness apart from the more usual relationships and activities in which integrity and holiness are formed. While hermits live at the heart of the Church and while we have friends, directors, pastors, and delegates who help support us in our growth, we truly are formed in the silence of solitude. That is the milieu in which we are most at home, where we are healed and challenged beyond what the world outside the hermitage affords. We are CALLED by God to achieve fullness of humanity in this way and to witness to the place of the silence of solitude in every life. Significantly, as I have said many times, this is not a life of individualism, selfishness, narcissism, or misanthropy, but instead is the way in which we come to love most fully and effectively. The problem of course is that it takes a significant period of time to determine which is the case for a particular petitioner for admission to profession under Canon 603 and yes, mistakes are made and we see these in folks who are no more hermits than I am a professional violinist! (I play at the violin, usually quite well, but I am no where near being a professional player.)

You ask about the reasons dioceses don't always want to profess individuals under canon 603. While there are a number of reasons, I think it is true that they boil down to concerns over the authenticity of a call to the silence of solitude, yes. I was reminded today of something I had been told several years ago, namely, that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (and possibly the entire province including the Archdiocese --- implied in all further references to the Archdiocese)) decided a number of years ago (perhaps 20) that they would not profess anyone as a diocesan hermit under c 603 nor would they consecrate any women as CV's under canon 604. The reason given had to do with the perception that these were "fallback" vocations --- vocations chosen by those who had failed at religious life or life in general. 

A related reason given was the lack of adequate formation of these persons. Of course this kind of blanket generalization, especially in such a cynical form, is nonsense and fails to take the history of these vocations into account, but there is a real danger and a nugget of truth behind it; it is one I have written about many times here, namely, the tendency to use Canon 603 as a stopgap option by individuals to seek profession or by chanceries to profess individuals that do not have a true eremitical vocation. (A related danger is the tendency to use Canon 603 as a means to form a community. With Canon 604 there is the danger of consecrating those who really do want to be nuns and reject the secular  -- "in the world" -- nature of the C 604 vocation. Canon 604 is not about creating "diocesan Sisters".)

While I disagree with the Archdiocese/province of Los Angeles's conclusions and the reason given for them in this regard (I think it is cynical and completely inaccurate in some cases), I also have to say that I respect their clear sense that solitary eremitical vocations are truly rare and that great caution should be exercised in admitting anyone to profession or consecration under canon 603. Still, like every other diocese, Los Angeles and the Archbishop and Bishops of the Archdiocese, indeed the entire province, are charged with DISCERNING the reality of such vocations and, under canon 605, with being open to new forms of consecrated life. 

It is not right to make a blanket decision to refuse to profess or consecrate ANY vocations under these canons. It could be considered a rejection of the wisdom of the Church as a whole and the movement of the Spirit at work among the Baptized more specifically. It certainly shows an unawareness or lack of appreciation for the history of Canons 603 and 604. One would hope that this policy has changed in the past years and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (etc)  has dealt more sympathetically, prayerfully, and carefully with possible vocations. Doing so does not need to mean they have professed anyone beyond temporary vows --- if candidates for c 603 profession have even gotten that far, for instance, but it does mean they need to have worked to implement canons 603 and 604 in intelligent, informed,  and  Spirit-driven ways.

What is the Solution to the problem of Stopgap Professions?

What is the solution to problems of using canon 603 as a stopgap access to profession or what Los Angeles/province termed a "fallback" solution to failures in living life generally or religious life specifically? It seems to me there are several pieces to such a solution but all are functions of time and experience: 1) adequate knowledge of the vocation itself provided by the eremitical tradition and by hermits around the world who are living TRUE eremitical lives of the silence of solitude and by their Bishops; this would include  a clear understanding on the part of both the diocese and the hermit of the charisma or gift this vocation is to the Church and world, especially to those who are isolated in some way, 2) a discernment process which is adequate to shake out experiences of solitude which are transitional, rooted in deficiencies rather than potentials, are not yet mature or eremitical, etc, 3) a set of initial formation requirements which an individual may meet with the normal assistance of her SD, and a few others over a period of 5-7 years; 4) the demand that the candidate write her own Rule based in her own lived experience of the solitary eremitical vocation and that this be assessed not merely by canonists but by those in formation work and/or spiritual direction in their congregations, 5) interviews by Vicars, Bishop, psychologists (if it seems necessary or especially helpful) along with recommendations by spiritual directors who have worked with the person for a period of years, pastors, etc.

One piece of this last element might be assessment by formation personnel from a monastery the hermit candidate might visit for extended periods (say a month or two) once a year for 2-3 years if this is at all possible. (I consider it desirable in any case for urban hermit candidates to spend at least a month in the silence and regularity of a monastery not least to see how they do with this kind and degree of silence but also to educate themselves on what they are to foster in their own hermitages in spite of its urban context.) Finally, since inauthentic vocations seem almost always linked to a desire to wear a habit, be clothed in the cowl, etc, and since the habit is a sign of public commitments, rights and obligations, I would suggest that dioceses forbid or refrain from giving permission for the wearing of the habit (even in the hermitage) until the person has reached temporary profession (the cowl or other prayer garment is given only at perpetual profession anyway). There is really no reason for someone to be wearing a habit apart from the actual profession with its assumption of public rights and obligations. The requirements of poverty are easily met otherwise.

No solution is infallible and discernment is an art rather than a science but it seems to me we ought not be professing anyone who does not show a real aptitude for lifelong eremitical solitude or who is without a clear understanding of the significance of this vocation for the church and world. Again these are both functions of time and experience in eremitical solitude. The desert Fathers and Mothers have written famously that a hermit must dwell in her cell and her cell would teach her everything. That bit of wisdom is entirely true. It does not imply complete reclusion but it does imply that  the silence of solitude  is the charism of the diocesan hermit which she must understand intimately, esteem, and appreciate sufficiently to commit to it for life. It is true that we cannot make persons wait forever for admission to profession (or decisions on whether that will occur) but solitary eremitical life is a different matter than vocations to life in community. By definition it takes time to develop and differentiate from other forms of solitude and solitary life.

Thus, again, I recommend that a person who already has some experience of living in solitude before approaching her diocese be required to live as a lay hermit under consistent and skilled supervision for five years or so for mutual discernment. (I would suggest a religious be given this role and that s/he meet with the hermit regularly including in the hermitage itself.) I suggest that if all of the above interviews and pieces of discernment go well, that the person be admitted to temporary profession for a period of 3 years. (At this point she should have written a Rule she will live out and reflect on for those three years.) If this too goes well, and the person and those she speaks with are clear that she is maturing in this vocation, then I recommend either renewal of these vows or admission to perpetual profession. (At this point the hermit may need and be encouraged to make some changes to the Rule which reflect a greater understanding of the vocation and what she personally needs to do to live it faithfully.) This equates to a process which takes at least 8 years to reach perpetual profession --- though all of it demands the person live as a solitary hermit. At the end of the process we might then see a more-mature hermit professed for life.

If at any point this process seems to point in a different direction the person can decide 1) to live as a lay hermit, or 2) decide to leave eremitical life altogether. None of this will be a waste of time so long as everyone is honest and deals compassionately and in complete good faith with one another. After all, the hermit life itself is about the journey more than the destination; it is about being comfortable with and trusting God in the desert sojourn. A period of growth in solitude, so long as it is not unduly prolonged without true supervision and discernment, will be helpful in whatever vocation the individual eventually pursues. Besides, being too anxious about the destination (e.g., perpetual profession, wearing a habit, being given the cowl, etc) and being unable to come to terms with the journey itself in a church learning what this vocation really means in the contemporary world, is not a good sign in a solitary eremitical vocation.

Implications of Abuses of Canon 603 on the Diocesan Level

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

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

Looking at Sister Olga's Story:

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

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

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

Where we Stand Today

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

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

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


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

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

Protecting against the Repetition of this Situation

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of Canon 603 and Oblature with Camaldolese

I received a question as well as followup questions to another post from a second person and I wanted to post them both together. I have written in the past about the misuse or abuse of Canon 603, especially as a loophole for non-canonical communities which do not have the right to canonically (publicly) profess members. These questions relate to this issue. (There is a third question which I will post separately because, while dealing with the misuse of Canon 603, it is a very different and publicized situation.)

[[Dear Sister, I am preparing for oblature with the Camaldolese, but at the same time I am living as a hermit and would like to use Canon 603 as the way I make my vows as an oblate. Can you describe how I would go about doing this?]]

Congratulations on choosing to become a Camaldolese Oblate. I hope you will find this step fulfilling and lifefgiving. However, your question indicates some confusion about the relationship between oblature and Canon 603 vows. These two things are completely separate and distinct. While I have heard of a group of Oblates mistakenly contending Canon 603 was the "usual" way some made vows as oblate hermits (see the second question below), and while I have heard too of some who confuse these for the actual oblature commitment, both of these things are completely untrue. Canon 603 is NOT the way to make a commitment as an oblate. Oblature is. Neither is it the "usual" way oblates establish themselves as hermits. Becoming a canon 603 or diocesan hermit is different than becoming an oblate (which, by the way, itself does not involve vows), even if one wishes to live as a lay hermit while an oblate.

The two different vocations may complement one another, but they must be discerned separately. Further, in my own experience and estimation, as important as Camaldolese oblature is, diocesan eremitical vows are more extensive and intensive a commitment, more fundamental or foundational than this. Oblature is ordinarily a private lay vocation and for that reason most Benedictine communities only allow lay persons to make oblature. If an oblate decides she is also called to become a hermit s/he still needs to determine whether s/he is called to lay eremitism or diocesan eremitism and the consecrated state. This means she and the diocese she is still part of (if she is interested in becoming a diocesan hermit who is publicly vowed and consecrated) need to submit to a mutual process of discernment to see if indeed she has such a vocation. On the other hand, a diocesan hermit might find Camaldolese oblature served her well for some time, but later, that Carmelite, or Cistercian, or Franciscan spirituality did so instead. While she is publicly vowed under Canon 603 and though she might need to rewrite parts of her Rule as a result, she is perfectly free to change private commitments to a particular spirituality, etc.

In my own life it is true that my eremitism, though diocesan or canonical, is also integrally Camaldolese. I would hope that anyone who makes oblature with the Camaldolese finds that their commitment is similarly integral to the whole of their lives whether they are religious, lay, clerical, or consecrated. Still, Camaldolese oblature itself is something added to a more fundamental vocation or state of life. Per se it does not require vows, nor, as noted, even involve them. Therefore, if you have determined you want to be a diocesan hermit, and you can say you appreciate the unique charism of the diocesan hermit (meaning, among other things, that you are not pursuing profession and consecration under Canon 603 as a way of becoming part of a "Camaldolese" community of some sort), then you need to go to your Bishop (or the Vicars and vocation personel under him) and speak to him (them) about this.

[[Dear Sister, I am part of a community of Camaldolese regular oblates with a two year novitiate. At the end of these two years some make vows under Canon 603. We are a dependent sub-priory with the Monks in Big Sur, CA. (questions followed regarding the length of time necessary for formation as a hermit and about approaching the Bishop but these are not directly pertinent here)]]

I am afraid you are mistaken and operating under several false understandings. Camaldolese Oblates per se may be clerical, lay, religious or consecrated (virgins and hermits), but there is no official community of oblates associated with the Camaldolese Monks of the US that use Canon 603 as a "usual" means to eremitical profession, nor is this the proper use of Canon 603 (more about this below). Neither is there a community of oblates known as a dependent sub-priory of the Hermitage in Big Sur. To be certain of what I already believed to be the case on the basis of my own superficial knowledge of the Camaldolese constitutions, I have spoken with professed Camaldolese who in turn have spoken with the former Prior in Big Sur. Again, there is NO dependent priory (or "sub-priory"), and no community of "regular oblates" associated with Big Sur. There is a reality in the Camaldolese Constitutions called Claustral or regular oblates, but these are persons who live ON THE HERMITAGE grounds, are bound to live by the rule (regula), and are not vowed, at least not ordinarily and not as oblates. (They may be vowed AND become claustral oblates, but being professed is extrinsic or accidental to their oblature.)

In any case, again, what you describe is also, according to the canonists I have spoken with, a misuse of canon 603 which is designed for and governs solitary eremitical vocations. Canon 603 is not appropriate for those who are part of a non-canonical community when it is meant to serve as a stopgap means of getting members of such groups canonical standing. It is important to remember that the vocation of the canon 603 hermit is different than that of a religious hermit --- not in its essentials re eremitical life --- but in the requirements that such hermits are solitary (not religious who are part of a community) and therefore, that they be self-supporting, responsible for their own housing, insurance, medical care, transportation, retreat, library and educational needs, ongoing formation, spiritual direction, etc.

One must discern a vocation to this solitary eremitical form of life, a form of life where the Bishop is one's legitimate superior, where one becomes part of the consecrated state of life, where one is bound by many of the canons related to religious life as well as by canon 603, and where one's affiliation with the Camaldolese is supportive and entirely secondary to one's public profession and identity. I should also note that there is no specified novitiate period with canon 603 --- especially not one of two years because such a process of initial formation is both entirely individual and a function of time in solitude. Most Bishops will NOT profess a diocesan hermit even under temporary vows unless they have lived the life for at least five years. I think this minimum is entirely reasonable and am comfortable with individuals requiring up to 10 years or more to be admitted to perpetual profession under canon 603.

In some forms of affiliation secular or third order members (Carmelite, Franciscan, etc) make vows. In such cases one MAY NOT ALSO make canon 603 profession. One of the commitments must go and the individual must discern which one. The Camaldolese, unlike most Benedictine groups, allow oblature by religious, clergy, and consecrated persons as well as laity, but oblates DO NOT make vows as oblates. This is the reason, for instance, I can be both a diocesan hermit and an oblate. Even Camaldolese claustral oblates do not make vows, though they assuredly commit to live by the rules of the community within enclosure. The bottom line is that what you are describing is neither official Camaldolese praxis nor appropriate to Canon 603. If a diocesan hermit affiliates with a Camaldolese monastery, this does not give other oblates living as lay hermits the right as oblates to go to their Bishop and expect to be admitted to profession under canon 603 --- although they may do so as an individual discerning this specific vocation and eventually, petition on their own.

I have seen this happen once in the past in another country (geographically far from the Camaldolese Hermitage in Big Sur) and the Bishop, who apparently was led to believe he was presiding at the profession of a "Camaldolese Oblate hermit" later repudiated or reduced the vows to some degree by saying they were private and not canon 603. Though this was painful to the hermit professed, it was, I think, the best solution the Bishop could come up with since there had been a public ceremony with publicity, media coverage, etc, and therefore a lot of confusion and misrepresentation all around. (The profession was originally treated as public and used the canonical rite for such vows, but the hermit never specifically petitioned to be professed under canon 603; both she and the Bishop thought he was professing someone as part of a Camaldolese Oblate community. Thus, only later did the Bishop inform the hermit that her vows were considered private. As I understand the situation, he could, of course, have concluded the entire affair was invalid and even involved fraud had he wanted to be hard nosed about it.)

One of the most significant sources of this mess besides geographical distance from the Camaldolese Monks of the US, and the failure to check things out with them directly, was the claim that those (monks and nuns) who are publicly professed as Camaldolese were also called Oblates. Hence when someone said "I am a Camaldolese Oblate" one could easily get the impression that they were publicly professed or preparing for public profession as a monk or nun. The problem here of course is that actual Camaldolese monks and nuns do not call or refer to themselves as Oblates. Another was the assertion that the group to which the hermit belonged was a dependent house of the Camaldolese --- despite the fact that there was no such house (the oblates lived separately from one another) and that the professed Camaldolese had none. (The OSB Camaldolese constitutions allow for the establishment of dependent houses, but they require a certain number of monks or nuns in solemn vows as part of the foundation to do this. It is not something done with oblates.) In the end, however, this Bishop helped ensure that Canon 603 would be rightly used in the future and that if members of the group of oblates wished to make vows those would be private unless they truly discerned vocations as diocesan hermits and were admitted to public profession under canon 603.