Followup: First and Last Word in Eremitical Life?

[[ Dear Sister O'Neal, I don't think you really responded to one poster's point. She/he said, "The point is that I am and many are pushing the meaning of words and of particular callings. You are not, and neither is canon law, the first or last word on what constitutes an eremitic life. You certainly are the last word on what it constitutes to you and those of your persuasion or particular charism, but that's it. Period. Don't lay down roadblocks to others. The fact that is that there IS a groundswell, a grass-roots movement of folks, in the married or other secular states looking for a deeper commitment to their spiritual development, with expression in their lifestyle and self-styling--they are allowed to use old words in new ways. Especially when they don't impinge on the nature of the sacramental forms." Isn't it true that people are allowed to define these things the way they feel called to do? Isn't this the way things change and grow?]]

Thanks for the question. I believe I did respond to this person's point and actually have done so in a number of posts on this blog over the past couple of months even, but you are correct, I did not respond to the comments about being the first or the last word in what is eremitical life or setting up roadblocks to people, etc. First, I do agree that people should explore new ways of embodying older vocations (or the values of those vocations). For instance, we see today a tremendous growth in the popularity of oblature --- a way of living an essentially monastic life or the values of that life in ordinary society. We see Public Associations of the Faithful with domestic expressions, cenobitical or monastic, and even eremitical expressions. I absolutely agree that in much of this ferment the Holy Spirit is at work in new ways --- but not all and not when the movement actually empties words of meaning in the process, especially in ways which prevent or shortcircuit the serious pastoral applications of the original meanings.

Despite the poster's contention that I am not using words in new ways the simple fact is that diocesan eremitism itself is a NEW form of eremitical life, one which does indeed stretch the meaning of the term hermit in some ways. Most diocesan hermits are urban hermits and despite the history of anchorites or urbani who did indeed live in towns, the term hermit meant desert or wilderness dweller and this was taken in a literal sense. Even today there are Canon 603 or Eastern Hermits who reject the notion that there is such a thing as an urban hermit. The notion that urban life itself can represent an unnatural solitude because of the poverty, extreme mobility, and alienation of contemporary urban life is new, as is the idea of hermits living in the midst of such centers in order to witness to the redemption of such unnatural solitudes. Similarly where once the laura was the ordinary and accepted way to provide the necessary community and support for hermits, diocesan hermits explore the notion of parish and diocese as primary community. They live, as hermits always have, in the heart of the Church, but they often do so now very literally in the midst of the local church.

As for Canon Law not being the first or last word in what constitutes an eremitical life, I would actually agree with that, but with serious caveats and nuances attached. Canon law, like all law, follows life and is an expression of what history has shown us to be true and necessary. The history of Canon 603 itself is an important example of this. People have been called to and lived eremitical lives in the Catholic Church for 18 centuries and never before has there been a recognition of these persons or their vocations in universal law. As I wrote recently, even Vatican II made no mention of the eremitical life until pressed by Bishops who had hermits in their dioceses who had been forced to leave their vows and the consecrated state behind in order to follow a call which was actually an outgrowth and intensification of their consecrated lives. Canon 603 grew right out of this situation which demanded the revision of Canon Law according to the spirit of and emphases of Vatican II' conciliar document; the terms of the canon, the non-negotiable elements seen as foundational, did the same.

Canon 603 is the result of reflection on the lives of hermits and the nature and value of these lives. It is the result of reflection by and on the lives of those who have taken on the history and tradition of eremitical life and carried it on through 18 centuries of Church life. It is not an arbitrary piece of legislation made up merely by those who have never lived the life and do not understand it. And so, while law is not the first or last word regarding what eremitical life is, it remains normative of what authentic eremitical life has been in the Church in the past 18 centuries as well as how the Holy Spirit continues to work in contemporary times. Because Canon 603 consists of both non-negotiable elements and allows for personal expression it does not stifle the Spirit but respects the way she works. In reflecting on the meaning of the Canon's terms someone may certainly argue differently than I have regarding married hermits or part-time hermits, just as I argue differently than those who assert eremitical life doesn't allow for urban hermits, but I don't think they can simply use the term hermit without regard for the terms of this Canon or create new meanings out of whole cloth. That way lies the emptying of terms of meaning and the loss of significant history and living tradition.

So, I appreciate that people feel called to experiment, but I think they disregard Canon Law in this instance at their peril --- especially if they wish to claim that they are responding to a divine vocation, and not merely to the urgings and yearnings of individualistic hubris or need for novelty. I promise you that Canon 603, for instance, while it is clear about non-negotiable elements has immense room for experimentation and diversity of expression. What Canon Law ordinarily does with regard to authentic vocations, in my experience, is to be sure the non-negotiable elements anchor experimentation and diversity. It sets up parameters within which those who feel called to experiment, for instance, may roam freely, intelligently, prayerfully, faithfully, and with care. It helps individuals be sure they are listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit and not to their own egos. It is not, therefore the first or last word exactly, because it begins with reflection on real lives and experience and leads to more of the same, but it is surely an anchor which helps make certain our experiments in living are exercises in fidelity to God's own voice and the application of living tradition and not more of the addiction to novelty or our own resistance to authority and the heightened voice of excessive individualism which so characterizes contemporary life.

What should be clear is that my own reflection is of course neither the first nor last word in what constitutes eremitical life, but it IS based on serious reflection on the canon, on the history of eremitical life (which I am coming to know better myself), and on the life lived and struggled with FROM THE INSIDE rather than as a mere outside observer or dilletante. People should of course feel free to contend with my conclusions, but they should also be able to do so with reasons which are more substantive than, "I think it should be this way" or "Well, this definition seems good to me." It should also be clear that Canon Law is no straightjacket used to stifle the Holy Spirit; using it in this way is an abuse of the Spirit every bit as much as libertinism or failure to regard Tradition at all.

By the way, I personally have no desire to set up roadblocks to others undertaking legitimate experimentation, or seeking ways to live authentic vocations (and why my own opinions posted on a blog would have the power to do that is completely unclear to me). Neither am I opposed to authentic development and growth. However, I do wish the eremitical vocation to be understood and especially to be understood as a signifcantly pastoral reality which, in Christ, is capable of redeeming hundreds of thousands of lives marked by isolation, alienation, a sense of meaninglessness, abandonment by God, etc. THAT vocation with THAT capacity is not a part time avocation, nor is it the "vocation" of dilletantes, misanthropes, or social misfits and failures. THAT significantly pastoral vocation is the one the Church has codified in Canon 603, for instance, and I personally believe that anyone who wishes to use the term hermit for themselves HAS to seriously come to terms with that canon in one way or another or risk undermining the power of the term "hermit" to do what it is truly capable of doing.

I hope this is a more complete answer than you felt my first attempt was. If not, please get back to me and explain what you felt was lacking. That would be of assistance to me.

My Own Credibility in Speaking of Valuing the Lay State (Reprised with Additional Explanation)

Originally posted in November, 2008 (Heading for the additional section is marked in bold below)

[[Doesn't your own canonical status undercut your ability to speak to the importance and witness of the non-canonical or lay hermit? Doesn't it make what you say even a bit hypocritical? You have written any number of times about the importance of canonical status/standing so how believeable are your opinions on the lay eremitical vocation? Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit instead of seeking profession and consecration according to Canon 603 if you believed as you say you do in this?]]


These questions were not raised by a hostile reader, but in my own prayer and reflection on the matter. However, I suspect that they are questions which my own status and comments might well occasion in others, so I am including them here. First. let me say that there is truth in each question: to each, except, I think, for the one about hypocrisy and the last one which asks "Why didn't you become/remain. . .", I have to answer "Yes" before I qualify or nuance my responses. With regard to the last question ["Why didn't I become/remain. . .?], let me say right up front that I do not have a complete answer at this time, but only large parts of one, and that those parts involve both positive and negative elements.

In my previous post on the importance of lay hermits I noted that I had not realized how effectively I was cutting myself off from witnessing to particular segments of our church and world. My life as a canonical hermit still speaks to these people, I know that full well, but I suspect not nearly as powerfully as had I eschewed profession and consecration under Canon 603 and embraced a vocation as a lay hermit. I would have needed to find ways to do this, but those avenues are open to anyone really. This blog is an example. On the other hand, I have experienced both sides of the fence here and am aware of the shift (in witnessing) which has occured. Thus, I think I am able to speak effectively to the importance of both lay and consecrated eremitical vocations. The point of course is that a person who is consciously and voluntarily lay and eremitical can, in some ways. do so better than I can ever do.

So what about possible hypocrisy? Well, it is true that I am unabashedly excited by and enthusiastic about the eremitical vocation which is canonical, and that personally I see a lot of reasons to seek canonical standing, especially as a diocesan hermit with its unique charism. It is also true that on this blog I have posted a lot in order to combat misconceptions about canonical status, etc. In my Rule I wrote (several years ago now) that I felt that canonical status was imperative except in the early stages of a vocation or foundation --- though my views on this have changed considerably in the meantime. Is it possible to be enthusiastic about the graces and benefits of one way of living an eremitical life without denigrating another? I sincerely hope and believe so, otherwise there is no way to be honest about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in one vocation without denigrating them in another. And despite seeing this happen often in the history of mankind with regard to different religions, etc, surely none of us believe that is necessarily the case [with different vocations]!

With the issue of canonical and non-canonical hermits I believe the Holy Spirit is working in both ways in our church and world, speaking to different segments and calling them to different responsibilities, emphases and witness. So long as the eremitical life is being led with faithfulness these differing emphases, commissions and witnesses will emerge and reveal themselves clearly. That said, I must also say that I don't believe just anyone should call themselves a hermit, and I especially don't believe that someone who simply has a bent for some degree of solitude part of the time should do so, or be allowed to do so. (Here is one of the real benefits of canonical standing and oversight: one knows, at least generally, that the term is being used accurately and that the witness being given is genuine.) Still, if someone is living a fulltime life of prayer and penance, a life centered on God in silence and solitude --- not reclusively necessarily, but really --- then they have every right to call themselves a hermit and should do so, for this too is the work and gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world.

Again, it is not that canonical hermits are "real" hermits while non-canonical hermits are "pseudo" or "wannabe" hermits. While it is true that sometimes people use the term hermit too casually (for an active life with chunks of solitude, a part-time semi-solitary existence, for instance, as in a married life where the days are spent in prayer and work while children and husband are off to school and work!) or for the wrong reasons (social awkwardness or misanthopy, the need for self-indulgent introversion or simply for creative time and space are among these) -- these folks ARE pseudo hermits or wannabe's --- when the term really applies (that is, to a LIFE OF fulltime and genuine solitude lived for and in God) it signals the "realness" or inspired nature of the vocation, and whether this is a call to eremitism of the consecrated or lay states does not matter.

And regarding the last question, "why didn't I become and remain a lay hermit?" well, I am going to [mainly] leave that for another time and more thought. The simple answer is that initially and eventually I determined I was not called to this as did the Church, but that can be evasive as well as being true. Part of the answer is that it was this context which made sense of the whole spectrum of my life and the kind of freedom needed to live this call fully and faithfully, but that too needs some explaining --- which again requires both more thought and time to write. Still, the question is important, not only for me personally, but because it is really the question every hermit must answer in some form in discerning and embracing the call not only to eremitical life, but to lay or consecrated states as the critical context for their own charism, witness, and mission. At this point I wish to say merely that whichever choice one discerns and makes, the eremitical life they are discerning and choosing is a real and significant vocation and that we must learn to esteem not only the similarities they share with their counterpart (lay or consecrated), but especially their unique gift quality and capacity to speak variously to different segments of the church and world.

Addition to the Original Post:

Why did I not become or remain a lay hermit? Why pursue a call to the consecrated state if I truly value the lay vocation? I have thought about these questions more since I posed these queries to myself and here are the elements of my answer: 1) I felt called to an ecclesial vocation, one which the Church also discerned, 2) I did so because I became aware of a particular gift or charism this vocation was to the Church and world with regard to those who were marginalized in both church and world by chronic illness, old-age, and other isolating factors. Eremitical life spoke directly to these situations and their redemption whether or not any of the persons were called to eremitical life (though I supposed some would be and wished to assist them in knowing about and even hearing this call). 3) There was a certain unfreedom I experienced personally with regard to representing this charism fully as a lay hermit despite the fact that I published about it and had come to terms with the diocese's unwillingness to profess anyone under Canon 603 for the time being. I concluded (after another @20 years) that I still needed canonical standing to put an end to this "unfreedom".

(The solution to unfreedom of this type is often the assumption of new responsibilities. So it was for me. The assumption of the rights and responsibilities associated with canonical or consecrated eremitical life freed me to live the life (and my own life of course) as fully as I felt called to do. For some, as for instance the person who writes about the taint of increased institutionalization and the constraints of that preventing her living fully in the present moment, this would not be true. The same is the case for the person who wrote most recently with regard to, "what's the big deal?" or who desires to push the meaning of words in whatever way he personally likes. It would also be true for those who (more positively I think) just want to live in solitude without more ecclesial rights and responsibilities, or who wish to imitate the lay status of the desert Abbas and Ammas.)

4) I was living the final vows I had made in 1978 and desired to do this within the context of Canon 603 in a specifically eremitical framework and with the guidance, supervision, and assistance of the Church rather than privately in a way which did not allow others to have necessary expectations with regard to these vows. It also meant being present in a way which allowed others (lay, consecrated, and clerics) to appreciate the way the Holy Spirit was working in their midst with regard to both chronic illness and eremitical life, and 5) I had become more knowledgeable about the nature and history of eremitical life as a still-vital tradition and I wanted to assume what I discerned to be my own place in that tradition in ways which were both faithful to it and yet enlarged or added to it in contemporary terms. This included wishing to bring the diocesan hermit dimension more strongly into the Camaldolese charism while allowing the Camaldolese charism to be more explicitly present in diocesan eremitical life. In both of these I had the sense of being called to be part of a tradition, creatively, in faithful dialog with it, not in unthinking or careless rejection of it as I simply "did my own thing".

The Individual Hermit and the Tradition of the Eremitical Life

{{Dear Sister, I hear you saying that hermits take on the entire tradition of the eremitical life. Is that true? Can one be a hermit without doing so? Does this change the seriousness with which one lives the life? I am guessing it does so my question is more like how does this change the seriousness with which one lives the life?]]

In answer to the first couple of questions, First, yes and second, no. Whether one does so as a lay hermit or a canonical hermit one enters into a process of allowing God to mold one's life into one which embodies the foundational elements which have ALWAYS been a part of this life: the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world --- and if one is to accept the public obligations and responsibilities of this life, public profession and consecration and a Rule of Life lived under the supervision of the Bishop of one's Diocese. Again, whether non-canonical or canonical, one does this for the praise of God and the salvation of the world so another obligation of either the lay or the consecrated eremitical life is that one gives one's life in response to God for the salvation of the world. In accepting these foundational elements and making them one's own one enters into a long tradition of eremitical life. For many this entrance may not be conscious (or at least not completely conscious), and that may be truer of lay hermits than canonical ones because canonical hermits often take on (or consciously decide not to take on) the garb and other trappings of this history where lay hermits do not. But this is not necessarily so since lay hermits commonly identify closely with the lay status of the early desert Fathers and Mothers too.

Even so, I would wager that as one grows in the life, she will become more and more interested in the history of others who have lived the life of desert solitude. She will learn about the ways the vocation has grown, varied, and often failed to be lived as some failed to embody it with fidelity. She will learn how the life grew (or was even deformed) at certain times in the church and disappeared (including being suppressed) in others. She will comes to know that it speaks to the life-situations of some in ways which are immensely fruitful and she will thus become responsible for this charism herself. She will learn how rigorous a life it is, and how free despite the constraints and discipline which mark it. She will come to learn how mediocrity has always endangered the vocation, and how its freedom and communal nature counters the libertinism and hyper-individualism of the 21st century (for instance). She will come to regard the wisdom of Canon 603 and its history --- even if she modifies parts of it, and she will begin to see herself more and more as a representative of this vital stream of tradition or at the very least as one in serious dialog with it.

For the person who seeks and is admitted to canonical profession the sense of becoming part of a living and fragile tradition is even stronger --- at least I find that to be true. Again, the use of the habit, the cowl in "choir" or at Mass, encourages the sense that one is publicly responsible for the life of this tradition in one's own world, space, and time. So do things like rings, titles, and of course the Rule of life which becomes a normative document with a Bishop's Decree of Approval. This means that while it is a Rule which guides one and which one is publicly both morally and legally responsible to live out, it is also one which may be used by others in situations of isolation who are looking for ways to transform those into genuine solitude. (I note this because I have had this happen.) One may be living a form of life that works well for oneself and which is essentially hidden, but in doing so one does so for others too and reminds them of a strand of tradition in the Church which is 1800 years old and may speak directly to them in unexpected ways.

Regarding your last question, again, I think the answer is yes. Remember that in saying this I am not comparing lay vs consecrated or canonical vs non-canonical eremitical life; I am saying that if one takes on a conscious place in a long, storied, and fragile but resilient history, whether one does so as a lay or consecrated hermit, one will live the life with greater seriousness. One becomes part of something that is far bigger than oneself or one's own individual vocation. One becomes responsible for both fidelity and creativity --movements which prevent and contrast with the individualism or "anything goes" mentality which is so very prominent in our world today. One becomes responsible for the faithful living out of something that is a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and World and which therefore does not leave one free to do anything at all and call it eremitism.

One of the stereotypes of eremitical life is the curmudgeonly, misanthropic character who is only out for himself. (Remember the post I put up a month ago or so regarding Mr Leppard.) Another, however is that of the dilettante, the dabbler, the person who believes she can live in silence and solitude one day a week no matter the activity, apostolic work, etc of the rest of the week, and consider herself a hermit. Both of these do a disservice to the men and women though all the Church's history who have given all to witness to the world of the promise that "God Alone is Enough!" And here of course is the heart of the eremitical life: hermits witness day in and day out, in the brokennesses and wholenesses, the lightnesses and the darknesses, the poverty and richness of life that God alone IS enough and that THEREFORE solitary life is a fully human, essentially selfless, loving, fruitful life that does not leave our world unchanged. So yes, in one way and another, hermits take on the eremitical tradition in becoming hermits. At the very least anyone who calls herself a hermit lives her life in dialogue with this tradition --- even if she is wholly unaware of the gravity of the step she has taken in characterizing herself this way, or the complete contradiction to it she sometimes represents. Ideally, of course, true hermits (whether lay or consecrated) take on this tradition in a more positive way. Anyone using the title "Catholic (or Diocesan) hermit" and assuming public standing under Canon 603 is certainly accountable for doing so.

I hope this is helpful.

On Visibility, Canonical Standing, and betrayal of the Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,
Do you feel the visibility of your vocation detracts from the "hiddenness" of the eremitical life? Does living according to Canon 603 limit and taint the purity of the contemplative life? Someone calling themselves "Catholic Hermit" writes the following: [[This journey is for anyone, and to be consecrated by a canon law label or an increasingly visible, institutionalized hermit vocation would not allow for writing and living out the Order of the Present Moment, a spiritual order without temporal limits that confine by labels, definitions, visibility and temptation to personal hubris. While the hermit vocation is viable and willed by God for some, it is to be lived then, as the Church defined in the Catechism and then in CL603, which very much requires being hidden in Christ. Since the trend being promoted by some is not that, there is resultant taint and limitation in the label.]]

I have written about this before so I ask you PLEASE to check out posts with labels like "essential hiddenness," "eremitism and hiddenness" or "institutionalization of the eremitical life" which deal with the paradox of a public vocation which is also one of being "essentially hidden in Christ", etc. The obvious answer to your questions is no, I don't think there is any necessary conflict or detraction or else the Church would be guilty of this herself in promoting a public vocation under Canon 603. Further, it makes very little sense to 1) suggest that the Church, precisely in nurturing and governing the solitary eremitical vocation with specific definitions, requirements, ritual, etc is buying into increased institutionalization which is destructive of the vocation, and then 2) affirm that one should live the life just as C 603 and the catechism outline. What diocesan hermits and their Bishops are doing is exploring the meaning and limits of Canon 603 with their lives and commitments. This is what it means to live a vocation in the name of the Church. They are seeking to honor and foster precisely this meaning in her rituals, etc. Despite the elements of the canon sounding simple or obvious, the life defined in the Canon is NOT so very self-evident as the author of this statement would like.

The fact that I have needed to write about the distinction between lives of some degree of silence AND solitude and lives of the silence OF solitude, or that the term hermit is widely associated with stereotypes which look nothing like the life fostered and governed by C 603 should underscore this. The idea of married hermits, communities of "hermits" including parents and children, "hermits" who work full time in active ministry during the week and spend Saturdays in silence and contemplative prayer, misanthropic, selfish, or merely deranged "hermits." etc, also suggest that the nature of the life defined in Canon 603 (which precedes the Catechism in normativity and in publication date) is not so clear and self-evident as some would like. The same is true regarding the nature of the hiddenness of the life. Note, by the way, that hiddenness as a defining term is not included in the Canon anywhere and anonymity is certainly not alluded to. What is spoken of is "stricter separation from the world," "the silence of solitude," and "assiduous prayer and penance". If we are to understand what hiddenness is necessary or essential to the vocation itself it will only be as diocesan hermits live the vocation and contribute what they learn about it to the Church as a whole. In these and so many other ways the need to spell out what Canon 603 does and does not allow or call for, especially in regard to the contemporary world, is simply necessary if the Canon is to do its job in nurturing, protecting, and governing the solitary eremitical vocation.

Freedom is not the Absence of Limitations or Constraints

As far as there being limitations in the label "diocesan hermit" or C 603 hermit, yes indeed there are limits involved. Again, one can hardly suggest that exploring these limitations and the eremitical realm they define is problematical or that there should be no such limits while in the same breath affirming that "the trend promoted by some" diocesan hermits is contrary to the Canon." That is a bit like saying, "I am going to use the word hermit any way I would like --- none of these silly limitations or canonical definitions for me -- but you others, YOU must use the term as I define and use it!" In any case, are limitations necessarily perversions? Do they define a life contrary to eremitical freedom? I would say not necessarily. This is so not only because the absence of limitations creates meaningless amorphous blobs of reality and little more (actually, one can argue there would be nothing at all without limits or "lines" of definition), but because the very nature of Christian Freedom is that it is a life lived fully and abundantly within the constraints of life. Words, for instance, are free to have and take on meaning only to the extent they are limited by context and usage. Without limits (definitions or defining parameters) they are meaningless and are not free to be used fruitfully. Human lives are truly free not when there are no constraints, but when they are empowered to fullness and transcendence in spite of and even within and through various constraints. That is why Catholic theology (and the NT) defines freedom as the power to be the persons we are called to be within the spatial temporal reality of historical, embodied, existence.

The Freedom of canonical eremitical Life and the Present Moment

By the way, this notion of freedom is actually necessary to understand what it means to live in the present moment. Despite the author of the comment you cited desiring it otherwise, "the present moment" is a temporal designation but it is a paradoxical one. It does not mean ceasing to be temporal but rather discovering in the temporal the presence and meaning of the eternal. Living in the present moment means dwelling in a way which allows that "eternal now" (to use Paul Tillich's terminology) to become clear and lifegiving. It means living within space and time, but as those not bound in slavery to the past or in useless anxiety about or fear of the future. It means living within the constraints of space and time, but in a way which allows the eternal to fill and redeem it. It is an exercise in attentiveness, obedience, and freedom, but only insofar as one does NOT attempt to escape the limitations of time into some imaginary atemporal and non-spatial existence. When contemplatives speak of living in the present moment they speak of being completely present to whatever is at hand, however ordinary, however limited, but doing so in a way where eternity (God's own life) is allowed to break in and pervade that reality, or where that reality mediates God's presence (eternity) --- just as Christ's incarnation of the logos did for God in our world.

I don't particularly understand how one could suggest that canonical (diocesan) eremitical life would not allow for writing or living out "the order of the present moment," because of institutionalization, etc, unless of course one simply does not have or understand a call to this life. I have the freedom in my life to freely explore the infinite and eternal realm of union with God precisely BECAUSE of canonical standing. It is a freedom I possess because in being professed publicly I am also publicly free from the common requirement that my life make sense in worldly productive, competitive, and consumerist terms. The Church supports me in this at every point. She asks me in fact to do this in her name and on her behalf. And of course I am responsible to do so --- to do, in fact, what my heart yearned for. If my relationship with God and my experience of the silence of solitude ALSO leads me to write (or compose, or minister to some limited degree, etc, etc) I am completely free to do that.

Do I need permission for these things? Yes and no. If by permission one means prior authorization for every little thing, then no. (Big changes in my Rule, etc are a different matter.) However, what "permission" actually means ordinarily is the responsibility to genuinely discern the place of these and other things in an authentic eremitical life and generally my delegate or my Bishop (who share in this discernment process in varying ways) will permit or encourage this. Thus, I explore the "limits" (parameters) of this vocation with care and fidelity, prayer and reflection, and I act on what I discern. Regularly I meet with my delegate or my Bishop to inform them of what this means. Occasionally it becomes clear I have not discerned wisely or accurately as they reflect back to me their own perceptions (or as I realize in explaining my discernment that it was really inadequate!) So, again, this requirement of my vow of obedience is hardly a limitation of my freedom, but rather an expression and extension of it.

Concretely this means I am free both to fail and to succeed in this life, free to try again as often as I need precisely because I AM consecrated (set apart and specifically graced by God through his Church) as a diocesan hermit, free to explore everything it does and doesn't include, free to explore the gift this life is to the church and world, free in fact to understand my own life AS a gift when once I saw it as meaningless and unproductive. I am free to love, and therefore to minister in the ways my vocation and limitations in life permit --- and to constantly find I can transcend some of these limits because of the "constraints" of Canon 603. I am free to withdraw (in the sense of anachoresis) in greater reclusion, or to move into more activity at my parish or diocese and some greater visibility otherwise.

Will I make mistakes? Yes, and with the help of God and my superiors (not to mention that of my friends!!) I will also correct them. I am free day in and day out to spend my life in prayer, study, writing, and to explore the source and "limits" of human fulfillment and joy without worrying that perhaps I am called to something else. I am free to attend to the requirements of my own true self, to work on healing and integration, to give myself over to the process of redemption and becoming whole and holy as a result of God's love without fear that I am really being selfish. (What selfishness there is will soon be revealed and dealt with!) It is canonical standing with perpetual vows which guarantees these freedoms and many more. How can one argue that such constraints limit or prevent one's ability to dwell in the present moment???

Temptation to Hubris

And as for the accusation of "temptation to hubris", well temptation is not sin, nor is it something we need be protected from so long as we can triumph over it in the power of Christ. Indeed in the real "order of the present moment" we continually transcend or triumph over temptation. It is part of the dynamic of not being enslaved by anxiety or past memories, etc, which do still pull at us and the way we exercise continuing choices for God and his Christ -- choices which strengthen, purify and mature us. Hubris can easily be projected onto another, so we ought be careful concluding that a diocesan hermit who accepts public profession, wears a habit and/or cowl, writes a blog, or carries on her rightful ministry (which may include doing some theology or reflecting on the nature of eremitical life) is doing these things because of hubris. At the same time, we also ought be very careful not to call hubris a person's joy at being called or their very humble (i.e., honest) awe and pride that the Holy Spirit deigns to use her as s/he does!

When Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit exults in God my savior because he has done great things for me" we hardly identify that as hubris! I would say instead that she is rightfully and humbly proud. When she ponders these things in her heart we see the essential hiddenness of such a life. When she speaks to her Son regarding the needs of the wedding party or tells the disciples to "do as he tells you" at the Cana feast, we hardly fault her for failing in this essential hiddenness! We see very little of Mary in the Gospels really, but when we do see her she has a tremendous impact. It is important not to mistake this for the kind of visibility our world cultivates today and which eremitical life especially opposes.

Visibility of "the World" and Hermit Bloggers

While my life is not anonymous, it is essentially hidden, and besides what the term means in eremitical life through the centuries, it is hidden in ways the world seems no longer to understand. We all know people whose every daily detail goes on their blog or facebook page, or is put up on twitter. Within limits some of this is fine. We are a global village and some of this contributes to growth and maturation in this. But most of it is simply the inability to respect others, ourselves, the nature of privacy, and the need to aggrandize and publicize every aspect of one's life as a result. I will think more about this issue of visibility, what is acceptable, what drives it, etc but for now I can honestly say that my own limited visibility is not driven by anything more than the need to share what the Holy Spirit is doing through this relatively unknown vocation and the way it is a gift to Church and world. I believe that is what drives other diocesan hermits with blogs, for instance. It seems that our Bishops agree, by the way, or, of course, there would be no blogs!

However, even within this blog there are limitations in what I make known or "visible." I have been asked in the past to share more about my everyday life, and I have once considered allowing comments on this blog. Both possibilities I rejected as serious intrusions into my solitude, privacy, and essential hiddenness (of which this blog is actually an extension). In fact this blog serves as a kind of grill or turn --- or better, an anchorite's window on her world --- where I pass things out to the world outside the hermitage and the world has a chance to address or at least read what I share as well. But most of the time the world outside my hermitage has no sense of me whatsoever, and certainly no sense of what is happening on a daily basis in my life. I have the sense it is this way for other diocesan hermits with blogs as well. So, yes, my life has a certain visibility but as I have explained before, the fact that I am a diocesan hermit is a public matter; what goes on in my daily life is mainly something that remains between me and God (which includes my director and/or delegate).

Bound by Responsibility In Order to Be Truly Free

[[Dear Sister, I read a couple of your posts on your vows and on seeking canon 603 status as a hermit and one of the ideas you expressed was intriguing to me. You said that you sought canonical status in order to live more freely than you would otherwise be able to do. You made vows and sought the obligations of canonical profession in order to be truly free to live out your vocation as a hermit. It is a strange idea that we seek to be bound by vows and obligations in order to be truly free. Can you say more about this? Does it work like this for everyone or just hermits?]]

In a world where freedom is often defined as the ability to do anything we want, the ability to live without constraints or limits, I admit this is a pretty strange notion of freedom isn't it? But, as I have noted before here, in Christianity freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. This means that it exists in spite of constraints. In fact it is essential to the definition of Christian freedom that it exists in the face of constraints. To do so indicates that Xtn freedom allows us to transcend these constraints despite their still existing. Christian freedom is a responsible and transcendent freedom. It is a huge piece of what Jesus is describing when he says that his yoke is easy, his burden light. Although this commment first of all applies to freedom FROM the burdens of the Law (which have been distorted and exacerbated by the power of sin), it also implies, therefore, freedom for the authentic humanity which is the Law's fulfillment.

So, yes, in one sense this notion applies to everyone. We are not truly free unless we can and do take on the obligations of our state in life. That is true whether we are married, consecrated celibate (whether religious or eremitical), single, or clerical. Whatever assists us to do that can be helpful to authentic freedom and whatever prevents it can be seen as a kind of bondage which diminishes and detracts from our calling. However, in the post you are describing what I am speaking about is actually the assumption of a new state of life and responsibilities which went beyond those I had already taken on. So why would I want to do that in order to live the hermit life as authentically and well as possible? Afterall, it is possible to live as a non-canonical hermit. Probably more do this than live as canonical hermits, and presumably authentically, so why not simply go this route?

Let me reprise the paragraph you are probably referring to in your questions, and perhaps a similar one found in a post on a newspaper interview I did. It gives the basic reasons I provided to my diocese: [[. . . Personally, I have found it impossible to live a truly eremitic life without canonical status. Not only is such a life continually threatened by the ordinary values and conditions of society, but also it is eccentric [that is, it is out of the center] and tends towards inconstancy when this is its only real context. Law may generally follow experience, but it is clear to me that canonical status also conveys permission, freedom, and the means for consistency as well. Eremitism is a flexible life in many ways, but it remains an ecclesial vocation which witnesses to Gospel and Church, and to the reality of consecrated life within this Church.

Public profession under Canon 603 establishes the hermit in a new state of life with attendant support and responsibilities. Thus, in making vows under Canon 603, I am seeking to live in law, what I would otherwise be only partially free, and thus, attempting in vain, to live in fact. As I have attempted to explain the matter to others, this vocation is a heroic one which requires and deserves one’s best efforts. Because of this, one must be free to fail and to pick up and try again and again without regard to the apparent (though relative) eccentricity of one’s efforts with regard to the world. In other words, unless one lives this life in a context where it is truly understood and valued, and where one is truly responsible, one is simply not free either to fail or to succeed.]]

Note how important context is to this discussion. If one finds oneself in a context which does not assist one to fully live one's life, one needs to shift contexts. For instance, if one is attempting to learn to play tennis seriously, one cannot do so in a place which has no tennis courts. If one wants to play orchestral music one does not walk into the space where a rock band rehearses with one's violin expecting to perfect one's orchestral capabilities! Contexts are ordinarily the realities or environments which make sense of things within them. We see this with a word in a sentence, or a sentence in a paragraph, or paragraph in an essay, etc. Any shift in context can completely change the meaning of the embedded reality or object. Think of the word gay. It can mean many different things, but its meaning is more fixed within the sentence, "Don we now our gay apparel." However, should we take that sentence and move it from its own context of an old Christmas carol to that of a San Francisco Gay Freedom Day poster its meaning would shift considerably despite superficial similarities remaining. Similarly, consider the idea of a woman screaming. Without context we cannot say this act makes sense or is senseless for it is neither; it is simply a naked act devoid of meaning at all. Now, plug this image into the larger one of a cloister and the image becomes quite sinister even though it requires more spelling out. We might not know why the woman is screaming, but we do know some of the meaning of the act. Transfer the image into the larger picture of a super bowl where the woman's team just scored the winning goal in the last seconds and the image apparently takes on a completely different meaning, doesn't it!?

The same is true with our lives. If we seek to live them in a conflicting or less than optimal contexts they will fail to make real sense. More, they will become incoherent (for coherence, the "holding together" of meaning is a function of context). Each of us searches for the context, state of life, etc which allows our lives to develop and make the most sense they possibly can. Once, years ago now, a Sister in this area wrote for a newspaper article, " One does not need to be a nun to do what I am doing, but I need to be a nun to do what I am doing." I think she was getting at this very notion of the importance of contexts, and I have never heard it expressed more simply. Thus, in terms I am using here contexts can free and empower: free us from the pull of contexts which are less than optimal and can render our lives incoherent and conflicted just as it can empower us to embrace their potential meaning more fully or exhaustively. The language the Church uses to refer to these processes is that of grace: in entering a new state of life (the real context!) one truly called to this state is given the graces necessary to live such a life of coherence and meaning.

Thus, I also wrote: [[In my Rule, I described eremitism as an eccentric way of life, and one which I personally found impossible without canonical status. What I did not describe particularly well was the constant pull from society and even the church and religious life to engage in active ministry, to use one's gifts in more usual ways to benefit one's sisters and brothers, to help bring the Kingdom/Reign of God in fact. Of course other Christians are prayerful (no doubt many as prayerful as hermits are); and of course contemplative prayer itself is esteemed and understood to some extent. But eremitic life is generally not, and it is a fragile thing, easily compromised, easily lost in activity and other things which are -- of themselves --- also quite positive. Acting in the name of the Church, remaining in one's hermitage when "cabin fever" hits, turning to prayer instead of to some other way of being a Christian in the world, trusting that one lives at the heart of the church and the heart of others' lives even when they are not aware of that, is part of what is empowered by canonical status.

For one given canonical status, and especially for one admitted to perpetual profession, the Church says, you are a hermit: "With the help of Almighty God we confirm you in this charism and choose you for this consecration as a diocesan hermitess." (Allen H Vigneron, Perpetual Profession Liturgy, Sept 2, 2007) All of the theoretical justifications of the eremitical life, all of the talk of the hermit's marginality, the reflections of the benefits and justification of the eremitical contemplative life, the confirmation and mediation of this as a Divine call, and all of the reasons for persevering in it come together in this one sentence. The canonical or diocesan hermit has been confirmed in this vocation from God and given the permission and freedom to live this life in whatever way GOD calls her to do, nevermind what society says or understands to be legitimate, nevermind even what other Christians say or understand to be legitimate. One has been given a context in which this can be accomplished, a context which frees and empowers --- and of course which challenges to consistency and integrity on a continuing basis.]]

This last paragraph above brings up another aspect of obligations taken on within a public social or ecclesial context: the power of others' expectations to summon and inspire. Admission to eremitical profession says that the Church has discerned this vocation with the hermit. They have mediated this call to her in various ways and stages. And finally they have called her forth, received her profession and consecrated her so that she may indeed live as she has been called to do. Granted, it is the case that expectations can be a burden as well, but generally, bearing the expectations the Church has of one now really does serve to urge, empower, and inspire one to live this vocation the best one can. Graces accompany these acts of the church, and her expectations themselves can be seen as graces. I am sure you can think of a number of examples where this is true for you or those you know no matter the vocation involved. It is true of marriage, for instance. We find that obligations and expectations carry us through the difficult times when motivation is weak, etc. We also find they remind us of the ways the Holy Spirit moves in our lives --- for the Holy Spirit will work in ways which are consonant with our call and both summon and empower us to live out that call fully and authentically.

I hope this helps. There is probably lots more to say on this, and I may add to this answer when I have a bit more time, but as always, please get back to me if anything needs clarification or expansion in the meantime.

Some questions on Eremitic Life, Canonical Status, "Success"!

This week I was interviewed for a local newspaper article --- apparently being a diocesan hermit is a bit of an unusual thing, and people are interested in it (no, this is not REALLY a surprise to me, at least not entirely). One whole area of interest is the question of canonical status versus non-canonical status, though raised in a new way. For instance, the reporter wondered why one would want to become a diocesan hermit if the diocese has no financial obligations toward the hermit. Why, afterall, would one want to become perpetually obligated with a vow of obedience, become "locked into" (not her actual words) the diocesan structure with delegates, Vicars, Bishop, etc, to whom one is answerable, if the diocese does not assume financial responsibility, provide a hermitage, insurance, etc?

I answered the question in terms of freedom and integrity, and I want to try to reprise and elaborate on some of that here --- if only because it is a common question, and one asked by others, including those who are or who desire to be noncanonical hermits. The simple fact is that as a diocesan hermit one acts in the name of the church. One prays in the name of the church, and if one does other ministry, she does so in the name of the church; in a society where contemplative life is a rare commodity anyway, and where there are constant pulls on the hermit of whatever status to join the rest of society in their quest for "success," having the commission to BE A HERMIT in the name of the Church is a freeing and empowering thing.

In my Rule, I described eremitism as an eccentric way of life, and one which I personally found impossible without canonical status. What I did not describe particularly well was the constant pull from society and even the church and religious life to engage in active ministry, to use one's gifts in more usual ways to benefit one's sisters and brothers, to help bring the Kingdom/Reign of God in fact. Of course other Christians are prayerful (no doubt as prayerful as hermits are); and of course contemplative prayer itself is esteemed and understood to some extent. But eremitic life is generally not, and it is a fragile thing, easily compromised, easily lost in activity and other things which are -- of themselves --- also quite positive. Acting in the name of the Church, remaining in one's hermitage when "cabin fever" hits, turning to prayer instead of to some other way of being a Christian in the world, trusting that one lives at the heart of the church and the heart of others' lives even when they are not aware of that, is part of what is empowered by canonical status.

For one given canonical status, and especially for one admitted to perpetual profession, the Church says, you are a hermit: "With the help of Almighty God we confirm you in this charism and choose you for this consecration as a diocesan hermitess." (Allen H Vigneron, Perpetual Profession Liturgy, Sept 2, 2007) All of the theoretical justifications of the eremitical life, all of the talk of the hermit's marginality, the reflections of the benefits and justification of the eremitical contemplative life, the confirmation and mediation of this as a Divine call, and all of the reasons for persevering in it come together in this one sentence. The canonical or diocesan hermit has been confirmed in this vocation from God and given the permission and freedom to live this life in whatever way GOD calls her to do, nevermind what society says or understands to be legitimate, nevermind even what other Christians say or understand to be legitimate. One has been given a context in which this can be accomplished, a context which frees and empowers --- and of course which challenges to consistency and integrity on a continuing basis.

Interestingly, there are actually arguments against canonical status put forward by those who choose not to pursue it. For instance, in the earliest history of the eremitical life hermits were marginalized even from the institutional church. One of the reasons for leaving for the deserts (remember eremites are desert dwellers, from eremos, Gk for desert) was the fact that the Church's own integrity was compromised to some extent by the surrounding culture, and the struggle to be a Christian in the world was no longer as it once was. Not only were Christians not persecuted for their faith, but over time Christianity had become a state religion. Martyrdom simply was not the everyday vocation it had once been, and as a result, everyday faith suffered as well. So, some went off to the deserts to lead a more penitential and integral Christianity. They did so as lay people without the benefit of canonical or other official status --- though they also became highly esteemed, and the vocation sought after. For those who argue that eremitic life should be lived with this particular kind of purity, the idea of canonical status can seem a kind of betrayal.

At the same time, there are those among the institutional church who do not encourage or foster vocations to diocesan eremitism. It is hard to know the number of times I have heard stories from those who either want to try, or believe they are called, to be diocesan hermits who were told by their local Vicar, Bishop, Spiritual Director, or Vicar General, "just go live in solitude; that is all that is necessary." Of course, I understand that in the initial (or other) stages of discernment, a person SHOULD be able to go off and live in solitude --- and in fact, this period of time might last for years! I also understand that simply because one approaches a diocese regarding canonical status and eremitical consecration, this does not mean one should be encouraged in this, much less actually professed and consecrated; the capacity to "just go and live in solitude" is an important one and needs to be gauged. Evenso, the eremitic vocation (and I am thinking especially now of canonical forms of this life) is essentially an ECCLESIAL vocation, and it makes sense that the hermit should ask, "Just going off and living in solitude is all that is necessary for WHAT?" If one wants to live an eremitic life in the heart of the Church, and in service to the church, then the Church should be open to it ---- careful and assiduously discerning, of course, but open to it.

Let me be clear, the ability to go off and live in physical solitude itself is NOT enough for a person to live as a Christian hermit, much less be professed and consecrated as a diocesan hermit, and telling a person that this is all that is required indicates a failure to understand (or at least to communicate!) the essence of the vocation itself. Living in physical solitude is only one aspect of the ecclesial vocation we call eremitism, and the misanthrope or otherwise psychologically wounded can manage this as well as (and sometimes with a good deal less struggle than) the genuine Christian hermit. One must also relate well to the community of the church, manage to balance the demands of the community and those of solitary life (this is true even in reclusion), be genuinely prayerful, hopeful, faithful, and loving (not only of God, but of oneself, one's sisters and brothers, and the whole of creation), and in one's life witness to the triumph of Grace that God manages when the truly humble and poor are empowered by and made to be truly rich in Him! The question, "Just going off alone and living in (physical) solitude is enough for WHAT?" has to be asked of diocesan representatives by hermit candidates precisely because the diocesan hermit represents an ecclesial vocation which is far richer than this flawed advice sometimes given by Vicars for Religious and Consecrated Life, or Vocation Directors itself reflects. The same is true of the non-canonical Christian eremitic vocation, though in somewhat different ways. Evenso, as critical an element of discerning an eremitic vocation as it may be, just going off and living in solitude is especially NOT enough for the diocesan hermit.

There is nothing demeaning in admitting that one cannot live this vocation without the assistance of the church. No, the church does NOT offer financial support or assistance, and this opens a whole other set of questions which some diocesan hermits are legitimately raising at the present time, but the Church DOES validate and mediate God's call to the individual, and she does offer the context which frees the hermit to live her life with integrity and consistency. In a world which seems to have less and less time or inclination for reflection, silence or solitude, prayer or penance, or even a personal orientation to reality which is other-centered, this is a tremendous gift, for it means being given a place to stand where the meaning of life can be discovered and lived out without reference to what one spends, or produces, or exploits, or consumes.

The reporter asked me what success meant in terms of this life. What would success at the end of the day mean? I answered in terms of integrity: A successful day would be one I lived with real integrity. I probably should have spelled that out more directly, and I am sorry I did not. For instance, I should have said that integrity means living a life of prayer, penance, silence and solitude where one's love for God and one's fellow human beings, as well as one's ability to suffer with and for them (compassion) grows, where communion and reconciliation are central values, where one can say at the end of the day, "With the grace of God, I did the best I could do and I was obedient to the will of God in my life today." I know this is not an unusual goal for most Christians (at least I think it is not!), but for the diocesan hermit it is a goal which canonical status makes easier or more approachable --- something that is good not only for the individual hermit, but for the Church herself and the world she touches -- sometimes secretly, and always mysteriously --- as leaven at every point.