New Initials for the Diocesan Hermit: Erem. Dio. or Er Dio (Diocesan Hermit)

Awhile ago I requested permission from my Bishop to adopt the use of certain initials to indicate my status as a diocesan hermit. The initials suggested were Erem Dio, or Er Dio standing for the Latin version of diocesan hermit (eremita dioecesanus). It was understood that this would be precedent setting, and could well be adopted by other diocesan hermits (hermits professed under Canon 603 and responsible to their local Ordinaries for the general living out of their profession and Rule). Up until this point individual c. 603 hermits have adopted initials which indicated their personal spirituality (Franciscan, Benedictine, Carmelite, etc) but have had to take care not to use the initials of a particular community or congregation since they are not professed as part of said community. Unfortunately, this was really inadequate as it missed completely their status and charism as diocesan. There has been no standardized designation for diocesan hermits, and there has been a felt need for several different reasons:

First of all, the diocesan hermit who is a solitary hermit shares a unique relationship with Bishop and Diocese. She has a unique charism and place in the life of the Church which, so far as I can tell, is not matched by non-canonical hermits or by those canonical hermits living in community. Whether the diocesan hermit's spirituality is essentially Benedictine, Franciscan, Carmelite, Augustinian, Cistercian, Carthusian, etc. what is more important is the fact that they are professed and find their most fundamental identity in their solitary and diocesan status, responsibilities, and affiliation. This fundamental identity translates into a unique charism (gift quality) and mission; the hermit is a gift to church and world, but this is particularly worked out on the diocesan level in terms of her own parish and in obedience to her own Bishop. Thus, while I am Camaldolese Benedictine (I am not A Camaldolese Benedictine because I am not professed as one!) and while I highly esteem and honor this tradition, first and foremost I am A diocesan hermit who happens to also be Camaldolese Benedictine in spirituality and as an oblate.

Secondly, it has become somewhat common (though illegitimate) for some hermits who are non-canonical (and not in the process of becoming canonical per C. 603) to use the title Sister and even adopt initials after their names despite not being publicly professed. One person I corresponded a while back with used HS (apparently for Hermit Sister) followed immediately by a lower case "p" (HSp) for private vows. Since only those publicly professed (or preparing for this) have assumed (or are preparing to assume) the juridical rights and responsibilities associated with either the title or such initials, this was confusing and, as far as I could tell, contradictory and misleading. (Why use what indicates a public vocation and juridical status --Sister, HS --- and then add a letter that proclaims one as privately professed??)

Several diocesan hermits liked the idea of identifying themselves as a hermit sister (or brother), but we came to see that it was our status as solitary and diocesan (Canon 603) which really distinguished us so that HS, HB, Er or Erem were really inadequate unless, for instance, Rome decided only Canon 603 hermits could use such initials. That was unlikely to happen for some time, if ever. Thus, adding Dio (for diocesan, dioecesanus) became a significant clarification of canonical standing as well as pointing to the Canon 603 hermit's unique charism.

Thirdly, it has happened that individuals with no sense of a diocesan eremitical vocation have begun unofficially to embrace Canon 603 as a possible way to circumvent the lengthy and somewhat difficult process of canonically establishing a community. (A semi-eremitical or eremitical community living under a single Rule is not the same as a Laura of diocesan hermits who come together but retain their own individual Rules. Canon 603 (it is suggested implicitly, though not explicitly) allows for the latter; according to canonists it is not meant to be the means to the former, nor should it be used by those looking for a canonical loophole to get themselves professed as a hermit who is really part of a community or would-be community.)

Again, there needed to be a way of designating the hermit whose immediate LEGITIMATE superior was her Bishop per Canon 603, and who, as perpetually professed as a SOLITARY hermit was not on the way to becoming a member of a community of hermits under another superior and single Rule. Erem Dio (or Er Dio) seemed to do this. The same was true with regard to non-canonical (lay) hermits who use the language of Canon 603 without ever being consecrated by the Church under this canon. They are significant and important instances of the lay (and eremitical) vocation, but despite similarities in life (silence of solitude, prayer, penance, etc.) do not share in the charism of the diocesan hermit nor in a public vocation to the consecrated state. The public has a right to a clear distinction between these two vocations because the rights, obligations, and expectations of one differs from that of the other. (Please see other blog articles on this topic.)

Fourthly, at least in the USA, it is common for religious men and women who publish to use their first and last names along with congregational initials while dropping Brother or Sister or Father. (Actually this is common in many contemporary contexts.) Thus in Review For Religious and other journals, for instance, my name would show up as Laurel M O'Neal, but with no real indication that I was consecrated (or in what way) because (except for those associated with oblature: (OblSB Cam, or Oblate, OSB Cam --- which are usually not used publicly) I have no congregational initials. (Review For Religious usually adds a small statement referring to the person as Sister or Brother, etc, but this is not really enough to immediately indicate one's state of life as a consecrated hermit. For this reason too we looked for a way of adopting US usage while clearly indicating consecrated standing. Laurel M O'Neal Er Dio, or Laurel M O'Neal, Erem Dio seemed to fit the bill.

Today, on the anniversary of my perpetual profession I heard from my Bishop on this matter. He gave permission for the adoption of the initials mentioned above, (Erem Dio, Er Dio). It was, I think, a thoughtful decision which involved discussion on several levels and comes at a perfect time. Thus, we have a new designation in the Church (my Bp was clearly aware this was precedent setting), and one which, it is hoped, other diocesan hermits may adopt and find helpful in a number of ways --- not least in spurring them to further reflection on, definition and claiming of their identities and charism as diocesan -- that is, as solitary hermits who are publicly consecrated..

More questions: Canonical Status, may a Bishop insist one make vows according to Canon 603?

I received a couple of related questions from someone confused by something they read from a non-canonical hermit online. Because I have already dealt with these issues generally (Canonical consecration vs non-canonical dedication) elsewhere in some depth, I am sharing the things that concerned the reader and answering them again, though I think in less depth; still, I apologize for any redundancy here. One question in particular, however, was completely new and somewhat disturbing in its implications, so readers will find this covers new ground. The questions were as follows:

[[I read in another hermit's blog that the church considers a hermit with private vows part of the consecrated state, and that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly and simply says this. The blogger indicated there was no real distinction between private and public consecration. Because of this he also claimed that Canon 603 was optional and that he could make vows in the hands of his Bishop without it. Are these things true? I ask because you have written about differences in the past. Also, there was a reference to the person's Bishop insisting that the blogger make vows under canon 603, though he was resisting the idea and had told him he was clear he was called to remain other than a canon 603 hermit. Is it possible for a Bishop to do this?}}

Assuming you have quoted accurately, the first statement is not strictly true. While it is true a person may privately consecrate (or better, dedicate) themselves to God and thus live a life which is privately set apart for God as a hermit, they do not become part of the consecrated state in so doing; they remain in the lay state. That is, the Church does not "raise" the person (sorry, but as I have said before, that's the verb used most often) to the consecrated state as is done in perpetual public vows. As I have noted before, what both the Catechism of the Catholic Church states and the revised Code of Canon Law makes very clear is that admission to the consecrated state requires public profession of vows. However, the paragraph from the Catechism being referred to in your question is somewhat ambiguous because it is listed under the heading "the Consecrated Life." Still, the entire section begins by pointing out that admission to the consecrated state is by public vow (CCC 915b refers to admission by vow to a permanent state of life; cf Code of Canon Law below).

What I think the authors of the catechism also wished to indicate in the paragraphs your question referred to (probably CCC 920-921), is that a serious eremitical life dedicated to God as a specification of one's baptismal consecration, can be lived whether one enters the consecrated state or not. That is part of the reason for saying, "while not always making public profession of the evangelical counsels. . ." (Another reason, however, is that diocesan hermits MAY publicly make other than vows per se.) Any ambiguities are largely cleared up if one reads these paragraphs in context, and also if one reads the Code of Canon Law on the matter. That is especially true of Canon 603 sec 2 " A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and observes his or her plan of life under his direction."

As far as your second question then, Canon 603 is not optional if one wishes to be canonically or publicly professed and consecrated as a hermit by the Church and become a member of the consecrated state of life. Neither is it one option among others if one is going therefore to publicly assume the rights and responsibilities of such a state or live the eremitical life in the name of the Church. If one makes private vows in the presence of a Bishop (which is NOT the same as doing so "in the hands" of one's Bishop) that is similar to making private vows in the presence of any other priest or one's spiritual director. What makes the vows PUBLIC is the fact that the Bishop legally/canonically admits the person to such profession, and accepts these vows as public in the name of the Church. In the rite of (religious) profession in such an instance he also affirms the hermit in this specific charism, chooses her for this consecration and, after receiving her vows prays the prayer of consecration over her, again all in the name of the Church. Because one makes such vows in his hands, he (and his successors and designees) become the hermit's legitimate superiors (or superiors in law). In this way a mutual relationship is set up in law between hermit and Bishop and this is indicated by the phrase "in his hands." The hermit acquires a new standing in law which is not done in private vows. All this pomp and ceremony is thus not merely a way of celebrating the same thing as private dedication and vows --- only just more elaborately. Instead it says that something different is happening here than happens when a private person (even a Bishop!) receives private vows or witnesses someone making a private dedication of self to God.

If one is a complete neophyte hermit, or contemplating becoming one, and is still considering how to live out one's baptismal consecration then in this very limited sense one can say canon 603 is an option (or, more accurately, a potential one since others must also discern such a vocation for canon 603 to actually come into play). Also, if one has lived as a non-canonical hermit for some period of time one might discern one is called to canonical consecration (or at least that one thinks one is, since again mutual discernment is involved in this); in such a case canon 603 remains an option which could be pursued. Perhaps this is what your blogger meant. But if he stated or implied that private vows and public vows are completely equal options, both functioning in precisely the same way in admitting to the consecrated state, then no, he was in error.

I suppose it is easy to make mistakes on these differences (especially given the ambiguity of the Catechism when taken out of context, and given the two distinct meanings of the term "consecrated life"). That is especially true if one ignores the glossary to the CCC (cf "consecrated life"), or the more specific Code of Canon Law on the necessary relation between public vows and the consecrated state. Your last question, however, refers to a much more serious and misleading matter which is not subject to linguistic ambiguity or confusion. Let me be clear: NO ONE IN THE CHURCH MAY INSIST THAT A PERSON MAKE VOWS under canon 603, or any other canon or set of canons. The idea that a Bishop would "insist" when, as you say, the individual claimed to not want or feel called to such profession or consecration is nonsensical, and of course, any vows made in such a case would be invalid (cc 573.2), not to mention a travesty. Vows are not thrust upon a person, nor can one be obliged in obedience to make vows. The entire idea misunderstands the theology of vocation and profession underlying them which requires the individual call be freely (not to mention clearly) heard, freely mediated by the Church, and freely accepted and embraced in a sense of certainty by ALL PARTIES INVOLVED that this is where and HOW God himself is calling the one concerned .

I admit to feeling pretty strongly about this matter because I occasionally hear stories from hermits who, despite being clear that they ARE CALLED TO THIS SPECIFIC CONSECRATION, are denied or postponed admission to Canon 603 profession simply because it is still relatively new, the diocese does not want responsibility for such an arrangement, or because they don't see the need for canonical profession or question the validity of the eremitical life more generally. (I am not referring to those not admitted because the diocese involved decides they are not actually called or have other substantive valid reasons.) Thus, to hear in light of this, that someone has suggested that their Bishop might INSIST they be professed under Canon 603 when they claim to have a different (e.g, a non-canonical eremitical) vocation and not want this for themselves is really problematical and disturbing. This is especially true when the charism of the diocesan hermit may differ in some ways from that of the non-canonical hermit. Were it true that someone was professed because their Bishop wanted it when they really did not, it would also be scandalous to those witnessing the vows. However, I don't believe for a moment any competent Bishop would do such a thing. Instead, (and again I am assuming the questioner has cited the person accurately), it would seem to me that whoever stated this has either misunderstood the situation vis a vis his Bishop, or, for some other subjective reason has seriously misspoken and mischaracterized the objective situation.

One final comment. As I have written here before, Hermits may clearly be non-canonical or canonical and whichever form of the life one is actually called to is meant to be a blessing to the church in its own way. One hopes anyone would be able to come to terms with the unique way God is calling him or her. Both forms of eremitism are significant vocations and should be esteemed. However, one does not do this by blurring the distinctions which do exist between the two. For instance, private consecration allows the non-canonical hermit to remain solidly amidst the laity and signals clearly how silence, solitude, prayer, and penance are important in the life of every person in the church. It also witnesses to the need for any adult to make more specific their own baptismal commitment and consecration. Public consecration as a diocesan hermit can and should witness in this way too (afterall, it is a public vocation despite its hiddenness), but it is also apt to speak more clearly to monastics and religious of these things, and call others to consider the consecrated state as a possible vocation. Both forms however, are characterized by greater separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and thus are similar gifts to the church.

Once again, Canonical Status: Motives for seeking approval, etc.

Well, I have had few questions emailed until recently with this "issue" of canonical status. While this may be my last post on this topic for a while (despite the questions, as interesting as it is to me, it is probably NOT that interesting to most!), here is a followup question I received and my response:

[[It is clear to me that you do not believe that hermits looking for canonical status do so out of pride, a desire for "status," the need for a title, and so forth. Yet, I have been reading everything I can online on eremitism and there is no doubt that some do believe this. It does appear to some that canonical hermits WANT a 'place' in the church, a title, public recognition, etc. Can you say more about the valid and invalid motivations for seeking canonical status under canon 603 as you see them?]]

Fair enough. When I began writing about the question of non-canonical vs canonical status for hermits in the church, I noted that I personally thought non-canonical status was something ONLY to be embraced early on in a vocation --- for instance, in the beginning of the discernment process or beginning of an institute's life. I envisioned most hermits discovering that they needed canonical status simply to live their lives with real integrity, to sense and embrace a genuine share in the church's mission, etc. I have come to revise that opinion and I have begun thinking that the charism of the non-canonical (lay) hermit is different than that of the canonical one, despite the overwhelming identity of the fundamentals of the lives each live. Thus some hermits may indeed be called specifically to non-canonical (lay) eremitical life. [Addendum: N.B., within a short space of time and in future posts I will come to affirm this unequivocally.]

Whether this is true or not, let me say at the outset that wanting a legitimate place in the church (that is, literally a place IN LAW) which validates who one is and what one does, especially when those things are associated with a really eccentric (away from the center) vocation like eremitism is completely understandable and reasonable. As I have also written here before, neither should one be ashamed if one NEEDS canonical status beyond that provided by Baptism in order to live out their vocation fully. We know that contexts give meaning and stability to individual words, and similarly, canonical status, like Baptism itself, gives a distinct meaning and stability to one's life as a hermit. It challenges on a daily basis, and supports in times of struggle. It provides a context when most of reality (including religious life with its accent on apostolic activity) militates against the eremitic vocation as something unworthy of human embrace and emulation. When one adds the element of ecclesiality to the vocation, and the recognition that such status is the way God's call is actually mediated to the canonical hermit, all of this becomes a cogent argument for the need for such standing in law.

It should be clear from my last two entries on this topic that I believe canonical status invests the hermit with legal obligations and rights, and also, that these can be spelled out in terms of expectations everyone in the church --- the hermit's superiors and her parish especially --- should feel free to have and express. These expectations are part and parcel of a public vocation and serve the hermit in a number of ways. The question is, I guess, does the hermit seeking canonical status understand this and ask for admission to public profession with this in mind (or at least in dim awareness at some level or other!), or is she really approaching the diocese on these matters because, as some are now writing about those with or seeking such standing, she is prideful, insecure, needs the approval of others, or has no real sense of self without it? Or again, is she exchanging the "purer" eremitical life of hidden prayer for a public role where prayer in hiddenness is given short shrift? Is she taken with the trappings of the canonical hermit, the prayer garment or cowl, the title, the "status" in the more common "social ranking" sense of the word or, is her request for admission a matter of genuinely needing canonical standing, that is, public standing in law, in order to realize the fullest potentials of the vocation itself?

In authentic vocations the person does not bring only her strengths to the commitment; she brings her whole self, and that means weaknesses, brokenness, inadequacies, etc. The vocation will embody these, heal them over time, etc, but still, they are there and it will sometimes seem (or at least arise as a personal question for the hermit) that perhaps she was merely trying to accommodate these things in embracing eremitism. What I want to suggest is that there are legitimate reasons for and ways of accommodating these things, and illegitimate ways of doing so. For instance, many hermits today experience chronic illness in one form and another. Of itself this does not constitute a vocation to eremitic life, nor would anyone be foolish enough to think it does. On the other hand, of itself it MAY NOT be an obstacle to eremitic life as it more often is in other forms of consecrated life; it could even be the ground for discovering a vocation which allows God's power to be perfected in obvious weakness and the gospel to be proclaimed with a special vividness. I have spoken of this before here. However, it is also the case that the illness MAY be an obstacle to a genuine vocation to eremitic life, and this is true whether the illness is physical or psychological. In one case, the hermit might come to wonder if her illness was the ONLY reason for embracing a call to eremitism when in fact, it was the occasion for considering a form of life she would never have considered otherwise, and one which God was indeed calling her to. In another instance though, the hermit's self-questioning might be pointing to the truth: her illness is an obstacle to a genuine eremitic call and is the only AND INSUFFICIENT reason for embracing it.

There are all manner of human needs for validation, or approval. Some of these are healthy and should be met, while others are unhealthy (or unChristian) and ought not be indulged. Some are motivated by a sinful or distorted pride, and some are not. Untangling the twisted skeins of motives within us is something that takes time and work! I also think it is something that cannot be done completely alone: it requires the help of a good therapist and/or spiritual director, good friends who are honest and insist on honesty from the hermit, but also, time and patience. This is true because, like the incarnation itself, eremitical vocations grow out of the most unpropitious appearing soil. What was barren becomes a womb for God's own presence; what was a desert that appeared without hope of fruitfulness blossoms with unimaginable life. What is true is that this side of eternity both life and death, barrenness and fruitfulness, disappointment and promise, co-exist within us at every moment. At least in the beginning stages of discernment, so will an individual's motives be ambiguous; later on they may be clarified and simply be paradoxical: there is a desire for status (legal standing) so that one may live a hidden life in real integrity and holiness, etc.

It seems to me then, that what can also happen is that, over time, motives are purified, the needs for validation, etc which are rooted in inadequacies in the hermit's personality can, in many cases, be outgrown or healed. This can allow one to discover the valid reasons for requiring approval or validation stemming from the potential of the vocation itself which were there right along, but were obscured by the hermit's own "deficiency needs". The vocation to eremitical life is MEANT to serve others in the church and world as a whole. Of course, the vocation is a gift of God to these, but it is also a gift to the hermit herself. It SHOULD summon her in her weakness to greater (greatest!) wholeness and perfection; it should not and must not merely bypass these things. At the same time, while it will use and even build on them, it cannot be built on them alone. Any vocation to serve others ordinarily requires various forms of authorization, and authorization says that the vocation is NOT built only on deficiency needs but also on true giftedness (also called "potentiality needs") which will serve others well.

What I am saying is critics of canonical status for the hermit especially can be correct in individual cases since the human need for approval can stem from both deficiencies AND potentialities or giftedness in the human personality. Where they are wrong is to generalize as though ALL those who seek or have canonical status do so because of motives which run counter to the very nature of the vocation itself. Even when more venal or unworthy motives are present, what tends to happen is that they are worked through and left behind before the hermit is admitted to profession and especially prior to perpetual profession. As this occurs, the hermit will discover there are deeper and more valid reasons for seeking the church's approval and canonical standing. She will, if her vocation is genuine, discover and also allow these reasons to motivate and challenge her. Otherwise, there should be no profession, especially perpetual profession! As I noted above, canonical standing allows certain potentials of the vocation to be realized. Once this is understood it can be seen that the motivation for seeking such standing need not be a betrayal of the true eremitic vocation, but rather the logical route for its fulfillment.

Originally I was rather moved by the argument that hermits SHOULD be non-canonical because the vocation began as a protest of the Church's capitulation to the world of privilege and power, and should therefore continue in this way. However, I also understood that some vocations are ecclesial realities that are mediated through the Church. Canonical status therefore need not be a matter of "selling out" to the power structure of the institutional church, and in fact is more likely in well-motivated people to allow their vocations to reach a maturity and fullness that remains merely potential in non-canonical forms. However, it remains true that the Church recognizes non-canonical hermits as a valid form of eremitical life. This means, I think, that we must understand there are completely valid motives for embracing EITHER form of eremitic life, and that neither can be disparaged.

Followup Question on Canonical Status, Ecclesial vocations, etc

A follow-up question to the one on canonical status arrived in my email box:

[[Thank you for explaining that canonical status does not mean "status" in the usual sense of the word. I really had not heard that before. It is probably true that everyone thinks of canonical status as indicating what you called, "relative ranking" and "perks," but not the responsibilities or legal standing leading to these. You said too that the discernment period is often protracted. That raises two questions for me:1) why does one need to undergo such a process, and 2) why does anyone else need to be involved in discernment in the first place? Isn't this between the individual and God? The idea of a "unique charism" is new to me too. Doesn't this conflict with what you called the "hiddenness" of the hermit? And what about people who do not feel called to the kind of parish or diocesan ministry you referred to? Can't they be canon 603 hermits too? Shouldn't they?]]

I'm pretty sure I have written about some of these matters before (I will try to link you to the pertinent article down below), but let me also reprise that here. The answer to both your questions has the same root, namely, vocations like the eremitic, religious, ordained priesthood, or call to consecrated virginity, are what are called "ecclesial vocations." This means that although the individual can feel personally called to them (and of course MUST feel so called!), the Church herself plays a role in mediating God's call to the individual. If you look over the rite of religious profession or of ordination you will see there is a place where the candidate is formally called forth on behalf of the Church, but speaking as the mediator of God's own will in the matter. She stands and responds, "Here I am Lord; you have called me, and I come to do your will," or something similar. This is more than a bit of superficial pro forma ritual. It is the symbolic expression of the fact that the church herself mediates God's OWN call to this candidate and extends this call formally at a public liturgy. In the question and response which follow immediately, the Bishop will ask the candidate what she requests of God and his Holy Church. She may respond, "The privilege (or grace) of perpetual profession," or something similar, adding a request for "the grace of perseverance," etc. At that point the Bishop, says something like, "With the help of the Holy Spirit, we confirm you in this charism and choose you for this consecration. . ." Only after this dialogue is concluded, a homily is given, and an examination of the candidate's readiness to assume the responsibilities of this call are carried out along with (in perpetual profession) the prostration and litany of the Saints symbolizing the whole Church's involvement in this act, does the actual profession of vows take place.

I think it is not understood sufficiently that vocations like this in the church are NOT matters of individual discernment alone. When I say the vocation is an ecclesial one, I mean several things: 1) the Church herself discerns who is called to this vocation; 2) the Church regulates and oversees the vocation because specific expectations and responsibilities are involved, 3) the Church mediates the ACTUAL CALL of God TO the person, and 4) she receives the hermit's vows authoritatively and publicly consecrates her to the service of God and his Church. There is no doubt that a person can feel a call years before the local church (the diocesan church) is ready to move on such a vocation, and the person needs to remain true to that in the meantime, but it is ALSO true that in Roman Catholic theology, vocations to consecrated, religious, and priestly life, the Church herself mediates God's OWN call; she does not merely recognize or validate that the individual's discernment is sound --- though of course, she does this too. So, to answer your second question first, yes, the call is between the person and God but not ONLY between them. Even more accurately it might be said that the call to an ecclesial vocation involves God, the individual and God's Church in a mutual dialogue of discernment, call, and response. We might also say that unless and until the Church formally calls the Sister forth to make her perpetual profession and to consecrate her to God (or at the very least DECIDES OFFICIALLY to admit her to these things), the call is at best incomplete or only partial.

Your first question was also good: why does such a process have to take place (and why, I will add, is it often so protracted)? The fact is, it is easy for an individual to make a mistake regarding vocation. I would say that with regard to an eremitic vocation it is even easier. But even when one is correct about one's own discernment, it takes some years to grow into the vocation, especially as, in the case of canon 603, one may not be coming from a monastic background or background in other formation to religious life. On the diocese's side a number of things must be clear to be sure they are dealing with a DIVINE vocation: the person must be psychologically and spiritually sound, they must be able to support themselves in some way, shape, or form, and must demonstrate the ability to carry on with this vocation in relative independence from superiors or other church leadership (as well as in obedience and fidelity to them) for the WHOLE of their lives.

The local diocese must also feel this vocation is right for the local church (diocesan eremitism is relatively new so reflection on what it means for any dioceses involved is ongoing). Details need to be worked out: what kind of communication and how much will take place between the hermit, her Bishop, Vicar, etc? How will the vow of obedience work out in terms of everyday and unusual requirements or requests on the hermit's behalf? What about ongoing formation, education, spiritual direction, routine "permissions" or oversight, and the like? The simple fact is most diocesan personnel have no experience dealing with candidates for the eremitical life, and sometimes themselves see the vocation as unnecessary, a waste of time, or too eccentric to attend to seriously. And, since candidates have often lived out commitments to other forms of religious or consecrated life before coming to the conclusion that they are called to eremitic life, or they have come to eremitic life rather late in life after significant changes, trauma, etc, greater care may be taken than would be the case otherwise --- and rightly so!


And of course I have not even discussed the unique charism of the diocesan hermit here (though I have done so in another post below). The fundamental vocation is defined as one of silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and greater separation from the world. However, an ability to relate well to people, to be a vital part of a parish, professional competence (in and out of cell), and genuine compassion are also part of this vocation. It is not generally enough to be temperamentally a loner (and in fact, this may be a contraindication of/to such a vocation. Those who are not temperamentally loners can make wonderful hermits and they are not coming from a place where their temperament also disposes them to isolation rather than solitude!). One embraces eremitical silence, solitude, prayer, penance and greater separation from the world in order to spend one's life for others in this specific way. Whatever FIRST brings one to the desert (illness, loss, temperament, curiosity, etc) unless one learns to love God, oneself, and one's brothers and sisters genuinely and profoundly, and allows this to be the motivation for one's life, I don't think one has yet discerned a call to diocesan eremitism.

While this was not part of your question, let me say something here about the phrase "the world" in the above answers. Greater separation from the World implies physical separation, but not merely physical separation. Doesn't this conflict with what I said about the unique charism of the diocesan hermit? No, I don't think so. First of all, "the world" does NOT mean "the entire physical reality except for the hermitage or cell"! Instead, "the world" refers to those structures, realities, things, positions, etc which PROMISE FULFILLMENT or personal completion apart from God. Anything, including some forms of religion and piety can represent "the world" given this definition. The world tends to represent escape from self and God, and also escape from the deep demands and legitimate expectations others have a right to make of us as Christians. Given this understanding, some forms of "eremitism" may not represent so much greater separation from the world as they do unusually embodied capitulations to it. (Here is one of the places an individual can fool themselves and so, needs the assistance of the church to carry out an adequate and accurate discernment of a DIVINE vocation to eremitical life.)

Not everything out in the physical world is "the World" hermits are called to greater separation from. Granted, physical separation from much of the physical world is an element of genuine solitude which makes discerning the difference easier. Still, I have seen non diocesan hermits who, in the name of "eremitical hiddenness" run from responsibilities, relationships, anything at all which could conceivably be called secular or even simply natural (as opposed to what is sometimes mistakenly called the supernatural). This is misguided, I believe, and is often more apt to point to the lack of an eremitical vocation at the present time than the presence of one. (Let me say that even in these cases, these journeys can grow and mature INTO authentic eremitical vocations. It may take some time, and it ALWAYS requires really good spiritual direction sometimes along with psychological assistance and therapy, but it is possible!)


You also asked: {{. . . the idea of a "unique charism" is new to me. Doesn't this conflict with what you called the "hiddenness" of the hermit? And what about people who do not feel called to the kind of parish or diocesan ministry you referred to, or who are unable to do it because of illness or other limitations? Can't they be canon 603 hermits too? Shouldn't they?]]

One of the things mentioned in Canon 603 is that the eremitic life is lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. The idea of praising God is not problematical, I don't think,(that is, I don't think you need me to say more about what this means, true?) and obviously one does (or SHOULD DO) this whether one remains in cell or goes out occasionally. One's whole life SHOULD BE a psalm of praise, a magnificat to the Lord, as I have written before. The idea that the eremitic vocation is not geared towards self-indulgence, escapism, pathological introversion and the like is underscored by this phrase. The phrase "for the salvation of the world" does the same. At the same time, I think these two phrases, while applying to all eremitical life, especially ground the vocation to DIOCESAN eremitism as one with the unique charism I have outlined.

ALL hermits, solitary, monastery-based, non-canonical, laura-based, etc, are concerned with the salvation of the world. We all pray for the world; we all serve as a still-point leavening our world with the peace of contemplation, and mediating the energy or reality of the Kingdom through our prayer. My point in the earlier blog entry was that for the diocesan hermit, the relationship to parish and diocese symbolized in a vow of obedience to God in the hands of the hermit's Bishop comes into greater focus and occasions specific expectations and responsibilities other hermits might not share. Still, the actual outworking of this charism occupies a spectrum, from praying for parish and diocese while remaining secluded, to ministering in more active ways occasionally while maintaining an essentially eremitic life.

Obviously the individual hermit's gifts, talents, capacities, training, education, inclinations, resources, and the like help determine where along the spectrum she falls. Also, while the charism is part and parcel of the vocation, I believe, how it is expressed or embodied over time can shift as well. There will be rhythms to the hermit's ministry: sometimes greater reclusion will be called for, sometimes greater apostolic work. The point I wanted to make is that with public profession, the parish and diocese have rights and expectations in the diocesan hermit's regard which do not obtain with non-canonical status, for instance. One's eremitism is not merely between oneself and God, but is meant for the well-being of others as well, especially of one's parish and diocese. So long as one demonstrates a true willingness and capacity to be a hermit FOR these others in identifiable ways, then yes, the hermit can and should be a diocesan hermit in spite of personal limitations or disability.

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.