Will Canon 603 Become the Norm for All Consecrated Hermits?

[[ Is canon 603 a kind of experiment? Is it only used for some consecrated hermits? The poster at [link omitted] says that: "In today's Church, this is no small matter, and it seems that bishops and future hermits will desire this proviso. In time, it may become the norm for consecrated Catholic hermit profession."]]

Let me  first say (repeat) that today there are two routes to profession as a consecrated (canonical) Hermit. The first is as part of a congregation or community (an institute) of hermits like the Camaldolese or Carthusians. In such a case these religious, monks, and nuns live their consecrated lives under both Canon Law (universal law) and the congregation's own law (proper law) --- their Rule, Constitutions, and Statutes. In such cases while Canon Law already applies juridically to their lives in many ways, canon 603 does not. Sometimes institutes of consecrated life will allow an individual to live as a hermit. If they do, this will be because the institute's proper law (the law which is proper to this congregation itself only) allows this but the person is not professed as a hermit. The second route to canonical profession and consecration is as a solitary hermit under Canon 603. Other canons which are part of the Church's universal law of religious life will also apply to this individual but Canon 603 is the defining canon which provides for the hermit's legitimate superior and defines the hermit's proper law as a Rule or Plan of Life she herself writes.

Canon 603 is not an experiment although it is a relatively new canon governing a new (since 1983) and rare form of consecrated life, namely the solitary eremitical life lived outside or without membership in a community or institute of consecrated life. Despite the fact that those of us living it or those administering it are still finding our way with it together, it is not going to become the norm for consecrated Catholic hermits more generally. Those belonging to communities (institutes of consecrated life) already are bound to legitimate superiors and have proper as well as canon law to which they are bound through their vows. If someone in one of these groups wants to become a solitary hermit, they will need to pursue Canon 603 itself along with exclaustration and/or an indult of departure. Neither is it, then, a "proviso" one might or might not use and still be a solitary  consecrated hermit. Canon 603 is already the norm for solitary Catholic hermits. Solitary eremitical life is the new form of consecrated life that Canon 603 establishes in universal law. It is the very purpose of the Canon, nothing more or less, and nothing other. For further information, please see posts on Canon 603 -- history.

Meanwhile, privately vowed or dedicated individuals wishing to become solitary consecrated hermits (solitary canonical hermits) can see their chancery personnel for assistance in entering or petitioning to enter a mutual process of discernment and pursuing this under Canon 603. Chancery personnel may well explain to these individuals that they are lay persons and not considered consecrated hermits or professed religious; they will also explain the scope and purpose of canon 603 to be clear about what the person is petitioning to begin a discernment process in regard to. However, there is a chance that if a person shows up on the chancery doorstep insisting they are a consecrated hermit already, despite not being canonically professed, they will not be seen as a good candidate for discernment --- at least not at that point in time.

Consequences of Unfaithfulness: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits

[[Dear Sister, I wonder if the blogger from [link omitted] is even really listening to you or reading your posts in a thoughtful way. She really doesn't seem to understand anything about religious or consecrated life, much less about canon 603. I don't think you are going to change her mind or educate her. The heart of her difficulties seems to be treating the paragraphs from the Catechism as equivalent or even superior to Canon Law. She believes what she wants to believe and uses words like she wants to use words. Who cares if the Church doesn't use them the way she does? Not her! I would encourage you not to waste your time trying to explain!

But other than all that, I have enjoyed your recent posts and learned some things too. The posts about bonds and the explanation about how bonds come to be or the freedom needed to enter the consecrated state were very interesting to me. You have stressed a number of times here that the canonical requirements are meant to establish and protect relationships. I heard that again in what you said about these things and it was even clearer to me. Impediments mean things that get in the way of the relationships that need to be foundational. Right? While I know you regard the lay eremitical vocation what do you really think about private vows? There is such a difference between making a private commitment and a public one but you reject the idea that one vocation is "higher" than the other. How can you do that? One question you haven't answered yet is what happens if a publicly professed hermit fails to live her Rule or her vows vs what happens if a privately dedicated hermit fails to do so. Since the consequences are very different doesn't it argue that one vocation is higher than the other?. . .]]

Thanks for your questions and comments. I am going to respond to some of what you have written. I had never thought of impediments in quite that way before but I think you are right that impediments are those things which will prevent the necessary foundational relationships from being formed or which prevent the relationships from achieving maturity and appropriate fruitfulness. We are more used to thinking of impediments with regard to marriage but in consecrated life we find them too. Insufficient age, affective immaturity, co-dependence, the presence of another exclusive bond, ignorance of what the commitment requires, the inability to enter whole-heartedly into formation, etc are impediments to profession --- though only some of these are noted in canon law.

What Happens to Canonical vs Non-canonical Hermits Who Fail to live their Commitments?

Anyway, on to your other questions and comments. My own regard for the lay vocation I hope has been clear throughout many posts, but it is very true that the questions the other poster put up about the consequences for infidelity to one's commitments have very different answers for the lay hermit and for the consecrated hermit (or, in other words, for the non-canonical hermit and for the canonical hermit). If I am unfaithful to or cannot live my commitment a number of things will happen on several levels, personal, parish, diocesan and perhaps even beyond that if that seems like it is necessary or could be helpful. On the other hand, with an entirely private commitment the resolution would come on the personal level with the help (perhaps) of one's confessor and/or pastor. Nothing more. If we contrast what happens in either case it looks like this: 

Diocesan Hermits:

 If the diocesan hermit  is perpetually professed and consecrated and she fails to live her life as she is responsible for doing, then attempts are made to work with her so that she can again live her Rule. This will involve consultation with her director and /or her delegate as well as the Bishop. It may also involve consultations with physicians or therapists if the situation is due to some extraordinary change in health or stress levels. It is likely to include consultation with the hermit's pastor as well if he knows her well. If the hermit's Rule needs to be changed to accommodate changing circumstances so that the elements of the canon are appropriately expressed in new ways she will do that. Apart from this, however, the diocese and hermit might be able to work out an extended period in a monastery or other religious house where the hermit could experience the support of others living lives of prayer, solitude and penance similar to the one she is committed to.

After some time here the solitary hermit might feel ready to live her commitments again in the rigors (and the temptations!) of her urban hermitage, for instance. Or she might decide she needs to live the same vocation in another context. There are many possibilities here and they will be explored or even tried until and unless the hermit discerns she needs to request a dispensation from her vows. If the hermit's inability or failure is occurring due to illness, then a diocese could conceivably find a way to temporarily suspend her obligations or even grant something akin to an indult of exclaustration which frees the person of her obligations and often the rights that came with canonical standing. Such an indult would be given for a period of time (up to 3 years though there is some provision for an extension) and give time for the hermit to get well while her obligations as a hermit have been lifted. The hermit herself would need to request some such action be taken. In cases of illness occurring after one has made perpetual profession I don't believe the diocese can act against the hermit's will to dispense her vows, but I would need to check on that.

Permanent Canonical Solutions:
 

However, if illness is not the problem it is an even more serious matter and more permanent canonical steps may also be taken. If the person fails or refuses to live her profession faithfully in such a case and she cannot or will not work out a resolution she will be given a canonical warning to which she has the right of response or defense. A second warning can be given if she does not respond which advises that she will be dismissed from the consecrated eremitical state and her vows dispensed. Her right of defense remains. If there is no change forthcoming and all avenues toward this have been exhausted, then her vows will be dispensed. In such a case she does not cease to be consecrated (that was the action of God and cannot be undone) but she is released (or dismissed) from the consecrated state of life, meaning that her standing in law reverts to that of the lay state (vocationally speaking) and she is no longer bound by (or entrusted with) the canonical rights or obligations of the consecrated state of life.

Non-canonical or privately dedicated hermits:

In contrast, what happens to a privately vowed hermit who does not live her Rule? Nothing. No more than happens to any lay Catholic committing a private sin or habitual fault. Conceivably she will confess her sin, repent and reform her life, but if she continues to fail in this matter there are no other consequences really because her commitment was an entirely private matter. I would think a confessor could strongly encourage her to accept the dispensation of her vows in serious situations (any pastor can do this), but even if she were to do that, she could also remake these vows as easily --- and perhaps as imprudently --- as she made them in the first place if she could find a priest or other person to witness them.

In any case, no one but God, the hermit, and her confessor would even know she has failed to live her commitment. Again, her's is a private dedication with no public rights or obligations and no specific expectations on anyone's part but the hermit and God. This does not make such vows unimportant, much less invalid, but it does underscore their private nature. (In general the Church expects anyone making a private vow to live it with fidelity and integrity; she esteems the commitment but doing that is up to the individual with the vow(s) and no one else. Again, in canonical commitments relationships are established in law and several people have obligations in such a situation. Not so with private dedications or vows. Certainly in the normal course of such things a Bishop is not going to be concerned except as he is generally concerned with the well-being of all his faithful. Think subsidiarity here. Such matters are handled at the lowest appropriate level. No diocesan or canonical involvement is necessary because none have been involved to this point.

My Own Feelings About Private Vows:

I think private vows can be very helpful in a person's commitment to spiritual growth, especially in areas or regions where there are few people who understand the commitment the person wants to undertake. However, I don't think lay persons generally need vows of the evangelical counsels, for instance, because they are committed by Baptismal promises to these though in unspecified ways. My own preference is that a person look at the things we all promise when we renew our baptismal commitments and then specify for themselves what that means in concrete terms in their own life today.

l would encourage someone to write themselves a Rule of life which includes the values one wishes to live in a methodical way and add a commitment to live this Rule in a faithful way. Such a plan can include reading Scripture or other lectio, provisions for prayer and penance, allowances for recreation which control one's exposure to TV, computer games, media of all sorts, etc. It can also help one include physical exercise, intellectual projects, etc. It might also include a budget and savings plans which help control spending, cut back on shopping trips or online shopping for those for whom these are problematical, and ensure resources for emergencies. With such a Rule a vow of obedience would not be necessary because the attentiveness and listening one wanted to commit to is included. One does not need a vow of obedience unless one is making a vow of religious obedience which binds to God through legitimate structures and superiors. The same with poverty. In religious poverty there is ordinarily a communal dimension involved, a "we are in this together" sense where all are similarly committed and sacrifice for one another and the sake of witness and ministry to those outside the institute. Chastity is something one in the unmarried state is already obliged to so there is no need for this sort of vow either.(We don't make vows for things we are already obligated to!)

Some lay people write about having a vow of obedience to their spiritual director but to be honest, I would never want a client to do that nor would I relate to them as a legitimate superior. This would be dishonest and in my understanding of spiritual direction infantilizing. Legitimate superiors know obedience because they have lived it themselves. They know what it means and does not mean, what it should and should not be in a "subject's" life. Moreover they know the person bound in a vow of obedience is properly prepared and deemed ready for such a vow. A demand that one obey by virtue of their vow is exercised rarely and with discretion these days. The situation is very different when people assume that they will owe their director obedience as they might a legitimate superior and neither one is in a legitimate (bound in law or "lawful") relationship!

Spiritual directors build a relationship of trust and a unique intimacy with their directees. In mature direction relationships between religious (which are usually long-standing), one of these persons (if in the same institute or congregation) may actually be given and assume the role of the legitimate superior to the other --- though not in her role as director per se; in such a case a vow of obedience is unlikely to be problematical. Its use will be rare and generally limited to matters of the external forum --- matters which are externally verifiable and sometimes visible to everyone, matters that do nor depend on the confidential disclosures that occur in spiritual direction. Such vows of obedience will, according to c 601, also be governed and limited by the religious' "proper constitutions", those constitutions "proper" to their congregation.

In any case I support the use of private vows in limited situations, but not of the evangelical counsels. If someone wants to live these values within a secular context I hope they will find a way (baptism calls and commissions them to do so), but I don't want anyone pretending they are something they are not or embracing values which may actually conflict with the ways they are called to be responsible in terms of money, power, and relationships. That is why I prefer they write a Rule which includes these values worked out in an integral way.

Higher Vocations?

I have said a number of times that every vocation is a call to exhaustive holiness. Given that fact there is no way to speak of one being higher than another. Similarly the Church is clear that members of the consecrated and religious states of life may be drawn from laity or clergy but that this state of life is not part of the Church's hierarchical structure as a third class or level. In that sense too then we must conclude that the canonical eremitical life is not a higher vocation than the non-canonical. What does differ in these vocations are the rights and obligations and the canonical relationships and structure which apply to consecrated (canonical) eremitical life but not to non-canonical (lay) eremitical life. In a sense, Thomas Aquinas' language of "objective superiority" certainly applies here --- but not as that term came to be translated subsequently. We tend to think "objective superiority" logically means "higher" or "above" but that is not the case here and never in the calculus of the Kingdom.

The diocesan hermit's vocation is canonically defined, protected, and supported. She makes her commitment in law and lives her life in the name of the Church. She has legitimate superiors (Bishop, delegate, Vicars if needed during a Bishop's illness or the interim between successors) and her life of solitude is esteemed even if it is not always understood. She is entrusted with the right to wear religious garb, use the title Sister (etc.), and to live a public vocation in the heart of the Church. She has what she needs to live a life of holiness and to grow in that (time for prayer, silence, solitude, Scripture, access to the Sacraments, --- often including reserved Eucharist, etc). These are the sorts of things Aquinas was referring to when he spoke of "objective superiority". Some vocations have "built into them" access to so much that is necessary for growth in holiness. But this does not translate to the word higher! She has greater responsibility for the eremitical vocation in some ways than the non-canonical hermit, but also greater help, greater freedom, and fewer obstacles to live it. The bottom line here is that in the Church legal constraints lead to greater freedom from the expectations of the world around us. Similarly, greater responsibility in certain areas is granted only so that one may serve or minister to others more effectively than one might be able to otherwise. I don't think we can therefore use the term "higher" for such a vocation.

Questions on Sunday Obligation and the Hermit Life

[[Sister, are you allowed to skip your Sunday obligation? A Catholic Hermit [link to this blog provided and omitted here] wrote that she is able to do this because it is God's will and (according to How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation?) apparently an historical right of hermits. I don't understand how this works. Have hermits always been able to skip the Sunday obligation?]]

In general I do not skip my Sunday obligation, no,  though yes, in some circumstances I am allowed to.  If I am required to miss Mass on Sunday for some good reason (usually illness but occasionally the requirements of the silence of solitude and stricter separation) I ordinarily participate some other time during the week if that is possible. It is possible for a hermit who is publicly professed and who has assumed the additional canonical obligations of the eremitical life in the consecrated state to miss Sunday Mass because extended solitude and the call to eremitical solitude itself necessitates this; but remember that in such a case the hermit will ordinarily participate in a Liturgy of the Word with Communion in her own hermitage. This does not equate to participating in Mass but it does have a distinctly communal sense to it in the same way Communion brought by EEMs has the sense of continuing a Eucharistic celebration.

Moreover, because this is a matter of legitimate rights and obligations, she will only do so if she is allowed according to her Rule and with the general permission of her Bishop (given mainly in his official declaration of approval of her Rule).  It will, in such a case, not be enough to simply list "solitude" as a value in one's Rule without specifying how this is worked out or at least indicating it will be effectively and sensitively combined with other important values (like a hermit's necessary Sacramental life!). Further, in specific instances, especially of  very prolonged solitude, she will discuss the matter with her director occasionally to be sure her praxis here is prudent and that her solitary ecclesial vocation is not suffering from isolation from the faith community (this also happens at the involvement end of things when she will meet with her director or delegate to be sure her involvement is not detracting from her vocation to the silence of solitude).

In general, however, I have to say that even when I am living a more extended and intense physical solitude which involves seeing no one and not attending daily Mass at all, I will generally get to Sunday Mass at least once or twice a month --- not least because of the Eucharistic theology which sustains my life in the hermitage. While the obligations I assumed in profession and consecration may allow or even oblige me to live my physical solitude with an intensity and integrity which sometimes means missing Mass it does not EVER allow me to completely turn my back on my baptismal obligation or pretend the last 10 centuries never occurred.

The idea that missing Sunday Mass is an historical right of hermits is not really accurate. While regular attendance at the Sunday liturgy has been required or expected since the early days of the Church, this does not translate directly into what we know today as a Sunday obligation. Further, the blog article which is referred to (How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation? ) makes the following erroneous point: [[This is why no ecclesiastical writer or hagiographer ever seems to think it is an issue that the saints and hermits are not able to attend Mass; they understand that their choice of life makes it impossible to fulfill the Sunday obligation and that in these circumstances, that decision is justified in the eyes of God and the Church.]] In point of fact St Peter Damian (11-12C) and Paul Giustiniani (16C) both wrote about the importance of attending Mass and receiving Communion regularly (though they were not addressing the idea of Sunday obligation in their day). Giustiniani in particular addressed the issue: [[The second kind of hermits are those who, after probation in the cenobitic life, after pronouncing the three principal vows and being professed under an approved Rule [note well the structure and formation required here], leave the monastery and withdraw to live all alone in solitude. . .Such a life. . . is more perfect than the cenobitic but also much more perilous. It permits no companionship but requires that each be self-sufficient. Therefore it is no longer permitted in our day. The Church now orders us to hear Mass often, to make our confession, and to receive Communion. None of those can be done alone.]] Dom Jean LeClercq, Alone With God, "Forms of Hermit Life" (an alternative translation is provided below***)

*** [[ Indeed this solitary way of life was considered more perfect (even if less safe) than that of the cenobites at the time when no law of  Holy Church forbade living a life in complete solitude. But at the present time ecclesiastical laws oblige all the Christian faithful . . .  to confess their sins often, to receive Holy Communion, and to celebrate or attend Mass frequently. . .Now since all these things are hardly possible in this [entirely solitary] kind of life, it would seem to be wholly prohibited. So it is held to be less safe (or rather completely illicit) for a Christian to attempt it, or more exactly, to persist in it.]] Paul Giustiniani, Rule of the Hermit Life.  "Three Types of Hermits"

In today's Church the Sunday obligation obliges every person unless there is a truly good reason or some exception made by a legitimate superior. The obligation is a priority in an authentic faith life and requires Catholics make it a priority unless they have a really good reason or the aforementioned exception is made. One cannot argue (as it seems to me the USC blogger argued) that missing Mass is fine so long as it was not the primarily intended end. (It might not be a sin in such a case but it is not really okay.) Neither then does this mean a lay hermit (meaning a hermit without PUBLIC vows or canonical initiation into the consecrated state with its commensurate rights and obligations) can simply decide on her own, "Oh, traditionally hermits never went to Mass because they were called to solitude, so neither do I need to attend Mass! or "I have chosen solitude first so missing Mass (the secondary consequence) is no problem," or even "I just don't "fit in" so God is calling me to something else and I am dispensed." A lay hermit (e.g., the person whose blog you first referred to) is bound by her baptismal obligations. These are legitimate obligations (binding in law) and without public profession no other canonical obligations have been assumed nor do they potentially modify these fundamental obligations. Once again the importance of standing in law becomes very important.

Every eremitical writer who has considered the relation of the hermit to the Church and the danger of the independent solitary hermit is clear that too often this way results in illusion and delusion. It results in isolation more often than it does in genuine solitude and it can lead a person away from active and integral participation in the Church. When Paul Giustiniani writes about the three kinds of hermits he says: [[To the first type of hermit belongs those who take no vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience, [here he means public vows under a legitimate superior] do not have an approved rule, and are not subject to any teaching or discipline. . . They do not follow any regular discipline [referring again to a rule and superior], but only their own feelings, and they are not directed by the teaching officer of any superior, but by their own opinion. And so, by these very things, they make it clearly understood they still keep faith with the world. . . .For Saint Benedict, who calls these [hermits] sarabaites if they reside in a definite place, or gyrovagues if instead they move often from one place to another, plainly defines them as having the most disgraceful and miserable style of life. These . . . are called acephalous, that is, headless. The sacred canons of the Church do not sanction this kind of life. Rather, they censure it.]]  In any case if a lay hermit (even one with private vows!) wishes to remain a good Catholic she will keep those laws of the Church she embraced in accepting Baptism.


In many of the posts I have put up here I have written about the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation, the covenantal nature of genuine solitude, the distinction between isolation and solitude, the importance of canonical standing in order to create stable ecclesial relationships which allow one to live this vocation with integrity and not delude oneself, and finally, the importance of friendships and regular participation in a parish community. In somewhat different ways, the same is true of the lay eremitical life. The facile conclusion that God wills a solitary hermit who claims on their own the title "Catholic Hermit" to simply forego reception of the Sacraments, isolate herself entirely from a local faith community, live without adequate spiritual direction nor under the authority of any legitimate superior simply underscores the importance of all these points; it also underscores the danger Saints like Peter Damian and eremitical reformers like Paul Giustiniani (who profoundly loved and understood the call to eremitical solitude) wrote about. In Paul Giustiniani's time we have seen he concluded that solitary hermit life was no longer licit or viable; the significant solution and model he proposed was a laura of hermits. Today we also have canon 603 which, while governing solitary eremitical life, does so with mainly the same safeguards Paul Giustiniani outlined. The hermit's relationships with diocese and parish ordinarily serve the place of a laura, at least in the sense of providing an intimate ecclesial context for one's solitude and in reminding us that the hermit's life is never one of isolation from the community of faith. If what this lay hermit wrote does not make sense to you then that is understandable; it is in conflict with the Church's own understanding of the way the solitary eremitical vocation must (and must NOT) be lived today and it is in conflict with classic writers on the eremitical life since at least the 11th century.

While I have cited the Camaldolese Benedictine constitutions on requirements for recluses it is important to cite what Paul Giustiniani says about those living reclusive lives. After commenting on the importance of the laura (a colony of hermits) for providing the advantages and security of community and allowing solitude he says of the recluse, [[but he will never be released from the rule and constitutions of the hermits or from the authority of and obedience of the superior. So too he will never lack fraternal assistance on those occasions when, for the observance of ecclesiastical norms, the ministry of another is required.]] Meanwhile, in his "Instruments of the Eremitic Life" Giustiniani lists celebrating Mass with spiritual joy or hearing it with devotion (#20), receiving Holy Communion with great reverence (#28), maintaining appropriate observance of common life (#33). For C 603 hermits these prudent requirements translate into relationships with a parish community and active participation there --- even if that is largely limited to Mass attendance only. For lay hermits who are in no way relieved of their ordinary Catholic obligations by accepting and being charged with other legitimate ones, this is even more the case.

Solitude (that is, eremitical solitude which describes solitary communion with God lived for the sake of others) is recognized in canon law as a very high value but this is only true when it is understood to truly exist in the heart of the Church. In my own life the "silence of solitude" (which is a goal and gift to the Church as well as an environment) might well require that I miss Sunday Mass for a period of time but there are sufficient structures (Rule, superiors, canons), relationships (superiors, faith community, director, pastor, etc), prayer (including the LOH and liturgy of the Word with Communion), and oversight (delegate, Bishop, director) to assure this does not slip into isolation or become willful, personally eccentric, or simply illusory (or delusional). Maintaining one's balance between physical solitude and participation in the Church's concrete faith life allows some flexibility and creates some tensions but one must be able to say, no matter what, that one is living a genuinely ecclesial faith life. For the solitary (c 603) hermit or for the lay solitary, a regular Sacramental life celebrated with one's brothers and sisters in Christ is undoubtedly part of doing so.

(See also, Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality for a more general discussion of part of the way hermits resolve the issue of competing legitimate obligations in their life. This piece deals with developing a truly Eucharistic spirituality even when one cannot always get to Mass.)

On Community and the Hermit, part 1

[[Hi Sister, I have a question that may seem odd, perhaps even funny, but I ask it in all seriousness.
Should hermits have friends? I know there are lots of admonishments in monastic literature against having "particular friendships" etc. that could take away from community life, but a hermit has no community in that same sense. Scripture teachings that its not good for humans to be alone, so community of some sort is necessary for our emotional and spiritual well-being. What does community look like for a hermit? ]]

No, I understand this is a serious question; it's also a critically important one, especially when, as you note, some literature and praxis on the spiritual life was tainted by blanket prohibitions against "particular friendships", etc. I have written about hermits and the importance of friendships before in  several posts, so please check out the labels below. Also you might want to look at the following article. Hermits and Friendships. I am not sure I can add lots to it in answering your questions but we will see.

First, the focus on "particular friendships" is something I experienced first hand when I initially entered religious life and it was something which was quite often destructive rather than helpful in the spiritual life. Today we recognize clearly that vows of celibate love (consecrated celibacy or 'chastity') require affective maturity and the richness of loving generously and chastely; all that will necessarily mean friendships! It goes without saying that these friendships must also be mature, neither exclusive nor grounded in either (or both!) persons' neediness (which is not the same thing as a need for mature friendship!), and they must be focused in a way which allows each person to grow in their capacity as a human being and thus too, in their vocations. Enmeshment is not true friendship, nor is it really loving. It also goes without saying then that friendships cannot (and when genuine, will not) detract from one's vocation. This, especially for the hermit, comes with its own set of tensions, uncommon limitations, and difficulties --- particularly when one person in the relationship is a hermit and the other is not. However, negotiating these in a loving and mature way is part and parcel of the healthy eremitical vocation; eschewing them or simply ruling out friendships and other relationships entirely is not.

While I cannot say what community looks like generally for a solitary hermit, I can point to some of the dimensions of it in my own life. In this way perhaps I can eventually describe what is essential, what is exceptional, and what must be sacrificed for what eremitical life calls "the silence of solitude" and "stricter separation from the world" (being careful to understand that other people or relationships per se are NOT "the world"!!). In my own life there are a circle of close friends with whom I can discuss or share whatever I need to and who can share with me as they need. We may go to an occasional concert or movie or dinner out for birthdays or major holidays (Christmas, Easter), etc, and in one instance, we two meet for Mass and coffee most Sundays during the school year.  In this post I will focus on them only.

I count among this group my delegate and director (Sister of the Holy Family), a Dominican Sister, my pastor (Oblate of St Francis de Sales), a Franciscan Sister (whom I have seen in person a mere handful of times in the past two decades), and two friends from the parish. Additionally there is one diocesan hermit from another country; we don't speak or write often but when we do there is a lot of laughter and we pick up as though there was no gap in time. At present I don't have a regular confessor but even so, each of these persons understands my vocation and helps me to live it with integrity. Each adds to it in a number of ways, challenging me, filling me in on things I might otherwise be unaware of, instructing me, calling me to love and be loved. Generally they are folks I can talk with about the Church, prayer, theology, religious life and the vows, Scripture, spirituality more generally, as well as literature, music, etc. In the time between meetings they hold me in prayer and I do likewise with them. They are the sort of "inner circle" within the community I count on.

What is true and critical about this circle of friends is that they understand and value me and my vocation in a way others cannot. (Others I will also mention later value me and my vocation but in a different way.) Most (all but two) are religious and all but one of these do spiritual direction or pastoral counseling. Thus, most are vowed, all have significant prayer lives and appreciate the dynamics of physical solitude/concrete loving and contemplation/action as fundamental in their own lives.  For each of these persons Christ stands at the center of their lives. We (mainly) speak the same language spiritually, theologically, professionally, and humanly. In my own life I would have to say that these friendships are critically necessary. I do not know if my eremitical life would be a healthy one without them --- though I personally suspect it would not. While in most cases we don't see each other often, we do tend to pick up where we left off even as we try to hear about where the other person has been in the intervening space of time. What I can say about this group of people is that they are a daily source of joy and richness for me as well as of challenge and inspiration. That is so even when it will be days, weeks, months, or even years before I see them again. (We do email and/or write regularly. We also phone or skype occasionally.)

I suppose it is clear that this group of people are a fairly select group. One of the reasons they are so important to me is because each of them understands and has made  and routinely makes sacrifices for the sake of their commitment to Christ; they are neither dismayed nor surprised by my own. Instead they expect these and would be surprised if they did NOT exist. All both are and have good friends but all have significant limitations on how often they see these friends and each one makes sacrifices so their time together is quality time. We share the same vows and values which tends to mean we appreciate the same things, read the same books (or at least the same authors), are interested in the same Church-related topics and concerns, spend money (or try not to spend money!) in mainly the same ways, and so forth. More, we tend to laugh a lot when we are together and cry together when necessary. Prayer is a way of life for each of us and their presence in my life (and I hope mine in theirs) is humanizing and holy-making. Most of these people have community obligations and commitments --- people they love and serve as Sisters and Brothers --- as well as active ministry and prayer lives to keep up. Most are in or have been in leadership and formation in their own communities so you can imagine how full their lives are. My own commitment to the silence of solitude (and all that makes that what it is) as well as my own SD ministry and limited parish service takes the place of these in my own life so when we are able to get together it is a priority --- and a gift of God.

This is the first part of my answer to your questions. While this group is not all the community that exists in my life it is the most profound and intimate, the most challenging, and the most enriching in terms of my life as a religious and hermit. In the main these persons' dedication to Christ and his People (meaning the way they give their lives for love of these through a variety of spiritual traditions and ministries) inspire (and empower) me to live the same way --- though as a hermit who also stands in the Camaldolese tradition. And that, it seems to me, is the essence of community (or the most intimate friendship!) for anyone who seeks to follow Christ.

You may have more specific questions than I have answered here. If so be sure and clarify things for me and I will answer those in the second part. (It occurs to me that what I wrote about this year's retreat also gives a glimpse into the importance of friends and the nature of community for a hermit so take a look at that as well.)

On Professing Someone who does not Desire it

[[Hi Sister Laurel. Did your Bishop desire you to become a diocesan hermit? Is it possible that a Bishop would ASK someone to petition to be accepted as a diocesan hermit? I have read that a Bishop might desire this for the diocese and could do so even if the individual is not interested in becoming a diocesan hermit. Does this happen? A lot?]]

I think that I have been asked something similar before. If so this answer may repeat some of my earlier answer. Please check through the labels (below and to the right) so see if other posts also speak to these questions. (Actually I am now fairly certain I have done so some time last year or so; I would suggest looking under the labels authentic and inauthentic eremitism and/or abuses of canon 603 to find related posts.)

The idea of someone becoming a diocesan hermit simply because a bishop personally desires it is VERY unlikely! Moreover, the notion that a bishop would desire someone to do this even if they do NOT feel called to it themselves is even more completely unlikely --- not least because it is a silly and at least potentially, a seriously destructive way to proceed with regard to this specific vocation. (Actually, it's not a particularly desirable or edifying way to proceed with any vocation (consider marriage undertaken in this way for a great sense of SOME of the problems involved), but I would argue it is especially undesirable and disedifying with eremitical life!) Bishops, while they might say to someone, "Have you ever considered becoming a priest or religious (including a diocesan hermit), etc?" do not tend to ask someone out of the blue to consider becoming a diocesan hermit; it is altogether too rare, too significant, and too different from the way most folks are brought to wholeness and holiness --- which really means too different from the way human beings ordinarily learn to love and achieve genuine integration and individuation.

A candidate for profession and consecration really MUST have the sense that God is calling them to this and they must be able to make a convincing case of that for the diocese and bishop before being admitted to profession. More, I think the individual MUST take the initiative in this. It cannot be the decision of a director, et al to discern or seek this on behalf of another, nor can a person legitimately or validly approach profession while saying, "I am doing this because my Bishop desires it!" Thus I would have to say the most a Bishop can do (if he even has the opportunity, which is hard to imagine) is to say, "Your life strikes me as implicitly eremitical; why don't you pray and do some studying about the matter of vocation as a diocesan hermit? I will do the same."

I am not sure I understand the part of the question about desiring this for the diocese, or at least, it seems a little "off" to me. I suppose it reminds me of the practice once common in old English gardens; on large estates, no estate garden was complete without its ornamental "hermit". Of course I believe that a diocesan hermit is a gift to her parish and diocese and that that indicates that God has graced the life of these with an eremitical vocation, but it is not as though one can say, "Hmmm, I want some of THESE graces for the diocese so I will ask so-and-so to become a diocesan hermit!" Graces are shared manifestations of God's very self, not bits of "stuff" that can be separated off from the living God and stored up or parceled out or anything similar. The Holy Spirit works in individual lives in all kinds of ways and it is this active presence we call grace; when a diocese recognizes and affirms an eremitical vocation of course I think that is wonderful, but one cannot simply make someone a hermit (or ask them to become one!) because one would like "the graces associated with this" or something. That smacks more of the shopping network than (attention to) the work of the Holy Spirit.

Having said that though, let me also say I wish dioceses were more knowledgeable about and more open to the eremitical vocations in their midst. For instance, where I live there are any number of elderly people who live physically solitary and intensely prayerful lives who might well have eremitical vocations that could serve both the parish and the diocese as a whole as lives of real marginality, chronic illness, poverty, etc are radically transformed, consecrated in a public way, and set before the faith community as paradigms of the truth that God alone suffices. While such lives are (and would remain) marginal in the ways the world measures things they would assume a public place and role right in the very heart of the Church and be a resource even these individuals themselves never imagined. Their illnesses don't need to be healed, their poverty relieved, or their marginality eased as part of this radical transformation. Instead these things would be redeemed by God's consecration of them and made infinitely meaningful pointers to (sacramentals of) a joy and significance which goes beyond anything our world ordinarily imagines them to be or mediate. But, let me be clear, I do not mean that every elderly or chronically ill person should do this as a hermit much less as a diocesan hermit; still, I believe that dioceses have greater numbers of potential hermits living within them than they might realize --- genuine eremitical vocations which are already an unrecognized grace to parishes and dioceses but whose potential meaningfulness and fruitfulness is yet unknown to the local (or the universal) Church.

You ask if a Bishop can profess (and eventually consecrate) someone who does not wish this. The answer is simply NO --- at least not if he is acting responsibly and in a truly pastoral way (I am assuming he is!). As noted above, I wonder if such a profession is even canonically valid in such a case. As I have written many times here, ecclesial vocations are mutually discerned. One cannot proclaim oneself a religious or a consecrated person via a private dedication (that way lies self-delusion and pretense) nor can the Church profess and consecrate someone either against their will nor unless that person is also genuinely convinced this is the will and call of God for them. To attempt to do so is to sin against conscience and possibly involves one in a kind of sacrilege as one demeans not only a particular vocation but the entire rite of profession/consecration.

There is a strain in hagiographical writing which focuses on the unwillingness of individuals to embrace vocations to religious life and/or priesthood. It has sometimes tended to validate discernment of vocations --- a kind of psychologically and spiritually naive, "Well I know I didn't want this so it must be God's will" kind of thing. (It can sometimes be used to underscore a skewed notion of obedience and quasi-humility in a kind of martyred, "Well, the idea really is unpleasant for me but if my Bishop desires it, then I'll do it!" But in point of fact, we know that this is really not the way vocations generally work; radical conversion, perhaps to an extent --- at least in the beginning --- but vocations? Not really. The deeper and more compelling dynamic in vocations is always a deep attraction or yearning.  (By the way, I understand it is a bit false and impossible to tease vocation and conversion apart from one another in this way, but it is necessary in this context.) With the eremitical vocation, if one does not truly have the sense it is the way to human wholeness and holiness for them, if, that is, one does not really believe God is calling one to this as an amazing grace which redeems their lives and is a way of being there for others, and especially if one says, "No! This is NOT for me; I don't want this, it is even a bit repugnant to me!" then it is NOT their vocation!

Vocations are not a way we simply come to terms with God's will, especially with a grudging, foot-dragging, half-hearted,"Oh-all-right-I'll-go-along-with-this" acquiescence. Vocations are the deeply joy-filled ways we cooperate with God's life within us and our world. They make us profoundly happy and fulfilled in a way which sustains us in even the most painful situations which still befall us. This profound happiness or joy shines through even in the darkness; more it (and the call it stems from) is the ground which sustains one at these times. There is a great difference between someone who bitches and moans about how awful their life is, how difficult or arduous their vocation, how much pain they are in, how routinely rejected they are, or how endlessly God tests them --- who then ends this grim disquisition with the postscript, "God is love; how I love to do God's will!" and the person whose main life-theme is a deep joy while very real pain, difficulty, or rejection experienced are merely subtexts! Vocations are demanding realities, but they are not difficult in themselves. What I mean is that they present us with difficulties and may trouble us at times in heart and mind, but of themselves, they are a joy and gift which makes all the rest shine with the radiance of God.

The notion that a vocation (meaning here a vocational path like religious life) can be used to hide profound human unhappiness and dysfunction is something we are all the more sensitive to today. We know more clearly than we have ever known that this must NEVER be the case. After all, every vocation is a call to authentic, exhaustively loving and generous humanity. A vocational path must surely be a means to this. In referring to hiding profound unhappiness or dysfunction then, I am not speaking about dealing appropriately (and privately) with the more normal times of depression, mental illness, etc which can afflict every human life. I am speaking about covering profound unhappiness and personal dysfunction with the trappings of a vocation. That strain of hagiographical writing I spoke of earlier has provided some with the grounds for this misguided approach. So has the notion of higher vocations and a tendency to absolutely separate the supernatural from the natural, the eternal from the temporal, or the divine from the human. In eremitical life this tendency becomes even more acutely dangerous because for most people living in solitude is itself dysfunctional and can be used to escape or run from the demons which inhabit every human heart. It can be used to make of the hermitage an escape from the whole of God's good creation and the requirements of a heart which is only purified in loving and being loved by God and others. To profess and consecrate someone who is really profoundly unhappy and may be even MORE profoundly unhappy (and increasingly dysfunctional) in solitude is a serious failure in charity.


Postscript: (I forgot to answer this part of your question)

About whether or not my Bishop desired me to become a diocesan hermit I have to say I don't really know. Certainly I believe he had discerned this was what God was calling me to. Similarly I believe he discerned it was a gift to my parish, the diocese, and even to the wider Church. Finally I don't think he did something he did not desire to do in this, but at the same time, I don't usually think in terms of what Archbishop Vigneron desired or did not desire. This is important because if my eremitical life is a matter of discernment then many niggling questions and problems melt away with profession and consecration. If it had merely been something my Bishop (and I!) desired, then it actually raises questions, creates difficulties, and certainly it would heighten the niggling questions that would have remained on the day of profession. Let me know if you want me to say more about this.

On Belonging vs Fitting In

One of the questions I get asked in various ways has to do with "fitting in". Some wonder if a hermit could really fit in with other parishioners, and, if the hermit is a consecrated hermit with public vows, if they can fit in with lay people. Recently the question came up in a rather humorous way when one blogger opined that perhaps it is harder for a hermit to "fit in" if no one knows she is a hermit; if, the blogger suggested, one is known to others as a hermit then folks can accommodate her a little better; one wondered if this meant making allowances for the hermit's  eccentricities (it sounded that way to me); it certainly meant, as was explicitly suggested, that folks could consider the hermit's "differences" to be part and parcel of belonging to a different vocational category within the Church. In any case what was at least implicit in all of the comments I read, including these, was the fact that this blogger believed hermits are really kind of strange folks who are different from ordinary people and really do not "fit in" unless helped along in some significant way! So, last Friday as I was having coffee with some of the folks who attend daily Mass and get together on Fridays after the service, I asked if they had been accommodating me (cutting me some slack was the way I put it) for the past seven or eight years because they know I am a diocesan hermit! This got a great and gratifying round of laughter. One person pointed out she thought it was often the other way around! And of course the mutuality of all this is exactly the point (more about that later!).

The question of "fitting in" is a serious one and though I am speaking mainly about hermits here this is true for everyone. In this blogger's piece (and others written in the same vein), being a hermit is also linked to the idea that stands on the other end of the "fitting in "pendulum, namely, the idea not that a hermit is eccentric and needs to be accommodated for her various personal quirks and deficiencies, but that they are spiritually superior in some way. (Of course the two could -- and in this same blogger's view --- do coincide if the hermit is given to unusual "spiritual" experiences AND thought she was somehow superior because of this.)

A corollary for those holding this side of the question (the hermit is spiritually superior)  is the suggestion that a parish is no fit place for religious or even lay hermits whose primary community would ordinarily be the parish. This is supposedly so because of the (mistaken) notion that a parish is tailored to the lowest spiritual denominator or is a place where folks don't want "more" or are not particularly hungry for the nourishment of the Gospel and a serious spirituality. While it IS true that not everyone attending necessarily wants what is offered and some are definitely only nominal Christians, I don't think we can draw such simplistic conclusions, especially when they are given a kind of Gnostic or elitist cast. In that case, the question can be an even more seriously misguided one than the notion of parishes accommodating the supposed weirdnesses of individual hermits! Both conclusions build on stereotypes and both mistake the place and the challenge of any Christian in a faith community. After all, life in community of ANY sort but especially that of Christian community is not primarily about "fitting in" but BELONGING and making others aware that they too belong or are welcome to belong. Again, this is, of course, true for anyone --- not just hermits.

My own sense is that truly "fitting in" is a function of and always follows belonging, not (at least in an authentically Christian community!) the other way around!  It occurs to me that when we think about the ways of the Kingdom vs the ways of " the world" we really are talking about which of these terms has priority, fitting in or belonging. In the Kingdom one belongs because God has freely invited, initiated, and welcomed one into the Kingdom; God has, in the process, changed the way we think, feel, perceive and relate to reality --- especially to others we might otherwise consider different, "alien," or strangers -- but we ALL belong because God has welcomed us.

The change that occurs in us then, it seems to me, has occurred through our belonging -- belonging to God, to one another, and no longer exclusively to ourselves. A Kingdom identity is familial; it is rooted in a love which embraces all differences and diversity. How often does Paul speak about this to his troublesome Corinthian community? But putting the accent on "fitting in," making that a precondition for belonging is a matter of what ancient writer would call "worldly thinking." It is other things too: elitist, self-aggrandizing or arrogant (one's own nature, attributes, preferences, etc are made the criterion for approval of others; if they are not like you, then woe in the form of a blackball unto them), and of course it is selfish, exclusionary, uncharitable, unjust (remember that love does justice!)  and simply contrary to the Gospel Jesus proclaimed with his life, sinful death, resurrection and ascension.

In some ways, although belonging is a gift we give to and receive from others, belonging is more challenging than fitting in. Belonging is deeply and personally costly, fitting in is less so. The expense of fitting in is altogether more superficial and less personally demanding (costly) --- unless of course we are speaking of the costliness of losing our true selves and embracing our false selves. When we belong it is our whole selves that are implicated, not a single set of interests or values, for instance. When we affirm another as belonging we open ourselves to the whole of that person and, at least potentially, must deal with, accept and love the whole of them --- even if they don't "fit" or even believe they can! At the same time, if we choose to belong, we will be obligated to love others in the same way! We can't be elitist ourselves, we can't judge others on the basis of characteristics, attributes, and preferences we find attractive or unattractive. If we belong, belonging is a gift we will give others as well, a quality we will empower in them rooted in our openness to them and our commitment to love them as fully as we are able.

While we invite people to belong, we cannot make it happen. To accept the invitation to belong means to accept the invitation to love and be loved. Many would rather fit in (or insist they never can!) when the real problem, the true issue is these persons refusal to love or be loved. They wrap themselves in their differences and eccentricities like a cloak or a shield marking either their supposed "superiority" (including "spiritual superiority") or their fear of vulnerability and lack of generosity. Belonging requires a real humility which cannot be faked (cf. Abba Motius on Humility); it is this fundamentally honest sense of self in relation to God and others which grounds and allows both vulnerability and generosity. At the same time then belonging --- or encouraging another to allow themselves to belong is not the same as saying, "Anything goes," or "The sky's the limit!" It is not the same as saying, "You need do nothing at all!" To belong and invite another to belong is to say, "Whatever ways you 'fit in' in "worldly" terms, and whatever ways you don't, what is critical here is to love and to allow yourself to be loved by others. Nothing else works in a Christian community."

In my parish I think there is no doubt that folks accommodate me in some ways and I them in others (not least re the length of the reflections I occasionally do for them -- they are very patient --- and (sometimes) the degree of conversation and noise that can occur before Mass! --- I am not always so patient with them in this matter). But this has nothing to do with the fact they know I am a hermit. It has to do with the fact that we love one another and accept each other as equally significant members of the community. (By the way, I would personally argue it is charitable for a hermit, no matter whether lay or consecrated, to let others in her faith community know this because the eremitical vocation involves limitations that all in a community need to be aware of lest misunderstandings occur. In the case of a publicly professed hermit, she has embraced an ecclesial vocation with public rights, obligations, and necessary expectations on the part of those who know her and her public commitment. In short it is God's gift to this community and the Church as a whole. It would be irresponsible and more than a little uncharitable to keep her status hidden even if, in the main, her life is essentially so.) 

The bottom line in the discussion at hand however is that we accommodate one another because we are family; we belong to this community and, in a certain sense, to one another. Because of this, any "accommodation" that occurs is not simply a superficial toleration of the person's differences or eccentricities nor is acceptance based on superficial likenesses. Instead accommodation will represent a mutual process involving more profound change on behalf of the other. This kind of accommodation involves changing ourselves so the other CAN belong just as it involves the other in the same conversion and transformation of heart and mind out of love for us. So long as we love one another our differences will be transcended and every diversity can contribute to the sense of the richness and giftedness of this community.

First day of Retreat: Traveling Light, Being Who I am.

One of the pieces of my life, one of the most important dynamics at play and one of the virtues I try to cultivate is transparency. Perhaps that is a contemporary way of speaking about the radical honesty we call humility. In any case, the habit, the cowl or other prayer garment requires that I be aware of any pretense that creeps into things. I am here at the Old Mission Santa Barbara for a week's retreat and that means that when I move from my room to the chapel (or elsewhere) to pray I wear my cowl over my habit. Now, there is nothing unusual in this really, monks and nuns and hermits have been doing it for centuries and centuries in the exact same way day in and day out. But, though I wear the cowl every day at the hermitage and always at liturgical prayer, moving from place to place in it is unusual for me! Add to that the public character of the mission setting and the effect is a little unsettling. And amazing. I am aware every day that I am part of a living tradition, that I do not need to pretend to anything; I simply need to be who I am. Today, I woke (late for me!) with the mission bells and walked in cowl and sandals through the mission on stones that were worn over centuries by all manner of persons. It was hard not to feel a little moved by the whole experience.

And concerned. At least a little at first --- about pretense and fantasy. Imagining the history of this place and the uniqueness of my own garb (though the Friars wear robes over their street clothes too, mine is clearly NOT Franciscan) it was easy to hear in my mind the slap of many friars' sandals and the quiet swish of monastic robes as I walked to chapel for Morning Prayer and Mass. It took a moment before I could actually realize afresh that I am a living part of this tradition, both the Franciscan, the monastic (which Franciscanism itself is not), and the eremitical. And at that point I let go of any remaining concern or self-consciousness. At that moment I prayed in gratitude to God who has allowed me in my own brokenness and littleness to be a graced part of this living stream. I was myself in this new place (it is only the second time I have made retreat here) and was at home.

That sense of being at home, of simply being oneself in Christ and the complete sufficiency of that, was echoed in the Gospel where the disciples are sent forth and told to take nothing extra with them. Our homilist, Fr Charles, drew a lesson from it for us: travel light. Heartache? Troublesome memories? Incomplete plans or unresolved problems? Leave them here (in the chapel and with the others here) today and travel light! (Charles told another great story about a passionate if naïve postulant too which I will save for another time!) So, I have come here, been warmly welcomed by old theology professors (we will make some time to get together for a while this week), old friends (ditto!), and new ones as well; God has welcomed me too with his little nudges about authenticity, transparency, and the wonderful reminder of how graced is my existence as a part of this vital confluence of traditions. How strange (well, wonderfully surprising -- yet again) to think that I never really ceased being Franciscan even as I took on Camaldolese Benedictinism, and how strange to find I really am at home. That sense of belonging wherever we go seems to me to be part of the heart of contemplative prayer and especially of Jesus' injunction to "pray always". In this silence I will be and become more and more the word --- indeed, the song --- I am called to be. What a gift to be able to BE here -- in every sense of that verb!

I will blog when I can and as the Spirit moves me. Writing helps me pray (not least by opening my mind and heart occasionally to the wider world I carry in my heart) so I will play/pray it by ear. I ask that you remember me in your prayers as well.

Letting go of Childish Things

Today's reading from Paul is one of the most beautiful passages about love in all of the Old and New Testa-ments. But the point of the reading is especially important for hermits who seek to live in solitude or others who find themselves otherwise isolated and alienated from the faith community of their local Church. The very first line of 1 Cor 12:31-13:13 sets the lesson: [[Brothers and Sisters: Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way!]] Paul then goes on to list a number of recognizable spiritual gifts including speaking in tongues, knowledge (including mystical knowledge), and faith (including the faith to move mountains!) but reminds the Corinthians that without love these gifts and indeed, the person herself, are nothing at all. (Despite medieval attempts to aggrandize being "nothing." Paul is clearly disapproving of being nothing here.) Paul's argument through the rest of the passage is clear, if one truly loves then one has every other thing as well; in truly loving, all the spiritual gifts, which are partial and finite, find their completion and eternity. Moreover without love these gifts are empty, void, possibly illusory (or worse), and disedifying.

One of the most salient criticisms of eremitical life is the observation that the hermit has no one around to love or be loved by in the truly demanding and concrete ways human beings require to grow in Gospel love and authentic humanity. This observation has caused some Church Fathers to deny the validity of the eremitical life. It is true that I, for instance, can write moving blog posts, articles, and chapters about eremitical life as essentially loving and about eremitical solitude as essentially dialogical or covenantal, but, as Paul clearly says, [[If I speak in human tongues or angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.]] I might get some attention with and even praise for what I write, but unless it is clearly informed by genuine love, it will be empty and ultimately meaningless. Moreover, the validity or at least the quality of my vocation itself, including the mystical dimensions of my prayer, would need to be seriously questioned in such an instance. As Paul says, [[if there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing, if tongues, they will cease, and if knowledge [referring to mystical knowledge], it too will be brought to nothing for each and all of these will pass away.]]

We hermits may err in our vocations in many ways but it seems to me that given today's reading and the criticism of some Church Fathers (and the affirmations of all genuine hermits!), our focus, even in maintaining appropriate degrees of physical solitude and silence, must be on our growth in our capacity to love others in Christ both effectively and concretely --- even should we sometimes err against solitude in doing so. This tension between physical solitude and the commandment to truly love one another is always present in the hermit's life. It is certainly not acceptable to speak about loving humanity while one fails to love the individual persons sitting in the pews next to or around us --- much less claiming such a love while eschewing their company. "I love humanity, it's people I can't stand," may be darkly humorous in a Peanuts cartoon strip, but in the life of a hermit it is a blasphemy.

The emphasis on loving others in concrete ways and circumstances is one reason every hermit maintains the importance of hospitality --- whether that means opening one's hermitage to others in specific ways or participating in the local parish community in limited ways; it is also the reason hermits form lauras or are associated with parishes and communities; these are not optional but, even when necessarily limited, are essential to the eremitical life itself and certainly to the lives of those who are privileged via their professions and explicit commission by the Church to call themselves Catholic Hermits. In other words, community and the commitment to concrete forms of loving are critical dimensions of ANY authentic eremitical vocation, even those to complete reclusion; loving effectively and fully is, according to Paul, the truest sign of human wholeness and holiness, the truest sign of genuinely spiritual gifts. (The would-be recluse who is incapable of loving others effectively will be unlikely to be allowed to embrace reclusion.This is one of the reasons the Church requires serious vetting and supervision of eremitical recluses).

Part of the reason for this emphasis on concrete human loving is the especial ease with which a hermit (or other solitary person) can fool themselves about their own degree of spiritual growth or the nature of the spiritual gifts they have been given.  In today's first reading Paul has chosen not to take the Corinthians to task over the authenticity or inauthenticity of their spiritual gifts despite their tendency to self-delusion. Instead of calling them frauds he reminds them they are children. To motivate them to change and grow he speaks to and captures their attention by focusing on the thing which seems to  capture their imagination, namely, their drive and desire for more and more excellent spiritual gifts. He wants them to understand that love is the greatest divine gift, but also that it is the criterion by which all other gifts are truly measured and then brought to completion. Prophecy without love is not of God. The ability to speak in tongues without love is empty and essentially godless; mystical experiences or knowledge without the ability to love others in concrete ways is not authentic. One may have all kinds of moving and extraordinary experiences in solitary prayer, but  in terms of the spiritual life these are, at best, often "childish things" if they remain fruitless. At other times they are simply delusional:  they may simply be ordinary dreams (which can be be insightful, no doubt) treated simplistically as visions, empty visions which, tragically, lead to nothing more than self-satisfaction and navel-gazing, and the psychological projection of one's own problems, conflicts, and struggles. Spiritual maturity implies the ability to love those persons who are precious to God and to do so as they truly need! Divine gifts, whatever the type, are meant to allow us to do this.

These mystical and other prayer experiences and psycho-logical manifes-tations, like everything else in our spiritual lives, must be tested or proved --- words which mean several things including measuring, fostering maturation, and helping to make stronger and truer. They must be integrated into one's everyday life and growth; they must be transformed into personal maturity and wisdom. They must lead to or be associated with the ability to love in concrete situations and relationships. Therefore they must, to the degree they are authentic, lead to patience and kindness. They must not lead to or be associated with arrogance or rudeness nor to a sense that one's spiritual life is somehow "superior" to that of "ordinary" parishes and people! They must be associated with other-centeredness and to genuine humility and they must not allow one to brood over injuries done to one nor to rejoice when evil befalls others. Any authentic hermit, indeed any person who finds that their prayer lives (and especially what they call mystical experiences) do not lead to these manifestations of genuine love must surrender them for (or at the very least complement them with) the demands of community which do lead more surely to these manifestations. One must let go of the manifestations of spiritual childhood for the spiritual wisdom of adulthood. (cf, On Discernment With Regard to Prayer.)

Paul's letter to the (perhaps) spiritually precocious community in Corinth reminds us especially then that spirituality, even and perhaps especially eremitical spirituality, is not a "me and God" only enterprise. That is NOT what God alone is enough means! Canon 603 is very clear that hermits in the Catholic Church, particularly those that live the life in the name of the Church embrace eremitical solitude for the salvation of others. The love a hermit cultivates in the hermitage and in her relatively limited encounters with those in her parish, diocese, monastery, etc is not a facile abstraction, an exercise in empty piety, much less a matter of meaningless if superficially impressive verbal expressions, (e.g., "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven!" or,"in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do"). It is not enough to proclaim one's love for God or humanity while judging and despising people. What makes her vocation divine is the authentic love which motivates and empowers it. The moment a hermit forgets this or chooses isolation over eremitical solitude, she has embraced something which is not truly of God no matter how frequent or vivid the supposed mystical experiences that accompany it. Real union with God involves communion with others. It is the very nature of being a member of the Body of Christ and stands at the heart of Paul's concerns with adult faith and the community in Corinth.

When is a Laura not a Laura for a Diocesan Hermit?

Hi Sister Laurel, I read the following online and wondered if you could comment on it. It is several years old but I am sure it refers to you and to something you are supposed to have written. [[Also Sister Laurels defintion of laura is deeply flawed. A good example of this are the carthusians, early Carmelites and Camaldolese of Monte Corona who are a direct split off from the OSB Camaldolese and started as a Camaldolese laura with the same spirit and rule reformed for a stricter observance of the Camaldoli rule. They did away with the cenobial common house aspects so when they enter the community go straight into the hermitage not as individual hermits but as a laura community with strict enclosure. They can be found here in the United States in Ohio. Also sister's saying that you have to be separate in spirituality to be a laura is also false. I have never argued it openly with her because I felt it would only upset the group and bring more heat than light. (Indwelling Trinity/Emmanuel)]]

Sure.  First, this person (Emmanuel is a screename only; this is not the BC diocesan hermit of the same name,) has mistaken a general definition of laura which is any colony of hermits for the discussions I have had about lauras of canon 603 hermits. The two differ in a number of ways where the laura of the diocesan hermit is a special case within the general category. She is entirely correct that the Camaldolese in Ohio constitute a laura and the same with the other groups she mentions. They also tend to represent semi-eremitical communities where all are bound by the same Rule, constitutions, and customs. They are governed by superiors from within the community, share a common purse and their vow of poverty is interpreted in terms of this. But when I write here that a laura of diocesan hermits must not rise to the level of a community and therefore may not have many of the elements that these communities do, for instance, I am merely re-stating what experts and canonists on canon 603 like Rev. Jean Beyer have clarified because of the solitary eremitical nature of the life canon 603 defines. (cf Canon 603 Misuses and Abuses pt 1)

Remember that when one enters one of the lauras or communities Emmanuel mentions above they are making their eventual profession as a member of this community or congregation. They are not, as is the case with diocesan hermits, solitary hermits responsible for their own upkeep, writing and living their own Rule, and so forth. If the congregation dissolves, then these religious hermits will find that their own vows will also cease due to a material change in the circumstances in which they were made (c. 1194) unless they can transfer these to another institute. (They could not simply transfer their vows and become a diocesan hermit by the way.)

But diocesan hermits are formed as solitary hermits and make their vows directly in the hands of the local Bishop; should a laura they have formed thereafter dissolve for some reason or another, the individual hermit's vows do not cease. They retain these and the obligation to live as a solitary hermit within the diocese continuing under the supervision of the bishop and their own delegate. In other words, in the examples Emmanuel mentions we are dealing with communities or congregations and their hermits are professed as members of said community. These communities can certainly be called lauras because they are colonies of hermits, but they are not colonies of SOLITARY hermits as are c 603 hermits, and they are therefore different in kind than lauras of c 603 hermits. For diocesan hermits a laura, helpful as it might be for mutual support in solitude, is incidental to their vocation; for hermits professed in community the laura is an essential part of the vocation.

Regarding separate spirituality, once again Emmanuel has misunderstood what I have affirmed, namely, that if diocesan hermits come together in a laura each hermit has every right to maintain his or her own separate spirituality and not have a single one imposed ** on them as happens in a group of Camaldolese or Carmelites, for instance where those entering the congregation are formed in this specific spiritual tradition as representatives of it. I suspect this is the place where Emmanuel misinterpreted what I was saying. Thus, in a single diocese when several diocesan hermits choose to live together in a laura for the mutual support of life in solitude, one of them may have embraced a Franciscan spirituality, one a Camaldolese, and a third, Carmelite spirituality.

Because this is not a community reflecting one specific spiritual tradition and charism, one need not relinquish one's own identifying or representative spirituality, nor to wear one single representative habit, etc. Since the hermits here remain solitary hermits, they have every right to live out their own expression of this according to the spiritual tradition that best fits them and to continue doing so according to their own Rule or Plan of Life. (Guidelines and minimal communal organization and structure will likely be necessary in this laura but it does not rise to the level of governance structure of a community in the canonical sense. This is especially true since commentators who specialize in Canon Law and who have focused attention on canon 603 are clear that lauras of diocesan hermits should not be composed of more than three hermits (of the same sex) at a time.[[Cada Eremitorio consta de no mas de tres Eremitaños profesos del mismo sexo.]] Revista Española de Derecho Canonico, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, vol 44 num 122, Junio 1987)


Conversely, therefore, if a laura of diocesan hermits begins to move in the direction of a single spirituality, a single habit, a common purse, a single Rule rather than the hermits' own Rules, or if there are uniform horaria imposed, or limitations on the work a hermit may or may not do (e.g., one "c 603 laura" does not allow its hermits to do spiritual direction for instance, and in later versions of the Plan of Life requires individual hermits to get permission to leave the property rather than simply signing out so folks know she is away, etc.), or when the laura begins to dictate who the hermits may have as confessors and directors (e.g., this same "laura" requires the superior of the hermitage to be every individual hermit's spiritual director), when they  may see friends or family, how they may use media, and so forth in contrast to the individual hermits' own Rules or Plans of Life and discernment, chances are pretty good that the laura has crossed the line into becoming a community of semi-eremites rather than a colony of solitary diocesan hermits.

In any case my point has been that individual characteristics including spirituality are to be retained as well as possible in lauras of diocesan (solitary, c 603) hermits. After all, diocesan hermits are first of all solitary and diocesan, not Carmelite or Franciscan or Camaldolese, for instance; their vows are made as solitary hermits within the context of the diocese NOT within a Carmelite or other Order or congregation. The tradition they are committed to live out is that of solitary hermits who may also but secondarily embrace some specific spirituality to assist in that. Like community, a specific spiritual tradition is intrinsic to formation and profession for hermits who are part of congregations. It is far less so for diocesan hermits whose charism transcends any specific spirituality. By the way, this is one of the reasons a number of us in various dioceses and countries have adopted Er Dio or some other version of Eremita dioecesanus (including Erem Dio, and ED) instead of post-nomial initials which can be mistaken for congregational initials. We say clearly in this way that we are vowed as diocesan hermits, not as Franciscans or Camaldolese, and so forth. This is quite different than the cases Emmanuel mentions and also quite different from the position she attributes to me. Please do check the labels included below. They will link you to some of what I have written about this before and enlarge on what constitutes a community rather than a laura in the case of diocesan hermits. Again, you might also check the following article for a better summary: Canon 603 Misuses and Abuses pt 1

** My apologies, I recognize that the term "imposed" is a bit strong and entirely inappropriate when speaking of being formed as a representative of a particular congregation, charism, mission, etc. However, the point is that persons entering a particular congregation will generally be formed in ways which allow them to develop a sense of identity in that congregation's own mission, charism, etc. They will especially resonate with certain elements of the congregation's own identity and be formed in ways which allow them to become living representatives of these things even when they vary in other ways. They will be recognizably Camaldolese or Franciscan or Carmelite, etc. Canon 603 hermits may have developed and matured in different spiritual traditions, have different missions, ways of describing the charism of their vocation, etc., and if they come together in a lavra, they need not necessarily relinquish any of these or become a representative of anything else so long as what they live is consonant with c 603.