Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality, Pointed Questions (reprised from 2011)

[[Dear Sister Laurel,

How is it that hermits reflect the centrality of Eucharist in their spiritual lives if they do not attend Mass daily? I heard you remark in another context that you didn't attend Mass if solitude required otherwise. My understanding is that religious are required canonically to attend Mass daily if that is possible, and you yourself say on this blog that Eucharist is the center of everything that happens at your hermitage. So, how is it you can skip Mass just because it is more convenient to remain in solitude and still claim the title Sister and assert how central Eucharist is in your life? My other question is how do you receive Communion if there is no one there but yourself? Isn't self-communication forbidden to Catholics?]]

These topics, as you apparently are aware, came up on the Catholic Hermits list. One person there argued that hermits, like anyone else, should get to Mass as often as possible (daily!), and should not miss simply because it was "inconvenient" to one's solitude. Since, they argued, religious are required to participate at Mass in this way it makes sense that diocesan hermits are also so required. Others have argued that in today's world of easy transportation and numerous parishes people should be able to get to Mass daily one way or another and that hermits certainly should do so. Some know hermits who attend the parish Mass each day, or at least most every day and argue on that basis. My own argument was that fidelity to solitude sometimes meant not getting to daily Mass. I believe it is possible to develop a strong Eucharistic spirituality in solitude even without getting to Mass daily and that is what I want to look at in this post. 

On the Place of Solitude in the Hermit's Life

However, before I say more in response to your question I need to clarify one critical point. Your comments include a misconstrual of what I said, and a misunderstanding regarding the nature of eremitical solitude. Namely, hermits do not skip Mass merely because it is inconvenient to their solitude; they do so because solitude is their full-time calling and the actual occasion, environment, and resulting quality of whatever union with God is achieved in their life. Solitude is not just a means for the hermit, but a goal as well. In this perspective, solitude (or what Canon 603 refers to as the "silence of solitude") is not a self-indulgent luxury which just happens to provide an environment for other things in the hermit's life (though external silence and physical solitude will certainly serve in this way). It is instead the reality which is achieved together with God when a hermit is faithful to (among other things) long term external silence and solitude. Thus, it is important that the hermit  maintain her faithfulness to this long term external silence and solitude. Solitude is, again, both the means to and the goal of the hermit's existence because eremitical solitude itself is a form of communal or ecclesial existence and an expression of union with God and all that is precious to God.

In saying this I mean that the hermit's life is to give witness to the union with God which is achieved in solitude as well as the "silence of solitude" which is an expression and sign of this union, and so, to the redemption of all forms of human isolation, alienation and estrangement achieved therein. They are called to come to wholeness and holiness in solitude and their witness is to the most foundational relationship present in the human being, the relationship with God who is creator and ground of all existence. In other words, although community is important to the hermit, it is primarily the koinonia (communion) of solitude that is their vocation. They are called by God through the agency of his Church to the very rare and paradoxical reality of eremitical solitude --- a form of union with God and others marked by and grounded in aloneness with the Alone. Unless we understand that solitude is not isolation, not alienation, nor a feeble excuse for the misanthrope, and certainly not a luxury for the hermit, we may believe that it conflicts with a truly Eucharistic spirituality. My argument is that it does not and that the way the hermit approaches attendance at Mass is dependent upon this way of seeing things.

Eucharistic Spirituality in General

When we speak of Eucharistic Spirituality what is it we are talking about then? And for the hermit who claims that the Eucharist is at the heart of everything that happens in the hermitage, what is she really talking about --- especially if the Mass is not (or is rarely) celebrated at the hermitage? Of course it means a spirituality focused on the Eucharist itself and the hermit will usually (not always) reserve Eucharist in her hermitage, pray in the presence of the Eucharist, celebrate Communion services (Liturgies of the Word with Communion), and so forth. But even more than this everything at the hermitage will be geared towards Christ's incarnation climaxed in his cross and resurrection. It seems to me that the focus involves two particular and interrelated processes: first, that, in a dynamic of kenosis or self-emptying, the Word is made flesh, and second, that, in a dynamic of conversion, reconciliation, and transfiguration, flesh (in the Pauline sense) is made Word. Everything that happens is meant to be an occasion of one or both of these and at the center of it all is the Presence of the Risen Christ in Word and Sacrament, reminding, summoning, challenging, nourishing, and consoling.

Eucharistic Spirituality, The Word Made Flesh

God has chosen to come to us as a human person. More than that he has chosen to be present in a power perfected in weakness (asthenia). He is present in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. He enters into sin and death, the truly or definitvely godless realities and transforms them with his presence. In other words he makes what was literally godless into sacraments of his love, his being God for and with others. For me the Eucharist is a symbol of this specific process and presence (and I mean symbol in the most intensive sense as that reality which does not merely stand for something else (that would be a sign or metaphor) but rather as something that participates in the very reality it mediates). While Mass is the place where we literally re-member all of this, where bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, where the Word of God is proclaimed with power, Eucharistic Spirituality seems to me to be that spirituality where all this is worked out in everyday life so that every meal is holy, every reality is looked at with eyes that can see God's presence there, and where one is nourished, challenged, consoled, etc, with that presence in the unexpected place and way.

Eucharistic spirituality, is a spirituality which is open to God's presence in ordinariness, not only to his presence at Mass or the more exalted moments of prayer, etc, but in the humbleness of human life generally. And for the hermit this means in the solitariness of ordinary life --- for it is in solitude that we are generally weakest, and our brokenness is most clearly revealed. My own focus in the hermitage is the transformation of ordinariness into Sacrament. This is essentially Eucharistic. Everything should serve this. Everything within the hermitage serves the Word becoming flesh, the allowing of God to dwell within, to love, minister to, and to transform with his presence. Everything becomes a matter of dying to self and rising in God, to learning obedience (hearing and responding to the Word of God) in a way which leads to purity of heart. Yes, often (though not always) Eucharist is present in the hermitage, but whether or not it is present it remains the living symbol of what everything in the hermitage can and is meant to be if given over to the purposes of eremitical life. I sincerely believe that if the hermit practices Eucharistic spirituality she recognizes that her hermitage itself is meant to be a tabernacle situated in the midst of her community and that her own life is bread broken and wine poured out for others.

Eucharistic Spirituality, Flesh Made Word

The second and interrelated process which makes up a genuinely Eucharistic spirituality focuses on what happens to the hermit --- or really, to any Christian for whom Eucharist is central --- namely, that they become a Word Event which embodies and proclaims the Gospel of God in Christ. For the hermitage to become tabernacle, for the hermit to become bread broken and wine poured out for others, the hermit herself must, over time, be transformed and transfigured.

Flesh, in the Pauline sense of the term, means the whole person, body and soul, under the sway of sin. It means being a person of divided heart, one who is enmeshed in processes and realities which are resistant to Christ. It means being less than fully human, and in terms of language, it means being distorted forms of language events which are less than a univocal hymn of praise and gratitude --- screams of pain and anguish, lies or hypocritical formulations and identity, utterances (of anger, prejudice, arrogance, indifference, selfishness, etc) which foster division, insecurity, and suffering for others, a noisy or insecure presence which cannot abide silence and is unable to listen or respond lovingly and with compassion --- all are the less than human forms of language event we are, at least at times. These are also examples of what Paul would have termed "flesh" (sarx).

In the power of the Spirit, these can be transformed, transfigured into articulate expressions of Gospel wholeness, joy, peace, hope, and challenge. That which is less than human can become authentically human; sinners are reconciled to become persons who are truly and wholly authored by God. As one steeps oneself in and seriously contends with the Word of God one is transformed into an expression of that Word. In silence and solitude flesh can become Word just as the Word becomes Flesh. All of this is genuinely Eucharistic spirituality I think, and it remains Eucharistic even if the hermit does not celebrate Eucharist with her parish community daily. For the hermit, those privileged celebrations lead back to silence while solitude and the silence of solitude prepare for the hermit's participation at Mass. But they are all part of a single spirituality in which Christ is received as guest and gift and ordinary reality is transformed into an expression of his presence. Such a spirituality is open to anyone who cannot actually get to Mass more than once a week, and sometimes less frequently.  It is inspired by the Eucharist and modeled on Eucharistic transformation, life, and hope. In fact, I suspect it may well be an instance of genuinely Eucharistic spirituality our world truly needs.

Hermits and Self-Communication

Your last question was also raised on the Catholic Hermits list. It is customary that people do not self-commu-nicate and there are very good theological reasons for this, but solitary hermits are an accepted exception. Canonists are apparently clear (according to a clarification offered on the Catholic Hermits list) that this is a unique situation which calls for such an exception to general custom and theological wisdom. It is also, it seems to me, a sign of how truly esteemed and unusual is the hermit vocation for such an exception to be made. The Church allows this exception precisely because of the importance of eremitical solitude lived in the heart of the church. I would argue that eremitical solitude, to whatever extent it is lived authentically, is essentially Eucharistic --- even when the hermit is unable to leave her hermitage to attend Mass --- and is therefore a very good reason for this singular exception to be made.

In any case, hermits should certainly be careful of their use of this permission. Their own communions must always be seen as extensions of the parish and/or diocesan liturgy, their hermitages must be understood as tabernacles of Christ's presence, and the silence of solitude must be embraced as a natural expression of communal life and love. While the hermit does not literally receive Eucharist from the hands of another during Communion services in the hermitage, she does receive this Sacrament as a gift of the parish community and so, from their hands. The communal nature of the eremitical life is constantly underscored by the presence of Eucharist in the hermitage, and the quality of being "alone with the Alone" FOR the salvation of the world is underscored in this way as well. Eremitical life is not selfish, not individualistic or privatistic, and emphatically not a matter of merely living alone -- much less doing so in whatever way one likes. The presence of Eucharist both symbolizes and so, reminds and calls us to realize this (make this real) more and more fully everyday. I should note that it is entirely reasonable to expect that should a hermit ever tend to take the Eucharist (and especially the reserved Eucharist) for granted or become arrogant or simply lax in her praxis and perspective, then, at least for a time, she should forego even the reservation of the Eucharist, and get to Mass more often, until she recovers her proper perspective and devotion.

Summing Things Up

For me the bottom line in all of this is that while the celebration of Eucharist is indeed the source and summit of ecclesial life --- and it certainly is that for the hermit as well --- a truly Eucharistic spirituality does NOT necessarily require that one go to Mass daily. (It does require one celebrate with one's faith community regularly and frequently!!) The hermit's life will be imprinted with the cross, be emptied, broken and given to others precisely insofar as she is faithful to eremitical solitude lived in the heart of the Church. She will celebrate every day, and do so with her parish faith community, even when the demands of solitude mean she cannot be physically present with them at Mass. If this is not the case, then we are implicitly saying to many people who pray, suffer, and love at least as fully and well as do daily Mass  participants (or diocesan hermits!) --- but who cannot get to Mass so regularly --- that they cannot be said to have or even be able to develop a truly Eucharistic spirituality. I am positive we do not want to do that, wouldn't you agree?

Postscript: Since this was originally posted the question has come up about people who never get to Mass for reasons of illness and disability. In such situations reservation of Eucharist is not a good idea. A better solution, including for hermits, is to depend on EEM's who bring the person Communion from the parish Mass. This maintains a necessary and vital (living) link between the person and the faith community as well as the essential linkage between Eucharist received in the home or hermitage and Eucharist celebrated at Mass. Since solitude is a communal reality, it cannot be devalued and allowed to devolve into isolation (eremitical reclusion is a different animal and profoundly communal); the link with the faith community, especially with an ecclesial vocation, must be maintained and fostered.

see also: Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: On the Reservation of Eucharist by Hermits and Feast of Saint Peter Damian

Questions on Hermits and Sunday Obligation (Reprise)

[[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 clear here.

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 her 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.)

Followup Questions on Accountability and the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my question on diocesan v universal church representation by hermits. If someone argues that they are not subject to a local bishop in the way canon 603 hermits are because they are not diocesan but instead are hermits in the whole Church then how is it they are responsible to the Church for their vocation? Is their pastor the one they are answerable to? Is Joyful Hermit insinuating she is responsible in a less local way  to someone other than her local bishop? It just seems to me that if she explains that she can move from place to place without requiring acceptance by the local bishop  she must be "suggesting" she is answerable in a different way --- or maybe not at all. How would a bishop feel about having some hermits who were accountable to him and others who are not accountable at all? I can't imagine that sitting well with most bishops, not mine anyway! Lastly, I was wondering about your own statement about your vocation. You say you live your vocation with God in the silence of solitude for the sake of others. Do you mean merely that you pray for others? Are you accountable to others besides your bishop and delegate?]]

 You are most welcome. You have also put your finger on the really important issue of accountability. The Church does not ordain or profess and/or consecrate anyone in an ecclesial vocation (priesthood, religious or monastic life, canonical eremitical life, consecrated virginity) without assuring adequate structures or relationships for accountability. In a vocation with the history and heritage of stereotypes common to eremitical life as well as its rarity (it is not the usual way most people come to human wholeness!), the need to assure supervision and accountability becomes particularly important. In any case whether one belongs to a religious congregation, is a consecrated hermit or a consecrated virgin, one is responsible to people on the local level more immediately than to others on less local levels. Again, we use the principle of "subsidiarity" to be sure accountability is exercised at a level which is most helpful to the consecrated person and the congregation or local church in which the person ministers and lives her life.

Recently I wrote that legitimate superiors exercise what is known as the ministry of authority. I also wrote it is a ministry of love and service. For this to be true, authority must be exercised at a level closest to the one being ministered to. Accountability must be similarly exercised or the entire dynamic of loving service will be short-circuited or made empty. By the way, though a pastor is closest to a consecrated hermit in terms of church attendance, reception of sacraments, and pastoral care, etc, pastors of parishes are not legitimate superiors in the sense required by law. They may witness (but not receive) private vows; in so doing they do not become responsible for an eremitical vocation in the ways a bishop does. Neither would a hermit's Spiritual Director. The ministry of authority requires both persons in the relationship grant and accept the rights and obligations which are part of the exercise of legitimate authority. This means they must also be able to do so and this requires commissioning by a greater legitimate authority.  Bishops acquire their authority with regard to consecrated hermits from Canon 603 and from Rome which appoints them bishops in the first place. Parish pastors or parochial administrators have not been given the authority to act in this way with regard to a consecrated hermit --- though, of course, a bishop could delegate a hermit's pastor to take on such a responsibility and authority as he delegates this to any delegate/Director.

Regarding subsidiarity with regard to religious institutes, while these have General superiors (Presidents, etc) there are also a network of superiors exercising authority at more and more local levels (provincials, priors and prioresses, regional superiors,  novice or juniorate directors, etc., to the level of house superiors). Solitary consecrated hermits (c 603 hermits) don't have such a network of those in authority because they do not belong to institutes of consecrated life. Instead, they make their vows in the hands of the local bishop who is thus their legitimate superior and he assigns or accepts the hermit's choice for a delegate or Director who serves as a kind of superior for the hermit by exercising the ministry of authority on behalf of the bishop/diocese for the benefit of the hermit's life and vocation. However, no one who is professed and consecrated is without the relationships required for the exercise of their obligation to accountability, and this at the lowest (i.e., the most local)  possible level of responsibility according to the principle of subsidiarity.

To suggest one is not accountable in this way while claiming the title "consecrated hermit" or to affirm that one can move from place to place because they are responsible to the "universal church" is simply to indicate one does not know (or perhaps care) how such things actually work in the Roman Catholic Church; it is to express an actual untruth. This is of a piece with saying Canon 603 doesn't mention legitimate superiors when it clearly refers to making one's profession "in the hands of" the Local bishop; profession is always made in the hands of the one serving as legitimate superior. Doing so is derived from an act of fealty once made to Kings, princes, and other Lords. There are many words that Canon 603 doesn't use directly and are nonetheless presupposed by the canon. Because a word is missing does not mean the concept is not present nor part of the Church's larger theology of consecrated life.

How Would a Bishop Feel?

How would bishops feel if they have canonical hermits who are accountable to the bishop and other hermits who come and go without being accountable? I suspect the situation would be problematical (unworkable) and at least frustrating for such bishops. Imagine then that such a person blogged in ways that were disedifying about the eremitical vocation. Imagine they had their own take on private vows and consecration based upon a misinterpretation of  two ambiguously or even mistakenly translated paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imagine this same lay hermit insisted on remaining anonymous and without specific location in the putative name of "eremitical hiddenness" all while claiming to be a "consecrated religious" or a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while writing disedifying things about consecrated life or misrepresenting eremitical life and the Church's role in governing such vocations! But of course, the Church does not have a dual track in the way it governs consecrated life. It does not allow for accountability of those in one track and complete unaccountability of those in another. Instead, it recognizes and states clearly that the consecrated state of life is a "stable state of life" lived for the edification of the Church and the glory of God and it provides (and requires) what is necessary to establish and maintain that stability including structures and relationships ensuring responsibility and accountability.

I once thought Canon 603 referred to both lay and consecrated solitary hermits. Over time I came to change my mind on that. Similarly, I tried several ways to make sense of the ambiguity of pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it speaks of "without always making vows publicly". In time I checked the original Latin which clarified the canon could not be referring to the possibility of private vows or to lay hermit life as well as consecrated life. I concluded the badly-written English version was trying to point to the only alternative to public vows c 603 allows, namely the use of other sacred bonds. In either case, though, the person's profession is and must be a public one and other sections of the CCC (cf par 944) make that absolutely clear. One of my sincerest hopes is that when the CCC is revised they will clarify the matter and add a paragraph on the importance of the lay hermit, the non-canonical hermit who embraces eremitical life within the baptized state without the benefit of additional canons or institutional accountability. As it stands the CCC is particularly problematical because of those who would like to exploit its misleading ambiguities and portray themselves as consecrated hermits without being admitted by public profession to the graces, rights, or obligations of that vocation.

Questions about Joyful Hermit Specifically:

You ask several questions about Joyful Hermit specifically.  While I will answer these generally with regard to Joyful, I believe they fit anyone claiming/pretending --- for whatever reason --- to being a Consecrated Religious or hermit living eremitical life in the name of the Church. I think the bottom line is that beyond her baptism Joyful (and others) has not been initiated into any canonical (public, legal) relationships within the Church or with her leadership or hierarchy, no canonical standing that would allow her to claim to be obligated or accountable in the way someone with an ecclesial vocation as a "consecrated hermit" would necessarily be obligated and accountable. Another way of saying this is to note that Joyful and persons like her have not been initiated into the stable state of life associated with profession and/or consecration.

What you cited earlier did sound to me like an attempt by Joyful to avoid the entire issue of ecclesial accountability with vague references to the Universal Church and mistaken interpretations of what it means to be a diocesan hermit. That said, Joyful remains a laywoman who has embraced eremitical life without the benefit of canonical standing or consecration beyond her baptism. This does not detract from the fact that her own vocation is important. In fact, it accents its importance. Her private vows are of real value, both personally and in the Church. As a result of her baptism, she has the very significant freedom of a lay person to live eremitical life as she deems necessary in response to God's call. She is free to move about as a hermit without direct accountability to anyone except God and her own conscience precisely because she is a lay hermit and not one in the consecrated state of life. What is interesting to me is that she lives precisely this kind of freedom even as she insists she is a "consecrated Catholic Hermit".

It is important (and quite challenging) that people like Joyful accept their vocations, that they respond to God's call in the lay state and find ways to live eremitical life with authenticity. The history of eremitical life has been carried forward in the Western Church by such people -- not least the Desert Fathers and Mothers or the anchorites prevalent in the Middle Ages. As I have noted a number of times here the majority of hermits have been and will always be lay hermits --- those who embrace a call to eremitical life in their baptized state without benefit or need of canonical profession or consecration. But one does not do this by refusing to accept the simple fact that a private commitment by a lay person means one remains a person in the lay state. In this matter, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Joyful (or anyone in a similar situation) cannot seek the benefit of calling herself and being regarded as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while insisting on the unique freedom which is pertinent to lay (or non canonical) eremitical life. She (nor any other person acting similarly) cannot honestly claim an ecclesial vocation without concrete accountability to legitimate superiors or the other elements which constitute a stable consecrated state of life in the Roman Catholic Church.

Commissioned to Live Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church:

I am reminded that the Church has sent me and other canonical hermits into our hermitages to live the silence of solitude in communion with God for the sake of others; that sending obligates me to accountability not only to eremitical life generally, but to solitary eremitical life as the Church has codified this in c 603. Because Joyful is privately vowed, her own missioning is as a lay person and her correlative accountability thus takes a very different form than someone in the consecrated state; again, as a result she is entirely free to live her lay vocation in whatever way she chooses without direct accountability to the Church for the form of life she chooses for herself --- but also without the title appropriate to those living consecrated (canonical) vocations. Similarly one cannot speak and write about canon 603 as a kind of distortion of eremitical life, as Joyful has certainly done from time to time throughout the years, and at the same time ask folks to treat her as though she has the kind of standing in law canon 603 establishes.

This is not a matter of legalism as Joyful tends to claim; it is simply a recognition that the rights attending consecrated life are matched by obligations a person is called by God to embrace through the mediation of God's Church. The Church's own approach to consecrated eremitical life is entirely consistent. Those who live eremitical life in the name of the Church are commissioned to live an explicit accountability to God's People in the hands of legitimate superiors. They accept this accountability as a unique form of responsible eremitical freedom. Not everyone is called or even desires to be called in this way. For those who are not (or who do not desire to be)  called in this way, the route of lay eremitical life is available to them, a route which has been of inestimable value and significance to eremitical life in the Church. But again, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. To believe otherwise is childish and unthinking; moreover, it denigrates or at least disregards the kind of commitments and sacrifices made by those who have freely embraced the consecrated state of life and the direct accountability it involves.

To Whom Else am I Responsible?

Your last question is good. Thank you for asking this. While I do regularly pray for others I do not understand the heart of my accountability to others as that. Instead I understand that first of all I am called to witness to the Gospel that says God completes us, God alone is sufficient for us, God loves and delights in us in spite of our sinfulness or isolation. In today's world (and this is especially clear where I live) we see elderly people and others who are isolated from their churches, from families, through bereavement from their spouses, and so forth. We see people who are isolated by disability and the rhythm of whose lives are marked by illness and even impending death. I believe my life is meant to speak to these people in particular. Yes, of course I pray for them, but even more I hope to witness to them that the way to wholeness, holiness, and completeness is still open to them in God embraced in solitude. I hope that my life says that eremitical solitude is not the same as isolation and that while my life is marked by several things which isolate, this isolation can be redeemed by God and transfigured into a solitude which is filled with life, love, meaning, and hope.

I believe I am called by God through the mediation of God's Church to witness in this way to these and similar people. In a very real way I am responsible to them --- not in the sense I am accountable to the Church through legitimate superiors, but no less really nonetheless. I don't believe the Church professes and consecrates anyone to eremitical solitude simply to make of them some sort of "prayer warrior" (as important as prayer is!!), much less to institutionalize selfishness and individualism. Canonical Hermits are called, like any other Religious is called, to witness to the God who comes to us in the unexpected and unacceptable place, who makes of the deserts of our lives fields which flourish with new life and growth, who allows the dry and barren places to run with living water and the sweetness of milk and wild honey, who transforms  screams of suffering and the anguish of muteness into Magnificats of praise and articulate proclamations of the Good News.

The role of my bishop and delegate is to be sure I live, and have secured (or am able to secure) the necessary means to live the commission to this vocation which the Church has entrusted to me. (This is similarly true for any diocesan hermit with regard to their bishops and delegates.) The personal formation work I do with my Director is meant to be sure I live fully the truth of myself with God. I, as is true of any diocesan hermit, am morally, and legally accountable to the Church in a direct and concrete way for doing whatever it takes within the context of Canon 603 and the eremitical tradition, to become God's own prayer in our world and to witness to the completion that is possible for each one of us with and in God, no matter the circumstances of our lives. I, as again is true for any diocesan hermit, am directly and concretely accountable to the Church Universal to witness to the adequacy and beauty of Canon 603; this canon spells out in normative fashion (thus the term "canon") what a solitary hermit is all about. I, like any diocesan hermit am accountable to my parish and diocese (the local Church) to bring what gifts I can to them in order to witness to the life that God offers and invites us each to. I am accountable to them to be the hermit I am called to be --- not as an isolated individualist, but as someone who recognizes that eremitical solitude is a unique form of community which itself can help build community in powerful ways. In these and any number of complementary ways I am accountable to the Church on both universal and local levels. Again, this is true for anyone claiming a vocation to consecrated life in the Church. 

Diocesan Hermits are Hermits of and for the Universal Church

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I watched a video where Joyful Hermit said those professed "under canon 603 belong to dioceses and those who are privately professed belong per se to the universal Church". Is that right? If I got her right she also says that privately professed hermits have always been the way the Church consecrated hermits. I think she meant that canon 603 is a new way of doing this with some extra requirements that she seems to think represents a kind of legalism. Is this correct?]]

Well, I suppose it depends on what else Joyful has said in this specific regard, but generally speaking, with the quote you have provided it sounds as though Joyful Hermit is saying non-canonical hermits are recognized as hermits by and for the universal Church, but canon 603 hermits are recognized only within a diocese. If so, she is incorrect. Canon 603 hermits are diocesan in the sense that they are bound in authority at the diocesan level. They are hermits of a specific diocese (a local Church) which, in the hands of the local ordinary, professes and consecrates them on behalf of the Universal Church. Their vocations are ecclesial in a Catholic or universal sense, but they must be responsible at the diocesan level or their vocations could not be effectively governed nor could the hermits be genuinely responsible or accountable to the whole Church. The Roman Catholic Church relies on the principle of subsidiarity. Governance in this case proceeds from the lowest or most local level upward precisely to facilitate genuine governance and accountability.

Thus, as a "hermit of the Diocese of Oakland" (Bishop's Decree of Approval. . .) I would need to have another bishop accept responsibility for my vocation if I were to decide to move to another diocese (and I would need my current bishop to verify I am a hermit is good standing in order to begin such a move and remain a diocesan hermit), but the fact that I can move from one diocese to another, marks my vocation as valid in and for the universal Church. Similarly, since canon 603 is the universal norm/canon for solitary eremitical life in the entire Church, and since diocesan hermits are governed by and responsible for the vocation defined in this universal norm, we can affirm their vocations are universal vocations -- callings in and for the universal Church. Again, this vocation is supervised and "created" (discerned, professed, consecrated, and governed) at the diocesan level (at the level of the local Church) but this is the way governance generally takes place in and on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

Privately vowed hermits (we don't use the term professed here because that implies a public rite involving a change in state of life!) have been the usual way of living eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the centuries but this was not recognized as "consecrated life" or defined as part of the "consecrated state of life". In fact, the Church never understood eremitical life as part of the consecrated life unless hermits were members of religious congregations (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Carmelite, etc). Some anchorites came under the auspices of local Bishops, especially during medieval times. Even so, I don't believe these anchorites were considered to be consecrated though, rightly, they were highly regarded by their communities (villages). In @ 1963 in an intervention at Vatican II, Bishop Remi de Roo sought to get eremitical life included in Canon Law as a "state of perfection" -- what today we call "a consecrated state" of life. Only a long 20 years later when the Revised Code of Canon Law was published in October 1983 and included c 603, was eremitical life included in universal Law at all. If, as Joyful Hermit claims, hermits were always consecrated using private vows and always considered to exist in the "consecrated state" of life,  Bishop Remi De Roo would not have needed, much less ventured, such an intervention in the language ("state of perfection") he did. Neither would the dozen or so hermits he came to oversee as "Bishop Protector" have been understood to have relinquished their consecrated state of life in order to become hermits after leaving their monasteries.

As I have noted in the past, Canon 603 is now the universal norm in the Roman Catholic Church for establishing a solitary hermit in the consecrated state of life. There are no other norms, laws, "institutes," rules, statutes, etc for establishing a solitary hermit in law, and thus, as a consecrated hermit unless one is a member of a canonical congregation dedicated to eremitical life or at least allowing for it in their proper law. The Roman Catholic Church simply had not honored the solitary eremitical life in this way for almost 1600 years. (Eastern Catholic Churches have always honored it.) The Desert fathers and Mothers were lay hermits, not consecrated hermits; their prophetic lives were significant and they remain a model for all hermits, both non-canonical (lay, non-consecrated) or canonical (consecrated). About one thousand years later, when Bishops took anchorites under their auspices it was done to make sure these individuals were acting in an edifying manner and living genuinely eremitical lives. (Too often individuals tried to validate all kinds of insanity and wackiness with the name "hermit". The Church needed to attempt some governance over such cases. Additionally, it is possible the Church regarded such vocations with some trepidation insofar as they represented truly prophetic vocations -- as had the Desert Fathers and Mothers.)

In my experience, canon 603 was formulated and promulgated for the significantly positive reasons Bishop de Roo put forth at Vatican II (cf The Heart of the Matter: Reasons for including Eremitical Life as a "State of Perfection"); moreover, it is carefully implemented by most dioceses for these reasons as well as to limit the kinds of wackiness and nutcases often associated with eremitical "vocations". Law in c 603 serves to allow sound vocations which are well-supervised and edifying to the universal Church. In particular, it does not allow the kind of individualism represented by autocephalic (or acephalous!!) vocations like that of the person you cite.

The ability to move from place to place without supervision or genuine accountability is not a sign of serving the whole Church; instead it does not tend to serve either the eremitical vocation or the Church well. St Benedict saw this clearly when he referred critically to monks who moved from monastery to monastery without accountability as "gyrovagues" (cf the introduction to his Rule).  The Church, in requiring that one entering the consecrated life be professed in a recognized and "stable state of life", is clear that all ecclesial vocations must be adequately discerned, mediated, and supervised. They are simply too precious, too valuable, and too responsible to allow them to languish in a headless, unstable and individualistic context, or to let them become skewed due to an individual's unguided and eccentric readings of Church documents and theology.

We don't tolerate folks identifying themselves as Catholic Religious (or as consecrated) who (on a relative whim) may don a religious habit (or not), and make some sort of private commitment without vetting or real preparation -- even if they do so in the presence of the Tabernacle or a parish priest. We call these folks "lay persons" because of the dignity of their baptism and "lay hermits" to honor any genuine dedication to eremitical life lived in the lay (baptismal) state without benefit of canonical profession or consecration. (It should be underscored that some lay hermits live genuine, even exemplary, vocations with preparation and serious discernment of course --- but many, because of ignorance, eccentricity, or simple inability do not.) If, however, lay hermits insist on calling themselves "Catholic religious" or "consecrated hermits",  the Church will note they are  ignorant of the Catholic theology of consecrated life, possibly deluded, or even outright frauds --- and rightly so.

The Church has been entrusted with vocations to the consecrated state. She does not (and cannot) hand authority for these over to the individual. These vocations "belong" to the Church herself; they are ecclesial vocations. Such vocations are vetted (discerned and evaluated in an ongoing way), mediated, and governed by the Church herself in the hands of legitimate authorities precisely because they are gifts of the Holy Spirit which are the responsibility of and fruitful for the entire Church. Unfortunately, as you can tell from the questions I get re: these, videos and blogs like those you and others have sometimes cited are a good example of the negative reasons the Church requires ecclesiastical discernment, profession, and supervision for something as potentially individualistic and disedifying as an eremitical vocation.

On Wearing the Cowl While in Discernment

[[Dear Sister, when a person is  going through the discernment process of becoming a diocesan hermit can the cowl be worn?]]

Presuming you mean initial discernment with a diocese prior to admission to any profession, the simple answer is no. The cowl is only given with perpetual profession and then only when the diocesan Bishop grants the cowl canonically. (Not every Bishop does so and some hermits decide to use a different prayer garment.) A simple personal prayer garment can be used in private during the discernment period but cannot be worn publicly since this would imply public standing, rights, and obligations. Similarly, such a garment is NOT given to one by the Church but instead is privately or self-assumed.

In monastic communities a modified cowl (short sleeves, for instance) is given with simple (temporary) vows (and sometimes a shortened tunic, cape, or otherwise modified cowl (sans sleeves) is given with entrance into candidacy and the novitiate). The full cowl is always reserved for solemn profession (in the picture to the right Sister Ann Marie, OCSO, will receive the full cowl after she signs her vows just as Sister Karen, OSCO is shown doing below). Generally. a person just discerning whether or not they are truly called to consecrated eremitical life under c 603 is not allowed to wear a habit of any sort. Doing so is also linked to a public state of life with public rights and obligations as well as with the Bishop's permission and ordinarily someone in initial discernment is not in such a position.

Remember that a candidate for possible profession under c 603 is usually a lay person with the rights and obligations of any lay person. Because they are not being incorporated into a community in stages (postulancy, novitiate, juniorate, perpetual profession) with commensurate legal (canonical) rights and obligations they are solitary individuals bound "only" by their baptismal commitments. (I do not disparage such commitments by using "only" here. Baptismal commitments are extremely significant but public profession and consecration imply added canonical rights and obligations.)

Moreover, discernment as to whether one is actually meant to be a hermit of any sort can take a number of years. It simply makes little sense for such a person to be given permission to wear representative eremitical garb when they are neither hermits yet (the transition from lone individual to hermit in an essential sense is something one usually negotiates during discernment and initial formation)  nor canonically responsible for the continuation and protection of a vital eremitical tradition. Traditionally, the cowl is associated with the assumption of responsibility for living and representing the fullness of monastic and eremitical life in a formal and canonical sense. When one sees the cowl this is what it indicates or symbolizes. To be faithful to and retain this meaning it is necessary to restrict the ecclesial granting of it to the occasion of perpetual or solemn profession.

I hope this is helpful.