Married Hermits?

Nicolas of Flue

[[Dear Sister, can there be married hermits? I was told it was possible if the spouse agreed and if the married couple decided to forgo marital relations. The hermit who said this is a consecrated Roman Catholic Hermit and referred to Nicolas of Floo (sic) as an illustration.]]

The simple answer is no --- at least if one means by a hermit, one who has ecclesial or canonical standing and lives the central elements of canon 603 -- the normative canon of the Latin Church on what constitutes solitary eremitical life. There are a number of reasons I say this and I would ask you to look at the labels which address the issue of married hermits for other articles on this. (cf Urban and Married Hermits? and Married Diocesan Hermits?) Briefly, married persons are not, by definition, solitaries. They are given wholly to one another and are called upon to live a life of married or sexual love in which both persons bring one another to God, create families, and celebrate the sanctity of human sexuality in a very explicit way. In the sacrament of marriage, two people become one flesh. This is their vocation, not solitude, and especially not solitude which is also vowed to consecrated celibacy. 

Once upon a time, the Church treated marriage as almost a necessary evil that was meant to save individuals from mortal sin due to sexual urges and lust. (Some suggested the sex act remained a venial sin within the context of marriage!) Marriage was, for 12 centuries, not even recognized as a Sacrament. Sex, in particular, was not seen as sacred and a commitment to married or sexual love was not esteemed. During this period of Church history it was possible to find individuals living "as brother and sister" --- meaning in celibacy, and it was also possible to find couples who went off to convents and monasteries or even separated from one another with one going off to live as a hermit. Nicolas of Flue was one of these. 

In fact, this piece of the tradition has hung on into the modern period, but as marriage is more appropriately understood and esteemed, as the sacredness of sexual love is more commonly recognized, and as the universal call to holiness becomes more profoundly appreciated, the church has moved away from approving such "brother and sister" arrangements as well as from the idea of married hermits. Today, the normative definition of the eremitical life is found in Canon 603 and this necessarily includes a commitment to consecrated celibacy. Because of this, the church requires one to be canonically free to undertake profession under c 603 and this means one may not already be bound by a life commitment to marriage, or religious life. (If one is divorced there must also be a decree of nullity to be considered free to undertake another canonical life commitment.)

Again, please check other posts on this. They will expand on the reasons given above. Meanwhile, you might contact the hermit you mentioned and let her know she is mistaken in this information. If she is a consecrated (i.e., publicly professed and consecrated) hermit who is, therefore, a Catholic hermit, then she should know firsthand that c 603 cannot be used for married persons (meaning currently married or divorced sans declaration of nullity -- or the dispensation that can sometimes be given in place of this declaration) and I would also hope she has enough theology to be aware of the theological inconsistency between solitary life and married life. In solitary or eremitical life one says with the whole of one's life/being that God alone is enough and can be known/know us in eremitical solitude. In married life, one explicitly witnesses to the fact that we come to God through the love of others --- especially through our complete mutual self-gift and reception of the gift of another's life. In other words, these two vocations to holiness accent very different aspects of the truth of the human being's relationship with God and with others; both aspects are true, but as vocations, they are mutually exclusive; that is, one person cannot simultaneously live them out exhaustively nor simultaneously witness to the truth they each uniquely proclaim.

Canon 603, a Break With the Eremitical Tradition?

[[Dear Sister,
how big a break with the traditional form of hermit life is canon 603 hermit life? Is the focus on law and rules a distortion of the simplicity of the hermit life as found throughout the history of the church until the last century? Why would the church move in this direction? One lay hermit says that the Church had canons on eremitical life in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and that the addition of c 603 in the 1983 Code was designed to curb abuses.]]

Thanks for your questions. I am not sure what you mean by "the traditional form" of hermit life unless you are referring to the most original (Christian) forms established and typified by the Desert Fathers and Mothers (they had more than one). Throughout the history of the church there have been a variety of forms of eremitical life: solitary, laura-based, religious or communal (sometimes called semi-eremitic), anchoritic, urban, reclusive, and so forth. Appropriately, all of them see themselves as carrying on the tradition and spirituality of the Desert -- the spirituality of John the Baptist, Jesus (especially in the desert), and the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Today we recognize three main forms of, or avenues for living, the hermit life: 1) religious or semi-eremitical hermit life which does NOT use Canon 603 as the basis of their public profession (Carthusians, Camaldolese, etc), 2) solitary consecrated or diocesan (canon 603) life, and 3) lay (dedicated or non-canonical) eremitical life. While the desert Fathers and Mothers are the original instance of Christian eremitical life, they lived both solitary and laura-based lives as well as reclusion. So, there has always been significant diversity within several major forms, not just one or (in light of canon 603) two forms or avenues.

I think your question about canon 603 as a break with tradition though, is a question about canonical standing or the place of law in all of this, no? Your next sentence focuses on law and rules and I read it as an elaboration of this first question. Some people do assert that law in any form is not consonant with the eremitical vocation, but these generally mistake license for genuine freedom and forget that freedom is exercised in spite of or at least in relation to life's constraints. They also exaggerate the desert Fathers' and Mothers' freedom from custom, precedents, and the like and minimize the degree of communal responsibility every hermit had. Moreover, they seem to treat post-desert Father/Mother hermit life as entirely independent of the supervision of the Church and her hierarchy, laws, and customs. While there were always folks doing the equivalent of whatever they wanted and calling themselves hermits, and while there have also been true hermits who had no formalized relationship to the institutional church, the general truth is that authentic hermits have often lived in a formal, legalized relationship with the Church and even sometimes with the secular society. This has been true for the majority of the church's history. In any case then, the answer is no, canon 603 eremitical life is not a significant departure from, much less a break with, what has existed for at least the last 14-15 centuries in the Church.

The Customs of the Desert Fathers and Mothers

It is true that the desert Fathers and Mothers were part of a movement to protest the Church's linkage with the State, and substitute in some way for the loss of red martyrdom as well --- the loss of which made living one's faith a less risky or demanding business. These two changes, while certainly desirable, also made living merely as a nominal Christian very much easier. Additionally it is certainly true that the desert Fathers' and Mothers' move away from "the institutional" church led them into an area of recognizably greater freedom and individuality, but not to one of individualism or complete freedom from constraints of any kind. They were prophetic in this move, but they would have ceased to be prophetic had they not also been related to the Church and her Gospel at the same time.

As noted, there were, for instance, customs that these original hermits observed in learning their vocation; novices lived with an elder who mentored them and taught them what they needed to know. Such elders also served to help discern the genuineness of the novice's call to the desert. They taught the Scriptures, assisted the novices to learn to pray assiduously, to fight demons, to fast, to live the evangelical counsels, etc. Additionally among these thousands of hermits there were customs regarding the giving or taking away of the habit (they could not be donned on one's own authority and would be taken away if the person lived the life badly), the way one lived in one's cell, the ways one exercised hospitality, requirements for work, manual labor, time out of cell, etc. but beyond the desert Fathers and Mothers and their customs, eremitical life has always been supervised (often by Bishops) and subject to forms of legislation (established Rules, monastic constitutions, decretals, diocesan ordine, etc).

A Summary of the Relationship between Solitary Hermits and the Hierarchy in the post-desert Fathers Church

Thomas McMahon, O Carm, writes a brief general summary of some of this history and notes; [[While the early lay hermit movement [speaking of non-religious, non-ordained hermits] was very charismatic, the hierarchical Church demanded some measure of accountability. Lay hermits enjoyed certain canonical rights and protections both in ecclesiastical and civil law. Consequently one was not free to simply go off on one’s own and become a hermit. Because they often did some spontaneous preaching and often depended on the alms of the faithful for support, the bishops claimed some rights over them. While anyone was free to live a life of retirement and prayer, a man needed to seek the blessing of the local prelate before he could assume the habit of a hermit. Hermits, like canonical pilgrims, wore a tunic that fell somewhat below the knees but was not as long as a clerical gown. They belted this with a leather belt, and wore a short hooded cape. Pilgrims, in addition to this basic habit, added a purse slung from their belts in which to keep food or alms given them for their journey, and they also wore the badge of their pilgrimage such as a scallop shell for those going to the shrine of Saint James at Compostella or a palm for those going to Jerusalem. The pilgrim, like the hermit, had a right to appeal for alms.]] Emphasis added.

In a work including more detailed inventories of the legal rights and obligations of hermits (anchorites) in various countries @ 1000 AD (one essay deals with hermits @ 400 AD onwards), Anchoritic Traditions of Medieval Europe has several essays by various authors, two of which especially make it clear that anchorites during this period were generally scrutinized by and lived eremitical (anchoritic) life under the supervision of their Bishops. While the Bishop's primary (and lengthiest) duty was to see to the spiritual well-being and maturation of the anchoress, there were established rites of enclosure, sometimes with a Mass, sometimes not, requirements regarding financial well-being, suitability of the anchorhold, etc. Some dioceses had detailed lists of statutes ("ordine") applying to anchorites and extending certain benefits to those who were their benefactors. Civil laws also were promulgated which protected the anchorites. Their lives and presence were highly valued so these statutes or ordines established formal relationships between anchorite and the society at large which protected all involved and are reminiscent of the way canon 603 functions today. (cf, McEvoy, Anchoritic Traditions of Medieval Europe.)

Canon 603 as Break with Tradition: A Serious Misconstrual of Eremitical History

All of these things and more point to the fact that it would be a serious misconstrual of the history of eremitical life to suggest there was one form in the main which existed until canon 603, and which was free of canonical or civil legal constraints and permissions. While there have always been those who went off to live lives of prayer (or those who went off to do their own thing!), those who were recognized as hermits or anchorites and wished to minister in the church through or in light of their solitude have generally been licensed (yes, actually licensed!) or "approved" by their Bishops and thus bound by a variety statutes or lists of statues and canons established diocese by diocese. Canon 603 is unique because for the first time ever it provides for hermits to assume standing in universal law and for that reason, and to some extent, it cuts through all of the varying diocesan regulations which governed this life through the centuries.

By its establishment Canon 603 continues and renews a tradition of dialogue between  church and hermits where the church accommodates the authentic call to solitude in various ways while the hermit herself accepts the relationships and commitments established in law to assist her in this. Hermits have always been dependent in some way on those around them, whether it is their town, their community, their parish, diocese, or the church at large. Even the largest numbers of the desert Fathers and Mothers lived on the edge of the desert rather than alone in the deep desert and were accessible to those in the nearby towns and villages. In later centuries it was expected that some situation like this would exist for the mutual benefit of all concerned; total solitude was not only impossible, but undesirable. (cf Mari Hughes-Edwards, "Anchoritism: The English Tradition", p146, op cit.)

What law does, and, apart from heavy-handed abuses or mere attempts at control, what it has always done, is establish stable ways this dependence can be worked out for the benefit of the whole church. Canon 603, for instance, does away with some of the instability which can obtain from diocese to diocese, parish to parish and village to village by establishing this vocation in universal law and locates the hermit in the heart of both the local and universal church. (Calling the hermit forth from the parish or cathedral community and publicly professing her in the parish or cathedral church underscores this traditional understanding of the mutual relationship between hermit, community, and Bishop. Yet, each hermit, et. al. will work this out individually as best suits her vocation.) What it also does is provide for a vocation which requirements for participation in the sacraments and an essential ecclesiality once made illegitimate. Paul Giustiniani (Camaldolese) called for laura-based eremitical life and an end to solitary eremitical life when these requirements were codified. Now, once again, because of canon 603, the church is recovering the solitary eremitical vocation and providing norms which remind us these vocations are 1) ecclesial rather than individualistic, and 2) despite a rich diversity, marked by specific non-negotiable elements.

Reasons Canon 603 was Promulgated (yet again!)

As for the reason canon 603 was established then, it is much more positive than an attempt to deal with abuses. I have told this story at least twice before so please do check labels on the history of canon 603 (cf canon 603 --- history) for a more complete account. As you can see from the terribly abbreviated snapshot of historical conditions above, while law did prevent abuses its more important raison d'etre was the protection and nurturing of a very unusual or uncommon, fragile, and significant vocation. Candidates needed to be checked out (not everyone can live this life!), they had to be provided for, whether by their town, by other benefactors, or --- when these failed --- by the anchorite's own Bishop. Without the protection of law the existence of hermits becomes a very iffy thing, which means that without the protection and requirements of law and the relationships legal standing helps establish and regulate, a Divine vocation can be lost.

Canon 603 serves to replace, or at least subordinate to universal law, any diocesan schema used to legislate hermits from diocese to diocese. It calls all dioceses and all Bishops to reflect on the essential nature and value of the eremitical life and be sure that candidates for this life live these central elements with fidelity and even prophetic power. It allows for collaboration and learning from one another regarding successful and unsuccessful examples of this vocation in our own day and age and helps the entire Western Church to be on the same page in approaching such vocations. At the same time it does not level out or destroy legitimate individuality. It allows for and, in fact, requires the hermit's own Rule or Plan of Life which she writes herself and which reflects her own individual lived expression of the essential elements of canon 603 in dialogue with both the eremitical tradition more generally and the contemporary world. If a country has 100 diocesan hermits, it also has 100 individual expressions of this life. At the same time all of these hermits are publicly covenanted (vowed) to live the same essential elements. This is the pattern of all authentic eremitical life --- a pattern of individual creativity and faithfulness to the central elements and values of a given tradition in conjunction with the hermit's own world, and in response to the Holy Spirit. Canon 603 helps ensure this authentic pattern.

Finally, though I have said this in this article and many times in this blog over the past several years, let me reiterate: Canon 603 is absolutely new in universal law. There has never been such a canon affecting the universal Church before in the Western Church. The 1917 Code had nothing in it addressing eremitical life. (As I understand it, a 1911 draft version of such a canon did not ultimately find its way into the 1917 Code.) This was left up to the proper law of religious congregations --- that is, to the constitutions of religious congregations (many of which had no provision for such a call to solitude!). Neither was c 603 developed primarily because of abuses. This had been necessary in the past when hermits were numerous, but in the modern era Religious hermits were governed by proper law and solitary lay hermits (of which there were few beyond the middle ages and almost none in the contemporary period) lived privately committed lives and most people did not know of their existence.

Neither did canon 603 come to be because hermits wanted some kind of social privilege or status. It came to be because religious who discovered a call to solitude late in their vowed lives were often required to leave their communities and vows and become secularized to try and live out such a call. (Again, often the congregation's proper law had no provision for hermit life and there was none in universal law -- i.e., the 1917 Code of Canon Law.) Meanwhile eremitical life --- at least as an institution --- was called upon to exercise a place in a more public dialogue with and prophetic or countercultural witness to the contemporary world --- even if the individual lives of hermits were essentially hidden. Bishops recognized the gap in law here based on the significant pastoral inadequacies of the situation, and pressed for the Church to recognize the eremitical life as a state of perfection. In any case, "canonical status" does not refer to this kind of status (that of social privilege) but to standing in law as well as to initiation into what the church refers to as a (stable) status or "state of life." After all, as I have also noted before, one does not correct a badly lived lay eremitical life by granting the hermit admission to public vows and canonical standing. While such standing emphatically does not mean the canonical hermit has a higher vocation nor necessarily is a better hermit than her lay counterparts, it does mean she accepts public responsibility for the eremitical vocation generally and her own call specifically. It makes little sense to extend such responsibilities or the rights that go with them to one who has shown they live the life badly, especially when their existence is hardly known.

Summary: Canon 603 a Continuation and Renewal of Tradition

The bottom line in all of this is that canon 603 is entirely consistent with the history of the way eremitical life has been lived in the Western Church throughout the centuries. It is not a break with that tradition despite the fact that it is also new in some significant ways. Instead it recovers something that was lost in the Western Church, especially after the Middle Ages --- namely, solitary eremitical life lived in dialogue with the Church especially in the person of the diocesan Bishop. In response to the needs of the church and world, it also makes of diocesan eremitical life a "state of perfection" and allows for public vows (or other publicly embraced sacred bonds). This means that the "religious state" is no longer only associated with public vows made within the context of a religious community. (Cf, Holland, Sharon, IHM, Handbook of Canons 573-746 especially p 55, O'Hara, Ellen, CSJ, Norms Common to all Institutes of Consecrated Life,), but again, these new elements are lived out by virtue of the traditional dialogue/relationship between individual hermit and the local Bishop common throughout the history of the life.

I hope this helps.

Public vs Private Profession or Profession vs Commitment: Followup questions

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, As a lay person who has made Simple, Personal Vows to God which were witnessed by the parish priest, and as a lay person who has written and observes a personal Rule, it seems that my actions are strictly between myself and God, and that no special obligations or relationship exists between me and any official part of the Church, and in no official capacity, and that even though my vows were witnessed by the priest, I have not accomplished a "Profession". Am I correct? It would seem I am truly on my own, and not obligated to the Church in any official way, which leaves me free, but obligated to live a good and moral life and loyal to the Church. I hope to have the help of the Church, certainly Her prayers and blessings as I may have the good fortune to receive them, but that I am not in a "consecrated STATE" as far as the Church is concerned.

Thanks very much for your questions. I realize asking them indicates both understanding and substantial personal pain. I am breaking them up and placing them throughout this post, but let me try to answer in a way which brings out not only the distinctions involved between public and private profession (or, what some, more accurately, call profession vs dedication) but also the seriousness of what you have indeed committed to.

As noted in the last post, Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, defines profession as a formal, solemn, and public act by which a person undertakes a state of life, and when looked at that way, your vows are indeed a dedication but not a profession. In what I have written on this blog I have tended to a usage which distinguishes between public and private professions while implicitly linking these to differing states of life. Sister Sandra's usage in making state of life an explicit part of the definition of profession is less ambiguous and for that reason, perhaps significantly more helpful than my own in avoiding misunderstanding and the obscuring of important distinctions; still, I think we are in essential agreement. Your vows are private and that means that while they are a personally significant expression of your baptismal consecration (for you are indeed consecrated in that way), you remain in the lay state to live out that expression. As is true of any person in the church, you, as baptized, are obliged to live out the evangelical counsels in some way in that state and your vows express this explicitly. What remains true is that the Church which you help constitute both needs and expects you to live out any commitments you make with integrity and seriousness. She has affirmed that baptism constitutes a universal call to holiness and that holiness is no less exhaustive or significant than the call experienced by someone in the consecrated or ordained states.

It is true that, as you say, your private dedication of yourself via these vows does not cause you to enter the consecrated state of life and does not lead to the same kinds of legitimate (canonical) relationships an ecclesial vocation with public vows does. You do not have legitimate superiors, for instance, do not belong to a congregation or religious community by virtue of this commitment nor do you enjoy additional rights, obligations or protections which are part of such relationships in order to support the stable state of life for which they exist. While you are expected to live out your baptismal vows (the laws which bind every Catholic are indeed binding on you and hold you accountable for this) you have assumed no additional legal rights or obligations nor entered into the additional legal (canonical) relationships which obtain in public profession. However, the values you live out in those vows are personally binding on you nonetheless because they are real specifications of your baptismal consecration. Your dedication (i.e., your private vows) commits you in a serious and real way until you discern either that you are no longer called to this or until you determine you need no additional vows to live out your baptismal consecration and act to have these vows dispensed by your pastor, for instance.

The Importance of Private Commitments

[[This is an important distinction because there actually would seem to me to be a consecration of sorts present by virtue of trying to fulfill what I believe to be God's desires in my life; it would seem necessary in order to fulfill them. I am obligated to obey the Church by the wording and intent of the my (sic) vows, as much as I am obligated to fulfill my vows to God to whom I made them, and a blatant refusal or deliberate failure to do so would be a sin. I had the intent of living by the vows I took forever, but it seems the Church does not see my vows that way in spite of what I may have intended. Which makes me wonder then, what is my obligation to my Lord if having made vows with the intent of permanency and solemnity the Church does not see things that way? If I were a younger person it might be easier to resolve the issue by entering a religious order or lay institute and making profession; unfortunately, it seems that time is past.]]

Both God and the Church expect you to live out the private vows you have made as part of a significant Christian commitment, and to do so with integrity. The Church expects you to lead others in taking their own baptismal commitments with absolute seriousness as well. She also takes your private vows seriously --- which is one reason she provides for their dispensation by your pastor, Bishop, or others designated to do so in case you discern you are called to something else (c.1196), for instance. She does not simply say, "Oh, just move on --- forget about them! They are insignificant" They are not. They are significant commitments to God. However the church, who had no part in discerning the wisdom of or mediating your vows, does regard them as private commitments which can be dispensed without additional legal steps and without directly affecting your relationships with others in the church should you discern that is the right course of action. (For instance, when a religious seeks dispensation of her vows this affects others in direct and significant ways, whether they are her superiors who participate in what is often a painful process of discernment and cease to be legally responsible for her or her vocation), her community more generally (who love her and, though retaining profound friendships, lose her as a Sister in religion and important member of the community or congregation), or the church as a whole (who now welcome her as a lay person), etc.) Should you ever seek dispensation of your vows others are not similarly affected because your commitments, while personally significant, are private and made privately to God.

Even so, what does not change in all of this for you is your baptismal consecration and your responsibility to live out an exhaustive holiness accordingly in ways which are paradigmatic of and for the lay state. This IS a formal, solemn, and public sacramental consecration for you and affects many people and the life of the Church more generally. It is the power of this consecration which I believe is behind your sense that some consecration is necessary to live out your own private commitments. Your baptismal consecration grounds and empowers your living out the will of God in your life.

A larger question regarding the place of private vows for the baptized or married

Whether this applies in your specific case or not, one of the issues your questions raise is the remaining effects of a theology of religious life and vocation which effectively treated baptism as an entry level position in the church and other vocations as higher levels and more exhaustive forms of holiness. We have to encourage people to take their lay (baptismal) consecration and commitments with absolute seriousness. We have to be clear that every Christian is called to the evangelical counsels in some sense and we have to find ways to communicate that. Too often people seek to make private vows in an attempt to express their sense they are called to a self-commitment and holiness "more" exhaustive than their baptismal consecration involves.

For instance, they may make a vow of obedience as "listening" and commit to reading the Bible or listening to the Word of God in other ways when in fact these are generally things EVERY Christian is obliged to by virtue of their identities as Christians. They may make a vow of poverty in terms of a simplicity and detachment which are themselves something every Christian is obliged to by virtue of their baptism.

Sometimes, as I have mentioned before, I hear from married persons seeking to make additional vows --- usually of poverty and obedience, though sometimes also of chastity. When we talk about the matter and examine why they feel this way and what it is their marriage vows call them to in this place and time, there is usually no need for additional vows. Further, given the relationship between wife and husband there is usually no real place for vows which are private and bind only one of them. What was needed in such cases was a clearer idea of how significant and demanding are the public vows (baptism and marriage) they have already made. The significance and nature of these vows as public vows which are a means and call to achieving holiness and union with God, and in the case of marriage vows, a call to such holiness and union through this union with another, had slipped from sight. So had the need to reflect on and grow in their understanding and living out of these vows --- just as Religious routinely reflect on and grow in their their own.

The Church has contributed to this problem through the centuries. Vatican II took a decisive step away from the theology which engendered and exacerbates it. But we have a long way to go in implementing Vatican II in our lives and allowing it to guide our theologies, especially in this area. While wonderful and essential, it is not enough that lay people are moving into areas of ministry that were closed to them before. A fundamental change in our appreciation of what the lay vocation is and demands is still necessary so that people do not continue to feel they have only been called to an entry level vocation and cannot give their whole selves to God in this way.

Mutual rights and obligations: The relation to Profession and Vows

[[Hi Sister,

when you speak of the relationships that obtain from public profession, and the mutual rights and obligations which result, do you mean that your vows bind someone else in some way? You can't be meaning your Bishop is bound to poverty, chastity, or obedience, by your vows can you?]]

Ah, good question and one which requires greater clarity of language than I have achieved, apparently. The answer is, no. A vow obligates only the one making it. (c.1193) But profession is not the same thing as vows even though it most often occurs by means of vows. Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, defines profession as "the formal, solemn, and public undertaking of a state of life." Such an act and undertaking rests and builds upon the fundamental commitment of baptism both "specifying that original commitment and giving it a characteristic 'shape'." (Schneiders, New Wineskins, p. 57)

Thus, I alone am obligated to poverty, chastity, and obedience. These are my vows and no one else can fulfill them or is obligated to do so. However, in the act of profession made in the hands of my Bishop a series of ecclesial relationships are set up that did not exist before and these relationships include mutual rights and obligations. Thus, I am vowed to obedience to God but this is symbolized and especially expressed in my relationship with Bishop as legitimate superior and those he delegates to act in this regard. Meanwhile, the church as a whole is also a participant in and mediator of mutual rights and obligations and is allowed because of this formal, solemn, and public act of profession to hold certain necessary expectations of me and in varying appropriate ways to assist and hold me to accountability in regard to this vocation.

The state of life entered at (public) profession is the religious or consecrated state. There are attendant obligations but, as Schneiders points out, the obligations do not exhaust the meaning of profession. For instance, for the diocesan hermit these obligations can include the evangelical counsels, the requirements of her Rule, and so forth. But the profession itself is broader than these. It is the act of total or exhaustive self-gift which, in the case of religious or diocesan hermits, includes an openness to being consecrated by God through the mediation of God's Church as a part of the entire act--- no matter whether vows are used in the expression and explicitation of this self-gift or not. It is the person's profession and the church's reception of profession which results in mutual or related rights and obligations. The vows per se are binding only on the one making those vows.

Ecclesial Vocations and the importance of canonical standing --- a matter of stable relationships

Dear Sister O'Neal, what you have written about the relationship that obtains from public profession is helpful in under-standing more of what it means to have an ecclesial vocation [isn't] it? I have read what you have written on this before but I was not so clear about legal standing creating particular binding relationships which involve the Church herself. That seems to be an important distinction between public and private commitments. It also seems light years away from legalism --- and I know you have been accused of this in the past. Have some also criticized you regarding the idea of the "security" which is built into canonical standing in regard to the eremitical vocation? Thank you for saying more about this.]]

One of the really good things about blogging and answering questions is it helps clarify and expand my own understanding of various things. Sometimes it pushes my thought in directions I might not otherwise have gone. It also means that others can help me in evaluating the conclusions I reach. Had people not written me about what they perceived as legalism, I would not have explored matters in quite the same way I have. Of course, the heart of this particular exploration stems from my own lived experience of the differences between living an eremitical life apart from canon 603 and living such a life under canon 603; still, the criticisms you mention are actually very helpful to me in reflecting on and articulating what is an amazing and paradoxical reality. I should also mention that sometimes I hear far more friendly comments on all of this from Sisters and others who really can't imagine my binding myself to a code of canons in order to live what is a very free and flexible life. Of course, they know first hand and can reflect on the place of legally binding relationships in their own lives and see how these serve to free them for ministry, education, and vocation more generally as well as how they may be constraining in ways that chafe.

Yes, the accent on the stable, legal relationships which obtain from canonical standing help to understand what ecclesial vocations are all about. Diocesan eremitical vocations are ecclesial vocations, vocations which are discerned, mediated, nurtured, and governed by the church. The point I usually accent is that of mediation because such vocations are not a matter of the person alone determining they have such a call, nor can a person receive such a call ONLY in her own heart. Such vocations, as I have written before, are mutually discerned, and further, they are mediated to the individual by the Church in the person of a legitimate authority who intends to do this in a public act of the whole Church. 

The dimension which I had not focused on particularly or adequately was the dimension of the continuing stable relationships which obtain once the call (a continuing reality) is definitively mediated to the person. (Definitive mediation occurs in the rite of perpetual or solemn profession, for instance, and includes a definitive response to this call.) Not only do these relationships (with diocese, legitimate superior, monastery, community, congregation, etc) reflect the new state and relationship that exists between the individual and God, but they ensure that God's own call is a continuing reality in her life. Likewise they provide the structure necessary to allow the person to continue and grow in her response.

At the same time, a call is not heard once, answered once, and then treated as a past reality. One does not merely live from the memory of this past and already-answered call. Instead calls are continuing realities which evolve and in ecclesial vocations the call and the person's response are mediated in a continuing way through the stable relationships set up by the definitive act of perpetual or solemn public profession and/or consecration. The voice of God comes to us anew every minute of every day and the several relationships which obtain canonically in public commitments made in the hands of a legitimate superior are one of the significant ways this occurs. In a way, I have to say not that I have answered a call mediated by God's Church, but rather that I am answering a Divine call which God's Church continues to mediate to me -- though it is also true that I have answered in a definitive way at perpetual profession. The stable public relationships are meant to allow and assist me in this. This is true whether I am speaking of my relationship with canon law, with my legitimate superior, with my delegate, my parish community, or my diocese and the universal church as a whole. Like all relationships these are demanding and constraining. But they are also freeing.

In any case, what I have written about canonical standing is not driven by legalism. A focus on law for the law's own sake is legalism; a focus on law and standing in law in order to express and look carefully at the stable relationships which obtain and which allow for ecclesial vocations being lived with seriousness, integrity, and accountability is not. I would agree that these two things are light years apart, though they do have law in common. It is because of this that when people speak of the "mere formality" of canonical profession as though this is merely an "official" stamp of "approval" on a privately discerned vocation, or something with which a hermit seeks to have some kind of privileged social "status," I think it is a clear sign they have not yet understood either the purpose or the nature and significance of canonical standing.

The criticism about the security involved in the diocesan eremitical vocation (which is actually not one I hear very much) has to be answered in light of these realities. Stable, secure relationships like those I have mentioned are part of the necessary context for exploring a life which is responsible and witnesses publicly to everyone that God alone is capable of completing and redeeming one. For the hermit in particular, they help ensure her ability to proclaim the gospel message associated with the redemption of isolation into authentic solitude. They are a way to help ensure the continuing vitality of a vocation which is God's own gift entrusted to the Church for her own well-being. In my own experience, one enters into such relationships on behalf of God and the Gospel which one's vocation represents and reveals. In any case, as already noted, the insecurity of the diocesan eremitical life is substantial; the security which obtains is at the service of God and his own purposes and does not necessarily diminish the radical insecurities which are part and parcel of the vocation. This is part of the reason, I think, that dioceses do not support c 603 hermits throughout their lives, provide residences, etc.

Having said that it should be clear that the line between the two (radical insecurities and securities) is quite fine and at points becomes somewhat artificial. Further questions need to be raised about older diocesan hermits who are ill or frail and are publicly and perpetually professed. It may well be that the radical insecurity of their vocations can be assured and still allow greater assistance from their dioceses, etc, but this is a different topic. With regard to what you have asked about however, the security of an ecclesial vocation and the relationships which are part and parcel of that serve not so much the hermit's personal security, but rather the hermit's vocational security and that of the Church's own patrimony.

Is your life as a diocesan hermit jeopardized by a new Bishop coming in?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,

Are the rights and obligations you accepted with public profession in jeopardy should another Bishop come in? What I am thinking is what happens if a bishop comes in who doesn't believe there should be diocesan hermits? Would you lose your vows or your relationship with the Bishop?]]

No. While the more personal dimensions of the relationship between hermit and superior might be less than ideal in such a case --- especially in the beginning before the two people know each other better or, in particular, have had a chance to meet with each other one on one to discuss the vocation and how things are going with it, the hermit's vocation or vows are not in jeopardy simply because a new Bishop is installed. In my last post I noted that one of the relationships established in public vows was established between the Bishop, his successors, and the hermit. It is the office of Bishop in this specific diocese acting in the name of the whole Church which assumes a relationship of specific rights and obligations with regard to this hermit while the hermit herself assumes specific rights and obligations in regard to the local ordinary of this diocese via public vows --- whoever he is in the future. Should this Bishop move or retire, the rights and obligations of the hermit continue and the new Bishop assumes his predecessor's place in the legal (that is, canonical) relationship.

The hermit in perpetual vows, then, is not at risk of ceasing to be a diocesan hermit each time a new Bishop is installed. This is so even if that Bishop does not believe in the vocation and so forth. The situation with temporary vows differs somewhat, so let me make a bit of an excursus here. In such a case, there is a chance that the new Bishop would choose not to renew these vows once they had expired; temporary vows are made for a certain period of time and this remains a time of discernment for all involved. Should a new Bishop decide the vocation is wrong for the diocese at this time, find the person is not really called to either renewal of temporary vows (whether now or for some time period,) or to perpetual vows, then he has the right to refuse admittance to these and, when the vows expire, the person will cease to be a diocesan hermit. They would probably choose to remain a lay hermit in such a case, difficult as this might be for them in some ways but they would need to discern this step afresh. Also, one would hope that a Bishop coming into a diocese where there are diocesan hermits in temporary canonical (public) vows would himself act out of true discernment, and not out of bias of course, but the latter does remain a possibility.

My own vows however are canonical, perpetual, and were made to God in the hands of the Bishop as representative of the Church. He was acting in her name in receiving those vows, and so, his act binds the Church and the hermit in a new legal and public relationship. (At profession besides a copy of the vows signed and witnessed during the ceremony, I received a notarized statement verifying the public and perpetual nature of these vows signed by both the Bishop and the Vicar for Religious and Ecclesiastical notary.) Only the canonical dispensation of my vows for significant valid reasons can alter the relationships, rights, and obligations which obtain in public profession. Your question is really a good one because it helps outline the relative security of the relationship per se, as well as illuminating a piece of what we mean by initiation into a state of life. The Church defines consecrated life in part as involving initiation into the consecrated state achieved in a definitive (permanent, solemn, or perpetual) act --- that is, into a stable and lasting state where one dedicates oneself, is set apart (consecrated) by God and acquires rights and obligations which do not themselves flow directly from one's Baptism. Once this occurs, all parties are obligated to respect the relationships, rights, and obligations which obtain. In regard to your question this means any future Bishop coming into the diocese as pastor.

Your question also helps illuminate the importance of canonical standing (standing in law) for those called to it. In the case of diocesan hermits, the hermit does not, at least, have the insecurity of wondering if she will continue to be able to live her vocation freely or explore the frontiers of solitude in God as she has covenanted to do on behalf of others and in the name of the Church simply because the diocese is going to experience a change in personnel. There is plenty of insecurity in the diocesan eremitical life just as there is in any eremitical life, but this one particular bit is not an issue. The Church itself is bound to assist the hermit in this and bound in specific legal ways. Standing in law is not a bit of mere formality or icing on the eremitical cake; it sets up stable and lasting relationships which all involved are bound to observe for the good of the vocation generally, the person called to this vocation specifically, and the church herself.

What we must remember is that law is meant to serve love; it is also meant to provide freedom, because constraints can serve genuine freedom. In other words, canon law sets up a number of constraints for the diocesan hermit, but these tend to serve her well in freeing her to live a life of solitude without being concerned with explaining herself to those around her, or being threatened with the fear that perhaps she has mistaken how she is to participate either in the world around her or the life of the church. Law's obligations assist the hermit in living her life, not just moving through day by day wondering if she has yet discovered what that life is actually meant to be. It outlines and binds the hermit to a life of the evangelical counsels, to a Rule she herself writes and a Bishop officially decrees is acceptable for living this life, and to a number of other canons which apply to anyone with public vows, but the realm it sets up in doing so is one of life in God. While the parameters may function as constraints in one way, they are precisely the things which help the hermit to go deeper and to explore this particular country as freely and exhaustively as possible.

In a sense this is an outline of what monastic stability means. Monastics relinquish the right to simply go wherever the grass seems greener at the time in order to live as fully as possible with the grace of God right here in this place. Married persons do something of the same. They bind themselves to the constraints of a commitment to this other, this family, these specific needs, the potential and limitations of this series of relationships at this time and in this place so that they can live out this love as fully and exhaustively as possible in the way they feel called to by God --- something which must often be distinguished from what a person merely WANTS to do. It is the role of civil and canon law to protect this possibility. It is ironic that this freedom comes with the imposition of constraints, but that is always the way of true achievement and true freedom. Writers are bound to the constraints of language to produce something which is truly transcendent. Musicians are bound to the constraints and capacities of instruments, music notation, physical abilities of musicians, etc in order to do likewise. Canonical hermits have their call and response mediated by the Church and that mediation includes the establishment of parameters and constraints which free for genuine transcendence.

In any case, the answer to your question is no, diocesan hermits' vocations/vows are not in jeopardy merely because of changes in episcopal personnel precisely because the vows are public. The related canonical relationships are established with the Church as a whole but through the office of Bishop within a specific diocese. (Should the hermit desire to leave the diocese, she must receive approval from her own Bishop and the Bishop in the diocese she proposes to move to. The new Bishop must specifically agree and act to take on the rights and responsibilities of legitimate superior to the diocesan hermit and do so on behalf of his successors as well. He must agree to receive vows in his hands --- or the canonical or functional equivalent.) If a Bishop refused to do so and the hermit moved to this diocese anyway, the new Bishop would indeed be her Bishop, but he would not be her legitimate superior and she would not be a diocesan hermit (her vows would cease to be binding due to the substantial change in circumstances and could be formally dispensed by her former diocese). The two relationships (pastor vs legitimate superior) obviously differ in significant ways. 

To summarize then, the act of making vows in the hands of her Bishop binds both the hermit and the Church as a whole in a constellation of mutual rights and obligations which differ from those which obtain at Baptism. Together, serving one another in a legitimate (that is, legal) relationship, they free the hermit to live the life she is called to and help ensure the eremitical life itself continues to be a vital and integral part of the church's patrimony.

Reception vs Witnessing of Vows: Is there a Difference?

[[Sister Laurel,

What is the difference between private vows that are witnessed by a priest or even a Bishop, and vows that are received in the name of the Church by a priest or Bishop? I have heard someone with private vows say her vows were received by a priest. But were they?. . .]]

There are two ways of thinking and speaking about this. The first (and I would argue, the mistaken way) says all vows which are made to God in the presence of someone in the Church, usually a priest but sometimes a spiritual director, etc, are received but do not necessarily set up a legitimate relationship between the one receiving the vows and the one making them.  In such a case they may be private vows marking a private act of commitment or dedication and the person 'receiving' the vows does not become responsible in any way for the continued living out of these vows. The second and correct way of speaking reserves the use of the term received for those vows which are public, are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the Church, and result in public rights and obligations as well as establishing a legitimate relationship between the one making the vows and the one receiving them. For private vows which do not do this, the term witnessed is used instead.  Speaking in this second way distinguishes between receiving vows as a person acting in his/her own name because s/he does not have the intention or the authority to receive public vows in the name of the Church (which it calls witnessing these vows) and the act of one who has both the authority and the intent to receive these vows publicly in the name of the Church. In either case the real distinction is between private dedication and public profession and the shift in usage to the second way of speaking is meant to underscore this.

When one makes public vows one does so literally in the hands of a legitimate superior (a superior in law). This is reminiscent of the more ancient feudal oaths of fealty sworn by the subjects of Kings and other nobles in the hands of their superiors. The Lord/King received such an act of fealty and was bound himself by it. Such an act set up a mutual relations

In terms of public vows of religious/consecrated life, the act of profession/consecration sets up a similar relationship between the church in the person and office of a legitimate superior and the one making vows/being consecrated. Thus, for instance, the diocesan hermit has a right to certain expectations of her Bishop in assisting her to live out her vocation in the name of the Church, and the Bishop representing the Church as a whole has similar rights and expectations of the hermit. He commissions her to live out her vocation in the name of the Church. The reception of vows means that they are in this together: hermit and Bishop (and his successors) each with their own rights and obligations --- unless the relationship is substantially changed by the expiration, cessation (due to material changes in the situation) or the dispensation of vows. There is a mutuality of rights and obligations involved in reception of vows. In religious congregations individuals making public vows in the hands of a legitimate superior have the right to expect the superior (and his/her legitimate successors) to act in ways which nurture and protect the person/vocation, while the one making vows acquires rights and responsibilities she did not have before profession.

When vows are witnessed by priests, directors, or even Bishops, none of this occurs. One has committed a private act which is personally significant, but there is no explicit and mutual relationship set up in which both parties are responsible for the vocation being mediated, ratified, and lived out. Witnesses do not receive vows. Neither is there a correlative commissioning of the person to act in the name of the church. We see this kind of situation all the time in the execution of legal documents, etc. For instance, a person witnesses a will. In doing so they do not become part of a mutual relationship with regard to this will. They are not responsible in any way for the carrying out of the terms of the will because while they witness to the FACT of the will they are not a party to the actual legal arrangement being made. If the person executing the will never sees the witness again it is inconsequential to the nature of the document or the legal obligations which obtain. When a person makes public vows witnesses also sign the profession formula, but they do so as witnesses to the relationship and the rights and responsibilities entered into by individual and church in the act of profession. They do not themselves become part of the relationship or complex of mutual rights and obligations extended to or accepted by the one making her profession and the one in whose hands the profession was made.

By the way, it really does not matter if the witness is the Pope himself so long as he is not acting specifically and intentionally to receive these vows in the name of the Church and to enter into a relationship which both extends public rights and responsibilities to this person and accepts a legitimate place in the carrying out of these. But if the vows are private, then this intention (and often, the actual authority to act in this way) is absent. Conversely, if the intention and/or the authority to act in this way are absent, the vows are private. (An ordinary parish priest cannot receive public vows except when authorized to do so by a legitimate superior who may delegate this authority.) If the vows are public then this intention (and the authority to act in this way) are a part of the public nature of the vows themselves --- that is, these are part of what makes these vows public as opposed to private. Since the person you describe self-reported she made private vows, i.e., vows which were personally significant but issued in no legal rights or obligations beyond those already embraced in and mediated through Baptism and no differing legal relationship with her Bishop the second way of speaking would hold these vows were not received, but witnessed.
 

I hope this helps.

Rule of Life Questions; 24 year old Hermits?

[[Sister Laurel, I am 24 yo and have lived in solitude for less than a year although I work outside several days a week to support myself. I would like to write a Rule of life for my diocese who might be open to professing me. What should I include?]]

Thanks for your questions. To answer your direct question, I would suggest you look for posts here under the labels related to a Rule of Life. You will find a couple of posts which treat the kinds of things any Rule should contain if a diocese is 1) to discern clearly that you are called to this life, 2) to see that you have the requisite experience which will admit you to public vows, and 3) to be able to pass on (approve) what you have written canonically (by far the easiest of the three)! The posts list not only the areas a Rule should usually include to be complete, but also point to the kinds of knowledge and experience one must have to write a livable Rule and be faithful to it. They should help you to achieve a balance between a Rule that is overly detailed and does not inspire, and one that is insufficiently detailed and idealistic, but for that very reason,n not really helpful in concrete ways when one is struggling with the day-to-day living of the vocation. Even so, the real key to such balance is the experience of actually living full-time in solitude.

But let me take this in a different direction as well --- because I don't want to encourage you unduly in this venture and even less in the notion that a diocese will admit you to profession if you simply write a Rule, I have to say upfront that I do not know a diocese that would profess as a diocesan hermit someone of your age or degree of life-experience. As I have noted recently, some commentators reflecting on canon 603 vocations suggest that 30 years of age is the absolute minimum age for profession (temporary) under canon 603. This is not a canonical requirement, but is one of the things that needs to be determined prudentially. 

Most regard this vocation as a "second half of life" vocation, and I completely agree, except in cases with serious extenuating circumstances. (Examples would be situations where the person is somehow isolated by circumstances, has NO control over those, and, a la Jung, has achieved a rare maturity because of them. Chronic illness is the one situation that can work this way that is best known to me.) The related problem you face is one I suggested in the last paragraph: namely, your own experience of solitude may not yet allow you the experience or knowledge (both of self and of the eremitical life) to write a livable Rule of Life, much less keep it faithfully or grow in it. Bishops I know believe that 5 years living in solitude prior to temporary profession is also an absolute minimum for a diocesan hermit, and this means that one must live the life for some time before being experienced enough to write a Rule which is liveable. I tend to agree with this as well.

Consider what would happen if a person entered a community of religious women, were given the congregation's constitutions, a Bible, a brochure of the life these Sisters live, and then was left to her own devices for the next six months. Then, with that limited contact with the congregation's life behind them, the congregation asks her to write a Rule of life which reflected her experience of religious life, of the charism of this congregation, the place of prayer, work, ministry, etc. The person being asked to do this would be at a serious disadvantage, wouldn't she? Consider another analogy: you enter a community and live the life for a year. They ask you to write a Rule and suggest that when that is complete they might be open to professing you as a Sister of ___ for the rest of your life. Is it a prudent decision on their part? Is any part of the way they are treating you prudent? Loving? Careful or full of care for you, for the life of the congregation, or the vocation you MAY one day represent? I would say it is not.

While the axiom "remain in your cell and your cell will teach you everything" is profoundly true in the eremitical life, even the earliest Christian hermits had mentors with whom they lived and from whom they learned. We don't have many resources to provide such mentoring, and our culture is vastly different from that of the desert Fathers and Mothers. This means that the diocesan or, better, the solitary eremitical life is even rarer now than it ever was --- and rightly so. Instead, as I have written here before, young persons desiring to explore an eremitical vocation do better to enter a community which stresses solitude, allows for the formation (personal, social, and spiritual) which can usually be gained only in community (or society), and allows one to truly discern with others whether one is called to be a hermit or not.

The one question I must ask you (and I suspect anyone in formation work with your diocese will feel similarly compelled) is "Why?" Why do you want to be a hermit, and why a diocesan hermit at your age? Why are you not exploring congregations if you are interested in solitude and a vowed life? Why do you feel solitude is the right context for living your life? What causes you to say this despite recognizing that solitude is a very uncommon way to human wholeness and holiness? Please don't get me wrong; I love solitude and the life I am called to, but I would never have even considered it at your age! There was too much to learn, and explore, and do at that point --- and too much growing to do in all kinds of ways, even if I didn't always realize that clearly. 

Of course, this doesn't make you wrong and me right, but it does indicate the kinds of questions ANY person with experience in vocation work will want to hear the answers to from you if you approach them about this. You see, not only is solitude ordinarily not the way we come to human wholeness, it is also usually a transitional state --- one which indicates limitations and unfulfilled potentials as well but does so on the way to something else. Anyone looking at you as a candidate will wonder why you feel particularly called to this and will recognize the importance of community in helping form you for solitude as well as in discerning such a vocation.

Since eremitical life is associated with a number of stereotypes (hermits as escapists, social failures, misanthropists, selfish and self-centered persons, eccentrics and lunatics, among others) vocation personnel must be sure they are not professing any one of these --- or anyone with strong strands of these running through them! Further, stereotypes notwithstanding, life in solitude is simply not a "normal" life and, as already noted, eremitism is a very rare vocation. Dioceses with no experience of professing hermits will rightly look for the best qualifications they can find, the strongest and most healthy candidates in order to explore the vocation in their dioceses --- and they may put off people (and rightly so) until they are sure they are not acting precipitously in professing them even temporarily. Those with experience might well be open to professing a somewhat broader range of candidates, but they will also know what age and experience requirements MUST be adhered to generally. Especially, it will need to be clear that they are not doing you (or the vocation of the solitary hermit itself) an injustice in professing you to a life vocation which is rarely the way to human wholeness or holiness.

So, a few more questions I would want to ask you --- not because I expect answers to them, but which I hope you will seriously consider and work through with your director perhaps: If someone else your age came to you and said they wanted to become a diocesan hermit, what questions would you want answered? Realizing the answer may well be "no", are you willing to live as a lay hermit for the next 7-10+ years (that is until you are 31-34+ years old and have lived as a solitary for some time) until your diocese is clear that they should or should not profess you? If not, why not? What deficiencies in your own formation for any form of consecrated life are you aware of and how will you remedy these? (Here I am thinking of the demands in human maturation which anyone your age needs to negotiate to live a disciplined, productive, compassionate, and gospel-centered life.) What deficiencies have you already worked to remedy, and how did you become aware of them? How about deficiencies that make waiting for 7-10+ years without a certain answer very difficult or impossible?

Moreover, what personal strengths does solitary life allow you to live well, and how have you come to that conclusion? Are there better contexts for living these gifts? Do any of the stereotypes I mentioned earlier apply to you in ANY way whatsoever? How will you remedy this? Is there any reason to think that solitude for you is something which is (or should be) transitional? How do any of these questions tie in to writing a Rule of Life? If you are unsure about how to write a Rule or what should be included, why do you think that is? If you have read the posts I put up, which refer to areas that should be included, are there any that you feel unequal to writing about? How will you remedy the situation, and how long do you think it might reasonably take?

I expect you found many of these questions, especially when taken as a group, overwhelming and impossible to answer. The reason is many of them take age and experience to be able to answer and clarity about all of them certainly does. Most of them require working with a spiritual director for some time to discover or work out the answers to. Many can only be answered by extended time in solitude, reflection, and serious prayer. While I don't mean to discourage you unduly, I do want you and others to understand why this vocation is often a second half of life vocation and why younger persons approaching eremitical life via eremitical communities is a better approach for everyone involved. I do wish you well and hope you will write occasionally to let me know how things are going. All my best.

How does the Silence of Solitude involve God?

[[Hi Sister Laurel,

I am glad to see you posting. I missed your posts. Probably you have said this already, but when I read that the silence of solitude is the charism of diocesan eremitical life I don't see God in it. Can you explain this to me?]]

Sure, let me try and let me be really brief. Ordinarily solitude is thought of as being alone, being physically alone, and little more. That is one legitimate meaning of the term and it applies to hermits, but it also stops short of being the solitude to which a hermit is called. One of the reasons I refer often to eremitical solitude is because it is not a matter of just being physically alone, but rather being alone with and in God. This means as well that one is profoundly related to all else that is related to God, and in fact, that one lives her life for them as well. But this kind of solitude is not automatic. It requires a continuing practice of prayer, silence, physical solitude, kenosis (self-emptying), and commitment to that foundational relationship with love-in-act which makes us each human. It also implies commitments to community (for instance to the parish community which is one's primary community, or to the handful of good friends with whom one really shares her daily life) because it is a reality stemming from and leading to love. At bottom, eremitical solitude is communal or "dialogical" because it always means communion or dialogue with God who is the source, ground, and very paradigm of solitude.

Similarly, silence is ordinarily thought to be the absence of sound --- and today, merely a relative absence of noise since our culture's way of covering or distracting us from noise is to add more sound to the mix! But silence is multidimensional and more than just the absence of sound. If you have ever sat in church next to someone who is making no sound but is jiggling their legs, you know this. If you have ever walked into a quiet room of people waiting for you to speak and felt terrified or anxious, you know it. If you have ever been lying in the dark before sleep and felt driven to the kitchen by a desire for chocolate, compelled by thoughts which are obsessive, or struck with a terrible feeling of emptiness or failure, you know that silence is not merely the absence of sound. Instead it has to do with being at peace, with being comfortable with who one is in God, with not having to prove oneself and with letting what comes come in its own time. (I have to remind everyone including myself that this "silence of solitude" is a goal of eremitical life and its realization only comes over time, even when it is present in degrees throughout that life.)

So, the silence of solitude is the silence, and better, the quies which results from being alone in and with God. It refers to the life of wholeness and security of one who knows how profoundly loved she is and who is able to live within and from that love for the sake of others. It involves physical silence, of course, but it is much more and richer than that. What is at its root is God and one's relationship with God and all those whom God holds as precious. It does not exist otherwise.

I hope this helps.

Followup to "Eremitical Life sans Monastic Formation?"

[[Thank you very much for your response. . . .You are right when you say that it would be dishonest to join a community in order to someday leave it to be a diocesan hermit; that being said there are now communities that are open to the hermit vocation (i.e. Trappists and some Benedictine communities). Do you feel that there is a difference between the eremitical life lived by say a Trappist on the grounds of his/her community and that of a diocesan hermit? If so, what do you think would be the difference? I'm thinking there would be a huge convergance between the two ways of life, but perhaps the need to support oneself for the diocesan hermit would put a different spin on the life. I would also imagine that a hermit who belongs to a religious order would also be deeply influenced by the charism of their community more than a diocesan hermit who would unattached to a particular contemplative charism.]]

Great questions! While I believe there are great similarities between any authentic form of eremitical life I do think there are some significant differences between the diocesan or c 603 vocation and that of someone living as a hermit though part of a congregation like the Carmelites or Carthusians or Cistercians.

I have written about this a fair bit here so let me just outline some of the differences at this point. The fact that a c 603 hermit is self-supporting and part of a parish definitely changes the nature of the vocation and allows it to be a gift to people who find themselves isolated and questioning the meaning of their lives. It allows eremitical life to speak to such persons in ways someone living within a monastic base with its inherent security, regularity, freedom from many everyday chores and concerns, and its well-established regard will never do. C 603 hermits living solitude in urban and suburban contexts witness to the possibility of the transfiguration of isolation into true and meaningful solitude, and they do so without withdrawing into a monastery but rather with the same support provided any person by a parish community. They achieve human individuation which contrasts vividly with the individualism of the world which actually discounts their lives --- and they say that others living in the midst of the world can do the same with the grace of God. I think this is the real charism of diocesan eremitical life; in the canon it is best described as "the silence of solitude" lived "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world" and is therefore something our world desperately needs.

Another huge difference of course is that the diocesan hermit has, as her primary community, her parish. I mentioned this implicitly just above. The hermit lives and prays in its midst. She worships there and serves in whatever ways suits her life. She allows her life to touch those of others in the parish as would rarely happen with a monastery or hermitage of a number of hermits, and of course those others touch her life as well --- sometimes quite profoundly. For me personally this tends to lead to an emphasis on the dialogical or communal dimension of solitude which has its origin in the relationship with God a person actually is. This exists for every hermit, but I think it is drawn out in sharper relief for the diocesan hermit.

As for the spirituality attached to particular congregations, most (or at least many!) diocesan hermits do affiliate in some way with a particular form of this even if it is not official. They are still professed as diocesan and may not (i.e., are not allowed to) make vows in another way but they may affiliate more casually with a particular tradition. I am an oblate with the Camaldolese, for instance, and thus, this imparts a particular flavor and set of values to my own embodiment of the eremitical life which differs from that of another diocesan hermit --- someone with a Franciscan spirit for instance. On the other hand diocesan hermits are free to try on various spiritualities to find which serves them and both their charism and mission best. For me Trappist also seems to fit my life very well as does a lot of Eastern (Christian) spirituality. The difference is that I am diocesan and therefore primarily live the charism of that life even if I do so with the assistance of the Camaldolese triple good (community, solitude, evangelism or witness), for instance.

Eremitical Life sans Monastic Formation?

[[Dear Sister, I had a quick question regarding the hermit vocation and discernment. From what I have read, the monastic tradition often sees the hermit vocation as the ultimate expression of monastic life. In his Rule, St. Benedict holds the hermit life in the highest regard. However, he was very clear that such a vocation should be under taken only after years of formation and testing in the monastic community. This seems to be very prudent advice as the hermit life can be very difficult.

As such, isn’t it imprudent that many people today are interested in becoming diocesan hermits without the formation and testing that a proper monastic formation affords? I am having great difficulty understanding how one could discern a calling to the hermit life without being properly formed in the basics of monasticism. I would welcome your insights on how one discerns a vocation to the solitary life without the benefit of living the monastic life in the midst of a monastic community. Even under the guidance of a good priest and the support of a bishop, few in a diocese would understand the monastic life in its deepest sense. As such, few would be able to guide a person living as a hermit.

Could it not be argued that people who want to live the hermit life without the proper formation and testing are at great risk for spiritual self-deception? Could it not be argued that there is real risk of “throwing someone into the deep end of the pool” before they are prepared? Would be fair to say that someone who wants to skip living in a monastery MIGHT be displaying a type of pridefullness and individualism that is contrary to the monastic vocation? Would it not be better for one to join a contemplative order first (even one with hermits…like the Carmelite Hermits in Texas or Carthusians) so that they can be properly supported in their calling? I would appreciate your insights. Thank you.]]

Hi there,
your questions are good ones and essentially right on. Yes, it is dangerous in the ways you say and others as well. Still, while it is important that individuals have all the formation they can get before entering into solitude, and while it is important that we generally treat diocesan eremitical life as a second-half-of-life vocation, there are cases where the solitary eremitical life is a good one for individuals who are younger (one document on c 603 suggests 30 years of age is the very bottom limit for admission even to temporary vows) or have not had the benefit of a monastic formation. However, these are very rare, and so, one thing chanceries need to keep in mind is the rarity of the vocation, both relatively and absolutely.

Even so, it remains true that such persons must somehow get solid foundations in prayer, theology, spirituality, etc, and be good at self-discipline and taking initiative before they are accepted for even temporary profession as a diocesan hermit. Extended stays in a monastery during the period of initial discernment could be VERY helpful here and I personally suggest it should be required of aspirants to diocesan eremitical life without a background in religious or monastic life. This is true because most people today have very little sense of living in silence or solitude (much less the silence OF solitude demanded by canon 603), and they also need an extended period of living a daily horarium that is balanced between prayer, work, study, and lectio. All of this assists discernment and formation both.

One of the things I have written about recently is the fact that our culture is highly individualistic, even narcissistic, and the upsurge in interest in eremitical life is often an expression of this rather than a true call to the generous and other-centered life which is authentically eremitical. There are good spiritual directors who may not be monastics but can wisely direct individuals moving towards eremitical life, and equally, there are directors who are not well-equipped. It is not usually a matter of whether they are monastic but instead whether they are competent directors or not. A director (one skilled at listening) familiar with contemplative prayer and a balanced approach to life, along with a sense that God is found in the ordinary activities of life, and indeed, in the heart of one's own being, is far more important than that the director be a priest or monastic, I think.

Also problematical is the fact that relatively few Bishops, Vicars, or vocation directors really understand the eremitical life and therefore sometimes treat it as merely equivalent to a pious person who lives alone. It is, you can imagine, a good deal more and other than this. (cf post from Dec 9, 2011) While there are many stereotypes of the eremitical life that influence chanceries, this particular misunderstanding is more prevalent and widespread. It is a main contributor to the failure of aspirants who mistakenly think they are called to eremitical solitude. Unfortunately, in such cases, it is not quite the same as "being thrown into the deep end" because in such cases such aspirants never actually reach the deep end. They paddle about in the shallows and think this is eremitical life. The result is an implicit disparagement of this life which makes it both trivial and incredible.

I regularly recommend that younger persons who think they may be interested in eremitical life enter a community which is semi-eremitical not only for proper formation, but for the needed life experience and mutual discernment necessary. It seems completely unfair and imprudent to me to do otherwise. The life is simply too difficult for someone who has little life experience, training, education, etc. However, I do not recommend that anyone do this with the idea that one day they will become a diocesan hermit. The two vocations are different from one another and one does not make vows (especially that of monastic stability) within a community with the idea that one day one will leave it. That would make the vow invalid and be a betrayal of its very meaning.

I hope this is helpful.

Misunderstandings of the origins and Nature of Canon 603 (yet again)

[[Dear Sister, I have been reading online about Catholic Hermits. This morning I read the following passage and was confused by it. I have read what you have written on the origins of canon 603 and that is very different from this. This is from a Catholic hermit who is quoting a canon lawyer:

The Canon lawyer discussed Canon 603, of 1983 and explained it was a revision of the 1917 Canon regarding eremitic life. He said that laws are created due to abuses and also because of desire by some to have "official stamp" of approval. Perhaps there have been those, he pointed out, who said they were going to live a life of stricter separation from the world or in prayer and fasting, but did not. The law provides for the Bishop to step in and correct the abuses, if the hermit has been publicly avowed, and those vows received by the Bishop. . . .He said it is a legality, of publicly approving the hermit in the name of the Church, of it being of public record, regardless of how many were actually at the profession of vows. He said that may be just the hermit and the Bishop. But it is done in the name of the Church, with the Bishop saying he receives the vows on behalf of the Church. . . . Next he spoke of private vows. He said what has been written and repeated: that the privately avowed hermit is also consecrated, also approved, and in keeping with the Church's allowance of this form as well. This type of hermit is approved, but the vows have not been received in the name of the Church by the Ordinary of the Diocese. It is not under Canon Law 603.

How accurate is this? Does it cause you to amend what you have written?]]

Well, there is truth (or accuracy) and untruth (inaccuracy) in this account. Since it is a third party reporting a conversation with an unknown canonist, and since some of it is not included, even in your question, let me be clear that my comment refers only to what is reported. Also, one can report various facts but mislead in import, and I think that is one thing that has happened in the reporting of this conversation. (That is, I think perhaps the canonist may have been misunderstood or inaccurately interpreted in some things.)

So, what is true or accurate here?

1) the notion that public vows do not have to do with notoriety or the number of people at the profession, but instead with the nature of the commitment is true. A public profession and/or consecration binds the person publicly to live out their vocation in the name of the Church. The Church accepts her commitment officially, and commissions her to live it out in her name. The Church as a whole has the necessary right to certain expectations of one in public vows because they no longer live their lives as a private person, but a public one. So too does the world at large have the right to certain expectations in this person's regard if they wear a habit and or use a title in public. They have private lives, of course, but may be called on when out and about by those for whom the title or habit are signs of availability.

2) public vows are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the Church. Private vows are witnessed but not received or made in the name of the Church. The canonist is, of course, completely correct in alluding to all of this.

3) certainly laws can be legislated or turned to because of abuses. The canonist (or his reporter) is entirely correct in this, but emphatically not in attributing the existence of Canon 603 to this situation.

And, so, what is not accurate?

1) Canon 603 was not formulated or promulgated as a revision of the 1917 Code. As I have noted before, it is an entirely new canon which recognizes solitary hermits for the very first time in universal law. The 1917 Code had no canon referring to hermits, and I am surprised a canonist would make such an error. In any case, Religious hermits and religious who desire to be hermits within their own communities are generally covered by the proper law of their congregations. For these no canon is necessary; it is when proper law does not allow for eremitical life that something more is necessary.

2) Canon 603 was not formulated to correct abuses, nor, as a completely new canon rather than a revision could it have been meant to do this. Instead it was written and promulgated because there were hermits who had been religious or monastics for many years and had therefore been solemnly professed for some time, but who, in order to live out a call to eremitical solitude they had experienced years after Solemn profession, had been required to seek dispensation of their vows and secularization. This was necessary because their congregations did not have proper law allowing such a life. A number of these formed a colony of hermits in British Columbia. Bishop De Roo and others begged the Fathers at Vatican II to recognize the eremitical life as a state of perfection. Canon 603 is the eventual result. Of course, it is true that a Bishop who found a regular pattern of infidelity to one's vows could require the canonically professed hermit to submit to discipline including dispensation from vows, but I have to say, this is something which is VERY far from most hermits' minds or concern. The place of law in their lives is both far more positive and also more marginal than this. (For a more detailed account of Bishop De Roo's arguments to the Fathers at the Council, please see  Bishop De Roo's arguments under "The Heart of the Matter".)

Further, though, I think this view of the place of law in a diocesan hermit's life, and certainly of the creation of Canon 603, has things backwards --- especially since this is an entirely new canon recognizing a new form of consecrated life. The notion that the Church would create a canon for obscure, almost wholly unknown lay hermits who were not living their vocations, or admit one to public vows because they need some kind of policing seems ludicrous to me. As noted, religious hermits would be covered already under both canon law and the proper law of their congregations. No new canon is necessary for these hermits, whether to correct "abuses" or to maintain the discipline of their lives.

The point is that no one is going to admit someone to public profession because that person needs policing, or because the Bishop requires a way to correct a badly lived private eremitical life.  After all, in such a situation one also has to ask, "In the absence of a canonical commitment with canonical obligations and rights, what is being abused? What is being abused when there are no norms to govern this life, and no legal obligations one has committed by vow or other sacred bond to fulfill?" In such a case, an instance where some sort of weirdness or irregularity was present, the person would never be admitted to public vows,  nor to the consecration and commissioning associated with these given the public rights and responsibilities entailed. The Church would never initiate one into a public vocation in order to correct irregularities (at least not in a situation where the vocation is rare and abuses few and far between). One needs a proven track record of living as a lay hermit or religious living in solitude before the Church admits one to public eremitical vows under canon 603. For those who have a contrary track record, allowing them to remain unrecognized in the relative obscurity of a private eremitical life is a far more effective and prudent way to deal with their badly lived eremitical life.

At the same time, it is true that the fact that a commitment is public and binding in law does indeed assist the hermit to be true to that commitment when it is tempting to "do as one wishes" instead ---- for whatever reason that occurs. Still, this is at best secondary to the primary reason for legal standing and public commitment and consecration, namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit is working in this way in the Church and has called the Church to mediate God's call to this vocation and recognize it as a state of perfection for the salvation of the World. Diocesan eremitical life is a gift of God to the Church and canon 603 is the way this vocation is regarded, governed, and nurtured.

3) With the exception of the term "consecrated", every discrete fact in the last paragraph is mainly accurate. It is when they are put together that I have real problems with what they convey. As I have written several times now, it is more appropriate to refer to lay hermits as dedicated than consecrated. This may be especially true if they have made private vows, but consecration, despite the common use of the term, is something only God can do ---- usually via the mediation of the Church as she acts officially in the name of God. However, the emphasis of the paragraph as a whole seems a bit off to me. Lay hermits as individuals are not explicitly approved by the Church. The vocation of lay hermit itself is certainly accepted and a lay person may pursue the vocation as she feels called, but her own vocation is not per se either discerned or "approved" by the Church in the same way that happens for one entering the consecrated state. The entire emphasis here seems to be part of an attempt to say diocesan hermits are "technically," "formally," or "legally" hermits so that the Bishop may correct abuses or because the hermit "needs this formality as a matter of pride", but that otherwise there is no difference between them and lay hermits. If this is so then I would take exception to its accuracy for it is way off base.

4) While Canon 603 profession is a matter of law, I don't think I would call it a legality anymore than I would allow it to be considered a mere formality, at least not as I understand these words. For me "legality" sounds like a contraction of "legal technicality." But law ordinarily follows life and in this matter law has recognized and affirmed the way the Holy Spirit is working in the Church. It has also specified the essential elements of the solitary eremitical vocation, and these are not mere legalities or legal technicalities. To be bound by public vows issues in a number of rights and responsibilities; they are indeed matters of law, but they are not simply "legalities."

5) While it is true that profession under canon 603 makes this person's specific commitment and commission to live this vocation a matter of public record, the matter goes much further. As noted, a public vow allows the public to have necessary expectations of the person so professed. It also allows the hermit to have specific expectations of the institutional church and vice versa. In short, the fact that one is publicly professed sets up an entire constellation of relationships, legal and otherwise, that did not exist before, whether or not the person was living as a hermit up until this point.

The Catholic theology of profession recognizes that vows are a matter of performative language. Something new comes to be that did not exist before. In terms of public vows per se, this happens especially in the hermit's very speaking of the vows and the Bishop's praying of the prayer of consecration. Specifically, the person enters or is initiated into a new and stable state of life. God's grace is experienced in a new way as well, and the person assumes new public rights and obligations while, as already mentioned, those who look to her have their own legitimate expectations. Law both recognizes and allows for this, but it is not, I don't think, appropriate to call all this a legality or a mere "formality" either.

So, to answer your last question, no this series of comments by a canonist does not change what I have written before about any of this; if the reporter is accurate, the canon lawyer is mistaken in several fundamental ways and also correct in others which I have written in agreement about.