On Why c 603 was Promulgated and Dealing with Abuses of the Canon

[[Dear Sister Laurel, it makes a huge difference whether c 603 was promulgated to deal with abuses [or] whether it was meant to recognize a vocation in a new way. I mean if c 603 was meant to recognize a vocation as a state of perfection (your term), then that's really different from establishing a canon to deal with abuses by hermits. Canon 603 does not include sanctions, does it? That argues to me that it is not meant to deal with abuses. It establishes a vocation in law, describes that vocation, and also what it means for it to be established in law, is that right? Too, should people criticize c 603 for not being used to correct failures to live the canon? I mean it's not meant for that is it? So, what happens with vocations consecrated under c 603, don't really live their Rule or live according to the canon itself?]]

Perceptive questions. Thanks! Yes, it makes a great deal of difference on WHY a canon was promulgated as to what we expect from it. If they are created to deal with abuses a couple of things will be true: 1) there will be a canonical form of life already established that needed a way to deal with abuses, and 2) the normal sanctions that apply to any form of consecrated life are insufficient. There is one narrative being put out there that c 603 was meant to deal with abuses in solitary eremitical life. The problem with that narrative is that 1) solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church had pretty much died out, 2) In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, there was no provision for solitary hermits, so there were no such vocations needing correction, much less enough to require a new canon establishing disciplinary norms, 3) lay hermits (hermits in the lay or baptismal state alone) are free to live any way they want because their vocational paths are not ordinarily established in law (their lay state itself is established in law), and 4) Without established norms that apply to a vocation, one cannot be said to be abusing or breaking those norms. Until the Church spells out what solitary eremitical life looks like in law, there simply is NO accepted normative form of this life to be abused.

You are exactly right with c 603. It is meant to establish an eremitical vocation to the consecrated state in law. It does not include sanctions. Instead, it lists elements that are essential to it. But note well, these elements are not narrowly defined, nor are they necessarily even obvious or self-evident in their meaning. Moreover, the canon includes the requirement for a Rule the hermit candidate writes herself based on her lived experience and the way God has been at work in her life. In this, she takes the individual elements and creates a tapestry of the way they are lived in her own life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is up to the diocesan team (including a c 603 mentor when possible) and bishop, to work with the person over a given period (usually the time it takes to write a really sufficient Rule) and also read and discuss the Rule with the candidate as part of their discernment and formation of this specific c 603 vocation. What I am saying here is that implementing c 603 in any diocese requires care, time, and significant investment by a diocesan staff that is willing to be educated on life under this canon just as the candidate herself is open to such a process. When this is done, the canon itself is more than sufficient to guide and govern such vocations. As I have said before, I believe the authors of c 603 may have written even better than they knew. I regularly return to the canon and my Rule to guide me in living this life more and more deeply and well.  I have heard the same from other c 603 hermits.

If someone is really not living the canon (and the others that also apply for c 603 vocations), then the diocese will take steps to correct the problems as is possible. If correction or rehabilitation is not possible, or the hermit fails to respond as her Bishop requires, then the diocese can take steps to dispense the hermit's vows. The process is appealable, and it is far more likely that a resolution will be found between the hermit, her delegate, the bishop, et al. The situation must be serious and different solutions might well be tried before a diocese decides to dispense vows. Since the hermit's delegate usually knows her/him better than the bishop does, she will likely be able to be of significant assistance in shining light on the situation and finding workable solutions. (I am convinced that few c 603 hermits actually fail to live their vocations; more often there may be a situation that prevents them from living their Rule --- illness, finances, family requirements (aging parents, etc.)) Usually, these situations are temporary and can certainly be resolved short of dispensation.

One thing I want to underline in all of this is that it takes knowledgeable people to discern 1) when a problem really exists, and 2) how serious this problem is. For instance, one person online continues to post various claims that I do not live the canon myself and that my diocese disavows responsibility for me. None of her claims are true. She makes somewhat similar accusations against other c 603 hermits, all without knowing them, their Rules of Life, the way they have written about c 603 therein, the content of their work with their superiors and others on various issues, and she does all this based on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the nature of c 603 itself. My own diocese apparently chucked the accusations in the trash, so to speak, where I believe, they truly belonged. In any case, the problem leading to action by a diocese must be real, verifiable, and serious. When this is so, the hermit's diocese will work with the hermit to achieve a creative and adequate resolution which, if at all possible, will protect this hermit's specific vocation and c 603 vocations more generally.

Can a Bishop???

[[Dear Sister, if someone is professed as a diocesan hermit when they are in their mid to late twenties and their bishop changes down the line, can the new bishop ask the person to leave their vows and "come back when they are fifty"? Also, does canon Law say one has to be at least 30 to become a diocesan hermit? I heard this on a video called Joyful Hermit Speaks and it all sounded a bit off to me.]] 

The answer to both questions is no. Once someone is perpetually professed an incoming bishop will become the hermit's legitimate superior and will certainly have a voice in her life --- which will become truly meaningful only when he has gotten to know the hermit, understands her Rule, has met with her delegate(s), and perhaps had conversations with her pastor. However, he has no right or power to simply ask the person to leave her vows, nor would any canonical hermit or diocese allow this. In serious matters public vows may be dispensed, but this is a really serious situation requiring similarly serious grounds. It also requires attempts to resolve things otherwise and allows for appeals should the diocese move toward dispensation. 

The bottom line here is that under canon 603 one does not make vows to a specific bishop. One makes vows to God in a bishop's hands so that eremitical life may be a gift to the universal church but especially to the local diocesan church. Bishops may (and do) come and go, but one's vows do not. As I have written before, this is true whether an incoming bishop believes in c 603 vocations or not. To have canonical standing is to have certain protections in law; a new bishop (or an old one) cannot abrogate these rights on a whim.

The answer to the second question is also no. Canon Law requires one have completed their 18th year (or, that is, be 18 yo) in order to enter religious life but apart from this there is no additional or differing requirement re c 603. It is true that eremitical life is ordinarily seen as a second half of life vocation and I personally argue that younger persons (younger than 30 or so) consider entering a community where eremitical life can be lived; in this way they can be mentored and supported in the way a younger candidate for profession will need. Still, canon law says nothing about this specifically beyond the age for entering religious life. I'm afraid the videos you have mentioned are an unreliable resource regarding c 603, consecrated life, and even private vows.

What Happens When Diocesan Hermits are Accused of Crimes?

[[Dear Sister, what happens to a diocesan hermit who commits a crime? Let's suppose it is a serious crime against another person. What does a diocese do in such a case? Can they just cut the hermit/ess loose or say they want nothing to do with him/her? Are more canon laws needed to deal with such a case?]]

Unusual questions! Well, nonetheless, were such a thing to happen there is a canonical process that can serve in such instances. Presuming the action is truly criminal and established in fact (for instance, the hermit openly admits to having done this or is taken to court and found guilty of this crime), and that not acting otherwise would result in scandal to the diocese, the diocese would probably ultimately take steps to dispense the hermit's vows. Such dispensation would release the hermit from the consecrated state of life and from the public rights and obligations associated with her profession and initiation into this state (her consecration). (This, by the way, does not change the fact that God has consecrated her, but it does dispense her from the stable state of life associated with consecration and thus too from being a religious and from the ways a religious may style him/herself.)

Remember, however, that a diocese cannot do this without established grounds. Additionally, the hermit has canonical rights to respond to accusations, to confront the accuser and supposed facts of the case, and to appeal decisions and processes, etc. "Canonical status" means "standing in law" and means a mutually binding relationship in law results when public vows are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the church. The hermit is commissioned to live an eremitical life in the name of the universal church while legitimate superiors/the local church are more immediately responsible both to the hermit, to the universal church, and to the vocation itself to support the hermit in this. They cannot simply say they want nothing to do with the hermit when there are public vows binding the hermit in a mutual and public relationship (hermit with Diocesan Bishop). To do this would be both illegitimate and immoral --- a kind of betrayal and malfeasance on the part of the local church/ordinary toward both hermit and c 603 vocation per se. My own sense is that long before canonical disciplinary actions are initiated, the diocese (Vicar for religious or bishop) would contact the hermit to discuss the matter --- particularly if the accuser and accusations are at all credible.

If accusations are made that are not particularly credible, however, I am not sure a diocese would even bother the hermit unless they are concerned for her wellbeing or believe she has already been troubled in some way by such accusations. In such an instance, while bypassing contacting the hermit, a diocese might well encourage an accuser to take civil action as part of establishing both their own credibility as well as that of the accusations.  In such a case it is likely the hermit or his/her delegate would be the one contacting the diocese (bishop/bishop's office, Vicar for Religious) to inform them that s/he has been served with some kind of legal warrant, suit, order of protection, etc.. At the same time, the hermit's delegate would serve as the hermit's advocate with and for the diocese because s/he knows the hermit best and would be in the best position to ensure both the truth, the hermit's solitude, and her well-being.

In any case, all of this is part of establishing the credibility of accusations and assuring the hermit is able to continue living his/her vocation with a minimum of disruption or existential angst. It is also a way the diocese itself, but especially the hermit's bishop and vicar (for Religious), can get additional detailed information on the hermit's life from folks who serve the diocese in this specific capacity and know the hermit intimately --- and who can thus support the hermit without unnecessarily calling him/her into the chancery for conversations beyond, perhaps, an initial pastoral conversation to inform him/her of the situation. (Please note that in some dioceses hermits have relatively close relationships with their bishops; the dynamics in such instances might well differ than in the case of larger (Arch)dioceses or those where new bishops have taken over for those who have previously known and worked with the diocesan hermit but who have died or moved on to a new office/diocese.)

Your questions have to do with actual crimes should those ever occur, but the more important and always-relevant dimension of my response underscores the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation and the mutual legal-pastoral covenantal relationship that obtains from public profession and consecration which are received or mediated by a legitimate superior acting in the Church's name. This exists in any case. The process referred to re the dispensation of vows which is initiated by the superior rather than at the request of the hermit exists apart from actual crimes and may be used if the hermit is not living her vocation well or is in some way causing scandal.

In such cases, as I understand them, the hermit is given a chance to moderate or otherwise modify her behavior; if the behavior stems from external circumstances that are not entirely under her control a diocese will work with her to assist her to find a solution. Only when this proves impossible and the situation seems to be a continuing one rather than clearly temporary, or when the hermit refuses to work with the diocese or modify problematical behavior will a diocese act in a way that may (need to) lead to dispensation. Again, as I have said here any number of times, the diocesan eremitical vocation is understood to be a gift of God to the Church and world; both the diocese and the hermit are charged with honoring it appropriately and stand in mutual ecclesial relationship to allow God to empower this.

Canon 603 Hermits and Rejection of Vatican II

[[Dear Sister, are the majority of Catholic Hermits progressive or liberal rather than Traditionalist? You consider yourself progressive or liberal don't you? Is it possible to reject Vatican II and be a canonical solitary hermit today? I was thinking that maybe the c 603 hermit vocation would be perfect for someone who doesn't accept Vatican II but does not want to leave the Church. Or would this be another example of what you have called "stopgap vocations"? In your opinion should the Church be professing hermits who  reject Vatican II?]]

Thanks for your questions. I must admit I am curious as to why you are asking them; what raised them for you? But in any case let me give them a shot. Labels like liberal and progressive are not always helpful I don't think. I don't know what they actually mean a lot of the time. I thought of myself as progressive or liberal when I was a student. Later though I came to see myself as essentially conservative --- conservative in a way I consider genuinely healthy.

What I mean by this is I hold onto the core truth, try to understand it more and more fully, and then try to apply it in ways which lead to new life, growth, maturity, etc. Since God is both "always the same" and the source of continuing newness and surprise I think this is the only way to go. Moreover, as a hermit, there is no doubt that I am part of a really ancient vocation whose roots are spiritually conservative but which is also incredibly prophetic and open to the newness which that leads to. When the roots are deep and lasting newness is not a problem. That said, I don't know whether most c 603 hermits are progressive, etc. Only occasionally do I hear of hermits whose conservatism veers from healthiness into a dystrophic traditionalism. On the other hand, those whose eremitism is not profoundly conservative in the sense I have described are unlikely to last as hermits unless and until they develop the roots healthy conservatism and the truly prophetic require.

Before I answer your questions about eremitical life and Vatican II let me point you to a video of a hermit professed according to c 603 in the post-conciliar revised Code of Canon Law. Though a bit long it tells the story of the first contemporary solitary hermit in Ireland. Unfortunately  Sister Irene Gibson rejects Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church utterly.  Her conservatism has become a less healthy traditionalism. From what I can see from this video she and I disagree on almost everything theological except the fact that vocations are not a call issued and answered only once, but something we must respond to daily. Sister Irene believes this is because human beings are sinful and would fall away from their vocations otherwise. I accept that as a secondary reason but contend the primary reason is that God is a dynamic reality calling us at every moment and we are called to be responsive individuals whose "yes" is offered again and again.

I suspect Sister Irene's eremitical vows have since been dispensed because she really is entirely opposed to the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and exists in schism with it; she now lives with a Tridentine community of Sisters so far as I know, but nonetheless, I respect her and would say she was a true hermit with a true vocation to the silence of solitude. Whether she should ever have been professed as a canon 603 hermit is another question entirely. Her life says very clearly that God alone is sufficient and I admit I am quite impressed with her integrity and courage as someone living an intense solitude without even the support of her local (or national) Church for many years.

In the following video I think that despite the dislike with which she refers to the Roman Curia (" the bureaucrats in Rome"), her complete hatred for what Vatican II wrought, and a theology that, in my opinion, fails to do justice to either history or the God of Jesus Christ --- something that causes a distorted focus on sin rather than on the God of mercy --- there is a gentleness, a degree of humility, and real love for the people with whom Sister Irene interacts and for whom she prays. It is this capacity for humility, love, and compassion which grows in solitude along with a capacity for silent suffering that, I think, attests to the authenticity of Sister's eremitical vocation. The seriousness, reverence, and core of deep sadness and grief which informs a life which is truly loving only underscores this authenticity in my mind.



As for your questions regarding Vatican II and solitary eremitical life per se, I do not think it is possible to be a solitary hermit according to the Revised Code of Canon Law if one rejects Vatican II. First of all the very Code which allows for solitary hermits in universal law for the first time in the history of the Church is a result of Vatican II and the reforms achieved and envisioned there. It seems ironic in the extreme to me, not to mention inconsistent and more than a little self-serving and even potentially hypocritical to seek (or allow) profession under such a canon when one no longer believes in the Church whose life it reflects. Remember that canon 603 describes a life lived in the heart of the Church, a very specifically ecclesial vocation lived under the supervision of a Bishop of the contemporary (that is, post-conciliar) Church. It makes little sense to profess and consecrate someone within a Church they believe is a betrayal of 2000 years of ecclesial history. How, after all can they meet sacramental obligations? How can they vow obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior whose authority they reject? I think you see the problem.

While at first glance this may seem to be a "perfect solution" for someone who, as you say, "rejects Vatican II but does not want to leave the Church," in reality they have already left the Church --- for the Ecumenical Council is the highest expression of the Church's authority at work. Although I have never applied the term stopgap in this sense (I ordinarily mean something is stopgap if it provides a pseudo solution which plugs a hole in canon law for those who cannot be professed in any other way or who wish to circumvent canonical procedures already in place), I think you might be right in applying this term here.

The bottom line in this situation is that this is an entirely inadequate and imprudent "solution" to the problem of someone who rejects Vatican II but whom we might want to "keep" within the Church in some sense. (If the person is struggling with aspects of the Church, as, for instance the desert Mothers and Fathers struggled with them while perhaps living a prophetic life within the Church, I think this is a different matter. It seems to me that Sister Irene might well have been in such a position when she was first professed.) One cannot be a "Catholic (c 603) Hermit" while at the same time rejecting the very Church in whose name one is professed, consecrated, and called to live the eremitical life. No true vocation allows for such disingenuousness; after all we are called by the God who is Truth to witness to Him and the Good News of his Christ Event.

Sister Irene's situation may be more extreme than others but it helps underscore the ecclesial nature of the c 603 or diocesan eremitical vocation. I believe she was professed under c 603 in good faith and it is possible that she was professed before she had the experiences she describes regarding both Vatican II, the Greek Orthodox Mass, and her insight into the supposed nature of the post-conciliar Church. (Despite c 603 postdating VII by almost 20 years, I say this because the timeline of these events is not entirely clear to me from her comments.) Even so, whatever the timeline, at some point she essentially "left" the post-conciliar Roman Catholic Church (and later she left it in every sense for the Tridentine Church and religious life there).

If she was already professed, her vows under canon 603 would likely have been dispensed; if she made her profession only after coming to see the Church as she does, it would have been determined to be invalid. It is not so much that the Church should not be professing folks who have rejected Vatican II, though this is certainly true, but rather, that she really cannot do so validly because these persons have, in their heart of hearts --- as well as in terms of ecclesial worship and doctrine --- left the Church themselves, and simply cannot be thought of as living their lives in (much less as part of) her very heart.

What Happens When the Bishop's Discernment clashes with that of the Diocesan Hermit?

 Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my question about elderly and infirm hermits. I am the one who asked whether their vows would be dispensed. I am glad you also thought the blogger mentioned made some good points. She mentioned two other situations. One of them which dealt with full time work you have already responded to indirectly in a separate question. The blogger asked: [[ What if a hermit's financial circumstances are such that a change has occurred, and he or she needs to work part time or full time and the job available or to of which the hermit is capable is among many people or in highly interactive and noisy environment? Do they then need to be removed as hermits? Do they cease being part of the Consecrated Life of the Catholic Church? Would any charitable or wise spiritual director (bishop or not) demand the hermit's withdrawal, or negate the consecrated vocation? Would church law no longer recognize those who are CL603 hermits--with the bishop making a public statement to that effect?]]

The second one has to do with wearing a habit. She wrote the following: [[What if a hermit goes along wearing a habit for awhile, approved by spiritual director (or a bishop), and then realizes it prohibits the degree of passing unnoticed or being hidden from the eyes of men--that the hermit and his or her director have determined to be best for that particular hermit? What if the hermit decides to dress so as to blend in and not be noticed as different or be mistaken as a consecrated religious if not in the religious life? And is it wrong for a hermit to wear a habit if and when no longer a part of the consecrated life of the church as a religious? These aspects are determined by the hermit and his or her director, for there are always personal, individualized, and unique considerations to be made. Not up to others to judge.]]

So here are my questions. Can [a] person's spiritual director determine these kinds of things? Can  Bishops demand something other than the person's SD and the person discern are best for him. Should someone continue wearing a habit if they have left the consecrated state?

Thanks for writing again. Regarding the place and role of a spiritual director in such matters, the spiritual director will work with a person to help her discern what is best for herself and her vocation at any given point in time but cannot decide this unilaterally and sometimes may not agree with the decision at all. It is not her decision. Ever. She is not a legitimate superior but one who assists a client be attentive and responsive to the voice and movement of God in her life. Similarly if a directee working together with her SD discerns something seems to be the best decision or course of action, etc. this absolutely does not mean a Bishop must automatically agree with this discernment if he is the person's legitimate superior. (By this I mean if he is more than her Bishop but has assumed the place of legitimate superior in the rite of perpetual profession made in his hands.)

The Bishop will certainly consult with the  person in this  matter and she will share her discernment with him; he may also ask the SD to contact him with her opinion in the matter, but, so long as there is also a delegate in the picture, this is unnecessary and unlikely due to the confidential nature of the spiritual direction relationship. On the other hand he will speak with the hermit's delegate since she serves in precisely this role for both the hermit and the larger Church. Remember that the Bishop has other concerns and perhaps a wider vision of the matter at issue which must be accommodated as well as this specific discernment by the hermit. For instance, in the case of a consecrated solitary (diocesan) hermit let's suppose she determines (with her director's assistance) that it would be best for the hermit to work full time in a highly social job and that she believes the hermit can do this for a period of months without it adversely affecting her vocation. However, let's suppose the Bishop says no to this because as he understands things, 1) the canon does not allow this, 2) the witness it gives to the local and possibly the universal Church is disedifying, and 3) he is not entirely convinced the discernment is really cogent for someone with a genuine eremitical vocation.

In such a case the Bishop will make a decision which contradicts the hermit's own discernment and he is entirely within his rights and obligations as Bishop to do so. If a hermit cannot live with this, then she will have to decide what happens next. Will she obey or not? Will she seek dispensation from her eremitical profession or not? Again, the Bishop has concerns which overlap those of the hermit (both are concerned with her vocation specifically and the eremitical tradition generally) but he is responsible canonically to protect c 603 and the consecrated eremitical life it expresses. Sometimes what seems best for the individual hermit is not also what is best for the Church or for the vocation more generally.

The hermit has to try and get her mind and heart around this fact and either embrace the sacrifice it requires --- if this is possible without compromising her own conscience --- or she will need to find another good-conscience resolution which protects not only her own vocation but the solitary eremitical vocation more generally. However, in such a significant matter -- a matter which weighs directly on the integrity and meaning of the canon --- if she cannot do this and the Bishop is unable to assist her to achieve a workable resolution while standing by his own prudential decision on the matter, then yes, the hermit's vows will very likely need to be dispensed and the hermit will cease to be a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church. You see, the Bishop, as the hermit's legitimate superior can certainly demand something the hermit does not  feel is the best thing for her. This will usually not be done facilely and not without consultation, but it can happen. The judgment is NOT the individual hermit's alone precisely because her vocation is an ecclesial one; others (the church at large, other diocesan hermits or candidates, their own Bishops, etc.) have a stake in the decision being made and the local Bishop and to a lesser degree, the diocesan hermit's delegate, have responsibilities for making binding judgments in these cases.

On Wearing a Habit if One has left the Consecrated (religious) State?

Should someone continue wearing a habit if they leave the consecrated state? No. While I understand the allure of such a decision and the difficulty of letting the habit go, the fact is that habits are symbols of public vocations. They are ecclesial symbols and the individual does not have the right to adopt these without the Church's permission and supervision. (A spiritual director, by the way, would not of him or herself have the right to grant this permission.) I wrote recently that symbols are living things, that they are born and can die but they cannot simply be created by fiat (cf, On Symbols and Ongoing Mediation or, On the Significance of the Designation Er Dio). When we are clothed with the habit and/or prayer garment (something the Church does, usually through the mediation of an institute of consecrated life, but also in the profession of hermits) we accept this symbol as our own; we step into a stream of living tradition and witness to it with our lives.

One of the reasons diocesan hermits do not adopt the habits of specific congregations (Dominican, Franciscan, Carthusian, Camaldolese) for instance is because they are not professed as part of this tradition. Their lives are neither canonically committed to nor shaped by members of these congregations who teach and model for them what this habit means in the history of the Church and the life of a religious of this specific spiritual tradition. In any case, the bottom line is that the wearing of a habit is an ecclesial act, an act of witness which the Church commissions and supervises. It is part of the rights and obligations associated with consecrated life. If one leaves the state she leaves these rights and obligations as well. Again, with rights come obligations and both rights and obligations are mediated by the Church, not by the individual.

[[The blogger also wrote, [[Again, no consecrated Catholic hermit is like another anymore than there are two fingerprints the same in the whole world or that have ever repeated throughout the history of mankind.]] I think this blogger was trying to suggest that Canon law cannot place arbitrary constraints on an individual hermit and that each hermit is free to discern what is best for themselves. She seems to have a fundamental belief that canon law is harmful, especially in regard to hermits. Can you comment on this opinion?]]

I have written recently about the profound characteristics shared by diocesan hermits in spite of their uniqueness here: Significance of Er Dio as post-nomial initials. I don't want to repeat that since it is quite recent but I do suggest you take a look at it if you missed it or perhaps simply to refresh your memory. It is true that every consecrated hermit differs from every other hermit just as individual fingerprints differ. But all fingerprints have shared characteristics or overarching patterns of whorls, arches, loops and their subsets. Eremitical life also has such patterns and basic characteristics. Canon 603 lists these and the hermit uses them to define her life with her own necessary flexibility as she codifies these in her Rule or Plan of Life. Any individualism is at least muted and (one hopes) transformed by this process of configuration and the conversion it empowers. Hermits differ one to another, yes, but to the extent they are authentic hermits their differences represent a variation on a more important shared theme and charism, namely, the silence of solitude they are each and all called to live in the name of Christ and (for those who are ecclesially professed and consecrated) in the name of his Church. I believe that canon law is important for protecting a rare and fragile though vital ecclesial vocation; I have written about that here several times so please check out past posts on this. My opinion has not changed.

On shifting discernment regarding wearing a habit:

There was also a slightly different question posed in the passage you cited re the wearing of a habit, namely, what does one do if one is granted permission to wear a habit and then decides down the line that doing so conflicts with the hiddenness of the life, for instance? Ordinarily a bishop gives permission for the wearing of a habit and may also approve the habit itself. He does not typically mandate the wearing of a habit. If a hermit discerns that the positive reasons for wearing a habit conflict with something as essential as the hiddenness of the eremitical life, the hermit will take a couple of steps in moving towards relinquishing the habit: 1) she will discuss the matter (director, delegate, and perhaps, her bishop) to share her discernment; these persons are able to evaluate the degree and quality of discernment achieved, 2) she will rewrite the portions of her Rule that deal with wearing the habit and anything in her treatment of the vow of religious poverty which is affected, and 3) she will seek approval for these changes (if, in fact, her Rule addressed these things in the first place). A bishop may or may not approve such changes in the hermit's usual praxis and/or Rule, but if the discernment is good it is unlikely he would disapprove.

Postscript: there has been some confusion, I believe, because in Canon 603 the hermit is said to live her life "under the direction of the local Bishop". This has caused some to write "under their director's authority (whether bishop or not)" [paraphrase] and similar things. However, "direction" in canon 603 does not refer to a bishop doing or serving as spiritual director nor does it elevate the ordinary spiritual director to the same role as the Bishop; such levelling and confusion of roles is a serious misunderstanding of the language being employed here. Instead, the term "direction" (and thus, the director) refers to the general current usage in religious life where a director is a superior under whose legitimate supervision one lives one's life --- as in the case of a novice director or director of candidates, etc. Thus, to avoid confusion when speaking of canon 603, I tend to speak of "director" for spiritual director and  of "legitimate superior" under whose supervision  (rather than direction) one lives as a canonical hermit to refer to the local bishop. I will also use Director (capitalized) for the delegate and director (lowercase) or SD or spiritual director for that role/person.

On Full-time Work and Terminology for Hermits

Dear Sister, I have included two quotes from Therese Iver's article on full time work for hermits in Full time Work for Hermits? In the first one I wondered if she means vows become invalid if a person starts working full time in case of need or if this only applies if the person is working full time when professed? Have there ever been cases where such vows were considered invalid? [[It is actually an abuse of the canon to profess individuals with employment outside the hermitage that isn’t done in solitude.   Further, because the canon must be followed in its entirety for a person to be a canonical hermit, either the vows are invalid in the case of a full-time worker in a normal job that isn’t done in strict solitude or the vow of obedience is being violated.]]

I have not spoken to Therese in regard to the article you cited but it seems clear she means that vows would be invalid if made while a person was working full time outside the hermitage and doing so in a non-solitary job. Validity is a matter of the patency of vows when made. Otherwise, as Therese says, the vows would be valid but, should circumstances change and the person begin working full time in a highly social job, she would then be violating her Rule (assuming it is adequately detailed in this regard) and her vow of obedience. I don't know if there have been cases where vows were determined to be invalid but there have definitely been cases where individuals working full time in highly social jobs at the time of  their profession were still professed under canon 603.

Those vows, I sincerely believe, should have been determined to be invalid. (I say that because it seems obvious to me that they should never have been allowed to have been made in the first place given the work situations and the lack of true eremitical experience that existed. Dioceses do not generally allow persons to make invalid vows, (or eremitical vows in these circumstances) nor should they.) Exceptions have occurred and they have raised serious questions among dioceses, diocesan hermits, and those who are interested in canon 603 vocations. Two of these are from the Archdiocese of Boston; another involves a hermit working full time as a social worker while a fourth involves a hermit canonist working for her diocese. The usual question is "How can one live an eremitical life and also work fulltime outside the hermitage?" Corollaries include, "How well-conceived is canon 603?" "Isn't it merely created for stopgap or fall back vocations to religious life?" and "What kinds of formation are required when a person can work full time and treat a contemplative prayer life in the silence of solitude as secondary?"

Since I believe c 603 is well-conceived --- though demanding in what it expects of candidates' and chanceries' knowledge of desert spirituality --- and since I believe there are real eremitical vocations out there, I also believe it is critical that dioceses do not "settle" in professing those who treat eremitical life as a "metaphor" or as analogous to the Anglican canon 14.3 on "solitary religious" and treat hermits as though they are individuals who simply live alone and take a desert day once a week or so! In one of the cases noted it is unclear whether the person's vows were ever declared invalid but both she and her Archdiocese still refer to her eremitical profession (referred to by date) as the basis for her communal life (she has begun a new community) while dropping any mention of canon 603. In any case, significant questions regarding this apparent bit of legal or linguistic sleight of hand are thus also cropping up amongst hermits and canonists. Since this person no longer lives an eremitical life under the Rule she submitted for perpetual profession, it seems her vows have ceased to be valid or binding on the basis of a significant material change in the circumstances involved.

Appropriate Accommodations for Emergency Circumstances?

What does sometimes happen is that a hermit will need to work temporarily while waiting for some kind of assistance to be settled on (like SSI  or disability for instance). This will usually be part-time work at best because the hermit cannot do more than this (after all, a life of assiduous prayer and penance and the silence of solitude is a full time work in and of itself; add to this the fact of disability and one ordinarily is simply unable to work full time). In cases, however, where the hermit works outside the hermitage full time this must truly be an entirely temporary situation  and she must be working with her superiors to be sure she maintains her Rule as best she can. This is still embraced in profession as the defining and governing document of her life; it expresses the shape of her commitment to canon 603 in particular. I would argue there are better ways to deal with such a situation and that, at the very least, a diocese should set a time limit on the period involved. If, in the case of a hermit waiting for SSI or something similar, the assistance is truly expected to come eventually, then perhaps the diocese DOES need to consider helping the hermit out financially until this occurs. Whether the hermit pays the diocese back or not once the award is granted is a separate question. In any case, a time limit would be important in signaling that this situation is contrary to the life of canon 603 and neither can nor will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

If a hermit needs to change from working within the hermitage (as noted above, this cannot be full time work since the life itself would not allow it) to working full time outside it (especially in a highly social job) on something other than a clearly temporary basis, then the diocese should seriously consider whether it needs to dispense this hermit's vows or grant a decree of exclaustration or something similar for a period of time. After all, such a hermit would no longer be living the terms of the canon or her own Rule; she would be violating her profession commitment if not the vows themselves (remember profession is the commitment of the whole person within a state of life; vows are the ordinary way this is expressed). In such a situation something like exclaustration (a good temporary solution I think) or dispensation might well be the only prudent and honest solution open to the diocese.

Again, this is a difficult situation because customarily dioceses do not support hermits in any material way while the canon obliges to religious poverty; even so they have every right to expect a hermit to be living the terms of the Canon and to be doing so in ways which are clear to others looking on. One thing Therese Ivers suggests is that the ability to support oneself is a kind of acid test today for the presence of a c 603 vocation. Personally I would not go quite that far because I think in the later years of a hermit's life dioceses may need to consider assisting them in material ways simply so they can remain in situations of some clear solitude. Still, for admission to perpetual profession and for the foreseeable future of a hermit's life, I think the capacity to support oneself in some way is an absolute requirement of canon 603 vocations.

On the Terminology Semi-Eremitical:

[[My second question has to do with Carthusians as semi-hermits. Ms Ivers writes:  [[What can we learn about the “silence of solitude” when analyzing the lives of the Carthusians?  That if they consider themselves semi-hermits because they get together daily once or twice for prayer/Mass and have recreation together once a week, how does a person with a full time job as a parish finance manager or a social worker fit the description of living as a hermit?]] I have never heard them referred to in this way. Are they really only "semi-hermits"? Does the Church use the language of "full hermits" and "half hermits"?]]

Personally, though I completely agree with Therese's point about the importance of "the silence of solitude" in c 603 life and understand why she underscored it in this way, I think this "semi-hermit" usage is an overstatement and possibly a too-literal misrepresentation of the real meaning of the term semi-eremitical. Carthusian monks are hermits in the fullest sense of the word. They are not monks who also highly value solitude, but hermits who also value and need community because of their commitment to eremitical solitude. As I understand it, the term semi-eremite refers more to the context in which a hermit lives his or her solitary life, that is, within a community than it does to the hermit him/herself.

The communal context protects the hermit's solitude, provides for the hermit's sustenance, clothing, medical care, etc,  allows for communal liturgy which also protects the hermits' stricter separation and silence of solitude, and ensures his clear ecclesial identity and sensibilities. Thus the context is semi-eremitical but the life is fully eremitical. Canon 603 hermits, on the other hand, are solitary hermits. Both terms are important; neither is redundant. Canon 603 hermits too are fully hermits but the context for their lives is solitary. They do not belong to an institute of consecrated life, they are self-supporting and must shop for themselves, maintain their own physical solitude in all the ways that is required, and do so without the support of "lay" sisters or "conversae" as the Carthusians have. They live out their ecclesial commitment within the context of a diocese and parish but despite the stability this provides (and I am not speaking here of monastic stability per se) it does not rise to the level of stability provided in a religious community or monastery.

While it is true that Carthusian hermits attend Office and Mass together daily and c 603 hermits attend Mass perhaps once a day in their parish and generally pray Office alone, it would be a mistake. I think, to refer c 603 hermits as (full) "hermits" and Carthusians as semi or "half-hermits". Similarly it would be a mistake to think of solitary hermits under c 603 as "semi-hermits" because they attend parish liturgies while reserving the term hermit or "full-hermit" for those who, for instance, live more isolated lives --- sometimes as self-dedicated but living without real ecclesial identity or involvement. Therese Ivers was rightly underscoring the importance of the silence of solitude for canon 603 hermits. The term "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term so the connection to this tradition for c 603 hermits is a significant one. Even so, semi-eremite generally refers to a hermit who depends on professed membership in a community to protect his/her solitude and allow for a truly contemplative life while solitary hermit generally refers to a hermit who is entirely self-supporting and lives a desert existence alone.

Eremitical life occurs along a spectrum of involvement in ecclesial life. Generally today there are three main points along this continuum: solitary eremitical life, semi-eremitical life or eremitical life lived within a community context, and reclusion (which always requires communal support of some sort but is bereft of direct social or communal involvement). What differs in each of these is the degree of separation from others, the degree of physical solitude involved. Still,  all of these folks are hermits in the fullest sense of the word. The Church does not use terms like full-hermits or half-hermits. One is a hermit or one is not. There are no part time hermits, no married hermits, and no dilettantes. How one negotiates the necessary and intrinsic ecclesial dimension of the vocation and protects one's call to prayer in solitude may differ one from another but all of these vocations are eremitical in the fullest sense of the term so long as they live out the non-negotiable elements which define all authentic eremitical life.

Are Older and Infirm Hermits Dispensed From their Vows?

[[Dear Sister, Though I have not been impressed with a lot of posts on the blog you referred people to a while ago, I thought the author did raise some good questions about what happens to consecrated hermits when they get older and can no longer live silence or solitude to the degree they once did, or maybe to the degree their Rule calls for. Do these hermits then cease to be consecrated hermits? If it is true that a younger hermit who was not living the terms of the canon could not be validly professed, then what does happen to an aging hermit who needs assistance with everyday needs? Also, I was wondering what happens to you when you get too old or too infirm to live on your own?]]

Yes, there were a couple of good questions embedded in the blog you mentioned. First of all, a hermit revises her Rule with the assistance or input of her director and her Bishop whenever there are significant changes in her life situation or circumstances. However, she continues to be responsible for living the non-negotiable elements of the Canon --- even when this does not look like what it did when she was younger. In some ways an aging hermit's solitude may actually be greater despite the presence of caregivers because she will be dealing more full time with illness and, of course, with separation from others who 1) cannot accommodate the rhythm of illness when added to eremitical solitude, or 2) who themselves will be dealing with illness and aging and may no longer be able to visit or call occasionally as they once did. One lives what one can and, in whatever way is possible, one gives her life to Christ and his People in an eremitical life --- even when there is a greater degree of contact with caregivers, doctors, etc. What we are describing here is not a highly social life but instead, a more isolated one which may also be made more difficult or even more significantly penitential because of a lack of sufficient physical silence.

Understanding the Silence of Solitude is Critical Here

What becomes critical here is that one understands the Canon calls for "the silence of solitude" and while this ordinarily requires significant physical silence and solitude, it remains the life's defining value even when one cannot secure for oneself the degree of physical silence or solitude one once could have and, indeed, needed daily. Here "the silence of solitude" especially means the quies or rest one finds in God alone, no matter the chaos that surrounds one or the pain one suffers daily. Here it is a matter of the quality of one's heart more than a matter of external conditions. A life given over to the silence of solitude in the midst of significant physical silence and solitude is essential to achieving this particular form of quies I think. It is the hermit's life of these realities along with assiduous prayer and penance which allows her to be a hermit even in the midst of a more populated and busy world --- including that more populated and busy world she may need to rejoin to a limited extent when she grows too old and infirm to care for herself in all the ways she is used to doing.

But let me be very clear. I am not speaking of pretense here or semantic sleight of hand. One cannot simply exchange a merely nominal "silence of solitude" for genuine and significant physical silence and solitude at the beginning (or at any other point) of one's eremitical life. One cannot, for instance, work full time outside the hermitage in a highly social job and then claim, "Well, the canon literally says, "the silence of solitude" NOT physical silence and solitude! I am living the canon just as it is written, Profess me!!" That would be a lie and destructive of the vocation. One is sufficiently formed in or comes to the silence of solitude as understood by hermits and monastics throughout the centuries only through diligent living of the other requirements of canon 603, namely, assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world (that is, from that which is resistant to Christ or which promises fulfillment apart from him or God), the evangelical counsels, and observation of a Rule all under the supervision of one's Bishop, one's delegate, and the direction of one's spiritual director. I have written before that the silence of solitude is not only the environment of the hermit's life, but that it is also the goal of her life and the unique gift or charism she brings to the Church and the world. For most solitary hermits there will come a time when in some ways at least, the silence of solitude is less clearly the environment of her daily life but perhaps all the more striking for that, more vividly the goal and gift of her life.

No hermit who has given her life to Christ and his Church in eremitical solitude for 25 to 35 or more years of her life and who then becomes infirm and elderly to the point of needing caregivers or assisted living will cease being a consecrated hermit. There is no diocese, I sincerely believe, who would then dispense this hermit's vows or thus "secularize her" because "she is no longer living the terms of the canon." Should her mental faculties fail, she will continue to be what she lived --- a hermit consecrated by God through the Church's mediation, and she will die as that as well, as impaired as her human poverty may have left her in her final years. What will not leave her, what will not cease to be true and a vital part of her continuing identity is her covenant with God who loves her in her poverty and sustains her in this as he has done in all other things in which she has given herself to him. This covenant and the rest it leads to has shaped her life. So too will it shape her elder years and death.

What Happens to Me?

So, what happens to me when I get too old or infirm to live alone? I honestly don't know. This is one of the difficulties facing diocesan hermits who are not, therefore, part of a community, and who must be self-supporting with a vow of poverty. Here in the diocese of Oakland there is a large residence connected with the Sisters of Mercy. A lot of retired priests and religious needing assisted living go there. Perhaps I will be able to take advantage of that myself. I really don't know. Here you have put your finger on one of the more neuralgic questions facing diocesan hermits and at this point in time there is simply no real answer for many of us --- especially if we are very poor and need an environment where we can continue to live our solitude with God as best as we are able. I am afraid most nursing homes would simply not accommodate such needs.