Once Again on C 603 Vocations as Ecclesial Vocations

[[Hi Sister, when you speak of consecrated eremitical life as an ecclesial vocation, are you saying more than that the vocation is lived within the Church? Does this reflect the difference between hermits who are consecrated and those that are not?]]

Thanks for your question. Yes, I am saying that ecclesial vocations imply much more than that these are lived within the Church, though that will also be true. I have written here that such vocations belong to the Church before they belong to an individual called to live them. I have also said that such vocations are edifying to the Church; that is, they build up the Church and are a call to do that. Finally, I have noted that ecclesial vocations call for both clergy and laity to be faithful to their vocations as clergy and People of the faith. The essential meaning of an ecclesial vocation combines these dimensions. It refers to a vocation that builds the Church in a way that lets it truly be the Church God wills it to be, and that does all of this in the name (authority) of the Church.

To be called to an ecclesial vocation means that one embraces this vocation not only because the Church explicitly calls one to do so (note the public call at the beginning of the rite of perpetual profession which symbolizes the culmination of a whole process of mutual discernment by diocesan personnel, mentors working with such personnel, and the candidate herself), but because one is prepared to consciously do so "in the name of the Church". Yes, one lives one's hermit life as part of the Church (as do non-canonical hermits in the Church), but one also does so by the authority of the Church. Because of this explicit authorization, one also accepts the responsibility to "be Church", to pray as the Church is called to pray, to minister in one's solitude, to grow and mature in Christ and the power of the Spirit as is true of the Church and to do so because the Church as Body of Christ has herself called one to do so. The Church entrusts such vocations to some because she believes that only through such vocations can the Church be what God calls it to be. She recognizes that such vocations are an integral part of her own call to holiness.

While c 603, for instance, explicitly provides for flexibility in this vocation, the hermit takes on a meaningful place within a tradition of eremitical life. This does not allow the hermit to make up her life out of whole cloth. She prays as God calls her to, yes, and at the same time, she does so with forms of prayer the Church sets at the center of her life and in an ordered way that reflects the rhythm of prayer that sanctifies the whole of one's life. I believe most non-canonical hermits will do the same in their personal response to God, but not all and not necessarily. 

Unfortunately, some self-designated "hermits" do indeed make up a way of eremitical life without reference to the Church's supervision and vision of it; they embrace prayer lives essentially cut off from the liturgical life of the Church, for instance, and justify it in terms of a theologically, spiritually, psychologically, and historically naive notion of "solitude", among other things. Hermits with an ecclesial vocation cannot and do not cut themselves off from the historical Church, the ecclesia (assembly of "called ones") that exists in space and time. We cannot omit going to Mass (or receiving Communion as an extension of the community's Eucharistic liturgy) regularly, for example, nor can we neatly divide reality up in terms of the spiritual and the temporal and then reject the temporal in the name of the Spirit of God. That would be a betrayal of the Holy Spirit herself. Our Church is a sacramental reality where the spiritual and temporal presuppose and even require one another if the Church is to be what it is called and empowered by God to be, namely, a primordial sacrament where heaven and earth interpenetrate one another in a paradigmatic and yet-proleptic way. 

I believe such "hermits" are exceptions and, as I already noted, most non-canonical hermits live their lives in ways that, of course, also build up the Church even if they do not do this consciously or in the name of the Church. Canonical hermits are meant to do so consciously as part of a public vocation. When I speak of ecclesial vocations, then, I am speaking of those whom the Church herself calls forward in her public liturgy and formally commissions through profession** and consecration to 1) live and build up the life of the Church in a conscious way and 2) to do so in the name (authority) of the Church as solitary hermits under c 603, or alternately, as part of a canonical congregation or community of hermits. It is a specific responsibility given publicly by God through representatives (Bishops) of the Church to some hermits who receive and commit to undertaking this specific commission formally in their acts of profession and their embrace of God's consecration. Let me reiterate once more that it does not make canonical hermits better than non-canonical hermits, but it does say their formal and canonical responsibilities differ from those of non-canonical hermits.

** Despite common misuse of the term, profession is always a public act of the whole church that initiates one into a new state of life. There is actually no such thing as private profession. Because of the misunderstanding of this term, it has also become common to qualify profession as public or private. In this post my use of the term profession always means a public act linked to a new state of life and new canonical rights and obligations.

Questions Pointing to a Hermit's Fundamental Experience and Vision of c 603 Life

Dear Sister Laurel, [[How many spiritual direction clients in a day are prudent or wise? Is a diocesan hermit bound to all of the Offices [Liturgy of Hours or Divine Office] or how does one know what is prudent for the amount of Offices in a day. Are hermits allowed to have a pet (a diocesan hermit), because how does this relate to the vow of poverty? Is it best to have Certain times to check email and messages? Family visits? Yes? No? If so how long? Outings with close friends from time to time? Yes or no? Friends or benefactors to do grocery pickup? Should hermits go to stores?]]

In the main, these sound to me like the kinds of questions those just beginning to consider eremitical life might ask. They are good questions because, for the most part, they point to deeper and more fundamental issues an aspiring diocesan hermit is likely to need to implement and even struggle with. These questions might be an important part of that process, but they are less important than the underlying eremitical foundation that needs to be established. They are not questions to which I can give an answer that is carved in stone because each one must be worked out by the hermit over time with the assistance of a spiritual director or mentor as the hermit candidate begins to think about their Rule of Life. (And actually, these look like exactly the questions one might ask if one was creating a Rule of Life that was composed of "do's and don'ts" or "how often and how much" kinds of points rather than a Rule rooted in a lived experience of some years reflecting a vision of eremitical life under c 603.) Because these questions remind me of the questions asked by those who are new to eremitical life, especially if they have never been aided in writing a liveable Rule of Life (or who also may never have lived one before), I am going to approach them this way. I think that will be most helpful, particularly since the questioner agreed to my posting them here in the hope they could help others.

So, as I begin to respond to these questions, let me suggest that other posts I have put up here on writing a liveable Rule or writing a Rule of Life are important as background and should be referred to. The most important caveat I can reiterate is that if one is writing a Rule of Life that is truly liveable, it must be rooted in the candidate's lived experience. Expect that the process of preparing to write and writing such a Rule with the help of a mentor will, on average, take approximately two to four years depending on the degree of preparation one has in this. This process is important for candidates and their dioceses in discerning and providing the appropriate formation needed to live c 603 eremitical life well. A liveable Rule can never be just a list of things I do and things I avoid doing (though it will likely include some of these). Each of the questions above needs to fit organically and integrally into a sound vision of eremitical life that is edifying to the Church and world! They must demonstrate a sense of c 603 and what living the terms of that canon means and requires of the individual hermit!! All of my responses to these questions presuppose this fundamental truth.

How many spiritual direction clients in a day are prudent or wise? First of all, it must always be remembered that hermits who do spiritual direction are primarily hermits. We are called to live the silence of solitude and stricter separation from the world (i.e., that which is resistant to Christ), and only thereafter or within this foundational context are we involved in limited ministry.  So, for instance, I don't see clients every day (or even every week) and I rarely see more than two or three on the days I do see clients. The same is true of mentoring other hermits or hermit candidates. To do more than this demands more time and energy than I have to give to this, and it begins to be destructive of my eremitical life itself. Others will have different circumstances than I do and may be able to see more clients.  Even so, every c 603 hermit must remember that active ministry is always a part-time and significantly limited part of our lives. If we do this kind of work, it must spill over from our lives in the silence of solitude and draw us back into this context as well. Especially, it must not be a relief from our silence of solitude or something we do to give our lives meaning. Instead, it must be a limited activity we offer to others because our lives already have a fullness of meaning, the meaning that comes from being called to be a solitary hermit who witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our ministry to others is an expression of this meaning spilling over beyond the hermitage walls.

Unless the hermit is also a priest, or writes this requirement into his/her Rule, the c 603 hermit is not required (in Law) to say any hours of the Liturgy of the Hours. That said, it is really difficult for me to understand how a hermit living in and as part of the beating the heart of the Church could live a day without praying the official Prayer of the Church in some significant way. Some hermits pray 2 or 3 of the hours (Lauds, Vespers, Compline, and Vigils or the Office of Readings are the major ones included here) while others pray at least some of the minor hours as well.  We each need to find out the number of Hours necessary as an aid to praying our day, in fact, in praying our very lives day in and day out. For some, the LOH is really helpful in this and especially, it allows us to be true to an ecclesial vocation reflecting belonging to and representing the long Judeo-Christian tradition of prayer. For many of us praying the Hours also reminds us of our standing as religious under c 603. Personally, I understand the LOH to be a striking symbol of this (c 603) vocation's ecclesial nature and a significant way to ensure our lives are steeped in Scripture.

Diocesan hermits are allowed to have pets, of course. (Anchorites are often known for having a cat, for instance!) Your question is really about evangelical or religious poverty though. Some hermits would see the cost of caring adequately for a pet (food, medical care, time for adequate exercise and play, and training (not for cats, of course!)) as making such a pet an extravagance or a distraction. Others of us find the pets necessary as part of our vocation both to be fully human and to care for God's creation as we can. Poverty has never been defined in only one way in the history of religious life or the Gospel Counsels. So, for instance, Franciscan poverty is different from Benedictine poverty is different from Carmelite poverty, and so on. 

Myself with Merton the Tom (RIP)

Similarly, the poverty enjoined on laypersons by the Gospel differs significantly from religious poverty because laypersons tend to have to care for their families, provide for the education of children, and sometimes care for elderly parents or other relatives as well, yet every Christian is called to this Evangelical Counsel in some sense. In my own approach to the religious poverty of the consecrated vocation, I stress complete dependence on God. Finances are a secondary part of that, but they are a real part of it nonetheless. My own income is very limited (about $1200 a month). I do have a cat and that expense is offset by sacrifices I make so that I may care for him. "Sneezy", however, is a literal gift of God to me (he showed up one Winter with a bad cold and took up residence) and provides me with things money cannot buy; I have determined it is important to my own health and wholeness to make these accommodations, at least at the present time.

I do think it is important to have times (morning, afternoon, and evening for example) to check and respond to email, yes. This is especially important when one has clients, one might need to get back to quickly. Still, it is not something one usually schedules unless one has difficulty staying away from the computer!!). Instead, it is something one's schedule allows for when one is free from other activities/periods. For instance, I may check email and messages before breakfast or supper and again before Compline and bed. If I am writing for several hours, I may break from that and check email then because I am already working at my computer. (If I am journaling, that is a different matter and while I may break for a cup of tea or a snack, I will not check email or messages then.) In this small matter too it is up to the individual to reflect on what their lived experience has taught them and work out a solution that allows them to live the terms of c 603 and their own Rule with integrity.

Home visits or visits with relatives and friends should be worked out in the same way as appointments with clients, and access to email and messaging. What is truly healthy for the individual hermit and her way of life? What is truly loving? What can she manage financially or in terms of her schedule? When does contact with others begin to detract from the silence of solitude and stricter separation, for instance? For some people time with family will be brief because we really do need to get back to our ordinary schedule and activities (families can be demanding in many ways!); frequency and duration are something a hermit must determine for themselves. I will make one caveat though; namely, a hermit should be able to lay aside a lot of (the details of) her hermit life for the relatively brief time she is with her family. She should be present to these others as the person they (each) know and love. She must not "play hermit" or (within reason, of course) refuse to participate in the activities they enjoy and want to share with her. I once read a hermit write about "only talking about spiritual things" when with her loved ones. One can always ask what, when looked at in the way God does, is NOT a spiritual thing, but the way to approach this matter, I sincerely believe, is for the hermit to simply be entirely present in all she is and does with family and, in this way, bring God's love to bear (but also discover and contemplate this same love as it is present) within the family.

Generally speaking, there is no reason a hermit should not go to stores to pick up what is needed. It has all kinds of benefits both for the hermit and for those she might meet and talk with during such trips! Hermits are not recluses, at least the vast majority are not. I have my groceries delivered and began that because of the pandemic. I continue it because it is very helpful and convenient for getting everything I need (I don't drive so carrying things home is difficult). And sometimes I simply need to get out of my hermitage and, if needed, to run errands. At those times, I meet people, converse, maybe stop to have a brief coffee with someone who would like to talk, etc. Again, generally speaking, all of that is fine. The thing we need to be aware of is who we are in these times and what we truly need. If our eremitical life is sound, we will want to get back home as soon as is practicable and we should be able to settle into our usual routine when we return. 

Again, it is up to each hermit, her vision of the life, and her Rule of Life to determine how she answers these and other questions. Circumstances change and things that would be permissible at one time might be something one needs to skip at another. In all situations, our lives are lived in dialogue with God in the silence of solitude, and whatever choices we make need to continue that dialogue.

When Concern for the Temporal is also Engagement with the Eternal (reprise from 2015)

[[Dear Sister, you write a lot about temporal things, laws, requirements, the contents of a lay hermit's prayer space, habits, titles, and things like that. One blogger has opined that hermits grow beyond such concerns as they become more spiritual. She wrote recently: "How long did this hermit remain more or less in place, discussing or thinking about--or maybe thinking it had the responsibility to write about temporal matters such as what does a hermit wear, or eat, or daily routine, or title, or rule of life or what prayers, or what degree of solitude, and what does its hermitage look like? . . .Do we outgrow, or should we outgrow, the temporal aspects of our lives as we progress in life, and spiral more upward--or deeper in--and seek the spiritual aspects that our souls truly desire and actually need?"

Before I ask my questions I wanted to say I am grateful to you for your blog. I think it is probably helpful to people considering becoming hermits and for those of us with questions about spirituality generally. I also love that you share things like what gives you pleasure or post videos of your orchestra. Those posts reveal a lot about yourself and I personally enjoy that. My question is whether you see yourself growing out of a concern with temporal things or writing about these things? The other blogger thought these reflected a newly-wed stage of life; she also suggested that the concern with the temporal had a link with the US as opposed to other countries. I guess her blog readers come more from other countries and are not as interested in some of the questions you deal with. I don't see how she could know what countries your questions come from though.]]

Thanks very much for your comments and questions. No one ever asked me about what gives me pleasure before; I am sure at least some think there is nothing edifying about the experience of pleasure! As though the mere experience of pleasure implies one is a hedonist! Others have asked me to say more about my everyday life but I have not been able to do that; these questions seemed sort of invasive and also were a little hard to imagine what to say. Anyway, I enjoyed that question and I hope one of the things it indicates is the profound happiness associated with this vocation. Every aspect of it can be a source of real joy and yes, "pleasure" or gratification because it all reflects life with God and the quality of that. To some extent that anticipates your questions!.

I may have told this story before, but I was once working with a hermit candidate in another diocese and he asked me how I balanced "hermit things" and "worldly things" in my life. When I asked him what he meant by worldly things he listed things like grocery shopping, doing the dishes and laundry, scrubbing floors, cleaning the bathroom and things like that. When I asked about "hermit things" he referred to prayer, lectio divina, Office, Mass, and things like that. In other words, he had divided the world neatly into two classes of things, one having to do with what most folks call "worldly" or "temporal" and those most folks refer to as "spiritual" or "eternal." What I had to try and make clear to this candidate was that to the extent he really was a hermit, everything he did every day were hermit things, everything he did or was called to do was to be an expression of the eternal life he shared in by virtue of his baptism and new life in Christ.  A neat division into spiritual and temporal simply doesn't work with our God. The incarnation rules that out.

Instead we belong to a Sacramental world in which the most ordinary and ephemeral can become the mediator of the divinely extraordinary and eternal. We see this every day in our own worship as wine wheat, water, oil, and wax among other things mediate the life and light of God to us. Even more, we belong to a world which heaven has begun to interpenetrate completely. It is a world in which God is meant to be all in all, a world which itself is meant to exist in and through God alone. This involves God revealing (Him)self in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place --- transforming (hallowing) them utterly with his presence. The descent and self emptying of God in creation and the incarnation is balanced or  (one stage of it anyway) completed by the Ascension of the Risen Jesus into the very life of God. As we heard earlier this week, Christ goes to God to prepare a place for us, a place for the human and "temporal" in the very life of God (Him)self. And of course, we look forward, at some point to a life in/on a new heaven and earth where God is all in all.

It is the place of disciples of Christ to proclaim the way the event of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection has changed our world and our destiny. Christians recognize that every part of our world and our lives can glorify God. That is, every part of our world and lives can reveal God to others. So, you see, I think the simplistic division of reality into temporal and spiritual is actually anti-Christian and I have said this in the past. Therefore, I don't think we outgrow our concern with the temporal dimensions of our lives. Instead, unless we refuse to allow this to occur through our all-too-human ways of seeing and thinking, they come more and more to reflect the presence of God and are consecrated or made holy (hallowed) by that presence and our awareness of it.  Because my own vocation is a public one I feel a responsibility to share about elements of that vocation about which people raise questions. Moreover, many of the questions I have dealt with recently are related to becoming a hermit, discerning the distinction between legitimate hermits and counterfeits, fielding concerns about distortions in spirituality which can be harmful to people, etc. I think these are important.

Especially these questions lead to or are part of important discussions of truthfulness, personal integrity, pretense, shame, the dialogical and ecclesial nature of the eremitical vocation, the capacity of one's relationship with God to transform the deficiencies of her life into actual gifts, the nature of symbols, our faith as essentially Sacramental, the universal call to holiness and the sanctity of ALL vocations, the importance of lay eremitical life as well as of canonical or consecrated eremitical life, ministerial vs contemplative vocations, and any number of other topics. What may seem to be superficial matters,  or matters far removed from the "spiritual" or "eternal" tend from my perspective as a theologian, a contemplative, and a Benedictine, to open unto far deeper issues. This is because they are part of an organic whole where the whole is essentially sacramental.

However, there is another perspective that I should mention. The blogger you are citing is a privately dedicated lay hermit. She is certainly called to be responsible for her vocation but not in quite the same way I am for mine. She does not share the same rights (title, habit, publicly ecclesial eremitical life) nor is she publicly responsible for things like the quality of her rule, the importance and nature of a horarium, the place of legitimate superiors and the nature of obedience, the degrees and types of solitude one is called to embrace, degrees and kinds of work allowed, forms of prayer advised, approaches to penance, the charism of the life, etc. Because of this, she may not see these things or their depth and significance in the same way I do. That is hardly surprising.

Of course, this blogger has every right to disagree, to weigh in on issues and give her own perspective on them, especially if she does so honestly as a woman living a privately dedicated lay eremitical life rather than a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" or "professed religious". If she so chooses she is completely free to speak only of the things she considers spiritual matters and leave all those other things up to those for whom they are more meaningful and part of a deeply incarnational spiritual life and perspective. What she is less free to do is speak with impunity about canon 603, its nature and associated rights and obligations as though she is as knowledgeable about such things as someone living them. When she does this she opens herself to discussion, debate and even correction by those (canonists, hermits, historians, theologians) who are both more experienced and more knowledgeable than she is. Granted, some of what she seems to be dismissing as "temporal" rather than "eternal," for instance are certainly things an experienced hermit does not worry about and she is correct that some of them (like habits and titles) are usually of more concern to beginners or "wannabes".

However, they are also matters that point beyond themselves to the ecclesial nature and dimension of the vocation; thus some canonical hermits honor these with their lives. Other matters are never superficial. The hermit's Rule, will help the Church hierarchy to discern vocations to the eremitical life under canon 603 while the task of writing one can aid in a hermit's formation as well as her diocese's discernment of her readiness for temporary or perpetual profession. Beyond profession, it will be part of governing and inspiring her life day in and day out for the remainder of her life. She will live in dialogue with it and with God through it so long as she lives. My own Rule is something I make notes in, reflect on, and revise as my own understanding grows and life circumstances change. Among other things, it helps me to discern the wisdom of increased active ministry or greater reclusion, review the overall shape of my life, it also reflects the nature of my prayer and growth in this, and can even reflect the quality of my physical health and call attention to problems I might not be aware of otherwise.

Another matter that is never merely superficial is the way a hermitage or one's prayer space looks. Here appearance and function are profoundly related. Canonical hermits are publicly responsible for simple lives of religious poverty, obedience and celibate love in the silence of solitude. God is the center of their lives and their living space should reflect all of these things. What is as important --- since few people will actually come into hermit's living or prayer space --- is that a hermitage with too much "stuff" can be an obstacle to the life a hermit is called to live. I have been doing Spring cleaning off and on these past two weeks or so and that means getting rid of the accumulation of a year and more. This accumulation occurs partly because I don't drive and cannot simply take stuff to used book stores, thrift stores, the salvation Army, etc. Papers and books especially accumulate. Once the "stuff" is gone, even though the place was neat anyway, the feeling is simply much different. I personally feel lighter, happier, more able to "breathe", work and pray.

Further, the way my hermitage looks tends to be a good barometer of how well I am living my life. For me the richness and vitality of one's inner life is reflected in simplicity, beauty, light, and order. The opposite of these things can say that I am struggling --- sometimes spiritually, sometimes physically, and sometimes both; they may also cause me to struggle. On the other hand some specific forms of clutter and accumulation are associated with productive work and are a sign of the vitality of my inner life. In any case these "superficial" or "temporal" matters are a clue and key to attending to the state of my inner life with God and with others. I think a lot of people experience something similar. Again, we are talking about an organic whole in which inner and outer are intimately related and mutually influential.

The simple fact is that in our incarnational faith concern for and engagement with the temporal is how we are engaged with the Eternal and the ordinary way the Eternal is mediated to us. Resurrected life is Bodily existence and though we can hardly imagine what this means we must continue to hold these two things together in our understanding just as we hold the temporal and the spiritual together in our appreciation of reality as sacramental.

Follow-up on the Ways Consecrated Persons Affect the Church and its Hierarchical Structure

[[Dear Sister, can you say something more about how ecclesial vocations affect either priests or laity, and so, how they help the Church be the Church God wills it to be? Also, I hadn't heard that women religious let go of the habit in order to witness to the importance of the role of laity. Could you say some more about this?]]

Thanks for your questions. I agree it is important to explain more about ecclesial vocations as a leavening agent that changes the entire Church, so thanks for the opportunity. First, we should say that all Christians are called to live the evangelical counsels in some sense. We do a disservice to every vocation if we see the counsels as only important for consecrated persons or only part of their vocations. At the same time, consecrated persons live the Evangelical Counsels in a radical way meant to serve as a Christic paradigm for others in the Church. Consecrated life serves the Church by reminding her of the Christ who is in her midst as Brother or Sister while also present as her Lord. 

For priests, consecrated persons (and maybe especially religious priests) remind them that life in communion with Christ is profoundly prayerful and only that flows into service of equals among a communion of equals. This is important because it makes sure that the Catholic Church's hierarchical division into clerics and laity does not degenerate into a worldly thing and instead is genuinely Christian where the first become the last and the last become the first. The hierarchical nature of the Church is not problematical of itself so long as it continues to be, as much as possible, the hierarchy of the Kingdom of God. Should it degenerate due to ambition into a hierarchy of power and worldly status it is a greater tragedy than we can imagine. Consecrated women model the same Christlikeness of humility and service and do so (as do consecrated men) from positions of ministerial, communal, and theological expertise that challenge ministerial priests to always improve their own senses of these things so they may serve even better.

For the laity, consecrated men and women live lives dedicated to God in Christ and remind all the laity that this union must come first in every vocation. Individually they have no money to give, but as congregations they invest in the larger community and ministries that serve people in a myriad of ways, and of course, they give generously to the least and most needy in our society by pouring out their own lives for this purpose. In terms of the Church itself, consecrated men and women remind us all of the centrality of the poor Christ and the way we are each called to model him in our world. For the rest of the laity consecrated persons call them to aspire to more in their Christian lives. They provide a significantly countercultural model of success that is supremely loving and this summons both priests and laity to create both a Church and world marked in the same way. 

As John Paul II observed, a Church without consecrated persons and with sacred ministers and laity only, the Church would not be the Church her founder willed. Consecrated persons serve as a leavening agent that helps make sure the Church is countercultural, communal, and courageously and generously so. Hierarchy in this Body does not mean a privileged priestly class ruling over others who have nothing to bring to the Lord's table. It means a Body where all come around that table as a community made to serve one another with our own gifts, limits, and needs in whatever way we God calls us to. Again, consecrated persons are not a third level between the other two groups. Drawn from both priests and laity, they serve to summon all to an equality in Christ that allows the Church to truly image its Lord and his disciples in the world. 

By way of answering your last question let me tell you a brief story. About ten years ago someone wrote me about becoming a Catholic Hermit and wearing a habit. This person claimed to already have a habit she wore at home. She also noted that she was able to pray better in a habit. I found this lacking in the transparency, openness, and humilty (loving honesty) necessary for prayer. It is also theologically unsound. I can't count the number of times I have heard from those I meet that they believe religious have a special line to God, or that dressing up in a habit helps one pray better. Similarly, where serious prayer, unfortunately, becomes associated with those in a habit, so does ministry, the notion of union with God, and authentic holiness. 

Women religious took off their habits, in part, because these had originally been imposed on them by a Church demanding they become monastics to be recognized as religious. However, they were directed by Vatican II to recover the original charisms of their congregations and for most, this meant jettisoning monastic garb, and adopting ordinary dress (among other things). In part, however, women religious gave up their habits in order to truly stand in solidarity with others in the laity and call them to take on the universal call to holiness and ministry Vatican II recognized and made such an urgent matter in this world. They did so to help curtail the tendencies of the laity to think of themselves as second or third-class citizens in the Church and God's eyes. In other words, they stepped down from a fictional pedestal they had never wanted, so that others might rise to the level to which they were and are truly called as Disciples of Jesus Christ. This is precisely one piece of what vocations to the consecrated state are supposed to do.

Some Not-so-Preliminary Conclusions about Canon 603 and this Blog!

My recent focus on ecclesial vocations is something prompted by several different factors. Two are most important: 1) my work with c 603 candidates and on a guidebook for discernment and formation of such vocations, and 2) the clear way the Holy Spirit has been working not only in my own life and vocation but also in the lives and vocations of those I work or collaborate with in one way and another. 

 The thrust of eremitical vocations is often thought to be individualistic and selfish. (Even, or perhaps especially, the quest for personal holiness can lead us badly astray without a strong ecclesial context, sense, and commitment.) When c 603 hermits struggle against the stereotypes and biases that mark what most folks believe about solitary eremitical life, it is most often a struggle to provide an understanding of the vocation that clearly stands against those who view these vocations as irrelevant or as marked by selfishness, personal failure, and isolationist tendencies.*** Unfortunately, some hermits (both canonical and non-canonical), usually inadvertently, strengthen the case against understanding the vocation as meaningful in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or significant in the way it moves the Church towards a stronger focus on and representation of the Kingdom of God. Such vocations put a premium on privacy (which is not the same as stricter separation or withdrawal from the world), are focused on a too-individualistic notion of personal holiness, are unconcerned and sometimes entirely uninvolved with the Church's mission in this world, and are often isolated from the faith community we identify as "primordial Sacrament."

Canon 603 counters all of these tendencies by establishing vocations that are public and ecclesial. It is critical that dioceses and those they profess as c 603 hermits understand and appreciate these two dimensions of the vocation and come to terms with them in spite of the hidden nature of the vocation and its humbleness. These two dimensions introduce new tensions into the vocation and some critics treat these as though c 603 life is a betrayal of "traditional hermit life"; in truth, however, they are the source of a fresh sense of the vocation's humble generosity and other-centered meaningfulness. These two dimensions serve to allow eremitical life to truly exist as an expression of the Church's loving, sacrificial, Christ-centered, and Christ-shaped heart. Without faithfulness to all of the canon's foundational elements, but particularly these two dimensions of the vocation, eremitical life would fall inexorably into a selfish individualism, isolation, and disengagement with others making it instead, a vivid example of the worldliness true eremitical life seeks to disavow and stand against.

Over the past almost two decades I have contended off and on with one relatively isolated lay person; over the course of that time and partly because of the energy marking this contentious relationship, I have been able to explore more and more the importance of the Holy Spirit calling some hermits to public and ecclesial vocations, vocations that serve the Church and are normative of all authentic eremitical life while protecting the life from falling into all of those stereotypical distortions so prevalent in the stories of hermits throughout the centuries. Though I regret I have not always done so, I have mainly managed to keep my writing focused on issues rather than persons, and over the same period, the issues raised by this lay hermit's interpretation and praxis of eremitical life have helped me to see beyond some ways eremitical life misses the mark in serving the Gospel and the Church that is called to proclaim it. Moreover, with God's assistance, this relationship has pressed me to explore why c 603 was so important in the history of eremitical life, how this canon in its ecclesiality honors the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and how necessary it is in nurturing and protecting healthy solitary eremitical vocations. For that, I owe God who works to redeem such difficult situations, my profoundest thanks!

So, I am excited to continue to explore c 603 and its central elements, along with its foundational public and ecclesial dimensions. All of these make clear that these vocations and the canon that governs them are the will and gift of God for the sake of the whole of God's People and in a special way for hermits. I feel blessed to be able to appreciate and write about this. To that end, I will continue to eschew making my posts personal. I will not presume to speak about someone's supposed motivations or behavior, presumed gender preferences, putative personality disorders, or any other personal trait or condition one simply cannot truly know remotely. I have been the subject of all of these things over these years, indeed they are still occurring, and I will not perpetuate the same. (Because God can and does transfigure something deeply unworthy into a grace or blessing does not mean we choose what is unworthy to get all the more blessings!! As Paul concludes in Rom 6:2, God forbid!!) At the same time, I recognize that occasionally I will need to identify a specific hermit or wannabe hermit to prevent misunderstandings and the belief I am speaking about a whole group of persons. The bottom line here is that if I do not use a person's name, please do not presume I am speaking about any particular person!! The hermit world is far larger than that and one who proceeds in this way will only appear insecure and foolish!! My concern in this blog is the issues that face solitary eremitical life in the Catholic Church because of God's gift of c 603 and its vocations, not, in the main, with their representatives, adversaries, or exemplars. 

Camaldolese Symbol, Today: Monks and Oblates,
consecrated and laity as partakers
of the same cup and sharers in the same charism

With regard to lay or non-canonical hermits generally, as I have already noted several times, I believe they are and will always represent the lion's share of hermit vocations in the world and Catholic Church. They can and maybe meant to serve a significantly prophetic role therein. What the Archdiocese of Seattle is doing with these vocations is positive and (I believe) critically important in helping us all to understand the reason for vocations with a strong ecclesial sense, even when they are not specifically considered ecclesial vocations. These vocations may also be instructive in terms of developing effective discernment and formation processes for c 603 hermits. Thus, a third factor prompting my focus on ecclesiality beyond the two mentioned above, is my recent education on the way the Archdiocese of Seattle is handling the situation of non-canonical or lay hermits. That continues to work in me as a kind of leaven and to bear surprising fruit. My thanks to Paul, the Catholic lay hermit from the Archdiocese of Seattle, who wrote me just after last Pentecost for his assistance.

*** At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that canonical vocations are necessarily marked by pride, a desire for prestige and authority, and necessarily violate the hermit's call to humility. I will discuss this end of the spectrum in another article.

Ecclesial Vocations Serve the Universal Call to Holiness

[[ Sister, does the idea of ecclesial vocations conflict with Vatican II's strong emphasis on the universal call to holiness? It used to be thought that religious were called to greater holiness than the laity. Does the idea of ecclesial vocations try to move back behind that emphasis?]]

Great question!! Thanks for asking!! No, the notion of ecclesial vocations is entirely consonant with the emphasis of Vatican II. Actually, the accents on Union with Christ and serving the Church so that it may truly be the Church God calls it to be attributed to ecclesial vocations, allows this emphasis to be understood in terms of a diversity of vocations all of which call persons to an exhaustive holiness. I can't stress enough that the term ecclesial vocation means a vocation that belongs to the Church before it belongs to any individual and that those entrusted with such a vocation are called to serve the whole Church uniquely by modeling or representing the very nature of the Church for all of its members. In fact, because ecclesial vocations are about service rather than self-aggrandizement, those living these vocations can readily recognize that every person is called to holiness and because they serve the Church, they can assist in calling every person to the fullness of holiness in their own vocations.

While the specifically (or explicitly) ecclesial responsibilities of consecrated persons may be greater than those of others in the Church, and while the call to holiness includes the call to model this for others, the call to holiness itself is neither greater nor lesser than the call to holiness of any other person in the Church. Moreover, other vocations are every bit as responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel with their lives, though ordinarily, this means they do so in terms of the secular world in which they live and work and study. 

One of the problems that cropped up in the wake of Vatican II, in part precisely because of the situation you outlined in your question, was the number of departures from religious life. Because of the universal call to holiness, some felt there was no need to pursue religious life and all it entailed if one could achieve genuine holiness in other vocations. What was necessary was a perspective less geared to an individualistic pursuit of holiness. The focus on the ecclesial nature of vocations to the consecrated state helped the Church find and embrace this new perspective, and it continues to help us hold onto both the importance of consecrated vocations as well as the universal call to holiness and the importance of all other vocations, though perhaps especially, lay vocations. We must not, however, make the same mistake many in the Church once did in treating these vocations as though they represent a "higher (or greater) holiness". Far from moving behind the emphasis of Vatican II, ecclesial vocations to the consecrated state have the mission to serve the Church in specific ways that assist the realization of this universal call to holiness in and by the whole Church.

Ecclesial Vocations and the Characterization, "Objectively Superior"

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, I have never heard this explanation of ecclesial vocations before. For that matter I have never heard any explanation of ecclesial vocations before!! I didn't even know it was a thing!! One of the things about Vita Consecrata is that it speaks of the objective superiority of vocations to the consecrated state and I was just never comfortable with that idea. You claim that ecclesial vocations don't mean something higher or more Catholic, but then what do you do with the "objectively superior" piece of things??!! I hear you saying that ecclesial vocations belong to the Church first of all and serve the Church uniquely, which is why they are called ecclesial. Do you see the c 603 hermit vocation in that light? I think that might make more sense of this vocation than I have heard before. (Sorry, no offense meant, I am a new reader!!) Anytime you can get back to me is fine! Thanks.]] 

Thanks very much for writing/questioning on this topic! I wrote several months ago about the term "objectively superior" here On the Objective Superiority of Some Vocations so you might look at that. What I tried to make clear there is that 1) to refer to a vocation in this way (not to a person with this vocation!!) refers to it having everything necessary to lead to holiness (and I will add now that that is both for the individual and for the Church itself), and 2) the use of this term does not allow the piling up of other comparisons like inferior, lower, less, etc. A vocation that is objectively superior has everything necessary for those called to it to achieve what they are called to if they live it well, in this case holiness of self and Church. But those called to it are NOT superior (or more Catholic, more loving in regard to the Church, etc). This is emphatically NOT the case! Still, such vocations are paradigmatic of what is needed to achieve real holiness; they serve as examples of this particularly through their profession of the evangelical counsels and ministry to others (both of which put communion with Jesus right smack in the middle of their lives!).

Yes, I do see the c 603 hermit vocation in this light. The values of the canon, the non-negotiable elements that comprise it (silence of solitude, persevering prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, evangelical counsels, and even a consciously worked out program of life) are all things that are necessary for any Christian seeking union with God in Christ. And I think there is no doubt that the Church itself needs to be a source and model of all of these things in our world!! When I wrote about ecclesial vocations a couple of days ago I likened these to leaven in dough, but the way they work is by inspiring others, allowing them to contact and/or imagine a life of genuine hope and holiness, reminding us all of the universal call to holiness, the universal vocation to be Church in and for the world and Kingdom of God! 

One of the reasons I regularly speak about ecclesial vocations in terms of commissioning and commitments, rights and obligations, is to indicate that these are responsible vocations. Yes, they are uniquely graced, but they are graced so that they can serve the Church and others in similarly unique ways. Graces are not given because God loves a person more than God loves others; they are given so that one may serve others (and in the case of ecclesial vocations, the Church itself) in ways others are not similarly called to serve. We all have different gifts and callings. We each have different missions as well. Speaking about our own gifts and calling should not disparage anyone else! Ordinarily, in the Catholic Church, we recognize the many members, gifts, vocations, given and empowered by the Holy Spirit and we rejoice in them and in the creativity of the Spirit that makes them possible!!

I am regularly awed by what God has done for and with me and my life. I could never have imagined any of it, and often cannot imagine it now. Still, recognizing all of that and writing about it, or otherwise responding to the gift of vocation (which includes God having brought me into the Church when I was 17), is an act of both humility and gratitude --- and it is a joy to me. To hide all of this under a bushel basket would be a betrayal of God's gift to me and to the Church that promised me so much! To use it to denigrate others and other vocations would be a similar betrayal. Hence, I am clear that there are a number of ways to live eremitical life, all esteemed by God and (at least potentially) by the Church. Some of these are specifically ecclesial vocations, some are not, but they are all valuable in their own way. It is my sincerest hope that whether consecrated or not, every member of these vocations discover why God has called them to this specific form of eremitical life and experience the same awe that I regularly experience. 

Like you, I have also struggled with and mainly resisted the language of "objective superiority" present in Vita Consecrata and older documents as well. It seemed elitist and thus, profoundly unchristian. At the same time, I believe I now better know what is NOT being said with that term and I appreciate how such vocations both belong to the essence of the Church and serve her by helping her be the truly humble servant Church Jesus commissioned his disciples to be. Ecclesial vocations 1)  remind priests that they are called to be persons of prayer and penance so they may to minister as servants in all things, and 2) they remind the laity (of which I remain a part) that they are called to union with God in Christ so that they may be Church in all of the unexpected and even the unacceptable places and situations that some believe are necessarily godless and from which the Church too should be excluded. To be called in this way, is to be called to a vocation with a valuable, even unique mission. It is essential to the existence of the Church and belongs to her before it is entrusted to me. I can and do try to honor that humbly as do others I know who have been called to such vocations.                                                   

Follow-up On Ecclesial Vocations as those Belonging to and Assisting the Church to be the Church God Wills it to Be

 Dear Sister Laurel, thanks so much for the piece on ecclesial vocations and what that means! I had been thinking that every vocation must be ecclesial and that such a call is a vocation in which one loves and serves the Church by doing Christian things for people both in and out of the Church. It never occurred to me that some people serve to help the Church be the Church it is meant by God in Christ to be [in a dedicated  or focused way]. So, I think I have it now, but if someone says their vocation has them loving the Church so of course they [have an ecclesial vocation], they may not understand the term, right? I mean every Catholic belongs equally to and loves the Church, but not every Catholic has what you call an ecclesial vocation, have I got that right? When you speak about the rights and obligations of your vocation or when you have emphasized the public and ecclesial natures of it, you have been trying to sensitize your readers to a term they might be completely unfamiliar with haven't you?

Wow, thanks for this. Yes, you've got it right! And yes, I have been trying to sensitize readers to a term (that is, a peculiar usage of the word ecclesial in terms a particular kind of vocation) they are unlikely to be familiar with. I've also been writing about this because in my own work it is a term I need to look at with greater attention myself because it comes up with candidates for c 603 profession and consecration and is something I suspect no diocese explains to such candidates when they petition for admission to canonical standing. One of the candidates with whom I work, recently had me concerned over whether she might have a vocation to some other form of eremitical life than c 603. That she might have such a vocation was no problem at all. Still, she is at least two years into discerning a c 603 vocation and should my vague discomfort or concern truly point to the possibility that she would be happier in some other form or context (or not called to eremitical life at all) it would be a huge change we really needed to get right! 

This situation led me to think freshly about the whole notion of ecclesial vocations. It took me a couple of weeks to come to be able to articulate what my own concern actually was. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit had also been working in this hermit candidate and she also came up with reflections on her own calling that led her to appreciate a dimension of ecclesial vocations in a new way, namely, the importance of the local Church community in the c 603 hermit's life. She was beginning to work out the implications of the hermit belonging integrally to a local Church community for the way she would live out solitary eremitical life and it was incredibly gratifying and exciting to discover the way the Holy Spirit was working with and in both of us. This was around the time I began writing, and too, fielding questions about requirements for candidates and their Rules, and also about public and ecclesial vocations. This was also around the time I posted e e cummings' poem, i am a little church (no great cathedral) and a couple of paragraphs about ecclesial vocations.

We are all of us used to thinking of consecrated persons or religious serving others through all of the active ministries they carry out, and of cloistered religious doing this through intercessory prayer, for instance; still, I believe it is almost unconsidered by most members of the Church that these vocations are critical to the life of the Church itself --- to helping the Church be Christ's own Body and not some other kind of institution. To think of vocations "belonging to the Church" before they belong to the individuals and so, understanding that the Church herself must also discern such vocations, not merely the individual herself doing the discerning is something persons desiring to be religious have a very hard time with! And that is understandable!! Still, the Catholic Church has taught and continues to teach that consecrated life belongs to and serves the Church by reminding priests and other Church authorities that they are called to a leadership of humble service and reminding laity that they are called to union with Christ and to living out the fullness of their baptismal consecration so they may be Church wherever they work, play, or go otherwise --- often where Popes and Bishops and Priests will never be found and in situations they will never have the chance to specifically address.

In all of this "ecclesial vocations" are vocations that belong to and serve the church directly and explicitly as well as implicitly. They are not "greater" vocations than those of clerics or of laity and those called to these are not "more Catholic" than any other Catholic person. "Ecclesial" in this phrase instead points to the nature of the vocation and to the "owner" to whom this vocation is entrusted by God before it is entrusted to individuals, namely the Church; it also points to the Church as the one who is the most important beneficiary of this vocation. It does NOT say or imply that those called in this way are more Catholic than others any more than priests are more Catholic than laity or consecrated persons, but it does involve additional rights and obligations established canonically. 

This is also why the Church makes it very clear that consecrated lives are not a third level in the hierarchy of the Church. Because consecrated life is called from both clerics and laity, it is able to speak to both groups from within them and call them both to the fullest realization and exercise of their vocations. (Remember that persons in the consecrated state who are not priests continue to belong to the laity in the Church's hierarchical sense of that word.) I believe JPII saw this clearly when he spoke of ecclesial vocations and the importance of vocations to the consecrated state and the second consecration involved in such vocations in what I quoted earlier. (Vita Consecrata #29 and 30) It's a tricky line here between unity and diversity because one needs to affirm the additional rights and obligations of the Consecrated state while eschewing any sense that such a vocation makes the person "more Catholic" or "higher" in standing than others. (Vita Consecrata #31 addresses this more directly.) To affirm this essential equality and to speak more effectively to the rest of the laity as well as to priests, is one of the major reasons a lot of religious women let go of the habit.

Ecclesial Vocations: Foundational Vocations Belonging to the Church and Allowing it to truly be Christ's own Church

[[ Hi Sister, you have been speaking about ecclesial vocations in what sounds like a special way. I see that these are vocations that belong to the church first before they belong to individuals but does it mean more than this? You write about living for the sake of the church, is this also part of what you call an ecclesial vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions. I realize I haven't really explained why ecclesial vocations differ from those that are not considered ecclesial in the proper sense of the term, and also, I never really defined the term. So yes, thanks!  Lumen Gentium said the following: [[(the profession of the evangelical counsels) indisputably belongs to the life and holiness of the church.]] and also, [[The evangelical counsels which lead to charity join their followers to the Church and its mystery in a special way.]] (#44) In Vita Consecrata, John Paul II enlarged on the first citation above, saying, [[This means that the consecrated life, present in the Church from the beginning, can never fail to be one of her essential and characteristic elements, for it expresses her very nature.]] (#29) When I speak of the vocation belonging to the Church herself before it belongs to the individual to whom it is entrusted, or that consecrated eremitical life is lived for the sake of the Church herself or (another way of saying this) that it is lived so the Church can truly be the Church she is called to be, yes, I am talking about these two points made by Luman Gentium and John Paul II, just as you also noted in your question. 

Every vocation to the consecrated state recognizes they belong as an essential (foundational and necessary) part of the holiness and life of the Church. As JPII also wrote in the same section, "The idea of a Church made up only of sacred ministers and lay people does not, therefore, conform to the intentions of her divine Founder as revealed to us by the gospels and the other writings of the New Testament." (VC# 29) Moreover, this essential part of the Church's very constitution as the Body of Christ serves both sacred ministers and laity while technically belonging to neither group (it is drawn from both). It is an eschatological sign to both regarding what it means to be more fully conformed to Christ. It reminds members of both these hierarchical groups, that following Christ is not about power or the exercise of power, nor is it about slavish subservience, but instead, it is about close union with Christ that leads to the freedom to respond maturely as Church (ecclesiola) in service to every need in both Church and world. 

You can imagine what distortions might well occur if the Church were only comprised of "sacred ministers and laity"!! Clericalism is a terrible and destructive form of this which fails both clergy and laity as it fails Christ and his Church. Vocations to consecrated life call both hierarchical groups to greater holiness and humility as servant disciples of Christ. This presence of consecrated persons in the Church serves as an immediate summons to clerics to truly be priests in the mode of Christ and to members of the laity to realize the fullness and great responsibility of their baptismal consecration. 

In other words, consecrated life in the Church is a moderating and mediating presence that helps the Church to be Christ's own Church, and not fall into the pattern of some sort of not-so-sacred fiefdom composed only of rulers (priests) and ruled (laity). Thus, we are reminded that consecrated life does not constitute a third layer of a triple-level hierarchy, but that members of this state of life are drawn from both clerics and laity while serving in an undeniable role regarding the life and holiness of the Church. Some, including myself, call this role prophetic because of the way it speaks Gospel values to both clerics and laity. It serves as a kind of leaven affecting the whole life of the Church. 

Thus too, God and the Church herself calls persons to the consecrated state. These persons enter this state through a second and special consecration that differs from baptismal consecration. John Paul II continues in Vita Consecrata, [[In the Church's tradition religious profession [now including the profession and consecration of c 603 hermits] is considered to be a special and fruitful deepening of the consecration received in Baptism, inasmuch as it is the means by which the close union with Christ already begun in Baptism develops in the gift of a fuller, more explicit and authentic configuration to him through the profession of the evangelical counsels. This further consecration, however, differs in a special way from baptismal consecration, of which it is not a necessary consequence.]]

John Paul II continues, [[In fact, all those reborn in Christ are called to live out, with the strength which is the Spirit's gift, the chastity appropriate to their state of life, obedience to God and to the Church, and a reasonable detachment from material possessions: for all are called to holiness, which consists in the perfection of love. But Baptism in itself does not include the call to celibacy or virginity, the renunciation of possessions or obedience to a superior, in the form proper to the evangelical counsels. The profession of the evangelical counsels thus presupposes a particular gift of God not given to everyone, as Jesus himself emphasizes with respect to voluntary celibacy (cf. Mt 19:10-12). This call is accompanied, moreover, by a specific gift of the Holy Spirit, so that consecrated persons can respond to their vocation and mission. For this reason, as the liturgies of the East and West testify in the rite of monastic or religious profession and in the consecration of virgins, the Church invokes the gift of the Holy Spirit upon those who have been chosen and joins their oblation to the sacrifice of Christ.]]

We can look at some more of what Vita Consecrata (and maybe Lumen Gentium) says about ecclesial vocations later, especially if these posts raise more questions, but for the purposes of this article, I want to emphasize the way vocations to the consecrated state "belong to [and serve] the Church" as Church in an essential and characteristic way. When I speak of ecclesial vocations then, I am speaking about vocations that belong to the Church and help constitute her as Church in a very direct and immediate way. God, through the Church's mediation calls these vocations forth, and entrusts the Church with their supervision and governance. (This means too that these vocations are established in law (canon law) and that those who are called to such vocations take on the appropriate rights and obligations (expressed in additional canon laws) of such vocations.) Above all, I think, vocations to the consecrated state of life are a source of hope to the whole Church that it will remain the Church Christ wills to represent him to the World.

Why isn't a Sense that God Consecrated One Enough for the Church?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, so why isn't it good enough for God to consecrate one? Why does there need to be a canon law with the Bishop consecrating the person? If someone has the sense that God consecrated them, why isn't that enough?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this several times quite recently and am not sure what else to say about the matter. I would ask you to check out the following posts and others under the labels ecclesial vocations or ecclesiality as well as canonical vs non-canonical vocations, etc: Follow-up, Who Can Live c 603? and Once Again on "Illegal" Hermits. In these posts and many others, I have focused on the distinction between ecclesial vocations and those that are not, why it is important for the Church herself to extend God's consecration to the hermit with an ecclesial vocation, what it means to belong to a stable state of life, and several other things including ministry of authority, sound spirituality, competent discernment and formation, etc. The only other dimensions I have not dealt with are that of potential self- deception and the problem of being unprepared for an authentic hermit life and perhaps incapable of living it well.

To claim one is consecrated by God in a private act may or may not be true or accurate. One may or may not have gotten it right and there is no way for the Church to verify it. (One can certainly examine the rite used and the intentions of the minister if there is paperwork to try and determine the reason for the rite. If it involved private vows, then there would be no consecration.) In any case, in the Roman Catholic Church, admission to Divine consecration requires initiation into a stable state of life where this gift of God can be verified, protected, nurtured, and governed. Because such a gift is NEVER for the individual alone, and because the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the individual, the Church establishes such vocations in law and provides for the structural elements I spoke of recently that will allow them to be lived as the Church understands they need to be lived out. The discernment of such vocations is mutual, involving both the individual and the church because they are ecclesial vocations. The Church is responsible for selecting and professing those with such vocations and God works through the Church via a second consecration beyond baptismal consecration. No one can validly claim God consecrated them in the RCC unless this Divine consecration is mediated to the individual through and in the hands of the diocesan bishop or, in communal religious vocations, in the hands of other legitimate superiors!

If someone insists otherwise, they are at least mistaken and perhaps even deluded in this matter. There is simply no such thing as private consecration in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, one may make private vows. Many people do! But this is not the same as consecration. Neither are private vows an act of profession. Profession is an act that includes one's dedication of oneself in avowal and the taking on of the canonical rights and obligations of a new state of life. In other words, it is a broader act than just the making of vows. Meanwhile, consecration is part of the entire rite of perpetual profession where the individual dedicates herself to God with a perpetual avowal, and God consecrates that individual as they take on the rights and obligations of this new state for the whole of their lives. 

 As I noted above, Divine consecration that is part of initiating one into the consecrated state of life is a gift of God entrusted to the Church and only then to the individual. Also, please note that this is not a matter of putting Divine consecration up against Episcopal consecration. These two belong together or there is no consecration. It is not that bishops consecrate if by that we mean they do this for some while God consecrates others! No!! God consecrates hermits, and God does so in the hands of his bishops (or other legitimate superiors when we are speaking of hermits in congregations). The Bishop is not a "stand-in" for God, as I heard it put recently. Rather, God works in and through the Church specifically in the person of the bishop by empowering him to mediate God's consecration of the individual.

Self-deception aside (somewhat), the greatest difficulty of asserting God has consecrated one privately, is that one may be completely unprepared for living out an eremitical vocation. They may not understand it and critically, they may not be able to negotiate the tension between the modern world and eremitical life that allows the hermit to be a gift to the contemporary Church and world. As I have said here many times, it takes time for both the individual and the Church to discern and form the vocations of solitary hermits. It takes probationary living out of the calling under the supervision of the Church while working with a competent spiritual director and continuing to discern. It takes study, collaboration, and deliberation; above all, it takes humility and docility. 

One must be able to be taught and consider that ultimately one really might have gotten things wrong. When someone continues to insist, "God consecrated me," apart from canon law, apart from a bishop's permission and entrusting of the vocation to one, or according to established Church structures and rites, and particularly when they do so while denigrating the need for these ecclesial elements and context or while banging on and on about how they are the ones to show dioceses and other hermits the true way hermit life is to be lived, they are unlikely to be showing either humility or docility. 

This is not the same as saying "I am convinced God is calling me to this vocation; I know it" and persisting in that even when a diocese is unwilling to profess one under this canon for the time being. One may be called to persevere in good conscience in such a situation and do this with an openness to be taught about why dioceses make the decisions they do.  In the meantime, perhaps one will also learn about ecclesial vocations and what one is proposing to take on and for whose sake!! Until and unless one does this, one is more an isolated person than a hermit. And that argues against one's having been consecrated by God (or called to this), not for it!