[[Hi Sister Laurel. Did your Bishop desire you to become a diocesan hermit? Is it possible that a Bishop would ASK someone to petition to be accepted as a diocesan hermit? I have read that a Bishop might desire this for the diocese and could do so even if the individual is not interested in becoming a diocesan hermit. Does this happen? A lot?]]
I think that I have been asked something similar before. If so this answer may repeat some of my earlier answer. Please check through the labels (below and to the right) so see if other posts also speak to these questions. (Actually I am now fairly certain I have done so some time last year or so; I would suggest looking under the labels authentic and inauthentic eremitism and/or abuses of canon 603 to find related posts.)
The idea of someone becoming a diocesan hermit simply because a bishop personally desires it is VERY unlikely! Moreover, the notion that a bishop would desire someone to do this even if they do NOT feel called to it themselves is even more completely unlikely --- not least because it is a silly and at least potentially, a seriously destructive way to proceed with regard to this specific vocation. (Actually, it's not a particularly desirable or edifying way to proceed with any vocation (consider marriage undertaken in this way for a great sense of SOME of the problems involved), but I would argue it is especially undesirable and disedifying with eremitical life!) Bishops, while they might say to someone, "Have you ever considered becoming a priest or religious (including a diocesan hermit), etc?" do not tend to ask someone out of the blue to consider becoming a diocesan hermit; it is altogether too rare, too significant, and too different from the way most folks are brought to wholeness and holiness --- which really means too different from the way human beings ordinarily learn to love and achieve genuine integration and individuation.
A candidate for profession and consecration really MUST have the sense that God is calling them to this and they must be able to make a convincing case of that for the diocese and bishop before being admitted to profession. More, I think the individual MUST take the initiative in this. It cannot be the decision of a director, et al to discern or seek this on behalf of another, nor can a person legitimately or validly approach profession while saying, "I am doing this because my Bishop desires it!" Thus I would have to say the most a Bishop can do (if he even has the opportunity, which is hard to imagine) is to say, "Your life strikes me as implicitly eremitical; why don't you pray and do some studying about the matter of vocation as a diocesan hermit? I will do the same."
I am not sure I understand the part of the question about desiring this for the diocese, or at least, it seems a little "off" to me. I suppose it reminds me of the practice once common in old English gardens; on large estates, no estate garden was complete without its ornamental "hermit". Of course I believe that a diocesan hermit is a gift to her parish and diocese and that that indicates that God has graced the life of these with an eremitical vocation, but it is not as though one can say, "Hmmm, I want some of THESE graces for the diocese so I will ask so-and-so to become a diocesan hermit!" Graces are shared manifestations of God's very self, not bits of "stuff" that can be separated off from the living God and stored up or parceled out or anything similar. The Holy Spirit works in individual lives in all kinds of ways and it is this active presence we call grace; when a diocese recognizes and affirms an eremitical vocation of course I think that is wonderful, but one cannot simply make someone a hermit (or ask them to become one!) because one would like "the graces associated with this" or something. That smacks more of the shopping network than (attention to) the work of the Holy Spirit.
Having said that though, let me also say I wish dioceses were more knowledgeable about and more open to the eremitical vocations in their midst. For instance, where I live there are any number of elderly people who live physically solitary and intensely prayerful lives who might well have eremitical vocations that could serve both the parish and the diocese as a whole as lives of real marginality, chronic illness, poverty, etc are radically transformed, consecrated in a public way, and set before the faith community as paradigms of the truth that God alone suffices. While such lives are (and would remain) marginal in the ways the world measures things they would assume a public place and role right in the very heart of the Church and be a resource even these individuals themselves never imagined. Their illnesses don't need to be healed, their poverty relieved, or their marginality eased as part of this radical transformation. Instead these things would be redeemed by God's consecration of them and made infinitely meaningful pointers to (sacramentals of) a joy and significance which goes beyond anything our world ordinarily imagines them to be or mediate. But, let me be clear, I do not mean that every elderly or chronically ill person should do this as a hermit much less as a diocesan hermit; still, I believe that dioceses have greater numbers of potential hermits living within them than they might realize --- genuine eremitical vocations which are already an unrecognized grace to parishes and dioceses but whose potential meaningfulness and fruitfulness is yet unknown to the local (or the universal) Church.
You ask if a Bishop can profess (and eventually consecrate) someone who does not wish this. The answer is simply NO --- at least not if he is acting responsibly and in a truly pastoral way (I am assuming he is!). As noted above, I wonder if such a profession is even canonically valid in such a case. As I have written many times here, ecclesial vocations are mutually discerned. One cannot proclaim oneself a religious or a consecrated person via a private dedication (that way lies self-delusion and pretense) nor can the Church profess and consecrate someone either against their will nor unless that person is also genuinely convinced this is the will and call of God for them. To attempt to do so is to sin against conscience and possibly involves one in a kind of sacrilege as one demeans not only a particular vocation but the entire rite of profession/consecration.
There is a strain in hagiographical writing which focuses on the unwillingness of individuals to embrace vocations to religious life and/or priesthood. It has sometimes tended to validate discernment of vocations --- a kind of psychologically and spiritually naive, "Well I know I didn't want this so it must be God's will" kind of thing. (It can sometimes be used to underscore a skewed notion of obedience and quasi-humility in a kind of martyred, "Well, the idea really is unpleasant for me but if my Bishop desires it, then I'll do it!" But in point of fact, we know that this is really not the way vocations generally work; radical conversion, perhaps to an extent --- at least in the beginning --- but vocations? Not really. The deeper and more compelling dynamic in vocations is always a deep attraction or yearning. (By the way, I understand it is a bit false and impossible to tease vocation and conversion apart from one another in this way, but it is necessary in this context.) With the eremitical vocation, if one does not truly have the sense it is the way to human wholeness and holiness for them, if, that is, one does not really believe God is calling one to this as an amazing grace which redeems their lives and is a way of being there for others, and especially if one says, "No! This is NOT for me; I don't want this, it is even a bit repugnant to me!" then it is NOT their vocation!
Vocations are not a way we simply come to terms with God's will, especially with a grudging, foot-dragging, half-hearted,"Oh-all-right-I'll-go-along-with-this" acquiescence. Vocations are the deeply joy-filled ways we cooperate with God's life within us and our world. They make us profoundly happy and fulfilled in a way which sustains us in even the most painful situations which still befall us. This profound happiness or joy shines through even in the darkness; more it (and the call it stems from) is the ground which sustains one at these times. There is a great difference between someone who bitches and moans about how awful their life is, how difficult or arduous their vocation, how much pain they are in, how routinely rejected they are, or how endlessly God tests them --- who then ends this grim disquisition with the postscript, "God is love; how I love to do God's will!" and the person whose main life-theme is a deep joy while very real pain, difficulty, or rejection experienced are merely subtexts! Vocations are demanding realities, but they are not difficult in themselves. What I mean is that they present us with difficulties and may trouble us at times in heart and mind, but of themselves, they are a joy and gift which makes all the rest shine with the radiance of God.
The notion that a vocation (meaning here a vocational path like religious life) can be used to hide profound human unhappiness and dysfunction is something we are all the more sensitive to today. We know more clearly than we have ever known that this must NEVER be the case. After all, every vocation is a call to authentic, exhaustively loving and generous humanity. A vocational path must surely be a means to this. In referring to hiding profound unhappiness or dysfunction then, I am not speaking about dealing appropriately (and privately) with the more normal times of depression, mental illness, etc which can afflict every human life. I am speaking about covering profound unhappiness and personal dysfunction with the trappings of a vocation. That strain of hagiographical writing I spoke of earlier has provided some with the grounds for this misguided approach. So has the notion of higher vocations and a tendency to absolutely separate the supernatural from the natural, the eternal from the temporal, or the divine from the human. In eremitical life this tendency becomes even more acutely dangerous because for most people living in solitude is itself dysfunctional and can be used to escape or run from the demons which inhabit every human heart. It can be used to make of the hermitage an escape from the whole of God's good creation and the requirements of a heart which is only purified in loving and being loved by God and others. To profess and consecrate someone who is really profoundly unhappy and may be even MORE profoundly unhappy (and increasingly dysfunctional) in solitude is a serious failure in charity.
Postscript: (I forgot to answer this part of your question)
About whether or not my Bishop desired me to become a diocesan hermit I have to say I don't really know. Certainly I believe he had discerned this was what God was calling me to. Similarly I believe he discerned it was a gift to my parish, the diocese, and even to the wider Church. Finally I don't think he did something he did not desire to do in this, but at the same time, I don't usually think in terms of what Archbishop Vigneron desired or did not desire. This is important because if my eremitical life is a matter of discernment then many niggling questions and problems melt away with profession and consecration. If it had merely been something my Bishop (and I!) desired, then it actually raises questions, creates difficulties, and certainly it would heighten the niggling questions that would have remained on the day of profession. Let me know if you want me to say more about this.
29 September 2014
On Professing Someone who does not Desire it
16 June 2014
Followup Questions on the Intimacy of Prayer and the Responsibility to Share the Fruit of One's Contemplative Experience
Thanks! Good question. No, I don't mean this. However, I do expect a lot of the details to be shared with one's spiritual director so the entire experience and all its implications can be discussed and submitted to a mutual process of discernment in which the emotional and sensible content (to whatever extent this exists) can be transformed into deeper personal understanding and genuinely ecclesial wisdom.
Even here the director's work is mainly to allow and assist the directee to reflect on the experience, to open her to letting it continue to live in her, and therefore to help her to live from it and draw conclusions about it to the extent it is authentic; it is not the job of the director necessarily to simply pronounce of the authenticity of the experience. Instead she works to enable the kind of patience, openness, and generosity that will allow such experiences to become sources of real wisdom. With you I completely agree that what happens in prayer is one of the most intimate experiences a person may have --- more intimate I would argue than sexual intercourse even (potentially the most intimate experience human beings usually know apart from prayer). I believe that sharing the details with people is something that will happen rarely and carefully. Here is one of the places where casting pearls before swine is a real concern, not because people are swine of course, but because they really may have no true sense just how holy and precious this piece of one's life actually is which can lead to "trampling it underfoot". Besides, there are simply some things we "hold close" and only share with those we know will understand from "inside" the experience.
Still, some degree of sharing is important, not because one wants folks to believe their prayer experiences are "special" or "beyond what others experience" (at best one is naive if one believes this), but because they can become a true source of wisdom when one reflects on them in this way. In my own posts on this blog, and in fact, in a reflection I did for my parish several years ago, I have referred to one really significant prayer experience several times. I have done that for several reasons: 1) because it is a living reality, not a static memory, which I touch back into regularly so that I may hear more profoundly that which I heard less so earlier; 2) so that new dimensions of revelation and understanding may be opened to me since God has not stopped speaking to me via this 30 year old prayer experience; 3) so that I can illustrate for others how it is we fulfill the definition of "experience" which Ruth Burrows rightly insists on --- especially the patience and generosity she refers to, and 4) so that it becomes clear that as private and intimate as an experience is, extraordinary (and those we mistakenly think are not so extraordinary) experiences of prayer are a gift to the whole community.To open such an experience to others is also to help short circuit any tendency to elitism or mere eccentricity while making sure the real prayer experience is the ecclesial reality it is meant to be. Everyone in the Church should be encouraged to reflect in a general way on the prayer experiences not only of their own lives, but those of others that may differ. This encourages an openness to allowing God to work in one's own life in ways one may never have entertained before, not least because one thought it was only open to "specialists" or religious, for instance. It is also helpful and perhaps natural to any life in which prayer is truly central -- whether that be the life of a mom with children, of a businessman negotiating the complexities of a contemplative approach to his difficult professional environment, a hermit in her hermitage, or the Church as a whole. While the immediate experience I spoke of earlier was my own, beginning with my work with my director, that can --- and, I believe, ought to --- become a source of communal reflection and discernment which eventually leads to real wisdom for the whole Church but certainly for the contemplative's local Church. After all it is a witness to the way the Holy Spirit is working in the midst of the community --- and the way She DESIRES to work in every life therein even if the sensible "furnishings" of the experiences involved differ from person to person.
Let me reiterate a bit and clarify what I am saying here. I do not mean to say that the larger church will ever know of the details of my own prayer experience(s) themselves; those may be known only to my director or to a small and select group of friends. To the degree communicating the ineffable is even possible this could even occur in a group spiritual direction or parish prayer-group setting, for instance. At the same time, as I write this, I am clearer than ever that even these yet-unshared details could eventually be shared more largely to the extent they reveal the ineffable more than they obscure it, and to the extent it is truly reverent and prudent to do so. What remains true is that in any case the more general dynamics of my experience and the way these call me to grow in holiness --- the way this experience shapes an eremitical spirituality, the way I grow in understanding as I continue to tap into it, the wisdom it has for the faith community at large, what it teaches about the nature and place of (contemplative) prayer in every person's life and the life of the Church herself, what it says about the love and mercy of God and the way God truly delights in each of us, how it changed and continues to change me as a person, etc., --- are all matters that should be grist for greater ecclesial sharing and reflection.
For me personally this is another dimension of the silence of solitude being a communal or dialogical reality. It is part of being a representative of a living eremitical tradition. While the hermitage allows me an essentially hidden life geared to meeting God alone, and while my prayer is deeply intimate and private, the hermitage is also a quasi public as well as a formally and essentially ecclesial reality. It exists in the name of the Church and the life within it (in particular the prayer, penance, lectio, and study that so informs it) is a gift to that same Church especially to the extent she is a praying Church!I suspect that this is another of those reasons we find hermits negotiating the tensions between their hidden lives and their public (ecclesial) roles through writing more often than not. Of course it is also true that contemplative prayer needs the checks and balances of a praying community with a long history of saints and genuine contemplatives and mystics if we are to avoid the problems associated with false and merely narcissistic "mystical" experiences, but generally the reason the contemplative takes part in the Church's own conversation in these matters is because she prays as part of the praying church and contributes to its life and wisdom in doing so. While sharing and reflecting together on experiences may lead to the discernment that some of these are inauthentic and disedifying, the more important reason for doing so is to allow those that are authentic to truly BE edifying to the whole faith community. This, I believe, is part of the responsibility of sharing in God's gift of contemplation.
On Discernment with Regard to Prayer Experiences and "the Spiritual": Making Sure these are Truly Edifying
[[But in the spiritual life, we do not need temporal justification or documentation by or of others. Consider Jesus. He did not reference or cite what temple priests, scribes or experts on Judaic law said or wrote. He referenced God the Father and the Pentateuch (the Scrolls). Consider any of the prophets. They cite God. Moses relayed what God said and did not justify his words or His Words by any other means. All this makes me ponder the more, the writings of great and holy souls in Christendom, in the Church, who have passed on to us much wisdom and guidance for the spiritual life. They do not justify themselves or their words by any other persons than The Three Persons: God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit.]] This was posted by a woman claiming to be a Catholic hermit in an apparent response to one or two posts you had put up clarifying mistakes people make in approaching mystical experiences and eremitical life: (On Justifying Oneself ). She claims that documentation is necessary in secular matters but not spiritual ones. She also seems to believe that providing the kinds of support you did is done in an attempt to elevate oneself. Could you please comment on this?
But what actually is this blogger's point? As far as I can tell, she seems to believe that in the spiritual life (unlike what is acceptable in any other sphere of human endeavor) we can say anything at all about prayer, mystical experiences, eremitical life, etc., and justify it with the assertion that its source and ground is (an experience of) God: "I experienced this, it is of God because I say it is of God; nothing more needs be said. Believe me!" Do I really need to point out how specious and often destructive such a position actually is and has been in human religious history?In any case to say that the great Saints and spiritual writers in the history of the Church do not support what they write or say by references to other great Saints, scholars, or experts is simply untrue. It would be easy to cite a paragraph or a dozen and more where the Saint or religious scholar in question cites others to support or clarify his/her position. John of the Cross, for instance cited both Latin and Greek Fathers to support and further illuminate his own positions throughout his work. It was hardly an attempt at personal justification nor was it done to elevate himself. Instead it was part of a broader conversation with the whole Church and is paradigmatic of the importance of such an undertaking. (More about this in a bit.)
Still (and meanwhile), even the assertion that great saints don't cite others is somewhat beside the point. What is more pertinent is the fact that the assertion that one does not need to cite others in support of personal spiritual experiences is nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that. In the area of religious experience it is actually more important than in most any other area of human endeavor I can think of to support what one says with the experimental findings of others in prayer. Beyond this it is critically important to justify what one says theologically and by the fruits of one's life --- not least because the sinful human heart knows many gods and the human imagination and intellect have shown time and time again their propensity to mistake the merely subjective and illusory stuff of the "false self" for objective reality and the stuff of the "true self" (which, to the extent it exists, really does know and reflect God). In other words, in the realm of religious experience human history is fraught with the mistaken, the mentally ill, the deluded, the merely sinful, the dishonest and hypocrites, as well as opportunists and flimflam artists of every kind and shade. Even when the person is acting in completely good faith we may be dealing with a bit of errant neurochemistry or neuroelectrical activity, psychological projection, or simple misinterpretation more than we are dealing with an experience of God. Does this blogger really not know this? Prayer is our experimental means to knowledge of God and just as in other forms of human knowing which depend on the duplication of experimental results and the careful elaboration of the implications of the findings, so too do prayer experiences require something similar though, of course, not identical. (Since prayer is the activity of a transcendent and sovereign God within us, not something we alone achieve, duplication of the conditions and experience is not possible.) We have criteria for discerning the genuineness of a prayer experience (or series of experiences) and we turn to theologians and experts in prayer to explore the ramifications and implications of our conclusions. Could this have been of God? In what way is this so and in what way not (because both aspects are always present in such an experience!)? What allows me to say so? Who has known God in similar ways and what does this mean? And of course, what are the fruits of this experience? Does it result in greater life and truth, compassion and love, or does it not? These are a few of the questions personal experiences in prayer, despite the subjective certitude associated with them, necessarily call for in order that they may be edifying not only to the individual but to the entire faith community.
Again (and here we return to the reason St John of the Cross's citations of others are so important and a model for us) we are looking at a reason prayer, though profoundly and unquestionably personal, is also an essentially ecclesial reality and not merely a private one. Genuine discernment requires the wisdom of a praying community --- which, on the most immediate or individual level is what working with a spiritual director is about. Our individual prayer experiences must become the source of real wisdom and this requires reflection and conversation. Remember the citation I gave from Ruth Burrows: [[When all is said and done, the long line of saints and spiritual writers who insist on "experience", who speak of sanctity in terms of ever deepening "experience", who maintain that to have none is to be spiritually dead, are absolutely right provided we understand "experience" in the proper sense, not as a transient emotional impact but as living wisdom, living involvement. . . .So often, however, what the less instructed seek is mere emotion. They are not concerned with the slow demanding generosity of genuine experience.]] GMP, "A Look at Experiences," p 55, emphasis added.For this to happen testing (sometimes called testing of the spirits) must also occur and this happens within the community of faith, not least including the communion of saints. As far as I can see, to be responsible for what one experiences in prayer requires one to submit her own conclusions to the "corroboration" (so to speak) --- or, perhaps better put, to the reverent attention and consideration of other faithful, especially those experienced in the ways of prayer. One does this so that one's own experience may become a source of genuine wisdom in a way which builds up the whole community. One does so in order that others may truly benefit from God's interaction with humanity in Christ as mediated in one's own prayer. This is precisely the way we believe and truly honor our very personal prayer experiences. Merely privatistic experiences, especially when they are eccentric or mainly rooted in the false self are not only not edifying, they are disedifying or downright destructive both of the individual and of the believing community as well.
07 June 2014
The Paradox of Canon 603: Structure in the Service of Life With and In God Alone
[[Dear Sister, because you are professed under a Bishop does this make you a kind of quasi religious order? Does a lay hermit have to go more their own way than a canonical hermit or do they have to do without a "middleman" like you have? Is it more a matter of launching into the unknown than with the canonical hermit?]]
Thanks for the questions. I think I know what you are trying to ask with the second and third questions but let me suggest that the answers you are seeking (and the questions you are asking in these) are a bit too black and white, too desirous of a yes or no response. Back to those in a moment.
The answer to your first question, however, is no, diocesan hermits are not some sort of a quasi religious order constituted by Bishop and hermit. They are simply religious and represent a change in the way that term is used in the Roman Catholic Church precisely because they do NOT belong (via public profession) to an Order or congregation. One of the reasons I use the term "solitary eremitical life" to describe this (and one of the reasons the Church herself uses it more and more in profession formulas of diocesan hermits) is to indicate that it is NOT a matter of belonging to or constituting a religious order, quasi or otherwise. While the Bishop is my legitimate superior and while my delegate (or any delegate really) serves in a capacity as the hermit's superior or quasi superior on both the hermit's behalf and that of the diocese, and while my vocation is both profoundly and formally ecclesial, I remain a solitary hermit whose eremitical course is charted in the dialogue between myself and God alone.
The paradox here is real and acute. Of course both my Bishop and my delegate (as well as Vicars for Religious, et al) are privileged to share in some parts of that dialogue and are responsible for keeping their fingers on the pulse of my vocation just as I am responsible to listen carefully to them, but generally there is nothing intrusive, presumptive, or overbearing in their place in this dialogue. They are actually called to and responsible for mediating God's own call as well as my own response, but for that very reason, as I understand the term anyway, they are not "middlemen" in my relationship with God --- no more than, for instance, my pastor proclaiming the Word of God is some sort of middleman between me and that same Word. In any case, despite some overlap in common usage, I think there is a far more significant difference between a mediator and a middleman in these cases so I don't accept its use here.
This anticipates your second question. What gives me pause there is precisely the use of the term "middleman" which makes it sound as though the vocation is not also and always a matter of what happens between the hermit and God alone. But perhaps your usage here is a consequence of my recent stress on the ecclesial and normative nature of the vocation. If so let me clarify the picture a little. While the reality of ecclesial mediation is a strong one in terms of the call to an ecclesial vocation, that does not detract from the fact that very much like the lay hermit the essence of the canonical hermit's life is the dialogue that occurs between herself and God alone. There is a paradox here, an emphasis on both/and rather than on either/or.
It is a bit like the dynamics of spiritual direction where part of the director's primary obligation is to stay out of the Holy Spirit's way; the Spirit, after all, is the "real" director! The spiritual director may assist a directee in her own hearkening to the Spirit in her life and will actually mediate or participate in the mediation of God's word to the directee --- even, and often especially, in her silence and listening --- but in doing this she gives the Spirit the sacred space to work! The Church mediates the call (and the hermit's definitive response) to an ecclesial vocation but at the same time this means her job is to allow God to be the source, ground, and goal of this vocation --- and therefore, to give God space to work in both the hermit's life and in her own as well! To the degree the director or superior, for instance, do this they will truly mediate God's own voice to the hermit. After all, they are not merely reporting what God says to them --- as, on the other hand, a middleman might. Except in the most general sense they are unlikely even to know what God is saying/doing in the hermit's life at this particular moment! But of course, that is not their responsibility. Instead they are mediators and the hermit listens to the God who comes to her and to all of us in this or similar ways.
You see, with regard to your third question, every hermit's life is a matter of launching out into the unknown --- or rather, into the infinitely mysterious depths of life in God. But no one can do this without some degree of structure and/or established context. No one can do this without significant help charting and navigating their course. No one --- not even the truest mystic (and maybe especially the true mystic!) --- can do it without the mediation of the Church and her people! What canonical standing does is create a stable and legal context for this journey or voyage where shipwreck can be avoided, whether it occurs in the deep waters of contemplative prayer, is occasioned by the seduction of sirens we all too-easily mistake for the voice of God, or is (the far more likely) foundering that regularly occurs in the doldrums or on the shoals of the journey.
Because every true eremitical call is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church intended for the praise of God and the salvation of others the entire Church has a stake in each one. In and with her canonical vocations she will signal to everyone the place of the church in supporting, nurturing, and governing all eremitical vocations. The Church similarly signals especially to all hermits (both non-canonical and canonical) that the eremitical vocation is not a way simply to do your own thing or to validate mere eccentricity --- including "spiritual" eccentricity! This is particularly important in an age seemingly ruled by individualism and even narcissism. While she does this by means of canonical standing more generally she also does so in terms of and by the existence of canon 603 itself.
Canon 603 is Normative of the Eremitical Life in the Church for ALL hermits:
Remember that the first part of this canon applies to every hermit in the Church because it defines the Church's own vision of the shape of this particular (eremitical) journey into God --- the dimensions of it, that is, that she can see and which are necessary on the part of ANY person claiming to be a serious voyager in this eremitical way: assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from those things which are resistant to Christ as well as some very good aspects of God's own good creation, the silence of solitude, a Rule or Plan of Life, the evangelical counsels, and a healthy life within the Church itself. While not every hermit will be given (nor desire or petition for) standing in law, canon 603 signals that eremitical vocations are genuinely inspired or charismatic realities in our contemporary day and age and further, that every authentic Christian eremitical vocation will be shaped accordingly and be an ecclesial reality in at least the most general sense of that term.
What I mean is that, each one, when authentic, will be lived within the Church, be nourished by her Sacra-mental life, be fed by her Word, be sensitive to and participate to some degree or way in her missionary and evangelizing impulse (which, after all, is the very impulse of God!), and finally, CAN only exist in relation to and with the "assembly of called ones" the church is. At the same time each authentic eremitical life will involve a launching out into the unknown or at least the unplumbed depths of life in and with God.
This is, in fact, what canon 603 makes possible for both canonical and lay hermits simply by its existence within the Church! Again, it is the freedom the constraints of this canon permit whether de jure or simply de facto, that is, whether the hermit exists in law or simply in fact. What is up to every authentic hermit, non-canonical or canonical is that they allow themselves to live out both parts of this paradox in the way God calls them to. In other words, whether she is canonical or non-canonical, every hermit sharing in the vision of authentic eremitical or anchoritic life the Church has actually codified in canon 603 will also share in the this-worldly dimensions of the Church that allow such a voyage into the depths of God to be more safely made and the delusions and illusions so common to some "spiritualities" to be avoided. Neither is called to "go their own way" but rather God's --- and both are called to do so according to the vision and understanding of eremitical life the Church has codified in canon 603.
Diocesan Hermits as Hothouse Blooms?
You may remember that once I wrote a post contending with the assertion that canonical hermits were "hot house blooms" nurtured and cultivated while non-canonical hermits were wild roses trying to survive on their own without assistance, etc. In that post I listed the similarities that exist between non-canonical and canonical hermits. It might be a good idea to link you to that post here for a discussion which also takes into account the difficulties of living as a lay or non-canonical hermit but paves the way for this post as well. (Thus please see: Diocesan Hermits as Hothouse Blooms?)
04 June 2014
Dimensions of the Ecclesial Nature of the C 603 Vocation
[[Dear Sister, I too am grateful for what you have written recently about the ecclesial and normative nature of the vocation of diocesan hermits. I was one of those who thought the emphasis on law was sort of pharisaical and I wondered why it was really necessary. Like the person who thought the Holy Spirit could just "raise up" such vocations and that canon law was unnecessary, I thought the same thing. After all you have said yourself that some dioceses tell those interested in pursuing profession under canon 603 to "just go live in solitude; it is all one needs." I guess even the institutional church can think this way! I wonder if some dioceses really believe canon 603 adds nothing at all to this vocation or is unnecessary? Aren't most of the people dealing with vocations canonists??
This leads me to two questions. First, do all dioceses recognize the importance of the ecclesial nature of this vocation? And second, when you speak of the ecclesial nature of the c. 603 vocation it seems to mean several different things. For sure it means more than just "of the church', right? I understand it means that the vocation is discerned by both the Church and the hermit. I also understand it means the vocation is normative. Can you describe all the things you mean by the term ecclesial?]]
Yes, sure. Let me start with the second question first. Over the course of the last few years I have described the ecclesial nature of the vocation to diocesan eremitical life in the following ways including those two primary ones you mentioned. All of them have to do, as you say, with the profound ways the vocation is "of (and for) the Church":
Dimensions of the Ecclesial Nature of the C 603 Vocation:
1) The vocation is formally and legitimately established and lived in the name of the Church. Hermits who are publicly professed and consecrated are Catholic hermits in the proper sense of that term. We also call them diocesan hermits, c 603 hermits, canonical hermits, etc. While the hermit does not "speak" on behalf of the Church she is commissioned to live her own eremitical life in the name of the Church.
2) The vocation is mutually discerned. A person does not assume it on her own nor the rights and obligations associated with it. It, along with these rights and obligations, is entrusted to her by the Church on behalf of the Church's very life as well as on behalf of the living eremitical tradition; she embraces this ecclesial trust as a part of what it means to respond to God's own call.
3) This call is mediated by the Church. Both the individual’s profession and their consecration by God are mediated by the Church through c 603 in the hands of the diocesan Bishop. Moreover through legitimate superiors this call continues to be mediated to the hermit by the Church just as the hermit's response to this call is a continuing reality mediated to and through canonical relationships and structures.
4) Canon 603 is normative for eremitical life in the Church. While not all hermits are canonical, c 603.1 describes the essence of the eremitical life as the Church herself understands and esteems it. What is generally true is that all hermits in the church measure and mature in their lives according to the central elements of this canon whether they are established in law or not. In other words the first part of the canon especially is the norm by which both canonical and non-canonical hermits shape their lives according to an ecclesial vision of eremitical life. The c 603 hermit, however, is bound publicly and legally to live a life which is consistent with this ecclesially normative vision of the solitary eremitical life "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world".
5) C 603 life constitutes a dimension of the Church’s own holiness.
6) The c 603 vocation is a public one with public rights and obligations. It implies necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church for the one professed accordingly.
7) The vocation is charismatic in the truest sense; it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world mediated as already noted.
8) The hermitage itself represents, as the hermit herself does, an “ecclesiola” in the language of St Peter Damian. It is an extension of the Church in prayer or worship and an expression of the same. Elements supporting this understanding include allowing the reserved Eucharist which is an ecclesial act commissioned by the Church. Communion services are extensions of the Church’s public worship as is the Liturgy of the Hours.
9) The canon 603 hermit and the Church in the person of the local Bishop are charged with protecting and nurturing not only the hermit’s individual vocation but the solitary eremitical vocation itself. Public commitment establishes and expresses this mutual responsibility. Both bishop and hermit are responsible for a living eremitical tradition whose roots began in the OT, was epitomized in Jesus' own life of kenosis (of which his 40 days in the desert is a paradigm), and continued with the Desert Fathers and Mothers, medieval anchorites, and others.
10) The lives of canon 603 hermits are themselves a ministry of the Church. While hermits pray, more importantly they ARE embodiments of prayer, and in this way represent a significant incarnation of the Church’s own faith. It is no overstatement to say that hermits exist at the heart of the Church; within the silent life of God where faith is the lifeblood and prayer the very heartbeat of the Church, hermits represent a significant instance of the Church at prayer.
11) This vocation represents a stable ecclesial and consecrated state of life. It participates in and depends upon those governing and supporting relationships established publicly in law through profession and consecration.
Do all dioceses recognize and appreciate the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial?
I think the answer, unfortunately, has to be no, they don't seem to. It seems to me that to say a vocation is both ecclesial and normative is to ascribe a very significant and particular kind of value to it. But some dioceses, or at least some personnel within these dioceses, seem not to esteem eremitical life at all. Partly this is a function of not understanding it or the gift it is; sometimes this stems, understandably, from associating it with stereotypes based on kernels of truth found throughout the history of eremitical life. Here, conceiving of the vocation in terms of eccentricity, individualism, misanthropy or anti-social tendencies, a desire to go one's own way in the Church (whether as a progressive or as a traditionalist) prevent these folks from esteeming the vocation appropriately. Partly too, I think, for some this has to do with esteeming active ministry over the contemplative life.
In all these cases, to 1) move beyond misconceptions, biases, or over-generalizations and 2) take the added step of esteeming the vocation as an ecclesial one which is a gift of the Holy Spirit mediated in and by the Church is just too big for these dioceses to accomplish. Still, it is necessary if canon 603 is to truly function as it is meant to within the Church. One of the most significant reasons for writing about the ecclesial nature of the vocation is because it is critical that dioceses (and those seeking admission to profession!) understand this vocation as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. One of the reasons for treating c 603 as an essential piece of legislation and writing about its normative character from within the vocation itself is precisely so dioceses and the people that constitute them can come to recognize a vocation which is not only charismatic but contrasts sharply in every way with the common stereotypes and distortions of authentic eremitical life.
25 May 2014
Fraudulent "Catholic Hermits": Is it a Big Problem?
[[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] (redacted)
No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through paypal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little-understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:
A number of monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.
When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and reflect today part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.
So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in BC to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws.
The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, understanding the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly, but that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.
My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:
One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.
To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".
Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us
In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay hermits who identify themselves as such) might well embrace true solitude in the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)
You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).
24 May 2014
Continuation of a Conversation of the Normative Nature of Canon 603
The following post is a continuation of a conversation begun in email regarding my own online presence and the seeming harshness of my criticism a couple of years or more ago of the Archdiocese of Boston for using canon 603 as a stopgap means of professing Sister Olga Yaqob. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is not about Sister Yaqob per se (I continue to think she is an amazing person and a fine religious), but about the appropriate implementation and meaning of canon 603. The OP's comments and questions are italicized.
Sister Olga is amazing in her willingness to plunge into work that kept her fed, and then had a chance to live in solitude on her days off. So her definition of hermit might be equally true as yours, and she carried her hermitage in her heart, as saints of encouraged. Her choices were limited.Yes, you are correct that her choices were limited just as they are for all of us seeking to live LIVES of eremitical solitude. Canonical hermits, however cannot go out and get full time jobs outside the hermitage nor can they be satisfied with one day of contemplative prayer a week. Those too are limitations which the very nature of their lives, personal and public commitments, and the canon which governs these impose. Canon 603 hermits are not wealthy --- at least generally speaking. They do live poor lives and quite often live at a subsistence level.
They mainly work from within the hermitage (or on the property) and do a variety of things to keep body and soul together. Some do receive disability or other subsidies (depending on the country, etc) but all mainly and often only work from within their hermitage doing any number of things consistent with their contemplative and solitary life. Typically, if a person cannot do this, it is understood by dioceses as a sign that the vocation is not one they can pursue at this point in time. It is sometimes seen that they may therefore not be called to eremitical life just as it is also the analogous (though reversed) case that those who cannot work full time as religious or who are disabled, for instance, are ordinarily unable to enter a religious congregation. While it might be a good idea to have dioceses assist perpetually professed hermits to live their lives so that more folks CAN pursue a truly eremitical life (there is a debate about this among hermits and others), there is NO real debate that full time work outside the hermitage is incompatible with eremitical life as the Church understands it.
What Sister Olga saw as a valid definition of eremitical life you see is not the real question. What constitutes the normative vision of the eremitical life is defined clearly in canon 603 according to which she was (as the rest of us are) obligated to live and shape her own life. That canon is clear: a LIFE of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world. Canon 603 does not define an eremitism of the heart ONLY. It defines a life measured both externally AND internally, institutionally and personally in these terms. Olga's life at BU did not meet this criterion by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that she has dropped any mention of canon 603, does NOT refer to herself as a hermit, as well as the fact that her diocese has stopped referring to her profession as made under canon 603 suggests to me she knew this to be true and agrees with this assessment --- as, I think, did Boston and a lot of folks who questioned the situation --- including faithful, diocesan hermits, other Bishops, canonists, Vicars for Religious, etc. In any case she has moved on and continues to do wonderful things with her life.
I can see the unusual circumstances Sister Olga was in, and she probably felt far more solitary being in a strange country, and trying to stay close to the Church, than many other hermits. I do not think Canon 603 is necessary to protect a hermit, and the Holy Spirit can handle this without laws, and has risen up this type of vocation since the beginning of the Church, so I do not think you need to be worried about it, as you offer your viewpoint.
I agree that Sister Olga's circum-stances were difficult and the way she dealt with these is one of the things that makes her so admirable. The problem here, however, is that feeling solitary is not the same as being a hermit. MANY people today are isolated and marginalized. Many feel alone and disconnected from their families, homelands and cultures. Nonetheless the intensity of Sister Olga's feelings (or those of these many others) is somewhat beside the point; we do not call the isolated, marginalized, and lonely "hermits" unless they also ARE truly hermits, nor do we automatically profess and consecrate them under canon 603 as a stopgap solution to their situation.One does not need to be professed as a religious (much less a hermit) in order to "stay close to the Church" (we baptized ARE Church) and there is no apparent reason Sister Olga could not, for instance, have embraced consecrated virginity for women living in the world as a way of life if she was looking for a form of consecrated life which allowed her to live fully in the world while serving the Church through active ministry --- unless of course she (and/or her Bishop) was looking, for instance, to eventually create a religious community and seek canonical standing for that. (In such a case c 604 would not have worked and c 603 was not meant for such a purpose either.) As for needing the canon or not, I have argued and continue to argue that the canon is precisely the way the Church assists the Holy Spirit to raise up authentic solitary eremitical lives. It is not that the charismatic and the canonical conflict. Instead they come together in this ecclesial vocation where law serves love.
You speak of Sister Olga as an acceptable exception to this eremitical norm. The problem of course comes when every Bishop in every diocese decides someone he knows should also be counted as an exception. Canon 603 describes a rare vocation; we must accept that fact. It also describes an infinitely valuable vocation which is a gift (charisma) of the Holy Spirit. We must also accept and honor that fact with our actions and policies. Using canon 603 to profess and consecrate exceptions to the rule is an inevitable way to empty the canon of meaning and vitiate the gift this vocation actually is. The canon is not there to accommodate folks who simply cannot be professed any other way --- unless of course they ALSO have a truly eremitical vocation; it is not there to give lonely folks a way to belong (though it assuredly often ALSO does this). It is there to profess those relatively rare instances of eremitical life raised up by the Spirit which the Church considers NORMATIVE of the living eremitical tradition.
There are probably far more personal differences and definitions than a canon law could capture, and that is where the bishop has the authority to work with it the best he can. It is wonderful the bishop gave Sister Olga a sense of belonging. I cannot imaging being in her position.Yes. Canon 603 is indeed a modern canon; there is no precedent for it in the Code of Canon Law. That means 1) that it is not the revision of something from the 1917 Code and 2) it supersedes any local diocesan statutes which may still be on the books from throughout the centuries. I believe it is clear in some ways regarding what it calls for even though it does not define these terms. For that reason although I don't need to create a definition it is often important to spell out the history of the vocation and the meaning of the terms used within it (which I think is what you mean) so that it is not seized upon as a canon which applies to just ANY lone person or just ANY isolated and marginalized life.
For instance, stereotypes of eremitical life can blind people to the fact that the life is a healthy one, or that in the main hermits have always tended to live on the margins (and sometimes in the center) of society (rather than in very deep deserts) and offered both the fruits of their skills (in agriculture, for instance), sold goods (created things, art, calligraphy, woven mats, etc), offered advice and spiritual direction (think of anchoresses and their windows which were central spiritual hubs in medieval towns), or otherwise interacted with their culture and times in ways which 1) protected an essential and contemplative solitude, 2) witnessed to the fact that this vocation is lived in the heart of the Church as well as for the sake of others, and 3) served as a kind of prophetic presence to the Church as whole.
Similarly, because a person does not KNOW the history of the canon or is unfamiliar with eremitical life does not mean the terms of the canon can be defined anyway at all. After all, these terms really DO have meanings just as the term "Catholic Hermit" has a particular and normative meaning within the Church.But it is understandable that people are literally ignorant of these meanings or (in less understandable and more unfortunate circumstances) choose to ignore them; for this reason it means their definitions may need to be made clear by someone knowledgeable about the eremitical tradition and especially about the history and nature of canon 603. Thus, for instance, a Bishop --- even if he is a canonist --- might not know that "the silence of solitude" is a Carthusian term with a particular range of meaning both far broader and more intensive than mere "physical solitude" and "external silence". Certainly individuals who become intrigued with c 603 as a possible way of "getting professed while living alone" don't usually know this. Likewise, "stricter separation from the world" has a meaning but it is not "isolation," "reclusion," (at least not usually), nor "separation from and disdain for created reality as a whole."
So yes, I am doing some of this with the aid of the internet. It is a way of preserving my own eremitical life of the silence of solitude while contributing to the development (or at least the understanding of this new piece) of the living tradition I am publicly committed to. Other hermits explore the same constitutive elements of their lives (and the canon) every day; a number have blogs which allow them to share their reflections on these and other matters for the edification of the Church. Each one does so with the knowledge and approval of her superiors, and I would wager, each one does so in a careful and discerning manner because she values the gift this vocation is to the Church and world.
23 May 2014
What does it mean to say a vocation is normative, canonical, or ecclesial? What does it matter?
[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you say that a hermit with public vows has embraced a "normative (canonical)" and ecclesial vocation do you mean that all other hermits measure their lives according to these people? What does it mean to call a vocation ecclesial? Why does it matter? Is this important to the person in the pew? Also, if you live your life "in the name of the Church" does this mean that when you speak out here you do so on behalf of the Church or as some sort of official spokesperson?]]
I have written about these topics a lot -- though not so much recently --- so I really encourage you to look them up in the topics or labels list at the bottom of this post as well as to the right. In any case this answer will reprise a lot of what those posts already contain. (The need to repeat this kind of thing as questions occur is one of the deficiencies of a blog format.) Still, your questions are also a little different than what I have answered in the past, especially in wondering about what it means to say a vocation is an ecclesial one or what it means to say "in the name of the Church" so I am glad to look at these things again. That is especially true when some question the need for canonical standing with regard to eremitical life --- as one person wrote to me yesterday morning.
Normative Vocations:
When I say that a hermit has embraced a normative (canonical) vocation through public profession I mean that her vocation is governed and measured by the canon defining her life. In my case and the case of other diocesan hermits it is mainly canon 603. While one hopes that anyone professed accordingly lives her life in an exemplary way it is first of all the life described by the canon, and so, the canon itself which is normative; that is, the canon tells us what the Church herself understands, establishes, and codifies as "eremitical life" for the benefit of her own life and the salvation of all. A person admitted to a public commitment to live under this canon has committed to living this specific understanding of the eremitical life and is publicly responsible for doing so in recognizable, fruitful, and faithful ways. She does so in order that the life and holiness of the Church may be augmented and may serve to witness to others in terms of eremitism itself. You might say that a diocesan hermit is responsible for enfleshing or incarnating this canon and the form of life it describes for the healing and inspiration of her local Church, the universal Church, and the world at large. Only in this sense does the hermit herself become "normative" of the eremitical life. (The diocesan hermit is so-called because she is publicly professed and consecrated by God in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and is bound to this specific diocese unless another Bishop agrees to receive her and supervise her vowed life in his diocese).
Canon 603 has a number of non-negotiable elements to it. It describes a vowed life (603.2 specifies a publicly vowed life) of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance according to a Rule the hermit writes herself and which is lived FOR the salvation of the world. All of this is undertaken in law and under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop who is the hermit's legitimate superior (superior in law). In other words this c. 603 hermit lives a solitary eremitical life of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the canonical specifications of the Catholic Church so that others might hear the Gospel of Christ in a particularly vivid way through her life of desert spirituality. She is not a misanthrope, a failure at life or relationships, nor is her solitary life a selfish or self-centered one. The requirement that this life be a loving one lived for the sake of others is no less significant than the requirements of assiduous prayer, stricter separation from the world, or the silence of solitude.
Because she does this in the heart of the Church and for others the canon stands between them and her as a kind of signpost and point of entry. It tells her fellow Catholics (and all others as well) what her life as a Catholic hermit is about (the term Catholic here implies one who is publicly and thus, normatively committed to this life; it specifically means a life lived in the name of the Church; in other words, it is a right (with commensurate responsibilities) granted BY THE CHURCH, not one which is self-adopted). The faithful can read the canon and question the hermit about what it means for her life; the canon gives the faithful in particular the right to specific expectations with regard to this hermit. This is not the case when one's commitment is private. Similarly it constantly summons the hermit to faithfulness to a specific and normative vision of eremitical life as the Catholic Church understands and codifies it. Both the hermit and the Church itself are mutually responsible for the faithful living out of this vocation. Both are publicly committed to this. If the hermit continues to allow her life to be shaped by God in the heart of the Church in this particular way and if her superiors work with her to ensure the same then this eremitical life will be truly edifying --- meaning it will build up the Church and the Kingdom of God.
Non-Canonical Hermits, authenticity vs counterfeits:
Many people live as hermits but not in a way which is normative and sometimes not even in a way the Church would consider authentic. I have a friend whose brother lives in the Pacific Northwest in a small secluded cabin. He has lived there for at least thirty years that I know of. He is a hermit who lives a significant physical solitude, but he is not a hermit in the sense the Church uses the term. Further he is a Catholic but he is emphatically NOT a Catholic hermit and to think of him as one could be disedifying. If you look at other posts on this blog you will find the story of Tom Leppard an eccentric and curmudgeonly misanthrope who lived as a hermit on the Isle of Skye in significant physical solitude, deprivation, and psychological isolation for a number of years. Tom also fails to meet the criterion of those called "hermit" set forth by the Church. Recently a "hermit" in Maine was arrested for stealing. He was indeed a hermit in the common sense of the term, but he would have thought canon 603 the description of an entirely alien landscape and certainly could not have lived as a hermit in the name of the Church. These examples could easily be multiplied many times over. A quick search of the internet will uncover other equally eccentric and frankly alarming examples of counterfeit eremitical life.
Not all authentic hermits are canonical of course. Lay hermits who will always represent the lion's share of the eremitical population may well live most of the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 and do so in exemplary ways (I know several who are wonderful examples of eremitical life) but they live their commitments to this way of life privately, neither publicly called, publicly committed or commissioned, nor accepting the public rights, obligations, nor the expectations associated with canonical standing. This is not a deficiency but it is still a significant difference which those considering one form of eremitical life or another need to be aware of. The faithful in general also need to be aware of the differences here not least so their own expectations can be appropriate ones. While our private commitments should be serious and something we live with integrity, members of the Church have no real right to complain or question if they do not see signs that this is occurring in an exemplary way. In my own life, while members of the church will be concerned for me if I am having problems living my eremitical commitments with integrity, these concerns can actually be taken to my legitimate superiors with the justifiable expectation that the situation will be rectified in all necessary ways. Not so with private commitments.
Ecclesial vocations:
I think you may already see that a normative (canonical) vocation and an ecclesial vocation are closely related even overlapping ideas. Still, we do mean one thing I have not yet explicitly mentioned here. An ecclesial vocation is one mediated to the person by the Church. One cannot claim such a vocation on one's own. Such vocations are mutually discerned. The person whose vocation is mutually discerned is then called forth from the midst of the assembly to respond publicly to this vocation and commit her life to it. Her vows are received in the name of the Church and the rights and obligations attached to this state are mediated to her as well (things like the right to be known as a diocesan or Catholic hermit, the right to wear a religious habit or prayer garment publicly, the right to use the title Sister (etc) along with all the obligations attached to these and the expectations associated with them, etc. are included here). The very state itself with all the graces attached are mediated by the Church. When I spoke above of the mutual responsibility of hermits and superiors for making sure the life is lived well I was also referring to the ecclesial nature of the vocation.
On the ground canonical standing also means that the Church has vetted these folks over some period of time and, as well as possible, found them sane, spiritually well-grounded, theologically sound, and committed to living this life for the sake of others. They are not seeking a sinecure nor a place to live a life of idleness. Again, they are not misanthropes, failures at life, eccentrics, or self-centered and self-pitying misfits. They understand the vocation, have significant positive reasons for pursuing it and are deemed to have been called by God through the ministry of God's Church to do so. They live disciplined lives of prayer and penance according to a Rule they have written. The Rule by which they live their lives and the vows they have made have been approved by canonists and others to be sure they represent a healthy and sound version of vowed eremitical life which can truly serve as a witness to others. As a piece of this their lives and efforts are also supervised and supported as they meet regularly with a spiritual director and/or diocesan delegate as well as less frequently with their Bishop. In other words, an ecclesial vocation is one in which the person and the Church more generally --- especially through the agency of the local ordinary or other superiors --- are publicly and mutually committed in an effort to be faithful to this vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Why Does this Matter? Is It Important to the Person in the Pew?
I hope you can see that all of this does matter to the person in the pew. In fact all of the requirements and vetting is done so that the Church as a whole is able to see and respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in her midst. The key word in all of this is CREDIBILITY. The Church understands the eremitical life as a great gift of the Holy Spirit but she also knows that it has become associated with all sorts of stereotypes and nutcases as well as authentic hermits. As I have noted, our world is fraught with individualism, narcissism, the aggrandizement of victim status, misanthropy and self-centeredness --- all of which have been confused with authentic eremitical life and the words "solitary" and (more problematically) "solitude". The silence of solitude has been confused with the silence of emptiness, lack, and personal deficiency whereas it is really the silence of communion and fullness. Canonical Hermits are specifically called to witness to the vast differences between a solitary life lived in communion with God and for the salvation of the world and these perversions , distortions, or counterfeit versions of authentic eremitical, and indeed, authentic human existence.
I believe that is terribly important to the rest of the assembly (ecclesia) and especially to anyone struggling to make sense of lives where they or others they love are now alone, feel their lives have ceased to have meaning because of loss (job, money, status), bereavement, or illness, etc. I believe it is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world peopled with the marginalized, prisoners, the poor, sick, and suffering who are in search of a peace the world cannot give. And of course, it is because I believe this vocation IS a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and World that I am sensitive to its normative and public character. In other words, it is because this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit and is lived for the sake of others that emphasis on such things as normativeness, canonical standing, or ecclesiality are important. If the vocation meant nothing and was not a gift of the Spirit to the Church and world, if it was really nothing more than an expression of a selfish or misanthropic individualism whether a relatively pious form or not, then indeed, why should we care about such things?!?! Why indeed, should we codify it, invest it with rights and obligations, or encourage others to seek it?
Living Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church
No, when I write here I do not do so as an official, a spokesperson for the Church. However I do write as one commissioned and one who does live diocesan eremitical life in her name. In other words I am responsible for being a solitary Catholic Hermit in the sense the Church uses that term. I and others like me are, that is, charged with representing a living eremitical tradition in the Church and we are, as noted above, publicly and legally bound to do that with faithfulness in a way which adds to the tradition (especially in its dialogue with contemporary culture I think) and to the holiness of the Church herself. Anyone claiming the title "Catholic Hermit" should be able to say the same or they are actually breaking faith with the Church herself. Because by education I am a theologian I am also called in a charismatic way to reflect on the vocation itself more systematically than many others living the life. Still, every diocesan hermit I know reflects on the life c 603 outlines precisely as part of living it with integrity. Moreover, almost all those I know regard the importance of working with their Bishops to ensure the health and beauty of this gift of the Spirit. All of this is a normal part of living the life in the name of the Church as "Catholic hermits."
(By the way, the Church is very careful about folks calling institutions, forms of life, etc "Catholic" and actually forbids this in law unless the right is granted by the appropriate authority.) You see to call oneself a Catholic priest, a Catholic Sister, a Catholic hermit, a Catholic lay person, etc, is another way of saying, "I have been publicly commissioned (publicly ordained, professed, and/or consecrated --- including baptismal consecration) to live this life in the name of the Church." It is another dimension of a normativity whose purpose is really a profoundly pastoral one. Canonical standing nurtures and governs the vocational gifts of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church; it also helps prevent faithlessness, hypocrisy, and even outright fraud. After all, in a vocation as rare, little known, and unusual as authentic eremitical solitude, especially given the stereotypes that exist and the individualistic tendencies in our culture, it would not be hard for some to misrepresent the vocation or call themselves "Catholic Hermits" when they are really no such thing.
Posts
