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!

Follow-up to Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?

[[Sister Laurel, if a lay hermit insists c 603.2 applies to them because they were consecrated by God, how would you respond? I can see where none of the elements of c 603.2 apply to her situation except the term consecrated, but how should one respond to such an assertion?]] 

Thanks for your follow-up question. I am assuming the text of (your) first question, Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?), so folks should check that post if necessary. First, let me point out that the term used is consecrated life, not merely "consecrated" or even "consecration by God", so we are not merely speaking about a single event whether or not God did indeed consecrate the person. We are speaking about a stable state of life in which one is initiated not only by God but by the Church, to which (state of life) one is publicly committed, and in which one perseveres and thrives.  Divine Consecration is critical, of course, but the canon speaks of consecrated life (that is, a life at every moment witnessing to God's consecration in an ecclesial vocation) and the structural elements that constitute that "in law" in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Secondly, these structural elements involve those elements binding on both the individual and the larger Church itself. So first of all, the hermit makes a public profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop of the three Evangelical Counsels and is thus bound in law. In other words, this life is not a private one, hidden though it may be essentially. It is not anonymous. It is a canonical vocation with public (legal) rights and obligations the hermit takes on in the immediate presence of the bishop and the local Church. Such vocations are celebrated (mediated and received) for the sake of the Church's own life and holiness, not only for the sake of the individual hermit's life and growth in holiness. All this means the Church (the People of God) have the right to hold certain expectations of such a consecrated person. (Again, this is not a private dedication nor, generally speaking, is it one that allows the hermit to say, "No one needs to know I'm a hermit" as though no one has a right to know this!! Actually, in usual circumstances, people have every right to know that one is a Catholic Hermit because one is recognized in law in this way.)

Canon 603.2 continues by declaring that such a dedication is [[confirmed by vow or other sacred bond and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction]]. Again, these are essential elements pointing not only to the individual's most profound commitment to God made explicit in sacred bonds, Canon law, and Rule (proper law) she writes herself, but to the Church's acceptance of responsibility for this vocation. It includes mutual commitments on the part of the one consecrated and the Church mediating this consecration to live (or assist the person to live) this commitment under the Church's ministry of authority, both legal and moral. 

I suppose I would conclude this response by saying that a person arguing as you describe has made a critical error in focusing on the idea of being consecrated by God while suggesting she does indeed live c 603.2. Yes, Divine consecration is presupposed here, but that is not the focus of this section of the canon. What c 603.2 does is define the necessary structural elements for someone to be admitted to the consecrated life in an ecclesial vocation, that is, one established in law --- which is the only form of consecrated life the Church recognizes or gives her name to. Further, these essential elements include the concrete way the Church itself nurtures, protects, and governs such a life and gift of God. One cannot cut them out of the picture and still have c 603.2. So again, while such a hermit can live c 603.1, c 603.2 is a different matter.

On Reservation of the Eucharist as a Non-Canonical Hermit

[[I want to live out my life in [omitted]. I receive a good tax free income. I only have to taxi to pharmacy and occasional doctors. Groceries are delivered. I want to know if a priest is allowed to give me the Eucharist and allow me on my own to take one per day.]]

Hi there! Thanks for reaching out to me. Just FYI, I tried responding to this by email several times Sunday, but each time I received a message that you were over your quota on icloud. In case you are not receiving emails from others as well, please delete some of the backlog so you have some space for these. Sorry to put this note up here, but I am told it is the only way to reach you given the error message received. 

Meanwhile, it's great you are considering hermit life. Congratulations! It has often been a late stage of life vocation for people. Regarding your question, if you are not considering petitioning for consecration as a c 603 hermit, but making a private commitment, it would be more difficult to be given the privilege of reserving the Eucharist in your own hermitage, but it might not be impossible. Yes, a priest can give you Communion but generally speaking, he cannot give you Eucharist to take away with you; the reservation of Eucharist for a week's worth of Communions, would only be possible if your bishop gave you specific permission to do this. I don't know who your Bishop is, but if you could get your parish priest to assure him of the vitality of your faith and relationship with your parish, to help you out to make sure a space was properly set up to reserve the Eucharist in your hermitage, as well as to vouch for you more generally as well, your bishop might grant permission.

No promises, of course, but it seems to me it might be done with adequate oversight and pastoral assistance. However, what I usually suggest in situations similar to your own (including with candidates who are actually moving toward eventual c 603 profession and consecration) is that you instead enshrine the Sacred Scriptures in your prayer space and come more and more to live in light of the presence of Christ in the Word of God. This is a more traditional path for hermits while living with the reserved Eucharist is very new, especially made more prevalent with c 603 hermits. At the very least, this is something you can do now and continue to grow in as you read the Scriptures daily (something we are already permitted and encouraged to do) and while you seek permission from your bishop for the reservation of the Eucharist.

You see, if you were thinking of becoming a consecrated hermit the path to reserving the Eucharist in your own hermitage would be at least somewhat easier. In canonical consecration, the person's relationship with the Church is determined to be a clear and vibrant one while profession and consecration establish them in an ecclesial vocation. (This is part of what allowed St Peter Damian to speak of a hermit as ecclesiola and also one of the reasons candidates for consecration under c 603 wait until after profession and consecration to be able to reserve Eucharist in their own hermitage). Because eremitical solitude is about living alone with God in the heart of the Church for God's sake and the sake of others and not simply about living alone, this must be established before allowing someone to reserve the Eucharist and self-communicate. Eucharist, our most potent symbol of communion with God and one another, cannot be associated with mere isolation and separation from others. Whether you choose to petition to be professed as a canonical hermit or live as a non-canonical hermit by virtue of your baptism, the permission to reserve Eucharist and self-communicate would lie in the bishop's hands.

Evaluating a Little of What I have Learned from the Past Couple of Months

The past couple of months have been particularly challenging both here at Stillsong and in this Notes From Stillsong blog. I have written at least once every day or two and responded to some difficult questions I would rather not have had to deal with. At the heart of it all is a subject who contends she would like to be made a c 603 hermit despite having reviled the vocation for at least fifteen years on various blogs and in a series of YouTube vlogs. As you might imagine, the situation has generated a lot of questions (only a few of which I have posted) which, personalities aside, can serve to help sharpen the process of discernment and formation for c 603 hermits presently being developed for dioceses that might make use of it. So, these couple of months (and a lot of the past 17 years) have provided lots to think about, surprises with problems I never could have foreseen or perhaps even imagined, and opportunities to explore the ins and outs of c 603 for the sake of the Church --- which makes this all a joy.

The most important things that have been underscored for me during these weeks have been the foundational aspects of c 603 vocations: these solitary hermit vocations are public and ecclesial. I have said this again and again through the past almost two decades, and the importance of these two elements in forming the candidate's sensibilities concerning eremitical life generally and consecrated c 603 life particularly cannot be overstated. Related to this is the candidate's understanding that public or canonical means public rights and obligations the Church extends to the candidate which s/he embraces. S/he must approach profession, consecration, and life after these performatory "moments" and within the reality they create in a way that is both uniquely responsive to the Church's mission in the contemporary world and sensitive to and reflective of the ancient eremitical tradition s/he now represents. There are some questions and concerns that have been raised particularly during this time, and my sense is dioceses must definitely raise these with every candidate they consider for profession and/or consecration during the first couple of sessions they hold with the candidate.

For instance, it is important to ask directly what the person knows about Canon 603. How has its existence and its essential elements shaped his/her eremitical journey? (We need to ask about each of these elements individually in this regard.) What is its history (both remote and immediate) and why was it established? Does s/he understand, for instance, that it was not primarily established to deal with abuses in eremitical life, but rather because the Universal Church had finally come to esteem this vocational gift of God? Does s/he understand why and how this vocation is prophetic and a gift to the Church, and to every person making up this body --- particularly to the marginalized, the chronically ill and disabled, the poor and elderly?  Is s/he ready to take on that role and to grow in it even if s/he must (perhaps) change some ingrained ideas about the eremitical life itself?  Does s/he understand that ironically, the canon's constraints provide a realm of freedom the Church extends to him/her so that s/he may grow in communion with God for the sake of others, or does s/he see the canon as some kind of straightjacket used to hem in the hermit or a penal code mainly meant to correct errors? If the hermit sees the canon in the first light it can be a joy to him/her and his/her eremitical life; if it is seen in the second light, s/he may never be empowered to discover its depths and beauty with his/her own eremitical life. These questions are important for those discerning such vocations as well.

Similarly, does the candidate have at least a glimpse of the canon's charism? Does s/he perceive and appreciate the way the vocation-as-canonical is a gift to the Church and serves in the proclamation of the Gospel? How does s/he relate to this gift quality? Does s/he understand the defining elements of the canon as doorways to worlds s/he is called to explore with and in God, or are they instead perceived as narrow gates to a single rigid meaning with little relevance to most people's lives? Does s/he approach the life under c 603 with the heart and mind of a beginner or as someone who believes it has nothing to teach him/her, nothing to surprise him/her with, and nothing to delight him/her day by day? These questions themselves lead to questions regarding the candidate's theological sophistication or lack thereof. It is important that there be real competence, not that the hermit needs to be a theologian, but that s/he is able to negotiate traditional sources of spirituality and eremitical life in light of contemporary voices and scholarship and the light of his/her own prayer as well.

A penultimate question (at least for tonight!) that must be asked as well is about the hermit candidate's use of media, social and otherwise. For instance, if the hermit candidate has a public-facing presence (blogs or vlogs), then these need to be checked out and discussed with the candidate. It is especially important to do this when there are several blogs that correspond to different periods of the candidate's life and relationship with the Church. Patterns of behavior and personal difficulty that might not be entirely evident otherwise can be perceived when these avenues are explored. A particularly crucial question that may sometimes go unasked is, "Why are you seeking to be professed under c 603?" In recent weeks, that particular question became particularly urgent and problematical for some who wrote me in light of so much blog and vlog material denouncing and reviling c 603, the motives, character, and fidelity to c 603 itself of c 603 hermits, or of the bishops who approve such vocations. After at least 15 years of this kind of material, as well as an obstinate insistence that one is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, it becomes a compelling question those discerning the vocation standing before them, must know to ask!! In fact, it is this question that calls for all of the other ones I have mentioned here.

My thanks to those who have written this month and last with questions and concerns. You have helped me in my own vocation (especially my vocation within a vocation) and contributed to the ongoing project I am working on regarding the discernment and formation of c 603 vocations. Individual situations with c 603 candidates come and go, but the ability to help the Church learn from them is important and you have been especially helpful in that. It truly has been a fruitful if challenging number of weeks! Again, thank you.

Ecclesiality, a Mutually Conditioning Dynamic Between Church and Solitary Hermit

[[ hi Sister! Are you saying that the Desert Fathers and Mothers had ecclesial vocations the institutional Church didn't recognize? I am not sure I see how the vocation of the Desert Fathers' calling belonged to the Church before the Church knew it herself.]] 

Hi there yourself! Yes, I am saying that in one way the vocations lived by the Desert Abbas and Ammas were deeply and essentially ecclesial because they were lived for the sake of the Church and called her to all the things eremitical life holds for the Church. In particular, the desert Abbas and Ammas did what c 603 (and other) hermits do today in showing the Church her own heart, a heart rooted in prayer, the Lordship of Christ, the Evangelical Counsels, humility, and stricter separation from the world. In living countercultural lives dedicated to encounter and dialogue with God. Additionally, I am suggesting that the formula, "ecclesia semper reformanda est" was a dimension of what hermits called the Church to and reminded her she would always need to be. These lives (vocations) belonged to the Church even when the Church did not recognize this and their witness was profoundly ecclesial even as they lived apart from the larger Church.

However, in a second way, the way I ordinarily speak of ecclesial vocations, the Desert Abbas and Ammas did NOT have an ecclesial vocation because they were not explicitly commissioned by the Church to live as hermits. Today we have canonical hermits in congregations and orders (institutes of consecrated life) as well as c 603 hermits who are actually and explicitly commissioned by the Church to remind her of all the things the Desert Fathers and Mothers did, but by explicitly living these things in the heart of the Church as the Church itself commissions us to do. My argument was that the Church herself took a long time to recognize and make canonical these specific vocations, but doing that was part of a journey towards greater authenticity both for the Church and for hermits more generally. C 603 specifically created the option for public and ecclesial solitary hermit vocations that represent the Church's own internalization of the values of the desert Abbas and Ammas in universal law. By creating statutes on the diocesan level, bishops had done this for anchorites and hermits through some centuries, but never in universal law. With c 603 the Church finally made the solitary hermit life an intrinsic part of the public and essential life of the Church and in this way also bound herself to the values the hermit lives, including the prophetic witness some hermits (like the Desert Abbas and Ammas) have been known for. In other words, she realized (made explicitly real) what had only been implicitly real to this point.

The ecclesiality of c 603 vocations is something every c 603 hermit must come to understand and value deeply, and at the same time, it is something the Church herself must come to see and profoundly esteem. As I reflect on the dioceses that have failed to implement c 603 I recognize that some fear they cannot do justice to this vocation because they lack the chancery staff, for instance. Others recall the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life I referred to in my last post and want no part of such egregious distortions of eremitical life. Some, simply think the vocation is about keeping folks out of the limelight by shunting them into a hermitage --- a way of taming problem children of all sorts. But some are afraid of the witness of hermits in the heart of the Church, afraid they will introduce a bit of inspired instability in a Church insufficiently in touch with its need to reform itself. I don't believe these fears achieve consciousness in these bishops and chanceries, but I do think the nervousness these chanceries experience over contemplative and eremitical vocations points to this.

When I write about the ecclesiality of c 603 vocations I almost always say the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit. What I must also say, I think, is that hermits and anchorites through the centuries have called the Church to claim, nurture, and protect this birthright as they held onto the fact that they lived this vocation on behalf of the Church. They were not individualists, nor pseudo hermits separated from the Church, but instead, were men and women deeply imbued with the Gospel and in love with Christ's Church living life for her sake. With canon 603 the Church has claimed this vocation explicitly and is on the way to doing so fully. The relationship of the c 603 hermit to the Church is critical for the hermit being all that God calls her to be and also for the Church being all that God calls it to be as well. Just as the Church entrusts the hermit vocation to individuals under c 603, these hermits reveal to the Church her own generous and humble heart, not in the power and might associated with this world, but in a weakness where God's grace is sufficient and God's power is made perfect.

On Anonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations (Reprise from 2015)

v

While this reprises some aspects of a recent discussion on anonymity, hiddenness, and public, ecclesial vocations, it also does a better job of looking at anonymity as potentially irresponsible.

[[Dear Sister. What are your views on anonymity for hermits? I read an article today by a Catholic Hermit who has decided to remain anonymous since that helps her prevent pride. You choose not to remain anonymous so I am wondering about your thinking on this.]]

It's a timely question and an important one not least because it points to the responsible nature of ecclesial vocations. The first thing to remember is that if one claims to be a Catholic hermit, that is, one who lives an eremitical life in the name of the Church via profession (always a public act) and consecration, then one has been commissioned to live a public ecclesial vocation. If one claims the title "Catholic Hermit" or "consecrated hermit", etc., in creating a blog or other website, for instance, then one really doesn't have the right to remain entirely anonymous any longer. This is because people who read the blog have commensurate rights to know who you are, who supervises your vocation, who professed and consecrated you and commissioned you to live this life in the name of the Church. If they have concerns with what you write, they must then be able to contact you and, if really necessary, your legitimate superiors.

Ways of Maintaining Appropriate Accountability:

One thing that is possible, of course, is to say that this blog (etc) is the blog of a "Diocesan Hermit of the Diocese of Oakland," for instance, without providing one's given name. In doing so I would still be maintaining accountability to the Church for this vocation and what comes from it.  If there is ever a serious concern, then the Diocese of Oakland (for instance) will know whose blog is being referenced. (In this case, they may not ordinarily concern themselves with my everyday writing because they do not micromanage my activities --- my delegate would tend to know more about my blogging, I think --- but they will know whose blog this is and deal appropriately with serious complaints or concerns that might arise.) However, it seems to me one still needs to provide a way for folks to contact one so the chancery isn't turned into the recipient of relatively trivial communications which are an actual imposition. (I, for instance, do not usually provide my hermitage address, but people who prefer not to email may write me at my parish. This would work even if I did not give my name but used "Diocesan Hermit" instead because the parish knows precisely who I am and provides a mailbox for me.)

A second solution is to blog or whatever the activity without claiming in any way to be a Catholic hermit, Diocesan hermit, consecrated person, professed religious, etc. As soon as one says I am a Catholic Hermit (or any version of this) one has claimed to be living a vocation in the name of the Church and the public writing one does, especially if it is about eremitical life, spirituality, etc, is something one is publicly accountable for as a piece of that living. So, the choice is clear, either write as a private person and remain anonymous (if that is your choice) or write as a representative of a public vocation and reveal who you are --- or at least to whom you are legitimately accountable. Nothing else is really charitable or genuinely responsible.

Some may point to books published by an anonymous nun or monk, books published with the author "a Carthusian"  (for instance), as justification for anonymity without clear accountability, but it is important to remember that the Carthusian Order, for instance, has its own censors (theologians and editors) and other authorities who approve the publication of texts which represent the Order. The Carthusians are very sensitive about the use of the name Carthusian or the related post-nomial initials, O Cart., and they use these as a sign of authenticity and an act of ecclesial responsibility. (The same is true of the Carthusian habit because these represent a long history which every member shares and is responsible for.) The Order is in turn answerable to the larger Church and hierarchy who approve their constitutions, etc. Thus, while the average reader may never know the name of the individual monk or nun who wrote the book of "Novices Conferences" for instance, nor even know the specific Charterhouse from whence they wrote, concerns with the contents can be brought to the Church and the Carthusian Order through appropriate channels. This ensures a good blend of accountability and privacy. It also allows one to write without worrying about what readers think or say while still doing so responsibly and in charity. Once again this is an example of the importance of stable canonical relationships which are established with public profession and consecration --- something the next section will underscore.

The Question of Pride:

It is true that one has to take care not to become too taken with the project, whatever it is, or with oneself as the author or creator. With blogs people read, ask questions, comment, praise, criticize, etc, and like anything else, all of this can tempt one to forget what a truly tiny project the blog or website is in the grand scheme of things. But, anonymity online has some significant drawbacks and a lack of honesty and genuine accountability --- which are essential to real humility I think --- are two of these. How many of us have run into blogs or message boards that lack charity and prudence precisely because the persons writing there are (or believe they are) anonymous? Some of the cruelest and most destructive pieces of writing I have ever seen were written by those who used screen names to hide behind.

Unfortunately, this can be true of those writing as "Catholic Hermits" too. I have read such persons denigrating their pastors (for supposedly having no vocations, caring little for the spiritual growth of their parishioners, doing literally "hellish" things during Mass, etc), or denigrating their bishops and former bishops (for whining, lying, and betraying the hermit to the new bishop) --- all while remaining relatively anonymous except for the designation "Catholic Hermit" and the name of her cathedral. How is this responsible or charitable? How does it not reflect negatively on the vocation of legitimate Catholic hermits or the eremitical vocation more generally? Meanwhile, these same bloggers criticize Diocesan hermits who post under their own names accusing them of "pride" because they are supposedly not sufficiently "hidden from the eyes of" others.

Likewise, over the past several years I have been asked about another hermit's posts which have left readers seriously concerned regarding her welfare. This person writes (blogs) about the interminable suffering (chronic pain) she experiences, the lack of heat, and the serious cold she lives in in the Winter months which causes her to spend entire days in bed and under blankets and that left her with pneumonia last Winter; she writes of the terrible living conditions involving the ever-present excrement of vermin --- now dried and aerosolized, holes in walls (or complete lack of drywall and insulation), continuing lack of plumbing (no toilet) or hot water despite her marked physical incapacities, the fact that she cannot afford doctors or medicines or appropriate tests and may need eventually to live in a shelter when her dwindling money runs out. Unfortunately, because all of this is written anonymously by a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" presumably living eremitical life in the name of the Church, it raises unaddressable questions not only about her welfare but about the accountability of her diocese and the soundness and witness of the contemporary eremitical vocation itself.

This poster's anonymity means that those who are concerned can neither assist her nor contact her diocese to raise concerns with them. Here anonymity conflicts with accountability. While it is true diocesan hermits are self-supporting and have vows of poverty readers have, quite legitimately I think, asked if this is really the way the Church's own professed and consecrated hermits live. Does the Church profess and consecrate its solitary hermits (or facilely allow them to transfer to another diocese) and then leave them to struggle in such circumstances without oversight or assistance? Is this the kind of resource-less candidate the Church commissions to represent consecrated eremitical life? Would this be prudent? Charitable? Is it typical of the way consecrated life in the church works? Does a hermit's diocese and bishop truly have or exercise no responsibility in such cases? How are such hermits to be helped?? Unfortunately, the combination of this poster's relative anonymity and her lack of accountability, prudence, and discretion can be a serious matter on a number of levels.

In other words, while pride may be a problem (or at least a temptation!) for those of us who blog openly, it may well be that anonymity itself may lead to an even greater arrogance whose symptoms include writing irresponsibly and without prudence, discretion, or real accountability. Thus, anonymity can be helpful so long as one still exercises real accountability. Importantly, one needs to determine the real motives behind either posting publicly or choosing anonymity. Simply choosing anonymity does not mean one is exercising the charity required of a hermit. It may even be a piece of a fabric of deception --- including self-deception.  For instance, if one chooses anonymity to prevent others from learning they are not publicly professed, especially while criticizing the "pride" of diocesan hermits who choose to post openly, then this is seriously problematical on a number of levels.

At the same time, some authentic Catholic hermits choose to let go of their public vocational identities for a particular limited project (like participation in an online discussion group or the authoring of a blog) and write as private persons. This is a valid solution --- though not one I have felt justified in choosing myself --- because one does not claim to be a Catholic hermit in these limited instances. And of course, some of us decide simply to be upfront with our names, not because we are prideful, but because for us it is an act of honesty, responsibility, and charity for those reading our work or who might be interested in the eremitical vocation. The bottom line in all of this is that anonymity may or may not be a necessary piece of the life of the hermit. For that matter, it may be either edifying or disedifying depending on how it protects an absolutely non-negotiable solitude or privacy and allows for true accountability or is instead used to excuse irresponsibility, disingenuousness,  or even outright deception.

Summary:

The hiddenness of the eremitical life is only partly that of externals. More importantly, and much more centrally, it has to do with the inner life of submission to the powerful presence of God within one's heart. Sometimes that inner life calls for actual anonymity, and sometimes it will not allow it. Since the vocation of the Catholic hermit is a public and ecclesial one, any person posting or otherwise acting publicly as a Catholic hermit has surrendered any right to absolute anonymity; they are accountable for what they say and do because they are supposedly acting in the name of the Church.  The need for and value of anonymity must be measured against the requirements of accountability and charity.