How Can Bishops Profess Hermits They do not Know?

[[Hi Sister, I read that you waited for a long time to become a diocesan hermit, In my diocese we got a new bishop and within a few months he professed a hermit. Our former bishop never professed anyone. How can one bishop take a long time and another one profess someone in a short time? Isn't there some sort of standard about knowing a candidate before one professes them? How can it take one person many years and another person only a few years or even only a few months? Too, how can a Bishop profess someone they hardly know? I heard about one bishop who did this with a young hermit and she failed. I guess that is the same question about standards. Can I ask you one personal question? Were you ever directed or supervised by a Sister from an unrecognized community? I don't mean any offense, someone suggested your delegate was from a community that might not even be real religious maybe. I believe the point was c 603 talks about bishops supervising the hermit and maybe that yours wasn't acting as the canon required.]]

Thanks for your questions. I think your first one is another new one, never asked here before, so thanks! (It really is cool getting new questions!!) First of all, it is important to understand that in most dioceses, at least if they have Vicars for Religious or Vicars for Consecrated Life and Vocations offices (not all dioceses are large enough or have large enough staffs for these), the bishop is rarely the first one to work with a candidate. In fact, he may only meet the candidate when others are ready to recommend her for profession. At this point the person may have been meeting with chancery personnel for anywhere from 5-10 years.  (Some will have met for even longer.) This ordinarily means that a formation team including Religious, priests, canonists, and sometimes now, another c 603 hermit, will mentor the candidate hermit (and the rest of the formation team). 

So, when someone is working this way, it may happen that the bishop retires and is replaced by another bishop before the person is ready to be professed. Sometimes bishops in this situation, will leave the final decision for admission to profession of the candidate up to the next bishop. When these kinds of things happen it may appear to those looking on from the outside, that the candidate is not really known to the diocese or to the new bishop when they are professed --- at least if one only looks at the known dates involved: e.g., New bishop on 9/24, first profession of hermit on 11/24). What is true in this is that the diocese has known the candidate for much longer than just 2-3 months, but we may be unaware of this.

It is true that the newer bishop will not know the person well (and certainly not as well as the formation team does), but this is simply another reason bishops often ask the hermit to choose a delegate who will serve as representative to the diocese and to the hermit both. Remember that the first bishop also would not know the hermit well, or at least not as well as the Vicar for Religious who has been working with her all those years. Canon 603 requires that one live this vocation under the supervision (or some translations may say direction) of the bishop, but what this supervision consists of is not spelled out. So, for instance, if a person serves as delegate and knows the hermit well, if she has the appropriate expertise to guide her hermit life, and is available to the bishop whenever he wants to check on things or to meet for a conversation, that can be  a very satisfactory way of working out the canonical requirement of supervision. One thing I have not mentioned is the fact that the hermit is entrusted with this vocation. She has shown the diocesan personnel how she lives eremitical life and why, and they have come to trust her and what is usually a relatively long history of this.

The bishop does interview the candidate, sometimes several times in the year or so before profession, and he has her Rule of Life and other pertinent documentation and references. In my experience, a bishop trusts those who know the hermit better than he does, especially current and past Vicars, pastors, and spiritual directors, and he also takes the time he can to get to know her better one-on-one as well as through her writing (if she is published). Remember that c 603 is recognized as calling for temporary profession of vows, meaning these vows will ordinarily last for from 3-5 years and can be renewed before admitting the hermit to perpetual profession and consecration. There is ordinarily a great deal of time available to catch errors or problems that need to be worked out. Moreover, during the years, a bishop will come to understand eremitical life better as the hermit herself grows in the vocation and shows him the hows and whys of this; this mutual influence and education is the best way, I think, for a diocese to grow in its understanding of c 603 vocations.

In my own situation, there have been five different bishops here, including one interim, since I first petitioned to be admitted to c 603 consecration. There is no doubt that some have been more involved in supervision than others. From things I have heard from other diocesan hermits in other dioceses, this unevenness is not uncommon. At the same time, as I have written recently, the Diocese (Vicars for Religious) and then Bp Vigneron asked me to choose a delegate who would work more closely and more frequently with me than any bishop might be able to. When Bp Vigneron wanted to speak to me about something he contacted Sister Marietta, and he contacted her for her opinion on matters. Supervision need not look like some non-canonical hermits imagine it. Again, canon 603 is flexible and it is up to the diocesan bishop to decide what this term of the canon will mean. So long as he takes his role seriously and cares for the hermit's vocation, he is fulfilling the canon's prescriptions.

Regarding your last question, while this is repetitive, let me say that my main delegate (Director) has been Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF (Sisters of the Holy Family is a Papal Congregation). She has been my delegate from @ 2005 to the present,; more recently, serving as co-Director (Advocate) is Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. I have mentioned them both before, but here is a bit more about them. Sister Marietta has served in parish CCD work, as Novice director in her congregation, and has been in leadership of her congregation for 10 years as well; she began and ran Holy Family Center, a small retreat center focusing on Adult personal and spiritual growth, has been a licensed educator in PRH and is highly skilled in personal growth work and spiritual direction. I have known Marietta since @1982 when she agreed to be my spiritual director. Sister Susan, formerly a teacher, was Vicar for Religious and Assistant Director of Vocations for the Diocese of Oakland when I began to become a hermit. She then went into retreat work in Malibu (Serra Retreat) and directed this at the Old Mission Santa Barbara. Susan now serves (yet again!) on her province's leadership team (the Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity) and as the local minister for their retired Sisters in Santa Maria, CA. The congregation's Generalate is in Rome. 

As I have pointed out a number of times now, my Bishop is allowed to supervise me in any way that works for him and for me. My diocese asked me to choose a delegate who would serve both me and the diocese and bishop when the bishop was not available, but also just generally to take on this role of supervising more directly than most bishops can do. Both of these Sisters know me well, are available whenever I need them, and are trusted by the diocese. The arrangement works very well and is something I encourage other dioceses and diocesan hermits to consider implementing.

Who Educates Bishops re C 603?

[[ Sister Laurel, who educates bishops on Canon 603 vocations? (Is educate the right word here?) If the church intervenes in the Cole Matson case will Canon lawyers be the ones to determine further time frames, etc? Can you see any place for increased time frames being made requisite?]]

Important questions! Bishops will continue to be educated (yes, I think that's the correct word!) in this vocation by those living it authentically and having been identified by their dioceses as being called in this way. Similarly, they will continue to be educated by chancery personnel who have direct and significant contact with such vocations (meaning Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, etc, who have discerned and helped in the formation of such vocations). It is my fervent belief that the church ought not succumb to the temptation of approaching c 603 as somehow deficient and then trying to resolve that deficiency by adding time frames and stages to the canon itself.

Consider in the Lexington case how truly abysmal the knowledge of c 603 or the vocation it governs was and perhaps still is. That was so, not only on the part of the local ordinary but also (and perhaps more fatefully!) on that of the canonist consulted in the matter. This is not a deficiency adding mandatory years or stages will resolve. In the main, the problem was not that of additional time or canonical stages, but rather of ignorance, and the studied resolution to use c 603 in a way contrary to the living charism it codifies despite having been instructed otherwise. A person came to Bishop Stowe with the proposal to use c 603 as a stopgap means of admitting him/her to public profession. S/he was aware that this could be done and had been done in the past, especially in the early years of the Canon's life; moreover, s/he knew all of this because I had written about it and s/he had read my blog for at least ten years. To complicate things, Bishop John Stowe bought into the proposal with the same question I have answered here several times, viz., whom could it hurt? Whom Does it Hurt? Meanwhile, the canonist consulted offered little substantively in response to this question apparently providing a legal loophole instead. While one hopes for better from those entrusted with the implementation of this canon, this is a rare vocation and a little-understood one.

And of course, that is the point! The solution is education and the only ones who can truly educate chancery personnel in this are hermits living (and living into) authentic vocations. To a lesser extent, chancery personnel with experience in discerning with a diocesan hermit will be helpful in this kind of education as well. Gradually bishops will come to see the character and quality of the vocation in front of them as they and other chancery staff meet with the candidate for profession, and this is as it should be. Of course, diocesan personnel need to read and consult on this matter as well. As I have written before, when I was first working with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF (Vicar for Religious), she and another Sister from the chancery took a trip to New Camaldoli in Big Sur to consult with the Prior there. Susan had one major question, namely, what would it take for a person to live a healthy eremitical life?  Years later, after I had met with Archbishop (then Bishop) Vigneron for the first time regarding my petition to be admitted to profession, he said, "Now I have to go and learn a lot" --- not only about this vocation but about me, my writing (including my Rule and published articles, which he had purposely not read yet), etc. I thought it a wise observation and I was very glad he took that tack! 

It seems to me that both Sister Susan and Bishop Vigneron recognized the Holy Spirit could be doing something new with Canon 603 and were open to taking extraordinary steps to be sure it was well-implemented. (For Sister Susan and her companion to take such a long drive from the Diocese of Oakland to Big Sur to meet with the Prior in person remains strongly suggestive of the kinds of steps dioceses need to take in order to educate themselves re solitary eremitical life. Of course, today, the church's history with the canon is more extensive than it was in the mid to late 80's, and some of us are willing and now able to assist dioceses in working with candidates so that both the candidate and the chancery personnel themselves grow in understanding of solitary eremitical life. Still, education is the key.

You asked if I could see any use for increased requisite time frames and my answer is yes, in one case. I believe that there should be a minimum time frame of five years before a person is admitted to even first vows under the canon. I believe this could apply even if the person has a history of religious life, because the transition to solitary eremitical life is still significant. If one is called to this vocation, five years will not be onerous but will be given over to growth and coming more and more to embody the values central to c 603 in any case. At the same time, diocesan personnel will be able to work with the person regularly and will be able to learn about the candidate, as well as about the depths and breadth of the canon itself. But it seems to me that apart from this minimum time frame, the multiplication of stages, etc., are simply unhelpful and could give a false sense of progress when the person is no closer to becoming a hermit at all. Jumping through such canonical hoops may simply tell us the person is desperate to be professed publicly and is a good "canonical hoop jumper", but not that they have heard or responded with fidelity to a divine call to desert existence!