Canon 603, Ecclesiality, and Witnessing to the Value of Eremitical Life in ALL of its Forms and States

[[Dear Laurel, I was wondering why isn't it good enough for you or other diocesan hermits to be hermits the way God called hermits before 1982? Isn't that way good enough for you? I like hermits that really stay incognito and hide themselves like the cathechism says they are to do. Wasn't it good enough for you and other CL hermits to be the same as the historical and traditional hermits so you had to get some kind of special status and prestige?]]

Thank you for your questions. I would ask you to read the posts I have put up about the history of c 603 life. Check the labels to the right to find appropriate articles, and let me know if you need help finding the most helpful articles. I have written a lot about this in the past couple of years, especially, but also throughout the past 18-19 years. I think one of the things you have missed in your understanding of why Canon 603 was established is the way it reflects on the lives of past hermits and the way the Church either once regarded, or now newly regards, their vocations. Perhaps I have not spoken about this aspect of the reason for c 603's existence. Canon 603 is meant to rectify a significant lack or defect in the way the Church has regarded the eremitical vocation throughout the centuries. Far from saying hermits throughout the centuries could be disregarded, c 603 came into being not only to assist contemporary hermits who had left their monasteries to be secularized, but to point to the importance of the vocation in whatever way it had been lived within the Church up until 1983 and will be lived in the future.

The eremitic vocation has not always been appropriately esteemed in the Church. The fault for this is multifaceted, and both the Church and hermits bear blame. On the whole, hermits were treated with suspicion by the Church, something that may have stemmed 1) from the critical stance towards the institutional Church and its relation to the state taken by the Desert Fathers and Mothers, but also 2) from the genuine independence of the authentic Hermit living his/her life in the power of the Holy Spirit. Throughout the centuries, Bishops and dioceses took the responsibility for anchorites and hermits living in their dioceses. There were diocesan statutes created (ordine), and anchorites were more strictly regulated, but hermits were vested with the hermit's tunic, and if they felt called to preach, bishops provided a license to do so. In this way, the Church limited and tried to guide (sometimes this was about controlling) hermits in the region. At the same time, hermits (for good and for ill) multiplied at times of social unrest and struggle, which tended to increase the Church's distrust of the vocation.

It took time for the Western Church to truly recognize the value of eremitical vocations, and then, more time for the Church in the West to be presented with an experimental example of the life being lived in a way that could be examined by the Magisterium/hierarchy and reevaluated as a prophetic vocation. This model colony was also 180 degrees opposed to the individualism of the age. It was gradually coming together in a colony of hermits in British Columbia, particularly since these hermits were committed to "living singly in total solitude". (Here you can see the difference between a laura and a community of hermits. In the laura, which constitutes a supportive structure, the hermits live a more rigorous solitude.) It took time to find a monk who would serve as abbot, and time for the bishop protector to come to know these men and their lives and see the value of the eremitic life for the Church. Vatican Council II provided the perfect opportunity for Bishop de Roo to try to get this form of life recognized in the Western Church (it had never died out in the Eastern Church).

But here is the critical piece of the picture you appear to have missed: the eremitical life in the Western Church had died out, though it was a life God clearly called well-formed, experienced monastics to. It was also, therefore, a life of significant value, and needed to be recovered by the Church herself if it was to thrive in the way it did in the East, and seemed to want to do in the West as well. In creating c 603, the Church was not saying the hermit life is only now of value, and especially not only in a few canonical hermits!! She says it has always been of inestimable value in every century, and it is time to put suspicion and distrust behind us and recognize this vocation in universal law!! It is not only possible to be a hermit, but it is possible, if one feels called to do this, to live the life in the name of the Church! Canon 603 hermits, in recognizing they stand within a living stream of the Church's spiritual tradition, say to everyone, the hermit vocation -- every hermit vocation -- is valuable; the vocation is to be esteemed as a gift of God to our Church and world!!! Some witness to this publicly, normatively. Most do not. But the witness c 603 hermits give to the Church and world serves every eremitic vocation in this way.

This is part of the ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation, by the way, one of the specific ways the c 603 vocation serves the Church directly in helping her be the Church God calls her to be. This particular dimension of ecclesiality also fosters humility in those called to it. It is a literally awesome thing to think that God might call people to be part of a vocation almost completely lost to the Western Church, and to stand awed by one's call is to be both reduced and raised to humility. This is the paradoxical or countercultural prestige of the Kingdom of God, the call to stand with and for others so that God might be glorified and they might have life and have it abundantly! In this instance, c 603 hermits stand specifically to witness publicly to the eremitical vocation in all of its forms and to their important place within the Church. (Please note: the hiddenness of the c 603 hermit is found most radically in the inner journey the hermit makes with Christ to union with God. This focus of the hermit's entire life is almost entirely hidden from the eyes of humankind. I can say more about this in another post if this is not enough.)

Finding a Constructive Way Forward: An Invitation to Clarify Disputed Points --- with Addendum

  [[I do not make statements for the heck of it or without sound reason and facts, in addition to on-point metaphors. The one/s who try to negate or weigh in on what I share, with their gotcha-intentions, do a disservice to whomever reads their misinformation on this topic in particular. They lead people potentially to think of themselves in deceived ways, which may at some point embarrass themselves to others and blind them and keep themselves from seeking deeper forms of prayer; and thus, hinder themselves from becoming great contemplatives, their minds, hearts, and souls closer to His Real Presence, which is something we all should desire and of which I myself desire very much.]] Excerpt from Blog post  23 March.2022, (Catholic Christian Mystic Hermit blog)

Dear MC [name removed after receipt of email was acknowledged], I think then we are both trying to make well-grounded arguments or well-justified positions (rather than aggressive assertions) without [documented] reasons that can be evaluated by readers. Keeping that in mind I sincerely hope you will supply citations from David Knowles' book (What is Mysticism?) as well as something by Bernard McGinn, perhaps, and other experts to support your positions, especially regarding the following points where we seem to disagree so completely. (cf numbered items below.)  I am asking, in particular, that you provide an actual citation (at least the page numbers and chapter) from Knowles' work where he explains that mystics are born, not made (by God), and, if possible, that you define the term "mystic" as cogently as you can. That would also be genuinely helpful moving forward. 

Also, let me say directly that I think you profoundly misunderstand my positions and my posts on this subject if you believe I have suggested that mystical prayer itself is not a deeper form of contemplative prayer (specifically, mystical prayer = forms of infused contemplation), or that union with God, which is the very heart of mystical prayer, is not something every person is created for and called to even as it is a profound and immediate gift of God's very Self.  Please note that "immediate gift of God's very self" precludes one from believing one can achieve this on their own so I am certainly not misleading people into thinking they can become mystics on their own. 

If you believe that I am saying God can make people into mystics (ordinarily in conjunction with their long dedication to and practice of prayer) then you are correct. I am saying that God can do that, that he wills to do that, and that he does do it today as in other centuries. I sincerely ask that you review all that I have written and see what I have actually said. Especially, you should be aware that I teach that every person is called or invited to the heights/depths of contemplative prayer including even the prayer of union, and I always encourage folks to open themselves to experiencing the heights and depths of prayer they never imagined were open to them. I certainly have no intention of hindering  anyone from becoming great contemplatives and mystics.

The major points on which we apparently disagree are: 

1.  that mystics are born, and perhaps on what a mystic is then. 
2. that mysticism is an affliction (which is not precisely the same as saying it is a great grace that can involve intense suffering) and that it should not be celebrated much less desired, and, 
3. that the term mystical prayer is nonsensical rather than a richly meaningful term, as you asserted in your post of 23. March (cf provided link). 

For my part I have affirmed that:

1. mystics are not born, though every person is created for and called to some significant degree of union with God here in this life as well as after death. The notion that there is some sort of dialogue between God and a pre-existent soul where he asks them if they will be a mystic seems to me to be very bad theology and Christian anthropology both. Fortunately, Emmerich's ideas on this are not part of the Church's own teaching and we are not obliged to affirm them. 
2.  that mysticism is most fundamentally a very great grace, indeed the fulfillment of a life of grace (and so, of prayer) which can occasion intense suffering as well as profound joy and a peace in which even one's sufferings can be lived with real equanimity and even more than equanimity. While I appreciate your clarification of what you meant by calling mysticism (i.e., what a mystic practices) an "affliction", the fact that you claim mystics pray to be normal seems to me to support understanding the term "affliction" in the more questionable sense you are now distancing yourself from. Add to that the fact that you chose to use two actual neurological disorders in your comparison; this leads to the sense that "praying to be normal" doesn't mean simply desiring to be a bit more ordinary. It also seems to me to sever the connection between something being God's doing in our lives (always first of all a grace even if we are unable to perceive it readily) and I still find your comparison inapt. Maybe you simply chose badly and want to retract the comparison?
3. that the term mystical prayer is meaningful and is used by Prof Knowles in the book you yourself recommended the day before yesterday, and of course, by many others throughout the history of the Church and its reflection on "mystical theology".  
4. that certain secondary or accidental qualities (visions, locutions, levitation, reading souls, stigmata, etc., etc.) are not the essence of mysticism or the mystical life, and further that the theology of God as Absolute Mystery (not some reference to mystery cults) is the genuine source of the traditional sense of "mystical prayer", mystical path, and related terms within Roman Catholicism and Christianity more generally. We call prayer mystical precisely because it is caused immediately by and involves the pray-er in an immediate experience of the Absolute Mystery we know as God. Some writers contrast this with ascetical or acquired contemplation, which is about what one does with one's own heart and mind (raising one's heart or mind to God, for instance). I am not sure what your position is on any of this because as far as I am aware, you haven't provided a definition of a mystic.

Please consider this a sincere invitation and feel free to email me with any material you believe will be helpful to me or to readers of this blog in clarifying disputed points or points of misunderstanding. I will be happy to post any substantive response here and give you full credit and my gratitude for taking the time to do so. In the meantime, in the interests of mutual respect and transparency, I am emailing a copy of this invitation and clarification to you directly as well as posting it here. Thanks for your attention.

All my best.

Sister Laurel O'Neal, Er Dio

ADDENDUM:

MC was unable (i.e., she declined) to supply either the definition of mystic she uses, or the location in What is Mysticism? of Dom Knowles' position that mystics are born not made. Disappointing, but not a problem. I was able to glean a couple of things from her responses and blogs which differ from my own and traditional understandings which do not need to be detailed here except to note that she and I are talking about two different realities when we use the word mystic. Maybe more important was the fact that the invitation led to input from other sources which helped clarify David Knowles' position. (Dom Knowles was a British Benedictine Church Historian, so others who know and admire his work have supplied summaries of his positions.) Here is what I learned: 

1. Knowles does not say mystics are born rather than made. Like many, Knowles accepts infused contemplation/mystical prayer is a gift of God, not merely acquired by long work in prayer (though he clearly believes such prayer can dispose one towards receiving this greatest of gifts). It is sui generis and not induced by acts of the will, stands distinct from what is sometimes called "acquired contemplation" because it is infused as a gift of God, and finds its closest approximation in what is called the "prayer of simplicity". But in this Dom Knowles is restating the Carmelite positions of SS. Teresa and John of the Cross. Even so, he is not saying mystics are born.
2. Dom Knowles also considers markers or accidental qualities like visions and locutions, things to which, he contends, psychologists of religion give disproportionate attention, [[to be confined to the initial and immature stages of the mystical way.]] (Here he is speaking of "stages" falling short of full union with God. As he also pointed out however re Teresa of Avila, the saint refers to beginners in prayer as all those whose prayer falls short of complete union with God. In other words, that would include all of us up to and through the prayer of quiet so we should certainly not necessarily take the terms "immature" or "beginner" in common, much less pejorative, senses.) Again, Prof. Knowles seems to be in agreement with St Teresa and the general Carmelite tradition in such things. By the way, Dom Knowles also seems to be in agreement with the contemporary Ruth Burrows (Sister Miriam, OCD) regarding the place of mystical experiences in the life of grace/prayer.
3. The related terms mystical prayer, mystical path, and mystic are profoundly meaningful terms rather than being nonsensical for Knowles, Teresa, John of the Cross, Elizabeth of the Trinity, and the entire Carmelite family even when there are differences in labeling the dimensions of the life of grace/prayer which all find difficult to speak of. 

Just a note: I am working on a post which links this discussion with yesterday's consecration of Ukraine and Russia which Pope Francis requested and the way we observed it at daily liturgy in my parish yesterday. It also ties in profoundly to the role of contemplative prayer and/or the mystical path in achieving peace in our world and draws from my own prayer re the consecration and reading I have been doing about contemplative prayer/mysticism in Thomas Merton. 

For instance, it is absolutely fascinating to me how it is a mystic's infused contemplation takes them out of this world and out of any dependence on self to dependence on God alone precisely so they can live in this world, as a source of peace. The very thing that seems to make mystics/contemplatives stand apart and marks their experiences in prayer as incommunicable and uncommon, recreates and sends them back to "the world" as those who can encounter it as prophetic missionaries of peace and wholeness. It is the same dynamic which stands at the heart of eremitical life's "stricter separation from the world" and something I have been writing about for many years now. As a friend and colleague -- another diocesan hermit -- joyfully affirmed when, among other things, we spoke about Elizabeth of the Trinity, contemplation, and eremitical life, last week, [[It is all about encounter!!]] So, more about this in a bit (I hope!).