On the Beauty and Depth of c 603 (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Why concern yourself with the law once you're admitted under a law? I wondered if you could explain that. . . .]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and questions!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called to (and will need to) explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, in some ways, I have come to know the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 [now 17] years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course, they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. Canonists tend also to look at c 603 simply in terms of its legal dimensions, particularly seizing on (or sussing out) legal loopholes rather than reflecting on the vocation itself, [as happened in the Diocese of Lexington this last Pentecost. (2024)] More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit. One must be able to see the implicit depths and Mystery below the surface.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived experience and long reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit writes a liveable Rule confronts everyone participating in the process with the need for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find c 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance). Still, the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession. Certainly, it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs and thus perpetuates the vocations of solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements that mark this definition. It is here, however, that c 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery that grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true --- because canon 603 is not a once-used-now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more that opens onto the Divine, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

Questions on Increasing Standardization of C 603 Vocations in the Future

[[Good morning Sr. Laurel, I have a couple of questions that I hope you can answer. First, how serious do you think local bishops actually take the eremitical vocation? In light of the recent temporary consecration of a transgender person, who by his own account doesn’t live the vocation, by a bishop I’ve begun to question just how knowledgeable some bishops are in regard to consecration as a hermit in the Church or how serious they take said consecration. It’s almost like the hermit vocation is seen as a dumping ground for people who desire a religious life but don’t “fit” in more typical expression.

Secondly, do you anticipate a time when diocesan/canonical hermits will become more standardized in regard to elements of the Rule of Life each individual writes? I understand each hermit is a solitary who lives their approved Rule in solitude but am curious as to the possibility of some aspects of the vocation be more standardized or at least perhaps clearer guidelines installed. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for all you do and for your blog. ]]

Thanks for these questions. Let me say at this point that they are important (as events during the Spring indicated emphatically); I completely agree that we sometimes see bishops implementing c 603 in ways that are both disedifying and irresponsible given the source and value of the vocation. Even so, I don't believe the answer lies in the direction of standardization precisely, but in the direction of educating bishops and their chanceries regarding the nature, charism, and significance of the vocation as a gift of God to the Church. Standardization, especially in terms of the hermit's Rule of Life, penalizes both solitary hermits living the vocation as the Holy Spirit calls them to, and those who take appropriate time and care for discernment and formation of such vocations. Where standardization will not work, however, appropriate guidelines and some critical expectations (which may be what you are envisioning) will. For instance, I recently wrote about the things a liveable Rule of Life should contain and the way that should be contextualized. You may have read this:

[[Each diocesan hermit's Rule of Life will capture 1) something of the hermit's experience of God as God has been at work in her life over the years, 2) her understanding of and commitment to the foundational elements of c 603, and 3) especially her experience of and faithfulness to redemption in Christ known and celebrated in the Gospel. These three are then contextualized within a public and ecclesial vocation lived for the sake of God, his Church, and all that is precious to God. [The hermit must show an understanding and commitment to these two foundational elements as well as to numbers 1-3!!] Together these constitute a personally integrated program of solitary eremitical living as a disciple, and too, as a spouse of Christ who truly is the hermit's Beloved. In other words, every facet of the c 603 hermit's Rule is transparent to and reflects the Gospel of God in Christ and is lived in the name of the Church.]]

People working to assist a hermit candidate for c 603 profession and consecration will expect a Rule of Life to meet these guidelines, and they will give the hermit candidate time to write such a Rule -- a very weighty project indeed! In the process I am currently working on and proposing to the Church, the writing of a truly liveable Rule combines these five elements and provides the framework for a substantial formation period and process. The diocesan team, along with a consulting c 603 hermit, learns as the hermit does what constitutes such a vocation and a liveable Rule under c 603, and they will discern whether this specific candidate is truly called to such a public and ecclesial vocation through the way they work on and complete this critical project. In other words, the writing of one's Rule, given the guidelines mentioned above, serves as the framework for both discernment and formation of a c 603 vocation. It will take time to do well,  and it will also provide for the basis of conversations between the candidate and diocesan team and consultants, as well as help assure that the candidate and the diocese understand and have embraced the c 603 vocation as a God-given gift before any profession of vows.

My main complaint about standardization is that one can get a person desiring to be professed to jump through any hoops provided in canon law (or in a diocese's particular approach), but this does not mean the person has a vocation. This is especially true when we are speaking of the addition of canonical stages and time frames. In community life, these kinds of requirements are helpful and appropriate, but in solitary eremitical life, there is no community to help assess the way the hermit is proceeding or maturing in their eremitical life. Moving through stages and time frames can be done so long as one is sufficiently motivated (or desperate enough) to do that. This does not ensure one has a vocation. As one of my Directors reminded me about her time as Vicar for Religious and Assistant Vocation Director of the Diocese of Oakland, "discernment is an art;" formation is very much the same. So, while standardization can assure good hoop jumpers, your suggestion of guidelines along with clear expectations allowing for flexibility are very much more workable for solitary hermits. These begin with the single concrete requirement of the canon, namely the writing of a (liveable) Rule of life because the Rule must include every element of the canon and demonstrate an experiential understanding of and commitment to these. 

I don't know that we will ever get every bishop to understand the nature of solitary eremitical vocations, much less to regard them as a gift of God to the Church we must adequately esteem and protect, but I am convinced that is the direction we must take to prevent more situations like the one you mentioned. While in general, I tend to believe most bishops take c 603 seriously, particularly when they are clued in regarding the importance of the vocation -- hence my surprise with Bp Stowe's actions in Cole Matson's regard -- I think we really must take the time to educate them and their staff regarding the charism of the vocation. We must especially do this in a way that helps them understand why the vocation is critical to the life of the Church, and why we expect the Church to admit to profession only those who are prepared for that, are truly called by God, and who believe whole-heartedly in the vocation they propose to become publicly and ecclesially responsible for.

Does the Church Fail to Regard Non-Canonical Eremitical Vocations Sufficiently?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, I hope you don't mind a follow-up question from a couple of your recent posts. It has to do with lay hermits. If a lay person makes private vows of the evangelical counsels, or the other elements of c 603 would they cease being a lay person? Does the Church not regard these vocations [sufficiently], particularly if they are the oldest eremitical vocations in the church, as you have said a number of times and just recently as well?]]

You are correct that I have written about this many times over the years. One of the objections I had to the writing of someone who, until about three years ago, used to write about c 603 was that she seemed to believe if a lay person made private vows of the evangelical counsels they ceased being a lay person. Were that so, there could be no lay hermits (and perhaps no lay persons at all -- depending on how many kept the evangelical counsels as the church asks us ALL to do)!! But this can be shown to be untrue for at least two basic reasons, (1) I myself, though consecrated and perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit am still a lay person in the hierarchical sense of that term; that makes me a lay hermit since I am not a cleric (in the alternate, or vocational sense of the term lay, I am a (publicly) consecrated person, and so am a consecrated not a lay hermit). The ambiguous and confusing dual meaning of lay is one reason non-canonical hermit vs canonical hermit is a simpler and more accurate way of distinguishing the two) and (2) as noted above, every baptized person in the church is called upon to live out the evangelical counsels according to her or his own state of life! The profession of the counsels does not, of itself, initiate us into the consecrated state; that requires an act of God which occurs during the Rite of Religious Profession culminating in the solemn prayer of consecration. (We may call the entire Rite either profession or consecration as an act of synecdoche, but the making of vows and the consecration of the one making vows are two distinct but profoundly related acts occurring during the single Rite.) In the hierarchical sense of the word lay, all non-clerics, including all men and women religious, are laity.

In creating c 603 the Church was attempting to rectify a long-overdue oversight, namely, the making of the eremitical vocation a state of perfection (that is, an instance of the consecrated state of life). Bishop Remi de Roo noted that hermits had long been overlooked and he listed the good they provided for the faith of the church. Much of Vatican Council II was a matter of going back to the sources, and in this particular intervention, De Roo was serving as bishop protector of a dozen or so hermits who had had to leave their monasteries and solemn professions to be secularized in order to pursue the eremitical solitude they felt called to. Since monastic life had its roots in the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and since the apex of monastic life was also often understood as solitary union with God and the eremitical state, it made sense that secular (that is, non-religious) hermits, who, despite some eccentrics and outright nutcases were also marked by holiness and a prophetic presence in the church, should have the dignity of their lifestyles recognized by initiating them canonically into the consecrated state of life. Thus, the Church listened to Bishop De Roo and eventually, with the revision of the Code of Canon Law, published a canon for solitary hermits and allowing their initiation into the consecrated state.

Of course, not everyone who is or calls themselves a hermit seeks or is suited to consecration as a canonical hermit. The Church does not automatically admit every person to profession and consecration. I will say, however, that some of us, in accord with The Hermit's Way of Life in the Local Church** guidelines, are working to develop better processes of discernment and formation for such hermit candidates, processes which will be more individualized or tailored to the needs of each candidate and the way the Holy Spirit works in his/her case. Over time it is hoped that all dioceses will be able to use a process more like the mentoring done by Elder Abbas and Ammas in the desert and less laden with arbitrary canonical time frames and other considerations that are more suitable to cenobitical life. Canon 603 itself contains all that is needed to discern and form such vocations in a way allowing diocesan personnel to work with an experienced hermit and to journey with a "candidate" until s/he is ready for profession and later, perpetual profession and consecration,  discerns a different call, or demonstrates unsuitability for those steps instead.

Again, no one is denigrating non-canonical hermits through the ages!!  In fact, canon 603 came to be precisely because the church recognized that eremitical life was an outstanding way to holiness and throughout its history, had produced many outstanding examples of this. With canon 603, the Church honors them and, again, is simply trying to rectify a longstanding failure to regard the importance of the hermit vocation by making it possible for hermits in the lay state of life to be initiated into the consecrated state if a genuine call is mutually discerned. For those who find canon law onerous, who have no desire to undergo a several-year process of discernment and formation with others (diocesan personnel and canonical hermit mentors), who believe that the Church's mediation of one's call and response to this vocation in c 603 and its necessary structures get in the way of a "direct" relationship with God, or who perhaps are simply way more individualistic than all that allows for, the fact is that one can always become a hermit in the way people have done since the third century and earlier, namely, do it on one's own as a hermit in the lay (non-canonical) rather than the consecrated state.

The Church has provided sufficient choices here for everyone. Is God calling you to the consecrated state? Then join an institute of consecrated life or petition for admission to profession and consecration through the diocesan offices of Vicar for Religious and Bishop. If you desire to go it the longstanding way of 20 centuries of church history, the way of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, then accept that you will do it in the lay state by virtue of the freedom granted you by baptism (or baptism and the clerical state if you are in Orders). I don't think any other categories of hermit life are necessary. Meanwhile, every hermit is called to live the following terms of canon 603 in some way, shape, or form: evangelical counsels (like all Christians), assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, all lived for the salvation of the world. None of these of themselves make a lay person other than a lay person. 

One final reminder, the Church recognizes that the eremitical vocation in the consecrated state belongs first of all to the church herself and only thereafter to individual hermits. She extends the gift of initiation into the consecrated state and this ecclesial vocation only after mutual discernment and sufficient formation to be sure the individual will live the life well. Though some might well want to do this, they will fail in what they aspire to. However, the non-canonical eremitical life is still open to these persons and if they should do well at the life in that way,  they would, after a number of years, be able to request the church take another look at the case with an eye toward discernment and eventual profession and consecration.

** Ponam in deserto Viam, Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, now Dicastery for Institutes. . .Life. 

On Being a Hermit Before One Petitions for C 603 Standing

[[Hi Sister Laurel, in the process you are describing about c 603 discernment it sounds sort of like you are saying a person already needs to have discerned a call to contemplative and then eremitical life before she or he approaches her/his diocese with a petition to be professed under c 603. Is that right?? Is that why c 603 has no provision for periods of formation and all that goes with those? Your use of the term "shoehorning" in your last post was helpful, a pretty vivid way of describing a process which could never really fit into arbitrary time frames and canonical schemata.  Also, it was important that you noted that the majority of the process would never involve the diocese at all. I could see clearly that the really important formation must go on apart from the diocese -- in solitude between the person, God, and perhaps a good spiritual director. Should dioceses be thinking that c 603 is to be used to raise to canonical standing a vocation that has been long in development and is already largely "formed"? Is that what you have been talking about when you say the candidate "must be a hermit in some essential sense" already?]]

Thanks for your questions and comments. I think you've got it, yes!! The history of c 603 grew out of a situation in which a number of solemnly professed monks had discerned vocations to solitude over long years of monastic life, ongoing formation, commitment, and service. To retell the story briefly, in order to follow an eremitical vocation they had to leave their vows and monasteries and be secularized. They then had to find a way to live an eremitical life as best as they could apart from their monasteries in more ordinary surroundings. Roman Catholicism had a history of such persons coming under the protection of the diocesan bishop and eventually this occurred with a dozen or so of these men coming together in a laura under the aegis of Bishop Remi de Roo who, at Vatican Council II, brought up the need to recognize the genuine eremitical vocation as a "call to perfection." Only after another 20 years did the Revised Code of Canon Law include the solitary hermit call in law in canon 603. 

The canon itself presumes and implies a personal history of spiritual and personal formation as a hermit prior to contacting one's diocese re c 603 even though it does not spell this out. For instance, "stricter separation from the world" is not simply about closing the hermitage door on the things outside these premises, but rather about separating oneself more strictly from the things which are contrary to or reject Christ while one cleaves to Christ more strictly and wholeheartedly with all one has and is. Assiduous prayer and penance are not about more prayer and penance than usual in Religious life, or at least it is not only about this; it is primarily about being a truly human person whose heart, mind, body and spirit, are given over to their source, ground, nourishment, and enrichment in God alone in the silence of solitude. 

This takes time; finding the way God calls one to this takes serious weighing, trying, and discerning the various paths to God any life offers as one grows first as a person of prayer, then as a contemplative, and then as a solitary hermit. It is possible to read the central elements of c. 603 in a more superficial way. The silence of solitude, for instance, can be read merely as describing a context for eremitical life, but for the actual hermit, the silence of solitude is also the charism of her vocation, and, in fact, a goal -- the way to describe a fully human life lived alone in communion with God, a life of shalom and wholeness in the silence of solitude.

In other words, c 603 was never meant for beginners in the spiritual life, nor were dioceses meant to form such persons in the eremitical life. (I'll say more about this below.) Canon 603 was meant to be used for hermits (not those who were still hermit wannabe's) who had lived into their vocations over a span of time and brought themselves to their diocese because they recognized that this service (eremitical life lived in and on behalf of the Church) was an essential part of their call to life in solitude. It was meant, this means, to be relatively rarely used when strong candidates with experience as contemplatives and deeper yearnings for solitude presented themselves with a petition to be professed. The canon defines eremitical life as the Catholic Church regards it and adds certain conditions to those who feel called to live this life as an ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. 

In some ways this is a tension-filled and paradoxical situation. The Church defines the signs and ways to genuine freedom in Christ found in hermit lives throughout her history and otherwise: stricter separation from the world, a life of assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, ordered according to a Rule the hermit writes herself, framed in terms of the Evangelical Counsels, and then provides a canonical framework to live such freedom in the name and on behalf of the Church. In this way, the Church entrusts an ecclesial vocation to someone committed to the freedom of a prophetic life of grace. Thus, the person should also have the wisdom to deal with a vocation which is at once ecclesial and also deeply prophetic. None of this indicates or implies a vocation which is to be embraced by beginners or those without sufficient experience and (even) expertise (e.g., the ability to write a liveable Rule, for instance, or an articulable sense of the way the silence of solitude functions as more than the context for one's life -- a sense which is rooted in the hermit's lived experience).

Dioceses do not and apparently were never meant to form hermits. This is so not only because hermits are formed in solitude (you restated my position very well), but also because dioceses tend to need time frames into which the formation program can fit without lots of flexibility or freedom --- for the hermit and for the Holy Spirit! And eremitical vocations require time, freedom, and greater flexibility sometimes than canonical norms can ensure. Also, while dioceses have within them people who could effectively accompany a hermit in her formation and discernment, the diocesan offices of Vicar for Religious, etc., ordinarily don't have the time even if they should have the expertise and willingness (and my sense is this is rare). However, after the hermit is formed in an essential way, and know they are called to eremitical life (which may require the assistance of a Delegate for the Diocese and Hermit candidate), dioceses (beyond the Delegate) are precisely the ones to assist in the discernment of a c. 603 vocation. Thus, your final question is exactly right. Dioceses should think that c 603 is to be used to (admit) to canonical standing a vocation that has been long in development and is already largely "formed". After all, there are other ways to live eremitical life. C 603 is only one way and not everyone is meant to live as a solitary hermit in the name of the Church even when their eremitical vocation seems very certain.

Again, because I believe in this approach to c 603 vocations, I have written about a process which can work for dioceses and for hermits and their Directors (diocesan delegates). It is not a program, but a process drawn organically from the requirements of c 603 itself, and for that reason does not impose arbitrary time frames or stages which are more appropriate for coenobitical religious life. I believe the canon was artfully (wonderfully!) wrought; it stresses the freedom of the hermit within a given set of essential (not optional!) characteristics. The addition of additional and strict time frames, etc., which are not drawn from the canon itself will actually "offend" against the sufficiency and beauty of the canon and the life it defines. Ironically, only a process drawn directly from the canon itself can do justice to the canon and the vocation it governs. 

The single point in the canon which allows this, the single requirement marking the combination of lived experience, one's personal and mature embrace of the essential canonical elements, institutional supervision and accompaniment, and one's growth in and commitment to an authentic (responsible and ecclesial) eremitical freedom is the requirement that the hermit write her own (liveable) Rule of Life. The process, therefore, grows directly and organically out of the hermit's varying and various attempts to fulfill this requirement. 

Addendum: A postscript on the absence of time frames from c 603:

One final word re your question on why c 603 does not provide time frames as a kind of P.S. Given the care with which the canon has been crafted, my sense is the authors wanted dioceses to use the contents of the canon itself to gauge the quality and readiness for consecration of the vocation in front of them. I believe they knew that once time frames were set up in one diocese others would follow and the time frames themselves would become the markers used for gauging readiness, etc. In the various offerings of canonists writing on c 603, what stands out is the use of time frames without any real discussion of the depths of the vocation itself or the essential characteristics of the c 603 vocation. Thus, as dioceses pick up these books, they fasten on the time frames (for these are more easily understandable and accessible) and not on true discernment of an eremitical vocation. The approach of hermits to the matter is quite different --- give the individual time to grow into a contemplative and then, if they feel called to this, into a hermit, and perhaps too, to one with a c 603 vocation (again, there are other avenues for living eremitical life, after all). In such a process, the hermit will need to find someone who can accompany her through all of this, and she will turn to the diocese with whom she will discern the vocation mutually when she reaches this point of readiness.

More on the Process of Discernment and Formation of c 603 Hermits

 [[Hi Sister Laurel, I have read some of the things you have written about the discernment and formation of eremitical vocations. You seem to disagree with dioceses that establish time schemata associated with the canonical stages of religious life. Is that accurate and if it is, why do you disagree with it? You stress an approach which depends upon a candidate or hermit writing several different versions of their Rule of Life over time. How does this differ from a set period of candidacy, novitiate, and juniorate? What happens if someone using your approach decides they want to keep on writing new Rules and never come to the place where they need to leave the idea of eremitical life behind?]]

Happy New Year to you, and thanks for your questions. To clarify one point for accuracy, what I disagree with is not dioceses but canonists who write about approaches to implementing c 603 which are strong on canonical time frames, and formal stages, even as they are woefully short on an understanding of eremitical life or the central elements of canon 603 and the ways a person grows in these. As a corollary, I also disagree with the application of time frames which work well in a communal context but are insensitive to how fluid time can and often needs to be in a solitary eremitical context. Finally, I am amazed at canonists who write in ways meant to codify time frames for growth in solitude but show no sense at all that there are different kinds of solitude --- some transitional, some geared toward growth, others fostering a kind of personal decompensation, some escapist, others individualistic, some assisting life in community, and so forth. 

Eremitical solitude is not transitional, nor is it escapist or individualistic. One may need a period of transitional solitude when one leaves a given context or situation (like active ministry or religious life) just as one will need some times of transitional solitude during bereavement, for instance, but whether these will ever grow into eremitical solitude is unlikely or at least uncertain given the rarity of eremitical life itself. One needs to take care with the type of solitude one is dealing with in a candidate and since types or forms can and do overlap and confuse, it can take time to determine what one is dealing with --- more than it takes in community, for example. 

A Process NOT a Program:

What I have written about on this blog is not a program of discernment and formation (which, I think, is what time frames are meant to define) but a process. In the process I have tried to describe, the diocese provides sufficient support for the person discerning a c 603 vocation --- a small discernment and formation team, for instance, composed of the Vicar for Religious, and someone with expertise in formation in contemplative and/or eremitical life along with input from the person's spiritual director, and/or delegate. The process is driven by the "candidate's" own growth and needs. 

These will be reflected by the Rule she writes for herself at any given stage of discernment and formation, and the Rule will serve as a guide for discussions re the presence of an eremitical vocation, readiness for profession, resources required (extended time in monastic silence, lessons in praying the Divine Office or other forms of prayer, assistance with establishing cottage industries, classes in theology, Scripture, instruction in the vows,  etc). There should be a clear difference in the first Rule a would-be-hermit writes and the second, or third, or seventh, or tenth!! The formation team should be able to see progress in the person's lived experience and understanding of canon 603 and its constitutive elements. More, they should see signs that the person is growing in personal wholeness and holiness, that she is thriving in (and toward!) the silence of solitude even in the midst of the struggles it will also bring or involve.

In such a process the canonical stages appropriate to cenobitic life (life in community) simply have less meaning and are less quantifiable or even distinguishable. In any case such "stages" would need to be applied not according to a specific timetable, but according to one's readiness for the responsibilities associated with each stage of the life per se --- and these are not the same as those in coenobitical life. (A hermit is not being prepared to take on varying degrees of canonical responsibility within a congregation, but instead is being prepared to take a representative place in a living eremitical tradition.) It seems to me that the marker of such readiness is the capacity to write a liveable Rule of life after having written several experimental and less adequate Rules reflecting the would-be-hermit's growth in the life. 

On mistaking the inability to write a liveable Rule as a sign of no vocation: 

I have known people desiring to be c 603 hermits who spent several years trying and failing to put together a Rule. This did NOT necessarily mean they were not called to the life, but rather that they had a good deal to learn and especially, a lot to become consciously aware of before they could articulate it in the way a liveable Rule requires. For instance, to write a liveable Rule which concretely reflects a commitment to be open and responsive to God at work in one's life, one needs to cultivate all of those skills which are part and parcel of truly listening to/for God. One needs to know something of Who God is and who they themselves are, how God has been at work in their lives and the ways they have responded most fruitfully or refused to do so and why. Until one reaches some real degree of this level of awareness, they may be a lone individual, but they have not entered into eremitical solitude --- even as a novice hermit --- and they are certainly not ready to write a liveable Rule of Life.

This means the first several years of beginning to live as a hermit may be full of learning entirely new things, developing new skills, becoming aware in ways one was not aware before, and essentially undergoing a unique kind of conversion of mind and heart which is necessary to being a hermit in some "essential way". The process cannot be rushed, nor should it be shoehorned into the canonical time frame that works for religious living in community. And yet, this shoehorn approach is the one most canonists take, and so too, most dioceses that decide to implement c 603. If a person has not written a liveable Rule in the first couple of years after approaching a diocese with a petition for profession under c 603, dioceses are apt to dismiss them as unsuitable candidates for such a profession. 

Partly, I believe this occurs because the diocesan personnel don't have the first clue about how to accompany a budding solitary hermit on their own journey of discernment and formation, and partly it is due to the more fundamental failure to understand the distinction between lone individual and hermit in the first place. Equally foundationally problematical is the fact that diocesan staff, never having tried to do this themselves, often seem to believe writing a liveable Rule is a simple task that anyone should be able to do without assistance or significant preparation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes candidates are dismissed as unsuitable because the diocese doesn't actually believe in the hermit vocation at all --- though this lack of belief is rarely explicitly admitted; in such instances dioceses will not be able to accompany a candidate in the way needed. After all, if one does not esteem the vocation, one will hardly take the time needed to appropriately regard the process it requires for a candidate to embrace and be able to represent such a vocation! The process I have outlined on this blog serves to assist both the candidate and the diocese in taking solitary eremitical vocations seriously in a way which is organic to the vocation, to canon 603 itself, and therefore, is not unnecessarily onerous to either the candidate or the diocese.

Necessary Time Limits:

Your question about what is equivalent to the "perpetual doctoral student" problem where someone keeps writing and writing on their dissertation but never concludes it is well taken. There must be some time limits --- or at least there must be signs the hermit candidate is moving towards perpetual profession and the wholeness/holiness of an authentic vocation --- if the formation team is to continue working with them effectively. Otherwise, the process breaks down and everyone's time and energy are wasted. On the other end of the scale, there must be minimum time limits as well. A diocese must be clear that formation in religious life, while helpful, is not identical to that of the solitary hermit, nor in the Roman Catholic Church is canon 603 meant to define a "solitary religious" as the Episcopal Church allows in their canon law, but rather a true and solitary hermit (who is also, therefore, a religious). 

For someone leaving religious life in community (especially in active ministry), time for transition from life in community and active ministry, to adult life in a parish environment  (presuming they entered relatively soon after college), to contemplative life (if one really feels called to this), then to contemplative life in solitude (again, if one continues to feel called to this), and then to eremitical life per se must be given and required. This is so because each of these steps (especially in the beginning) can take various vocational forms, and these too must be discerned and established. Again, asking the candidate to write a Rule of Life which reflects her growing (or shifting) sense of these realities in her life can serve as a focus for ongoing discussion, direction, formation, and discernment of readiness to move in a somewhat more formal way from step to step toward profession as a canon 603 hermit. Time frames can serve as guidelines in all of this and for a lot of it, one needs only a good spiritual director. 

It is only once one is transitioning from contemplative life to even greater solitude that one begins discerning eremitical life per se and may reasonably consider and discern consecrated eremitical life under c 603. At this point approaching a diocese is meaningful, but not truly before this. When one approaches a diocese prematurely (especially before one is a hermit in the essential sense I mentioned above) one may merely ensure that one's true vocation is not realized, much less recognized.

On the Problem of Shoehorning "Vocations" into more usual Canonical Timeframes:

While there are a number of benefits to the process I have outlined, one of its real strengths is the fact that it does not ask a person to approach a diocese prematurely but allows a person to work carefully with her director until it is relatively clear that she really has an eremitical calling. At that point the person has already undertaken a significant personal discernment process which she can then share with the diocese and should be relatively ready to discern with her diocese whether or not she is ultimately called to a canon 603 (a solitary diocesan hermit) vocation. If a person approaches the diocese before this (before, that is, the various transitional forms of solitude, etc., have been worked through, for instance), everyone involved may mistake being a lone pious individual, for being a person with a vocation to eremitical solitude. Professing a lone individual who then calls herself a hermit is destructive to the vocation per se and will make canon 603 itself apparently incredible. On the other hand, if one approaches a diocese prematurely, a diocese can err in the opposite direction, and may decide the process is taking too long and simply dismiss the person as unsuitable for c 603 profession. 

The tendency to shoehorn c 603 vocations into the canonical time frames associated with canonical religious life in community makes either of these mistakes likely. In the first instance, the eremitical vocation is demeaned or trivialized, and the diocese may decide not to risk professing anyone under c 603 in the future. In the latter instance, a specific public (canonical) eremitical vocation which is a unique gift of the Holy Spirit, may be lost to the Church even though the individual can continue to live fruitfully as a privately dedicated (non-canonical) hermit. Remember that canon 603 was originally written because a number of vocations to eremitism with long preparation in monastic life had no way to be recognized canonically or lived according to the monastic house's proper law. 

As a result, years lived in solemn vows had to be relinquished, the monastics secularized, and ways to live as hermits explored apart from publicly vowed religious life. The long preparation for such a call was not accidental to discovering a vocation to eremitical solitude, but essential to it. For this reason, canon 603 also requires long preparation even though the diocese is not directly involved in most of it. This cannot and must not be forgotten; it is part of the canon's own history and nature.

On the Beauty and Depth of Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, I wondered why you write about canon 603 now, so many years after you have been professed. It sounds to me like you believe it is important to hermits even after they have been consecrated. I realize that the canon describes what is necessary to be admitted to canonical standing, and I get you might want to be writing for those interested in becoming diocesan hermits, but is there something more to it than that? Once you're admitted under a law, why concern yourself with the law? I wondered if you could explain that. By the way, your anniversary of profession is coming up isn't it? Congratulations!]]

Good to hear from you; it has been a while!! Interesting observations and question!  Yes, I continue to write about canon 603 for one particular reason; namely, as I have come to perceive it, it is not merely a canon allowing for admission to profession and consecration (as historically and ecclesially important as this is); instead, the canon prescribes a profound and often unimagined way of life constituted by the central elements named therein. Many mistakenly treat these elements as though their meaning is obvious and easily understood and lived. For instance, poverty, chastity, and obedience seem clear enough. So do "Stricter separation from the world", "assiduous prayer and penance" and "the silence of solitude". That one is required to write a Rule of life may seem a requirement anyone can easily accomplish, and dioceses routinely send folks off to do this without instructions or assistance -- fully expecting they will be able to succeed at the task, but this is not so easy really. 

Beneath the words of the canon in this element and in all the others, however, there are worlds the hermit is called and will need to explore, embrace, and embody if they are to truly be a canon 603 hermit. The canon supplies, in significant ways, the windows to these worlds. Because I petitioned to be admitted to profession under this canon and because the Church professed, consecrated, and commissioned me to do so, I am living and exploring this particular eremitical life; gradually I have come to know or at least glimpse the depths of the life prescribed by the canon --- even when I have not lived into them as fully as I am yet called to. 

 As a corollary, I have come to know many of the depths of the canon itself. I write about canon 603 now 14 years after perpetual profession and consecration because, from within this life, I continue to see new things in the canon --- things Diocesan bishops and Vicars for Religious (who often know very little about such a life or canon 603 itself) need to see, things candidates need to have a sense of as they approach mutual discernment and formation in this call, and things those professed under canon 603 are also committed to exploring. Especially, I continue to write about canon 603 because, from within this life, I have always perceived a beauty about it and the way it blends non-negotiable elements with the freedom and flexibility of a solitary life lived for the sake of others in response to the Holy Spirit. It both demands and allows for profound eremitical experience before profession and it both calls for and empowers even greater depth and breadth in living this life thereafter. You see, it is not just the single elements of the canon nor their apparently "obvious" meanings that are important -- though of course they are crucial. It is what is implicit and profound in them and in the fabric they weave together that is also critical to appreciating canon 603. 

This kind of appreciation is important not just for the hermit herself, but also for dioceses seeking to use the canon appropriately and for canonists whose tendency is to want to add additional requirements and legislative elements to the canon before admitting anyone to profession. More and more I have come to see that these added elements are unnecessary, not only because eremitical life itself doesn't need them, but because canon 603 itself does not. Of course, in coming to appreciate the beauty I referred to above, and the surprising adequacy or sufficiency of the canon, one must be open to seeing there what is more than superficial or even more than significantly explicit.

 Let me give you an example. The canon requires the solitary hermit to write her own Rule. However, it doesn't explicitly define the nature of the Rule and whether it will function as law, Gospel, law and Gospel (or Gospel and law); will it be primarily or wholly a list of do's and don'ts, limitations and permissions, or will it provide a vision of the life the hermit is committing to live with whatever that requires? Nor does c 603 explicitly require that it be a liveable Rule which may only come to be after the hermit has written at least several drafts. And yet both of these, rooted in the hermit's lived-experience and long-reflection, must be understood as called for by canon 603. Another example is the central element, "stricter separation from the world." What does it really mean? What does it call for from the hermit? I have written a lot about this element of the canon over the past decade and more, so I won't repeat all that here, but where in the canon does it speak of freedom from enmeshment with falsity, freedom for truth and honest engagement with and on behalf of God's good creation? These words are never used and yet, these are part, perhaps even the heart of what this element of ''stricter separation'' refers to.

Nor is it just a matter of getting under the superficial or common usage of the terms involved. One needs to begin to see the way they are related to one another and help in the weaving of a single reality. Both of the elements just noted, the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule and stricter separation from the world, demand the hermit engage in a process of growth and maturation in Christ specifically as a canon 603 or diocesan hermit. Moreover, the canon provides a vision of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. Each element contributes to this vision, including those in both 603.1 and 603.2. At the same time, in service to the incarnation of this vision in an individual's life, canon 603 provides the means for a process of discernment and formation, both initial and ongoing, even though this process is not explicit in the text of the canon. 

The requirement that a hermit write a liveable Rule confronts everyone with the needs for adequate discernment and formation. But how is this achieved? Do we need more canons? Must we borrow from canonical norms established (wisely and appropriately) for other and less individual forms of religious life? Again, I find canon 603 beautiful and perhaps surprising in its sufficiency here: what is implicit in the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule is the fact that an adequate process of discernment and formation can be structured according to the hermit's growing abilities and capacities to write a liveable Rule of life that is true to canon 603's vision of solitary eremitical life.  Writing a liveable Rule of Life is not simply one element of the canon among others; it is the culmination of a process of reflection, prayer, study, and personal growth in Christ (and thus, in all the other elements of the canon) it itself guides and crystalizes. 

A hermit engaging in the writing of a liveable Rule will require accompaniment and assistance (a very small formation team, for instance), but the process envisioned here can be relatively simple and effective in guiding the diocese working with a candidate for profession, and certainly it is respectful of the freedom required by both the hermit and the Holy Spirit in shaping and deepening this specific vocation. Best, it grows organically from (or is implicit in) the requirements of canon 603 itself.

To return more directly to your questions. Canon 603 is certainly a norm by which the Church recognizes, governs, and thus perpetuates solitary consecrated hermits. It is associated with canonical (legal) rights and obligations which bind the hermit. It defines the nature of the diocesan hermit's life and so, provides the central elements which mark this definition. It is here, however, that canon 603 becomes something more than most canons because it is associated with a vision of the solitary eremitical life and a vision is not only about what is seen, but about the underlying mystery which grounds, inspires, and is to be manifested in the lives of those living under this canon. 

I believe that the authors of c 603 wrote something rich, perhaps richer than they knew. Canon 603 is a window opening onto Mystery; the mystery of eremitical life, of God and the way human beings are verified (made true) in communion with God, the mystery of the way even the most isolated life can be redeemed in solitude, and the mystery of the way even human and Divine solitude always imply community. Because all of this and more is true, because canon 603 is not a once-used now-essentially-irrelevant law (unless of course, one transgresses it!) but something far more, I continue to reflect on, pray with, and write about c 603.

Postscript: Yes, it's a big week for me. I mark my birthday on September 1st, and celebrate the anniversary of my perpetual profession under c 603, the next day, 2nd Sept. Thanks for asking!

Additional Questions on Canon 603 and Lauras vs Communities

[[Dear Sister, is it necessary to limit a laura to just three or four people under c 603? Are there benefits to this besides not tending to morph into a community? We had a community of hermits in our region but I think they have mostly left or died. I always wonder what happens to them when there is only one or two left. Do they look for more vocations? And what if the remaining hermits don't want to be involved in the formation of new members? Do they move to a different (smaller) place? I hadn't thought much about this but if the vocation is as rare as you say it is, having three solitary hermits might be the most any diocese could do.]]

Thanks for your questions. This topic has actually sparked a lot of interest and I am hoping that perhaps I can get a canonist or two (since I am not one) to weigh in here on the idea of lauras of canon 603 hermits especially as regards the origin of the canon and commentaries written on it. Your own first question is about the benefits of not having more than three hermits. When I wrote about that number I was thinking of a limit placed on groups of hermits by the Bishops in Spain (if my memory is correct in this). At that point I wrote about not allowing a colony of canon 603 hermits to morph into a community because that is a different vocation and contrary to the notion built into canon 603 by its authors. 

But you can think about the problems that can occur with groups that get larger than three. With three people arrangements for chores or charges, hours of activity and silence, finances, the way visitors are handled, assuring silence and solitude for others and maintaining a prayerful atmosphere, times for communal liturgy (if there are any), shared lectio divina (if chosen), and meals, all of this and more can be handled with a simple meeting of the hermits. It is an optimal number for dealing with differences and coming together in a way which does not infringe on authentic freedom. Not so with larger groups.

Remember that all canon 603 hermits write her/his own Rule and this is approved with a bishop's decree of approval on the day of profession. While I don't recommend a hermit itemizing every do and don't when she writes a Rule, I do recommend a hermit writes her Rule in light of the vision she has of canon 603 life in the Church. Each hermit knows how God works in her life and what she needs for this; she will know the central elements of canon 603 and what they require of her in her daily living, and she will know all of this on the basis of lived experience before she writes her Rule and is professed.  In each Rule written by each hermit there will be a wisdom the others won't necessarily accent. All of this experience and wisdom glorifies God and a laura has to be flexible enough to accommodate differences in emphasis and praxis which stem from the unique ways God works with each soul. This just naturally becomes harder as a group gets larger and the differences in one embodiment of c 603 begin to look like departures from what some others call "eremitical life." 

For instance, I define stricter separation from the world in a particular (and theologically sound) way which embraces silence and solitude and continual personal formation in Christ (growth in holiness towards what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude"), but also allows me to use a computer, access the internet, and be active in a parish community (though in a limited way). Others without my specific experience and sensibilities (not to mention a wise and experienced director) could be unduly tempted by these things, fail to use them prudently, or, because they don't have the experience of handling these wisely, actually harm their vocations (and those of others in a laura) with them. As the laura grows in numbers it becomes harder to allow the very freedom eremitical life is meant to nurture and protect --- the very freedom which is a hallmark of both eremitical life and the Holy Spirit. (Please note, again, freedom is not the power to do anything we want whenever we want; it is the power to be the persons God calls us to be. To force solitary hermits to submit to a common Rule instead of, or as a replacement for a personally discerned and authored Rule is contrary to true freedom in regard to c 603 vocations.)

In such circumstances, prohibitions applicable to everyone become necessary (these are no longer the mutually agreed upon house rules which serve both freedom and charity) and in such cases people will also begin to look for a single person to act as the authority and "lay down the law." (While all the hermits I know personally would certainly be able to take on a leadership role if necessary, none of them/us feels we are actually called to this. It would require significant discernment within a proven environment to make such a choice.) The group will also require larger facilities and grounds --- which most hermits cannot afford and most dioceses, quite rightly, are neither able nor willing to provide for c 603 hermits. 

This is merely the tip of a very large and difficult iceberg; it is simply much easier to accommodate one or two other hermits and the vision they each have of canon 603 life. As alluded to above, one signal piece of wisdom of canon 603 is its legislating that a hermit write her own Rule rooted in her own long-experience of God at work in her life. This individual Rule and the ability to write one is key not only to the vocation itself, but also to dioceses discerning the reality of the vocation and assessing the formation of canon 603 hermits. In a laura, solitary hermits' individual Rules not only do not need to be superseded by a single Rule and superior,  they should not be superseded in this way since it can destroy the very calling they have lived for years in discernment and personal formation to embrace and embody. Again, it is a different eremitical vocation.

I'm not taking your questions in order, and in some ways my responses make a direct response impossible. The area of formation is one of these so let me turn to that. As envisioned in light of canon 603 --- which regards the solitary eremitical vocation as preeminent and is entirely geared to it -- a laura of c 603 hermits would not be responsible for the formation of other hermits. A laura is composed of already-professed hermits who have been formed on their own (and often in other forms of consecrated life first) and who have demonstrated the capacity to live as solitary hermits in the same way. It seems to me that a c 603 laura would not accept candidates -- though members with genuine expertise might certainly be able to serve as resources, spiritual directors, or delegates for hermits approaching (and subsequent to) profession. Candidates (the term is used in an informal sense only since c 603 does not provide for "candidature" per se) might occasionally make a desert day with the c 603 hermits, join them for communal prayer once in a while, or meet for regular direction, but they would live elsewhere and would be responsible for securing their own formation, both initial and ongoing. This is important because it is an ongoing need for the whole of the hermit's life, and because it is intrinsic to canon 603 life in particular.

It should but, (because of the way the notion of a laura has been misused from time to time) cannot go without saying that should a diocese have more than three c 603 hermits or those who would like to pursue such a vocation, there must be absolutely no requirement whatsoever that such persons join an already-existing laura or constitute themselves in such a way in order to be professed. Such a requirement is entirely foreign to the spirit and letter of canon 603. A laura is established for the benefit of the solitary eremitical life, not to co-opt it or transform it into something else. And yes, as you say, three diocesan hermits might well be all a diocese ever sees given the relative rarity of the vocation. (In fact, given the requirements I have stated here regarding freedom and formation, for instance, it is far more than most dioceses will ever see.)

The Importance of the Church's Role in Professing and Governing c 603 Hermits

[[Dear Sister, if the Church is so important in establishing the nature of a person's eremitical vocation, and if the commissioning of the hermit is crucial in protecting eremitical life from selfishness, why is it some dioceses refuse to profess anyone at all as diocesan hermits? How should we regard such blanket refusals?]]

This is a great question and one I have not written about for some years. Thank you for bringing it up again. It is clear that I believe the Church's discernment and commissioning of the eremitical vocation is critical for healthy eremitical life and also that I believe healthy eremitical life is critical for the life of the Church. So what happens when a diocese simply refuses to use canon 603 at all? This does happen, probably more frequently than I am personally aware of. It was once the case in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (I am not sure of their position in this regard now), and has been reported in several other dioceses and Archdioceses. Let me say that I understand the difficulties of implementing canon 603, especially in terms of discernment, formation, time frames, diocesan support and justice issues, but also that difficulties notwithstanding, canon 603 is a matter of universal law which recognizes the unquestionable way the Holy Spirit is working in the Church; while dioceses must be careful in their discernment and admission of candidates to profession, it is irresponsible to simply refuse to even undertake suitable discernment or otherwise abdicate the diocese's proper role in mediating and supervising this vocation in today's Church.

God is working in people's lives to call them to solitude. We know this is true because we have persons living as diocesan hermits throughout the world now, most of them in edifying ways. For most of these, canon 603 is not a stopgap vocation but the way God is truly calling them to wholeness and holiness. Others live both more and less credible eremitical lives without benefit of the Church's profession, consecration, and commission (missioning) into the silence of solitude. At the same time it remains true that this vocation belongs to the Church; God has entrusted it to the Church as a unique paradigm of the power of the Gospel, the importance of prayer, the potential of nature and grace combined, and of the prophetic dimension of ecclesial life besides.

It is the Church that is responsible for discerning ecclesial eremitical vocations with the hermit candidate, for entrusting and supervising the vocation especially in terms of the rights and obligations that come with public profession and initiation into the consecrated state --- rights and obligations that are not additional to the vocation (because it is ecclesial) but intrinsic to it, just as she is responsible for mediating the hermit's call and commissioning to embrace stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and the life of the evangelical counsels, in ways which are both healthy and countercultural.  All of these elements of ecclesial vocations protect the eremitical life from needless eccentricity, individualism, and even selfishness; they are part and parcel of God's redemption of human isolation and transformation of that into what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude."

Just go off into Solitude; That's all you Need:

I used to hear fairly regularly from folks who had approached their dioceses seeking admission to profession and consecration under c 603 that they had been told, "Just go off and live in solitude; that's all you need." But given all I have written about this vocation as an ecclesial vocation, I have to say I believe such advice has very limited utility in cases of lay hermit vocations or as a tactic to temporize initially when evaluating the suitability of a candidate or starting them out (or revisiting the possibility of starting them out) on a process of mutual discernment (some folks approach dioceses without yet having lived even a week in eremitical solitude and are given such instructions before being allowed to return to the diocese to participate in a serious process of discernment). However, it is downright wrong in cases where God is calling someone to serve God and the Gospel in an ecclesial vocation to eremitical solitude, and therefore, who both needs and desires to do so as a Catholic hermit. While the need for careful discernment is critical, it is not necessarily an indictment of the hermit's maturity or spiritual readiness to admit they need to be admitted to canonical standing in the consecrated state of life. Instead it can be a sign of a genuine vocation.

When I wrote and submitted my first Rule I noted that I sought canonical standing because over time I had determined it was impossible for me to live eremitical life without it; while I came to terms with the possibility my diocese might never implement canon 603, I also came to see I needed the freedom to fail in my attempts to live the central elements of the canon, but also to succeed in doing so; I needed a way to assure the motivation to try again day after day to truly be the person God was calling me to be in stricter separation from a world that pulled at me in every way. I needed the protections and permissions afforded by profession under canon 603 including ecclesial guidance, the weight of becoming part of a living tradition of hermit life, and a very real accountability to the Church and those who formally represent her in my life.  In short, I needed the freedom to explore a call to union with God, and to do so in a way which proclaimed a Gospel I had given my life to.

All of this became even more critical given the radical countercultural nature of eremitical life. Embracing such a life, no matter the personal circumstances, could (and mainly would) be seen as abdicating one's own responsibility for a loving life both living and proclaiming the Gospel of Christ. In other words, "just going off and living in solitude" without canonical commission would never have been enough for me if I was to live my vocation wholeheartedly over the whole of my adult life. I needed to be sure my life was not an instance of misguided individualism, personal and ministerial failure, or some form of unhealthy selfishness subtly disguised with pious labels; I needed to be confirmed in my own discernment of God's movement in my life and encouraged to feel free to continue discerning this movement every day of my life. And I needed to proclaim that God had redeemed the isolation of a life marked and marred by chronic illness and transformed it into an instance of essential wholeness and paradoxical presence precisely in and through the silence of solitude.

This is a difficult (and not atypical) discernment, I think, requiring time and expert assistance. It was and remains today the Church's obligation to aid and support me and others in this process by virtue of her Divinely granted responsibility for eremitical life --- something I think remains true, though in differing ways, whether or not she decides to profess a person or not.

The problems Dioceses Face in Implementing Canon 603:

There are certainly problems dioceses face in implementing canon 603.  Adequate discernment and formation are demanding requirements which dioceses may not feel able to achieve or assist with. (This is the reason I have posted here about a process of discernment and formation which protects the hermit's freedom, allows a diocese to follow and dialogue with the hermit in a constructive way, and which is not onerous for the diocese or her personnel.) Many dioceses have c 603 hermits today and can refer Vicars and others should assistance in discerning authentic vocations be required. The hugest caveat dioceses should be aware of is the caution that being a lone individual, no matter how pious, is not necessarily the same as being a hermit and that c 603 is meant for eremitical vocations, not simply to profess solitary religious as is the case with the Episcopal church's canon on "solitaries."

Contemplative vocations are relatively rare and misunderstood (or at least not understood or sufficiently esteemed) today; eremitical vocations are even more rare and mainly misunderstood, not only by the faithful generally, but by chanceries as well. In a culture marked and marred by an exaggerated individualism and currents of selfishness it may be tempting to dismiss eremitical vocations as illegitimate instances of the culture in search of legitimization, but this would be a mistake. In relatively rare instances genuine hermits will come along who can and do live a paradoxical call to "stricter separation from the world" and "the silence of solitude" and do so as a direct challenge to the individualism and selfishness of the culture. The Church must be open to discerning and professing these vocations!

Questions of justice remain: what do we do with and for hermits who have lived their vows for years and even decades but may, as they age or become infirm, require financial assistance or help with housing? As it stands now dioceses require waivers of liability and stress the hermit must be self-supporting; but what happens down the line when civic safety-nets no longer work and the only option the hermit has is to live in a nursing facility where silence and solitude, much less the silence OF solitude cannot be found? These are important questions and will need to be dealt with but I don't think they are insoluble, especially if the Church continues to be careful in her discernment and profession of eremitical vocations and willing to work with them on a case by case basis. I think the careful way most (but not all!) dioceses have proceeded in professing the c 603 hermits they have aids in solving these problems. What must not happen (and really has not happened) is to allow the floodgates to open and every solitary person approaching a diocese to petition for profession under c 603 in search of a sinecure to be admitted to profession in a careless and undiscerning way. Similarly, (and this has happened) we must not allow c 603 to be used as a pretense to profess individuals with no real eremitical vocation --- lone individuals who have not and may never embrace a desert spirituality, those who want to start communities (even communities of hermits!), those who work fulltime outside the hermitage in highly social jobs, and those who simply want to be religious without the challenges and gifts of community.

At the same time though, it is equally irresponsible to simply refuse to profess anyone under c 603 as though the Church's post Vatican II decision to honor the eremitical vocation in the revision of the Code of Canon Law did not reflect the movement of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, it is hardly fair to penalize individuals with authentic vocations but who merely happen to live in a diocese that has refused to implement the canon in any case. It may be that Vicars, bishops and others will need to educate themselves on this vocation, but isn't this part of their legal and moral responsibility? Canon 603 provides the means to be admitted to a new and stable state of life, namely, the consecrated eremitical state. It does that not only for the church as a whole, but for a fragile, rare, and significant ecclesial vocation that requires not only everything the hermit can give, but the Church's own wholehearted pastoral care and concern as well. The refusal of dioceses to discern, profess, and supervise or govern c 603 hermits now, a full 35 years after c 603 was first promulgated, represents nothing less than the local Church's abdication of her own role precisely as Church!