What if a Diocese is Unwilling to "Help With Formation"?

[[Sister Laurel, I think your idea about formation as a process worked out with one's diocese sounds good. It gives me a way to think about structuring my own approach to personal formation, but I really don't think my own diocese would do this. I have heard stories that people who would like to become c 603 hermits can't even get appointments to talk about the matter with the Bishop. One person said they were told to just go off and live in solitude, it was all he needed. How would a candidate, assuming one can even become one, say to diocesan personnel, "I would like formation as a hermit?"]]

Thanks for your questions. I have heard similar stories and talked about the "just go and live in solitude. . ." comment before. (Given the frequency it is referred to, it seems to actually be becoming something of an urban legend today which people use to suggest dioceses are unwilling to profess anyone under canon 603 more than something actually occurring in many different dioceses.) Even so, which ever the case, depending on the candidate and the motivation of the person making the comment, it can be either disingenuous and evasive or the wisest most prudent piece of advice one can hear.  For most inquirers who may have lived alone, but never lived any time in real solitude, this is precisely what they need to be told. It is the contemporary version of the desert Fathers': " remain in your cell and your cell will teach you everything." Thus, one needs more information before one can conclude, for example, that a diocese is simply unwilling to deal with possible vocations to canon 603 life.

Regarding getting an appointment with the Bishop, what is generally true, at least in larger dioceses, is that an inquirer regarding canon 603 is not apt to speak to the Bishop until the Vicar for Religious or Consecrated Life actually reaches a place where they will recommend the person for profession. This usually takes several years at least and a Rule which passes canonical and spiritual muster. Then things move to the Bishop and he will meet with the candidate, get to know her, read what she has written, and consider whether, at this point in time, this is a good thing for the diocese. I think that too often inquirers reading "under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop" expect, unrealistically, that he will be intimately involved with them right from the beginning. As in many things with regard to this canon, this is not at all likely.

Another unreasonable expectation is that a diocese will "form one" as a hermit. Because that expectation is repeated all the time, and because I have been asked about it myself a number of times, let me make one point really clear: the formation I have spoken of here is primarily up to the hermit's initiative and occurs mainly in the silence of solitude. I have not talked about a formation "program" a diocese administers because I don't think it is feasible with this vocation. It is also usually not possible for diocesan personnel even when they have expertise in formation to religious life. Presuming the person may even have had no formation in religious life (the majority of folks approaching dioceses today fall into this category), what I have tried to outline is an approach to a process of necessary growth and maturation in the eremitical life which builds on the actual canonical requirement that a hermit writes a Rule prior to profession, and (implicitly) that this is necessarily a livable Rule based on eremitical experience and growth. At every point the responsibility for growth (continued formation) is the hermit candidate's. She will work out what is needed with the help of her director and with occasional assessments by diocesan personnel. What she will not do, especially if she understands the vocation, is approach a diocese telling them she would like "formation as a hermit."

Bear in mind that there are a number of reasons dioceses don't have c 603 hermits. These include unsuitable inquirers, unfamiliarity with the vocation (on the part of both diocesan personnel and inquirers) or a similar failure to esteem it (for instance, some dioceses consider it refers to something other than a true vocation, while some do not esteem even contemplative life adequately), as well as uncertainty as to how to effectively implement the canon --- including uncertainty as to how one can work with a person over an extended period of time to assist her growth and to discern the possibility of an eremitical vocation without  on the one hand promising or implying that the person will be professed and on the other hand without simply "stringing her along" fruitlessly.

One of the primary legitimate reasons dioceses tell inquirers to just go off and live in solitude is precisely because folks interested in canon 603 may be interested in becoming a "religious" but are seeking to use canon 603 as a stopgap to that when other avenues are not open to them or when they are merely using canon 603 to escape the demands of life in community. These folks tend not to have EVER lived in genuine solitude and believe that simply being alone in a dwelling is eremitical solitude. It is not. Another reason some inquirers hear this is because diocesan staff know that solitude (which implies life with God alone) is the primary formator in the hermit's life. A third reason is because they feel wholly unable to deal with this canon or to recognize a good candidate for solitary eremitical life. (One may be a good candidate for religious life, but not for eremitical life; similarly, simply because one cannot join a community does NOT mean they are called to eremitical life.)

What I am getting to in this abbreviated listing is that the kind of process I have outlined in the past several posts can help a diocese learn about the eremitical vocation firsthand and provides for an intelligent and truly mutual discernment process. At the same time it can assist an individual negotiate all the tensions, growth, and transitions necessary if they are EVER to be someone who lives in, out of, and toward the silence of solitude --- and then, if this is where discernment leads, if she is to be professed for life as a diocesan hermit. It provides structure geared towards to hermit's growth which will not be onerous to the diocese, and it provides a means to protect and nurture the responsible, attentive, freedom and discipline eremitical life demands.

Finally, the "process" I have outlined is specifically keyed to the requirements and presuppositions implied by the origins of canon 603; it allows one to become a person whose life is truly defined by the terms of that canon. Whether one proceeds to public profession under canon 603.2 or remains a lay hermit living the essential elements of 603.1 this process should be helpful with both discernment and formation. Because canon 603 cannot be implemented the way formation in religious life is usually implemented (one cannot simply become a postulant, a novice, and in a year or two, become temporary professed), and because dioceses do not always have a "process" or "protocol" to follow in dealing with inquirers seeking to DISCERN a vocation to canon 603 life with the diocese itself, were you to outline and suggest such a process to them, you might in fact, find they are receptive.

Canon 603's History presupposes Significant Formation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, in a recent post you spoke of "the bottom line" and you pointed out that canon 603 presupposed a fairly extensive background in monastic formation and life. I have read your discussion of the history of canon 603 before but this is the first time I have understood why this history makes such a difference to the way the canon is implemented.  When people complain that you are "institutionalizing" the vocation or write that canon 603 came to be because of abuses are they trying to avoid the demanding nature of the canon? Do dioceses understand the correlation between the history of the canon and the requirements for reading it rightly or implementing it appropriately?]]

First of all, of course, I don't know why people write what they write nor do I know what dioceses in general understand. I admit to being astounded by certain attempts to nullify or at least minimize the spiritual maturity presupposed by canon 603 and necessary simply to read it accurately. There are more than enough stories of eremitical professions which do not measure up to the background presupposed in the composition and immediate history of the canon. Some of these seem premature at best, some seem ill-conceived and an abuse of the canon at worst. Some have caused provinces to refuse to profess anyone according to canon 603. On the rest the jury is simply still out though many (of us) seem (and certainly strive) to be appropriate and edifying examples of the vocation. We are finding our way here, dioceses, hermits, all of us together.

I recall one account of the history of canon 603 which, as you say, asserted it came about because of abuses of the canons in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  (I have referred to it here at least two or three times.) Supposedly this account of things came from a canonist who should surely have known better. (This canon is entirely new, not the redaction or refinement of an existing canon.) One version of this reads: [[As a means of solidifying the norms for consecrated Catholic hermits and desiring to eliminate abuses, in 1917 (or was it 1918?) some further delineations were made by the Church. And in 1983 these were refined further for those whose superiors desire them, or the hermit desires or is led by God, to a public profession. That formalizes the profession through Canon Law 603.]] Another version from the same blogger is found along with a detailed history of the actual origin of the canon in my post: On Visibility and Betrayal of the c 603 Vocation.

Whatever the reason people write what they do, what remains true is that the history of the canon gives everyone a significant key to understanding the formation which the canon presupposes and requires. What is indisputable is that this formation is substantial and will not be attained by the majority of candidates and by a very much smaller number of inquirers. What is also true is that whenever this history is forgotten or neglected, the vocation protected and governed by canon 603 is in danger of being trivialized and the canon misused. When this happens it also ceases to be the gift God has given to the Church and world and may not only be rendered pastorally insignificant but incredible and a scandal.

But in some instances Bishops have really appreciated the vocation canon 603 defines and especially they have tried to respect and make normative the kind of monastic formation which is necessary no matter where one lives as a hermit. For instance, the French Bishops published a list of "statutes" for all canon 603 hermits (I am told the better translation of the original French is "considerations") which included requirements of 1) regular periods in a monastic community and 2) assigning a hermit to a monastery where they could get the formation and mentoring so vital to living this vocation well. My own suggestion that candidates and temporary professed spend  a month each year or so in monastic community was made independently of these "statutes" but came from my own experience of living the life. Still, I think we are on the same page in this regard despite coming at it from different perspectives.

While I believe this experience (or something similar which occasions a substantial break with one's old ways of living and represents a disciplined turn to assiduous prayer and solitude) is essential for most, I also recognize that a diocese has to deal with each candidate on a case by case basis. No matter how a person comes by it (for, relatively rare though they are, some exemplary eremitical vocations will never have set foot in a monastery), what cannot be forgotten is the degree of experience in solitude, personal formation, and discernment needed before one is admitted even to serious discernment with the diocese and certainly prior to temporary vows.

Unfortunately it sometimes looks as though dioceses do not understand the necessary correlation between the canon's history and the spirituality and degree of formation it still presupposes and requires. It is almost certain that persons without any background in religious life and no significant experience of solitude (including that physical solitude occasioned by chronic illness, etc which can sometimes lead to genuine eremitical solitude) mainly do not. (At other times, however, a diocese's understanding of this, coupled with the fact that dioceses do NOT form hermits, has made it necessary to rule out professing ANYONE according to canon 603.) Today's world fosters isolation and individualism --- both of which call for the redemption represented by genuine eremitical solitude. It does not naturally foster vocations to this kind of solitude nor does it make reading canon 603 intelligently (with the mind and heart of a monastic) particularly easy to do.

I am sorry I have not been clear enough in the past regarding why the canon's immediate history is so vital to the way it is imple-mented. Knowing this history is critical to reading the canon accurately. It prevents substituting anything at all for the non-negotiable elements of the canon and calling them "eremitical". It demands that the person admitted to discernment have transitioned to being a hermit in an essential sense; it requires that they have an experiential knowledge of what the canon refers to as "the silence of solitude" and that they are capable of writing a Rule which negotiates the tensions between the eremitical tradition and the contemporary situation BEFORE admission to profession. It suggests that they will have at least a rudimentary sense of how and for whom besides the hermit herself this vocation is a sacred gift!

Similarly the history of this canon supports the expectation that anyone admitted to profession will live the life with integrity and with an independence rooted in one's sense of being entrusted with this unique charism or gift of the Holy Spirit. Paradoxically this kind of independence depends upon formation and deep understanding and appreciation; these go hand in hand. I have written explicitly of the critical importance of understanding the vocation's charism in preventing diocesan misuses and infidelities by the hermit herself; it is also necessary to empower the kind of integrity and independence just referred to --- something far more positive and significant than merely avoiding infidelities. Understanding the vocation's immediate history is an equally critical piece of this.

Charges of "Over-institutionalization": Why Several Rules Written at Different Stages?

[[Sister Laurel, Canon 603 only requires one write ONE Rule. Aren't you making something simple much more difficult and complicated? You have been criticized before for "institutionalizing" what is a free and simple vocation. So aren't you doing this once again with all these made up ideas about writing several Rules and stages of formation or "readiness" for consecration"? The canon is straightforward and so are paragraphs 920-21 of the Catechism.. Why not let them just speak for themselves?]]

Thanks for your questions. As I have noted before, I personally agree the eremitical life should not be overly "institutionalized" in some of the ways I think you mean; however I continue to disagree that what I am suggesting in Notes From Stillsong: Role of Diocese, Writing a Rule, and Possible Stages of Discernment actually does that. Instead I think my suggestions protect not only the vocation generally, but the legitimate freedom authentic hermits need. At the same time it provides assistance to dioceses on the basis of my own lived experience and the experience of other hermits I know, as well as that of folks writing about formation, etc whom I have read. I can state with all sincerity that such a practice and its attendant process would have helped me immensely in negotiating the time frame and "tasks" involved in becoming a hermit (instead of  remaining or being "just" a lone pious person) and then, a diocesan hermit; I similarly believe it also would have assisted my diocese in discerning not only my own vocation but in evaluating and implementing canon 603 in prudent ways more generally. I also believe it answers some of the questions I occasionally get from Bishops and Vicars who deal with candidates or inquirers for canon 603.

The Context:

First, while canon 603 is very simply stated, and while on one level it can be said to be straightforward (especially for one who has lived eremitical solitude for some time and has the experience to read it with an appropriately enlarged "desert" understanding), for most people these simple or straightforward elements are deceptive in their supposed simplicity. For instance, and as I have noted before, the canon speaks of "the silence of solitude," rather than silence AND solitude. It does not note that this phrase has Carthusian underpinnings, for instance, nor that it means MUCH more than the simple absence of noise or company. For instance, it presupposes that chancery personnel who read this canon and try to implement it know that "the silence of solitude" has to do not only with external silence and physical solitude, but that it is more than the sum of these two elements and involves the unique wholeness and individuation achieved in communion with God within the context of a desert spirituality. It has to do with being oneself in and with and through God alone --- and the various kinds and degrees of silence (or song!) that occasions. You see, despite the apparent simplicity of the canon, the reality to which it points in this instance is neither so simple nor so straightforward as most readers think.


Similarly, and related to this, we are speaking of a vocation that is truly little known and often misunderstood in our contemporary world. It is a vocation fraught with stereotypes and it is being attempted (or actually lived) in a world which distrusts solitude, hardly understands the meaning of real silence, rejects the possibility of life commitments, trivializes sexual love and in conjunction with that does not understand celibate love, is overly enamored of affluence and efficiency, and generally idolizes these as well as individualism (which is often mistaken for eremitical life). In contrast however, eremitical life is counter cultural to all of these and someone proposing to be consecrated under canon 603 needs to be very clear they are not simply using (or trying to use) the canon to "consecrate" any of these serious temptations. It takes time to clarify one's own motivations, first to become clear about what they are and secondly to purify them. This is especially true if one has never lived religious life before and is really starting right from the beginning sans adequate mentors, and models --- and, for the most part today, chanceries are mainly getting inquiries re canon 603 from lay persons who have never lived religious life and never lived in eremitical solitude.

Thirdly, we are talking about an ecclesial vocation in which one represents the eremitical tradition in dialogue with the contemporary church and world and does so in a way which is publicly responsible. While there is a great deal of freedom (especially authentic freedom)  in the eremitical life, it is not the case that one simply lives alone and does whatever one wants and calls that "eremitical". Especially one cannot justify misanthropy, selfishness, a lack of generosity, individualism (including pietistic or devotional privatism), a lack of discipline, ignorance of the tradition, or the isolation of personal eccentricity via this canon. In other words, not every form of aloneness or physical solitude is eremitical nor consistent with eremitical tradition or attuned to the needs of contemporary church and society. Not every form of liberty is synonymous or consonant with eremitical freedom. Not every form of physical silence contributes to the silence of solitude and some may be a sign of a destructive antithesis. Thus, we are speaking of an institutionalized reality which involves canonical rights and obligations, legitimate definitions and public expectations and hopes, as well as the hermit's public commitment to be responsive to the Holy Spirit and responsible in all the ways this vocation calls for.

These lines are part of the horizon against which my suggestions about the writing of various Rules need to be measured. They form the context which is a necessary PART of allowing the canon to speak for itself. They are a large part of the context which prevents us from reading the canon in a theological, historical, or spiritual vacuum and distorting it completely.

The Reason for Several Rules:

The simple fact is even for those with a true vocation we grow into eremitical life. It takes time not only to discern whether or not we have such a vocation, but in the process, to learn either that it is not simply about living alone, or that it is truly a a gift to others. It takes time to intelligently and faithfully appropriate a living tradition that is capable of speaking to the contemporary situation. It takes time not only to learn to pray and live in the ways that monks, nuns, and hermits live, but to be able to articulate the what and why of all that. If one is to take all of this on and then modify it in ways which fits one's own specific vocation, that too takes time, experimentation, and lots of thought and prayer --- not to mention consultation and supervision. While one will discuss all of this with one's director and delegate (or diocesan Vicar, etc), one also needs to prepare to write a Rule which is the result of years of practical learning and which will be canonically binding. It seems to me the only reasonable way to do this is to 1) recognize the basic stages involved in becoming a hermit, and then 2) write a Rule which corresponds to what one knows and is ready to live and live into.

A related fact is that very few of those who contact dioceses with inquiries about canon 603 ever advance to even temporary profession. Some of those who do not advance may in fact have eremitical vocations which, in time, they can make evident to their dioceses. Of those who do advance, some who are prematurely professed or who are using canon 603 as a stopgap solution to canon law's lack of any other means of professing an individual person, will live the life badly or leave it altogether. How do we  allow all possible vocations to participate in a serious discernment process? How, at the same time, do we prevent inappropriate professions or uses of canon 603 which create seriously disedifying precedents? How, in other words, do we intelligently and wisely implement canon 603 without 1) infringing on eremitical freedom, and 2) without betraying the eremitical tradition or the meaning of the canon itself?  Diocese's need a better means of discerning authentic eremitical vocations while they also minister to those who approach them with interest in canon 603. It really seems to me the suggestions I have made help do that.

Likewise, too often today dioceses ask candidates for profession to write the Rule required by canon 603 before they are ready to do so. One solution to all of this is to expect several Rules over a longer period of time --- each of which allows for growth and may be used for discernment. So often our first attempts at writing such a Rule serve only to show us and our dioceses how unready we really are. Anyone who has tried to write a Rule or Plan of Life knows how truly difficult a project this is. So often what we live, we live unconsciously and without real understanding. So often we think we are living certain values and then discover that we have never actually taken time to define them, much less to understand how a tradition defines and lives them. So often we think living a life is merely about doing certain things when in fact it is about committing to be or become persons whose hearts are configured a certain way; we do certain things in certain ways and often over long periods of time precisely so that this transformation of our hearts can occur. Writing several Rules over a relatively brief period allows us to accommodate (and consolidate) the changes disciplined living and the grace of God occasions in our hearts.

The Bottom Line:

I personally think it is either arrogance, naivete (sometimes a helpful naivete!), or both, to believe that someone with no background in religious life, no real background in eremitical life, no particular theological background, and limited experience of spiritual direction, etc would be able to write the Rule which canon 603 calls for on their first attempt. At the same time no one in the chancery can or should relieve the hermit of this obligation. And here is really the bottom line: Canon 603 requires one Rule written by the hermit who will be professed, but it is meant to be a livable Rule which is consonant with the eremitical tradition, appreciates the charism of the vowed diocesan hermit, is tailored to the individual living and writing it, appropriately inspires, guides, legislates, and finally, which can also serve others in demonstrating what this life is really all about.

When Canon 603 was promulgated it presumed that candidates would mainly come from the ranks of religious/monastics who had grown into a solitary vocation; it therefore presumed an extensive background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom on the part of the candidate. In fact it grew out of such a situation. Today, however, individuals inquiring into or seeking profession mainly do not have this background or experience. We must find ways to remedy this deficit and prepare candidates (or, better put perhaps, assist them to achieve the requisite preparation)  to write the Rule the canon requires. Adequate discernment of and formation in the vocation presuppose and necessitate this and my suggestions are one piece of a process meeting this requirement while protecting eremitical freedom and diversity.

Role of the Diocese, Writing the Rule, and Possible Stages in Hermit Discernment

[[Dear Sister, I have read what you have said about dioceses not being responsible for forming diocesan hermits but isn't it true that a diocese plays an important role in being sure that  persons who approach them requesting to become diocesan hermits really are called to this vocation? Are most dioceses really ready and willing to follow candidates for profession through the stages you have listed here: lay eremitical life, temporary profession, perpetual profession? As you have described it this could take nearly a decade. How reasonable is it to expect dioceses to do this?]]

Introduction to the "Stages" I have already spoken of:

Great questions. As an introduction for those who have not read what I have written on this before, the stages I have described include 1) a period of trying out solitude for an indefinite length of time on one's own (one is not really a hermit at this point, neither lay nor consecrated and will live this period until one makes the transition from being a lone pious person to actually being a lay hermit in some essential sense and is ready to approach their diocese with a petition regarding c 603), 2) a period as a lay hermit (this is NOT a novitiate!) while one discerns initially and with one's diocese whether one is called to continue as a lay hermit or to (possibly) be consecrated under canon 603, 3) a period of temporary profession (3-5 years) if and when the diocese discerns this is appropriate, and 4) perpetual profession --- again if the diocese and the hermit discern this is what one is called to. The time frame from actually approaching the diocese (as one who is already essentially a lay hermit) to perpetual profession could well reasonably take 6-9 years. The time prior to this could also well take several years and in fact, the transition I spoke of might never occur. (Dioceses need to be aware that a person may never make this fundamental shift from lone person to hermit in an essential sense and act accordingly.) Still, generally I am speaking of a diocese working with a candidate or temporary professed hermit for anywhere from 6-9 years to discern the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them. How reasonable is it to expect this?


Reasonable and Essential:

It is not only reasonable, it is essential if a diocese is to be responsible for the solitary eremitical vocation generally as well as for an individual candidate. I would argue that if a diocese is NOT willing to follow and accompany a candidate for the requisite period of time up to (and of course beyond) perpetual profession, then they ought not implement canon 603 in their diocese; that is, they ought not profess anyone accordingly. Instead they ought to encourage folks either become or remain lay hermits and simply be clear that they will not publicly profess anyone under canon 603. At the same time that I argue this lengthy process of accompaniment and discernment is not only reasonable but essential, I recognize that it is a demanding requirement not only for the diocese's own chancery personnel but for candidates who are serious about living eremitical life and perhaps being consecrated. For this reason I also think it is helpful to provide some basic signposts along what might otherwise be an entirely trackless and therefore an unnecessarily risky and difficult journey for both hermit and diocese. (There is risk  and difficulty enough in the eremitical life; it need not be added to unnecessarily.)

Discerning the Place of Solitude in the Person's Life

Because a hermit is formed only over time in solitude, a diocese (and certainly a candidate) MUST expect and allow this formation to require significant measures of both. A diocese cannot be expected to form a hermit and must not interfere with the formative place of silence and solitude. At the same time, because solitude can deform a person not really called to it beyond those occasional periods of solitude-as-transition life throws our way or makes necessary (solitude always breaks a person down!), a diocese must be very sure that 1) the hermit is well-directed or followed both by a spiritual director and by the staff of the offices of Vicar of Religious / Consecrated Life or Vocations, and 2) that the hermit gives every indication of growing in solitude emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and just generally as a whole and holy person. (For the hermit solitude not only breaks down, it edifies or builds up in the truest sense of that word; it also occasions growth in wholeness and communion with God and others. The inquirer's diocese must be keenly aware of the power of physical solitude to lead to either personal disintegration or to profound personal integration and watch for both as part of the process of discernment.)

In fact, this kind of  vigilant acompanying and evaluating is really what discernment is about: namely, one attends to how the candidate is formed, deformed, or simply fails to thrive in a given life or set of circumstances and from this determines whether or not God is calling a person to this at this point in time. (Formation overlaps this by adding the dimension of supplying (or discovering and taking advantage of) resources and experiences which allow the person to grow not only to wholeness, but to wholeness as a credible  and responsible representative of a lifestyle, congregation, Rule, tradition, etc. It cannot be stressed strongly enough, for both hermits who might like dioceses to "form them" or for dioceses that might desire a more structured "formation program",  that for the diocesan hermit, despite the diocese's critical role in accompanying and in recommending resources for the candidate, formation is achieved mainly through the hermit's own initiative and (in cooperation with God) in the context of the silence of solitude.) Discernment of a vocation to consecrated life under canon 603 depends on a hermit candidate being able to negotiate the transitions and personal growth which occur in eremitical solitude.

Signposts: The stages of writing a Rule and discerning a vocation coincide

In what I have written previously about writing a Rule, the Bishop's/diocese's role (or non role!) in that, what it means to be ready to write a livable Rule, etc, I believe the steps to readiness I have outlined  tie in well to the stages I have outlined above. I also believe the time periods required for each stage can be more or less gauged by the candidate's ability to write: 1) an experimental Rule or plan of life based on a limited but still-sufficient experience of solitude and the requirements of canon 603, 2) a Rule which will be canonically binding for a period of temporary profession, and finally, 3) a more definitive Rule which is adequate for the living of the life for the time being and can be granted a Bishop's Decree of Approval without temporal limitations.

What I am thinking here is first, that if someone comes to a chancery and seems to be serious about canon 603 they may be given some guidelines on the eremitical life and asked to write an experimental Rule or Plan which reflects their own experience, meets their own current spiritual needs, and will also help the diocese gauge whether they have made the transition from lone person to being a hermit in some essential sense. Let me be clear. This is not ordinarily to be considered the Rule required by Canon 603; it is usually merely going to be part of a person's preparation for gaining the experience needed to eventually write such a Rule. Next, they can be asked to live this plan for three years or so to discern how faithfully they live it, how mature and discerning their necessary modifications and adaptations of it are, what the nature of their struggles with it are as well as how those have changed, and again, how it contributes to their growth in wholeness and holiness. (This particular period could be varied if the person already has experience living religious life according to a Rule or, on the other hand, if the diocese still has questions but not significant doubts about the person's suitability for eremitical life.)

If this goes well and the person (and diocese) believe in the wisdom of petitioning for admission to profession (they might also agree the person is called to remain a lay hermit for instance or they might decide the period of solitude has been transitional or will never really be eremitical), the candidate can then be asked to revise the Rule as needed to deal with new elements. For instance she will need to demonstrate some significant understanding of the vows she is now proposing to make, add a vow formula, include a section on ongoing supervision or accountability, and consider adding other sections regarding canon 603's defining elements she has not yet addressed adequately. In other words, candidates can be asked to write a Rule that reflects their own lived experience of eremitical life and that can be binding under law for a temporary period. If this (writing) also goes well and the Bishop agrees, they can be admitted to temporary profession and become publicly obligated for the living of this Rule. Finally, if this period of living the Rule under temporary vows goes well and the hermit continues to demonstrate fidelity, integrity, along with an intelligent and faithful flexibility with regard to the Rule, then a "final" version can be submitted some time prior to admission to perpetual profession and consecration. While I refer to this last version as "final" I have included quotation marks to indicate that the hermit may well both need and want to change pieces of it in another few years.

Evaluations at Each Stage:

What this kind of arrangement makes possible is not only intelligent discernment, but serious discussions at each stage where the diocese, hermit, and spiritual director can evaluate how things are going and whether there are significant experiences the candidate needs to have if she is to continue to grow in this vocation. For instance, it might be very important for the candidate to spend some time in a monastic community following a regular horarium, praying office, experiencing the kind of silence she is being asked to embrace in her urban hermitage, learning to do lectio, dealing with monastic tedium, balancing the parts of her life (work, prayer, study, and leisure) and generally learning what monastic attentiveness in everything actually involves.

Personally, I would think that one month every year or two would be really helpful and for those who have no background in religious life, essential. Similarly, to name just a few things that might come up or be helpful during these years, it might be important for the candidate to break with active ministry, or family, or friends to a greater extent than she already has; on the other hand or at another point in her formation, it might be important for her to do a limited amount of  ministry under pastoral supervision, reestablish regular but limited contact with family and friends, and so forth. At given points it might be necessary for a candidate to "put her TV in storage" (some would-be hermits actually watch a lot of TV and don't realize it is both contrary and profoundly detrimental to the vocation), or become more active in her parish community (some candidates really lack a sense of the vocation's ecclesiality), or speak with a therapist, or take a series of classes in theology, monastic life, etc. Meanwhile periodic meetings (every 4-6 months) at the chancery and some at the candidate's own place would be necessary. (If this were pertinent the monastery's formation personnel could also contribute informally to any evaluation process.)

At the same time, in writing a Rule at each stage the candidate and the diocese will come to see what parts of the canon/life she is living and which she has not yet embraced, which she understands and which she does not, how she sees her life contributing to the understanding and living out of the canon and eremitical tradition more generally, how this life is a gift to the church and world, etc. The candidate moves to the next stage only when she is genuinely ready to do so and that readiness is marked by the ability to write a livable Rule for the next stage. The point is that each stage is geared towards growth and discernment rooted in the candidate's increasing experience of living the eremitical life per se and this growth is reflected in the Rule she writes at each point.

Further, while eventual profession is not guaranteed of course, the candidate should still find the process challenging and fruitful without it also feeling interminable or being onerous. Diocesan personnel would also find such a process helpful; they would neither be tempted to rush to premature profession or to simply match the time frames provided in canon law for active and contemplative cenobitical religious life, nor would they be forced to simply dismiss someone of whom they are simply uncertain as "unsuitable" without giving them an adequate "hearing" or chance to grow into the vocation to whatever extent they are capable.  If, during the course of this process, a person is discerned not to have a diocesan eremitical vocation, she will still have experienced a significantly growth-oriented process enabling her to seek the vocation to which she IS called.

The Role of the Diocese is Significant:

Thus, it is true that dioceses play a significant role in discerning the nature and quality of vocations in front of them even though with hermits dioceses do not actually form them. What a diocese has to convey to a candidate or possible candidate, I think, is 1) that they value the authentic (and contemporary!) eremitical vocation and will not consecrate someone without real evidence of a life call to the silence of  eremitical solitude, 2) that they value the formation that comes in the silence of solitude and expect the solitary hermit to take responsibility for this, 3) that they will follow the candidate with care and assist as they can and as appropriate, and 4) that when and as the candidate or hermit is ready, they will evaluate this readiness to proceed toward or to consecration, not only with conversations, but through the versions of a Rule she has written as reflections of where her individual vocation stands at any given moment.

As I have noted before, Canon 603 includes a marvelous mix of non-negotiable elements along with the freedom to structure and live these elements according to the will of God via one's own Rule. It is in the writing of the Rule that the hermit truly comes to understand and claim her overall life as an instance of a vital and fragile tradition; it is here that the dialogue she negotiates every day between the traditional eremitical life and the contemporary situation comes to fullest articulation and summing up. It simply makes sense for dioceses to use this tool as a key to discernment, and to do so in a way which helps the hermit or candidate to grow in both eremitical freedom AND necessary accountability in relation to canon 603. What I have suggested here is one way of doing that.