Questions on Formation of the Hermit

[[Apart from having a good spiritual director, study and of course prayer; how else can one learn the eremitic way? Do you suggest that someone discerning such a vocation put themselves under the tutelage of a professed hermit (this seemed to be the norm in the early Church and  Middle Ages. There are many stories of young anchorites being guided by holy women in their vocation) or perhaps spend time with a solid hermit community, like the Monastic Family of Bethlehem or the Carmelite Hermits in Texas, to learn this vocation?

As you've noted, Vatican 2 and the new Code of Canon Law revived this  vocation. While the hermit life is ancient, those reviving it are also pioneers in that they are at the forefront of reviving this call. My concern is that without being properly formed one could run into m[an]y (sic?) mental and spiritual difficulties. How do I learn to live this life? I'm trying to discern this and apart from reading, study and most of all prayer, frequenting the sacraments and solitude I have no idea if I'm doing any of this right. Are there support groups or something for those in discernment? What do you advise?]]

Hi there and thanks for writing again. First, the idea of being guided in this vocation by a perpetually professed hermit (largely today's equivalent of the elders and mentors of old) is a good one. It is traditionally the way most folks came to eremitical life and is ideal. However, opportunities for going to live with an eremitical community apart from seriously discerning a vocation with such a group do not really exist today. What I mean is that today a person cannot generally determine they are called to life under canon 603 (life as a solitary hermit) and also go off to live with a community like those you have mentioned. One can ordinarily do one or the other but not both (though one might, with one's diocese's help, arrange to stay occasionally for a number of weeks at a monastery or hermitage to experience certain values and realities which are a daily reality there -- not least the rhythm and balance of the life and the pervasive silence and attitudes of attentiveness that accompany everything one does; this differs from what you have described I think).


To ease this difficulty a little at least, members of the Network of Diocesan Hermits (perpetually professed diocesan hermits) will consider working with an individual if their diocese requests it. (While we may work informally with others, the fact is there are relatively few of us and none of us has the time to mentor every person who writes or contacts us about becoming a hermit; some initial discerning needs to be done by dioceses!) Ordinarily this means that someone who has lived solitude for a time, who is considered by a diocese to be, potentially at least, a candidate for canon 603 profession, and who is working with a spiritual director and meeting with diocesan personnel regularly, can also talk regularly with someone from the Network to be sure they understand what it means to be living an eremitical life (as opposed to an individualistic life of physical isolation), are able to discern whether or not they are well suited to it, and are growing in this without getting stuck on relative trivialities or superficialities, etc. The Network also has a group/website set up for aspirants which gives them a chance to share with one another -- though at the present time no one is part of that group.

Remain in your Cell and Your Cell Will teach you Everything:

Even so,  these possible pieces of assistance aside, it is important to remember that the main teacher of any hermit is going to be God in and through the silence of solitude itself. The desert Fathers' and Mothers' wisdom about dwelling or remaining in your cell and your cell teaching you everything remains essentially as true today as it was in the 4-6th centuries. Add to this the main elements of canon 603, which define a life of assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels all lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world, and you will find set before you a way of living a profoundly Christian life in solitude which you and God together will live out in your own way. As you move more and more deeply into this life with the help of your director (who, it seems to me, functions as the desert mentors of old once did), you will find either it truly resonates with you or does not; you will also find that it is a means to abundant and mature life in Christ for you or is not. If this way of living leads you to abundant life in Christ, if in fact it makes you more loving, patient, longsuffering, compassionate, honest (humble), etc, then it itself is right for you and your response to God is, at least generally, also as it should be.

The question about "doing it right" for the hermit is at its heart, always really a question about what God is calling us to in solitude and how integral and generous our response to this call has been or is coming more and more to be. For instance, as part of praying my life I pray in several different ways each day; these forms of prayer allow me to respond to God with all parts of myself (heart, mind, body, etc). Over the years I have dropped certain ways of praying or adopted others, always in response to God's own call to be fully alive and fully myself in and as a response to God's summons and love. No one says I must pray in this way or that. Assiduous prayer and penance is the goal and means to living this life but no one spells out what this means in detail. Over a period of several years you will try all the forms of prayer which are central to a life of prayer and determine which of these are best for you at this time. Over a period of more years you will discern which ones are important for you during times of illness, which ones are especially helpful in getting you through periods of stress or tedium, which ones almost invariably speak to your heart or kindle the fires of your mind, or are most difficult for you or console you in loss and grief. Even more importantly you will come to know the ways God calls you to wholeness and in responding you will become God's own prayer in the world.


The same is true of penance and the other central elements of the canon. There are certain building blocks for a life of assiduous prayer and penance. One explores these and, in response to God's call to, life, truth, beauty, integrity, wholeness, holiness, justice, love, compassion, etc, discerns which of these building blocks lead one more and more to become an expression of these dimensions of God's own life. Of course, it is not merely a matter of learning to be a hermit but rather of discerning whether or not one is CALLED to be one. If one is, then the central elements of canon 603 will lead to greater and greater personal wholeness and holiness with all these entail. If not, then no amount of teaching can help a person embrace this life or move from external silence and physical solitude to the silence of solitude which is a matter of the heart. As I have written before while citing Thomas Merton, Solitude herself must open the door to the hermit. If she does not, then no degree of teaching, tutoring, direction, or supervision, etc, will help.

On the other hand, if one is truly called to this life (whether as a lay hermit or a consecrated hermit), then provided one has a good spiritual director with whom one meets regularly and is assiduous in keeping her vows and other commitments (including to the personal work which stems from direction), the chance of making serious mistakes is truly minimal. There WILL be difficulties to negotiate; that is part and parcel of any vocation leading to true growth in authenticity. Formation is an ongoing reality and for the hermit, unless she enters a community of hermits, even "initial" formation takes a period of many years (and certainly more than canon law calls for for those in formation with a community). The point is, however, the heart of this vocation is a solitary relationship with God in which one responds to God's love and mercy in all that one is and does. There is no cookie cutter pattern of what this looks like nor of what formation entails but to the extent it is authentic it all goes by the name "the silence of solitude" and one knows it when one sees it. (What I mean here is that the fruits of such growth in authenticity will be plain for all to see.) Neither does one reach a point at which one can say "I'm done with formation!" Instead the fundamental Rule, again, is to remain in one's cell and one's cell will teach one everything. (By the way, among other things, this can mean for one called to solitude that the cell will become a place in which new life is fostered and incredible growth nurtured; for one not called to solitude, life in cell will torment the unfortunate aspirant and leave them in misery, personal disintegration, and pain. God is not absent in such circumstances but he calls the aspirant to fullness of life elsewhere.)

Committing to a Spirituality of Discernment:

Because this is true all one can really do is commit to a spirituality of discernment which requires spiritual direction and regular frank discussion with others who accompany one in one way and another. (One's pastor, confessor, Vicar or Bishop --- if one is working with a diocese --- good friends who are honest with us, etc.) At every point one attends to the way life in solitude affects one and acts accordingly. Is one growing? Is one profoundly happy in Christ? Is suffering --- to whatever degree it is real, a subtext of one's life, not the main theme? Is one able to use the gifts God gives them and does one love better and more deeply in real concrete situations with real persons? Is the call of solitude herself something one experiences or does it seem that one has embraced an ascetical discipline which is merely external to oneself? I should note here, one's goal must not be to become a diocesan hermit but rather to be a hermit (a desert dweller) living the silence of solitude day in and day out. I cannot stress this enough. Over time one MAY find that one is called to be a diocesan hermit professed and consecrated under canon 603, but even if one does not find this to be the case, one has lived each day well as God called one to do. That is and always will be the measure of "success" for any hermit, whether lay or consecrated; for that matter it is similarly the measure of success of any Christian and any human being. In approaching questions of success and failure, or fears regarding serious mistakes, this is far and away the most important thing.

It occurs to me that perhaps you have questions about specific mistakes which I might address more particularly. If that is the case, please let me know what kinds of things you are thinking of; that would be helpful to me as well. In the meantime, all good wishes.

On Dissatisfaction with my Treatment of Lay Hermits Here

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I have a (fairly slight) dissatisfaction with your coverage of lay hermits:  you state outright that they are worth just as much to the church as canonical hermits, but not exactly in what ways.  You do allude in a few places to the fact that non-eremitical Christians could be edified by knowing the hermit is among them.  Yet there is at least one article on the subject of the church’s lack of attention to the lay hermit, and the difficulty, psychological if nothing else, to the hermit. You said in a post on 7 October 2012 perhaps the best thing of all, that is, that a lay hermit may be able to carry the message of God’s love and total acceptance to those pushed to the margins of society by illness, disability, age, prison, or any other factor better than a canonical hermit.  “You WOULD say that, wouldn’t you!”  

On the other hand, the fact that the lay hermit doesn’t have a badge or certificate in our credential-ridden society may tend to make them seem less credible to the marginalized or outcast.  That comes up in a few questions to you.  How much weight do most Catholics in the pews give to the reassurance that, by virtue of their baptism, they have a magnificent vocation really as powerful as any?  I know, and I believe you do, too, that most people believe they are still “less-than.”  Here I have read all your articles on the subject, and still feel (this will sound negative, and I don’t mean it to) that you are on a pedestal and it’s easy for you to say I am (potentially) as good as you.  Leaving aside that I am not Catholic!  My baptism is recognized in the Catholic Church - I did belong for a few years. ]]

Thanks for your questions and comments. I would suggest that perhaps what you are recognizing here is a way that lay hermits can EMPOWER the marginalized who will never have a badge or certificate, etc beyond their baptism and sealing with chrism in the sign of the cross (if they are fortunate enough to have these!). As I think you know, without these even canonical standing would be meaningless and empty. The world you describe is credential-ridden but that does not always translate into genuine expertise of course. In the realm of the spiritual life (that is, in the realm of prayer) it is largely meaningless. Canonical standing DOES imply some degree of credibility because it says the Church trusts this person to live the terms of the canon with integrity but just as profession is not akin to graduation neither is canonical standing akin to a certificate of expertise. Besides,  the hermit has always been a countercultural sign, a sign of contradiction as some put it.  In the world you describe perhaps it is precisely the lay hermit who has the power to do more for the marginalized than the canonical hermit -- as you have noted I have argued this before.

 If you can help lay hermits appreciate this and assist in the empowerment of the laity in this way then perhaps you can help me as well. You see, I have tried to climb down off any pedestal and I honestly don't think it is entirely my fault that folks tend to put me back up there. (Folks in my parish or others who really know me do not do this so much!) The same is true for most contemporary religious women today. We do not want to be placed on pedestals. (This is one of the reasons many  have relinquished religious garb; it is a step in empowering the laity as a whole to embrace the insights of Vatican II.) Frankly, it is arduous work trying to get folks to stop doing that and really, all I can do is be myself and hope that folks realize I really do not exist nor desire to exist on a pedestal! (I am a hermit but I am NOT a stylite!!!) In any case you will notice that the only lay hermits I have ever criticized or ever do criticize are the ones who pretend to be something other than they are --- those who pretend to credentials they do not have and reject those that they actually do have!

Those lay hermits who live a genuine eremitical life without canonical standing and more importantly, without pretense,  have my utmost respect. I cannot say that more forthrightly or sincerely. (Certainly if I did not believe it it would be easy enough to misapply the explanation about the "objective superiority" of the vocation to the consecrated state and make my stand on the way that has most often been (mis)understood, wouldn't it?** And yet, as you are likely aware, I do not do this. So no, it is not that I WOULD say this simply because to do otherwise would make my posts particularly unpalatable to lay hermits.) Unfortunately, there are still precious few of these witnessing to what they live so that we may all let go of the notion that they are “not-as-good-as” canonical hermits and take complete hold of Vatican's teaching on the universal call to holiness.

You also write: [[The more I ponder this question, the less it seems as if there is much you can do to make this believable.  The one exception, as I said above, is that people who may not even be Christians could relate better to someone “like them.”  There may be a way to create a means to give recognition to lay hermits, if they want it, in order to allow them to speak to these people 'in the name of Christ.']]

One important distinction here I think is that of speaking/living in the name of Christ and speaking/living in the name of the Church. These are not the same thing. Not all hermits live eremitical life in the name of the Church but so long as they are baptized they all speak (or, more accurately, live) in the name of Christ. A Lay person in living a lay life does so in the name of the Church. They are free (have the right and the commensurate obligations), for instance, to call themselves Catholic laity and in fact, to call themselves lay hermits. They may, it seems to me, be blessed and commissioned in their ministry by their pastors --- especially as those pastors come to know them and value this form of eremitical life.

Certainly it seems to me that some of the older rites of blessing of hermitages could be used by lay hermits’ pastors to indicate a commissioning to live this life as an instance of the lay vocation. (This might resolve some of the problem you noted above.) Such persons would thus live it by virtue of their Baptismal consecrations; there is no additional consecration, no initiation into the consecrated state that is, as there is for those commissioned to live the eremitical life in the name of the Church per se, but many hermits desire nothing of the sort anyway. Some see that this additional standing in law (for Baptism itself initiates one into a form of standing in law or "status") may even distance them from those who most need their witness --- namely those who will never seek (or be given) additional canonical standing, those whom not only the world but the Church too has marginalized, those who need to know and witness to the fact that their own vocations are every bit as important as those with additional canonical standing.

[[ What I've  felt lacking sometimes in your writing has been specific vocational differences that did not leave the non-canonical hermit feeling left off to the side.  And some are there because their dioceses won’t accept their applications - are they not in some cases just not very good candidates for the life?  Yet, who knows, maybe they still have something special to offer! I doubt seriously that the Church is going to create an Office for the Elevation of the Status of Lay Hermits, but maybe that’s what’s needed, in some form! You said somewhere (more than one somewhere) that it is up to the lay hermits themselves to do something about it.  It is already up to us to form ourselves - and let me say that people like you make that easier.  I even think dimly that maybe I could put some YouTube entries up, although I’d have to ask my daughter how to do it! ]]

Yes, and I continue to believe this is the only real solution. But before I address that let me say something about your lament or plaint (that is the way I heard it anyway) that lay hermits must "already form ourselves.” I have to remind you that canonical hermits are formed over time in the silence of solitude. While some have backgrounds in religious life (usually limited!), more and more they do not. While I have a background in religious life and in academic or systematic theology and spiritual direction, I was truly responsible for my own formation in eremitical life. No one in the diocese could or did assist in this; even the first Vicar/vocations director with whom I worked for five years had to be educated on the vocation. She went to the Camaldolese in Big Sur (I never knew this until @ 2005) to ask the prior there what it would take to live a healthy hermit life. Even the Bishop who professed me perpetually commented after our first face to face meeting (a meeting that occurred only after the Vicars for Religious had finally recommended me for profession) that he needed to educate himself on this vocation which would take some time.

From the time I first spoke to someone at the diocese to the time I was admitted to perpetual profession and consecrated as a diocesan hermit 23, almost 24 years elapsed! What was formative for me in this time period? My work with my director, my own reading and prayer, lectio divina and theological study, conversations with a few hermits around the world, and any personal work I needed to do to heal past trauma or woundedness (including that caused by chronic illness) --- and all of this lived in an environment of the silence of solitude. No one validated this work or my call during this time. Yes, Sister Susan (whose five year journey with me on behalf of the diocese helped keep me on track by making me accountable to the diocese!) was ready to recommend me to the Bishop for admission to public profession around 1989 or 1990, but it turned out then that the diocese was not going to implement Canon 603 for anyone at this point; Sister Susan, though no longer working in the chancery and no longer living in the diocese, could not submit her recommendation until 2006 for a new Bishop she did not know! (The Diocese of Oakland requested her evaluation and recommendation as part of their later discernment and preparation for admitting me to perpetual profession.) The point remains, the formation I have had as a hermit is formation I have “gotten” for myself.  I honestly say to you that lay and canonical hermits do not really differ substantially in this regard. It is one of the reasons when I write about formation I am foreseeing a process that will work for any solitary hermit, whether lay or canonical --- just as I believe it will give lay hermits a better chance to be heard by dioceses which have resisted admitting them (or others) to profession under canon 603.

One of the reasons dioceses sometimes say to those desiring to live as a hermit, “just go live in solitude, it is all you need” is precisely because dioceses cannot form hermits. Hermits are formed in solitude and, more importantly, in the silence of solitude. Another reason is that very few hermits are really called to canonical standing while far more will be called to lay eremitical life. It is important to become a hermit in some essential sense before one can actually know the difference. Further, it is important for a diocese to see that a hermit can provide for her own needs --- and these especially  include those of ongoing formation --- before they admit them to public vows and canonical standing. The Church does NOT become responsible for the hermit's ongoing formation. Instead she becomes canonically responsible for supervising a hermit's own journey in  responding to the Spirit and the inner dynamism of her life to cooperate in and accomplish her own ongoing formation. The responsibility for securing one's own spiritual needs never passes out of the hermit's own hands. She can (must) consult, read, study, pray, and so forth; she can (must) seek resources which will aid in her growth as a hermit and monastic for instance. But no one either can or will form her any more than they can or will form lay hermits.

Writing from Within Our Own Vocations

Now, about the idea that lay hermits are the only ones that can write sufficiently about their own vocations, or the only ones who can really do justice to it. Consider how non-canonical or lay hermits sometimes tend to write about canonical standing from outside it. You are certainly familiar with this yourself and have seen or read a lot of it online. It is mistakenly treated as the hermit's penchant for legalism, as the symptoms of a hermit who is not spiritual enough, who is too intellectual,  too much “of the temporal world”, who cannot “think with her heart” and knows nothing of real mystical prayer, who desires status and the approval of human beings rather than simply resting in the love of God. While not all lay hermits hold all or even most of these views, I think it is not a stretch to suggest that many do hold some or others of them --- though perhaps not as aggressively or vehemently. And yet, recently you read what I wrote about the pastoral importance and the ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation and commented on how grateful you were for my making these things clear. Could a lay hermit have written these things? I don't think so.

I write from within my vocation and when I write about canon 603 I write from the way it has shaped my life and sensibilities. Had it not been for canon 603 for instance, I would never (or perhaps not as urgently!) have learned to distinguish between silence and solitude and the silence OF solitude.  I would never have learned that law really does serve love and establishes stable relationships which define a state of life. I would never have come to reflect on the ecclesial nature of my vocation in quite the same way nor with the same urgency. Nor would I have come to appreciate the incredible way eremitical life comes to balance non-negotiable elements with the flexibility and supreme freedom of the Christian.

I would not have come to know in the same way I now know that obedience serves freedom, that constraints likewise serve authentic freedom (though lessons in this latter also came to me through chronic illness of course). Certainly I would not have built some of the elements of  a true eremitism into my own life in the way I believe the canon calls for and had I not lived within its constraints and sacred space; I wonder how authentic or fruitful such a life would have been for me.  All of these things and many more besides are gifts which have come to me mainly through canon 603 and canonical standing; I believe these aspects of my life and understanding have a different character than they might for someone approaching them from outside canonical standing under c 603. But that also leads to certain deficiencies in my experience and writing.

You see I cannot write entirely convincingly about the importance, significance, or even the nature of the lay (or maybe it would be better to say the non-canonical) eremitical vocation because it is not MINE any more than you can write or speak convincingly of a call to life under c 603 because it does not define and shape your own vocation.  Oh, of course I can and do write about silence, solitude, prayer, penance, Scripture, etc just as ANY hermit can and might. Still, if anyone is going to witness adequately to a vocation they must be living that vocation and write from within it. They must (and can only truly) write according to the way their own hearts and sensibilities have been formed and shaped. More, if the Church is EVER to truly value the lay vocation as fully as it claims to do officially and theologically, it will only be as lay persons live, write about, and otherwise witness to its significance in ways which completely reject and repudiate any traces of the notion that some vocations are better or higher than others!!** It will only be as they insist on the place and significance of the laity in the life of the Church Vatican II, for instance, asserted and paved the way for. I cannot do this for you. I have done all I can do on this blog, I think ---though I will not cease trying and learning in this matter; I can continue to explore the theology Vatican II and post Vatican II theologians have put forth in this matter, but otherwise, I cannot do this for you.

[[When I talk of freedom, don’t take me seriously.  I believe that every human person has the same freedom as every other.  That is philosophical and theological and I won’t go into it now! :) ]]

I don’t believe we each have the same freedom since I believe Freedom is a graced reality that comes (grows, is developed or created within us) only as we become and are the people God calls us to be. Freedom of choice is a different reality I think. We are made free, and so, more truly human, as we allow God's love and mercy to free us from the bondage of sin. But I do believe that God calls each of us to fullness of life and so too to genuine Freedom; that call never ceases and will never cease to find us wherever we are. Likewise, therefore, I believe that authentic Freedom is possible for everyone --- whatever constraints shape their lives.

** Again, the objective superiority of a vocation does not, so far as I can see, translate to "higher" vocation, etc.

Seeking Eremitical Consecration When one's Director Disagrees

[[Dear Sister, I am a lay person and would like to become canonically approved as a diocesan hermit but I am not sure my spiritual director thinks it is something I should go ahead with. I wouldn't want to go against his wishes in this. Do you have an opinion?]]

Thanks for your question and for waiting the past several days for an answer. First of all, petitioning for canonical standing (standing in law) means asking the Church to admit you to public profession and allow you to accept the public rights and obligations associated with the consecrated (and in this case, the eremitical) state of life. It means petitioning to be allowed to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and so, being publicly responsible not just for your own vocation, but for the living eremitical tradition as well.

If you are accepted and admitted finally to solemn (perpetual) profession and consecration as a diocesan (c 603) hermit, you become responsible for continuing this stream of the tradition in a normative way which allows an ancient vocation to be lived in inspired and fruitful dialogue with the contemporary situation;  again, you do so in the name of the Church. It is a significant public responsibility and while there is some degree of "approval" more fundamentally canonical standing is about being given a place of trust in the public (and the hidden) life of the Church. (By the way, this is also why only publicly professed hermits, whether those that live in community or those professed under c 603, are called Catholic hermits. The use of the term Catholic here points to the public, normative (canonical), and ecclesial nature of the vocation one has both been admitted to and assumed, not to the individual's membership in the RC Church.)

The language of "approval" as in "(a) canonical or bishop's (stamp of) approval" is therefore misleading and superficial in this regard and I would suggest you mainly avoid it. I have really only heard one other person use this language routinely and she did it mainly to trivialize the vocation and to criticize hermits who desire "status" and "approval" --- as though seeking canonical standing (standing in law) was merely (or mainly) a matter of personal aggrandizement or pride. A consistent theme in her posts and videos was a downplaying of the ecclesial nature and responsibility of the vocation in order to focus on more superficial notions of "status" (as prestige) and approval. Your own language reminds me of these posts in which the nature of canonical standing was so badly misrepresented so I want to address this issue as well as those you asked about specifically. In general this language represents a perspective which actually prevents one from understanding the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial or the real nature of standing in law.

Similarly, your post reminds me of this person's posts and videos in the way you speak of your spiritual director. In my experience competent contemporary directors do not assume the kind of responsibility you are describing. I know I do not, nor does my own director (as director) or any of those with whom I am familiar. I am not my clients' legitimate superior nor do I tell them what I think their vocation is. I may certainly have opinions about a person's readiness or lack of readiness to pursue a particular vocation but I do not tell them to either pursue or not pursue it. That is beyond my purview as a director and the directors I know feel the same way about this. More importantly, however, the fact that you are considering not exploring something you apparently feel called to because your SD may disagree with you about it may actually suggest that you are really not ready to pursue consecrated life generally or consecrated eremitical life specifically.

You see, this life is a mature and independent one where every day one is called on to listen to and follow the voice of God in one's heart of hearts. A director can accompany you in this and assist you in learning to hear and respond appropriately to this voice of God --- which is why you of course should listen carefully to what she has to say in this regard and pray seriously over her concerns --- but s/he cannot (and really should not) replace this entire dynamic by telling you what you should do. That way encourages a juvenile approach to life and discernment, not authentic or mature obedience. By the way, the relationship between a legitimate superior and one bound by a public vow of obedience is more complex than (on the subject's part) simply doing as one is told or (on the superior's part) simply telling someone to do things. Instead both parties are bound to listen closely to God's will in this person's life as well as in the life of the community, diocese, eremitical tradition, etc, and for that reason the vow means careful work together motivated by love in Christ. It is actually relatively rare today for a legitimate superior to simply tell a person bound by a public vow "what to do."

In any case bear in mind that simply petitioning to be admitted to canonical profession and eventual conse-cration does not mean this will happen. It means that you are seeking to enter into a process of mutual discernment with members of your local chancery, first Vicars and/or vocation personnel and then, if that goes well, the Bishop. (They will, of course, request a reference from your director and they might possibly seek her recommendation or at least listen to concerns she might have.) Because canon 603 life is an ecclesial vocation it is not one you can embrace all by yourself; neither does your own sense of call ensure a call exists nor therefore, that the diocese will agree in this matter. The discernment MUST be mutual and your diocese may decide to allow you to enter into such a process or they may determine that you are not ready to do this. They may even determine you are not suited to the vocation or they may actually be unwilling to profess anyone at this point in time. If you are admitted to a process of discernment which eventuates in profession and consecration, actual admission to even temporary vows is likely several years in the future -- so be prepared for that.

By the way, if your director is pretending to bind you in obedience or expects you to simply do as s/he says in the way you have described (since you are not a religious and since this person has no legitimate authority over you this can only be pretense) I would personally suggest you look for another director or, at the very least, see if the relationship cannot be significantly modified in this regard. I have never heard of competent contemporary directors relating to lay clients this way but I have sometimes heard directees speaking of their directors in these terms when those same directors really do not encourage it or relate to them in this way. While I am not saying you are doing this (I honestly don't know of course) it is important if you ever want to be a diocesan hermit that you have internalized a truly adult model of obedience and ways of relating to authority in your life --- legitimate and otherwise. Because diocesan hermits' legitimate superiors are their Bishops it is really unusual for them to meet with one another more than twice a year at most. Once a year is much more typical so one can hardly "wait for permission," or "wait to hear what he thinks" until one sees her Bishop. To assist in this situation diocesan hermits tend to have diocesan delegates with whom we meet more frequently (four to six times a year or so as possible); these persons serve as quasi-superiors but they also tend not to encourage the hermit to turn to them for permissions or approval, for instance, except in very occasional and significant matters.

Can Dispensations From Eremitical Life be Avoided?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my question about dispensating (sic) a hermit's vows. Why would a hermit seek to have their vows dispensated (sic)? Is this something that can be avoided?]]

The main reason for seeking to have one's vows dispensed would be that the person has discerned that they are either not really or are no longer called to this vocation. I said in my earlier answer that many people don't understand the difference between being a lone pious person and living eremitical solitude. That, as I have written here before, is sometimes true of dioceses as well and this will mean that some of the professions they allow will not be sound. When this is true, when the person is not called to eremitical solitude but is a lone pious person, or when a person otherwise desires to be a religious but has been unable to make it in community and seeks to use canon 603 as a stopgap way to make vows, the incidence of needing to ask for an indult of dispensation will be higher --- at least if the person is honest about their discernment that they are not really living as a hermit.

Similarly, a person might be called to solitude as a transitional environment or reality. This means that they might believe they are called to be a hermit for the rest of their lives when in fact this is not the case. Dioceses that jump immediately to perpetual profession under canon 603 (something that was more common in the early years of the canon than it is today) may be setting the stage to find a person will need to have their vows dispensed in a few years. They may find the hermit living eremitical solitude less and less well as time goes by and when the situation is examined they will find the person feels increasingly called to more active ministry, greater frustration in solitude,  a slowing of personal growth in this vocation, etc. In such cases it may be hard for the hermit to admit she is really called to something else, to request a dispensation, and to leave the rights and obligations of the consecrated state. When this is the case the diocese and the hermit will need to work together to discern and make the best next step.

My sense is that some dioceses have not been careful enough in professing canon 603 hermits. They may not understand the history of the canon, they may not realize that eremitical solitude is not the same as simply living alone; others simply do not esteem the eremitical vocation and seek to use the canon to profess individuals who are not able (or are unwilling) to live religious life in community; they do this and allow a full-time active ministry to supplant eremitical solitude. Beyond this canon 603 does not specify a formation program, nor can it really do so since the formation of a hermit occurs in solitude and is individualized. Still, significant formation is necessary as is ongoing formation. The experience of successful hermits today will be able to assist dioceses in resolving the need for sound approaches to discernment,  formation, and readiness for vows. So will the experience of congregations who ordinarily require psychological assessments and sufficient recommendations to make sure the person is able to live eremitical solitude in the name of the Church.

Some of these situations can be avoided simply by understanding and truly esteeming the vocation itself. The eremitical life is a gift of the Holy Spirit, especially to the isolated who are reminded that the silence of solitude is possible as the redemption of isolation. When the vocation is esteemed and its charism understood, a diocese will take care to admit to profession only those persons whose vocation is clear. Dioceses will know that spending time in discernment will not hurt the vocation. The same is true of formation. When the vocation is genuine it will not hurt the candidate to spend time in formation and have profession located some years down the road. As I have noted here before, the diocese must be honest with the candidate and not merely stringing them along, but so long as everyone is honest with one another and are committed to the integrity of an eremitical vocation future dispensations can certainly be avoided as mature vocations are fostered. In other cases dispensations can be avoided by treating the solitary eremitical vocation as a second half of life vocation and asking young persons to pursue eremitical life in community. Similarly they can be avoided by making good choices regarding delegates, spiritual directors, by requiring regular meetings with these persons, and  the Bishop who has taken the time to get to know the hermit, as well as by providing resources for the hermit's growth in the vocation.

On Canon 603 Hermits and Some Supposed Drawbacks of Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I saw two videos on You Tube from someone called "J__H__" (name omitted by Sr L.). She writes against canonical status for hermits and says it is not necessary even though it may have been thought to be necessary by some well-intentioned Bishops. She also complains that there are all kinds of rules and laws coming to be about hermit life which in her opinion seem to trespass against the individuality of the hermit. I felt she believed that canonical hermits were at the mercy of their Bishops too. She gave the example of a young woman living a reclusive life according to the will of her Bishop and said that if another Bishop came in the young woman might find him changing her life from reclusive to something else. Is this true? I am sending you the links for the videos I watched. There are a number of others too.]]

Thanks for your questions. I am personally sorry to hear these videos are still available. (Yes, I was already aware of them.) I have received questions about them in the past -- though I knew of them anyway -- but nothing recently. I found that the videos I saw, which included the ones you linked me to, were full of misconceptions about canon 603 life, the history of canon 603, the reasons for the existence of the canon, etc. The questions you are asking touch on some of these issues.

The remarkable Balance of Canon 603:

To be honest I think canon 603 does an amazing job of protecting the individuality of  hermits professed under it. While it is true that there are non-negotiable elements which are part of the canon, namely a publicly vowed** and consecrated life of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, all carried out under a Rule the hermit writes for herself and lives under the supervision of her Bishop --- it is also the case that the Rule the hermit writes ensures that the non-negotiable elements as well as anything else which the hermit considers critical for her life are combined in a wholly individual constellation. These are then lived out under the supervision of the Bishop and (ordinarily) with the assistance of a delegate (a quasi superior) either the Bishop or the hermit chooses for this service role.

This combination of non-negotiable elements, individual experience and needs, along with supervision which is geared entirely towards assisting the hermit in these things, is an aspect of true brilliance in the composition of canon 603. It manages to allow for serious and mature individuality while protecting the very nature of eremitical life itself and the charisma it is for the contemporary Church and world. In other words, it protects the authentic freedom of the Holy Spirit and the Tradition that Spirit is inspiring now as a gift to the life of the Church --- just as the Spirit also originally was 1700 years ago and has done throughout the centuries.

When New Bishops Come into Office:

Regarding your question about new Bishops, I have received similar questions in the past so you might want to look those up as well. The basic answer is that a new Bishop will not unilaterally make serious changes in the hermit's life or Rule because that Rule has been approved canonically by another Bishop. (On the day of profession the hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Declaration of Approval because it becomes legally binding on the hermit.) If, for example, after meeting with the hermit, a new Bishop believes she needs to be seeing more or less of  her family, or needs to be either more or less reclusive generally, or any number of other things,  these beliefs would have to be based on serious concerns about the hermit's well-being and that of the vocation itself for him to demand changes. In such a case, especially if the hermit disputes these opinions, there will be continuing conversations with the hermit, as well as a conversation with her delegate; others might also be involved: Vicars for Religious who might know and have worked with the hermit, the hermit's pastor and, conceivably, the Bishop in whose hands she was originally or perpetually professed and under whose supervision she had been living for some time.What does not (and I would think, cannot) happen is that a Bishop who believes that all hermits should (or should not) be recluses (or whatever) can change the character of a hermit's Rule and life by mere fiat.

Your question had another problem (or constellation of problems) embedded in it. It seemed to indicate that the hermit is living a certain way because her Bishop demanded she do so in the first place --- possibly in order to be professed at all. In the video you referred me to JH did indeed seem to indicate that a young woman embraced this form of eremitical life because her Bishop mistakenly believed it was the only way to live an eremitical life. Assuming JH has her facts right, then a new Bishop, especially if he was more knowledgeable about the diversity and continuity of eremitical life, could indeed open up new possibilities for this hermit. Were he to sense that the young woman (assuming she truly made her vows freely) was living a Rule, elements of which she felt forced to embrace despite her own experience and discernment, the new Bishop would need to assist her to find a better expression of it. The same conversations mentioned above would need to take place and the diocese (perhaps through the assistance of the delegate) would need to work with the hermit to be sure she rewrote her Rule in a way which best suited her own unique call even as it protected the essential nature of the vocation and the non-negotiable elements of canon 603.

But let me be clear about two things: first, unless the hermit herself decided she was no longer called to live as a hermit and requested dispensation from her vows, the resolution of the situation comes from the hermit's own revision of her Rule so that it better reflects what is healthy for her AND for her vocation. Second, if the original Bishop was merely demanding the essential living out of the non-negotiable elements of the canon in ways which are typical of diocesan hermits everywhere with reasonable accommodations for home visits, contact with friends, horarium, prayer styles and patterns, etc, then the question would become one of whether or not the person was really called to this vocation. Here we have another reason dioceses should be sure candidates for profession have sufficient experience before writing a Rule which will bind them in law as well as a reason which argues against a Bishop being the one to author the Rule himself. It also argues for temporary professions as a matter of course *** and different Rules at each stage of the individual's growth in becoming a diocesan hermit.

Resolving Problems related to a Hermit Who is not living her Rule or the Elements of the Canon:

Let's also look at a similar question which might indeed come up when a new Bishop comes on the scene. If, after 2-3 meetings with the hermit, at least one of which has to do with the contents and living out of her Rule, and perhaps a subsequent clarifying conversation with the hermit's delegate, such a Bishop decides a hermit is not living her Rule with sufficient seriousness or integrity, then he has every right to explain the matter to her and demand that she make appropriate changes. If she is truly being lax then she will need to take necessary steps to resolve this; if changes in her physical health or other changes in her spirituality or her more general situation have led to parts of her Rule no longer working for her, then  she must write appropriate alternatives into the Rule and have these approved by the Bishop. The delegate may again have a significant role in assisting both the Bishop and the Hermit in such a situation. She may have a sense of resources the hermit needs to live her Rule with fidelity or be aware of concerns the Bishop is not; she can also assist the hermit to articulate the ways in which she will revise her Rule if that is part of the solution. (It is possible the new bishop perceives the Rule itself is not strict enough. That is a different situation and in such a case the bishop himself may benefit from education and more contact with the hermit involved.)

The point, however, is that in this situation as with the others mentioned, canonical standing sets up a series of relationships meant to allow the individual hermit to truly respond to her vocation as is best for her and as God truly wills. Canonical standing ("status") does not mean a position of privilege or superficial "approval". Instead it means that the persons involved have been granted legal rights and accepted legal obligations as well. This is not about legalism. The prudent use of law is simply the way genuine freedom is exercised and protected in both Church and society. Canonical standing protects the Church from the eccentricities and destruction of narcissism or excessive individualism of loners seeking to call themselves "Catholic hermits" while it protects diocesan hermits from the whims of those who neither understand nor approve of the vocation. Contrary to the points made in the videos you referenced, it is precisely the individual nature of eremitical life that calls for Canon 603. In this way the Church makes sure traditional eremitical life itself (and not some form of self-indulgent isolation or misanthropy) is being lived while making sure that the individual hermit has the support and genuine freedom required to do so.

** Some canon 603 hermits use sacred bonds other than vows just as Canon 603 allows for.
*** Individual cases may allow for perpetual profession without temporary vows preceding this commitment, but this will be a rare situation and this option is usually inadvisable.

Questions on Formation, Flexibility, and Providing Space for the Holy Spirit

[[ Sister Laurel,  I would like to become a diocesan hermit, but I can't go away to a monastery or anything like that. How would I get the formation you say I need? Also, do you know the newsletter, Raven's Bread? There are a lot of people on that and they live as hermits without formation. Some are married and claim their spouses understand their need for solitude. They just seem a lot more flexible than you do on some things.  . . I wonder if you allow enough room for the Holy Spirit to work however he will in a person's life. . .  I think I am already a hermit, but it sounds like you might not.]]

Formation is not an Added Burden but a Means to Freedom

Thanks for your comments and questions. One of the things I have tried to make clear in what I have written about formation is that it occurs in the silence of solitude under the hermit's own initiative and the grace of God. It is not a formal program put together or administered by a diocese, nor does it consist in formal stages like postulancy, novitiate, and so forth. It does, however, involve stages of growth, and these chart the  person's movement from lone person to hermit. If one is seeking to be professed under canon 603 and a diocese believes they might be suitable for this, a diocese will monitor a candidate's own formation, her own growth as a person and transformation into a hermit as part of a process of discernment; the diocese may thus decide that certain experiences are important for the hermit's own growth and the diocese's own discernment, but this is not the same as creating and administering a formation program.


The second thing I have tried to make clear is that ANY form of life involves formation; to the extent we want to do something well and authentically there must be training, education, perseverance in the disciplines these require, and so, conversion and growth in these. Eremitical life takes skill and discipline; the solitude it demands is dangerous to those not called to it and risky even for those who are --- especially in an urban setting which militates against it at every moment. As already noted, I really believe that only the truly naive could think otherwise. While people approaching dioceses are surprised to hear a diocese won't simply admit them to vows as a hermit without a period of discernment (personal formation in living the life is implied here), I wonder if these same folks would be very surprised were they to imagine knocking on a convent door only to be told this is not how it works;  they won't be professed there simply because they walk in off the street and request it! I doubt they would be surprised at such a conclusion. My insistence on the need for formation, as I have said before, is not meant to lay unnecessary burdens on the candidate, but instead to make sure they provide for ways to grow in the skills and discipline (which lead to the freedom) necessary to live 1) a paradigmatic life of assiduous prayer and penance 2) in the silence of solitude 3) on God's behalf and on behalf of all those precious to him.

You see, one problem I run into all the time is that few people today really know what it means to live the silence of solitude. This is much more than living silence and physical solitude though it depends on these. Even fewer know what it is to live a life of assiduous prayer and penance, or really, what it means to be a desert dweller. Beyond this, still fewer imagine doing these for God's sake or the sake of others. As I have said many times, there are many forms and degrees of solitude; very few are eremitical. Stereotypes aside, whether it is email from people who cannot turn off their TV sets or disconnect from their cell phones and iPods, those who prefer not to live alone (some actually cannot do this and this is often, though not always, a different matter), folks who believe the eremitical life means simply being a lone person and doing whatever it is they can or desire to do by facile appeals to the "call of the Holy Spirit," correspondents who are married but believe that God is calling them to be hermits and celibates nonetheless, or from those who believe ANY degree of solitude in their lives means they are hermits, I am afraid I hear a lot from people who are entirely naive of the demands of the canon or who are seeking more to justify an individualistic bent and lifestyle rather than from folks who are hermits or who may ever really discern an authentic call to this.

Why Spend Time in a Monastery?

With this in mind, let me explain how one of the elements I have suggested can be really helpful to diocesan hermits or candidates and why I encouraged it. I have suggested that candidates without the benefit of religious formation especially, but not only, would benefit from extended time in a monastery. I have done this because the silence and solitude in a monastery (especially smaller monasteries that accept retreatants) is of a different character than most people have ever experienced. It is lived with and for others and this is a significant quality which the hermit's own silence of solitude must also have. In a monastery it becomes very clear that the silence of solitude is there to allow God space and a continuing opportunity to reveal himself in each Sister's life and in the community as a whole. One guards both silence and solitude here so that others can seek God, find, and be found by him in the profoundly intimate ways he desires. One guards these then for God's self , for one's Sisters and also for the larger world --- some of whose inhabitants may come here hungering for a silence and solitude (or the silence of solitude) the world generally has lost entirely or cannot provide for.

There is no way to replace this experience I don't think. In Stillsong I live it in a similar but not identical way because I am alone with God for others, but not together with others. (The Camaldolese describe the experience I am speaking of as living alone together.) In the monastery what I experience is a shared reality and because it is shared and nurtured together (anyone eating  in silence or praying silently for an hour with a dozen others will know this), it can be an intensely educative, re-vitalizing, and affirming experience for the hermit --- and I think especially for the urban hermit or the hermit who, for instance, must live with a caregiver and needs to know what is really possible to expect when people live together. So I encourage this as part of the hermit's own formation and discernment because she must be able to live something very similar in her own hermitage. She can't do this if she doesn't even know it exists or if she thinks the silence of solitude merely means the absence of external noise and closing the door on others. Additionally of course, it is really helpful to know others who are living as one does and who embrace the same values, schedule (generally speaking), praxis, etc. When one believes one is doing something strange or singular it becomes very much harder; when one knows others who are faithful to the daily discipline and praxis one is also committed to it is empowering and sustaining.

Allowing Room for the Holy Spirit:

While I am not referring to you here, your comments remind me of those I have received from others. I am surprised when I hear from folks evincing interest in profession under c 603 or in living as a hermit yet who resist making concrete commitments to regular prayer, penance, silence, solitude, or a schedule which calls for disciplined living because they "need to let the Holy Spirit guide them as to what to do". I wonder if we are speaking about the same Holy Spirit. You see, I have found that the Holy Spirit speaks to us in both the successes and failures we have in living our commitments, and less so in the absence of these and similar commitments. In other words, in my experience the Holy Spirit reminds me of how my commitments serve my vocation or not, how they allow me to grow or not, how they empower me to function or not. It is not the case that the Holy Spirit speaks out of a vacuum or like a bolt from the blue --- at least not in my general experience..

I think that suggesting commitments and structure will get in the Holy Spirit's way (which, right or wrong, is what I do hear you saying) is analogous to someone saying, "Oh I don't need to practice the violin to play it, I'll just let the Holy Spirit teach me where my fingers should go (or any of the billion other things involved in playing this instrument)." "Maybe I'll play scales if the HS calls me to; maybe I'll tune the violin if the HS calls me to. You mean I can't do vibrato without practicing it slowly? Well, maybe I will just conclude it doesn't need to be part of MY playing and the HS is not calling me to it." What I am trying to say is that if someone wants to play the violin they must commit to certain fundamental praxis and the development of foundational skills; only in so far as they are accomplished at the instrument technically will they come to know how integral this discipline and these skills are to making music freely and passionately as the Holy Spirit impels. Otherwise the music will not soar. In fact there may be no music at all --- just a few notes strung together to the best of one's ability; the capacity for making music will be crippled by the lack of skill and technique. In other words, the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with and through  the discipline I am speaking of, not apart from it.

More, my own experience is that one learns that appropriate flexibility is rooted in a disciplined life. Without the foundation I am speaking of we are not talking about flexibility but instead disorder and relative laxness and fruitlessness. Regularity does not mean rigidity, but in my own experience, one has to commit to prayer, lectio, an essential silence and solitude, regular rest, rising, recreation, meals, etc if the Holy Spirit is going to have a chance of being heard. If your criticism has to do with the fact that I am clear that married people cannot be hermits (by definition they are not solitaries), or that canon 603 grew out of Bishops' experiences with experienced monastics with significant formation who grew into an eremitical vocation and that its structure and requirements implicitly include significant formation, I plead guilty! We can all use words in any way we like, but too often doing so carelessly or without real knowledge simply empties them of meaning; in the case of the term "eremite" (or hermit), using this for any lone person (or anyone who spends any time at all in physical solitude) ensures not only that the word will be emptied of meaning but that the truly isolated and alienated have no one to look to as a sign that such isolation can really be redeemed and transformed into the silence of solitude.

If Time in a Monastery is Not Possible:

While the experience I am thinking of is not easily replaceable, one can break aspects of it down into significant elements and try to build one's life around those. What I would suggest you consider doing is to read about life in a monastery, and especially that you take note of the elements which monks and nuns speak about that are elemental to their lives. In order to build a life around these you will need to change the way you relate to others and the world around you in some fundamental ways. You see, I am not speaking about building IN a little silence or a little solitude or a bit of prayer or penance here or there. I am not suggesting that doing lectio once or twice a week is identical to building one's life around this, for instance. The first thing a stay in a monastery occasions in our lives is a break with our ordinary environment. To some significant extent you will need to achieve that on your own and construct a life around the elements which are central for a monastic or a hermit.

There are certain central pieces of such a life in which you may need actual instruction. Office or Liturgy of the Hours is ordinarily one of these --- especially if you choose to sing it. Just finding your way through the book can be daunting without help. (At the same time, once you get it down fundamentally you may experiment with it in many many ways and pray it in ways which are truly the fruit of the Holy Spirit.) Lectio is another and your spiritual director may be able to help you with this. Still, actual instruction in Scripture is also crucial. Quiet prayer may be something you are already skilled at, but if that is not the case, you might find a group near you that prays silently together. Doing this as a group is amazingly nurturing and supportive. Even if you cannot spend an extended period of time in a monastery, you might well manage three or four full days at a time after you get to know the community and they agree to assist you. (If you are serious about becoming a diocesan hermit your diocesan Vicar for Religious or Delegate for Consecrated Life might be able to aid you in making the connection needed and also recommend you be allowed to participate more or less fully in their daily lives for limited periods of time every few months or so --- if initial experiments in this go well.)

Formation as a Means to Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, another poster mentioned that maybe Jesus is calling hermit without formation. Isn't it kind of outrageous to demand a significant degree of formation for the freest [most free] vocation known? Aren't you asking for more than Jesus asks?]]

In a word, no; I don't think so. We are each called to discipleship, to sell what we "have" (or what "has us"!), to prioritize every relationship and to follow Jesus wholeheartedly. This is true whether we are called to be hermits, cenobites, priests, married, single, or whatever. We are called to live from and for the Gospel, to inculcate the values of the Kingdom, to embrace the radically counter cultural and reject individualism, commercialism, and every other false "god" or ideology our society (and our hearts) have created. We are each called to become men and women of prayer, penance, compassion, and service to others. We are called to become profoundly human; that is, we are called to become persons who are wholly transparent to the glory (revelation) of God --- persons who allow God to love us exhaustively and express our gratitude and joy for this as fully as possible in our love for others. None of this is a matter simply of catechesis or book learning.

For the disciples this becoming occurred in encounters with and in the company of Jesus --- as it must do for us as well. The Christ we meet, however, comes to us in all the ways he has come to hermits throughout the centuries: in the sacraments, in lectio, in contemplative and liturgical prayer, in solitary intellectual and manual work, in solitary leisure and in the personal work these and spiritual direction occasion. Our estrangement from God, self, and others means that none of this is "natural" for us;  none of this is achieved without formation.

Freedom and License are antithetical realities:

Freedom is not the same thing as license. One of the most serious errors I hear people making today is equating these two things when they are really opposites in most ways. While it is true that eremitical freedom is one of the most remarked on qualities of the life, this has always meant the freedom to respond to God as God wills. It has never referred to the notion of doing whatever one likes whenever one likes to do it. I have written here a number of times that authentic freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. That is, freedom is a capacity to hear and respond fully and appropriately to the will and voice of God in our lives. But developing this capacity obviously takes formation. It requires self-discipline, clarity about who we are and who God is (especially on the basis of the Jesus' revelation of him and the Gospel),  and it requires real time and leisure for listening to God's Word as well as the capacity to commit to this in all the ways it is mediated to us in the eremitical life. Again this all requires and presupposes formation.

You see, most people who write me about eremitical life are clear that they would like to listen to God's voice more wholeheartedly but only in terms of the life they are already living --- they are open to "tweaking" it a little here or there. Only one or two have been clear that eremitical life really requires changing one's life in all the truly radical ways necessary so that God's Word or Voice is mediated to them constantly, especially in and for the silence of solitude. (Remember that the silence of solitude is not only the environment in which this is achieved, but the means and goal of the hermit's life as well.) The symbol of this is the giving over of one's own home to eremitical life (not to eremitical life-lite much less to some form of pious individualism). This idea of giving our very residences over to God in this way so that everything we do or have becomes a piece of the life of the silence of solitude, so that everything is drawn into God's mediatory activity and is capable of revealing God to us, so that everything becomes Eucharistic requires periods of transition. More, it requires that one comes over time to understand the choice that involved when one proposed to become a hermit; additionally it requires the time and training necessary to be made ready to make such a choice, and then, of course, the ability to really do so.

St Peter Damian and the Hermit as Ecclesiola:

I have written here before about the linkage between Peter Damian's notion of the hermit as an "ecclesiola" --- a litte church --- and the homily my Bishop (Archbishop Vigneron) gave at my perpetual profession. It was there that I first heard the  reference to giving over one's entire house. Partly because it had been some time since I could simply "take the train home from work" and leave all that "behind me" and partly because I no longer thought of my own place as an "apartment", it took some time for me to fully appreciate the depth of Bp Vigneron's insight here. What I mean is I could not hear at that moment how striking and radical this image for the commitment I was making actually was. I have also written about the change that must come about for a beginner in this life --- namely, that they must transition from being a lone person to being a hermit in some essential way. In such a context, the idea of giving over one's entire home  assumes a very striking and challenging import.

You may have seen comments, for instance, by a person who was trying to "balance hermit things with worldly things" I noted several years ago. I have heard this difficulty more than once and dealt with it myself. It indicates to me that the person had not yet made the transition from being a lone person living in an apartment (for instance), to being a hermit who lives in a hermitage in some truly essential sense. Signs that one has made such a transition include: 1) a radical break with one's former life (if one does some of the same things one now does them from a radically different perspective and in a different way), 2) a movement from living in solitude because it is required by circumstances to living in solitude because it is truly one's own way to wholeness and holiness (the circumstances may not change but they are now a subtext rather than the defining reality of one's life), 3) a transition from concern with whether or not this latter element (chronic illness, for instance) has merely forced one into solitariness and is an inadequate reason for embracing eremitical life, to living it because it is also, and more importantly, a gift to others which glorifies (reveals) God most fully through one's own life. The hermit may certainly be concerned with her own wholeness and holiness (discernment of a vocation presupposes this vocation leads to these for the individual!), but at some point she must become more focused on the charism which this life is to the Church and World. This transition and the other elements as well all represent a transition from selfishness or a more individualistic focus to a truly ecclesial life. Similarly, they all require formation.

Freedom and Selflessness are Inseparable:


Finally, there is no true freedom unless there is also true selflessness. Freedom and generosity go hand in hand. A life lived for others is a truly free life. A life lived from and for the Love of God is one of authentic freedom. A life of mere license and self-indulgence (including self-indulgence that takes apparently pious forms, as for instance did the person's who spoke of using canon 603 as a means of reserving the Eucharist in her own place and found consecration pointless otherwise).  Jesus always demands a great deal from his disciples. Yes, he is clear that his yoke is easy and his burden light --- and indeed they are --- but at the same time, making the transition from hanger-on to true disciple requires formation. It requires a radical break with one's former life. In a world where silence is rarely heard and solitude has been exchanged for some kind of mere isolation and/or individualism,  Jesus' call to those who would be hermits, and certainly a call to be diocesan hermits who represent the vocation publicly or "in the name of the church", cannot be answered without formation.

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.

Follow-up Questions on Formation of Hermits

[[I was wondering, if Jesus is calling persons to either be lay hermits or diocesan hermits without the significant formation you describe, what happens to Canon 603 or the hermit life? This is a significant question because I think many people are thinking that the Church should relax many requirements for instance to shorten the training period for the priesthood, or for people called to religious life because the state of the Church is in somewhat of an emergency situation? There are so many ways people today are trying to answer the call to live some sort of religious life, and they are not being formed in any way. Are they receiving enough if they even receive the Catechetical teaching of the Church? Some do not receive even that. It could lead to a lot of disillusioned and embittered people which would not help the Church. I hope you understand what I'm driving at. I do not want to cause people to enter into errors, but I think many well intended people are "setting up their pulpit" to answer the call of Jesus to draw all men to Himself through their efforts.]]

All hermits require formation:

Thanks for your questions. Whether we are talking about lay or diocesan hermits my answer to being called without this formation has to be no, the vocation per se requires the significant (meaningful and substantive) formation I have referred to --- how ever one gets or achieves that! My point has been that the canon (which describes ALL eremitical life, not just consecrated eremitical life) came out of an experience of significant formation, it requires significant formation if its non-negotiable elements are to be understood and respected, and it requires significant formation if it is to be the gift to the church and world it is meant to be. (It's gift quality or charism also has to be understood and respected if this is to be so.) We are not speaking of a vocation where we are trying to encourage great numbers of people to pursue it, nor are we speaking of a vocation which can mean any form of aloneness at all and still be eremitical life, much less (for diocesan hermits) eremitical life lived in the name of the church. We are not speaking of a vocation which is meant to solve the emergency you speak of and I wonder if a relaxation of standards for formation, education, and training --- so long as one recognizes genuine formation can be gotten more than one way --- is ever a real solution to what you describe. (More about this below.)

The History and very Structure of Canon 603 Requires Formation:

Again, we are speaking of a vocation (not a career and not an avocation) which is both rare and profoundly counter cultural and always has been; it requires formation to actually be equipped to respond to such a call with integrity. It ALWAYS has, whether we are referring to the desert Fathers and Mothers (lay hermits), medieval anchorites, to hermits in monastic communities or, today, diocesan hermits. After all, it is hardly effective to actually cave into a culture while trying to embrace a countercultural vocation. My point most recently, however, has been that canon 603 grew out of a situation where individuals had significant formation and the canon reflected those lives with its combination of structure, non-negotiable elements, and eremitical flexibility. Therefore, understanding its terms and structure and then living these presupposes real formation as well.

Let me give you an couple of examples of what I mean here. One can read in the canon the term "assiduous prayer and penance"  and interpret it simply as contrasting to the usual prayer lives of nominal Christians --- in which case we might merely be speaking about praying regularly before meals, praying before bed, and abstinence on Fridays --- or we can read it the way a HERMIT reads it. We can read "the silence of solitude" as "turning the TV off while one listens to one's iPOD" or "spending Saturdays alone without talking to anyone" OR we can read this phrase as Carthusian hermits do (for it is originally a Carthusian term). One can read the reference to "one's own Rule or Plan of Life" as a description of something one slaps or cobbles together on the basis of what others have written and perhaps hopes one day to live OR we can read this requirement as demanding something which is rooted in one's own lived experience and, through concrete sacrifice and commitment, charts a way to continued growth in Christ and the solitary life. It requires formation to do the latter in each of these cases. When I say that the structure of the canon requires formation of candidates this is what I mean. This life of non-negotiable elements, the authentic eremitical freedom these elements are associated with all of which are reflected and codified in the writing of one's own Rule, cannot be lived without formation.

What Happens without Formation?

You ask what happens to canon 603 or to eremitical life without the formation (both initial and ongoing) I have spoken of. My answer has to be that in that case and while some VERY few exceptional individuals will probably persevere and respond to the Holy Spirit in ways which allows eremitical life to continue (or at least to not die out completely), in the main, eremitical life will dissolve in eccentricity, individualism, selfishness or outright narcissism, infidelity, etc, and be swallowed up by the culture. Moreover, as a result of this loss people living isolated lives will lose a source of hope that mere isolation can be transformed and redeemed. Over the past six years on this blog I have written time and again about the dangers to eremitical life posed by slapping the label "hermit" on any form of aloneness or part-time physical solitude at all. I have written about stereotypes of hermits which endanger understanding of the real article, and of movements in our own societies which militate against understanding or embracing this vocation and each time I have done so because I believe that genuine eremitical life is a gift of the Spirit which provides genuine hope to people in our day. However, I also believe that without significant (meaningful) formation the vocation will simply become completely dissipated into just another form of individualism and isolation within a culture already well marked by alienation and marred by self-centeredness.

Formation is a Gift to the hermit and to those to whom she Witnesses:

You see, as I understand it, formation itself is a gift not only to the hermit but to those her life witnesses to. But let me be clear. When I speak of the formation of hermits I am not speaking of an extra burden laid on top of folks who would be hermits just as well without this. I am referring to a period and/or dimension of dedicated and disciplined education, training and shaping or molding of mind and heart where one really acquires (or sharpens and renews) the tools needed to become the person who CAN live an eremitical life rather than a merely individualistic or lone one. The absence of such formation merely ensures the culture will win out and that God's still, small voice will be heard and responded to erratically, perhaps as one desires rather than as God desires and as one is called to do.

One of the reasons I have written about an inquirer or hermit candidate writing several Rules over a period of from 6-10 years is precisely so these persons and their dioceses can find a way to achieve an initial formation in the silence of solitude which is individually tailored but at the same time is sufficient for allowing the person to truly become and make a life commitment as a hermit. If it is adequate as initial formation it will also help empower the person to negotiate the demands of ongoing formation as well. Certain elements will be generally helpful, even necessary, and I have mentioned those. In the main these have been mentioned because they help a person really experience and understand the silence of solitude and develop the disciplined independence necessary to live this charism as a hermit. For the exceptions who cannot take advantage of these specific usual elements, other things will take their place. The details are individual but what is absolutely necessary is formation which makes one capable not of living a bit of silence and a bit of solitude, but instead, the silence OF solitude as a life commitment --- again, how ever one achieves that.

For instance, chronic illness will itself often occasion some of the kinds of changes time apart in a monastery will occasion. (Among other things it will set apart, change the way one relates to time and friends, force a degree of leisure greater than one might have embraced before, demand that one truly experience and confront one's own personal poverty and, as a result, call for a definitive and contemplative turn to the grace of God.) Even so, one still needs to have various elements of the monastic/eremitical and instruction in these explicitly added which in time will help transform illness into a subtext rather than remaining the defining reality. The addition of and faithfulness to these elements within the context created by unavoidable and chronic illness is formative and this can all become the significant formation of a hermit which I have been referring to. Still, it takes discipline and the assistance of knowledgeable people as well. Without real assistance in this, solitude, as I have noted, can be damaging to a person so I am concerned that people understand the difference between the isolation and alienation occasioned by chronic illness and eremitical solitude. Especially I want them to understand the place of formation here. What is true in this case and what is always true is that formation is the means with which the combination of grace and disciplined response can transform everyday circumstances. NONE of us gets by without it if we live a fruitful life. That is true of parents, children, students, and professionals of every sort. Maturity in life requires formation and this is especially true if that life is to be a gift to others.

Aspirations to Live a Religious Life

I want to be sure we are speaking of the same thing when referring to "religious life". If by this you mean lay Catholics desiring to live out their discipleship to Christ more faithfully and convincingly then I prefer and will use either the term "Christian life" that of  "discipleship" to refer to this. For me, and for the Church, religious life refers to the publicly vowed life whether in community or (now) as a diocesan hermit. Assuming then that you mean a lay life of  authentic discipleship and not vowed religious life, then I do believe parishes should be doing more to offer opportunities for growth and formation. However, at the same time, Lay Catholics who are called to an exhaustive holiness and discipleship just as vowed Religious and priests are called to, need to take some responsibility for demanding and acquiring or achieving what they need.


Vatican II changed forever the way lay Catholics were to see themselves. But the respon-sibility for making this change also falls to the laity themselves. Pastors and their staff, can only do so much without the laity taking real responsibility in this. I have seen myself the programs offered by parishes in an attempt to provide faith formation but without response by parishioners. Eventually the number of programs offered also diminishes. It is a catch 22 situation. Still, I wonder if you or others from your parish (as a group, for instance) have ever gone to your pastor or to your Bishop and said specifically, "We have the following resources in our parish but we need more opportunities for faith formation! Help us get (and help us create!) those"?? Additionally, it doesn't help at all to have lay people pretending to vocations of religious life because they really have not received the theology and spirituality of Vatican II as exhaustively as they are called to.

In any case, what I don't buy at all is the notion that we should decrease the requirements for religious life or priesthood simply because there is (or seems to be, in the case of religious life) a crisis in numbers. One response to the problem of the diminishing number of priests has been the permanent diaconate --- with VERY uneven results. Some dioceses minimize the education and experience truly necessary to minister effectively and the result is predictable: Gifted individuals aside, it has often led to deacons whose theology is wholly inadequate, whose preaching is weak or actually destructive, and whose pastoral experience is similarly deficient. My own sense is that the lowering of standards creates more problems than it solves. After all, we would hardly argue for decreasing requirements if there was a shortage of physicians or police, etc. ("Oh, just give her a set of scalpels, a Grey's Anatomy, and a Merke Manual, or a gun and night stick (this might be essentially the same difference without real formation); I am sure she will do the best she can!")

Formation, training the Mind, Heart, and Body (beginning a response):

That last bit of irony on my part does point to the nature of formation. Here we are speaking not only about educating the mind, but training the person in various ways so that they are a hermit (or a physician or a police officer, etc) with their whole being, body, soul, mind, and heart. It does no good to have a technically well-trained physician with the heart and mind (and thus, the ethos) of a sadist or an individualist or narcissist. Medical education does not merely create technically sophisticated persons; it creates persons who have been formed in the ethos of medicine. Formation as a police officer is meant to do the same with its candidates so that the control they are trained to exercise or even the violence they are trained to do (for instance) can always be at the service of the people for whom they work. In other words, it forms these persons in a "protect and serve ethos" which requires various levels of response, often reflexively, up to and including lethal violence. Without formation, without the inculcation of this ethos in one's whole self, these folks may become ticking time bombs, but at some point they become people who will do great damage and leave chaos in their wake. With hermits, the deficiencies in formation which affect others (or the hermit herself) don't show up as dramatically but they exist nonetheless.

I will leave this here for now. Be sure and get back to me with objections or more questions. Thanks again, for your questions.