Can a Transsexual Person be admitted to Profession and Consecration Under C 603?

[[ Dear Sister, would the church profess or consecrate a transsexual (transgender?) as a diocesan hermit? I don't want to give more details. I just wondered if there are any hard and fast rules about this. Would you encourage a transsexual to seek profession and consecration under c 603? It seems to me that since there is no community, no one would be particularly troubled much less harmed by such an act. Are you aware of any transsexuals who are diocesan hermits? Thanks.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me begin with some comments about transgender persons and sacraments as a preliminary to answering your questions. This might give you an introductory sense of how seriously the church takes the question of allowing transgendered persons to be professed and consecrated as religious. From all that I have read about the church's stance on transgendered persons in this regard, two considerations are always raised: 1) the honesty or lack of honesty involved (including self-honesty, potential self-deception, or questions of personal transparency), and 2) the possibility of scandal. The person involved must be acting freely, openly, and transparently, and there must be no cause for scandal. Still, there is relatively little out there in writing from the church. In speaking about the sacraments, for instance, the church only speaks of baptism as clearly open to transgendered persons (and some dioceses may still be disputing that). After that, things become even more complicated. Even having a transgendered person serving as a godparent for someone is not without complications. While religious profession and consecration are not sacraments, admission of a transgendered person to these definitive steps of public commitment within religious life raises even more difficult questions that also revolve around the questions of honesty or personal integrity and scandal.

Consecrated Life: A Call to Foundational Womanliness or Manliness

With consecrated eremitical life, some of these same questions apply whether we are speaking of semi-eremitical life or solitary eremitism under c 603. Remember that the profession of a diocesan hermit is a public commitment with public rights and obligations. This means the whole church has a right to hold certain expectations concerning the one being professed and/or consecrated. The most fundamental of these, no matter whether the person identifies as male or female, has to do with their foundational womanliness or manliness and their fulfillment**. Are they gifting God and the Church with their lives in this way because they (and those discerning with them!) sincerely believe they are being called to human wholeness and holiness (including a recognizable psycho-sexual maturity) in this state of life in Christ or is there something else at play here? Stated another way, are they embracing this life because they (and those discerning with them) feel assured that God's love for them calls and will bring them to psycho-sexual maturity, that is, to the highest expressions of manliness or womanliness one may achieve in this way or not? Will they witness to this foundational task and achievement as well as to the way God's non-gendered and self-sacrificial love makes it both a possibility and reality? 

First and foremost, a vocation to eremitical life is a call to human wholeness and holiness in loving dialogue with God in the silence of solitude. This can occur in the presence of various forms of gender dis-ease or gender dysphoria and other significant limitations. One gives the whole of oneself (including one's dis-ease) in the trust and expectation that God completes and makes one truly and fully alive in Christ with the abundant life promised in the Gospels. In fact, because the hermit gives up the use of so many specific gifts necessary for active ministry, this particular witness seems to me to be the essence of the eremitical call. The God of Jesus Christ is affirmed as the One who loves us just as we are and empowers us to love and live with whatever difficulties our lives include. We suffer with and in Christ in ways that witness to God's power to make sense of even life's worst apparent absurdities. We approach this promised achievement with hope that in giving ourselves totally (including what seems "broken" within us, so too will we find, complete, and transcend ourselves in Christ, and we do this for the sake of others who need and seek the same redemption and fulfillment.

The Church does not Recognize. . .

The church does not recognize that a person's fundamental manliness or womanliness (even as incipient) changes with gender-affirming transition. Moreover, the church identifies this fundamental given as consonant with one's sex at birth. Certainly, dimensions of one's fundamental manliness or womanliness are affected by hormones, genetic manipulation, and surgery, though in Catholic theology, these changed dimensions are not identical to a change in one's fundamental womanliness or manliness, one's foundational sexuality. Despite a person's profound and painful dis-ease with his or her assigned birth sex, that sexual identity remains a gift and a task s/he is meant to realize in psycho-sexual maturity within whatever given limitations or seeming inconsistencies there may be. Assuming no intersex problems cause physician errors in determining sex, the church's current teaching on admitting a suitable candidate*** to profession and consecration is clear: if one is born (or determined to be) female at birth, one must be professed and/or consecrated as a female; if born male, then profession/consecration must be as a male. 

Though this is a dimension of one's vocation most will recognize in terms of the vow to chastity in celibacy, when the church clothes the candidate in religious garb or styles the person Brother or Sister it also reflects this truth. Given the church's own teaching here, how is the church to clothe and address a transgendered person who was originally female for instance? Though fundamentally a woman in the church's eyes, does this person style herself as Brother  X_____ and represent a call to authentic manliness? 

The church sees a profound contradiction here on the most fundamental human level; what one claims (to be) and proclaims at profession conflicts with one's natural sexual identity, and for this reason, the church does not admit someone living as a transgendered person to profession or consecration. To do so would be dishonest and, if the professing bishop allowed the faith community to know about it in an entirely transparent way, it would cause significant scandal. (For that matter, were the bishop admitting a transgendered person to profession and consecration to knowingly withhold this from the faith community participating in the profession I think that too would legitimately cause significant scandal.)

In approaching your questions, I began with the most foundational element or dimension of the hermit's life because it is deeper and more extensive than the changes involved in gender-affirming transitions can change or achieve. It can be argued that the Evangelical Counsels and particularly the vow of chastity in celibacy (consecrated celibacy) can be understood in terms of this foundational identity as well as in other terms that may be more familiar to readers. Chastity in celibacy deals with integrity in relationships and the commitment to love others in the way Christ loved; thus, it also implies being true to one's fundamental manliness or womanliness to carry all of this out. As I understand the church's position, if gender (that is, the subjective experience of sexuality) fails to match one's sexuality (an objective reality not necessarily dependent upon or consonant with one's experience of one's sexuality), and one cannot love oneself as created and called to be, the ability to make a binding vow of chastity becomes problematic. 

Are there Currently Transsexual Diocesan Hermits?

I am not aware of any transgendered persons who have been professed or consecrated as diocesan hermits. I am personally aware of only one transgender person who sought profession under c 603 several years ago. I opposed his admission to profession (he is a trans male), but N.B., I did not do so based on the fact that he was transgendered  per se, but instead because he approached profession as a solitary hermit deceitfully and fraudulently. This person told me he (purportedly along with his bishop) planned on using the canon as a "matter [or way] of [achieving] justice" and was clear he was using the canon as a stopgap way to get publicly professed, something he knew from reading this blog that I have objected to. (He claimed to have discerned a call to "public profession" but not to eremitical life; the church does NOT recognize such a call apart from particular forms of religious life which may then require public vows.) There were other issues as well (bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop, an intention to create (or join) a community after consecration, the use of temporary profession to experiment and "gather data" on whether or not this life was a fit at all, among others), and in each of these, some degree of pretense and bad faith were apparent. Thus too, the validity of such a profession would have been questionable at best. (One canonist who was consulted opined the profession/vows would be invalid (cf c 656.4 and On Withholding the Truth), while another suggested sacrilege could also be involved were such a profession attempted.)

As you might surmise, this instance of a proposed profession raises several important questions. The one I want to focus on here has to do with using profession and consecration as a means to take a stand on something one considers unjust in the church, or for any other reason than expressing and embracing a genuine sense of a call to consecrated life (and in this case, to solitary eremitic consecrated life). Canon 603 sometimes seems a simple canon for folks to seek profession under even when they have not discovered or discerned a truly eremitical vocation. Artists or scholars of all sorts might like to do something like this while they write or paint or work on dramatic, cultural, and research projects; sometimes such folks justify the peace and solitude needed for such careers in terms of a too-casually defined "eremitism".  Authentic hermits know that the heart of the eremitic vocation is not writing, other artistic pursuits, or research even when hermits may also do these things. To call these (much less oneself) "eremitical" simply because they require silence and solitude is a distortion of what eremitical life lived in the name of the Church is all about. Still, it is easy to "justify" this kind of distortion of the vocation by asking the question (along with its implied negative answer) that you have raised yourself, "Whom does it hurt?"

As I have written before in Whom does it hurt?, and also On Intervening in Professions, any kind of fraud is harmful, particularly when it concerns an institution that depends on trust and Gospel witness to the truth as well as to what is possible when one lives for, with, in, and from God in the silence of solitude. I simply cannot see any justification in the kinds of deception present in such instances when one is (ostensibly) petitioning to live consecrated eremitical life in the name of the same Church one is essentially thumbing one's nose at in the very same act. That is especially true when other ecclesial communities (including sacramental ones like the Episcopal Church, for example) allow individuals to be publicly professed as solitary religious without concern for sexual identity or a requirement that these religious purposely live genuinely eremitical lives. As you can see, questions of personal integrity, transparency, and the potential for scandal are significant in matters like this. Thus, until church teaching and praxis on this changes, though I might encourage them to explore life as a non-canonical hermit, I would not encourage a person identifying as transsexual to seek profession and/or consecration as a c 603 hermit.

____________________________________________________

Notes:

Please note that language referring to trans persons is fluid and relatively idiosyncratic. For an introductory summary of how various terms are generally defined, please see https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression. Especially helpful is the discussion of the distinction between sexual orientation and gender.

**In Catholic Theology and in this blog essay, sexuality is used to refer to the most foundational call to womanliness or manliness, not merely in terms of superficial social roles and expectations or even in terms of mere biology. It is deeper and more expansive than these while, especially in terms of one's given biology, it remains generally consistent with these. In Catholic theology, the whole person is sexual. There are distinctively manly and womanly ways of understanding, feeling, and acting. Everything we think, or imagine, our motivations and perceptions of or responses to value are conditioned by the fact that we exist either as men or as women. Catholic theology affirms this is true even in the presence of gender dysphoria, and whether or not a person self-identifies as male, female, or some non-binary alternative (transgender, transsexual, mx, zie, or hir) precisely because this manliness or womanliness is deeper and more fundamental than gender identity itself. 

*** As  I understand it, a suitable candidate would need first to "detransition" and then live and discern the vocation just as any other person would do. The same conditions, requirements, time frames, and so forth would have to be met including medical and psychological testing. One would need to go through the usual stages of such a life, particularly concerning the development of a contemplative life that then calls for even greater solitude. There would need to be a special assurance that the candidate was not using c 603 in some ulterior way as a stopgap to profession.

We Do Not First Discern a call to Public Vows: Clarification

[[Sister, what did you mean when you said there's no such thing as a vocation to public vows. Don't you have a vocation to public vows?]]

Thanks for the question. I could definitely have been clearer, but I was trying to limit my description of the situation. Using myself as an example then, I can say I have an eremitical vocation. I needed to discern that first and only after that whether or not I was called to public profession, and even further in what eremitical context? For instance, I lived under private vows for a number of years and then discerned I was called not just to eremitical life, but to solitary eremitical life as an ecclesial vocation and therefore to canonical profession and consecration under c 603. The Church agreed with my own discernment and (eventually) Bishop Vigneron (a new bishop after the retirement of his predecessor) was clear he would not require me to jump through hoops I had already jumped through. After a wait of about a year and couple of months from our initial appointment, Bp Vigneron perpetually professed and consecrated me on 02.Sept. 2007. At that point, I had lived as a hermit for 23 years and was very sure of my vocation, first as a hermit and then, as someone called to live it as a public ecclesial vocation.

So, you see, my vocation includes (public) profession but it is not to (public) profession per se. My vocation is to solitary eremitical life and though in time I chose to seek admission to public vows/profession, I might have discerned it was meant for me to live this calling alone under private vows, or in a laura with significant solitude but supported by other hermits -- with either private or public vows. I might also have discerned a call to semi-eremitical life under public vows. What is clear is the fact that the vocation comes first and the mode of commitment is discerned second. In the situation I was describing the person seeking profession got the cart before the horse. S/he "discerned" s/he was called to make public vows and then looked for a context (including a new diocese) that would accept her where s/he might live those out.  

But of course, that is not the way one reaches the point of making vows. One needs a sense of being called to a specific vocation with a specific charism, and mission, before petitioning for admittance to even temporary profession. One must know oneself as suited and called by God to these before public vows even make sense. Again, with eremitical life one comes to know one's call in at least a general way, and only after (or alongside) this does one consider and prepare for the vows one will need in order to embrace this vocation fully and appropriately. The vows support and shape the vocation; in any case, they are not the vocation itself.

Thus, my complaint was twofold: 1) the person described had not discerned an eremitical call in any context (non-canonical, solitary, laura-based, semi-eremitical in a community of hermits, etc.) --- something which ordinarily takes years, and 2) s/he claimed a vocation to public vows, something that in and of itself, does not actually exist. There is clearly more to this complex story. Even so, the grounds enunciated above are the ones you asked me to explain about so I hope that part of the situation is clearer.

Questions re: Intervening in Cases of Fraudulent or Dishonest Profession

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, since you write about your concern with fraudulent hermits and associated issues, I wondered if you would interfere in an eremitical profession you thought was dishonest or fraudulent. Do you have that right? Have you ever done this?]]

Thanks, you have provided a difficult constellation of questions and also something of a leap from my admitted concern with such things. I will drop the term "interfere" from your first question and replace it with "connect with those responsible" or perhaps, "intervene in some appropriate way" in order to share one's concerns. 

That done, I need to say that any person with genuine knowledge directly impacting the nature and quality (and this can include even the validity) of a public profession has not just the right but the obligation to share that knowledge in an appropriate way. Moreover, bishops and others involved in overseeing such vocations have the obligation to hear and seriously consider these concerns. Public professions involve ecclesial vocations which affect the entire Church. They are also public acts of worship and if there is actual deception or fraud at their heart, such an act of worship can become a serious scandal and that can rise to the level of sacrilege. It can also invalidate the profession being made -- one source of the scandal involved. When we are dealing with Canon 603 professions where the total number of solitary canonical hermits are, relatively speaking, so very few and the vocation is both rare and even more rarely understood --- and also because dioceses are cautious in dealing with the implementation of C 603 anyway --- serious scandal can affect the credibility of the entire vocation. When this happens, genuine vocations to C 603 life are likely to be further prevented from being professed by the Church --- a kind of functional suppression of the solitary consecrated eremitical vocation.

What Steps does one take?

Depending upon the seriousness of the problem and one's own degree or kind of involvement and expertise, one may take a number of steps. The first will be prayer, and prayer will accompany any other steps one takes. If one has a relationship with the one being professed, one will generally contact them first to state one's concerns and allow a clarifying response. One will certainly confer confidentially with those in one's life who understand such concerns and can give feedback on how they would proceed (pastors, spiritual directors, religious in roles of formation or leadership, et al). In very serious cases, especially if any responses one has gotten from the persons involved are unsatisfactory, one might seek the advice of a canon lawyer to be sure one's assessment of seriousness is correct and to see what other steps one may need to consider taking.

Beyond this, one may decide one needs to write the bishop of the diocese in which the profession has taken or is to take place to inform him of one's concerns. Generally speaking, I think this is usually as far as one would take the situation because one trusts that the bishop knows more about the situation than one does oneself. However, sometimes writing the bishop, though usually essential, is insufficient; occasionally one's own knowledge may be greater than the bishop's or the situation is greater than this specific profession per se seems. In such cases, one may also be advised to contact the bishop's Metropolitan and even the US Nuncio as the direct US representative to/of the Vatican.

Being sure of Serious and even Grave Matters:

None of this should ever be done lightly, of course, and one needs to be really sure one understands the situation fully and has a good sense of the nature of the vocation one is concerned about. With c 603 there is a tendency already for some bishops and chanceries to say something like, [[Whom will it hurt?]] when deciding to profess non-hermits under c 603 because they tend not to understand eremitical life more generally, nor the significance of c 603 and what it witnesses to, more specifically. But because such professions do cause harm, including to the person seeking to be professed and assuming public responsibility for this vocation in law despite their not being called in this way by God, it may take someone living the vocation to clarify why such a profession is a mistake. I am not saying that such a profession is necessarily a mistake that rises to the level of scandal and beyond (ordinarily it may be rooted in simple ignorance), but this "whom does it harm?" approach does reflect a somewhat careless attitude about c 603 vocations which can allow for the stopgap use of the canon in much more seriously abusive situations as well.

It is in these more serious situations that I personally would probably contact the folks in authority with my concerns and knowledge. I not only believe I can do this, for several different reasons, but also that I am obligated to do this. The question in such an instance is how do I do this in a way which is most charitable and most educative re: the c 603 vocation --- and that is where the majority of the prayer accompanying the entire discernment process in such a matter comes in. I think one must accept that if one's intervention (letters, consultations, conversations, etc) prevent a profession under c 603 there will be significant pain for the person so affected and too, there will likely be personal pain and anguish for oneself as well. However, there is something larger than the individual proposing to make public vows involved here, namely the well-being of the vocation itself which is a Divine gift and the faith of the assembly/church, and one must accept that as well.

Once Again, "Whom does it Hurt?" 

At the same time, it must be made vividly clear that allowing someone to take on public responsibilities for a vocation they do not have is hardly charitable to them either. Doing so invites the person to live with the senses of failure, mediocrity, and hypocrisy all their days, something which is surely a cause of constant pain and doubt pervading everything they are and do. Eremitical life is not about relaxing day in and day out in some form of extended vacation; it is not entered into so that one may do one's painting or writing or pottery, or even research and scholarship, etc. Eremitical life is about the hard (but also painful and joyful) work of seeking God, being grasped by God, and allowing oneself to be remade in and by God in every moment and mood of one's life --- and doing so in the silence of solitude. Absolutely there will be some space and time for activities like those mentioned as well as some limited ministry in one's parish if one truly feels called to these, but these will, first of all, serve one's vocation to "the silence of solitude", not substitute for it. 

In fact, such activities will have to be relinquished or modified to some extent the moment they distract or detract from one's eremitical vocation of living "with God alone". In other words, even what one might perceive as meaningful and fruitful work contributing to the good of mankind would need to be relinquished if it conflicted with one's call to live with and for "God alone" in eremitical solitude!! Also, because we are all social creatures, most folks are called to personal wholeness and holiness in community, not in the silence of solitude. Very few are called to this (or will even understand it), and for that reason, for most people, such a calling would be dangerous to and destructive of their very personhood, their very selves. It is critical that all discernment of authentic solitary eremitical vocations recognizes this or the result of our professions will be fraudulent, inauthentic, mediocre, unhappy, possibly psychologically unbalanced, and disedifying "hermits" created by their professions to live the terms of c 603. Again, how could this be considered charitable or a truly pastoral decision on the part of a diocesan bishop?

Finally, let me say that someone attempting to be professed for a vocation they do not, in their heart of hearts, truly believe they have from God --- and here I mean the vocation itself, not the profession it allows or requires, the time and space it provides for various activities, as a means to some other end, and so forth, but the vocation itself --- says with their whole lives how little they esteem this vocation, those who truly do have it and frankly, the God who calls people in this way! I have been in contact with several people over the years who sought or considered seeking admission to

profession under c 603 as a means to some other end despite being very clear they did NOT believe God had called them to this. One, who thought s/he was called to "public vows" (there is no such vocation!) was willing to make profession and then live as a hermit "to see if it worked out." If not, s/he claimed s/he would walk away from it and try something else. 

But of course, this demeans the entire idea and nature of profession and certainly, all of the genuine discernment people do before ever being admitted to profession. It was offensive to anyone with a vocation to consecrated life. It was offensive to anyone charged with the ministries of discernment and formation. Moreover, it was offensive to the whole church which believes that God calls people --- recognizably and for God's own purposes --- to true vocations and that the church (hierarchy, representatives, and other leadership) must attend to these calls as seriously as God means them to. We have come a long way from the early days of Canon 603 and reflection on the vocation leaves us with no reason to treat it as a relatively insignificant or otherwise meaningless catch-all. We recognize the vocation is relatively rare, but perhaps too, that it is more meaningful for that very reason. In particular, this means that those in authority must not encourage, much less yield to the temptation to use C 603 as a stopgap means to profession simply because other vocational avenues are not open to a candidate.

Sister Laurel, Whom Does it Hurt? (Reprise)

 I posted this two years ago now, and the question has been raised again in another context (more about that later), so I thought it a good idea to reprise the post. Any time an ecclesial vocation is used by someone in a fraudulent manner, people are hurt. More, the vocation itself is hurt as is the credibility of the Church. With a vocation as rare and little-understood or little-valued as c 603 vocations are, instances of fraudulent usage --- the situation I have in mind now (or pretense, as in the case of the post below) --- become even more harmful than they might with more usual vocations to religious or consecrated life.

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why does it bother you so much if someone who is Catholic wants to live like a hermit and is not consecrated by the Church wants to call themselves a Catholic Hermit? I'm sure some people don't know that the term is a technical one or that canon law applies to the use of the term Catholic in this sort of thing. And so what? Why not let people just do as they wish? Who does it hurt anyway? I think you are hung up on this and need to let it go --- after all, really what does it matter in the grand scheme of things except for those who, like you, seem to be hung up on minutiae? (I'm betting you won't post this question but thanks for answering it if you do!)]]

Thanks for your questions. Almost everything I write about on this blog, whether it has to do with the commitments made by the hermit, the canon(s) governing her life, approaches to writing a Rule of Life, the rights, obligations, and expectations associated with her vocation, the nature and significance of ecclesial vocations like this one, the nature of authentic humanity and the witness value of the hermit's life, the hope she is called to mediate to those who live lives marginalized by chronic illness and disability, the discernment and formation associated with the vocation, or the importance of elders and mentors in her life (and other topics) --- all of this speaks either explicitly or implicitly to the meaning and importance of the much more than technical term Catholic Hermit. That said, some posts will deal with your questions as central to understanding this specific eremitical vocation. These will most often be found under the labels:  ecclesial vocation(s), silence of solitude as charism, and rights and obligations of canon 603 vocations (and variations thereof). Since I cannot reprise everything written in the past 14 years of blogging on these topics, I would suggest you read or reread some of those posts.

Let me point out that it may well be that in our country and even in our world today the truth doesn't much matter and individualism is the way of life most value. Similarly, it may well be that liberty has edged out genuine freedom in such a world and generosity been supplanted by a "me first", "win at any cost" philosophy and corresponding set of values. Similarly, our world seems to have forgotten that what some decry as "socialism" today was identified in the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles as the only true shape of  community in the new Family (or Kingdom) of God in Christ.  (cf Acts 2:44-45) Christianity has never truly been the most popular or pervasive way of living in our world --- even when most folks went by the name "Christian"; still, Christianity is built on truth and this truth leads to a responsible freedom marked by generosity and humble (lovingly truthful) service to others. Countercultural as that may be, the place which stands right at the point of sharpest conflict with the values of the contemporary world is the life of the canonical (consecrated) hermit.

The hermit's life is both most easily misunderstood and most easily distorted in living. The freedom of the hermit can slide into a selfish libertinism, its individuality can devolve into a "me first" individualism, and its lack of an active apostolic ministry can be mistaken quite easily for selfishness and a refusal to serve others. Those who neither understand the nature of the life, nor the Church's role in ensuring that these distortions do not occur, will ask the kinds of questions you pose in your query. They are not the folks I generally write about -- though their ignorance can be problematical.  Others who are equally ignorant of the distinctions which stand between world and Kingdom of God will valorize their own selfish individualism with the name "hermit" and some of these will, even when initial ignorance has been corrected, insist on calling themselves "Catholic Hermits" despite never having been called by the Church to live this life in her name, and despite being unprepared and sometimes unwilling to accept the rights and obligations incumbent upon someone petitioning the Church for admission to public profession and consecration. It is these persons I call counterfeit or even fraudulent for they have taken a simple and vincible ignorance and raised it to the level of obstinate lie.

Whom Does it Hurt?

Whom does it hurt? First of all, it hurts the vocation itself. There is no more stark example of the truth of the way God relates to human beings than when a hermit stands face to face with God in the solitude of her cell and praises God for her life, her call to holiness, and embraces the challenge to love ever more deeply; this example continues vividly as she consents to be a witness to a God who desires to be everything for her because (he) values us all beyond all imagining. It is even more striking because she says this is true no matter how poor, how broken or wounded, how sinful or shamed, and how seemingly unproductive her life is in a world marked by consumerism and an exaggerated focus on productivity --- a world which very much values the opposite of all of these and considers the hermit to be "nothing" and even "a waste of skin". In Christ, the hermit stands before God consenting to be the imago dei she was made to be, entirely transparent to God's truth, beauty, and love, and she says with her life that this is the common call of every person. Quite a precious witness!

For someone to call themselves a Catholic Hermit when the Church herself has not discerned or admitted her to a public eremitical commitment is to strip away the humble commitment to the truth which is meant to be part of the vocation's foundation and to insert self-definition and self-centeredness in its place. Those who look to this person as an example of the Church's vision of eremitical life may find  that rather than a "Catholic Hermit" they are faced instead with the validation of  many of the same distortions and stereotypes plaguing eremitical life throughout the centuries. 

What they will not find is a person who humbly accepts her poverty before God insofar as this means accepting the vocation to which one is truly called. Lay eremitical life is profoundly meaningful and important in the life of the church; it should be honestly embraced in that way. A secondary result can be that the Church herself (in individual dioceses) will refuse to consider professing diocesan hermits at all; the vocation is a rare one with, relatively speaking, very few authentic examples; fraudulent "hermits" who represent distortions, stereotypes, and caricatures (as well as sometimes being nutcases and liars) unfortunately can serve to cast doubt on the entire vocation leading to dioceses refusing to give those seeking profession any real hearing at all.

Secondly, it hurts those who most need the witness of this specific vocation, namely those who for whatever reason find themselves unable to compete with the world on its own terms: the chronically ill, disabled, and otherwise marginalized who may believe the world's hype that wealth is measured in terms of goods and social status, able-bodiedness, youth, productivity, and so forth.  Hermits say to these people that they are valued beyond all reckoning by a God who knows them inside out. Hermits say to these people that real wealth is measured in terms of love and that one of the most precious symbols of Christianity is that of treasure contained in clay pots, while real strength is perfected and most fully revealed in weakness. To attempt to witness to the truth of the Gospel by living a lie and building it into the foundation of one's eremitical life destroys the capacity of the hermit to witness effectively to these truths. To proclaim the fundamental truth that in Christianity wealth is contained in clay pots is made impossible if one refuses to be the pot one has been made by the potter to be (a lay hermit, for instance) but claims instead to be something else (e.g., a consecrated Catholic Hermit).

Thirdly, it hurts the one doing the lying or misrepresentation, especially if she actually comes to believe her own lies. In this way her capacity for truth, humility, generosity, and gratitude are all equally injured --- and thus too, her own authenticity as a human being. We cannot image God as we are called if we cannot accept ourselves or the vocation to which God calls us. And finally, it hurts the Church herself who is responsible for all that goes on "in her name" and for commissioning those who live eremitical life in this way.

As part of this injury to the Church, it may hurt anyone who is influenced by the fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" in her lies and misrepresentations. Sometimes this happens because the person follows the directions the counterfeit gives to "become a Catholic Hermit" and then, after spending time following this advice and building hopes on a false dream or pathway to realize their dream, is confronted by one's parish or diocese with the truth of the matter. Terrible damage can be done in this way just as it is done to those who are scandalized by the disedifying example of "hermits" who embody all the worst stereotypes associated with eremitical life, whether canonical or non-canonical. Unfortunately, the individual fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" is ordinarily not held nearly as responsible as the Church is in such cases so the damage or injury can be far-reaching and relatively ungovernable.

Summary:

I am bothered by all of this because I see the value in eremitical life, most particularly as it stands as a witness against the distorted notions of humanity and community so prevalent in today's world. I am bothered by this because I am committed to live this vocation well for the sake of others, but especially for the sake of God and God's Church who is the steward of this vocation. I care so much because I have come to know how important this vocation is --- especially as a countercultural witness to the nature of authentic human existence and all the things the world puts up as values today. Finally, I care because God has called me to care, and to embody this caring in my own living, witnessing, teaching, mentoring, direction, and prayer. I care because the truth matters and because God and God's Church cares even as she commissioned me to do so as well. 

You may consider this a personal "hang up" of mine. That's not a problem and you are free to your opinion, but if you wish me to "let it go," I would note that I am responding to your questions here, and your questions prompt me to think about and even research it further --- not the best way to convince me to let go of something! You also used the term minutia, and I would ask you to consider what portions of my response deal with minutia; I don't see anything in all of this that is not significant in many ways for many, many, people and the witness of the Church as a whole. Remember that in dealing with this issue it is the flipside of writing about what it means to be called to live a vocation in the name of the Church. It is unfortunate that this problem exists in the Church today, but it does -- in many dioceses, and, given the internet, with an outsized influence. 

My answer to the question, [[Whom does it hurt?]] therefore, would have to be anyone such dishonesty or outright fraud touches, even if they are not aware of it at the time. The Church is to minister truly and to assist others to live the truth of their deepest selves in Christ. That is made much more difficult when fraud and dishonesty are enacted or purported to be enacted in the name of that same Church. In a world hungry for truth and a credible Church, no one, I would argue, is untouched by this.

Canon 603 Used as a Stopgap Rather than as Recognition of a True Eremitical Vocation?

[[Dear Sister, in light of your last post,  would you consider someone describing themselves as a "sort of monk-missionary" and their place of abode a "hermitage" to be a hermit? Also, if a priest had a history of difficulties with his bishop and parish ministry, does it make sense for his bishop to admit him to profession under c 603? (I know of a pretty public case where this happened and the bishop outlined the difficulties in a public letter and then admitted the priest to profession just 5 months later! That does not make sense to me!! Neither does saying: [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life. Isn't a hermit a contemplative no matter what limited ministry they undertake? Aren't they supposed to have discerned a contemplative vocation before they discern an eremitical one?)  

I have a couple of other questions because of your earlier blog post. Could you explain more about the difference between the promise of obedience made to a bishop and a vow of what you called religious obedience made to God in the hands of the bishop? Finally, could you say some more about the difference you see between the act of profession and the making of vows, and especially the making of a single vow? I didn't understand that part of your post and I thought it sounded important.]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me save the ones on profession as compared to avowal for another time. Your note on the priest's self-description makes me think we are speaking of the same rather sensational case. One of the reasons for a careful and relatively long discernment and formation process is to make sure the person really is a hermit, understands herself this way, and is comfortable identifying herself with this descriptor before the Church professes and consecrates her as a canonical hermit under c 603. Using the "hermit" label isn't initially easy for most of us. That is not only because of the rarity of such vocations and the need to work out the shape of such callings in our own lives, but also because of all of the stereotypes associated with the life and all of the nutcases similarly associated with this designation. 

It takes time for one to come to understand c 603 and the solitary eremitical vocation, and even more time before candidates are ready to assume a constructive, faithful, and creative place in the eremitical tradition of the Church. They must see themselves truly as a hermit before they can be allowed to embrace the specific rights, obligations, and legitimate expectations others have of those who are hermits in the consecrated state. Only at such a point would such a person be ready for profession (including temporary profession). What I mean when I say they must see themselves in this way is that they must resonate in their deepest core/self with the term "hermit" and know that God has called them to such a life and especially, that they will not be using c 603 as a stopgap solution for other reasons.

By the time one is professed either one is a hermit or one is not. What I mean here is that either one's profession represents the true self-gift of a hermit (even a novice hermit) or it is a lie. One is not, for instance, a "kind of monk/missionary", or a "sort of a contemplative", or "a kind of loner"; one is (or should be) a hermit and one is entrusting oneself to God to continue making one ever more profoundly into the hermit one knows oneself to be by the grace of God's call. If one begins one's professed eremitical life thinking one is a "sort of monk/missionary" rather than a hermit, (especially if this is the truth of the matter) one can and will grow into more of a "sort of monk/missionary" --- one who is neither this nor that, and certainly not more deeply into life as a hermit. Canonical profession and consecration as a hermit demands that one consciously represents an expression of a particular vocation with a rich and significant history. One may not (will not!!) be a perfect hermit, but one must honestly know one's deepest, truest self by this term.

This, by the way, does not mean one's eremitical life is identical to that of another's but it does mean that one lives a recognizable expression of canon 603 even when there are individual variations involving prayer, limited apostolic ministry, and spirituality more generally. Neither does it mean that one is not growing into one's eremitical vocation. One may be a novice hermit or a potential candidate for profession, and one may be a mature hermit involved in limited ministry within one's parish, for instance, but one is still growing as a hermit in one's core identity. It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit. For one to describe oneself as a sort of "monk/missionary" is the self-description of someone who is not yet and may never become a hermit --- whether or not c 603 has been utilized.

Let me say too that as soon as I hear this kind of designation by someone whose Rule of Life has been approved by their bishop, I have to wonder what is going on. When the supposed hermit writes just 2 years before profession under c 603, [["That [improvement of my Mother's illness] was my indication that I was ready to move on to either religious life or [life] as a diocesan hermit or to take an[other] assignment [as a parish priest],". . . But no assignment came]], the use of c 603 sounds like a way of getting out of a difficult situation, not the mature discernment of a true vocation, much less one ready for profession and consecration, but simply another secular priest's "assignment". Thus, what is being described could be fraud at worst (or ignorance at best). In either case, the canon is being abused by the putative "hermit" and ultimately by his bishop for some reason other than what it is meant for. Whatever is vocationally true in this specific case, to misuse c. 603 in this way is disedifying at best and even scandalous at a time when the Church, and especially the episcopacy, is increasingly being looked to for a capacity to image the humble God of truth and scrutinized for abject failures to do so.

In the case you referenced your facts are correct. The letter outlining an apparently rebellious priest who cannot serve in parish ministry, who (according to his Abp's letter) will not show up for meetings with his superiors, and who 'bad mouths' that same bishop and his staff for being unjust, condoning illegal acts, etc., was written just 5 months before the same priest was reportedly professed as a diocesan hermit. (Yes, I checked with the diocese to be sure of the priest's status under c 603 and they provided his profession date.) Moreover, this "hermit's" Rule was only approved temporarily (for one year) in 2020, which means the priest in question was professed without an approved Rule, and perhaps, therefore, without having lived an eremitical Rule for several years before being professed. 

I too noted where this priest wrote recently; [[I will continue offering the sacraments locally and abroad, but my missions will be fewer, as the contemplative life should now be greater than the active life.]] You are entirely correct in your objections to this comment; it is not an eremitical life he is describing nor does he seem committed to maturing in one. The usual and necessary pattern of growth into eremitical life is to first become a contemplative, then develop into a contemplative craving greater solitude and silence, and only then, if one discerns this is the way the call to the silence of solitude must be lived, does one move even more deeply into this reality as a hermit --- all of which happens long before one petitions to be admitted to even temporary profession under c 603. I continue to think that this priest and perhaps his bishop thought that as long as he was already a diocesan priest all he had to do was become a hermit in some limited  or nominal sense and could be professed under canon 603, making him a diocesan (priest) hermit and giving him some superficial but merely apparent grounds for not fitting into parish ministry or diocesan life.

Summary:

Tom Leppard, see posts

From what I have read by both the man and his bishop I continue to think this is the case because NO ONE was busy living canon 603, coming to understand it deeply, or discerning the vocation or ascertaining the adequate formation of a diocesan hermit. What the bishop, for instance, was busy doing was struggling to find assignments for this priest when folks kept sending him back to his diocese; the priest, for his part, was demanding to be assigned somewhere or to something including religious institutes or eremitical life under c 603! For awhile this priest identified himself as a diocesan priest hermit. On the diocesan clergy role where the man's assignment is ordinarily given, this priest's name is now followed by "Diocesan Hermit." Treating c 603 as something one can "assign" an intractable priest to would make sense of the lack of discernment, lack of adequate formation or understanding of canon 603, etc. 

If I am correct and this had merely been treated as a bishop's assignment with an abbreviated "profession" (if I can use that term) consisting of a vow of simplicity (whatever this means!) merely added to a priest's already extant promises of celibacy and obedience to his bishop could also make a weird and limited sense --- though not in terms of canon 603 or the profession required by the Rite of Religious Profession ordinarily used in this regard! And all of this would indicate that neither the bishop nor the priest involved were treating an eremitical vocation under canon 603 as a serious vocation. Everything published on the situation makes it seem that c 603 and eremitical life itself was merely seen as a canonical slot from which a difficult or troublesome priest could carry on as before, free from parish responsibilities with a new standing in law and (perhaps) with a somewhat more contemplative dimension to his active life. It seems to have been a way to accommodate an abject individualism which is exactly contrary to solitary eremitical life. 

This is the only way I could make sense of the time frames and things I read from those involved. It also appears there was more arm twisting or extortion in all of this than I have discussed here, but the bottom line for me is that c 603 appears to have been abused in this case and whatever putative profession was made is disedifying for that reason and may well be invalid. Had I been able to find any article by the priest's diocese explaining the vocation, the longer than usual discernment and formation which it requires, the admittance to profession, and something of the reasons this priest felt called to pursue this, the situation might have seemed differently to me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any celebration and explanation of such a significant public event. (If anyone knows of such, please send it on and I will correct this post as appropriate.)

Sister Laurel, Whom Does it Hurt?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why does it bother you so much if someone who is Catholic wants to live like a hermit and is not consecrated by the Church wants to call themselves a Catholic Hermit? I'm sure some people don't know that the term is a technical one or that canon law applies to the use of the term Catholic in this sort of thing. And so what? Why not let people just do as they wish? Who does it hurt anyway? I think you are hung up on this and need to let it go --- after all, really what does it matter in the grand scheme of things except for those who, like you, seem to be hung up on minutiae? (I'm betting you won't post this question but thanks for answering it if you do!)]]

Thanks for your questions. Almost everything I write about on this blog, whether it has to do with the commitments made by the hermit, the canon(s) governing her life, approaches to writing a Rule of Life, the rights, obligations, and expectations associated with her vocation, the nature and significance of ecclesial vocations like this one, the nature of authentic humanity and the witness value of the hermit's life, the hope she is called to mediate to those who live lives marginalized by chronic illness and disability, the discernment and formation associated with the vocation, or the importance of elders and mentors in her life (and other topics) --- all of this speaks either explicitly or implicitly to the meaning and importance of the much more than technical term Catholic Hermit. That said, some posts will deal with your questions as central to understanding this specific eremitical vocation. These will most often be found under the labels:  ecclesial vocation(s),  silence of solitude as charism,  and rights and obligations of canon 603 vocations (and variations thereof). Since I cannot reprise everything written in the past 14 years of blogging on these topics, I would suggest you read or reread some of those posts.

Let me point out that it may well be that in our country and even in our world today the truth doesn't much matter and individualism is the way of life most value. Similarly, it may well be that liberty has edged out genuine freedom in such a world and generosity been supplanted by a "me first", "win at any cost" philosophy and corresponding set of values. Similarly, our world seems to have forgotten that what some decry as "socialism" today was identified in the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles as the only true shape of  community in the new Family (or Kingdom) of God in Christ.  (cf Acts 2:44-45) Christianity has never truly been the most popular or pervasive way of living in our world --- even when most folks went by the name "Christian"; still, Christianity is built on truth and this truth leads to a responsible freedom marked by generosity and humble (lovingly truthful) service to others. Countercultural as that may be the place which stands right at the point of sharpest conflict with the values of the contemporary world is the life of the canonical (consecrated) hermit.

The hermit's life is both most easily misunderstood and most easily distorted in living. The freedom of the hermit can slide into a selfish libertinism, its individuality can devolve into a "me first" individualism, and its lack of an active apostolic ministry can be mistaken quite easily for selfishness and a refusal to serve others. Those who neither understand the nature of the life, nor the Church's role in ensuring that these distortions do not occur will ask the kinds of questions you pose in your query. They are not the folks I generally write about -- though their ignorance of this calling can be problematical.  Others who are equally ignorant of the distinctions which stand between world and Kingdom of God will valorize their own selfish individualism with the name "hermit" and some of these will, even when initial ignorance has been corrected, insist on calling themselves "Catholic Hermits" despite never having been called by the Church to live this life in her name, and despite being unprepared and sometimes unwilling to accept the rights and obligations incumbent upon someone petitioning the Church for admission to public profession and consecration. It is these I call counterfeit or even fraudulent for they have taken ignorance and raised it to the level of lie.

Whom Does it Hurt?

Whom does it hurt? First of all it hurts the vocation itself. There is no more stark example of the truth of the way God relates to human beings than when a hermit stands face to face with God in the solitude of her cell and praises God for her life, her call to holiness, the challenge to love ever more deeply, and consents to be a witness to a God who desires to be everything for us because (he) values us beyond all imagining. It is even more striking because she says this is true no matter how poor, how broken or wounded, how sinful or shamed, and how seemingly unproductive her life is in a world marked by consumerism and an exaggerated focus on productivity --- a world which very much values the opposite of all of these and considers the hermit to be "nothing" and "a waste of skin". In Christ, the hermit stands before God consenting to be the imago dei she was made to be, entirely transparent to God's truth, beauty, and love and says with her life that this is the common call of every person. Quite a precious witness!

For someone to call themselves a Catholic Hermit when the Church herself has not discerned or admitted her to a public eremitical commitment is to strip away the humble commitment to the truth which is meant to be part of the vocation's foundation and to insert self-definition and self-centeredness in its place. Those who look to this person as an example of the Church's vision of eremitical life may find  that rather than a "Catholic Hermit" they are faced instead with the validation of  many of the same distortions and stereotypes plaguing eremitical life throughout the centuries. 

What they will not find is a person who humbly accepts her poverty before God insofar as this means accepting the vocation to which one is truly called. Lay eremitical life is profoundly meaningful and important in the life of the church; it should be honestly embraced in that way. A secondary result can be that the Church herself (in individual dioceses) will refuse to consider professing diocesan hermits at all; the vocation is a rare one with, relatively speaking, very few authentic examples; fraudulent "hermits" who represent distortions, stereotypes, and caricatures (as well as sometimes being nutcases and liars) unfortunately can serve to cast doubt on the entire vocation leading to dioceses refusing to give those seeking profession any real hearing at all.

Secondly, it hurts those who most need the witness of this specific vocation, namely those who for whatever reason find themselves unable to compete with the world on its own terms: the chronically ill, disabled, and otherwise marginalized who may believe the world's hype that wealth is measured in terms of goods and social status, able-bodiedness, youth, productivity, and so forth.  Hermits say to these people that they are valued beyond all reckoning by a God who knows them inside out. Hermits say to these people that real wealth is measured in terms of love and that one of the most precious symbols of Christianity is that of treasure contained in clay pots, while real strength is perfected and most fully revealed in weakness. To attempt to witness to the truth of the Gospel by living a lie and building it into the foundation of one's eremitical life destroys the capacity of the hermit to witness effectively to these truths. To proclaim the fundamental truth that in Christianity real treasure is contained in clay pots is made impossible if one refuses to be the pot one has been made by the potter to be (a lay hermit, for instance) but claims instead to be something else (e.g., a consecrated Catholic Hermit).

Thirdly, it hurts the one doing the lying or misrepresentation, especially if she actually comes to believe her own lies. In this way her capacity for truth, humility, generosity, and gratitude are all equally injured --- and thus too, her own authenticity as a human being. We cannot image God as we are called if we cannot accept ourselves or the vocation to which he calls us. And finally, it hurts the Church herself who is responsible for all that goes on "in her name" and for commissioning those who live eremitical life in this way.

As part of this injury to the Church, it may hurt anyone who is influenced by the fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" in her lies and misrepresentations. Sometimes this happens because the person follows the directions the counterfeit gives to "become a Catholic Hermit" and then, after spending time following this advice and building hopes on a false dream or pathway to realize their dream, is confronted by one's parish or diocese with the truth of the matter. Terrible damage can be done in this way just as it is done to those who are scandalized by the disedifying example of "hermits" who embody all the worst stereotypes associated with eremitical life, whether canonical or non-canonical. Unfortunately, the individual fraudulent "Catholic Hermit" is ordinarily not held nearly as responsible as the Church is in such cases so the damage or injury can be far-reaching and relatively ungovernable.

Summary:

I am bothered by all of this because I see the value in eremitical life, most particularly as it stands as a witness against the distorted notions of humanity and community so prevalent in today's world. I am bothered by this because I am committed to live this vocation well for the sake of others,  but especially for the sake of God and God's Church who is the steward of this vocation. I care so much because I have come to know how important this vocation is --- especially as a countercultural witness to the nature of authentic human existence and all the things the world puts up as values today. Finally, I care because God has called me to care, and to embody this caring in my own living, witnessing, teaching, mentoring, direction, and prayer. I care because the truth matters and because God and God's Church cares even as she commissioned me to do so as well. 

You may consider this a personal "hang up" of mine. That's not a problem and you are free to your opinion, but if you wish me to "let it go," I would note that I am responding to your questions here, and your questions prompt me to think about and even research it further --- not the best way to get me to let go of something! You also used the term minutia, and I would ask you to consider what portions of my response deal with minutia; I don't see anything in all of this that is not significant in many ways for many, many, people and the witness of the Church as a whole. My answer to the question, [[Whom does it hurt?]] would have to be anyone such dishonesty or fraud touches, even if they are not aware of it at the time. The Church is to minister truly and to assist others to live the truth of their deepest selves in Christ. That is made much more difficult when fraud and dishonesty are enacted or purported to be enacted in the name of that same Church. In a world hungry for truth, no one, I would argue, is untouched by this.

Really? "Hermits" Find Joy and Peace in Excommunication? Really??

"Excommunicated Hermits -- and their Cats -- Finally Find Peace"!! Such was one of the headlines that greeted me Friday morning as I checked out NCR online.  The story was about three hermits in the Orkney Islands of Scotland who seem to represent a Tridentine Catholicism and, for what I can tell, a fairly reactionary approach to all of modernity including things like evolution, the nature of the "deep state" and a number of other positions. Most critically they condemned Pope Francis and had taken some condemnatory positions and actions which, despite attempts at reconciliation by the bishop of their diocese, led to their formal excommunication. A couple of people emailed wondering if I had seen it; my Director brought a copy to our appointment that afternoon which she had printed out for me; she also wondered if I had seen it yet. Because I had other commitments Friday morning (viz, a Communion Service, etc), I had not had time to really process the article, nor had I been able to follow up by checking out the hermits' blog, etc.

So, what was my own take on the article? My immediate response was to bracket off the hermits themselves from the presentation of eremitical life found in this article by NCR. Since I ordinarily respect NCR and the reporting it does, my disappointment was keen and surprising. To be honest, the reporter sounded completely ignorant of the nature or place of eremitical life in the contemporary Church and this meant the NCR had embraced (or at least reflected) a notion of eremitical life driven by stereotypes rooted in eccentrics and nutcases. For instance, [[De Kerdrel and his two companions. . .were not seeking to build bridges with the world. Instead the trio was trying to escape from it. Day after day, the world evolved further away from their beliefs, casting the three out to places that (despite their isolation), in today's interconnected reality filtered through sectarian news outlets, were never remote enough.]] or again, [[ For years, the hermits moved from one island to another, never being able to find a place where they were welcome or didn't get into trouble.]] Similarly, [[ The trio resisted numerous efforts by bishops to separate them. "People always wanted to break us up,"]] and this by De Kedrel himself, [[ When they are attacking you left, right, and center, we come through it, we are still going! We're still together and we haven't gone insane!]] Quite a low bar for what constitutes healthy eremitical life in the Church!

My questions to NCR: why are you calling these people hermits? Why are you using terms like hermit monks or hermit nuns? Why when, even before excommunication, they no longer (or never) had canonical standing in the Church, are we dignifying this kind of disedifying lifestyle with the designation hermit or hermit monk and hermit nun? After all, De Kerdrel was formerly a Capuchin. But the accent needs to be on FORMERLY despite his hanging onto the habit. When the bar is set so low (for instance, living together while failing to go insane), is this really the best the NCR  could do? The reason as to "Why?" (why are you calling these people hermits, etc?) is simple, and sad, namely, these so-called hermits reflect all the stereotypes still alive and common today. But it gets worse. Claire Giangrave writes, [[On Christmas Eve, the hermits got their wish [for excommunication]. . . . Excommunication so far has been a joy for the hermits.]] and then explains, the hermits had received mountains and mountains of correspondence along with financial aid. DeKerdrel exclaims, [[Blow me down! The money is pouring in. I can't believe what is happening,]] adding that they [[certainly need it]].

Readers of this blog know the kinds of things that tend to drive me a bit crazy when we are speaking of eremitical life: 1) settling for or perpetuating stereotypes, 2) mistaking isolation for eremitical solitude in authentic eremitical life, 3)  mistaking eccentricity and bizarreness for instances of healthy eremitical life, and 4) failing to understand or represent the Church's own position on what constitutes eremitical life today. Giangrave's article does all of these, I'm afraid, and it is simply needless. There is an attempt at balance. Giangrave refers to Benedictine Hermit Mario Aguilar and his take on eremitical life. Aguilar accents the flexibility and diversity of the life, and also the fact that this life is not a selfish one. It is all accurate, but one wonders what Giangrave omitted from their phone conversation in her article. Aguilar's corrective here certainly seems too little too late. Instead Giangrave pivots to compare the Orkney excommunicates with the Celtic monks who arrived on the island in the 4C bent on reform; she may take Aguilar's accent on diversity as approval of eremitical eccentricity, heterodoxy, and bizarre uncharitable behavior.

Particularly appalling is the treatment of gays and lesbians by Kelly, one of the trio. He is said to have come up to a lesbian couple and remarked: "[the Catholic Church] used to burn people like you," --- apparently with approval. It was not an exceptional moment. Over the years, as a result of his aggressive posture towards same-sex couples, Kelly has been arrested 13 times, convicted 5, and spent @ 150 hours in prison. De Kerdrel also shared a similar attitude toward such couples. Eventually the bishop of the Diocese of Northampton asked the trio of hermits to leave the diocese. But this notion of being asked to leave what was really community after community because of offensive and disedifying behavior, and diocese after diocese is simply not the way eremitical life works in the Church. Neither is it remotely what eremitical life looks like.

It is stories like this which make me grateful for c 603 and the courage of the Church Fathers who worked toward it. However,  this canon has been extant now for 37 years and we still find parishes, priests, Catholic periodicals, etc with no idea that besides groups like the Camaldolese and Carthusians the Church has a strong and healthy vision of solitary eremitical life which is well-governed and edifying for those who know such hermits. Yes, there are still counterfeits and frauds who give the lie to what the rest of us are called to live, but eremitical life has shown itself to be an important ecclesial vocation with the capacity to speak powerfully to those whom life has isolated in various ways and to summon them to the redemption of such isolation in the experience we hermits know as solitude. I am hoping the NCR catches up a bit with history and eschews such bizarre portraits of eremitical life from now on. Especially I hope they find ways to report on a way of life that is not escapist but profoundly loving and engaged on behalf of others, a vocation which is lived in the heart of the Church and even as the very heart of an ecclesia of engagement in love and hope.

On the Questions of Freedom vs License and Fraudulent Hermits

[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive. In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church defines it. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God; the second is not, it is worldly or fleshly as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make.

By the way, thanks for your patience. I know it has been a while since you emailed about all of this. It has been sitting unfinished in the drafts collection and other questions on the same topics made it especially relevant again. I apologize for the delay.