Questions on Becoming a Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister, I have always wanted to be a religious but, well, I got married. Now I have thought again about becoming a religious but the places I have checked have an age restriction and I am too old. Am I right that there is no age limitation for becoming a hermit? I am not sure I could live entirely alone (I have lots of friends and my kids come by a lot and sometimes stay over), but is that part of being a hermit? How would I go about this if I decided I wanted to be a hermit? Would I just go to the chancery and ask them? Would they recognize me as a candidate and can I wear a habit? I have lots of questions and I don't know who else to ask. I think it takes two years to become a religious so is it the same to become a hermit? Thank you.]]

I think I have addressed all of these questions before so this will be a kind of summary which, hopefully, will get you started in thinking about what you are proposing to do. Let me begin by saying that what you have described suggests it is far too premature for you to go to your chancery with this. They would not be able to help you much and would be more likely to dismiss you with what one hopes would be some generally helpful suggestions. The process of becoming a hermit even apart from diocesan discernment and eventual profession takes time and there are recognizable stages to be negotiated. Because of this it would be extremely unlikely for a diocese to accept you as a candidate (an unofficial term only) right off, and I  honestly could not see them doing this until after you had lived eremitical life under the supervision or at least while working regularly with a spiritual director for several years at least. 

A diocese will want to see a pattern of assiduous prayer and penance. They will want to see that you have become a contemplative who thrives in the silence of solitude. They will want to see that you have undertaken the shifts from someone interested in eremitical life per se (not just religious life lived alone) to someone for whom prayer is primary and then to someone called to contemplative prayer. They will want to see at this point an increasing need for solitude and silence and a sense that you believe this is who you are called to be and the way your relationship with Christ is to be shaped and expressed for the whole of your life. They will look for a shift from contemplative prayer to contemplative life, a dependence on Scripture and personal preparation to live and make profession of the evangelical counsels, and that you have undertaken all of this with the assistance of regular spiritual direction. Finally, in all of this they will be looking for the development of your own humanity; they will want to see growth in wholeness and holiness. If they see all of this (or most of it) they may then accept you for a period of discernment regarding profession under Canon 603 as a diocesan hermit. There is no upper limit for admission to profession as a diocesan hermit; it is considered to be a second half of life vocation.

There are a few other things that will need to be explored. Since you were married the chancery will need to be sure you are canonically free to make another life commitment. This means if you were divorced there needs to have been a decree of nullity unless your husband or former husband is deceased. You will need to demonstrate an ability to support yourself (the church will not do this for you). Things like insurance, living expenses, library, retreat, direction, all have to be covered by the hermit. If you receive disability payments that is fine. You should be a member of a parish faith community and be known by your pastor. Most dioceses will ask for a recommendation from your pastor, your director, and sometimes medical personnel. Psychological testing may be required by the diocese and would ordinarily be paid for by them if that is the case. Still, all of that is a long way away for you from what you have described to me.

For those in community, after candidacy (9 mos. to 1 year) two years of novitiate (one canonical year and one ministerial or pastoral) is typical for novices approaching temporary profession with up to another 6 years before perpetual profession. But eremitical life is not as structured or as closely supervised as life in community. Ordinarily bishops do not profess hermits who have not lived the life for less than five years and some need for diocesan personnel to follow the hermit for that long after they approach the diocese and before admitting them to temporary profession if the person is seen to be a good candidate for a discernment process. (Not everyone is.) When this happens it is usually at least another two to three years before perpetual profession. Some bishops require five years in temporary vows. I have read one canonist who uses the same time frame canon law makes normative for admission to profession in community life, but in the main most hermits (and the bishops whom) I know agree that is not adequate for eremitical life.

I hope this is helpful. Other articles on spiritual direction, time frames, formation and discernment as a diocesan hermit are also available on this blog. You are thinking about embracing a significant and sometimes poorly understood vocation that requires significant personal initiative and resources for formation. It is not the same as life in community or even life as a religious living in her own place. There are similarities, absolutely, but the degree of silence and solitude differs significantly as does the relative absence of an active ministry or apostolate. If you are truly interested in pursuing this and perhaps feel a call to do so, and if you do not have a spiritual director, that is the place to start.

On Thomas Merton and Monastic Garb

Dear Sister Laurel, I read the following quotation from Thomas Merton which I thought was terrific. I wondered what you would say about it since you wear both cowl and other monastic garb. Would you mind commenting on it? I guess I also wonder if you agree or disagree with Merton's practice. [[I am deliberately discarding everything that can conjure up the artificial image of the monk in a cowl, dwelling in a medieval cloister. In this way I intend obviously, not to disparage or to reject the monastic institution, but to set aside all its accidentals and externals, so that they will not interfere with my view of what seems to me to be deepest and most essential.]] Thomas Merton, "Notes on a philosophy of solitude," Disputed Questions.
`

Thanks for what is indeed a truly terrific question from one of the Merton texts I personally love the best. Let me say I agree completely with Merton's intention or aim in structuring his discussion. I also generally agree with the way he has chosen to illustrate this intention; insofar as this was the way that worked best to allow Merton so explore what is deepest and most essential about the eremitical vocation I agree completely with his choice. It is important to remember that Merton remained a Trappist living on monastic grounds, supported by his Trappist community at Gethsemane. I think this strictly monastic context allows Merton to deal with anything that struck him as artificial or a matter of mere "externals", especially in the portrait of contemporary eremitical life. But more than this, as I recall, the entire discussion including what you have cited is part of a long note introducing the topic of a philosophy of solitude; it was meant to point to the fact that contemporary solitaries need not be monks at all, but might be lay persons.

Thus Merton's comments, when read in this specific context were not contributions to a discussion of whether or not one should wear a habit and/or cowl. Instead Merton wanted to examine the essence of a call to solitude where the individual lives the most basic or essential existential isolation and loneliness common not only to every person but to God as well. More, he wanted to do so in a way which demonstrated its enormous and universal challenge and meaningfulness. To do this he did indeed eschew those things which are "accidentals" or mere externals and which pull the discussion in the direction of monastic life alone so that he might also include folks like Thoreau. Solitude as Merton portrayed it, is a fundamental existential characteristic of human and Divine life. To embrace it as vocation is to serve both God and Mankind in a radically significant way. So Merton stripped his discussion of artificial elements which would only speak to and of a monk in his cowl or a Medieval cloister.

But your question to me broadens the discussion some to include the notion of wearing monastic garb like a habit and/or cowl. Does doing so indicate one is more concerned with accidentals and externals than with those things which are most essential and of greatest import? Depends, of course. My own sense is that this is much more a problem at the beginning of vocations when wearing a habit is a novelty, when one is not really comfortable in it yet (and perhaps not even in one's own skin!), and before one has had the time to take seriously the essentials or that which is deepest. After all it takes time for one to begin living any vocation in a way which plumbs and reveals the depths of that call. Reflecting on what is deepest or essential  demands time and some intellectual formation and focused attention. One needs to become acquainted with the thought and lives of those who have gone before in whatever tradition is involved; additionally one needs to have lived and struggled with this same tradition enough to discover the depths of one's own faith and identity in Christ.

If you notice Merton's own practice you will see that he wore a habit at times and ordinary monastic work clothes at other times. I don't think he rejected monastic garb, nor do I think he was all that concerned with what he wore --- and this would include not eschewing the Trappist habit as something external as much as it might have included embracing it as something which was not merely external. Merton was a Trappist and part of that tradition and life was the Trappist habit. Diocesan hermits today may or may not wear a habit and/or cowl. Those coming to c 603 life from some form of religious (cenobitical) life  will tend to wear a habit  which is a modification of what they already wore.

Those without any history in religious life may or may not wear a habit and if this is a first-time thing they will go through the same "stages" as anyone else: initial novelty and self-consciousness (often with a misplaced pride or sense of specialness), loss of self-consciousness and increasing identification with the tradition represented by the habit (often with an increased internalization of the values which transmute "specialness" into mission), and finally, the gradual or eventual making of the habit truly one's own (which may involve a sense that by the grace of God one's life embodies a special gift or charism to Church and world). Each of these "stages" represents a kind of deepening of one's appreciation of the vocation and the way one lives it. Each represents a shift to greater humility and communion.  The last stage (which is not really last but accompanies the other stages) emphasizes the way one's life imbues the habit with one's own story, while the penultimate stage (again not really a separate stage but a dimension present in each) emphasizes the way one's own story is shaped and sustained by a specific eremitical (or spiritual) tradition.

Eduard Schillebeeckx, a 20th C. Dominican theologian describes this same process in his essay entitled "Dominican Spirituality" in God Among Us.  [[For the most part people live by stories. I myself live by my own story. When I became a Dominican I linked my life story with the family Story of the Dominicans; as a result, my life story took on a new orientation and I picked up the thread of the story of the Order in my own way. So my own life has become part of the Dominican family story: a chapter in it. Through the story of the Order I have attained my own identity. Stories of the Dominican Order keep us together as Dominicans.

Without stories we should lose our memories, fail to find our own place in the present and remain without hope or expectation for the future. Thus as Dominicans we form a group by virtue of being our own storytelling community, which hands down its own traditions within the wider story of the many religious communities, within the all embracing story of the great community of the church, and within the even greater community of humankind. This makes us our own special family, recognizable from all kinds of family characteristics. Some are major, some are minor, but none of them can be hidden. 

In saying this, I have already said something about Dominican spirituality. The story of my life can be my own life story only in so far as it has become a chapter of the Dominican family story. The story of my own life extends and enriches the history of Dominican spirituality, while as a small almost infinitesimally small – almost infinitely small – chapter in it, it is at the same time relativized and criticized by the already older and wider story of the Dominican family. This makes me ask whether I really am not distorting this family story. So I am already others as a norm for Dominican spirituality. Furthermore, thank God, there are still Dominicans alive today. In other words, our story is not yet exhausted, completely told; there is still something to be said.]]

I understand the wearing of (and often, the well-considered choice to relinquish the habit in certain circumstances) is part of this process of making a particular story one's own and assuming responsibility for being a living chapter in that story. It is only a part of the necessary deepening of an ecclesial vocation such as c 603 eremitical life, but in such a process, when lived well it is certainly more than something which is merely an external and superficial element of living out one's call. For the solitary canonical hermit who must live "stricter separation from the world" in the midst of the world, the habit can be an especially challenging as well as indispensable piece of embracing both the mission and charism of her vocation. Those who choose not to wear a habit (and lay hermits who may not do so anyway because they have not been given the right) embrace characteristics like the call's hiddenness differently and  tell the eremitical story in a different way. So long as each hermit is acting in considered and prayerful ways they are an important part of the essence of the call and an expression of the depth such vocations demands.

I hope this helps as a start on this topic of habits.

Basic Questions

I received an email with a number of questions, many that have been answered here before so I thought I would post them and try to include some of the links (or at least the label links) leading to appropriate answers. The questions are:

Do I need to be a Sister before entering the Eremitical life?

No, but there is no doubt that someone with formation in a religious community will often be better prepared to move into eremitical solitude with a sense of what a solitary religious life entails and with the personal qualities and functional "skills" necessary to succeed there. Somehow one must get the social and spiritual formation religious life entails.  I believe an individual can do this but it involves education in theology, spirituality and the disciplines associated with these in prayer, lectio, study, etc. This is especially true of consecrated solitary eremitical life under canon 603. At the very least such a life needs to include the central formative elements of any religious life including education in the meaning of the vows and a grounding in Scripture which will allow one to read it intelligently and live from it as a truly deep and pervasive source of life. Moreover one needs a sense of the eremitical tradition in which one is seeking a place as a living representative. Please check out some of the other posts here on the formation of the lay or diocesan hermit, etc.

Do I need to find a specific direction such as Dominican, Benedictine, etc. ahead of time?

No. However, in my experience most hermits have developed a kinship or affinity with a particular spiritual tradition well before becoming either a lay or a diocesan hermit. Still, this is not necessary. I have felt keen resonances with Franciscan, Camaldolese Benedictine, and Cistercian spiritualities. While I was a Franciscan and am now an oblate with the Camaldolese Benedictines I retain strong affinities with Franciscanism and am discovering ever greater resonances with Cistercian spirituality. At the same time my prayer resonates with the "spirit" of John of the Cross, and so, Carmelite tradition too. The bottom line here is that I am professed as a diocesan hermit, not as Camaldolese or Franciscan or Cistercian and that profession gives me the freedom to seek the wealth in any spiritual tradition, especially those with a strong love for silence and solitude. In some ways the diocesan hermit can serve as a symbol of the place where many traditions come together in the silence of solitude.

At what point do I contact the diocese for guidance?

Until you have lived as a hermit in a conscious, dedicated, and supervised way for at least a couple of years I personally believe it is premature to contact a diocese for guidance. The most they can or usually will say to a person without at least this background is, "Go and live in solitude. Model your life on canon 603 to the degree any lay hermit can, and, if you still are interested in pursuing this option and discerning a vocation to consecrated solitary eremitical life, then contact us again." The way I have summarized this in the past is by saying a person must truly be a hermit in some essential sense before contacting their diocese. You see, dioceses are not responsible for the formation of hermits. Hermits are formed in the silence of solitude, and though this takes guidance it is strongly dependent on the hermit's initiative and personal discernment.

One of the reasons I use the picture just above as a symbol of this life is because it underscores the place of the silence of solitude in the formation of the hermit, especially the diocesan hermit. If one cannot be responsible for and acquire the education and formation one needs apart from the diocese --- at least in the main --- one is unlikely to have a vocation to solitary eremitical life. Moreover, until and unless you have this background, most dioceses are unlikely to consider you a serious candidate for eventual profession. (My own diocese has, in the past at least, said they will not even consider a person for profession under canon 603 until they have lived as a hermit under direction for at least five years. I think that is very wise and believe it is the very minimum necessary even, and maybe especially, if one is coming from a religious community.) Please see the other posts on Time Frames, When to contact one's diocese, etc. Check the labels below and in the right hand panel.

I noticed that you wear a habit, which appeals to me as well. Is this something that relates to the community you associate with, or is this a separate decision you or the diocese may have made?

The habit I wear is very specifically NOT a Camaldolese habit, nor is the cowl I wear for prayer cut in the same way a Camaldolese cowl is cut. Since I am not professed as a Camaldolese nor any other religious Order or congregation, I wear a fairly generic habit which really matches none that I know of. Diocesan hermits must be given permission to wear a habit and no bishop can give permission for them to wear the habit of a specific Order or congregation. Thus, those who turn up in Franciscan habits, or Carthusian habits, for instance are really wearing garb they have no right to. Since I am not professed as a Franciscan I do NOT wear a Franciscan habit. A friend and diocesan hermit who is associated with the Carmelites does NOT wear a Carmelite habit because the habit is a symbol of one who is formally entrusted with and thus has rights and obligations in regard a specific Tradition.

Not all diocesan hermits wear habits and not all bishops grant permission for the wearing of religious garb. Please see other posts on Titles and Habits, etc. By the way, one of the things you should discern is whether you are called to lay eremitical life or c 603 eremitical life. Don't allow the appeal of wearing a habit prevent you from looking seriously at the possibility that IF God is calling you to eremitical life it may well be as a hermit in the lay state, nor, for that matter, that wearing a habit may not be the witness God is calling you to in any case.

Do you attend Mass?

Of course. I attend Sunday Mass most weeks and daily Mass usually at least once or twice during a week. Sometimes I skip the entire week of daily Mass for a period of increased silence or uninterrupted solitude and other times I may attend several days a week. My baptismal obligations are not generally abrogated by my canonical profession though my commitment to solitude may sometimes require missing Mass at my parish. Similarly, the fact that I have the right to reserve Eucharist in my hermitage makes it absolutely imperative that I get to Mass regularly so that both the reservation and any Communion service I do in the hermitage is integrally linked to the Community celebration of Mass.  Please see the post on Solitude and Sunday Obligation (follow the labels at the bottom for similar posts) and the posts on Eucharistic Spirituality and Solitude.

Do you have any reading material to suggest as I traverse this path?

There are any number of good reads out there on eremitical life today. The best I know is Cornelius Wencel's The Eremitic Life. Personally the most important books in my own journey have included Wencel's book along with Merton's Contemplation in a World of Action, his essay, "Notes for a Philosophy of Solitude" and Cashen's study of solitude in Thomas Merton's thought by the name Solitude. Also helpful was Sister Jeremy Hall's Silence, Solitude, Simplicity, A Hermit's Love Affair With a Noisy, Crowded, and Complicated World, The Hermitage Within, and LeClercq's Alone With God. There are a number of important works on solitude itself too including those by Barbour, Koch, Storr and Buchholz. An introduction to the growing phenomenon of eremitical life of all sorts today is Consider the Ravens by the Fredette's. Meanwhile, a new monograph called Seeking in Solitude by Bernadette McNary-Zak is generally quite fine and one I recommend but probably not where one would begin reading. My own suggestion is that you start with Wencel or Merton or Hall and then read the others. Also read in and about the Desert Fathers and Mothers! They are a fount of the life you are seeking to enter.

Do you go out into the community to serve or gather with others living  the Eremitic life? (Is that a silly question, lol?)

I serve at my parish in several meaningful but quite limited ways. Mostly my work as a spiritual director and as a writer (theology, spirituality) is done from the hermitage. I don't usually meet with others living eremitical lives, no (very rarely I am able to get to Incarnation monastery, etc. ), but I do stay connected to many of them via computer and the Network of Diocesan Hermits.  You will find a number of posts here on hermits and  ministry and on the meaning and requirements of living solitude right on up to complete reclusion here. Please take a look.

Do you have any suggestions for someone looking into this form of life?

At first I hesitated answering this thinking the answer would be too complex and perhaps too lengthy. Perhaps, I thought, I could tackle it in another post just for this purpose. That remains an option. However, two things I consider critical did come to mind so I will add those here.  In the first place I have to say that the single most important suggestion I can make is that one work regularly with a good and experienced director who is knowledgeable in contemplative prayer and in spiritual formation. This person does not need to be a hermit but they must be knowledgeable, experienced, and competent in the ways mentioned! This is an absolute sine qua non in eremitical life and in discerning such a vocation. Especially, it seems to me, the director must be skilled in lovingly assisting the directee to be honest with themselves and God about their own motivations, etc. They must help a directee to seek and embrace Truth in all the ways this is revealed in their lives.

A second thing I should say here is that anyone looking into this life must understand that there are many kinds of solitude and most are not eremitical. If one is called to various degrees of silence AND solitude one still may not be called to live the silence OF solitude in the eremitical life. If one is called to eremitical life there are several options: 1) eremitical life in the lay state (the majority of hermits are lay hermits I think), 2) consecrated life as a hermit in a religious congregation, and 3) consecrated life as a solitary hermit under canon 603. One might be called to any of these. A lot of discernment is involved and one must be prepared to give oneself over to the process. (Hence the importance of a competent spiritual director!)

Many times folks write and seem to have concluded their vocation is a foregone conclusion. Sometimes this simply means they are intrigued by the idea. But interest or even attraction does not necessarily mean a vocation. Often (though not in the case of the person asking these particular questions) they believe because they live alone they are truly called to be a hermit or are actually already hermits. Yet, the truth is quite often that they are still merely lone individuals primarily interested in "getting consecrated", wearing a habit, reserving Eucharist in their own place, or are persons who are simply interested in validating their own aloneness and individualism. Mainly these folks have very little sense of what being a hermit actually means and they are not really interested in the radical conversion of their living situations or their hearts and minds in the way eremitical life requires.

The actual process of discernment has not really happened here nor can it until and unless the candidate commits to a process of formation, conversion and mutual discernment. Discernment is, in some ways, an evaluation of the way this formation in the silence of solitude either causes one to grow and thrive or to be diminished and stifled. This is why I wrote recently of being able to discern whether one is called to eremitical life only when one is striving to live the life, not while preparing to live it. (cf. Should We Just Ease into Eremitical Life to Discern a Vocation to Eremitism?) So, again, my suggestion is to remember that what you are called to is God's will for what is most loving for others as well as yourself!  If you believe you have a vocation then give yourself over wholeheartedly to a genuine discernment and formation process and be patient with however long it takes. If you are called to be a hermit your life will be more about the journey than a particular destination (e.g., consecration) anyway. Trust God; trust the process or journey; trust the Church, and look to what is most loving and edifying for everyone involved.

Meanwhile, I'll think a bit more about what else I might suggest. I have written about this a lot in various ways over the years so perhaps I do need to pull that all together in a single post.

What Happens When the Bishop's Discernment clashes with that of the Diocesan Hermit?

 Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my question about elderly and infirm hermits. I am the one who asked whether their vows would be dispensed. I am glad you also thought the blogger mentioned made some good points. She mentioned two other situations. One of them which dealt with full time work you have already responded to indirectly in a separate question. The blogger asked: [[ What if a hermit's financial circumstances are such that a change has occurred, and he or she needs to work part time or full time and the job available or to of which the hermit is capable is among many people or in highly interactive and noisy environment? Do they then need to be removed as hermits? Do they cease being part of the Consecrated Life of the Catholic Church? Would any charitable or wise spiritual director (bishop or not) demand the hermit's withdrawal, or negate the consecrated vocation? Would church law no longer recognize those who are CL603 hermits--with the bishop making a public statement to that effect?]]

The second one has to do with wearing a habit. She wrote the following: [[What if a hermit goes along wearing a habit for awhile, approved by spiritual director (or a bishop), and then realizes it prohibits the degree of passing unnoticed or being hidden from the eyes of men--that the hermit and his or her director have determined to be best for that particular hermit? What if the hermit decides to dress so as to blend in and not be noticed as different or be mistaken as a consecrated religious if not in the religious life? And is it wrong for a hermit to wear a habit if and when no longer a part of the consecrated life of the church as a religious? These aspects are determined by the hermit and his or her director, for there are always personal, individualized, and unique considerations to be made. Not up to others to judge.]]

So here are my questions. Can [a] person's spiritual director determine these kinds of things? Can  Bishops demand something other than the person's SD and the person discern are best for him. Should someone continue wearing a habit if they have left the consecrated state?

Thanks for writing again. Regarding the place and role of a spiritual director in such matters, the spiritual director will work with a person to help her discern what is best for herself and her vocation at any given point in time but cannot decide this unilaterally and sometimes may not agree with the decision at all. It is not her decision. Ever. She is not a legitimate superior but one who assists a client be attentive and responsive to the voice and movement of God in her life. Similarly if a directee working together with her SD discerns something seems to be the best decision or course of action, etc. this absolutely does not mean a Bishop must automatically agree with this discernment if he is the person's legitimate superior. (By this I mean if he is more than her Bishop but has assumed the place of legitimate superior in the rite of perpetual profession made in his hands.)

The Bishop will certainly consult with the  person in this  matter and she will share her discernment with him; he may also ask the SD to contact him with her opinion in the matter, but, so long as there is also a delegate in the picture, this is unnecessary and unlikely due to the confidential nature of the spiritual direction relationship. On the other hand he will speak with the hermit's delegate since she serves in precisely this role for both the hermit and the larger Church. Remember that the Bishop has other concerns and perhaps a wider vision of the matter at issue which must be accommodated as well as this specific discernment by the hermit. For instance, in the case of a consecrated solitary (diocesan) hermit let's suppose she determines (with her director's assistance) that it would be best for the hermit to work full time in a highly social job and that she believes the hermit can do this for a period of months without it adversely affecting her vocation. However, let's suppose the Bishop says no to this because as he understands things, 1) the canon does not allow this, 2) the witness it gives to the local and possibly the universal Church is disedifying, and 3) he is not entirely convinced the discernment is really cogent for someone with a genuine eremitical vocation.

In such a case the Bishop will make a decision which contradicts the hermit's own discernment and he is entirely within his rights and obligations as Bishop to do so. If a hermit cannot live with this, then she will have to decide what happens next. Will she obey or not? Will she seek dispensation from her eremitical profession or not? Again, the Bishop has concerns which overlap those of the hermit (both are concerned with her vocation specifically and the eremitical tradition generally) but he is responsible canonically to protect c 603 and the consecrated eremitical life it expresses. Sometimes what seems best for the individual hermit is not also what is best for the Church or for the vocation more generally.

The hermit has to try and get her mind and heart around this fact and either embrace the sacrifice it requires --- if this is possible without compromising her own conscience --- or she will need to find another good-conscience resolution which protects not only her own vocation but the solitary eremitical vocation more generally. However, in such a significant matter -- a matter which weighs directly on the integrity and meaning of the canon --- if she cannot do this and the Bishop is unable to assist her to achieve a workable resolution while standing by his own prudential decision on the matter, then yes, the hermit's vows will very likely need to be dispensed and the hermit will cease to be a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church. You see, the Bishop, as the hermit's legitimate superior can certainly demand something the hermit does not  feel is the best thing for her. This will usually not be done facilely and not without consultation, but it can happen. The judgment is NOT the individual hermit's alone precisely because her vocation is an ecclesial one; others (the church at large, other diocesan hermits or candidates, their own Bishops, etc.) have a stake in the decision being made and the local Bishop and to a lesser degree, the diocesan hermit's delegate, have responsibilities for making binding judgments in these cases.

On Wearing a Habit if One has left the Consecrated (religious) State?

Should someone continue wearing a habit if they leave the consecrated state? No. While I understand the allure of such a decision and the difficulty of letting the habit go, the fact is that habits are symbols of public vocations. They are ecclesial symbols and the individual does not have the right to adopt these without the Church's permission and supervision. (A spiritual director, by the way, would not of him or herself have the right to grant this permission.) I wrote recently that symbols are living things, that they are born and can die but they cannot simply be created by fiat (cf, On Symbols and Ongoing Mediation or, On the Significance of the Designation Er Dio). When we are clothed with the habit and/or prayer garment (something the Church does, usually through the mediation of an institute of consecrated life, but also in the profession of hermits) we accept this symbol as our own; we step into a stream of living tradition and witness to it with our lives.

One of the reasons diocesan hermits do not adopt the habits of specific congregations (Dominican, Franciscan, Carthusian, Camaldolese) for instance is because they are not professed as part of this tradition. Their lives are neither canonically committed to nor shaped by members of these congregations who teach and model for them what this habit means in the history of the Church and the life of a religious of this specific spiritual tradition. In any case, the bottom line is that the wearing of a habit is an ecclesial act, an act of witness which the Church commissions and supervises. It is part of the rights and obligations associated with consecrated life. If one leaves the state she leaves these rights and obligations as well. Again, with rights come obligations and both rights and obligations are mediated by the Church, not by the individual.

[[The blogger also wrote, [[Again, no consecrated Catholic hermit is like another anymore than there are two fingerprints the same in the whole world or that have ever repeated throughout the history of mankind.]] I think this blogger was trying to suggest that Canon law cannot place arbitrary constraints on an individual hermit and that each hermit is free to discern what is best for themselves. She seems to have a fundamental belief that canon law is harmful, especially in regard to hermits. Can you comment on this opinion?]]

I have written recently about the profound characteristics shared by diocesan hermits in spite of their uniqueness here: Significance of Er Dio as post-nomial initials. I don't want to repeat that since it is quite recent but I do suggest you take a look at it if you missed it or perhaps simply to refresh your memory. It is true that every consecrated hermit differs from every other hermit just as individual fingerprints differ. But all fingerprints have shared characteristics or overarching patterns of whorls, arches, loops and their subsets. Eremitical life also has such patterns and basic characteristics. Canon 603 lists these and the hermit uses them to define her life with her own necessary flexibility as she codifies these in her Rule or Plan of Life. Any individualism is at least muted and (one hopes) transformed by this process of configuration and the conversion it empowers. Hermits differ one to another, yes, but to the extent they are authentic hermits their differences represent a variation on a more important shared theme and charism, namely, the silence of solitude they are each and all called to live in the name of Christ and (for those who are ecclesially professed and consecrated) in the name of his Church. I believe that canon law is important for protecting a rare and fragile though vital ecclesial vocation; I have written about that here several times so please check out past posts on this. My opinion has not changed.

On shifting discernment regarding wearing a habit:

There was also a slightly different question posed in the passage you cited re the wearing of a habit, namely, what does one do if one is granted permission to wear a habit and then decides down the line that doing so conflicts with the hiddenness of the life, for instance? Ordinarily a bishop gives permission for the wearing of a habit and may also approve the habit itself. He does not typically mandate the wearing of a habit. If a hermit discerns that the positive reasons for wearing a habit conflict with something as essential as the hiddenness of the eremitical life, the hermit will take a couple of steps in moving towards relinquishing the habit: 1) she will discuss the matter (director, delegate, and perhaps, her bishop) to share her discernment; these persons are able to evaluate the degree and quality of discernment achieved, 2) she will rewrite the portions of her Rule that deal with wearing the habit and anything in her treatment of the vow of religious poverty which is affected, and 3) she will seek approval for these changes (if, in fact, her Rule addressed these things in the first place). A bishop may or may not approve such changes in the hermit's usual praxis and/or Rule, but if the discernment is good it is unlikely he would disapprove.

Postscript: there has been some confusion, I believe, because in Canon 603 the hermit is said to live her life "under the direction of the local Bishop". This has caused some to write "under their director's authority (whether bishop or not)" [paraphrase] and similar things. However, "direction" in canon 603 does not refer to a bishop doing or serving as spiritual director nor does it elevate the ordinary spiritual director to the same role as the Bishop; such levelling and confusion of roles is a serious misunderstanding of the language being employed here. Instead, the term "direction" (and thus, the director) refers to the general current usage in religious life where a director is a superior under whose legitimate supervision one lives one's life --- as in the case of a novice director or director of candidates, etc. Thus, to avoid confusion when speaking of canon 603, I tend to speak of "director" for spiritual director and  of "legitimate superior" under whose supervision  (rather than direction) one lives as a canonical hermit to refer to the local bishop. I will also use Director (capitalized) for the delegate and director (lowercase) or SD or spiritual director for that role/person.

Wearing Habits: Helpful to Prayer?

[[Dear Sister, you once wrote, "A habit is unnecessary and superfluous apart from the assumption of such rights and obligations; it is for this reason they are not usually approved apart from admission to vows." I think that I pray better when I am wearing a habit of some sort. No, I am not publicly professed but I had one made and I really feel more comfortable when I pray in it.You must know what I mean!  Don't you feel more comfortable praying in your habit? ]]

I suspect this may be the shortest blog post ever but the answer is simply NO. I honestly have no idea what you mean. So long as I am physically comfortable (i.e., warm enough, not constricted, etc) what I am wearing is of no consequence at all.

But let me say a bit about prayer and how what you describe doing strikes me. To be frank (and pardon me for this) I believe you are fooling yourself and making of prayer something marked by pretense. I also think you would do well to speak with someone you know and trust about this practice, especially someone who does spiritual direction. Not least you need to understand (and perhaps work through) why you are comfortable when dressed one way but not so comfortable in prayer otherwise. You see prayer is simply being who we truly are before and with God. If who we are involves the right and obligation to wear a habit then fine; if it does not, then wearing one before God is pretense --- that is, one is pretending to something one has no right to; one is pretending to be someone one is not.

Because I have been given the right (and privilege) as well as accepted the obligation of and responsibilities associated with wearing a habit --- and because I wear it routinely --- yes, I am entirely comfortable praying  in it. However, I am equally comfortable praying in jeans and a work tunic, pajamas, or even (for some forms of prayer anyway!) naked in the shower. In other words, I am comfortable in my own skin before and in the power of God. You must be yourself in prayer. Nothing else makes sense. Nothing else is truly reverent or really open to God. Anything else is an offense to the God of Truth who truly accepts us as we are and loves us into wholeness. Anything else is contrary to our being  humble persons who are and allow ourselves to be wholly dependent upon the mercy of God. Playing dress up in a habit is contrary to humility which is a loving form of truthfulness; neither is it the basis for prayer to or empowered by the God who makes all things true.

By the way, what you might like to do instead of dressing up in a religious habit is to use a prayer garment. I do not mean a cowl, for instance (this is associated with solemn public profession and monastic or eremitical life), but many people use prayer shawls or garments like a Jewish "Tallit" .  Meanwhile, thank you for your question. It is actually a significant one and I am truly grateful you asked it.

Why is it Diocesan Hermits can Wear Habits?

Sisters of Bethlehem (Not Canon 603)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it consecrated hermits can wear habits?]]

Thanks for your question. There are several reasons which make it appropriate to allow publicly professed hermits to wear habits.  First, in light of canon 603 solitary canonical hermits are now seen as religious. In the Handbook on Canons 573-746 in the section on norms common to Institutes of Consecrated Life, canonist Ellen O'Hara, CSJ writes regarding canon 603 specifically, "The term "religious" now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relation to an institute." Thus, the same canonical obligations regarding garb witnessing to consecration and religious poverty can be applied to diocesan hermits. (Note well that in all of this I am referring to canon 603 and those who make public vows under that canon. Privately dedicated hermits are not included in Sister Ellen O'Hara's characterization above.)

Secondly, the eremitical life is traditionally associated with an eremitical or monastic habit. Ordinarily an elder hermit granted the habit to the novice; s/he also monitored the wearing of it as a piece of mentoring the novice in the eremitical life. If the novice lived the life well, the habit stayed; if the novice did not live the life well, permission to wear the habit was withdrawn and the habit was taken away. This use of specific religious garb is older than any other in the history of Christian religious or monastic life. Since, along with congregations of hermits like the Carthusians and Camaldolese, c 603 represents a public, ecclesial continuation of this tradition, the granting of the habit is entirely appropriate to diocesan hermits, despite the fact that they are solitary hermits. The Bishop replaces an elder hermit or mentor, however, in granting permission for and clothing with the habit.

Thirdly, the habit, today especially, marks the person wearing it as somehow "separated" from the world, not only in the sense of that which is resistant to Christ, but also to some extent from the world of social relationships and some related obligations. For instance, as I have noted before, vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience significantly qualify the ways in which the professed person relates to the world of commerce, relationships, and power. For hermits who are, in fact and by definition, more strictly separated from these than apostolic or ministerial religious, the habit can serve to remind her of this dimension of her vocation even when she is out and about. While it should not make her in any way remote or distant from those with whom she comes in contact, it signals a distinction which is not always appropriate in ministerial religious.

Permission to wear the habit, as noted above, is granted by the diocesan Bishop. Beyond this, it is customary (though not strictly required) that the hermit is clothed in a cowl or other prayer garment at perpetual profession. My own diocese required the latter (cowl or other prayer garment) and desired or were open to (but did not require) my wearing a habit. Still, some hermits may choose not to adopt these forms of garb and some dioceses may not require (or even be open to) either habit or prayer garment. Reasons vary. Some Bishops dislike allowing individuals who are not members of an institute of consecrated life to wear a habit (especially if the habit is typically Franciscan or Dominican or something similar --- a practice which cannot be allowed!); sometimes, however, this is a piece of legitimately discerning an authentic eremitical vocation (bishops or Vicars may say the diocese is not open to hermits wearing habits because sometimes folks who live alone merely want to wear a habit and are not really interested in the vocation itself or in living an authentic eremitical solitude). 

In all such cases there is really no need for a habit until one is professed; one will dress simply otherwise; neither is a habit necessary for discerning an eremitical vocation. At the same time, as noted, in some cases withholding the granting of the habit may be part of discerning and demonstrating a candidate is not really interested in or able to live an eremitical life per se. Some hermits accent the hiddeness of the vocation and see a habit as clashing with this dimension of the eremitical life. Others feel that wearing such garb is contrived or unnatural outside a monastic setting and are simply uncomfortable with it. When these things are true for the individual hermit, when, that is, they are positions she holds or agrees with, her own Rule (her own "proper law") will not support the wearing of a habit.

Still, hermits professed and consecrated under canon 603 are generally allowed to wear habits if and when their Bishops agree. (Again, such permission, which seems to be granted by the majority of bishops with c 603 hermits in their dioceses, is usually not granted apart from profession, especially if the hermit is out in public because, as I have noted before (something which could be called a fourth reason), habits are associated with the assumption of public rights and obligations of a particular state of life (Religious). A habit is unnecessary and superfluous apart from the assumption of such rights and obligations, or such a state; it is also misleading and dishonest. People rightly associate habits with the assumption of public rights and obligations and tailor their expectations accordingly, It is for this reason habits are not usually approved apart from admission to vows. The cowl, when given, is always linked to perpetual profession and not to temporary profession.

On Secular Hermits, Habits and Titles, and Persistence in Dealing with Dioceses

Dear Sister, I wonder if you could help me think about the following passage from a hermit who describes himself as a secular hermit? I have deleted the name from the passage. I guess I wonder if it is really all right to adopt a habit and a religious name simply because one wants to. Though I am not a hermit I would like to do that but I wonder if it is right or very prudent. I also wonder if it is true that diocesan personnel have neither the time nor the expertise in canon law for such foolishness as individuals who desire to become diocesan hermits. This hermit writes: [[ I am free to live as I choose, and to call myself whatever name I like and to wear whatever clothing I want. I choose to live as a religious under vows and a rule, I call myself brother . . . and I wear a habit without a collar to witness to Jesus. There are not too many dioceses that have hermits or recognize them as such, and diocesan personnel, I am told, have neither the time nor the expertise in Canon Law for such foolishness.]]

On the Designation "Secular Hermit"

Thanks for your questions. I understand your unease with this person's statements --- at least as they are cited here. They make me uneasy too. First, one thing you did not ask me about and that is the term "secular hermit". This person is using the term secular as the opposite of religious but that is not really accurate. Religious men and women live lives that are separated from the world (saeculum) in specific ways while others live their lives "in the world" and are called to be "in it but not of it." These latter folks became known as "seculars." Further, "religious (n.)" became set off against "seculars" and unfortunately Religious men and women were seen to be called to a higher holiness than those Baptized Christians living their vocations in ministry in and to the world. Secularity became associated with secularism and then, mistakenly, identified with it. Despite the lessons of the Incarnation, holiness was seen to be the province of those who were "separated from the world."

Today we realize that the situation is much more complex. Vocations are not so neatly differentiated and the Incarnation reminds us that the entire world is Sacramental and meant to be brought to fullness if God's Kingdom is to be truly realized and God is to be all in all. We recognize a universal call to holiness whether that call means one builds oneself into the world of family, business, economics, politics, etc, or whether one makes vows which separate oneself (that is, qualify one's life) in significant ways from or to the world of relationships (consecrated celibacy), power (obedience), and commerce (religious poverty). One person whose vocation is more especially marked by a "stricter separation from the world" than most other persons,whether Lay or Religious, is the hermit. In other words, I don't think we can speak of secular hermits. One may be in the lay state, the consecrated state, or the clerical state, but if one is a hermit who lives the elements of canon 603 (even without public vows), one is not secular.

On Habits and Titles

Habits are no longer ordinary garb. For good and ill they are ecclesial symbols. They have meaning because the Church and the people who have worn them in season and out have invested them with meaning. Because of this when people see them they have the right to certain expectations. They have the right to expect the person in the habit has accepted all the legitimate and moral obligations attached to the (rights of) wearing of such garb. They have a right to expect that person to have formally and legitimately accepted a place in the long tradition of martyrs, ascetics, virgins, and hermits who have worn such habits through the centuries and many times suffered because of it. They have a right to expect the person to be precisely what the habit says they are --- publicly professed men or women whose vocations have been discerned and mediated by the Church. They have a right to expect the person is available to them because of all of this because the person acts (and is commissioned to act) in the name of the Church who, in real ways, also supervises their vocation and generally affirms them as worthy of peoples' trust in pastoral matters.

As I have written before, even hermits did not simply adopt a habit on their own. The desert Fathers and Mothers were given the habit by elders and those elders could take the habit away again if the person failed to live their vocations with integrity. In the Middle Ages it became common for Bishops to give their consent to persons wishing to adopt the habit of the hermit. Again, habits were seen as significant and their wearing was regulated --- even at a time when there was no universal Code of Canon Law, and a somewhat varied theology of consecrated life. The same is true of titles. In the Roman Catholic Church the titles Brother or Sister indicate something specific --- not so much personal status or standing as the way the Holy Spirit is working in the Church's life through specific persons and states of life.

So, while it is strictly true that a person can pretty much wear and style themselves any way they like in public (though even civilly there are significant exceptions to this rule) it is not true that they can do this without disparaging the meaning of these things (Habits, titles etc.) or betraying the expectations which are associated with them in the eyes of believers and the entire world. Habits and titles do not simply indicate what the person believes of themselves; they indicate ecclesial vocations and witness to something which has been made to be true in the People of God. Now, if the person who wrote this was wearing a habit and using a specific title privately (silly as this might seem), that is ONLY in his own hermitage and no where else there would be no problem. He is completely within his rights. However, if he goes out, attends Mass, etc, or even blogs under this name with pictures of himself in his habit, the practice is problematical at best. In my opinion a Catholic does NOT have the right to do this --- first because s/he has not accepted the commensurate obligations that are part of doing so, and secondly out of charity to others who might be misled. One of the most fundamental things Christians are responsible for is truth in advertising --- which we also call transparency and which allows our lives to be Christ's truth for others.

I understand both this person's feelings about thinking of himself as a religious and dressing the part --- especially if he has been refused admission to public profession --- which sounds like it is the case. I also understand your own desire to do so. In the first case it is very difficult to feel called to something in one's own heart and have the institutional church disagree. One wants to find a way to live the truth of who one is while coming to terms with what one experiences as a rejection of one's deepest self. On the other hand, some people argue that they wear the habit because they esteem it or because they want to witness to religious life when many Sisters no longer wear the habit. The problem is that the very act of pretense (for in these cases one is pretending to something one has no right to) does not indicate genuine esteem nor does it witness to religious life or the God of truth. It is not the case that one can adopt ecclesial titles and garb  and expect to be recognized in terms of the ecclesial meaning of those while thumbing one's nose at the canons and customs which govern these things within the church. Certainly one cannot do so and pretend to esteem consecrated life in that very ecclesial community.

Diocesan Personnel and the Diocesan Eremitical Vocation

I have sometimes written that not all dioceses are open to having diocesan hermits. I have also written that diocesan personnel tend to have neither the time nor the expertise to form hermits. Finally I have also written that it often takes an extended period of time to discern and form hermits in preparation for temporary or perpetual vows. (This is not the job of the diocese but the work of the hermit herself with her director and, sometimes, others in cooperation with God.) However, what is not generally true --- at least not in my experience --- is that diocesan personnel are insufficiently expert in Canon Law (they may not specialize in consecrated life, but that is a somewhat different question). And, while there are certainly anecdotes about Vicars who say they do not believe in eremitical life, neither is it generally the case that they treat people wishing to become hermits as though they are pursuing some sort of foolishness.

It is true that dioceses do not routinely admit individuals to profession as diocesan hermits. It is true that they tend to be demanding about the signs of genuine vocation as well as cautious about anything that might signal stereotypical distortions or destructive eccentricity in persons seeking to be professed. It is true that some do not believe much in contemplative life and even less so in hermits --- mainly because they misunderstand solitude as isolation and eremitical life as essentially selfish. But, except in this latter situation, I have not known any dioceses to reject good candidates out of hand; they might well extend periods of discernment, require regular meetings with Vicars or vocation directors as well as all kinds of recommendations (Spiritual director, pastor, physicians, psychologists, etc), but generally they do not treat possible vocations as foolishness.

One must be patient with a diocese if one is the first person/hermit they have seriously considered professing under canon 603. They have a lot to learn not only about eremitical life generally, but about Canon 603 specifically and the way it is implemented along with the kinds of stories dioceses have about their own experiences with hermits thus professed. Even if one is not the first hermit the diocese has professed the diocese will also need to learn a lot about the candidate for profession both before they make recommendations regarding further formation requirements and during the process of discernment which is associated with formation. And they will need to assess how such vocations will be supervised and lived out in their diocese.

On Patience and Persistence

One must also be persistent in one's efforts to be admitted to public profession. It may take some time before a diocese is clear they have a good candidate, or before they have done enough research to even know when this is the case. A single letter to the diocese requesting profession under Canon 603 will not usually be sufficient. One of the things a diocese will want to know is whether or not c 603 is being used as a stopgap way to get to wear a habit and be called Brother or Sister. In other words, they will rightly expect a person to live as a hermit whether or not public profession is in their future and to show all of the characteristics genuine hermits demonstrate: not only a commitment to all the elements of Canon 603 which are absolutely foundational, but to whatever is necessary for continuing growth in this vocation: self-discipline and individual initiative, spiritual direction, reasonable involvement in the parish community, ongoing formation (education, growth in prayer, greater responsibility for the eremitical tradition itself, regular retreats, consultation with other hermits or experts who can assist them in this, and above all, growth in humility (which is a function of truthfulness), authentic humanness (holiness), and one's capacity to love others.

While I am not telling candidates or potential candidates to nag their dioceses, sometimes it does take real persistence to get an adequate hearing. One needs to be honest and ask clear questions about what one is hearing from a diocese. But whatever occurs one needs to carry on honestly living one's response to God --- and if one feels generally called to the life described in Canon 603 then one needs to live that as a lay hermit without habit or title --- either with the diocese's aid or  in spite of its lack. In time the situation may change in various ways. Discernment and growth does not stop -- no matter what the diocese's response is.

I hope this has been of some help to you. You might also check Notes from Stillsong Hermitage: Difficult Questions When Dioceses Decline to Profess

Followup on the Question re: What a "woman Religious looks like"

In an earlier post a reader objected that the Sisters who are part of member congregations of LCWR don't look like representatives of consecrated life because, presumably and generally speaking, they no longer wore habits. I said I would respond to that objection in a separate post so let me give it a shot. Let me be clear though: in this response I don't intend a comprehensive discourse on the issue of wearing habits. Instead I want to focus on one of the things that is happening because of the Nuns on a Bus tour --- namely the act of making clear "what a ministerial woman religious actually looks like".

Let's be clear, as a kind of introduction, that apostolic or ministerial Sisters often only wore the daily dress of their cultures. Some of the habits we identify today as "nun's habits" were really the widow's weeds of the day. In fact, Sisters wore these and were encouraged to wear them by other Sisters in the early days of the US because of the anti-Catholicism prevalent during that time. In time these costumes (the common European term for them) became a formalized habit which, rather than assuring these Sisters fit in well with the culture and society of their day and could minister effectively, stood out from the normal garb of the day. Various parts of such habits also eventually acquired religiously symbolic value but this was because they were intimately related to the consecrated women who wore them (including those in monastic life from the long past)--- not because the garb itself began as symbolic or religiously significant. Thus, we need to be aware that religious habits were born of necessity, custom, and association with the persons who wore them and the lives of generosity, prayer, and holiness those women actually lived.

In 1900 in a text called Conditae a Christo which still defined all religious life in a monastic shape but without strict cloister, and then 1917 with the Code of Canon Law, the Church recognized a kind of hybrid religious life which made normative anachronistic dress which sometimes had been forced on Sisters so they could be called "real religious." Often the Sisters' ministries had to be tailored as a result and so there were significant trade offs in the situation. After Vatican II, and because of its directives and values, women religious modified their religious garb, and often, as they re-examined the history and charisms of their congregations they went back to simple contemporary dress. They also began appraising their commitment to set corporate ministries or "apostolates" in light of their own charisms and the Council's teaching on the universal call to holiness. What was clear to the Sisters was that projects that had needed Sisters originally (the foundation and staffing of hospital and school systems) now could easily be turned over to lay persons. In any case, government took over the responsibility of education and health care in ways which made the Sisters' work to bring these to the marginalized less imperative or necessary --- and in some cases, less possible.

They moved on to other ministries which were as ground-breaking and unaddressed as had been health care and schooling for the poor and otherwise marginalized they had first been involved in. In such ministries archaic, expensive habits (and make no mistake that traditional habits were expensive in several ways!) were not helpful but in fact often created a barrier to those the Sisters sought to serve. Christ's presence never created unnecessary barriers. Unfortunately the result of all of this meant that Sisters largely passed from public view and many Catholics felt Sisters had abandoned them and the institutions they had established. Because Sisters weren't readily identifiable by distinctive dress and also worked on the margins of society rather than in parish schools, etc, many Catholics and non-Catholics wondered if they still existed at all. Neither did they realize that the changes in Sisters' ministries and dress were, in part, directly tied to a need to lift up the vocations of ALL of the laity to serve without distinctive dress or a kind of "special" status beyond the consecration of their Baptism in Christ.

Today in the Nuns on the Bus tour one of the things that is happening is that Sisters who were thought to have died out, abandoned ministry and/or the religious life, and whose consecration beyond Baptism was inextricably tied to distinctive garb, are demonstrating what they have been doing for the last 47 years since Vatican II ended. These Sisters are giving the lie to all the stereotypes and malicious rumors --- that, for instance, they are not women of profound prayer, that they are not living community, that they are unfaithful to their vows, that they have given up important ministry to deal in weird and wacky spiritualities, etc. Further, they are giving a face and voice to what it means to be a ministerial Religious today. In the Sisters associated with this tour we see deeply faithful, profoundly compassionate, and radically committed women whose credibility is rooted precisely in their commitment to their vows to stand in solidarity with those on the margins of society. They are making visible to the mainstream what has so long and unfortunately been invisible to most of the church --- lives of total dedication to God and those he holds as precious, and total consecration by God to lives of real holiness.

It is instructive and ironic that all of the media are still using the iconic images of nuns we associate with Sisters prior to Vatican II. In a sense the media is underscoring stereotypes and not paying attention to what is actually going on right in front of them, namely the public revelation of a form of religious life which is marked by simplicity and solidarity. Further, it is a form of religious life which is carried on by strong women who value their own womanliness and therefore empower women in this society more generally --- especially women who will never have "special status" in the Church and will never wear distinguishing garb which comes with the special perqs and deference attached to religious habits. In the Nuns on the Bus tour increasingly the images of the Sisters involved create normative images in our own minds of just what most consecrated women dress and act like today. This is a piece of the picture that has been missing and it is important. As a result, instead of looking for the presence of women religious because of their distinctive garb, we begin to look for them as the superficially hidden leaven in all kinds of vital "love-does-justice" projects and contexts. We begin, in other words, to seek (and to see that we are responsible for seeking) evidence of genuine holiness and compassion in the unexpected place -- a holiness and compassion which we can ALL find ourselves called to.

This is the original pattern of ALL religious life rooted in the incarnation of the Word of God. It is a pattern which has been recovered by women Religious who seek to empower others, not to garner esteem and status for themselves or their "state of life." It is a pattern which breaks open stereotypes and draws our attention to what is profoundly important, the reality of commitment to God and consecration by God lived out in hearts which are humble and with which we should all be able to completely identify. As important as I personally believe habits are in given situations, I recognize that they are ALWAYS less important than the more profound and personal witness given by the women Religious on the Nuns on the Bus tour (or in any other situation for that matter). After all, few in our church or society will ever wear habits or be able to completely identify with those who do; but everyone can identify with and be inspired by those who reveal their hearts to us during these weeks of the bus tour. They are the face of one form of religious life in today's church and we are privileged to see it so clearly.

Question on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Trivialization of the Habit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I don't usually read your blog. I read it because of the post on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb. I am pleased you admitted you did not have an opinion on the suppression. I wonder though why you were critical of the fact that children were wearing the habit of the community. They are part of the community after all. I thought the picture was kind of cute and pointed to the fact that the IOTL was fostering vocations among the very young. Why would you call this practice "trivialization" of the habit? Seems a bit harsh to me. Also, why would this picture raise questions about the IOTL's membership in the Congregation of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) or the organization itself?]]

Welcome to this blog then, and thanks for your questions. I have written in the past about habits having meaning. They are symbolic and ecclesial garb with which the church vests a person because of mutual discernment of a God-given vocation and the assumption of life commitments mediated by the Church. (Sometimes "Church" means congregations and their representatives which are officially recognized, sometimes it means a Bishop (as in the case of diocesan hermits, for instance). The point is the garb has meaning in this context and one needs to be authorized to wear it if they are publicly representing a vocation. A habit represents the achievement of various degrees of discernment and correlative commitment to an ecclesially mediated call. Thus, it is not unusual to see the stages of such commitments mirrored in aspects of the habit (for instance novices may wear a white veil while professed wear some color or a black one), or to see various pieces of clothing given to a person as they move from postulancy to novitiate to temporary profession and then to perpetual profession (for instance the monastic cowl is given at solemn or perpetual profession for monks and some hermits while rings, medals, crosses etc are given at various points as well in many congregations).

There are various ways the habit (or even religious insignias like rings and medals) can be emptied of meaning or, as I said in my other post, trivialized, and even rendered incredible and untrustworthy. Sometimes people adopt garb on their own rather than accepting that the Church through appropriate authority invests a person not only with the garb, but with the commensurate rights and obligations of the vocation represented to others via the vesture. They have therefore neither been given nor accepted these in a meaningful (or authoritative) way and no one they minister to really knows whether they have or are prepared for living out this vocation --- though on seeing the vesture they will assume they may necessarily turn to this person with various expectations (not least that the person has been confirmed in this vocation by the church and acts in her name and with her authority and supervision) and that they may therefore do so safely and meaningfully. The habit gives THEM this right just as it gives the religious who wears it certain rights and obligations as consecrated persons in the Church. Formation, education, supervision, competence, maturity, commitment, and faithfulness to the life of the evangelical counsels are a few of the expectations that NECESSARILY come with the wearing of the habit. They are expectations any Catholic (or non-Catholic for that matter) has a complete right to hold in regard to those wearing such garb publicly.

In my own experience veils and some other pieces of religious garb are treated as sacred; they are as consecrated objects reserved for those who are consecrated or preparing for consecration. Often in the past, and sometimes still religious pray as they put each piece on. Whatever the custom in this regard, they are not costumes, not meant for "dressup" or "pretend." In recent years most religious have gone through sometimes-harrowing and at least difficult processes to discern whether God has called them to either retain or give up the habit. Sometimes these decisions are made in the face of peers who discern the precisely opposite thing, and have done so honestly and in good faith. The bottom line here is that whether we retain or forego the wearing of the habit we treat habits as meaningful garments and we respect that significance. Thus, we do not lend friends extra veils to use for halloween costumes; we do not allow children to wear them to feel like their aunt the nun (for instance) or to dress like this or that saint during school pageants. In those instances we use costumes that are clearly that --- not the real deal. This reminds the kids both of what is true, and what may to be aspired to. To do otherwise is to trivialize and misuse something the Church treats with great respect and significance. To trivialize something in this way, I believe, empties it of meaning. To empty something of meaning may be the essence of sacrilege.

You see, I don't believe there is anything cute about the picture because I don't think it indicates a single unique instance of this practice. The picture was submitted to the CMSWR for their website as representative of the life of the community. It affects me somewhat the same way seeing the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" wearing habits does (though at least their's are clearly costumes and meant to be a parody)! Yes, the child is part of the "community" (though I wonder if she and the others SHOULD be), but she is a child -- not professed, not a nun, not someone who has been through all the discernment and formation for such a life and assumed the completely ADULT rights and obligations associated with the commitment of vows. Who else in the community wears a habit for inadequate or casually justified reasons --- whether or not they have a vocation to consecrated life or have completed the appropriate formation or met the normal canonical requirements (which do not ordinarily include marriage and minor or dependent children)? When I see an adult in the habit of the community and veil of the professed, especially if she is walking along with habited children in tow, can I truly assume that she is someone who truly IS what the habit represents? I doubt it now because I really cannot trust the habit means the same thing to the Hermit Intercessors that it means to the Church or to religious women and men.

Note well that I have merely focused on the fact of the child wearing the habit as a form of trivialization. The picture at issue appears to show us a family ALL in habit however, and if this is true, then this underscores the question of whether the habit means for this group what it means for the rest of the Church. Do ANY of these people have vows of consecrated celibacy or chastity, for instance? And if so, what of their marriage vows? What does the habit still MEAN in such a case? Also please note that although your question (and so, my answer) has to do with a comment I made on the trivialization of the habit, the questions of the welfare of the children in this situation --- children who presumably go to school and play with other children in the community --- and of the real nature of this mixed community are also raised front and center with this picture. For me personally it is a snapshot which raises questions about misplaced priorities (marriage vs religious life, for instance) and inadequate boundaries (I would want to understand how families, and celibates actually live in this situation) and, despite recognizing that snapshots can be notoriously misleading, I can understand simply from this small fragment of the community portrait why some might wonder whether or not the group is more cult-like than representative of an Association of the Faithful on the way perhaps to becoming an Institute of Consecrated Life.

Children in Veils, CMSWR, and Former Membership of the Intercessors.

As for why this practice raises questions with regard to CMSWR and membership within it consider that the CMSWR is very conservative and inflexible on the issue of member communities wearing habits. Sometimes they have given the impression that members of communities who do not wear habits are not "real religious" so I wonder if they care that a member community is dressing children in religious garb associated with canonical consecration. I would wager they will be a tad chagrined at this photo for, for me at least, it calls to mind the old in-joke among Sisters (which was more true than some liked) that in Catholic schools the quality of teacher education and aptitude was so low one could put a habit on a broom, set the broom inside the classroom and get as gifted a teacher as some sisters already there. The jibe was that in many cases no one would notice the difference! After all, so long as there was a habit present in the classroom, what else was really necessary?

For that reason, the fact that CMSWR requires the wearing of habits, but may not be judicious enough to notice when pictures of a member group (a LAY group, by the way) on their very website includes habited children while they consider canonically vowed women religious who have given their entire lives to Christ and his Church to be "pseudo sisters" simply because they don't wear habits seems ridiculous to me, and surely must be embarrassing to the CMSWR. We (LCWR, CMSWR, diocesan hermits, etc) ALL argue that the habit does not make the Sister but it seems that perhaps in this case the CMSWR (and certainly the Intercessors of the Lamb) have forgotten this piece of wisdom. At least as I say, it raises serious questions for me.