On My Own Decision to Pursue Consecration Under Canon 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you discerned whether to live your eremitical vocation as a lay hermit or as a canon 603 hermit didn't you? What made you decide to go for canon 603 or to not settle for lay eremitical life when that was looking like what you would need to do because of your diocese's hesitance to profess anyone under c 603? I know you say both vocations are valuable so I wondered why you chose to jump through the hoops it took to get canonical standing, especially given the long wait this entailed.]]

This is a great question (thanks for reading up in this blog; it shows in your question!). While I haven't talked about this for some time I have posted on it in indirect ways so I hope you'll look for those posts. It was natural for me to look to canon 603 profession and canonical standing as the way to establish one in an ecclesial vocation, not only because of my background in religious life, but because of my background in theology. I also had some experience of  non-canonical religious life which ostensibly used regional service roles as the means to governance but lacked any authoritative structures to deal with problems with community-wide implications. I saw several times where people without leadership (service) roles, but who were very much "power people" in their local communities and thus, in the community as a  whole, took advantage of situations to exploit or otherwise act unjustly toward those they disagreed with or perhaps didn't like.

These exploited or badly-treated persons had no canonical protections in such situations nor did they have any meaningful recourse to leadership or governance structures. There was an attractive but naïve idealism in this community, but idealism alone can't always deal with concrete situations; as a result there were some significant failures in justice. This was one of the first times I clearly saw that law could serve love -- particularly when idealism was inadequate to deal with human sinfulness and will-to-power. When the community shifted from a relatively neutral non-canonical to an anti-canonical stance things were exacerbated and my insight into the positive and complementary role of law made me consider the role and importance of canon law more than I had up until this point. Thus, when I began reading in canon law (1983) the New Code had just come out. I discovered both canons 603 and 604 on eremites/anchorites and consecrated virgins, as well as canon 605 which is addressed to bishops encouraging openness to new forms of consecrated life. Already a contemplative and still in community, I began thinking and reading about eremitical life then and it captured my imagination. A year or so later contacted my diocese for the first time about professing me as a hermit. Then began a long process of meeting with a Vicar in the Archdiocese of San Francisco who understood c 603 and then regular meetings for 5 years with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF who became the Vicar for Religious and Vocations director for the Diocese of Oakland.

Eventually (during these five years) the diocese decided it would profess no one under c 603 for the foreseeable future --- a shock to Sister Susan and to myself --- because neither of us were informed of the decision in a timely way. By the time we were both informed, I was established as a hermit and it suited me well. Whether in community, as a c 603 hermit, or as a lay hermit I knew I would continue living eremitical life. I remember telling my director that I wished the Church would recognize how the Holy Spirit was working in my life (structured according to c 603) but if she would or could not I would continue living as I was. And so I did. Lay eremitical life would have been fine, had it seemed God was calling me to that --- but I eventually decided I needed to approach Bp John Cummins again before he retired and try to get my situation "regularized". I had learned I personally needed the structure of canonical standing and profession to live eremitical life in the heart of the church and continued to be struck by what it meant to be part of an ecclesial vocation and all that meant. That whole process took some time (lost letters, lost files, misfiled missives) and John Cummins had left office before the Chancellor contacted me to apologize and put in a word with the new Vicars for Religious. It took 23 years from the time I first knocked on the chancery door (so to speak) to the day I was perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit in 2007.

So why go through all the hassle? Why not live as a lay hermit? I was very clear about how God was working in my life with a call to eremitical life and that clarity deepened over the years. It was especially clear given my celibate experience, flourishing in silence and solitude, and what I experienced as a nuptial relationship with Christ. Moreover, I knew that if this vocation could function as a context for growth and real freedom for me it might well do that for others --- but only if dioceses were not afraid to use the canon and if they could see that eremitical life was a true vocation. You see, the world in which we live is tremendously individualistic, consumerist, and marked by isolation. Eremitical life is a paradoxical expression of life in prophetic witness against these things --- but the demands on dioceses for determining the distinction between these is significant. Yet, without its specifically ecclesial context this prophetic quality of authentic eremitical life cannot, it seems to me, be made as clear  as the hermit needs to do.

The freedom of the hermit requires a framework which establishes this both in the church and vis-a-vis society and the larger world. Canon 603 provides such a context. It represents a protective and challenging structure which defines eremitical life and the freedom thereof in contrast to a dehumanizing individualism, and contra the isolation and consumerism of so much contemporary life. Consecration under c 603 gives  one permission to explore the freedom of the Gospel lived in and towards the silence of solitude in the very heart of the church. This is a very great gift to the hermit and to the world. I felt called to live this this gift of God and its paradoxical witness not only so others could see what the Holy Spirit was doing in the church generally with this vocation, but in my own life as well.

Eremitical life is salvific for some of us. It has been salvific for me --- especially in its power to transform various forms and degrees of isolation into eremitical solitude. I believe others could benefit from this, both from the example of what canonical hermits live and from my own story. Some very few might find vocations to eremitical life while others might see a prophetic witness to the power of the Gospel in their own state of life. I don't live eremitical life because I wanted to do this or because it validates isolation or some misguided individualism. I did not choose canonical standing because I like canon law (though I think canon 603 is a thing of real beauty). I do it because via eremitical life God has been at work redeeming and transfiguring my life and I must honor and witness to that --- and I must do that in a way which says law serves love, reasonable structure protects real freedom, and living all of this in the heart of the Church through her People and institutions (including canon law, legitimate superiors, etc) can give witness and serve as challenging to the Church as well. Not everyone has my background or needs canon law to do all of this. I did and do; for this reason I chose to jump through all the hoops associated with becoming a consecrated Catholic Hermit, that is, a canon 603 hermit who lives an ecclesial eremitical life in the heart, name, and on behalf of the Church.

Can a Hermit Live Eremitical Life Without Law?

[[Sister Laurel, is it possible to live as a hermit without law? One of the things you seem very keen on is the importance or the positive place of law in your life and in the lives of all diocesan hermits. You are probably aware that one hermit writes regularly about legalism and just recently wrote a piece called "Beware of the Scribes". (cf., Beware the Scribes!) It isn't always easy to know what or who she is referring to but she does seem to have problems with canon 603 and I think she has some real problems with what you write. I am guessing and say that mainly because I don't know anyone else writing about the things you do.). Do you get charged with being a legalist very often? Anyway my basic question is, is it possible to live without law?]]

Thanks for the question. Yes, I am aware of both the blog you referenced (I have linked to it previously) and the specific (now-redacted) post you noted. It is true that Ms McClure (aka "joyful hermit"--- please see her Google and public LinkedIN profiles) and I do not see eye to eye on the place of law in the life of consecrated hermits or even on the nature of consecrated eremitical life. It is also the case that both of us have written against positions held by the other which, to some extent, only makes sense since she is a non-canonical (in this case, a lay) hermit and I am writing as a canon 603 (that is, a consecrated) hermit.

The charge that I am a legalist (even when not using the word itself) has been made a handful times over the years (sometimes by Ms McClure). In most instances it was a charge made by someone styling themselves as a religious or consecrated hermit when they were neither. In some instances, the person had sought canonical standing and been denied by their diocese. (Note well, the reasons for denial need not have been and were not always personal.) A somewhat similar occasion involved a person who thought the term hermit should apply to anyone going off for the weekend on a period of quiet or retreat. If they wanted to call themselves hermits, then fine. He proposed the word could mean whatever the individual wanted it to mean and called this "pushing the boundaries" of meaning. I disagreed and argued not only that the Church has clearly defined the nature of what she recognizes as eremitical life --- and done so in a way which allows for significant flexibility and variation as well, but that eremitical solitude was neither a part time avocation nor was it a form of individualism.

On Individualism and Reflecting on Canon 603:

As you can tell from this and from many other posts here, I have come to have a significant suspicion of the individualism and alienation which drives so much in our contemporary world and I am especially concerned that it not be validated with the name "hermit". A tendency to individualism at the expense of ecclesial accountability is very real and something I am personally tempted to. It goes hand in hand with the tendency to mediocrity (which does not necessarily mean one should be driven instead by perfectionism!). I personally suspect these specific temptations (especially individualism at the expense of compassion and ecclesiality) are endemic to the eremitical vocation. Finding individualism to be a kind of epidemic in our culture does not surprise me, but it does make me pretty keen (as you rightly put it) on the positive place of "law", or maybe more accurately, of structures and relationships assuring accountability and sound discernment in the hermit's life.

A second element in some of my writing since perpetual (eremitical) profession in 2007 is the proprietary sense I have for this vocation. I believe I've written about this once before (see, On Encouraging or Discouraging Eremitical Vocations) but it was quite a while ago. Essentially I mean in this that I was surprised to discover after perpetual profession and consecration not only a sense of personal accountability for my own vocation, but a sense of responsibility for the eremitical tradition itself and in particular, concern for the vocation of the diocesan hermit professed under c 603. In a sense I felt a kind of proprietariness regarding the call, not as though I "owned it" exactly, but certainly as one who understood it from the inside out while being commissioned to live it canonically (in the name of the Church). The result of that has been a lot of thinking and writing about c 603, the structures and relationships it assures to help maintain accountability, the ecclesial nature of the vocation itself, and the hermit's taking on a place in the living (and recently renewed!) tradition of eremitical life.

None of these concerns are driven by legalism but they are certainly prompted by reflection on the place of the canon in nurturing, protecting, and governing solitary eremitical vocations. You see, I mainly live my life within the world created by public profession under canon 603. I can understand where some looking on from outside see my concerns as driven by legalism, but the truth is that they are the result of taking the obligations and nature of my vocation seriously. This, in turn, has to do with taking seriously what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church in this vocation; it is about honoring God and acting in a way which is truly accountable to God's own Church and to all those with whom I come into contact --- those, that is, for whom I live this vocation. In my understanding acting responsibly is an act of love so again, none of this is driven by legalism (and, in light of Ms McClure's charges and those of two or three others, I have thought and prayed about this a lot!); neither then is it about "desiring to diminish or elevate Catholic hermits one over another" or "to lord it over others," as Ms McClure suggested (some are) doing. (By the way, I don't know anyone who writes about what I write about either, but if you should find someone please let me know; I would love to read their stuff!)

Why I Reject the Charge that I am a Legalist:

Life under canon 603 is eremitical life lived within a certain environment and context. That context is ecclesial; the canon itself helps establish that context while it also specifies the conditions one would find in any desert and defines the goals of living there. The vows outline a condition of religious poverty, attentive listening and the progressive relinquishing of self-will, and chaste love in celibacy --- in other words a God-centered life of generosity and selflessness. The elements of the canon apart from these specify a life which is given to providing space and time to God alone. The goal of the life is union with God and communion with all that is precious to God. The space is both external and a matter of one's heart, mind, and body. The elements of assiduous prayer and penance and the silence of solitude provide for the realization of this goal. And yet, the canon also is very clear that the vocation it defines is one of generosity to and love for more than God alone. It carefully states that it is a life lived "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." My Rule is the more personal translation of the way I live these elements and specifies the ways the various relationships (including those of director, delegate, Bishop, parish, pastor and Oblate contacts or prioresses are honored and serve the vocation.).

It would be very simple to neglect or ignore elements of this canonically defined life and make it about myself --- my introversion or love of solitude, my chronic illness, my interests in theology and spirituality (especially my struggles or "successes" there), my love for music, study, and writing. But the canon and my public dedication (profession) and consecration means that my life is lived in a different environment, context, and with a much different focus than would be the case without it. For me the canon opened (and demanded I embrace in every way!) a world which is fundamentally other centered. That is, it defined a vision of eremitical life which is focused first of all on God (Union with God and concern therefore with God's will, God's plan, God's vision, etc)  and then on those whom God loves with an everlasting love --- namely, the Church and the world the hermit is called to serve in Christ. Profession and consecration served as a specifically ecclesial doorway to this world. In other words, the canon defines this as a vocation of both profound and extensive relatedness, first with God and then with the whole of God's creation; because of this it creates the necessary context (structure, relationships, and commitments) to be sure this definition is realized (embodied) in the hermit's life.

Were this other-centered focus to fall away, either because I begin to live an individualistic life or because I simply cease to be faithful to the canon that defines and governs that life in all the ways that governance occurs, I could well be left with nothing but my false self, a few pious nods daily (or weekly!) to God --- and perhaps a few mildly creative hobbies! In my mind's eye this is similar to what happens when the hermit's external desert is exchanged for a comfortable, even luxurious environment or what happens when the desert prevents the ecclesial relatedness which is part of any calling in the Church or is embraced in an act of misanthropy. Living authentically as a hermit becomes much harder and certainly so as a life commitment without the appropriate environment or context. I truly admire those who can live as hermits apart from such a context. Lay hermits, for instance, live a vocation which shares membership in the Body of Christ due to baptism, but they often do so without a specific commitment or supportive relationships so many say are needed as a part of the environment and context of genuinely eremitical lives. The ones I know who are successful have integrated at least some of these elements into their lives (regular contact with a spiritual director, a personal prayer Rule, and parish Sacramental life, for instance)

Can One Live as a Hermit Apart from Law?

The brief answer to the question of whether one can live as a hermit without law is yes if one is using the term law in the narrow sense of Canon Law. But the real answer is not so simple. Law may also mean a Rule or Plan of Life however, and I think it is less possible to live as a hermit without such a guide and guardrail --- even if one only has an internalized Rule or Plan. If one were to live in a rural or more isolated area without contact with others, computer or media access, no phone, and perhaps biweekly access to the Eucharist and other Sacraments, then a Rule would still be necessary, but less so. The external environment itself will serve to dictate the rhythms and focuses of the life. Hermits always try to recreate this physical environment to whatever extent they can. They are up early, go to bed early, often spend some time in vigil, and measure the periods of their day by alternating prayer, lectio, labor, rest, work, more prayer, and study. One's Rule creates an environment of sorts which may fly in the face of the natural environment in which one finds oneself and this is especially true for the urban hermit who must separate herself from so much in order to embrace and be embraced by God in the silence of solitude.

But one still needs to live this life for God and for others and that, it seems to me, to require some kind of structured and defined commitment. Just as canon 603 provides hermits in the Catholic Church with a vision of this vocation, its structure and significance, the isolated hermit especially needs something which specifies a similar vision and significance. If we can call this element "law" in a broad sense then I think it would argue law is always necessary for the hermit. Similarly, (and I am assuming through all of this you mean a hermit living this vocation within the Church) a hermit must participate in the relationships which assure not only one's ecclesial fidelity but also one's growth in this vocation. The call is a gift of God to the Church and if one does not really thrive as a human being or in one's witness to the redemption which is ours in Christ and the continuing sanctification which comes from the Spirit, then this is not the eremitical life envisioned by the Church. We simply need the relationship with spiritual director or other "elders" of some sort to help us in assuring the growth, integral relatedness, and witness which should be ours as hermits.

So, I guess I have come to the conclusion that a hermit life within the Church is not really possible without law in some sense.  One can always live alone, but eremitical life is different than simply living alone.  One can always make it up as one goes, but that is not the same thing as being truly open and responsive to the Spirit who comes to us in surprising, but also profoundly "ordering" and "sense-making" ways. (see also. Formation, Flexibility, and Making Space for the Holy Spirit.) The "law" I am speaking of does not need to be Canon 603 in a formal sense but the eremitical life lived within the Church still needs to involve the vision and central elements of canon 603 even when these are not codified in Law or embodied in a written Rule or Plan. This is because Divine Law is reflected and mediated in various forms of church and personal law. Because the Church itself is a community and community does not exist without some sort of law (ordering principle), structure, and especially the kinds of bonds which constitute real relatedness (which implies rights and obligations given and assumed for the sake of others and the glorification of God). I think all of this means "law" in some form or another.

Excursus on Canon Law as Ministerial:

Of course, at the same time, I don't believe that the Divine Law is merely above Canon Law any more than I believe Canon Law is somehow autonomous, or a law unto itself. Neither do I hold that Canon Law is a genus or subset of the species Law. Instead, I believe it is merely analogous to civil law, and must be approached differently in relation (namely, in both subordination and service) to Theological truth and life. James Coriden describes this perspective on Canon Law in his work on the Ministry of Canon Law. I am entirely convinced that canon law especially should always serve love and the Law of Love --- or, as Thomas Aquinas said, it should be "an ordination of reason for the common good promulgated [by those who have] care of the community." (ST I-II, 90, 4) While I am not personally convinced Canon Law per se always functions in this way, I am certain that c 603 does or at least that it is meant to and can function in this way if allowed to do so in the life of the solitary hermit.

"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole mind, your whole soul and your whole strength. . ."

I have to say that whenever I hear Jesus' statement of the Great commandment in Mark's Gospel --- as we hear it in last Friday's Mass, I feel a little stunned and my heart jumps into my throat. That is my immediate reaction.  I hear Jesus say to me, [[ You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength,]] and I am completely befuddled or confounded. Oh, of course I want to be able to say I do this but at the same time I know that I am completely unable to do so. More, I often am stopped by a sense that I don't even know what is being asked of me in this. after all, I am not being asked just to love passionately or "the best I can". More, it asks that I love God in this way. GOD! This commandment goes beyond anything I can even imagine. I wonder how many of us experience something similar when we hear this text proclaimed in Church or read it in private. Either this commandment is merely a constant goad to guilt and shame and has been given to solely us to remind us of what we can never accomplish, or it is truly a gift which points us to something almost unimaginable in its wonder.

Fortunately, over time, I have come to know that this commandment is indeed a remarkable gift; like so many things in the New Testament it is a paradox and the key to understanding what it means (at least the things that have helped me to understand it) are also paradoxes. The first key to understanding  what it means and calls for, I think, is the nature of prayer. It is entirely natural to think and speak of prayer as something we do, an activity we undertake. But more fundamentally, prayer is what happens when God is at work in us; it IS God's work in us. Our part in this is to allow God the space and time to do his work in us, to love us in whatever way he desires.  We are most truly "pray-ers" when we allow God to pray in us.

 The second, and related key to understanding it, I think, is Paul's observation in Galatians 2:20, [["I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.]]  Just as we are most truly ourselves, most truly human, when it is Christ who lives and acts in us, so too do we "keep this command" when we have become people whose entire hearts, minds, souls, and strength are open to, come from, and mediate the God who is Love-in-act. This commandment is, most fundamentally, not about something we do ourselves --- and certainly not something we do ourselves alone, but rather the persons we are in and with the power of God. It is a commandment that we allow God to truly be God for us and through us in an exhaustive way, that we let him gift us with his presence and make us into truly human beings.


Remember that the first part of this quote is Paul's explanation in Gal 2:19: [[For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for (or to) God.]] In other words, the Law taught Paul about his own inadequacies so that he might allow the Grace (that is, the powerful and active presence) of God  to be the source of his life. Like Paul we live for and to God (and that means loving God) when we allow ourselves to be opened to God's presence, power, and action in our lives. After all it is God who is Love-in-act. As we think about this commandment during Lent we are apt to hear a commandment to change in our lives. We are called on to allow God to dispose us in ways which open us to God's love, to make us into people whose hearts, minds, spirits, and all of our strength are given over to God's own life and purposes.

The final key, then, has to do with our understanding of what it means to be human. As I have written here before: [[We sometimes think our humanity is a given, an accomplished fact rather than a task and call to be accomplished. We also may think that it is possible to be truly human in solitary splendor. But our humanity is our essential vocation and it is something we only achieve in relation to God, his call, his mercy and love, his companionship --- and his people!]] Scripture calls human beings Temples of the Holy Spirit or speaks of God as "dwelling in our hearts." Theologians note that heart is actually a theological term defining where God bears witness to Godself. The bottom line here, as with all the other paradoxical expressions of this truth is that we are truly ourselves only to the extent we live life within, with, and from the power and life of God.

The Great commandment is exhaustive in what it asks from us. It requires nothing less than the whole of ourselves. There are many ways to trivialize it: we can suggest it involves a bit of Semitic exaggeration (like Jesus' comments about hating our Father and Mother); we can argue that our feelings of inadequacy make us hear it as more emphatic than it really is so we just need to work through these personal issues of ours. We might read this commandment as simply asking us to do our best and nothing more. We might even collapse this commandment into the second one given in Friday's Gospel, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," and read these as a single commandment requiring only that we love others to fulfill it. While the two commandments are inextricably intertwined however, and while love of God inevitably includes love of neighbor, these two commandments are not one. Still, if we allow the first commandment to truly be as exhaustive as it sounds, it will function just as Law is supposed to do. Eventually it will lead us to call out to God to assist us in our complete inability to keep it ourselves --- and that, as Paul well knew and taught throughout his letters, is truly the first gift of a grace that saves.

Is your life as a diocesan hermit jeopardized by a new Bishop coming in?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,

Are the rights and obligations you accepted with public profession in jeopardy should another Bishop come in? What I am thinking is what happens if a bishop comes in who doesn't believe there should be diocesan hermits? Would you lose your vows or your relationship with the Bishop?]]

No. While the more personal dimensions of the relationship between hermit and superior might be less than ideal in such a case --- especially in the beginning before the two people know each other better or, in particular, have had a chance to meet with each other one on one to discuss the vocation and how things are going with it, the hermit's vocation or vows are not in jeopardy simply because a new Bishop is installed. In my last post I noted that one of the relationships established in public vows was established between the Bishop, his successors, and the hermit. It is the office of Bishop in this specific diocese acting in the name of the whole Church which assumes a relationship of specific rights and obligations with regard to this hermit while the hermit herself assumes specific rights and obligations in regard to the local ordinary of this diocese via public vows --- whoever he is in the future. Should this Bishop move or retire, the rights and obligations of the hermit continue and the new Bishop assumes his predecessor's place in the legal (that is, canonical) relationship.

The hermit in perpetual vows, then, is not at risk of ceasing to be a diocesan hermit each time a new Bishop is installed. This is so even if that Bishop does not believe in the vocation and so forth. The situation with temporary vows differs somewhat, so let me make a bit of an excursus here. In such a case, there is a chance that the new Bishop would choose not to renew these vows once they had expired; temporary vows are made for a certain period of time and this remains a time of discernment for all involved. Should a new Bishop decide the vocation is wrong for the diocese at this time, find the person is not really called to either renewal of temporary vows (whether now or for some time period,) or to perpetual vows, then he has the right to refuse admittance to these and, when the vows expire, the person will cease to be a diocesan hermit. They would probably choose to remain a lay hermit in such a case, difficult as this might be for them in some ways but they would need to discern this step afresh. Also, one would hope that a Bishop coming into a diocese where there are diocesan hermits in temporary canonical (public) vows would himself act out of true discernment, and not out of bias of course, but the latter does remain a possibility.

My own vows however are canonical, perpetual, and were made to God in the hands of the Bishop as representative of the Church. He was acting in her name in receiving those vows, and so, his act binds the Church and the hermit in a new legal and public relationship. (At profession besides a copy of the vows signed and witnessed during the ceremony, I received a notarized statement verifying the public and perpetual nature of these vows signed by both the Bishop and the Vicar for Religious and Ecclesiastical notary.) Only the canonical dispensation of my vows for significant valid reasons can alter the relationships, rights, and obligations which obtain in public profession. Your question is really a good one because it helps outline the relative security of the relationship per se, as well as illuminating a piece of what we mean by initiation into a state of life. The Church defines consecrated life in part as involving initiation into the consecrated state achieved in a definitive (permanent, solemn, or perpetual) act --- that is, into a stable and lasting state where one dedicates oneself, is set apart (consecrated) by God and acquires rights and obligations which do not themselves flow directly from one's Baptism. Once this occurs, all parties are obligated to respect the relationships, rights, and obligations which obtain. In regard to your question this means any future Bishop coming into the diocese as pastor.

Your question also helps illuminate the importance of canonical standing (standing in law) for those called to it. In the case of diocesan hermits, the hermit does not, at least, have the insecurity of wondering if she will continue to be able to live her vocation freely or explore the frontiers of solitude in God as she has covenanted to do on behalf of others and in the name of the Church simply because the diocese is going to experience a change in personnel. There is plenty of insecurity in the diocesan eremitical life just as there is in any eremitical life, but this one particular bit is not an issue. The Church itself is bound to assist the hermit in this and bound in specific legal ways. Standing in law is not a bit of mere formality or icing on the eremitical cake; it sets up stable and lasting relationships which all involved are bound to observe for the good of the vocation generally, the person called to this vocation specifically, and the church herself.

What we must remember is that law is meant to serve love; it is also meant to provide freedom, because constraints can serve genuine freedom. In other words, canon law sets up a number of constraints for the diocesan hermit, but these tend to serve her well in freeing her to live a life of solitude without being concerned with explaining herself to those around her, or being threatened with the fear that perhaps she has mistaken how she is to participate either in the world around her or the life of the church. Law's obligations assist the hermit in living her life, not just moving through day by day wondering if she has yet discovered what that life is actually meant to be. It outlines and binds the hermit to a life of the evangelical counsels, to a Rule she herself writes and a Bishop officially decrees is acceptable for living this life, and to a number of other canons which apply to anyone with public vows, but the realm it sets up in doing so is one of life in God. While the parameters may function as constraints in one way, they are precisely the things which help the hermit to go deeper and to explore this particular country as freely and exhaustively as possible.

In a sense this is an outline of what monastic stability means. Monastics relinquish the right to simply go wherever the grass seems greener at the time in order to live as fully as possible with the grace of God right here in this place. Married persons do something of the same. They bind themselves to the constraints of a commitment to this other, this family, these specific needs, the potential and limitations of this series of relationships at this time and in this place so that they can live out this love as fully and exhaustively as possible in the way they feel called to by God --- something which must often be distinguished from what a person merely WANTS to do. It is the role of civil and canon law to protect this possibility. It is ironic that this freedom comes with the imposition of constraints, but that is always the way of true achievement and true freedom. Writers are bound to the constraints of language to produce something which is truly transcendent. Musicians are bound to the constraints and capacities of instruments, music notation, physical abilities of musicians, etc in order to do likewise. Canonical hermits have their call and response mediated by the Church and that mediation includes the establishment of parameters and constraints which free for genuine transcendence.

In any case, the answer to your question is no, diocesan hermits' vocations/vows are not in jeopardy merely because of changes in episcopal personnel precisely because the vows are public. The related canonical relationships are established with the Church as a whole but through the office of Bishop within a specific diocese. (Should the hermit desire to leave the diocese, she must receive approval from her own Bishop and the Bishop in the diocese she proposes to move to. The new Bishop must specifically agree and act to take on the rights and responsibilities of legitimate superior to the diocesan hermit and do so on behalf of his successors as well. He must agree to receive vows in his hands --- or the canonical or functional equivalent.) If a Bishop refused to do so and the hermit moved to this diocese anyway, the new Bishop would indeed be her Bishop, but he would not be her legitimate superior and she would not be a diocesan hermit (her vows would cease to be binding due to the substantial change in circumstances and could be formally dispensed by her former diocese). The two relationships (pastor vs legitimate superior) obviously differ in significant ways. 

To summarize then, the act of making vows in the hands of her Bishop binds both the hermit and the Church as a whole in a constellation of mutual rights and obligations which differ from those which obtain at Baptism. Together, serving one another in a legitimate (that is, legal) relationship, they free the hermit to live the life she is called to and help ensure the eremitical life itself continues to be a vital and integral part of the church's patrimony.

On the title "Catholic Hermit" (Response to Question)

[[Dear Sister, I am a lay hermit. I have read blogs by other lay (privately professed and consecrated) hermits who call themselves Catholic Hermits and also online comments by a canonist saying this is improper. I am Catholic and a hermit. Why aren't I a "Catholic Hermit"?]]

Hi there,
I have written about this before so please check for these under the labels in the right hand column, but the bottom line answer (and something I did not originally mention in the pertinent post) is that the importance of being officially commissioned to live, act, or minister in the name of the Church is addressed in canon law. One is prohibited from calling oneself a Catholic hermit, religious, etc, unless specifically authorized to do so. Let me begin there and then explain the reasoning for this.

Canon 216 states that any person may adopt apostolic activity through their own undertaking as appropriate to their own state and condition in life, but no such undertaking will adopt the name Catholic without the express consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority. What this means for you is that you may indeed live as a lay hermit without further permission; your baptism gives you this right and responsibility if you discern God is calling you to this. But you do this in your own name, not in the name of the Church for the Church has not been involved in the discernment or the mediation of such a vocation. Similarly then, you do not publicly represent the eremitical vocation on behalf of the Church, for the Church has not publicly accepted your commitment and commissioned you to do so. In other words you have not been commissioned to live eremitical life in the name of the Church. You DO represent the lay vocation on behalf of the Church and your own eremitical vocation is a part or expression of this.

Canon 216 may have been formulated to deal with new groups wishing to become religious institutes (though this is handled by C 300 which also limits the use of the term Catholic), but it works as well for hermits too. (By the way, it also works for theologians. Some of us are theologians while others with a specific commission from the Church have a right to the title "Catholic Theologian." Such a "missio" can be withdrawn and the person no longer has the right to call him or herself a Catholic theologian. One cannot, on one's own initiative, then, call oneself a Catholic Theologian simply because one is a theologian and a Catholic, for instance.) The reasoning, I think, is sound even if one is doing Catholic theology without a missio: One must be doing what one does in the sense the Church uses the term and with her formal approbation. We must be acting in her name when we use the qualifier "Catholic". Otherwise almost anyone could call themselves a Catholic theologian, or a Catholic Community/Congregation, etc and, unless they were working in academia, there would be no oversight at all --- and the meaning of the terms could be lost in the process. (Note well though:  because one has not been given the right to call herself a Catholic theologian in no way indicates the person is anything other than profoundly Catholic IN her theology. It simply means she is not doing theology in the name of the Church with an actual formal commission or mandatum and all these entail or require.)

With regard to hermits, I think this reasoning is especially sound. We have people experimenting with all different degrees and expressions of solitary life. Only some are authentic life vocations. Some are transitional paths which are primarily therapeutic, for instance; others are attempts to build appropriate degrees of solitude into an active or apostolically oriented life, but are not really essentially eremitical. Some experiments are done by married people, some by those who really desire to live in community but have not been able to make that happen, and some are merely the choice of isolation (not eremitical solitude) by those who have been unable to succeed at life and whose motivations and lives are far from those the Church necessarily associates with Catholic hermits. Some bear no real resemblance to eremitical life at all, and only some are inspired by the Holy Spirit in a way which gives them lasting value. Only a few, therefore, fulfill all the requirements the church affirms should be absolutely characteristic of eremitical life in the Church --- and this includes the significant mutual discernment and mediation of the vocation which includes a public calling, consecration, and commissioning by ecclesiastical authorities and the acceptance of this by the hermit herself in a corresponding public act of dedication (profession).

The vocation of the Catholic Hermit therefore also includes embracing all the rights and obligations of such a commitment because this life is understood to be a gift to the Church and world given by the Holy Spirit, and one must consciously and publicly undertake the commitment to live out this charism (gift) as gift with integrity. (I think there is a huge difference between living a life because it works for me, and living a life because it is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world. In my own eremitical commitment, for instance, a significant focus for reflection is on precisely the way this specific life is charismatic and meant to be lived for the good of church and world, and not simply on "what works for me". It continues to challenge and console me every single day, but it is NOT something I appreciated clearly before perpetual profession under Canon 603. I think this gift of appreciation is a piece of the grace that comes with profession. The reflection is certainly part of the commission of the diocesan hermit. My Bishop indicated this in his homily during the profession Mass when he noted for the assembly that I would be exploring what contemporary hermit-life meant and should look like.) For all these reasons then, it is these rare instances that the Church affirms with consecration by allowing public profession under Canon 603 (or under Canons governing religious eremitical life) and signals with the descriptive term "Catholic Hermit."

As noted in my prior post then, the term Catholic Hermit is applied to those who are canonically constituted and consecrated as hermits. It is applied to religious hermits as well as to those who have entered the consecrated state via Canon 603 and are examples of consecrated solitary eremitical life in the Church. These latter are persons whose entire life is publicly defined in terms of the central elements of the Canon, and the way they live these elements out is supervised by ecclesiastical authorities. As also noted in the earlier post then, parishioners and members of the dioceses where these persons live and are professed are allowed, necessarily, to have certain expectations of them which they are not necessarily allowed to have with regard to the lay hermit living some form of solitude in her own name (that is, privately). The key word in all of this is 'necessarily,' because public profession is linked to legal rights and responsibilities which are publicly assumed. It absolutely does NOT mean the diocesan hermit is a better hermit than the lay hermit, but merely that they each have assumed different rights and obligations; some (the lay or non-canonical hermits) have assumed those that come with and from baptism alone, while others (canonical hermits) assume rights and obligations that come from both baptism and public (canonical) profession and consecration.

I hope this helps. As always, if it raises more questions or is unclear, please get back to me. Also do check the labels below for related posts. Some will be repetitive and some will approach from a different perspective. They also may raise more questions.

Some Common and Pointed Questions re: Diocesan Hermits and Canonical Standing

The following is a compilation or aggregation of a number of fairly antagonistic questions or objections raised recently. They are important for any understanding of the importance of Canonical standing in the vocation of the diocesan hermit, and I think they are important in revealing the antipathy which exists in regard to canonical status. Because they are related I have combined them for the purposes of simplifying the process of responding in this blog.

[[Dear Sister, I just don't get why you stress the importance of canonical standing or why you see it as a positive thing. The earliest hermits were lay persons and lived a simple eremitical life which did not depend on egotistical statements of power or status. They were critical of the institutional church, not sellouts to its hierarchy or power structure! What has concern with law got to do with the love the hermit is supposed to represent? We all know what Jesus said about those who were more concerned with rules than with loving others. What has the hiddenness or spirituality of the eremitical life got to do with public vocations and canonical vows, titles, and habits? Isn't your proccupation with these things merely a sign of self-absorption and self-aggrandizement? Doesn't it indicate you do not respect or value the lay eremitical vocation?]]

Canon 603 (the Canon governing the life of diocesan or publicly professed solitary hermits) is only 27 years old. Prior to Canon 603 and since the time of Paul Giustiniani in the 16th century, the existence of solitary hermits, that is hermits who do not belong to a religious congregation which allows for their eremitical lives, was simply not supported by the Church in any substantial much less official way. Paul Giustiniani lived during a time when the Church recognized the importance of the faithful, and particularly religious men and women, receiving the Sacraments regularly and this recognition was codified in law (decretals, etc). Despite Giustiniani's esteem for solitary eremitical life, he was forced to conclude that it was no longer a valid way of living the eremitical life because it essentially cut one off from the life of the Sacraments, and so too, to some extent, from the life of the church.

And yet, solitary eremitical life continued to exist, sometimes more tenuously, sometime less, but without universal ecclesial support or approval, and so too then, without the encouragement or safeguards which could nurture such vocations. (Such vocations will always be rare, but their eccentricity should be a function of their prophetic quality --- the fact that they are out of the center or the commonplace --- not a matter of personal quirkiness or indiosyncracy. Ecclesial contextualization and canonical standing helps ensure this.) The first thing one should notice about the role of law in all this, especially with regard to Bl Paul's conclusions which are framed in terms of legalities and therefore could be mistaken as legalism rather than a more substantive concern, is that law is meant to protect both the integrity of the eremitical life (which is profoundly ecclesial) and encourage strong Sacramental lives in those modelling a particularly "heroic" spirituality for others. It reflects pastoral concerns and sensitivity, not an overweaning concern with rules for the sake of rules.

In 1983 Canon 603 was included in the Revised Code of Canon Law along with two other canons (cc 604 and 605) regarding "new" forms of consecrated life. For the first time ever solitary eremitical life was a possibility according to universal law. It was recognized officially as a gift of God to the Church and provision was made to allow individuals to pursue eremitical life as a specifically ecclesial vocation under the supervision of their local Bishop. The canon included a listing of essential or defining elements which characterized authentic eremitical life (silence of solitude, assiduous prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world, for the praise of God and the salvation of the world), and set forth requirements to guide the stable and integral living of this life (for instance, a written Rule of Life which the hermit's Bishop approves, and public (canonical) vows of the evangelical counsels which establish the person in a public vocation within the church).

Again, what one should notice about Canon 603 is its deeply pastoral character and concerns, not only for the hermit herself, but for the eremitical vocation generally as a reflection of the work of the Spirit within the Church, and for the local and universal church and world in and for whom this vocation is lived. After all, such a calling serves these when it is lived well and with integrity, and it wounds and scandalizes them when it is not. Profession according to this canon establishes the hermit in a stable form of life which is associated with correlative and public rights and responsibilities which serve the Body of Christ and the World. In other words, the provisions of Canon 603 are part of the actual commission of the hermit to live her life for the salvation of the world and they assist her in carrying out that mission. It is simply a case that in regard to Canon 603 (my main concern in this answer) law (and therefore legal or canonical standing and reflection on the significance of these) serves love; it does not contradict or conflict with such a vocation or mission but expresses and enhances it.

For instance recently someone asserted that physical solitude had literally "nothing to do with the hermit vocation." What was important this person contended (the only thing necessary in fact), was the inner solitude of the "cell of the heart." However, Canon 603 specifies "stricter separation from the world" --- a specification which covers BOTH inner and outer solitude and recognizes BOTH as essential. One of the witnesses a hermit gives to our contemporary world is that the unnatural solitudes and various forms of isolation which life in our world fosters (the isolation of urban life, bereavement, chronic illness, old age, failure of life commitments, etc) can be redeemed. But how would my life as a hermit speak of that specific hope and promise to people who have become isolated physically as well as emotionally and spiritually if I do not live a very real physical solitude which is completely redeemed with God's presence? I could not, and this is especially true with regard to those persons who cannot simply choose to end their physical isolation. Thus, Canon 603 includes this, not merely because it is essential to my own life as a hermit, or to the vocation generally, but because it is one aspect of living this vocation "for the salvation of the world." By including this element in the Canon the church ensures not only that it is a normative part of the eremitical life and that one cannot redefine eremitical life in terms merely of an inner solitude of the heart (important as that is!), but that the diocesan hermit will reflect on and live out this dimension more and more fully and diversely for the sake of others!

Similarly, reflecting on the unique charism of diocesan eremitism which flows directly from the rights and responsibilites implied by canonical standing has more to do with understanding what expectations others may necessarily have of the Canon 603 hermit than it has to do with legalism or concern with canonical standing for its own sake. By reflecting on the gift which Canon 603 represents to the church and world, the diocesan hermit begins to penetrate her own vocation more and more deeply. She will come to understand its implications more profoundly, and she will be challenged to live that vocation with greater depth and integrity. Especially she will be challenged and supported in her growing appreciation of the concrete ways in which this vocation is lived for the sake of others. In part, such a realization stems directly from the contemplative life she lives, but in part it comes from reflection on the fact that in professing/consecrating her publicly the Church has extended to her specific canonical rights and responsibilities. It has not done so to contribute to the hermit's self-aggrandizement or because she has "sold out" to the institutional or hierarchical power structure and is now to be included in the "old boy's club of the church," but instead to humble and challenge her with a continuing ecclesially-mediated call of God (and help equip her with the wherewithal) to respond fully in a way which serves others with her life.

Thus my own preoccupation with these things comes from several places: 1) a kind of awe that God has worked in my life in the way he has and has called me to this vocation not only for my own sake but especially for the sake of others, 2) a greater sense of the importance of the diocesan hermit vocation with the unique charism which characterizes it and flows directly from the fact that the vocation is canonical; I have written before about this and, as noted above, defined this charism in terms of the necessary expectations others are allowed to have of such a publicly professed person. 3) a growing awareness that canonical standing both defines and protects the integrity of the vocation even while it challenges hermits (including lay hermits) to live up to the essential elements of that vocation, and 4) a sense that hermit life is profoundly ecclesial and therefore is never a matter of exaggerated individualism (nothing characterized by isolation or simple individualism or merely personal eccentricity should be called eremitism). A theology of eremitical life is profoundly related to the theology of consecrated life and a theology of church. So is the life itself. Please note that all of these aspects of my "pre-occupation" with the importance and place of canonical standing for THIS vocation have to do with a sense that the vocation is meant for the sake of others. None of it has to do with personal aggrandizement or ego (and the commitment to make sure that these do not become problematical is part and parcel of the canonical commitment itself; canonical commitment and standing obliges to greater humility, not less).

Some false antitheses:

Within the questions put to me and the objections against canonical standing which were raised there are, both implicitly and explicitly, a number of false antitheses. Law vs Love is the central one which has been implicit in everything I have said thus far. However there is a related tendency to characterize a concern with Canon law as a concern for non-essentials, with things which are marginal to the heart of the vocation itself or is merely phariseeism. Drawing this dichotomy simply fails to appreciate how Canon 603 serves the vocation, and how reflection on what it defines and codifies can be profoundly spiritual and relates to the very essence of the calling. A second false dichotomy includes linking canonical standing with valid vocations to eremitical life and non-canonical standing with invalidity -- as though only the canonical vocation is valid and significant while lay eremitical life is not. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor from what the Church holds to be the case. What I have said here many times is that both lay and consecrated expressions of the solitary eremitical vocation are valid and significant; in fact they are profoundly complementary and mutually illustrative and reinforcing, but for those very reasons they differ in significant ways as well.

A third false antithesis (which was raised along with the questions above) is that of intellectual vs spiritual --- as though being a theologian and/or a scholar of the eremitical or monastic life, or intellectual in one's approach to their fundamentals implies a failure to be sufficiently spiritual. This stereotype is not uncommon nor is it new. Anti-intellectualism is (disappointingly) alive and well today, but in regard to this antithesis, we must remember that the notion of a theologian with strong intellectual gifts and no real spirituality is often a caricature. The Holy Spirit works on and through the intellect just as She works on and through the heart. In fact, the dichotomy which is sometimes mistakenly absolutized between mind and heart fails to regard the completely complementary nature of these realities which are at the service of one another in all genuine spirituality.

A fourth false antithesis is that of setting off the public vocation of diocesan hermit against the hiddenness of eremitical life. I have written about this before so for now let me point out that to embrace a public vocation means to embrace publicly and canonically (the two terms are synonymous here) the rights and responsibilities of a vocation in a way which allows others to have necessary expectations of the one so committed. Public does not indicate notoriety in this context. Thus, a hermit becomes responsible to the larger church and world to live out the essential hiddenness of her vocation. Others may necessarily expect that she does this with integrity and in a way which serves others. They may indeed hold her accountable in ways they may not do with a lay hermit who has not accepted the public responsibilities of Canon 603, for instance. All of this ties in closely with the charism of the diocesan hermit and its expression in terms of necessary expectations which others may have of her. The point here though is that the public character of the vocation does not conflict with the hiddenness of the vocation. Instead it protects and nurtures it.

Looking at the public dimension of the vocation

As for habit, title, etc. they are simply a natural part of the public (and monastic!) aspect of the vocation. They indicate the acceptance of a public ecclesial identity with commmensurate rights and responsibilities in relation to the Church's own commission of the person. While they can become problematical in terms of ego, etc, ordinarily they serve to challenge to humility and to recalling that the whole of one's life is given to and for others. Again though, they are not automatically (or even ordinarily) indicators of self-aggrandizement, but rather a visible sign of the way the Holy Spririt is working in the Church and world through this individual life and vocation. Personally I would probably never mention them except for those who adopt them on their own authority and pretend to the vocations they symbolize. While these persons may be very well-intentioned and seek to serve others in this way, the act is still a fraudulent one and I think demonstrates a failure to esteem the lay vocation the person is actually called to at this point in their lives. Both are in serious conflict with a Christian vocation.

It is sometimes argued that once people were more commonly able simply to adopt a religious or eremitical habit and go off to live the life. However, that is certainly not true today, and in fact it was not the case in the days of the desert Fathers and Mothers either. In those earliest days the habit was given to a young monk by an elder, and if the monk proved unworthy the habit was taken back again. Later the habit was given by a priest and it was again taken back from those expelled from the desert. From this point on the giving of the habit became a solemn rite. (Regnault, The Day-to-Day Life of the Desert Fathers in Fourth Century Egypt) There are even apothegms in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers denouncing the imprudence of young monks adopting the habit on their own and declaring themselves anchorites.

Today, the prudence shown in the desert is duplicated and developed in the contemporary Church. She is careful in mediating God's own call or extending the rights and responsibilities of ecclesial vocations precisely because 1) they are ecclesial and not discerned or lived privately, 2) they come with correlative rights and responsibilities which are a part of being commissioned by the Church. For this reason clothing with the habit occurs in liturgical contexts which mark the assumption of these under authority, and celebrate the actual commissioning involved. Self-assumption of the habit is empty of all of this meaning and actually conflicts with it. In many ways I personally find such a practice ignorant (not least of the theology of commission, but also of the linking of responsibilities with rights and the theology of consecration), thoughtless (of the needs and expectations of others and their rights to have these met in someone wearing a habit or using a title), self-absorbed, and so too, a matter of ego and literal arrogance (where one arrogates or takes to themselves something they need to be commmissioned to take on). This is simply the normative practice of the Church, and it makes profound sense, so the argument that because once upon a time it was possible to simply take the habit and live a religious or eremitical life so we should be able to do so today is simply not cogent.

It may be surprising that such questions are common, and astonishing that they are posed with real animosity, but again, I believe it is a natural consequence of the church's having treated the lay vocation as second class for so very long, and often treating it as no vocation at all (for instance, by meaning only religious or priestly vocations when one spoke of "having a vocation" or "praying for vocations"). We must certainly put the lie to such positions and work to heal the injury done to those whose vocations (and lives) were invalidated by such positions. Evenso we cannot jettison important theological distinctions or lay all the blame at the door of Canon Law or those who have vocations to the consecrated state and who therefore fall under the Canons related to these in the process.

Neither, by the way, can we forget that the church uses lay and clergy as the hierarchical division which is fundamental to church life, but that this is NOT the same as the non-hierarchical distinction between lay, consecrated, and clerical states of life --- also very real in the life of the church and recognized in Canon Law by its codification of rights and responsibilities which are linked to each! (Briefly, I am saying that diocesan hermits, et al, have rights and responsibilities which flow from neither the lay state itself, nor from the clerical state. These are codified in Canon Law and so, are both implicitly and explicitly recognized in Law as differing from the lay state. They are specifically noted in the CIC to be non-hierarchical. Additionally, Canon 588 distinguishes between states of life (identified as lay, consecrated, and clerical in sec 1), and institutes (which are either clerical or lay in sec 2 and 3.) For this reason people who write about the rights and responsibilities of the consecrated state do not generally do so to Lord this state over the lay state. When I personally write to stress the non-hierarchical nature of such states of life for instance, I do so precisely to disarm such a superior-inferior approach or attitude.

Followup Questions: Should a Hermit Care about canonical standing and the like?

[[Sister, should hermits care about things like canonical standing, and the like? If one is truly a mystic, or truly a contemplative then should such things as legal standing, dress, identification, and other things associated what you referred to as the "temporal world" really matter? I read that for authentic mystics such things would not matter. God gives the vocation and all the credentials such a hermit needs.]] 

It's hard to know where to start in answering your question. Let me assume this is a followup to the earlier one about the terms "temporal Catholic world" and "mystical Catholic world", and that you have read the post on that --- as well, I hope, as others on the importance of canonical status, lay hermits (with or without private vows), etc. If you have not, please at least look at these entries as well. (Some prepare for or repeat what is here; some add to or enlarge on it, and some just do a better job of addressing the issues.) 

 First, let me say that any division into authentic and inauthentic must not be done on the basis of canonical standing or lack thereof, nor on the basis of whether one is reclusive and involved in mystical prayer or not. Authentic and inauthentic in the hermit life must instead be a reflection of how truly the hermit's vocation of silence, solitude, prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world serves the more basic or foundational requirements that this be a vocation to discipleship and love. This love is an expression of the goals which serve as the heart of Canon 603: the vocation is for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. BOTH aspects (a commitment to God and to ALL he cherishes) are required for this to really be a vocation of authentic loving eremitism. The means to this are the elements already mentioned: silence, solitude, etc, but the REASON for these things is that one wishes to glorify God (meaning praise and reveal him in this world) and contribute to its salvation. One may have (and, in fact, NEED) canonical standing to do this, or one may be (and NEED to be) a lay hermit and do it equally effectively without such standing. 

If by "car(ing) about" you mean, "Should a hermit want canonical status (standing), the right to wear a cowl and habit, the right to a title (Sister, Brother), or to do ministry besides what is done in the hermitage itself because of the public recognition and perks these things can give her?" then my answer is no, she should not care; she should be relatively indifferent to these things in themselves. However, if you mean, "does she really need such things to grow in and live out her vocation with integrity?" then the answer is a resounding yes, in some cases she absolutely DOES need to care about such things, and this remains true whether she is given to mystical prayer or not. A hermit will also care about canonical standing and all that entails to the extent she is committed to the witness that a canonical hermit can and needs to give to the contemporary world for its own benefit. (Lay hermits also witness in their own way so they too express caring about status precisely by retaining lay standing.) 

By the way, the diocesan hermit need not choose to wear a habit or be addressed as Sister (some countries do not use the title at all for hermits), but ordinarily the liturgical garment given at perpetual profession is worn in public so there is some symbolic and recognizable presence in this way. She will care about being present to her parish and diocese despite the essential hiddenness of her life of prayer, and should her contemplative life and prayer spill over in various ways, she will find appropriate ways to express this and she WILL care about this process. Whether diocesan or a lay hermit, mystic or not, there is no doubt that the temporal world MATTERS and the hermit expresses caring and concern for it. She is part of it, responsible for it and its redemption in her own way, but as I have noted a number of times, she can never simply abandon it or turn her back on it completely in the name of the (fictional) "mystical Catholic world." Even authentic recluses do not simply abandon the world. 

Again, hermits, of whatever stripe or degree of reclusion, are bound by the essential goals and reason for their vocations: to praise God and (help bring about) the salvation of the world. The last two sentences of your question are provocative. Authentic mystics is the term in the first one that niggles at me some. What is an "authentic mystic"? Is it one who has what are called "mystical experiences" in prayer or does it go beyond such stuff? How would you define this term (or how would the person you read do so)? Mystical experiences happen from time to time in contemplative prayer but does that really diminish the person's concern for the rest of creation? Is it a term associated with union with God for you? And again, if one is really united with God in this way, do they also cease to be concerned with the salvation of the rest of his good creation? Perhaps you can tell I don't think so. 

We are all grounded in the same God, linked to one another in him, so union with God means union with others as well. Granted, someone who has had a mystical experience or two might be temporarily and selfishly caught up in the experience and desire to leave the world behind, but my own experience is that this is the temptation of the beginner. As growth in mystical prayer continues the dynamic changes. (It is also true that mystical experiences per se do not make the mystic; sometimes when one is being initiated into contemplative prayer, one will have a mystical experience or two, but these tend to be God's way of encouraging the person to persevere. They tend to say, "See how much I love you! Never forget this!" and they also challenge, "Will you love me in return even without such experiences?" 

Finally, they also remind us of where our lives are going and what they are meant for ultimately. They are a taste of what we will come to want for everyone, not just ourselves.) In particular, if mystical experiences continue, one begins to be reshaped by them, just as in any prayer. One's heart is remade. One's mind is transformed, and one begins to look at the world with new eyes and a deepening compassion and love. Does one simply not care? No. One cares all the more deeply because after all, GOD CARES DEEPLY, and through prayer one is more profoundly united to God and his will for creation, as well as to creation itself. 

The mystic is one who, whatever else is true for her, can truly say, "I, yet not I but Christ in me!" and such a one will care deeply for the world and whatever is necessary to bring it to the perfection God wills for it. The Church, and aspects of the Church (including Canon Law, status/standing in law, public profession and consecration, or lay status among other things) are pieces of this. Only the individual concerned, mystic or not, can, with the grace of God, determine what is necessary for her to receive, respond to, and live out God's own call to her with faithfulness and integrity. The second sentence I found provocative was the one regarding God providing all the credentials and vocation one needs. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true, or rather, the way in which God provides these things may well, and often does include the mediation of the church, canonical status and the like. 

 Since the hermit is concerned with praise of God and the salvation of the world, she obviously is concerned with the effect of her life and vocation on others. Some of this happens completely mysteriously, without visible evidence through her prayer. In no way do I wish to minimize the truth of this really amazing reality. Through prayer itself the hermit draws the world into God's ambit more and more personally, and through that prayer she can contribute to the world's salvation. I do not see this, nor can I explain it very well theologically, but I know absolutely that it is the case. But this is only a part of the picture, and unless one has a vocation to complete reclusion (a vocation which is VERY rare and generally needs to be vetted by the Church), one ordinarily contributes and witnesses to the world in other ways as well. And if this is the case, then one's vocation must be authentic and one's credentials established one way or another. (By the way, I would suggest that in the case of a vocation to complete reclusion and mystical prayer, the discernment and approval of the church is even more important than for non-recluses. Reclusion per se need not be eremitical, and selfish reclusion, or reclusion based on deficiency needs does not praise God nor particularly contribute to the salvation of the world. Meanwhile, mystical prayer needs also to be genuine and for the benefit of others; ordinarily one needs the assistance of the church in determining and growing in this.) 

Expectations, Accountability, and Canonical Standing:

In the Catholic Church some vocations are known as "ecclesial vocations." They involve a number of ecclesial dimensions, but among them 1) the church is responsible for discerning these vocations; 2) the church herself mediates the vocation from GOD to the individual. One may feel called to priesthood or religious life, for instance, but the church herself, mediating God's own call, must admit the person to vows and consecration or to ordination. Individuals cannot assume such vocations on their own initiative alone; 3) the person with such a vocation is directly responsible to the church (hierarchy, superiors) for the living out of this vocation; 4) one is additionally responsible or accountable to all the church for his or her vocation and acts in the name of the church in living it out, ministering to others, etc. The diocesan hermit vocation is one of these ecclesial vocations, and in such a case credentials, those things that establish us as credible in the eyes of others and suggest they can safely entrust themselves to us do not come from God alone. 

 For instance, as I have written here before, canonical status means that the people in my parish have a right to certain expectations of me in light of my standing in law. These include personal, psychological, and spiritual wholeness or well-being, adequate formation and oversight, appropriate education and training, theological and spiritual competency, professional competency (if different than these two), integrity in living out my Rule of life, the right to expect my life will be lived FOR them in all appropriate ways, the right to expect that my Rule of Life is sound and could be adopted by others if this seemed helpful, the confidence that I will continue to grow in this life and remain committed to the parish and diocesan communities, and that my own life will challenge them similarly, etc. Canonical Standing actually says these things are reasonable expectations of a diocesan hermit which others can necessarily have. 

While a lay hermit might well be able to meet such expectations, parishioners do not have a right to these expectations NECESSARILY in their regard. Yes, God gives the grace of a vocation, and if one wants to go into complete reclusion, they may not PERSONALLY need any more credentials than the call to reclusion, but for hermits generally, the discernment and vetting processes that are part of extending canonical standing serve to be sure the vocation is an authentic eremitical vocation, not simply the selfish solitary life of someone who is unhappy, having delusions or weird psychiatric symptoms, or someone who simply can't abide others or deal with the real world of space, time and people. This is generally true for recluses too since their vocation is even more countercultural and eccentric (out of the center) than non-reclusive eremitical life. Canonical standing does benefit the hermit, but it benefits those who meet her and require her assistance too. And of course, what we have been saying then is that canonical standing establishes one as forever accountable to those who have summoned them forth to respond to the gift of this vocation. 

When I refer to expectations, I am really referring to elements of the canonical hermit's foundational accountability. The rite of profession, as I have noted above, begins with a calling forth of the candidate and she responds, "Here I am Lord, I come to do your will!" She lives her life not just on their behalf but specifically accountable to them through legitimate superiors for a vocation and commission mediated to her by the church itself through her own local (diocesan and parish) communities. Beyond this, they support her in her vocation and are themselves challenged by it. Such relationships then are not insignificant but essential to the eremitical vocation and the life of the church itself. They are part of what I have identified in other places here as the "unique charism of the diocesan hermit." 

 One friend, and also a diocesan hermit of 25 years explained it this way on hearing your question: [[. . .I can only say that for myself it was important that I would be called to accountability by the Praying Community, the Church for the vocation that God has given to me, I have been called by God from the praying community and for the Community and if I am to be authentic then I need the Church to hold me accountable for what God has given to the Church and to me. Also, in a way I am called to hold the Church, the praying community, accountable to support by their prayers and other means the gift that God has given the Church. I did not do it for "stature" in the church or recognition by the community but because we are all connected by God in whom we dwell. My understanding of Ecclesiology moved me to make vows within a diocese.]] (Sister Janet Strong, Er Dio, Diocese of Yakima) 

I think Sister Jan says it very well. Diocesan hermits care about canonical standing because it establishes them in a formal relationship which is lifegiving to both the hermit and the community from and for which she is called. We care because we know that such committed relationships are willed by God, and necessary for the salvation of all. We care because it is the will of God that we do so, because discipleship (ours and that of those we touch with our lives and witness) demands it, and because formal (canonical) standing allows us to live out our eremitical lives with faithfulness and integrity. I hope this helps. If it raises other questions or leaves aspects unanswered, please get back to me on it.

Bound by Responsibility In Order to Be Truly Free

[[Dear Sister, I read a couple of your posts on your vows and on seeking canon 603 status as a hermit and one of the ideas you expressed was intriguing to me. You said that you sought canonical status in order to live more freely than you would otherwise be able to do. You made vows and sought the obligations of canonical profession in order to be truly free to live out your vocation as a hermit. It is a strange idea that we seek to be bound by vows and obligations in order to be truly free. Can you say more about this? Does it work like this for everyone or just hermits?]]

In a world where freedom is often defined as the ability to do anything we want, the ability to live without constraints or limits, I admit this is a pretty strange notion of freedom isn't it? But, as I have noted before here, in Christianity freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be. This means that it exists in spite of constraints. In fact it is essential to the definition of Christian freedom that it exists in the face of constraints. To do so indicates that Xtn freedom allows us to transcend these constraints despite their still existing. Christian freedom is a responsible and transcendent freedom. It is a huge piece of what Jesus is describing when he says that his yoke is easy, his burden light. Although this commment first of all applies to freedom FROM the burdens of the Law (which have been distorted and exacerbated by the power of sin), it also implies, therefore, freedom for the authentic humanity which is the Law's fulfillment.

So, yes, in one sense this notion applies to everyone. We are not truly free unless we can and do take on the obligations of our state in life. That is true whether we are married, consecrated celibate (whether religious or eremitical), single, or clerical. Whatever assists us to do that can be helpful to authentic freedom and whatever prevents it can be seen as a kind of bondage which diminishes and detracts from our calling. However, in the post you are describing what I am speaking about is actually the assumption of a new state of life and responsibilities which went beyond those I had already taken on. So why would I want to do that in order to live the hermit life as authentically and well as possible? Afterall, it is possible to live as a non-canonical hermit. Probably more do this than live as canonical hermits, and presumably authentically, so why not simply go this route?

Let me reprise the paragraph you are probably referring to in your questions, and perhaps a similar one found in a post on a newspaper interview I did. It gives the basic reasons I provided to my diocese: [[. . . Personally, I have found it impossible to live a truly eremitic life without canonical status. Not only is such a life continually threatened by the ordinary values and conditions of society, but also it is eccentric [that is, it is out of the center] and tends towards inconstancy when this is its only real context. Law may generally follow experience, but it is clear to me that canonical status also conveys permission, freedom, and the means for consistency as well. Eremitism is a flexible life in many ways, but it remains an ecclesial vocation which witnesses to Gospel and Church, and to the reality of consecrated life within this Church.

Public profession under Canon 603 establishes the hermit in a new state of life with attendant support and responsibilities. Thus, in making vows under Canon 603, I am seeking to live in law, what I would otherwise be only partially free, and thus, attempting in vain, to live in fact. As I have attempted to explain the matter to others, this vocation is a heroic one which requires and deserves one’s best efforts. Because of this, one must be free to fail and to pick up and try again and again without regard to the apparent (though relative) eccentricity of one’s efforts with regard to the world. In other words, unless one lives this life in a context where it is truly understood and valued, and where one is truly responsible, one is simply not free either to fail or to succeed.]]

Note how important context is to this discussion. If one finds oneself in a context which does not assist one to fully live one's life, one needs to shift contexts. For instance, if one is attempting to learn to play tennis seriously, one cannot do so in a place which has no tennis courts. If one wants to play orchestral music one does not walk into the space where a rock band rehearses with one's violin expecting to perfect one's orchestral capabilities! Contexts are ordinarily the realities or environments which make sense of things within them. We see this with a word in a sentence, or a sentence in a paragraph, or paragraph in an essay, etc. Any shift in context can completely change the meaning of the embedded reality or object. Think of the word gay. It can mean many different things, but its meaning is more fixed within the sentence, "Don we now our gay apparel." However, should we take that sentence and move it from its own context of an old Christmas carol to that of a San Francisco Gay Freedom Day poster its meaning would shift considerably despite superficial similarities remaining. Similarly, consider the idea of a woman screaming. Without context we cannot say this act makes sense or is senseless for it is neither; it is simply a naked act devoid of meaning at all. Now, plug this image into the larger one of a cloister and the image becomes quite sinister even though it requires more spelling out. We might not know why the woman is screaming, but we do know some of the meaning of the act. Transfer the image into the larger picture of a super bowl where the woman's team just scored the winning goal in the last seconds and the image apparently takes on a completely different meaning, doesn't it!?

The same is true with our lives. If we seek to live them in a conflicting or less than optimal contexts they will fail to make real sense. More, they will become incoherent (for coherence, the "holding together" of meaning is a function of context). Each of us searches for the context, state of life, etc which allows our lives to develop and make the most sense they possibly can. Once, years ago now, a Sister in this area wrote for a newspaper article, " One does not need to be a nun to do what I am doing, but I need to be a nun to do what I am doing." I think she was getting at this very notion of the importance of contexts, and I have never heard it expressed more simply. Thus, in terms I am using here contexts can free and empower: free us from the pull of contexts which are less than optimal and can render our lives incoherent and conflicted just as it can empower us to embrace their potential meaning more fully or exhaustively. The language the Church uses to refer to these processes is that of grace: in entering a new state of life (the real context!) one truly called to this state is given the graces necessary to live such a life of coherence and meaning.

Thus, I also wrote: [[In my Rule, I described eremitism as an eccentric way of life, and one which I personally found impossible without canonical status. What I did not describe particularly well was the constant pull from society and even the church and religious life to engage in active ministry, to use one's gifts in more usual ways to benefit one's sisters and brothers, to help bring the Kingdom/Reign of God in fact. Of course other Christians are prayerful (no doubt many as prayerful as hermits are); and of course contemplative prayer itself is esteemed and understood to some extent. But eremitic life is generally not, and it is a fragile thing, easily compromised, easily lost in activity and other things which are -- of themselves --- also quite positive. Acting in the name of the Church, remaining in one's hermitage when "cabin fever" hits, turning to prayer instead of to some other way of being a Christian in the world, trusting that one lives at the heart of the church and the heart of others' lives even when they are not aware of that, is part of what is empowered by canonical status.

For one given canonical status, and especially for one admitted to perpetual profession, the Church says, you are a hermit: "With the help of Almighty God we confirm you in this charism and choose you for this consecration as a diocesan hermitess." (Allen H Vigneron, Perpetual Profession Liturgy, Sept 2, 2007) All of the theoretical justifications of the eremitical life, all of the talk of the hermit's marginality, the reflections of the benefits and justification of the eremitical contemplative life, the confirmation and mediation of this as a Divine call, and all of the reasons for persevering in it come together in this one sentence. The canonical or diocesan hermit has been confirmed in this vocation from God and given the permission and freedom to live this life in whatever way GOD calls her to do, nevermind what society says or understands to be legitimate, nevermind even what other Christians say or understand to be legitimate. One has been given a context in which this can be accomplished, a context which frees and empowers --- and of course which challenges to consistency and integrity on a continuing basis.]]

This last paragraph above brings up another aspect of obligations taken on within a public social or ecclesial context: the power of others' expectations to summon and inspire. Admission to eremitical profession says that the Church has discerned this vocation with the hermit. They have mediated this call to her in various ways and stages. And finally they have called her forth, received her profession and consecrated her so that she may indeed live as she has been called to do. Granted, it is the case that expectations can be a burden as well, but generally, bearing the expectations the Church has of one now really does serve to urge, empower, and inspire one to live this vocation the best one can. Graces accompany these acts of the church, and her expectations themselves can be seen as graces. I am sure you can think of a number of examples where this is true for you or those you know no matter the vocation involved. It is true of marriage, for instance. We find that obligations and expectations carry us through the difficult times when motivation is weak, etc. We also find they remind us of the ways the Holy Spirit moves in our lives --- for the Holy Spirit will work in ways which are consonant with our call and both summon and empower us to live out that call fully and authentically.

I hope this helps. There is probably lots more to say on this, and I may add to this answer when I have a bit more time, but as always, please get back to me if anything needs clarification or expansion in the meantime.