Canonical versus Non-Canonical Hermit Life: Which is Harder to live Faithfully?

[[Hi Sister, given the rights and obligations of the canonical hermit do you think it is harder to be canonical than non-canonical? You said something about the greater freedom to be a hermit associated with canonical standing so I am a little confused. Why do you think non-canonical hermits don't think in terms or rights and obligations or see freedom in quite the same way you do? Is it really just  matter of education or formation? It seems to me that a failure to see things in these terms is a huge piece of the problem of wearing habits as self-assumed costumes. Likewise it is at the core of the problem of seeing nothing different between a public profession and private vows.]]

Thanks for the questions. In fact, I believe that in some ways it is harder to be a non-canonical hermit than to be canonical. You are correct in pointing to my comments on the greater freedom which I associate with canonical eremitism. There is no conflict. While there are greater explicit rights and obligations associated with canonical standing, the discernment and profession/consecration with and by the Church ensures that one also experiences a greater correlative permission to stand in the face of the values of the world around us and to be the person one is called to be by God in his Church. That permission is part of what leads to greater freedom to be oneself.  

Similarly, one experiences a sense of mission and understands one's vocation in terms of charism as a canonical hermit. These elements add to the richness and the purpose of eremitical life and so too, in my experience, they make it easier to live faithfully. The expectations of others in the Church (and larger world as well) work in the same way --- as does the role of those serving in spiritual direction or the ministry of authority. Finally, understanding eremitical life as a tradition that in some real sense "belongs" to the Church, and makes the hermit calling an ecclesial vocation, contextualizes an already meaningful life in a way that assures its communal nature and ecclesial significance even as it helps prevent the vocation from devolving into something less than authentic.

Non-canonical hermits must maintain the same relationship with God, the same stricter separation from the world, and the same values held by a canonical hermit, and do so in the midst of a world that militates against this.  They must choose to grow as a hermit and to continue growing as a hermit with all that demands (vows, spiritual direction, theological sophistication), and they must do so without anyone necessarily recognizing their needs or their commitments to do so. In a world that militates against eremitism and often substitutes individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, and isolation for authentic hermit life, it seems to me to be very difficult to live as a non-canonical or lay hermit.  Thus, while I recognize that hermits living authentic eremitical lives are rare whether canonical or non-canonical,  I believe canonical standing and the elements it ensures, makes it easier to live an eremitical life in today's world.

As to why non-canonical hermits do not speak much of rights and obligations with expectations in living their own eremitical lives, I do believe it is largely a matter of education and formation. When one is in initial formation and preparing for profession as a religious in community, one is carefully initiated into the rights and obligations of the life. These things are made explicit and, in fact, are the way one moves from candidacy to novitiate, to juniorate, and then to solemn or perpetual profession and full membership in the community. Moreover, one is introduced to the consequences of having been initiated into the "religious state" and begins to think in these terms. Nothing is left untouched by initiation into the "religious state" and young religious learn this. Unless such formation occurs I don't think one would think this way. Thus, lay persons who are unfamiliar with the nature of initial and ongoing religious formation are unlikely to appreciate the process or think in the same terms. 

Should such a lay person become a hermit with the accent on "eremitical freedom" and a private commitment which changes nothing in terms of rights and obligations, it becomes doubly unlikely they will understand such life in terms of  these things in either canon or proper law. (It is possible to see an example of the failure to think this way in discussions of "wearing a mask" vs "not wearing a mask" in today's pandemic. So many think of freedom as the power to do whatever I want whenever I want to do it, and not in terms of rights and obligations or ecclesial calling. They have been enculturated to understand freedom very differently than Christian theology requires, and they substitute license instead.)

Thus, I agree with you that it is the failure to either think or be able to  think in terms of rights and obligations that stands at the heart of self-assumed practices like those you mention. Another source of difficulty is the tendency to believe one is owed such rights, or can simply "consecrate oneself",  or assume the wearing of religious garb and title through one's own agency. A similar source of difficulty is the failure to understand that ecclesial vocations are never discerned by oneself alone; they must be mutually discerned and until and unless the Church extends God's call to one in a mediatory and juridical act, one cannot be said to "have" such a vocation, much less live it "in the name of the Church." Calling anything to do with canon law "legalism" is another piece of all of this. I wonder if it would assist folks if preparation for baptism included a section on the canonical rights and obligations of the baptized or lay state of life?  Just a thought.

On Catechisms, Lay hermit Life and the Reasons for Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, I get the impression that you are "allergic" to people who live eremitical life for selfish reasons. As I continue to read your blog I am beginning to get a sense of why you emphasize the character of ecclesial vocations. I know you insist the consecrated and lay hermit vocations are different from one another but not that one is better than the other. Isn't it the case though, that as soon as one of these is defined as an ecclesial vocation, it becomes a calling that avoids selfishness and some of the other stereotypes associated with eremitical life? Is it really possible to live as a lay hermit and avoid these things? Could it be impossible and if so, maybe this is the reason the Church really doesn't do a lot to speak of hermits in the lay state. Maybe that's part of the reason the CCC  doesn't actually refer to lay hermits but chooses instead to speak of consecrated hermits.]]

What an intriguing analysis!!! Thank you for the thought you have given this. I think you have sharpened or underscored the importance of ecclesial standing in regard to eremitical life. Ecclesial vocations, as I have said many times, "belong" to the Church and are lived on her behalf for the sake of her Gospel and those to whom she would proclaim that Gospel. Such vocations truly are allergic to selfishness --- except in the sense that any vocation genuinely serves the wholeness and holiness of the one called and then everyone else. Even so, and despite the fact that this helps protect the eremitical vocation from the stereotypes of individualism, misanthropy, isolationism, and so forth, I don't think it means either that consecrated hermits don't fall into these traps or that lay eremitical lives cannot be lived in a similarly exemplary way. Or, to put things more positively, I believe both consecrated and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical vocations can be the result of a Divine call and stand in opposition to the stereotypes and perversions of authentic hermit life we have seen through the centuries. Consecrated and Lay eremitical vocations are different in their rights and obligations but at the core of each is a call to the silence of solitude which itself is the eremitical vocation's great gift (charism) to the Church.

Remember the Desert Fathers and Mothers were lay hermits and their vocations were profoundly prophetic; they challenged the worldliness of the Church and called her back to a life of authentic holiness. They typified a true desert spirituality that could serve any person in days of deprivation, suffering, want, fragility, and threat with its foundational message that God alone is sufficient for us and has promised to be there for us eternally in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Now, in a sense, these Desert Abbas and Ammas were Church for one another as well as for those to whom they witnessed from beyond the desert borders. Also in a sense, these hermits saw their vocations as serving the whole Church. These were not ecclesial vocations in the sense we use that term today, but they were profoundly linked to and meant for the health and holiness of the Church.

In the history of the Church lay (non-canonical) hermits have, for instance, served as anchorites connected intimately to the life of the local church. Not only did they attend liturgy via a window looking out on the altar, but they had windows on the life of the community via the village square which allowed folks to come to them, talk, ask for prayers, receive spiritual direction, and just generally find a listening ear and heart. These were, in the main, lay hermits -- though quite often they were under the supervision of the local bishop and may have made vows in his hands as part of some kind of  "diocesan" standing. Other hermits served as ferry captains, toll collectors, gamekeepers, foresters, etc; in these cases, their lives were lives of service even as they were lives of profound solitude. For all of these reasons, I have to disagree that lay hermits are somehow essentially selfish or incapable of a generous service to the Church and/or others. The Church herself is aware of this history; I don't expect her lack of mention of hermits in the lay state (as opposed to those in the consecrated state) is motivated by any sense that such hermits are selfish, individualistic, misanthropic, or anything similar.

While it is true that stereotypes developed out of the world's long experience with lay hermits and while some of these hermits were undoubtedly guilty of selfishness, individualism, and so forth it is the essential truth lay hermits have borne witness to that lives on and has now been codified in canon 603. Bishop Remi de Roo recognized this and asked for eremitical life to be made a state of perfection (in our contemporary language, an instance of the consecrated state oriented to perfection). This request was eventually codified in canon 603 in 1983 when it then became possible for a lay hermit to be admitted to the consecrated state by one's local bishop. The mechanism for this admission involves 1) mutual discernment of the vocation by the hermit and her diocese, 2) public profession of the evangelical counsels (603.2), and 3) ongoing supervision of such vocations by one's local bishop.

Canon 603 does two things then: 1) it allows solitary eremitical life to be lived as a form of consecrated life, and thus too, as a form of prophetic existence within a stable state of life governed by the Church, and 2) it allows the life to be protected from abuse, disedifying stereotypes, individualism, selfishness, and so forth. Lay hermits today may not fall prey to the dangers and distortions associated with hermits throughout the centuries, but I think it is important that they realize the significance of an ecclesial/canonical vocation that publicly proclaims the significance of eremitism and helps protect it from so much that detracts from its dignity and witness potential. Most importantly to my mind, canon 603 indicates that this vocation "belongs" to the Church, that, as solitary as it is, eremitical life is a form of life in community, and that it is a similarly responsible vocation. Individual lay hermits may actually live their vocations with the same spirit and motivations (I know some who certainly do; their lives are inspiring), but as I experience it, it is the canonical nature of consecrated solitary eremitism, its existence as a stable state of consecrated life, that really ensures the hermit never forgets what eremitical life is essentially and who she is in light of her profession, consecration, and commissioning.

Regarding the reason the CCC did not really speak to eremitical life, I am not so cynical as you. The Catechism refers to consecrated life and describes eremitical life in that state. I believe the authors of the Catechism were well aware that their descriptions of this new form of consecrated life was one which could well inspire those whom the circumstances of life has left isolated for one reason and another and who seek the redemption rather than the validation (!) of their isolation). Some would do this in the lay state. Lay persons are entirely free to live as hermits; they are also free (generally speaking) to seek admission to profession and consecration as a member of a congregation of hermits or as a solitary hermit under c 603.

The CCC does not list every way of life a lay person may live as a lay person; it lists different (and normative) vocations in terms of specific states of life. Because the lay hermit, despite the prayer and solitude of her life, is still living this in the lay state; everything s/he does (including living as a hermit) is an expression of his/her lay state, until and unless s/he is admitted to public vows and consecration. There is really no necessary reason for the CCC to specify lay persons in its treatment of consecrated eremitical life. Canon 603 is both new and normative of solitary eremitical life in the consecrated state which the Catechism references and from which it derives its more general description of eremitical life. While referring to consecrated life per se I think the authors of the CCC believed lay persons should be able (as they clearly are) to be inspired by this description. I suspect there was nothing more than this involved in the way the CCC handled eremitical life as a vocation to consecrated life without specific reference to lay hermits. We can wish the CCC gave some space to lay eremitical life, especially in light of exemplary eremitical lives like those of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, but the work's limitations (both of space and intent) made this apparently unnecessary or impossible.

On Sunday Mass Attendance: When and Why Can the Canonical Hermit Absent Herself in the Name of the Silence of Solitude?

 [[Dear Sister, why can consecrated hermits miss daily or even Sunday Mass? If I make private vows as a hermit can I miss Sunday Mass in the name of eremitical hiddenness or stricter separation from the world?]]

Thanks for your questions. There are several posts written about attendance at Mass so I would suggest you check out the labels to the right and locate the pertinent posts under "Eucharistic Spirituality and Solitude".  The answers are pretty straightforward. Consecrated  (canonical) solitary hermits may miss Sunday Mass sometimes if the requirements of the silence of solitude make this necessary. The silence of solitude to which they are publicly committed is not only a way of describing the environment in which the hermit lives her life, but it is also the goal of her life, a particular way of describing fullness of authentic humanity in communion/union with God lived for the sake of others. While it would be relatively rare for hermits to miss Sunday Mass the presence of the reserved Eucharist makes it possible for the hermit to maintain her link with the parish liturgy while also living into the silence of solitude in more profound ways. Still, missing Mass on Sundays is possible because the canonical hermit is legitimately committed (i.e., committed in law) to eremitical silence of solitude beyond her baptismal obligations.

As you can guess, this decision to miss Mass, especially when it extends several weeks or more because of the claims of the silence of solitude will be carefully discerned and discussed with one's Director/delegate and/or one's Bishop. Because the Eucharistic celebration is such a high value for the canonical hermit, to miss more than occasionally without really good and well-discerned reasons is ill-advised at best. On the other hand, missing daily Mass is more common and understandable; Religious are not required to attend Mass every day though they are required to make Eucharistic spirituality the heart of their lives. For canonical hermits daily Mass may truly interfere with the requirements of silence and solitude or the silence of solitude.

Privately vowed hermits are in a different position because their vows are an entirely private matter. Publicly such hermits are, of course, canonically bound to the same rights and obligations as any baptized Catholic; no public profession grants or binds with additional (and sometimes differing) rights and obligations as occurs in the life of the canonical hermit. This is why the Church makes clear a lay person who lives as a hermit with private vows alone (or none at all) are still lay persons --- persons baptized into the rights and obligations of the laity (laos =People). Neither would a hermit in the baptized state alone (private vows do not change this) have a legitimate (canonical) superior/delegate with whom such a matter could be discerned and by whom it might be permitted or even encouraged. (A good spiritual director can and will help with discernment in this case but does not have the authority to allow or give permission for such a thing.) Since you would not be publicly admitted to nor bound canonically (legally) by the silence of solitude (or the hiddenness which is derivative of this), or any of the other elements of canon 603 none of these can supersede your baptismal rights and obligations. Since baptism is associated with the public (legal) obligation to attend Mass every Sunday unless illness or some similar emergency intervenes, private commitments (which are of a different level than public commitments) cannot change these foundational rights or obligations.

Another piece of this answer is a consideration of the meaning of the phrase "the world" in "stricter separation from the world." "The world" does not mean the entirety of created reality outside the hermitage; instead it means that which is resistant to Christ or which promises fulfillment apart from Christ. In this sense "the world" cannot be said to include one's parish or (more especially) Sunday Mass! Only secondarily can it mean dimensions of God's good creation which are not resistant to Christ. In light of this we must point out that if one is taking it upon oneself to miss Mass in the name of entirely private commitments one may really be guilty of acting in a particularly selfish (individualistic) and thus, an entirely worldly way!! Finally, the idea of eremitical hiddenness is, as I have written recently, a derivative value which stems from the canonical elements of stricter separation and the silence of solitude. cf., Hiddenness as a derivative or Subordinate Value for the Hermit. Hermits do not make vows of hiddenness nor is this value even mentioned in canon 603. To privilege this vague term over one's public obligations is a seriously misguided practice; it seems individualistic to me, and therefore, "worldly." Meanwhile, since you are not canonically (legally) obligated to stricter separation from the world you cannot privilege this over the values and practices you are canonically obligated to by virtue of your baptism.

By the way, I want to reiterate something I wrote almost exactly 5 years ago in case I have been unclear, namely, [[. . . I don't feel entirely comfortable speaking of the 'right' to skip my Sunday obligation as though that was one of the rights granted me in profession. It was not. What is more comfortable to me is speaking in terms of competing obligations and even competing legitimate obligations. I (as is the case for any diocesan hermit) am (canonically) obligated by profession, consecration, and Rule to live a life of the evangelical counsels, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world under the supervision of my bishop (and delegate); at the same time I am obligated in the ways my baptismal commitment binds every Christian. The challenge is to meet all of these legitimate obligations, some of which are competing, in the best way I can.

(Quote continues:) The rights that came with canonical standing include the right to call myself a Catholic and/or Diocesan Hermit, the right to wear a habit and cowl (both right and obligation attached to perpetual profession), and the right to style myself as Sister. In other words, I was given and assumed the right to live this life and serve my brothers and sisters in this way in the name of the Church. ]] cf., Followup on Hermits and Sunday Mass Attendance In instances where I need to absent myself from public Eucharist for a more extended period, I might then need to have a priest come into the hermitage to say Mass periodically. This would also be something (a right or obligation) canon law speaks to and my bishop or delegate could require and/or permit.

Followup Question on Lay Hermits and Their Potential Capacity to Speak Better to the Laity

[[Hi Sister, I remember where you once said you were surprised to find that in some ways being a lay hermit might have been able to speak better to laity than being a consecrated hermit under c 603. I wondered if you could explain how it is this might be so.]]

Good question and not one I can recall following up on before this. Thanks for asking. One of the problems we still deal with despite Vatican II is the sense many of the laity (in the vocational sense of that word) still seem to have is that a call to deep prayer lives and exhaustive holiness is somehow the purview of religious. That said it seems at least equally true that living such a life (of exhaustive holiness) but as a hermit, when it is considered at all, is considered the purview of religious. While many lay persons feel called to live lives of solitude and consider themselves to be hermits, the call to a life of "assiduous prayer and penance", stricter separation from the world, and "the silence of solitude" --- which is far more than a life of silence and solitude, still most often seems to be considered the purview of religious. A too-distinct line is drawn between the life of the religious and that of the lay person (using lay here in the vocational rather than hierarchical sense).


Eremitical life, as it is defined in c 603, then, is rightly seen as giving us a vocation which is vastly different than simply going off and living in silence and solitude, or even of loving solitude. Part 2 of the canon makes clear that a consecrated form of this life is lived by making a public commitment in the hands of one's local bishop. However, part 1 of the canon simply defines the nature of eremitical life per se as this is understood in the Roman Catholic Church. The problem is that very few lay persons I have read or spoken to seem to think Part 1 of canon 603 can describe a vocation suited to lay persons, because it specifically defines a desert vocation. Sometimes this becomes clearer as lay persons express comfort calling themselves solitaries or "lovers of solitude" but eschew the description hermit because they cannot see themselves embracing a desert spirituality; I have seen this reflected even in popular publications like Raven's Bread, a newsletter for hermits and other lovers of solitude.

A desert vocation is profoundly dependent upon God in the silence of solitude for one's completion as a human being; it is relatively and even absolutely rare for a person to be called to human wholeness in this way. As a result many lay persons embrace a less demanding form of life where some degree of prayer, silence, and solitude matches their temperaments, perhaps, but risking everything on the fulfillment which comes from a solitary relationship with God is simply not their desire or their actual vocation. The Episcopal Church recognizes solitaries who are not hermits --- vowed religious who are neither members of congregations or institutes of consecrated life nor who embrace a true desert vocation. Their lives, though of undoubted value, do not speak to others in the same way a hermit's might, nor do these people necessarily desire to live that same witness. Neither do those who choose to live a kind of "part-time" eremitism where solitude is a kind of luxury and assiduous prayer and penance are less ways of life than they are significant additions to one's way of life. (More about this another time, I think.)

And yet, it is my opinion that lay persons who do embrace all the elements of canon 603 apart from its Section 2 (the provision for public vows under the supervision of the diocesan bishop), and do live as hermits, also have the capacity to say to every person that we are called, without exception, to live the values of assiduous prayer lives with some degree of silence and solitude and an essential separation from the world (that is from that which is contrary to God or promises fulfillment apart from God). Moreover, these hermits can say to isolated elderly, and the chronically ill, that eremitical life itself (as described in canon 603) can be a perfect means of contextualizing their lives and serving others in an incredibly meaningful way, whether or not these persons experience a call to consecration under canon 603 --- and (perhaps especially) even if they do not precisely because they are less well recognized by the Church than are consecrated vocations. Again, the Church must do better in encouraging and recognizing lay vocations generally, but lay eremitical vocations specifically.

My point in the article you referred to was that, surprisingly, my very consecration separated me somewhat from those who neither seek nor are called to live as consecrated hermits and it may have made it harder for them to consider eremitical life as a vocation for lay persons. Given the importance of eremitical life as a particularly meaningful context and even a potential vocation which can assist isolated elderly and chronically ill (et al.) to appreciate the value of their lives when other standards (work, productivity, social activity, etc) fall away, I found this problematical. I wanted to witness to a way of life that allowed  the chronically ill and isolated elderly to discover a new and marked value to their lives, particularly as a privileged way to proclaim the gospel of the God whose power is perfected in weakness. To find my own vocation was mainly seen as only appropriate for religious and was not considered as defining a life appropriate for lay persons (in the vocational, not hierarchical sense) was surprising and disappointing to me.

Followup Questions on Accountability and the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my question on diocesan v universal church representation by hermits. If someone argues that they are not subject to a local bishop in the way canon 603 hermits are because they are not diocesan but instead are hermits in the whole Church then how is it they are responsible to the Church for their vocation? Is their pastor the one they are answerable to? Is Joyful Hermit insinuating she is responsible in a less local way  to someone other than her local bishop? It just seems to me that if she explains that she can move from place to place without requiring acceptance by the local bishop  she must be "suggesting" she is answerable in a different way --- or maybe not at all. How would a bishop feel about having some hermits who were accountable to him and others who are not accountable at all? I can't imagine that sitting well with most bishops, not mine anyway! Lastly, I was wondering about your own statement about your vocation. You say you live your vocation with God in the silence of solitude for the sake of others. Do you mean merely that you pray for others? Are you accountable to others besides your bishop and delegate?]]

 You are most welcome. You have also put your finger on the really important issue of accountability. The Church does not ordain or profess and/or consecrate anyone in an ecclesial vocation (priesthood, religious or monastic life, canonical eremitical life, consecrated virginity) without assuring adequate structures or relationships for accountability. In a vocation with the history and heritage of stereotypes common to eremitical life as well as its rarity (it is not the usual way most people come to human wholeness!), the need to assure supervision and accountability becomes particularly important. In any case whether one belongs to a religious congregation, is a consecrated hermit or a consecrated virgin, one is responsible to people on the local level more immediately than to others on less local levels. Again, we use the principle of "subsidiarity" to be sure accountability is exercised at a level which is most helpful to the consecrated person and the congregation or local church in which the person ministers and lives her life.

Recently I wrote that legitimate superiors exercise what is known as the ministry of authority. I also wrote it is a ministry of love and service. For this to be true, authority must be exercised at a level closest to the one being ministered to. Accountability must be similarly exercised or the entire dynamic of loving service will be short-circuited or made empty. By the way, though a pastor is closest to a consecrated hermit in terms of church attendance, reception of sacraments, and pastoral care, etc, pastors of parishes are not legitimate superiors in the sense required by law. They may witness (but not receive) private vows; in so doing they do not become responsible for an eremitical vocation in the ways a bishop does. Neither would a hermit's Spiritual Director. The ministry of authority requires both persons in the relationship grant and accept the rights and obligations which are part of the exercise of legitimate authority. This means they must also be able to do so and this requires commissioning by a greater legitimate authority.  Bishops acquire their authority with regard to consecrated hermits from Canon 603 and from Rome which appoints them bishops in the first place. Parish pastors or parochial administrators have not been given the authority to act in this way with regard to a consecrated hermit --- though, of course, a bishop could delegate a hermit's pastor to take on such a responsibility and authority as he delegates this to any delegate/Director.

Regarding subsidiarity with regard to religious institutes, while these have General superiors (Presidents, etc) there are also a network of superiors exercising authority at more and more local levels (provincials, priors and prioresses, regional superiors,  novice or juniorate directors, etc., to the level of house superiors). Solitary consecrated hermits (c 603 hermits) don't have such a network of those in authority because they do not belong to institutes of consecrated life. Instead, they make their vows in the hands of the local bishop who is thus their legitimate superior and he assigns or accepts the hermit's choice for a delegate or Director who serves as a kind of superior for the hermit by exercising the ministry of authority on behalf of the bishop/diocese for the benefit of the hermit's life and vocation. However, no one who is professed and consecrated is without the relationships required for the exercise of their obligation to accountability, and this at the lowest (i.e., the most local)  possible level of responsibility according to the principle of subsidiarity.

To suggest one is not accountable in this way while claiming the title "consecrated hermit" or to affirm that one can move from place to place because they are responsible to the "universal church" is simply to indicate one does not know (or perhaps care) how such things actually work in the Roman Catholic Church; it is to express an actual untruth. This is of a piece with saying Canon 603 doesn't mention legitimate superiors when it clearly refers to making one's profession "in the hands of" the Local bishop; profession is always made in the hands of the one serving as legitimate superior. Doing so is derived from an act of fealty once made to Kings, princes, and other Lords. There are many words that Canon 603 doesn't use directly and are nonetheless presupposed by the canon. Because a word is missing does not mean the concept is not present nor part of the Church's larger theology of consecrated life.

How Would a Bishop Feel?

How would bishops feel if they have canonical hermits who are accountable to the bishop and other hermits who come and go without being accountable? I suspect the situation would be problematical (unworkable) and at least frustrating for such bishops. Imagine then that such a person blogged in ways that were disedifying about the eremitical vocation. Imagine they had their own take on private vows and consecration based upon a misinterpretation of  two ambiguously or even mistakenly translated paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imagine this same lay hermit insisted on remaining anonymous and without specific location in the putative name of "eremitical hiddenness" all while claiming to be a "consecrated religious" or a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while writing disedifying things about consecrated life or misrepresenting eremitical life and the Church's role in governing such vocations! But of course, the Church does not have a dual track in the way it governs consecrated life. It does not allow for accountability of those in one track and complete unaccountability of those in another. Instead, it recognizes and states clearly that the consecrated state of life is a "stable state of life" lived for the edification of the Church and the glory of God and it provides (and requires) what is necessary to establish and maintain that stability including structures and relationships ensuring responsibility and accountability.

I once thought Canon 603 referred to both lay and consecrated solitary hermits. Over time I came to change my mind on that. Similarly, I tried several ways to make sense of the ambiguity of pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it speaks of "without always making vows publicly". In time I checked the original Latin which clarified the canon could not be referring to the possibility of private vows or to lay hermit life as well as consecrated life. I concluded the badly-written English version was trying to point to the only alternative to public vows c 603 allows, namely the use of other sacred bonds. In either case, though, the person's profession is and must be a public one and other sections of the CCC (cf par 944) make that absolutely clear. One of my sincerest hopes is that when the CCC is revised they will clarify the matter and add a paragraph on the importance of the lay hermit, the non-canonical hermit who embraces eremitical life within the baptized state without the benefit of additional canons or institutional accountability. As it stands the CCC is particularly problematical because of those who would like to exploit its misleading ambiguities and portray themselves as consecrated hermits without being admitted by public profession to the graces, rights, or obligations of that vocation.

Questions about Joyful Hermit Specifically:

You ask several questions about Joyful Hermit specifically.  While I will answer these generally with regard to Joyful, I believe they fit anyone claiming/pretending --- for whatever reason --- to being a Consecrated Religious or hermit living eremitical life in the name of the Church. I think the bottom line is that beyond her baptism Joyful (and others) has not been initiated into any canonical (public, legal) relationships within the Church or with her leadership or hierarchy, no canonical standing that would allow her to claim to be obligated or accountable in the way someone with an ecclesial vocation as a "consecrated hermit" would necessarily be obligated and accountable. Another way of saying this is to note that Joyful and persons like her have not been initiated into the stable state of life associated with profession and/or consecration.

What you cited earlier did sound to me like an attempt by Joyful to avoid the entire issue of ecclesial accountability with vague references to the Universal Church and mistaken interpretations of what it means to be a diocesan hermit. That said, Joyful remains a laywoman who has embraced eremitical life without the benefit of canonical standing or consecration beyond her baptism. This does not detract from the fact that her own vocation is important. In fact, it accents its importance. Her private vows are of real value, both personally and in the Church. As a result of her baptism, she has the very significant freedom of a lay person to live eremitical life as she deems necessary in response to God's call. She is free to move about as a hermit without direct accountability to anyone except God and her own conscience precisely because she is a lay hermit and not one in the consecrated state of life. What is interesting to me is that she lives precisely this kind of freedom even as she insists she is a "consecrated Catholic Hermit".

It is important (and quite challenging) that people like Joyful accept their vocations, that they respond to God's call in the lay state and find ways to live eremitical life with authenticity. The history of eremitical life has been carried forward in the Western Church by such people -- not least the Desert Fathers and Mothers or the anchorites prevalent in the Middle Ages. As I have noted a number of times here the majority of hermits have been and will always be lay hermits --- those who embrace a call to eremitical life in their baptized state without benefit or need of canonical profession or consecration. But one does not do this by refusing to accept the simple fact that a private commitment by a lay person means one remains a person in the lay state. In this matter, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Joyful (or anyone in a similar situation) cannot seek the benefit of calling herself and being regarded as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while insisting on the unique freedom which is pertinent to lay (or non canonical) eremitical life. She (nor any other person acting similarly) cannot honestly claim an ecclesial vocation without concrete accountability to legitimate superiors or the other elements which constitute a stable consecrated state of life in the Roman Catholic Church.

Commissioned to Live Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church:

I am reminded that the Church has sent me and other canonical hermits into our hermitages to live the silence of solitude in communion with God for the sake of others; that sending obligates me to accountability not only to eremitical life generally, but to solitary eremitical life as the Church has codified this in c 603. Because Joyful is privately vowed, her own missioning is as a lay person and her correlative accountability thus takes a very different form than someone in the consecrated state; again, as a result she is entirely free to live her lay vocation in whatever way she chooses without direct accountability to the Church for the form of life she chooses for herself --- but also without the title appropriate to those living consecrated (canonical) vocations. Similarly one cannot speak and write about canon 603 as a kind of distortion of eremitical life, as Joyful has certainly done from time to time throughout the years, and at the same time ask folks to treat her as though she has the kind of standing in law canon 603 establishes.

This is not a matter of legalism as Joyful tends to claim; it is simply a recognition that the rights attending consecrated life are matched by obligations a person is called by God to embrace through the mediation of God's Church. The Church's own approach to consecrated eremitical life is entirely consistent. Those who live eremitical life in the name of the Church are commissioned to live an explicit accountability to God's People in the hands of legitimate superiors. They accept this accountability as a unique form of responsible eremitical freedom. Not everyone is called or even desires to be called in this way. For those who are not (or who do not desire to be)  called in this way, the route of lay eremitical life is available to them, a route which has been of inestimable value and significance to eremitical life in the Church. But again, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. To believe otherwise is childish and unthinking; moreover, it denigrates or at least disregards the kind of commitments and sacrifices made by those who have freely embraced the consecrated state of life and the direct accountability it involves.

To Whom Else am I Responsible?

Your last question is good. Thank you for asking this. While I do regularly pray for others I do not understand the heart of my accountability to others as that. Instead I understand that first of all I am called to witness to the Gospel that says God completes us, God alone is sufficient for us, God loves and delights in us in spite of our sinfulness or isolation. In today's world (and this is especially clear where I live) we see elderly people and others who are isolated from their churches, from families, through bereavement from their spouses, and so forth. We see people who are isolated by disability and the rhythm of whose lives are marked by illness and even impending death. I believe my life is meant to speak to these people in particular. Yes, of course I pray for them, but even more I hope to witness to them that the way to wholeness, holiness, and completeness is still open to them in God embraced in solitude. I hope that my life says that eremitical solitude is not the same as isolation and that while my life is marked by several things which isolate, this isolation can be redeemed by God and transfigured into a solitude which is filled with life, love, meaning, and hope.

I believe I am called by God through the mediation of God's Church to witness in this way to these and similar people. In a very real way I am responsible to them --- not in the sense I am accountable to the Church through legitimate superiors, but no less really nonetheless. I don't believe the Church professes and consecrates anyone to eremitical solitude simply to make of them some sort of "prayer warrior" (as important as prayer is!!), much less to institutionalize selfishness and individualism. Canonical Hermits are called, like any other Religious is called, to witness to the God who comes to us in the unexpected and unacceptable place, who makes of the deserts of our lives fields which flourish with new life and growth, who allows the dry and barren places to run with living water and the sweetness of milk and wild honey, who transforms  screams of suffering and the anguish of muteness into Magnificats of praise and articulate proclamations of the Good News.

The role of my bishop and delegate is to be sure I live, and have secured (or am able to secure) the necessary means to live the commission to this vocation which the Church has entrusted to me. (This is similarly true for any diocesan hermit with regard to their bishops and delegates.) The personal formation work I do with my Director is meant to be sure I live fully the truth of myself with God. I, as is true of any diocesan hermit, am morally, and legally accountable to the Church in a direct and concrete way for doing whatever it takes within the context of Canon 603 and the eremitical tradition, to become God's own prayer in our world and to witness to the completion that is possible for each one of us with and in God, no matter the circumstances of our lives. I, as again is true for any diocesan hermit, am directly and concretely accountable to the Church Universal to witness to the adequacy and beauty of Canon 603; this canon spells out in normative fashion (thus the term "canon") what a solitary hermit is all about. I, like any diocesan hermit am accountable to my parish and diocese (the local Church) to bring what gifts I can to them in order to witness to the life that God offers and invites us each to. I am accountable to them to be the hermit I am called to be --- not as an isolated individualist, but as someone who recognizes that eremitical solitude is a unique form of community which itself can help build community in powerful ways. In these and any number of complementary ways I am accountable to the Church on both universal and local levels. Again, this is true for anyone claiming a vocation to consecrated life in the Church. 

Becoming a Catholic Hermit: Canon 603 and the question of "other institutes"

[[Dear Sister, I have read the Catechism's paragraphs on eremitical life and canon 603. Where do I find the Church's other institutes on the eremitical life? I am asking because of the following statement in the Catholic Hermit blog: [[There are older posts that I've written in detail as to the Roman Catholic Church's institutes on the eremitic life--briefly stated in 920-921 of The Cathechism (sic) of the Catholic Church and further addition in the briefly stated CL 603.]] This was part of an article on becoming a Catholic Hermit, a kind of how-to article --- though I honestly don't think she really answers the question. Can I ask you the same question someone asked the other hermit, how does one become a Catholic hermit? Where do I find these other institutes on the eremitic life? No one I have asked seems to know. Do they refer to using private vows?. . .]]

Thank you for the question. And thanks too for your patience. I know it has been several weeks since you first wrote me. One term which seems to have been misunderstood by the writer you are referencing when she read canon 603 is "institutes". Unfortunately that misunderstanding has, in part, caused her to misinterpret the nature of canon 603 per se and some other things essential to understanding the Church's approach to contemporary eremitical life. It was a fatal misunderstanding so let me start with the term "institutes." Please understand this is important if one is to really answer the question, "How does one become a Catholic Hermit"?

A fatal Misunderstanding:

In the above cited sentence and in other similar blog pieces, "institutes" seems to mean a body of ordinances, laws, and norms other than the content of paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) or c 603 of the revised Code of canon Law (CJC). This usage is sometimes found sprinkled variously throughout non-Catholic ecclesial groups (thus The Institutes of Calvin, for instance) but the Roman Catholic Church does not use the term in this sense. Instead, in canon law and elsewhere it refers to any and all societies of consecrated life as institutes. Thus when canon 603 says, "Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life. . ." she means "Besides societies of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the (solitary) eremitic or anchoritic life. . ."  Canon 603 is universal in scope, that is, it applies to the entire Church; it is the only law or set of norms which specifically apply to eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church except for the proper law of Institutes of Consecrated Life which are canonically established societies under the canons appropriate for all canonical religious congregations.

Excursus: Proper law is law which does not apply to the entire Church; it is not universal. All communities, congregations, Orders, Confederations, etc have their own proper Law, namely, Constitutions and Statutes which are approved by the Church (by Bishops or the Holy See) and pertains or is PROPER to them alone. For that matter, the c 603 hermit composes a Rule which is approved by the Church and constitutes the hermit's own "proper law". (Meanwhile, in order not to have to type or otherwise explain the important canonical and other distinctions between these Orders, congregations, communities, societies, etc., --- these various groups of religious, et al, --- the Church simply refers to all and each of these as "institutes" of consecrated life.) End Excursus.

To reiterate, canon 603 reads, "Besides institutes of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitical or anchorite [form of] life. . ." and means simply that besides Institutes of Consecrated Life (including Orders like the Camaldolese Benedictines, the Carthusians, and the Carmelites which are either composed of hermits or allow explicitly for hermits in their Proper Law the Church recognizes and provides for in Universal (canon) Law the [solitary] eremitical or anchoritic life. The meaning of the term "institutes" in this context does not refer to other sets of laws, ordinances, statutes, or norms besides the canon recognizing and providing for eremitical life under canon 603! It means societies of consecrated life not sets of norms in addition to canon 603, especially which predate canon 603.

So why is this important? Why does it matter that canon 603 is not one canon on the eremitical life among many other ordinances or statutes, for instance? It matters because unlike the paragraphs of the Catechism which describe in summary fashion something that is true in the Catholic Church, Canon 603 "recognizes" and establishes in law for the first time in universal or Canon law the eremitical life lived under the authority and in the name of the Church. This canon is somewhat analogous to what are referred to as speech acts, acts of performative language which make real what they say. Canon 603 recognizes, establishes, defines (meaning it sets the content and limits of this reality right here and right now) and makes real in universal law and Catholic life something which has never before existed in the Church, namely the possibility of a solitary person living eremitical life in the consecrated state (or in a "state of perfection" to use Bp Remi De Roo's original and older language) apart from membership in an institute of consecrated life --- AND to do so in the name of the Church. In other words, with Canon 603 the Church has broadened the category of "religious" to include THESE professed and consecrated hermits. It does so with and in THIS Canon and NOWHERE ELSE. (cf Handbook on Canons 573-746 for observation on the term "religious")

Most of the time we read the canon and attend to the central elements it includes. This is critical, of course; we need to know how the canon defines eremitical life in this paradigmatic norm. But we must also attend to what it makes real for the first time in universal law and to the fact that it acts by making something real in the entire Roman (or Western) Church, as I said above, the possibility of living solitary eremitical life in the consecrated state as well as in the name of the Church. In this it is absolutely new and unique.

Canon 603 does not "briefly state" the contents of "other institutes" on the eremitical life. It is not a summary or an added "proviso," as the author of the blog you cited has sometimes asserted. There are no other institutes except in the sense c 603 uses the term. Canon 603 especially then does not simply add a few additional conditions or options for more structure or provisions for those who like these kinds of things (public vows with public rights and obligations, legitimate superiors, "temporal involvement") instead of the purely "spiritual" concerns of most hermits whom, "the Lord prefers to keep. . .more to himself" --- as the author cited has also written. Canon 603 is the norm which makes real in ecclesiastical law the vocation of solitary Catholic Hermit. Moreover, it is universal; it is the way solitary hermits become Catholic Hermits in every diocese in the Roman Catholic Church. Again, there is no other way nor has there ever been. 

Becoming a Catholic Hermit:

As you will find I have said before, the term Catholic Hermit does not merely mean one who is Catholic and a hermit. It has a more technical or specific meaning than that. It means one who has publicly been entrusted by the Church with and embraced through vows (or other sacred bonds) the rights and obligations associated with living the eremitical life in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. This occurs through public profession and consecration whether this occurs as a member of an institute of consecrated life (Camaldolese, Carthusian, etc) making profession in the hands of a legitimate superior of this congregation or as a solitary hermit making profession in the hands of the local bishop under canon 603. There are no other ways to become a Catholic Hermit.

In other words, to become a consecrated Catholic hermit one either goes through the steps to enter and become formed and definitively professed in a canonical community of hermits or one works with one's diocese to discern and be admitted to profession (public vows) as a diocesan (canon 603) hermit. If one chooses the first option the community will supervise the candidate's admission process, formation, discernment throughout, eventual admission to temporary profession and, after a number of years, admission to perpetual or solemn profession. In either/any case one does NOT become a Catholic hermit via private vows and self-"consecration"  (dedication!). In contrast to private vows, both options described above are canonical forms of life and require mutual discernment (representatives of the church and the candidate discern together) as well as public profession and consecration. You can find other posts in this blog which address times frames, preparation at various stages, discernment, and so forth, in other posts; please check the labels in the right hand column.

 Regarding private vows, let me reiterate here that these represent significant acts of self-dedication. As you will note in other posts here, I have said that we do not refer to private vows as an act of profession because they do not initiate one into the consecrated state of life nor, therefore, do they involve extending or embracing the public rights and obligations associated with initiation into the consecrated state of life. This includes identifying oneself as a Catholic hermit, which means one publicly professed and commissioned to live this life in the name of the Church. As a way of underscoring this those writing on this topic note that even when one has been finally professed and consecrated and then seeks to have their vows dispensed, while they remain consecrated (consecration per se cannot be undone) they are no longer in the consecrated state of life. Neither can they call themselves "religious" or a "consecrated hermit", for instance. This is because dispensation from public vows means release from the public bonds, rights, and obligations that constitute the heart of what the Church refers to as a stable state of life.

Private vows, significant as they are in their own way, are still entirely private acts that do not change one's state of life or involve ecclesial rights and obligations beyond those conferred with baptism. I stress this first because the author of the Catholic Hermit blog consistently ignores, or misconstrues and misrepresents this fact. Secondly, that is important because you are (or were) reading her blog while you are discerning whether you have an eremitical vocation; as you continue this discernment, and if you believe you are called to eremitical life, you will also need to determine whether that will be as a Catholic Hermit living this life in the name of the Church (a discernment you must undertake with Chancery staff) or with private vows (or no vows at all beyond your baptismal commitment --- something which is also possible).

Whichever direction you choose (should you discern you are called to eremitical life) know that it has its own value and witness. If you choose private commitment to God in this vocation know that the history of the eremitical vocation in the Church has mainly been typified by such expressions. The Desert Fathers and Mothers were not only privately committed (there was no other option then), they chose the desert vocation because they were critical of the Church being co-opted by the State. Throughout the centuries the vocation has had a storied number of prophets, saints, holy men and women who revealed the compassion of the Gospel and the truth of a God who meets us in our weakness to allow that weakness to be transfigured to glorify and reveal the power of God. If you feel called to public profession either in an institute or as a solitary hermit under c 603 know that you are seeking to stand in this same tradition but now, are proposing to do so in the name of the Church --- a significant responsibility and calling which underscores the gift of God this vocation is to the Church and through the mediation of the Church, to the whole world.