Follow-up Questions on Formation of Hermits

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

All hermits require formation:

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

The History and very Structure of Canon 603 Requires Formation:

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

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

What Happens without Formation?

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

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

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

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

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

Aspirations to Live a Religious Life

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


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

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

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

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

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

Charges of "Over-institutionalization": Why Several Rules Written at Different Stages?

[[Sister Laurel, Canon 603 only requires one write ONE Rule. Aren't you making something simple much more difficult and complicated? You have been criticized before for "institutionalizing" what is a free and simple vocation. So aren't you doing this once again with all these made up ideas about writing several Rules and stages of formation or "readiness" for consecration"? The canon is straightforward and so are paragraphs 920-21 of the Catechism.. Why not let them just speak for themselves?]]

Thanks for your questions. As I have noted before, I personally agree the eremitical life should not be overly "institutionalized" in some of the ways I think you mean; however I continue to disagree that what I am suggesting in Notes From Stillsong: Role of Diocese, Writing a Rule, and Possible Stages of Discernment actually does that. Instead I think my suggestions protect not only the vocation generally, but the legitimate freedom authentic hermits need. At the same time it provides assistance to dioceses on the basis of my own lived experience and the experience of other hermits I know, as well as that of folks writing about formation, etc whom I have read. I can state with all sincerity that such a practice and its attendant process would have helped me immensely in negotiating the time frame and "tasks" involved in becoming a hermit (instead of  remaining or being "just" a lone pious person) and then, a diocesan hermit; I similarly believe it also would have assisted my diocese in discerning not only my own vocation but in evaluating and implementing canon 603 in prudent ways more generally. I also believe it answers some of the questions I occasionally get from Bishops and Vicars who deal with candidates or inquirers for canon 603.

The Context:

First, while canon 603 is very simply stated, and while on one level it can be said to be straightforward (especially for one who has lived eremitical solitude for some time and has the experience to read it with an appropriately enlarged "desert" understanding), for most people these simple or straightforward elements are deceptive in their supposed simplicity. For instance, and as I have noted before, the canon speaks of "the silence of solitude," rather than silence AND solitude. It does not note that this phrase has Carthusian underpinnings, for instance, nor that it means MUCH more than the simple absence of noise or company. For instance, it presupposes that chancery personnel who read this canon and try to implement it know that "the silence of solitude" has to do not only with external silence and physical solitude, but that it is more than the sum of these two elements and involves the unique wholeness and individuation achieved in communion with God within the context of a desert spirituality. It has to do with being oneself in and with and through God alone --- and the various kinds and degrees of silence (or song!) that occasions. You see, despite the apparent simplicity of the canon, the reality to which it points in this instance is neither so simple nor so straightforward as most readers think.


Similarly, and related to this, we are speaking of a vocation that is truly little known and often misunderstood in our contemporary world. It is a vocation fraught with stereotypes and it is being attempted (or actually lived) in a world which distrusts solitude, hardly understands the meaning of real silence, rejects the possibility of life commitments, trivializes sexual love and in conjunction with that does not understand celibate love, is overly enamored of affluence and efficiency, and generally idolizes these as well as individualism (which is often mistaken for eremitical life). In contrast however, eremitical life is counter cultural to all of these and someone proposing to be consecrated under canon 603 needs to be very clear they are not simply using (or trying to use) the canon to "consecrate" any of these serious temptations. It takes time to clarify one's own motivations, first to become clear about what they are and secondly to purify them. This is especially true if one has never lived religious life before and is really starting right from the beginning sans adequate mentors, and models --- and, for the most part today, chanceries are mainly getting inquiries re canon 603 from lay persons who have never lived religious life and never lived in eremitical solitude.

Thirdly, we are talking about an ecclesial vocation in which one represents the eremitical tradition in dialogue with the contemporary church and world and does so in a way which is publicly responsible. While there is a great deal of freedom (especially authentic freedom)  in the eremitical life, it is not the case that one simply lives alone and does whatever one wants and calls that "eremitical". Especially one cannot justify misanthropy, selfishness, a lack of generosity, individualism (including pietistic or devotional privatism), a lack of discipline, ignorance of the tradition, or the isolation of personal eccentricity via this canon. In other words, not every form of aloneness or physical solitude is eremitical nor consistent with eremitical tradition or attuned to the needs of contemporary church and society. Not every form of liberty is synonymous or consonant with eremitical freedom. Not every form of physical silence contributes to the silence of solitude and some may be a sign of a destructive antithesis. Thus, we are speaking of an institutionalized reality which involves canonical rights and obligations, legitimate definitions and public expectations and hopes, as well as the hermit's public commitment to be responsive to the Holy Spirit and responsible in all the ways this vocation calls for.

These lines are part of the horizon against which my suggestions about the writing of various Rules need to be measured. They form the context which is a necessary PART of allowing the canon to speak for itself. They are a large part of the context which prevents us from reading the canon in a theological, historical, or spiritual vacuum and distorting it completely.

The Reason for Several Rules:

The simple fact is even for those with a true vocation we grow into eremitical life. It takes time not only to discern whether or not we have such a vocation, but in the process, to learn either that it is not simply about living alone, or that it is truly a a gift to others. It takes time to intelligently and faithfully appropriate a living tradition that is capable of speaking to the contemporary situation. It takes time not only to learn to pray and live in the ways that monks, nuns, and hermits live, but to be able to articulate the what and why of all that. If one is to take all of this on and then modify it in ways which fits one's own specific vocation, that too takes time, experimentation, and lots of thought and prayer --- not to mention consultation and supervision. While one will discuss all of this with one's director and delegate (or diocesan Vicar, etc), one also needs to prepare to write a Rule which is the result of years of practical learning and which will be canonically binding. It seems to me the only reasonable way to do this is to 1) recognize the basic stages involved in becoming a hermit, and then 2) write a Rule which corresponds to what one knows and is ready to live and live into.

A related fact is that very few of those who contact dioceses with inquiries about canon 603 ever advance to even temporary profession. Some of those who do not advance may in fact have eremitical vocations which, in time, they can make evident to their dioceses. Of those who do advance, some who are prematurely professed or who are using canon 603 as a stopgap solution to canon law's lack of any other means of professing an individual person, will live the life badly or leave it altogether. How do we  allow all possible vocations to participate in a serious discernment process? How, at the same time, do we prevent inappropriate professions or uses of canon 603 which create seriously disedifying precedents? How, in other words, do we intelligently and wisely implement canon 603 without 1) infringing on eremitical freedom, and 2) without betraying the eremitical tradition or the meaning of the canon itself?  Diocese's need a better means of discerning authentic eremitical vocations while they also minister to those who approach them with interest in canon 603. It really seems to me the suggestions I have made help do that.

Likewise, too often today dioceses ask candidates for profession to write the Rule required by canon 603 before they are ready to do so. One solution to all of this is to expect several Rules over a longer period of time --- each of which allows for growth and may be used for discernment. So often our first attempts at writing such a Rule serve only to show us and our dioceses how unready we really are. Anyone who has tried to write a Rule or Plan of Life knows how truly difficult a project this is. So often what we live, we live unconsciously and without real understanding. So often we think we are living certain values and then discover that we have never actually taken time to define them, much less to understand how a tradition defines and lives them. So often we think living a life is merely about doing certain things when in fact it is about committing to be or become persons whose hearts are configured a certain way; we do certain things in certain ways and often over long periods of time precisely so that this transformation of our hearts can occur. Writing several Rules over a relatively brief period allows us to accommodate (and consolidate) the changes disciplined living and the grace of God occasions in our hearts.

The Bottom Line:

I personally think it is either arrogance, naivete (sometimes a helpful naivete!), or both, to believe that someone with no background in religious life, no real background in eremitical life, no particular theological background, and limited experience of spiritual direction, etc would be able to write the Rule which canon 603 calls for on their first attempt. At the same time no one in the chancery can or should relieve the hermit of this obligation. And here is really the bottom line: Canon 603 requires one Rule written by the hermit who will be professed, but it is meant to be a livable Rule which is consonant with the eremitical tradition, appreciates the charism of the vowed diocesan hermit, is tailored to the individual living and writing it, appropriately inspires, guides, legislates, and finally, which can also serve others in demonstrating what this life is really all about.

When Canon 603 was promulgated it presumed that candidates would mainly come from the ranks of religious/monastics who had grown into a solitary vocation; it therefore presumed an extensive background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom on the part of the candidate. In fact it grew out of such a situation. Today, however, individuals inquiring into or seeking profession mainly do not have this background or experience. We must find ways to remedy this deficit and prepare candidates (or, better put perhaps, assist them to achieve the requisite preparation)  to write the Rule the canon requires. Adequate discernment of and formation in the vocation presuppose and necessitate this and my suggestions are one piece of a process meeting this requirement while protecting eremitical freedom and diversity.

Writing a Rule of Life, Negotiating the Tensions between tradition and the contemporary situation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, when you write about writing a Rule of Life you speak of needing to draw from or even "subsume" the Rule under a larger "vital" Rule like that of St Benedict. You explain that most of us are not spiritual geniuses capable of writing a Rule which challenges to sufficient growth. At the same time you are clear that the hermit must write her own Rule and that it must be more than a list of things to do and not do. You don't like the idea of a hermit simply copying a Rule nor do you think someone should write the hermit's Rule of Life for them.

What I am wondering is if there isn't a conflict between some of these things. For instance, if we are not spiritual geniuses and need to subsume any Rule we write under a larger living Rule, why not simply adopt that one? Or why not allow someone else to write the Rule for us? Wouldn't it be safer spiritually? There have been times when the Church demanded new communities adopt already-established Rules. Doesn't canon 603's norm that the hermit write her own Rule fly in the face of the wisdom behind that decision? ]] [redacted]

What really terrific questions! You have clearly read everything I have written on this (meager though it is!) and thought about it along with some pertinent Church history I never mentioned. In responding I suppose the first thing I would suggest is that conflict is not the right word, but yes, I agree completely that there is tension between what we read in other Rules, what we live and write ourselves, and also between that and the larger Rule under which we might choose to subsume the Rule we write. The process of becoming able to write and then writing a Rule is complex. The work MUST be our own in some really deep and essential way --- and that will include the deficiencies and weaknesses in our own spirituality and lives which must be grown beyond with the help of spiritual leaders who surpass our own wisdom in every way. It is only in dialogue with these others (and other Rules) that we can truly find our own voice and, more importantly, the will of God which shapes the way we will live our vocations.

As with any dialogue there is the danger we will lose (or simply give away) our own voice, distrust our own perceptions and wisdom or our own experiences and sensibilities. On the other hand, there is the danger that we will not really engage the "other" in this dialogue but merely carry on a self-centered monologue. But a true conversation and this specific dialogue is essential; it is the way tradition is honored and extended in new ways and into new situations. It is the way genuine charisms are discovered and incarnated and mission fruitfully embodied and fulfilled. Dialogue of this sort has always been important. When we look at the relationship of canon law and proper law in religious life, or the similar relationship between the Rule and the congregation's constitutions we are looking at a dialogue. At every point the need to negotiate the tensions between these, to honor tradition and the universally valid and the new historical situation which also mediates God's call and will is a central piece of living our vocations --- whether we are contemplatives, ministerial or apostolic religious, hermits, lay persons, or priests.

Canon 603 requires the hermit write her own Rule because it requires the hermit be an active participant in the dialogue between contemporary eremitism and the long history of Christian (and other) eremitical life. As I have said before, no one can do this for her; it is part of being a diocesan hermit publicly professed under Canon 603. In a very real way, it is a key element in claiming this unique vocation for oneself and for the contemporary Church.

My limited sense of the reasons for the Church's practice of requiring the adoption of already-existing Rules by new congregations or commun-ities is that this was intended to limit the spread of heretical practices and beliefs within religious congregations.  There is some wisdom in this, especially when the proper law of the congregations can allow for necessary flexibility and adaptations in praxis and mission. What this means is that the dialogue mentioned above was and often still is carried out in this particular way in religious congregations. But, when it is authentic, eremitical life has always been more individual without being individualistic. In some ways each hermit, especially when they are solitary hermits as opposed to those belonging to a congregation of semi-eremites, is analogous to the founder of a congregation, the one in whom the tension between traditional and contemporary is specifically negotiated. The Rule they write and live by is not meant for a community but for an individual and a great deal of what characterizes cenobitical Rules and the spirituality of their founders simply will not apply to them in any meaningful way.

Thus, Canon 603 calls for each hermit to take on this task of  1) negotiating the tensions mentioned above and 2) writing a viable Rule themselves which is the expression of their ongoing commitment to this task. Living such a life may not be free of risk, but it is certainly the task every solitary hermit must embrace or cease to be solitary hermits. Similarly then, the Rule  the hermit writes is not free of risk either; one may lose one's voice entirely or fall into mere idiosyncrasy and individualism. When this happens the Rule one writes will either not be adequate to live eremitical life or to lives one's OWN eremitical life, but despite these risks, writing a Rule is the natural expression and codification of the dialogue the hermit is negotiating. Of course, there are a number of things which can help minimize the risk involved including subsuming this personal Rule under an established Rule, submitting to the supervision and input of Bishops, canonists, other hermits, and delegates, and reading widely in the history of eremitical life, but at the same time care must always be taken that these steps do not short-circuit or betray the dialogue the hermit is called to negotiate and embody in her daily response to her call. After all, in a very general sense this is part of the gift she brings to Church and World and a piece of the challenge with which she confronts every Christian seeking to live the Gospel in contemporary life.

On the Appropriateness of the term Formation

[[Dear Sister, when you write about formation or ongoing formation very little of it involves formal instruction etc. Instead you begin with "custody of the cell" and most of your ongoing formation seems to be by yourself. Is the term formation appropriate since no one is forming you? Does formation for the hermit differ from that of other monastics? Is one more manipulative than the other?]]

I suppose the term formation does give the impression of formal classes and a kind of coercive shaping by others into a monk or nun or hermit. But formation really means being socialized in a way which, over time, forms us into persons of prayer, silence, solitude, community, and so forth. It is the case that when one enters a given congregation certain values will predominate so that one is socialized with the charism of a Franciscan or Dominican or Carthusian, etc. Still, today this process of being formed is not manipulative, nor is it coercive. It is instead a process of gradually shaping  or conforming one's heart, mind, habits, sensibilities, and so forth to a model one sees all around oneself. While one measures one's behavior, activities, and attitudes according to a Rule and horarium, even more important is the presence of community members who embody the Rule in a pervasive way. Some persons reject the term "formation" --- usually on the inadequate basis of older programs in religious life which have generally been replaced today --- but it seems to me that it is an appropriate term just as it is appropriate for the pitcher into which the potter is shaping or forming the clay or perhaps for the sculpture which Michelangelo perceived he actually freed from the stone in which it was imprisoned without form or identity.

Formation for hermits has always been something achieved with the help of an elder or mentor. Sometimes this has been through modeling and sometimes it has been more demanding and directly instructive or even punitive. For those who suggest this process was never coercive, etc, I would remind them of the story of Romuald who went to learn his hermiting from an elder. They would sit together and Romuald would read or recite. When he made a mistake the elder hermit would whack him on the ear with a rod. Eventually Romuald made a mistake and, before his master could strike him yet again on that ear, Romuald asked him to use the other ear as, he reported, he was almost deaf in the first ear. While the desert Fathers and Mothers seem to have been less heavy handed in their direction, I suspect there is no reason to think that this kind of practice was not fairly common and acceptable, not only around 1000 AD, but earlier on in the history of monastic life.

But even with this bit of history, eremitical formation certainly differs in some ways from highly structured cenobitic models. One is called to the silence of solitude and it takes silence and solitude, prayer and penance to contribute to it as the essential environment of the hermitage and further to reach it as a goal. When I spoke of custody of the cell I meant keeping the rhythm and customs which allow the hermitage to be a place where one can be "socialized" in this particular way of prayer, peace, and holiness. Rather than learning to live in community or being formed in the specific values which mark a religious belonging to a particular Order or religious family the solitary hermit learns the community of solitude and is formed in the compassion which attends knowing the truth of oneself more and more profoundly.  Meanwhile, one grows in the graced capacity for a gentle and loving self-discipline and self-direction and one certainly develops the capacities for solitary study, lectio, contemplative prayer, writing or other expressions, and so forth. The important thing to remember is that in any hermitage, God is the primary "formator" while others merely assist in the process. This really tends to be true in monasteries as well.

In the silent solitude of the hermitage two truths predominate: the fragility and weakness of the hermit and the unconditional love of God which marks the hermit as precious and gifted beyond reckoning. Together these two result in a growing humility, a more and more authentic and honest identity rooted in  the God of truth, which allows the hermit to love not only God and herself, but others as well. This will also entail letting go of much that was contrary to such an identity and healing past woundednesses. Again, I think it is appropriate to call all of this specific socialization "formation" though it is not in the least manipulative.  Of course, I would argue that contemporary monastic formation in general is not manipulative or coercive either.

Rethinking Perpetual Profession as "Graduation": More on Ongoing Formation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I had always thought of perpetual profession as a kind of graduation. Maybe that is silly but it is how I thought of it. When you write about it being analogous to an advanced degree which says one is educated enough to continue learning on their own that changes things for me. In a  way you are saying that perpetual profession is a kind of commitment to life-long formation though. Is that right? I guess I thought that after perpetual vows one was pretty free to go their own way but that is not quite true is it?]]

Exactly right. Remember that in monastic life one of the vows is conversatio morum, or the conversion of life. This vow is usually thought to include religious poverty and celibate love (chastity), so monks and nuns often make the vows of conversatio morum, obedience, and stability. Canon 603 requires the vows of poverty, chastity (celibate love), and obedience, but the life to which one is committing in either case is the same --- a life of continuing, thoroughgoing conversion which requires ongoing formation.

Perpetual Profession is not the same as graduation. Instead it is more like the end of an apprenticeship and the beginning of one's life as a journeyman. One is no longer under the watchful eye of a novice master or novice director nor even the director of the juniorate, (or in the case of a diocesan hermit, the semi-watchful eyes of Vicars for Religious, etc from the diocese) and one is free to follow the impulses of the Holy Spirit pretty much where one discerns he is calling, but this is not an absolute freedom. One still must answer to God, to the Diocese (both chancery personnel and the people of the diocese), to oneself and one's Rule, and also to one's delegate and director --- though in differing ways. But let me give you an idea of how this works out practically since there is usually no one around saying either, "You must do x" or "you may not do y."

Depending upon one's training, education, etc, over time a hermit is presented with a number of opportunities to minister in a limited way outside the hermitage. Generally, one's Rule provides one with the requirements one needs to live a healthy eremitical life, but some of these opportunities can be accommodated as well without difficulty. One prays about these, determines how they do or don't fit into one's life, what is needed in terms of time, preparation, etc, and also how this will benefit the individual's eremitical life. After this one will discuss the matter with one's director and/or delegate.

Occasionally the hermit may not have done sufficient discernment on the matter and will get themselves in trouble if they are not lucky! Still, they are not in this all alone and delegates and directors do help in determining what will be helpful and what will not --- even though they rarely if ever simply say, "Yes you may or no you may not!" (My own delegate almost NEVER directs me to do x or not do y, but she is keen to hear how I have discerned matters! Thus, I remember once mentioning a project I was considering doing to her and her response was a quiet, "I will be interested in hearing your discernment on this." At that moment the response that flew into my head was, "BUSTED!" In fact, I had NOT discerned this well and we both knew it! Needless to say, the proposed project was dropped and we never had much of a conversation about it either. At the same time I have not repeated such idiocy and learned from the exchange.)

I hope you heard the humor in this. I laughed when that incident happened and I still laugh at it today --- not only at my own silliness but at the marvelous way God works. What my delegate did was FAR more effective than a simple permission (or prohibition) might have been. She reminded me clearly of my own responsibility as perpetually professed, but also that I am responsible in direct ways to people who will assist me in my own decisions and growth. The freedom of the person who is perpetually professed is a freedom within limits or constraints --- a responsible freedom --- and for that reason, one does not stop growing so long as one lives the life. Thus, I meet regularly with my delegate and/or director to be sure that that growth continues and that my own discernment is not allowed to slip into carelessness or complacency, nor that my decisions become the fruit of mere impulsiveness.

At the end of a year I will meet with my Bishop to let him know how things are going, what is going especially well, what difficulties I have had in the past year, and how I am working things out. He may have suggestions or concerns which he then has a chance to express. A followup visit with my delegate may or may not be be necessary in light of the meeting with the Bishop, and a meeting between my delegate and the Bishop might also be helpful. Whatever needs doing will be done.

If one were to read through the past five years of this blog I think they would see someone who has grown in her vocation because of perpetual profession (not in spite of it). It is true that I am no longer an apprentice or novice in the eremitical life, but it has taken time for me to grow into a person who is concerned not with only my own vocation and profession, but into one who is concerned with the nature and future of this vocation itself. Perpetual profession granted a kind of freedom to explore the vocation, to reflect on it more widely than I had been able to do before this. It has freed me to allow my life to be one of prayer and other limited ministry precisely because I am sure of my eremitical identity. I think that particular freedom is akin to what you were thinking of when you referred to perpetual profession as graduation.

But what perpetual profession really means is that one assumes (and is canonically entrusted with) the role of inheritor and missioner of a tradition. With perpetual profession one becomes, for instance, a Religious living out the charism and mission of a particular congregation --- including carrying within her the tradition and history of all of those who have done so before. One knows or comes to know herself in this way where before she really did not. It was a role she was preparing to be entrusted with more and more. She is part of a larger story than her own quest to become a Dominican (etc). Instead, she IS a Dominican or a diocesan hermit or whatever it is and accepts a place in the living tradition of the vocation. Still, it is a living tradition --- one which others will be drawn to and live out; her life is one which, for good or ill, will be a model and inspiration for others who may desire to become part of this story and responsible for its continued telling. When considered this way thinking of perpetual profession as graduation hardly works --- not at least when we think of graduation as achieving the end of formal education, schooling, learning, and training! For the perpetually professed these things do not really end.

Followup Question on Ongoing Formation for the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister, is ongoing formation really necessary once one has been professed? If a person spends almost 10 or more years becoming a diocesan hermit, why should more formation be required?]]

I think too often the sense we all have of "formation" is of the initial making of the person into a nun, or priest, or monk,  or hermit. It is as though once we have reached perpetual profession or ordination then ongoing formation isn't at all necessary. But remember that a vocation, important as definitive  (perpetual or solemn vow) commitments are, is not something one answers once upon a time and then just sails along in. Instead a call is something that comes to us each day and the response we give is one which is renewed and both extended and intensified day by day as well --- at least that will be true if we are growing in this vocation. In my own life I hear this call variously but I describe it as God calling me by name to be more completely his in the state of life to which I have been called. I can't imagine God ceasing to call me by name --- and of course the Scriptures affirm that this is the case (Isaiah 43), nor can I actually imagine a time when I will not have some further response, some part of myself to give more completely or some way in which I need to grow more authentically human.

Ongoing formation is meant to allow this process to continue. It takes cognizance of the needs and deficiencies one has at various stages of life, and of course it honors the gifts and strengths which are evident at different points along the way. Diocesan hermits, like all religious at the point of perpetual profession, are admitted to definitive commitment because they have been determined to have a life vocation; they have been entrusted with a responsible role in that vocation's future with all that implies. In a sense such admission is a bit like an advanced degree; such degrees don't say the person has learned all they need to learn, but rather that they have achieved a level of education and growth which allows them to be trusted with the responsibility of securing their own continuing education and of sharing what they know in a new way. In a sense such degrees mark the person as a competent and responsible learner (rightly approached, one of the significant ways we continue to learn is through teaching others). Perpetual profession does something similar but with a tradition of prayer, spirituality, and faith; it is often only with perpetual profession that we begin to really claim as our very own a particular tradition --- especially as it is a promise to others. It certainly marks the event which makes us fully responsible for that tradition.


There are depths in any vocation which open to the person only over time. There are aspects of the history of eremitical life which may not have seemed too interesting or pertinent the first time one read or heard about them; and yet as the hermit claims this vocation and becomes responsible both for the eremitical Tradition and for the contemporary world's redemption these aspects may assume a new prominence for her.  Note well that this is not merely an academic matter but one which demands the hermit be sensitive to the needs of the world around her and become more and more capable of addressing these by applying some piece or dimension of the charisma (gift) eremitical life is meant to be to the contemporary world. The more deeply she comes to live the charism of diocesan eremitical life, and the more attentive she is to the needs of those around her, the more fruitful her life will be.

I hope this is helpful. If it confuses or raises more questions, please get back to me.

Ongoing Formation of the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, What does ongoing formation for the diocesan hermit consist of? How would a diocese ensure that the hermit is achieving the level of ongoing formation she or he requires?]]

Wow, brand new question for me! Excellent as well! In some ways I think this is uncharted territory, at least in the formal sense. Let me suggest some of the things I do to continue my formation as a diocesan hermit and also some things which might be especially helpful to the diocese and hermit together in what is a mutual or collaborative responsibility. It is this latter area where I think we are mainly in uncharted territory and in a general sense could do better for diocesan hermits and their Bishops and delegates.

Things the Hermit does to Ensure Ongoing Formation:

The first thing necessary is anything coming under the rubric, "custody of the cell." What I mean by this is anything necessary to living the silence of solitude in the hermitage. For the most part this means living one's Rule of Life (including every spiritual and other regular practice), reflecting on this in light of one's prayer and journaling (inner work), spiritual direction, and further, in light of one's reading and reflection on the eremitical tradition and the contemporary world. Over some time one will reflect on one's life in the hermitage, one's life and role in the parish, the place of friendships and other relationships in one's life, one's physical, intellectual, and emotional needs, and the demands on one's gifts which all of these make. One then makes whatever changes are necessary to ensure continuing growth in the eremitical life and the essential elements of canon 603. At the same time one will make decisions about needed education (usually online but not always), reading trajectories (if this is applicable to personal work or one's professional competencies), writing projects (or whatever form of work one does), greater reclusion, periods of retreat beyond an annual retreat, and so forth.

Parts of all this will include then, regular spiritual direction and meetings with one's delegate, regular reflection on one's Rule and vows, regular desert days, at least occasional periods of reclusion, and annual retreat. It may require time away from the hermitage at a monastery beyond what is required for retreat itself. In general all of these things are parts of the hermit's own Rule because, after all, the life itself is formative and living it with integrity is the major piece of actual formation --- no matter whether that is initial or ongoing. Still, the evaluative part of things is usually not treated in one's Rule and it may well be that this should be worked out in the section on ongoing formation. For instance, one might well determine that once a year (or less frequently) a meeting with one's delegate which is dedicated simply to looking at one's needs for ongoing formation for the following year (or several years) will occur. While very little of the hermit's day-to-day life might change as a result and while one might simply continue on as one has, such a meeting could still be invaluable.

Others' Roles in Ensuring Ongoing Formation:

While responsibility for ongoing formation is mainly the hermit's own, her Spiritual Director and diocesan delegate play major roles in helping her grow in holiness and assisting her to articulate regularly how she has grown, where she sees God taking her in terms of eremitical life, how it is the parish and diocese assist (or could well assist) her in this and how that may be improved upon. The delegate might well discuss some of these things with the Bishop if they seem to be something the diocese should assist with. That is especially true if she and the hermit meet for a regular meeting dedicated to ongoing formation needs mentioned above.

This, of course, suggests that the Bishop also has a part to play in ensuring the hermit's ongoing formation in this life. While this role should not be surprising it is an underdeveloped and under-appreciated aspect of the situation set up by Canon 603. Canon 603 outlines a solitary eremitical life of the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the evangelical counsels, all lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes and is faithful to under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop. While the hermit does not receive any financial assistance or remuneration from the diocese, there is no reason to believe the Bishop cannot or should not assist her in locating or helping make available selected and occasional diocesan or other resources which contribute to ongoing formation in her vocation. Hermits tend to meet with their Bishops once a year. That meeting usually serves to fill the Bishop in on how things are going, how the hermit lives her life, what is most important to her in all of this, and what needs she has run into and how she has managed to meet these. Occasionally (every three to five years or so), an important part of such a meeting might  be a discussion of the ways in which the hermit has revised or proposes to revise her Rule before submitting it to the Bishop for formal approval.

With regard to ongoing formation what I would like to suggest is that if necessary and if the Bishop is willing (and I have to say my sense is most would be very willing given their concern with the issue of eremitical formation), an additional meeting with the hermit's delegate might also take place for the specific purpose of discussing specific needs and concerns. With the Bishop's permission, this could free the delegate up to line up (or help the hermit to line up) the resources necessary here or formulate a plan for meeting those needs and concerns. For instance, if the hermit truly needs additional time away in a monastery, or could benefit significantly from a workshop on Scripture or prayer or spiritual direction (etc), a Bishop (or the delegate acting in his stead) might be able to arrange for something which meets the limited resources the hermit has available and at little or no expense for the diocese.

The point is that the hermit vocation is fragile and vital; for this reason the diocese, especially in the persons of the Bishop (legitimate superior) and delegate (quasi-superior), should work with the hermit in helping ensure her needs for ongoing formation are met. At this point the hermit's relationship with her Bishop is a little-addressed and less-understood element of the canon. Hermits and Bishops work to find their way in this matter, sometimes with little sense of what is actually being accomplished (or is meant to be accomplished) by their meetings. A focus or partial focus on ongoing formation and a collaborative relationship with the hermit's delegate in meeting the hermit's needs here might be just what is needed periodically. (For the most part meetings with one's Bishop are not agenda-driven. They are a chance for both persons to get to know one another and to learn about eremitical life lived out in a contemporary context; they are typically fairly relaxed and informative and should be allowed to be this unless there is something specific either party needs to discuss).

The hermit's pastor may also fill a role in the hermit's ongoing formation. It is certainly true for me that my own pastor plays a very large if informal role here and I think that is both fortunate and a very great gift. For instance he affords me opportunities to use my own gifts in the parish --- always with an accepting eye towards my own fidelity to my contemplative and eremitical vocation. As a result, however, my own regular grappling with Scripture has become more central and fruitful. My pastor has given me opportunities to do Communion Services (Services of the Word with Communion) on days when the parish has no priest available, to write written reflections on the Scriptures or on theological themes, to give or assist with occasional workshops to the parish (Advent, Lenten, Anniversary of Vatican II), to speak to the school children or teen faith formation once in a while (once a semester or year) about prayer, living as a hermit, religious life, etc, and he has made it possible for me to attend a continuing education workshop several times in the area of Scripture.

One of the most helpful features of this relationship with my pastor and parish has been my own discernment of how to negotiate the demands of my vocation to the silence of solitude while sharing the fruits of that vocation and my own gifts. It isn't always easy nor is it always neat, but it is a dynamic which is an integral part of the eremitical (and especially the Camaldolese eremitical) tradition so it is a dynamic which, in all likelihood, is not going to go away. My pastor's respect and concern for my eremitical vocation (not to mention his patience with my own sometimes-awkward efforts to negotiate things) are as helpful as the opportunities he affords me. While this situation may not be typical, I think most diocesan hermits could work out at least a similar situation with their pastors and parishes.


I should also mention the role of friends and other religious in the hermit's ongoing formation. Though more casual there is no doubt that friends, especially when they are Religious, play a significant part here in my own ongoing formation. In the latter case we discuss prayer, reading, Scripture, the Church, spiritual direction, daily struggles and joys, the requirements of  personal ongoing formation, and just generally do what friends do for one another in encouraging faithfulness to God's call. I have coffee with one Sister every Sunday I can and we go out very occasionally at other times as well (e.g., once a movie and dinner, once a museum exhibit, etc). Beyond that I have spent a week the last two Spring breaks with her at her congregation's vacation house in what is a fairly relaxed period of shared solitude. Because of this relationship and others I have grown as a human bring and as a hermit. I am also more tuned into the Church, to trends in religious life, and have met other contemplatives I would never have had the chance to meet otherwise. I have been challenged, empowered, and consoled by this and other friendships (especially those I enjoy with a handful of parishioners), for instance, and have to consider these an asset to ongoing formation.

Assessing Ongoing Formation:

If the silence of solitude is the charism of the diocesan hermit's life and the single element which can be used to mea-sure the quality of all other parts of the hermit's life (and I argue strongly that it is), then the degree to which the hermit is growing in living this reality is the key to assessing the quality of her ongoing formation, or her needs for the same. If it seems that she is distracted or unhappy in solitude, if the opportunities that come her way through the parish detract from her ability to easily step back into the hermitage, or if they are not natural spillovers of her life there, then they are probably not helpful to ongoing formation as a hermit. If her life begins to be disorderly or unfaithful in small and bigger things, then something needs to be addressed. If solitude begins to devolve into mere isolation, then problems requiring a solution exist. The "silence of solitude" is the key here just as it is in initial discernment and formation. Only the hermit, her director, her delegate, and to a lesser degree her Bishop can really discern or determine how well she is progressing in her ongoing response to God's call, but they definitely need to collaborate to ensure this is as God wills and the Church needs.