Follow-up to Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?

[[Sister Laurel, if a lay hermit insists c 603.2 applies to them because they were consecrated by God, how would you respond? I can see where none of the elements of c 603.2 apply to her situation except the term consecrated, but how should one respond to such an assertion?]] 

Thanks for your follow-up question. I am assuming the text of (your) first question, Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?), so folks should check that post if necessary. First, let me point out that the term used is consecrated life, not merely "consecrated" or even "consecration by God", so we are not merely speaking about a single event whether or not God did indeed consecrate the person. We are speaking about a stable state of life in which one is initiated not only by God but by the Church, to which (state of life) one is publicly committed, and in which one perseveres and thrives.  Divine Consecration is critical, of course, but the canon speaks of consecrated life (that is, a life at every moment witnessing to God's consecration in an ecclesial vocation) and the structural elements that constitute that "in law" in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Secondly, these structural elements involve those elements binding on both the individual and the larger Church itself. So first of all, the hermit makes a public profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop of the three Evangelical Counsels and is thus bound in law. In other words, this life is not a private one, hidden though it may be essentially. It is not anonymous. It is a canonical vocation with public (legal) rights and obligations the hermit takes on in the immediate presence of the bishop and the local Church. Such vocations are celebrated (mediated and received) for the sake of the Church's own life and holiness, not only for the sake of the individual hermit's life and growth in holiness. All this means the Church (the People of God) have the right to hold certain expectations of such a consecrated person. (Again, this is not a private dedication nor, generally speaking, is it one that allows the hermit to say, "No one needs to know I'm a hermit" as though no one has a right to know this!! Actually, in usual circumstances, people have every right to know that one is a Catholic Hermit because one is recognized in law in this way.)

Canon 603.2 continues by declaring that such a dedication is [[confirmed by vow or other sacred bond and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction]]. Again, these are essential elements pointing not only to the individual's most profound commitment to God made explicit in sacred bonds, Canon law, and Rule (proper law) she writes herself, but to the Church's acceptance of responsibility for this vocation. It includes mutual commitments on the part of the one consecrated and the Church mediating this consecration to live (or assist the person to live) this commitment under the Church's ministry of authority, both legal and moral. 

I suppose I would conclude this response by saying that a person arguing as you describe has made a critical error in focusing on the idea of being consecrated by God while suggesting she does indeed live c 603.2. Yes, Divine consecration is presupposed here, but that is not the focus of this section of the canon. What c 603.2 does is define the necessary structural elements for someone to be admitted to the consecrated life in an ecclesial vocation, that is, one established in law --- which is the only form of consecrated life the Church recognizes or gives her name to. Further, these essential elements include the concrete way the Church itself nurtures, protects, and governs such a life and gift of God. One cannot cut them out of the picture and still have c 603.2. So again, while such a hermit can live c 603.1, c 603.2 is a different matter.

Who can Live Canon 603 and in what sense?

[[Sister Laurel, can someone who is not professed under c 603 live the canon?]]

Thanks for writing! Because I believe the vision embodied in c 603 is normative of eremitical life in the church, my answer is yes, they can. At least, that is, the first section of the canon can be lived by any hermit in the church, no matter their canonical state or form of eremitical life. However, a non-canonical hermit and a canonical hermit in an institute of consecrated life would not live the second section of the canon. I recently cited that second section, but let me put the text of the entire canon up for you to see what I mean.

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance. 

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his supervision.

Members of institutes of consecrated life including those properly termed semi-eremitic, are canonical, but they do not fall under the second section of the canon. This is because their professions, consecrations, legitimate superiors, and canonical standing are rooted in other canons and the proper law of their institutes. Non-canonical hermits can fulfill all of the terms of c 603.1 but do not have standing in law as a hermit, nor do they live a "proper program of living" in a strict sense because in c 603.2 this means an approved Rule that serves as their own proper law that is lived under the supervision or direction of the local ordinary.

I've written this before but please note that "proper" in 603.2 is not a Britishism meaning "well or appropriately done" like when someone can make a "proper cuppa" tea for their guests. Proper in the c 603.2 sense refers to proper law and is approved, as an institute of consecrated life has approved constitutions and statutes that form their own proper law in addition to the requirements of universal or Canon law.  (The hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Decree of Approval and becomes legally binding on the day of profession.) On the other hand, any person could certainly write a Rule that serves as a vision of and means to live their own personal way of eremitical life. It would be considered proper to them alone even though it is not an officially approved Rule; it would just not meet the conditions of c 603.2, however.

On Public Ecclesial Vocations: Rights, Obligations and the Responsibility for Transparency in Consecrated Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was wondering what it means for you to have a "public vocation". You claim that having such a vocation implies that it comes with certain public rights and responsibilities so let me see if I understand some of what that means. Let's say that I disagreed with the theology you provided, or that I thought you were not representing eremitical life well and thought it important enough to speak to you directly about it. It would be important that I have a way of reaching you, true? If I was not satisfied with your response to me, then I would be able to contact your diocese, wouldn't I? It might even be morally necessary for me to do that, true? Are these examples of what you mean when you say you have a public vocation? And what if you claimed to be a diocesan hermit but refused to provide your name or diocese? That seems like it would be a problem if you are responsible to the People of God for what you do or say in public. And yet, how about the Carthusian monks who write books and sign them anonymous? They have public vocations but remain hidden in this specific way; why doesn't this work for c 603 hermits? Is my analysis on point? I have more but I want to hear your response first if that's okay.]]

Wow, such great questions!! And yes, your analysis is pretty much on point -- with some nuances and expansions to be added. Also, of course you can come back with more. I'll email you this first answer and then you can reply with more. How does that sound?

So, ordinarily the rights and obligations identified as part of an ecclesial public vocation have to do with representing the vocation one has been commissioned to live in the Church's name and to do so well. The obligations refer to living the vows well, understanding, valuing, and conveying the nature of c 603 similarly, living one's Rule and the values that comprise its central elements well, and I would say particularly, giving evidence that one lives the Gospel of God in Christ in a way that convinces people that God really is of primary importance to oneself and also to any really compelling spirituality one holds. 

One should be a person of prayer, live from the Scriptures, reflect a vibrant sacramental life, be faithful to spiritual direction, mentoring, and any other disciplines necessary to live this life attentively and obediently, and do all of this for the sake of God and all God holds as precious (essentially, the entirety of God's creation)! At my perpetual profession and consecration, I assumed all of these obligations (and likely a few I haven't called to mind here); in doing so I gave the whole Church the right to expect that I would do all I could to meet these obligations faithfully --- including asking for assistance of those who might help me --- particularly in regard to my responsibility to grow in this vocation over the years.  

What I was given in exchange was the right to identify myself as a diocesan hermit, a member of the consecrated state in an ecclesial vocation bound publicly by the Evangelical Councils and a Rule of Life I had written and that was vetted by canonists and approved by the Bishop professing me. I was also given the right to style myself as a religious Sister, to wear a habit with my bishop's approval and a monastic cowl (after perpetual profession only). In other words, I was given the right to call myself a consecrated Catholic hermit who lives this vocation in the name of the Church. A year after perpetual profession, I was also given permission to use the post-nominal initials Er Dio as part of my signature indicating my identity as a consecrated c 603 hermit. And, although I have not used this right (and likely can't do so the way some might be able to), I was given the right in civil law to set my hermitage up as a 501(c)3 religious house. So, with that out of the way, let's get to your questions.

The Questions:

Yes, I would agree that if you found me posting bad theology you might eventually be required to contact my diocese, particularly if I had not been sufficiently responsive to your attempts to speak with me directly. Let me point out, however, that I should be culpable for something serious here and not a matter of a simple theological disagreement. And yes, you are right about the importance of my providing a way to reach me or my diocese so long as I claim to be a diocesan hermit. Part of the obligations I accept in claiming a public ecclesial vocation is a certain relinquishment of the right to absolute privacy. If I am going to express myself publicly and represent myself as a diocesan hermit, people should be able to verify my bona fides. That ordinarily means folks have a right to know my name, as well as the date and diocese of my consecration. If I should want or need to withhold my name for safety's sake, but still choose to express myself publicly, then I must identify the diocese to and through which I am responsibly professed. This would not be optional because my vocation is a public and ecclesial one. (Please also see, OnAnonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations )

As noted above, the right to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit comes with correlative obligations. This vocation, as ecclesial, is about more than just me and God alone. People in the Church and larger world have correlative rights and legitimate (valid) expectations re a consecrated person in the Church. This is one of the things new candidates for profession have to be helped to understand. It is not just that one can now be identified as a diocesan hermit. That right comes with correlative obligations to all whom one's life as a hermit touches! I am responsible not just for what I say or do; I have obligations to others to be who I say I am and that includes being transparent about my identity and canonical bonds within the Church. If I claimed to be a diocesan hermit and yet refused to provide my name or at least my diocese, then it would be a betrayal of the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation. The only way to remain anonymous would be to also refuse to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit; in such a case, however, one would be emptying a God-given ecclesial identity of any real meaning.

How About Carthusian Monks signing "A Carthusian?"

So what about the Carthusian monks whose books are signed "A Carthusian"? (I'm pretty sure they use this more than they use "anonymous.") Strictly speaking, they are neither remaining anonymous nor refusing to be transparent. They are providing the name of the Order they belong to and that Order is the responsible party here. That Order is publishing in a way that makes the entire congregation responsible to the Church and larger world for what is being published in their name. And that is the key to the situation, being responsible for what one says or does and who one is in the Church and larger world. But c 603 hermits do not belong to an Order. They are diocesan hermits, hermits admitted to public standing by a diocesan bishop and responsible to the People of that diocese as well as the larger Church for this public vocation. Can they remain anonymous? Yes, once professed, they could choose to make this part of their eremitical hiddenness (though it need not be). But let's be clear, they could not do that AND violate their chosen hiddenness by public expressions (blogs, videos, articles, publications) as a diocesan hermit! One simply cannot claim anonymity AND a public ecclesial identity at the same time. That is inconsistent, dishonest, and disrespectful of those to whom one is writing or speaking, as well as to the diocese that has entrusted one with this vocation.

On the internet, I sometimes find folks who insist on remaining anonymous and often tend to be dishonest, exploitative, and selfish. It is striking to me that they are free to publish almost anything they want, truth be damned, if that is what they desire, and they do it in the name of freedom. (It is really about license, not authentic freedom!) Were a c 603 hermit to claim anonymity while at the same time claiming to say or do what they say or do as a diocesan hermit, they would especially not be able to justify this claim in terms of eremitical hiddenness. Again, it would instead be an act of irresponsibility, perhaps even cowardice, and it would certainly fail to respect the persons who listen to or read their works. The only place this might be acceptable might be a situation where a journal (for instance) had taken responsibility for the quality of the hermit's published piece and the author's bona fides. But again, in this situation, as in the example from the Carthusians, someone is taking appropriate responsibility for readers, listeners, et al who have their own rights. 

Fortunately, diocesan hermits I know who had to deal with the question of not revealing their names or dioceses because of privacy and safety concerns chose to cease being active on the internet, while those who maintain a presence here do so openly and accept any reasonable risk. Both groups of individuals maintain an appropriate eremitical hiddenness (not an element of canon 603 in any case), a sufficiently protective privacy, and also a clear sense of respect for the public and ecclesial character of their vocations. I think you can see the striking difference between a public ecclesial vocation and a private non-canonical vocation, and also why I have insisted for more than 18 years that "public" in these matters is not about notoriety, etc., but correlative public and ecclesial rights and obligations.