Follow-up on C 603 as Paradigm: Support of Law Does Not Need to Imply Legalism

[[The canonical hermit who has done much to perpetuate various precedents created by said person, has written a lengthy and seemingly sound refutation of my comments and questions below. What this person writes in disagreeing what I have set forth, and now has added on years that have grown exponentially to what was this person's previous length of time as a hermit, is not scripturally based nor accurate other than is from the person's legalistic view of the Body of Christ and Christ as Head, of which Jesus decried such aspects that the high priests, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees of His time on earth had so created a contorted legalistic form of religion and spiritual life in the Jewish faith and lived out in the temples as well as were imposed on the Jewish people. ]]

The comments in italics were the responses offered to my last post (cf link below). I think this view of canonical forms of eremitical life is very unfortunate. Because canonical hermits live their lives in a way the church considers normative, because they submit their lives to certain canons (norms) to serve the church in answering their vocation, does not make them Pharisees, nor does it make their attitude towards religion, spirituality, or the eremitical vocation "legalistic". Whether living eremitical life in a canonical congregation like the Carthusians, Camaldolese, Carmelite, Monastic Family of Bethlehem, et al., or as solitary hermits under C 603 as I and others do, we have simply accepted a place in the church's own service to the whole world. As I have written before, law can and is meant to serve love. The religious I know, including canonical hermits (solitary and otherwise), recognize that law helps establish and nurture the contexts in which they can live their vocations ever more deeply and faithfully. Once they are perpetually professed and consecrated, law is not ordinarily a particular focus of their lives. Still, standing in law is part of what establishes their freedom to explore the heights and depths of the world the canon(s) governing their lives establish.

I think most of us understand this. None of us live without the constraints, freedom, and other benefits provided by law. Legally we rent homes and apartments, own, insure, and drive cars, attend schools and universities, and provide for families and ourselves via wills, durable powers of attorney, mortgages, bank accounts, contracts of all sorts (even library cards represent a contract with legal terms and conditions that bind us and the libraries we patronize). All of these and many more imply and require norms that protect and free us to live without unnecessary concern for safety or inordinate liabilities. (Think again of the "lowly" library card and the vast worlds this contract opens up to us!!) If we are professionals (medical, educational, pastoral counseling, etc.) we are certified or licensed and work under specific codes of conduct. Ordinarily, we internalize these norms and refer to them only when we face more complicated or unusual situations than is commonly the case. 

As members of the Church, we know there are canons and other norms under which we live our lives -- though I would bet few could name these. Baptism results in our falling under such norms as laos, members of the laity, the People. Consecration and Ordination result in further norms that are extended to us and that we freely embrace because they serve our vocations. Such norms tend to provide us a well-defined and countercultural realm of freedom in which our lives in Christ can thrive and grow. We hardly bump up against the limits created by such canons (norms) on a daily basis nor do they become Pharisaical or the occasion of scrupulosity.

[[This manner of humankind creating what they wish and adding on to what humankind creates in legalisms yet in our times or in recent times is what most hermits such as St. Bruno, gave pause and ponder, and thus left the temporal world including the temporal system and structure, and left for the farthest reaches of the Alps in which to draw nigh on to Christ and to worship and pray, to be Christian in the freedom of silence of solitude, praise of God, and intimacy with Christ that yet lifted up and strengthened the entire Body of Christ. Bruno had lived enough of the very aspects of this person who persists in making up what is not in many aspects in fact.]] 

In fact, laws, and legalisms are different things. In a time when people cannot usually go off into a physical desert to become a hermit and leave "the world" behind, it is the creation of norms like c 603 that help allow human beings to step away from "the world" into a hermitage whose character is defined by the Church based on her long history with hermits. But Canon 603 truly is a law that serves love; it combines both the structure necessary to define a desert space dedicated to Christ in the prayer-filled silence of solitude, and the flexibility needed to respond freely to Christ in the power of the Spirit. This is Law and it is associated with legalities serving the healthy spiritual and human growth of the hermit according to the terms of the Canon and the hermit's own Rule of Life, but it has nothing to do with legalism per se.

And in fact, Saint Bruno never "left the temporal world" (until his death, that is). He did, however, resist the predations of a destructive secularity on and within the Church. After spending some decades teaching and serving in other significant roles, in a Church riven with Papal division and struggles against corruption, he refused to be made a bishop and opted for a life of eremitical solitude. However, when he went with six of his friends off into the Southern Alps, he did so under the authority of Bishop Hugh of Grenoble who installed these seven men in the first location of what would become the Grand Chartreuse. This installation was a matter of ecclesiastical law. Thus, Bruno's group became a canonical foundation and the Carthusians enjoyed the protection of the Church as well as the natural isolation of the Alps. Because of both of these factors, Bruno and his Carthusians developed a normative and unique form of eremitical life that has stood the test of time. The Carthusians today (and new institutes founded in their spirit) are canonical in the same way all religious and diocesan hermits are canonical. Law helps protect the spiritual well-being, priorities, and decisions of those living under such canons, but it neither dominates nor motivates their lives.

[[I have provided the person with more platform than is warranted or healthy for the misinformation that comes forth, so will leave off the topic of which I do believe, however, that there will be increasing "hermits" of the canon law provision, simply due to the public promotion and position, prestige of sorts, and aspect of thinking "legal" and "approved" is preferred to following in the footsteps, heart, mind, and spirit of Christ's teachings and life as He exemplified on earth and as it is in His Real Presence here and in Heaven.]]

There is no need to place canonical standing in opposition to following in the footsteps of Jesus. They are not mutually exclusive. To treat them in this way is simplistic and very short-sighted. I sincerely hope there are more properly motivated and formed canonical hermits under c 603 whose relation to law is a healthy one that opens them more fully to the Spirit of God; I am trying to do my part to contribute to this whole dynamic making sure this is the case. It is a part of my vocation that surprises and gratifies me. While many people have contacted me evincing various levels and types of interest in Canon 603 vocations, I have yet to meet a serious candidate for C 603 profession and consecration who is successful in her petition to be admitted to these, while choosing this vocation as a means to prestige, public promotion, etc. 

Meanwhile, just as I pray for all eremitical vocations, I pray for increasing canonical vocations amongst the Camaldolese, Carthusians, Carmelites, and others as well. Each of these has existed as "canonical" (with Church-approved constitutions and statutes) for many centuries --- long before there was a universal Code of Canon Law (1917) --- and above all, like all religious in the Church, members have and do follow Jesus and allow God to shape them as Imago Christi in the power of the Holy Spirit. I doubt very much the author of these comments could sincerely take exception to this observation, at least not without disparaging all religious in the Church. (cf., Christian Catholic Mystic Hermit, Note added on 9/4 to a post from 19. August. 2023.)

On the Question of Selfishness versus Hiddenness lived for Others

[[ Sister Laurel, are you saying it is unnecessary to use our gifts? Aren't hermits called to use their gifts? Also, how can one tell the difference between selfishness and the generous hiddenness of the hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have been straining to speak of what is primary or most foundational in the hermit's life, what, above all, they witness to for the sake of others. To do this I have had to point to one dimension of the life --- although I think it is most basic, namely, that the hermit in her poverty and emptiness is called to live the relationship with God which is actually at the heart of every genuine act of ministry. Below all the gifts we are given to develop and use stands this relationship; it is, in fact, the very essence of what it means to be human. We ARE this relationship, this covenant with God, or we are simply not human. The hermit commits herself to a life of prayer, to the realization or perfection of this relationship. When we speak of human wholeness or holiness we are speaking of this fundamental covenantal relationship and its fullness and sufficiency in this person's life.

Of course we are called to use our gifts. I believe we will do that effectively to the extent this relationship with God is really the heart of our lives. Otherwise our "ministry" will be an expression of self-assertion instead of the mission of God. But there are few vocations in the Church which point to this truth in quite the same way as that of contemplatives and especially hermits and recluses. Our lives speak to the primacy of our relationship with God. They especially do that if we are made more fully human in the silence of solitude, if, in fact, we come to greater wholeness, greater capacity to love not only God but ourselves and others.

To sit in prayer is a gift of self to God and it is really something we do for the sake of others (first God, then all human beings). It means giving one's time, energy, attention, hopes, dreams, questions and desires to God so that God might have our lives as a dedicated place of personal presence. To sit in prayer extends the Kingdom of God in our world in ways which transcend our own small lives. It can mean foregoing more obvious gifts of self to others in order 1) to worship the God who deserves our entire attention, and 2) to at least raise the God/Meaning question in others' minds in a way which affirms we truly believe the inescapable love of God is the foundation of and impulse behind everything --- including every gift, ministry, and service we do for others. If we live our lives well then they may effectively invite others to entrust themselves to God similarly --- whatever the individual vocation.

On the Distinction Between Selfishness and Generous Hiddenness:

How do we tell the difference between selfishness and a hiddenness which is lived for others? One fundamental way is by the hermit's living of the Rule she has written and the Church has approved canonically. It is important to understand that a Rule is approved with the sincere expectation and hope that it will lead to the generous living of an authentically eremitical life under canon 603. Canonists look at proposed Rules with an eye to their canonical soundness but bishops look at a hermit's Rule for the sense that it is a sound expression of gospel life lived in the silence of solitude. It is a document that reflects a sense of the life defined in the canon as well as the individual hermit's own unique way of embodying that. Moreover, when a Rule is approved the hope it will serve in the anticipated way is often explicitly mentioned in the Bishop's formal document of approval. One of the reasons Rules are rewritten occasionally is to be sure they really serve the hermit in her authentic living of an eremitical life which truly honors the vocation (including the public rights and obligations) the Church has extended to this person.

Perseverance in prayer in solitude even when there is no palpable return on this, persevering in the daily life of a hermit when it is tedious, when the temptation to "go and do" argues loudly in one's head and heart, when one questions why one should persevere in such solitude when so many people are hungry in so many ways requires the empowerment of God. For this reason, so long as other the signs we speak of here are also present, faithfulness to one's Rule is a real sign that one is dealing with a divine vocation. By definition a divine vocation means it is lived for others even when  the hermit herself cannot see clearly HOW this can be so. (When we truly live for God our life will be lived for others as well because God is, by definition, the One "for others".) Again, in the case of canonical hermits the church herself vets and supervises the vocation to be certain that this sign and the others as well are truly present in this person's life. In fact, this is part of the initial discernment of the vocation. Absence of this sign of perseverance "for the sake of God and others" is reason for not admitting the person to public profession and consecration as a diocesan hermit. The bottom line is that the first sign of a hiddenness lived for others rather than as a form of self-centered indulgence or mere individualism is fidelity to one's approved Rule (which includes the hermit's horarium).

A second sign of a hiddenness which is lived for others is that the silence of solitude really leads to a more generous, more loving person who is more fully alive and more truly a mediator of the presence of God than was the case in a different context. I think it is easy to find so-called hermits whose lives and language have a coating of piety but who, in general, are unhappy, misanthropic, unfulfilled, and selfish. It is not enough to persevere in fidelity to one's Rule if there is no joy, no more abundant life, no signs of genuine growth and increasing personal and spiritual maturity. Faithfulness to one's Rule is important, even foundational,  but it must produce characteristic fruit in the hermit's life or it is much more likely we are dealing with a distorted and crippled individualism disguised as faithfulness and perseverance.

A third sign that we are not dealing with selfishness is the well-grounded conviction that this person is living this life so that they may witness to the God who meets our emptiness with his fullness.The life leading to this conviction has a number of faces, some more distinct than others, some less developed or explicit. In general though it has two aspects which are central to the hermit's lived commitment: 1) the sense that God can only be God in our world if we are obedient (open and responsive) to God's call; 2) the sense that we can only give what God empowers us to give which requires both prayer and penance (together these lead to an, emptying in preparation for, an opening to, and also a filling with the dynamic power of God). This lived commitment may include an experience of profound emptiness and stripping by the circumstances of life which God makes sense and use of --- not because God wills or "causes these circumstances", but because God transfigures them with his presence. This is certainly the message of the Cross with Jesus' descent into hell and subsequent bodily resurrection.

For the person of faith, suffering leads to obedience not because it breaks us down and makes us do the will of God rather than our own, but because it opens us to the profoundest weakness, incapacity, and emptiness and therefore, to the most fundamental and neuralgic questions of meaning. Suffering opens us to the "answer" we know as God. When we are empty and incomplete we can be open to being filled and completed by the One who bears witness to Himself within us. We cannot actually be open to being completed by God if we already know ourselves as complete, nor to the answer God is if we refuse to pose the question of our own existence in as radical a way as is possible. I see hermits, therefore, as people who pose the question(s) of God and meaning as radically as possible.

This also leads us to a sense that our very emptiness and the things which cause them open us to the greatest gift others need as well. We must come to know our own pain and need as a miniscule fraction of the pain and need of a suffering world and thus we know that our own consolation and redemption point to something the world needs. Our lives, redeemed and transfigured, empty perhaps of usable gifts, strength, worldly wisdom or expertise, and the opportunities to use these as apostolic religious do, reveal the God who freely completes and empowers us nonetheless --- if we will only entrust our lives to him.

The focus here, however, is God. If the hermit or hermit candidate focuses instead on her own suffering, her own pain and yearning for meaning, or if she begins instead to distract herself from these and thus from the God who reveals Godself in such circumstances, she has shifted from the authentic dynamic of the eremitical life and substituted an ungenerous self centeredness in its place. I should note that this is the primary reason essential healing and personal work needs to be done before one retires to solitude. It is also a central reason this vocation is recognized as a second-half-of-life vocation. One needs to have experienced the kinds of stripping and maturing that ordinarily occur in adulthood --- and especially in the demands of life with others --- to become open to God in the radical way eremitical life represents. One then needs to learn over time in solitude to truly turn to God, truly open to God in ways which allow his ever fuller indwelling and one's own transfiguration.

The fact is that there are some hermits whose lives do not immediately reflect one or the other of these aspects of the dynamic outlined. Some have not been stripped by the circumstances of life; generally, these hermits will open to God more slowly as the rigor of the life with its tedium and routine do as they are meant. But there are others who have been stripped of many things by the exigencies of life but, for instance, whose spirituality does not allow them to really open to the transfiguring presence of God. They may, for instance, resent and grieve the various forms of stripping and emptying life has required or occasioned but never commit to or undertake the work associated with healing these. When this is true such persons find it difficult indeed to open (or let God open them) to the even greater stripping and self-emptying involved in giving their whole selves over to God. In such situations the "hermitage" is a refuge from change and "the world out there" while in truth the hermit carries "the world" she is meant to separate herself from so deeply in her heart that genuine transfiguration becomes nearly impossible. Because of its pious veneer and the self-delusion at its core such a life can actually become an instance of the sin against the Holy Spirit rather than an authentic eremitical LIFE which is more and more wholly given over to that Spirit --- and thus lived for others.

A Postscript on the place of canonical standing in regard to your question:

To reiterate, the Church is responsible for publicly professing hermits who live lives of generous hiddenness, not lives of selfish indulgence and individualism. This is because truly generous eremitical lives serve God and others precisely in their profound emptinesses and stripping --- when God is allowed to meet these with his fullness. There is, for the hermit, no middle ground here I think. Either one commits to live for God and those precious to God by one's openness to being redeemed and transfigured or one fails to do so. For instance,  there is little or no apostolic ministry to attenuate the starkness of the choice here. Nor does one retire from being a hermit whose entire life poses (and is given over to posing) this fundamental choice as radically as possible. Canonical standing not only attests to the authenticity of the vocation but the graced state (the consecrated state of life), the relationships (legitimate superiors, diocesan stability, etc), and the public accountability such standing both indicates and helps insure but it supports one in living this out exhaustively with and for the whole of one's life.  Again, canonical standing in this matter serves love on a number of levels.

Canon 603: Normativity and the Prevention of Distortions, Abuses, Counterfeits and Frauds

[[Sister, you wrote that Bishop Remi de Roo gave several different reasons for asking the II Vatican Council to make eremitical life a state of perfection and include it in canon law. Could you please post these here? I could not copy them.]]

Sure. They are 1) The fact of a growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. Question continues:

[[I can see where these really are positive reasons for establishing Canon 603. Was it also a way to regulate the growth of the vocation or minimize distortions or abuses even if these weren't the reason the Canon came into existence? Thank you.]]

Yes. to point out the normative and ecclesial nature of canon 603 vocations is to say that the Church desires to respond to the Holy Spirit in authentic ways. This also therefore means that abuses, distortions, disedifying stereotypes, and destructive eccentrics or eccentricities cannot mask themselves as Catholic hermits or the stuff of canon 603 life as well as that the Church has a stake in being sure this does not occur. The big difference between noting that canon 603 ALSO helps prevent abuses and saying that it actually grew out of an attempt to deal with abuses should be clear. Since these elements are something of an informal vision of the place of the eremitical vocation in the Church, and since they are positive and ecclesially focused, they too underscore that the flip side of the positive normative nature of the canon involves the prevention of abuses.

What remains true however, is that unless the Church was (and is) faced with a true gift of the Holy Spirit  in eremitical life no canon would be necessary; nor would any exist. The Church could simply ignore (as "hermits", not as needy people!) the fraudulent or counterfeit "hermits" populating the various wildernesses (including internet sites!) of the world. The corollary then is that with this canon (i.e., this norm) the proliferation of counterfeits and frauds alongside those very few authentic vocations who consider this vocation seriously because of the canon, makes recognizing, exploring, and honoring the normative nature of the canon even more critical. While it is not meant to validate eccentricity and inauthenticity, it does pique the interest of many lone individuals who will never be professed accordingly for these same reasons (and better ones as well!).** As former detective Monk might say, in this regard Canon 603 is both a blessing and a curse.

I am not entirely sure about the idea that the canon was meant to regulate the growth of such vocations if by that you mean it was meant to prevent there from being lots and lots of them, for instance. The Church knows this is a relatively rare vocation and that few are called to human wholeness in this way. However, the specific non-negotiable  or defining elements of the canon do prevent just any lone pious person from thinking of themselves (much less portraying themselves publicly) as a hermit just as it prevents some of the practices which would surely proliferate without it: e.g., solitary apostolic religious for whom being a hermit is a "metaphor" for their lives, misanthropes, and others seeking to validate their strangeness or their failures at charity and relationships by applying the word "hermit" to their lives, Saturday-only contemplatives, married hermits, and any number of other examples I have mentioned in the past 7 years.

You may have noticed that I posted an answer to the question as to whether the Episcopal solitary was the same as the RC Hermit. In fact, it turns out that the Episcopalians use a canon which is sort of a catchall for unusual cases --- cases in which a person is not professed as part of a recognized Order or Community, for instance. While the solitaries I know personally in the Episcopal Church live lives which resemble my own in all the elements Canon 603 requires of the hermit, the Canon under which they are professed does NOT spell out these elements in the same way Canon 603 does. Thus, while I don't know if the Episcopal Church has problems with Bishops professing individuals as "solitaries" even if they do not live a desert spirituality, this too makes it clear that Canon 603 does limit the growth of the vocation to those persons who DO live its central and non-negotiable elements.

** Should anyone doubt that Canon 603 (and those professed under it) has subsequently led to MANY people seeking to be professed accordingly one story might help here. I was speaking to a Vicar for Consecrated Life about his diocese's experience with hermits, hermit candidates for profession, etc. This diocese has professed one diocesan hermit in the history of the canon, and that was only within the past decade. However, he said that every month (he may have said every week, I can't recall exactly now) people approach the diocese seeking to be admitted to profession as diocesan hermits. None of them has gotten as far as this one diocesan hermit in regard to the process of discernment and admission to public profession. (Note well that this is a diocese open to having diocesan hermits.)

If we take the lowest average possible while omitting periods of holidays and possibly the Summer months (and my sense is this is a fairly conservative number) that means that of at least 100 or so persons seeking admission to profession as a diocesan hermit in the past decade only 1 has been professed under canon 603 in this one diocese. Many dioceses of course have professed none and some have actually determined they will profess none in the foreseeable future. (There are significant pros and cons to this decision.) A few have professed several (we sort of laughingly call them "hotbeds" of eremitical life!). I think this too indicates that Canon 603 does naturally limit the growth of this vocation --- and rightly so. It also indicates, I think, why it is important to write publicly about this canon and the meaning of its central or defining elements. Some of these people will  actually one day become diocesan hermits if they can only come to understand and embrace the life it defines. Others never will, while a number of others probably never should.

Discerning Canon 603 Life as a Gift of God

[[Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my questions on profession when one does not really want it.  The lay hermit I was speaking of said that while she didn't believe this was what [Jesus] was calling her to, she would turn in her paperwork and then if it really seemed to be wrong for her, "I can always decline the kind offer of canonical approval, can't I?" It sounds to me like this hermit doesn't understand what is being offered to her or why. Does this happen a lot? Are there hermits out there who feel this way about their vocation? I wonder if a person could really embrace a life of solitude if they did.]]

You are right about the lack of understanding here. To begin with it is very unlikely anyone is "offering to profess" this person given the level of ambivalence and even potential disingenuousness she admits to. In short though, she does not feel called and nothing can be done in the absence of a sincere heart-felt sense of being called. As I have noted before admission to profession is not so much an offer or invitation the Bishop makes (especially not in order to "approve of someone") as it is the way he extends the rights, obligations, essential freedom, and call to the covenantal life of an ecclesial vocation to the person he is also convinced is called by God to this. When the Church admits to profession she mediates this divine call to the person in a formal, definitive, and solemn way and receives the person's definitive response in a way which establishes a sacred covenant marked by vows, structured legally (canonically and by Rule), and supported by all of the relationships the Church recognizes as essential to living such a covenant well and fruitfully. The language of "approval" hardly begins to convey this rich content and has only very limited utility in such a situation; I tend to avoid it while those stressing the supposed status (in the inaccurate sense of prestige) of canonical standing (standing in law) tend to use and misuse it exclusively.

IF a Bishop invited a person to "turn in her paperwork" he has more likely invited her to let him and others take a look at her Rule or Plan of Life, and perhaps, to participate in a serious and mutual discernment process. (No other paperwork is required at this point; in time Sacramental certificates, declarations of nullity if applicable, etc, indicating a person is free to be professed will be required when it seems the person is a suitable candidate --- though the declaration of nullity would be sought immediately because its lack is an impediment to profession and discernment hardly makes sense with such an impediment in place.) During this process, should she (or anyone in such a position) come to be convinced she is NOT called by God to this, she (or anyone in such a position) has a responsibility to notify the chancery and withdraw from the process. I would therefore be very surprised to learn that a situation like the one you referred to EVER really happens and more surprised to hear there is ANY diocesan hermit who feels this way about his/her vocation. (A hermit who decides she has made a mistake in accepting admission to perpetual profession will, after serious consultation, ask to be dispensed from her vows. If the vows are temporary she can (again after serious consultation) either seek a dispensation or decide to continue the discernment appropriate to such vows until they lapse and it is time to apply (petition) for perpetual profession.)

Your next to last question is the most important, and the most interesting one because it raises the prospect of living a life which is contrary to what one truly feels called to when that life is a rare way to achieve human wholeness and holiness anyway. It raises the question of integrity and what it really means to be called by God and to respond to that call with one's whole self. It raises questions about embittered "hermits" who are icons of isolation and misanthropy, but are nothing like hermits in real life --- at least nothing like the hermits who are truly citizens of the Kingdom of God living the incredibly joyful and fulfilling "silence of solitude." For now your questions underscore the kinds of things chanceries watch out for when people come seeking to be hermits under canon 603.

 I think the bottom line must be that the person recognizes canon 603 as a gift of God to the Church and is awed and excited by the sincere sense that she might just be one of the persons who are publicly called and commissioned to live this gift. She will have found that through the grace of God eremitical solitude brings her to a wholeness and holiness she could not achieve as well in other contexts. She will be in love with God but also deeply in love with those he also loves as he loves the hermit.

The silence of solitude she lives will be rich and filled with relationships: first with God, but through God with her parish, friends, other hermits around the world, and those in the diocese more generally. If she has a blog there will be friends from there as well though there may be very little contact. For some very few hermits there will be a call to reclusion; for one of these her love for others will be mediated only through her love for and relationship with God. Every genuine hermit is open to this possibility and to growing towards it. Again though, what one will note in such hermits and all canon 603 hermits is a sense of awe, responsibility, and great joy at being called to live publicly committed lives which continue the tradition of the Desert Fathers and Mothers in the contemporary Church. It really is an awesome thing to be called to love and serve God and others in this way.

Post script: Sorry, I didn't answer your last question explicitly so let me come back to that. Would someone be able to embrace a life of [eremitical] solitude if they felt they were not really called to it by God [or felt this call deep within themselves]? I can't see how. One wonders how people live any life if they feel profoundly that God has not called them to it. I would imagine a sense of resignation and quiet desperation would accompany much of such a life. But with solitude where the heart of the vocation is communion with God, and where often or for much of the time the only relationship one experiences directly is that one has with God it would be very much more problematical to try and live such a life.

This would be complicated by the fact that God calls us to serve others with our lives and such a person would also be missing the way God is calling them in particular to serve others. The examples I have seen of those trying to live in such a way (and I have seen at least a couple)  turn God into a source of monstrous theology and make of their own lives one of unrelenting suffering and victimhood. These are dressed up in pious language of course, but the combination is pathological on every level and the result is extremely sad and destructive, to say the least.

Canonical Standing as a Vocational Trellis

[[Dear Sister, there is a hermit posting videos on You Tube and she wrote something which seemed to be directed to or at you or other canonical hermits. She said, [[. . .not all the canons laws in the world will ever form the hermit vocation to the degree and to the beauty and power that simply turning to (God's) presence will form it for you. . .]] Can you comment on this?]]

Sure. I don't hear this as directed at me particularly, but she is correct, of course. No authentic hermit whether diocesan, religious, or lay would disagree with this. God is always the source and ground of the hermit vocation, or any other vocation for that matter.

On the other hand, for disciplined and really fruitful growth plants often need trellises or stakes to support them or even to help shape what would otherwise become a shapeless impenetrable mass of growth without limits or order. Occasionally, even a good pruning is required for healthy growth and fruitfulness. Beyond this, some plants require such steps so they don't become destructive of property or sap the nutrition and space allotted to other plants. Canon law, a person's Rule or Plan of Life, "subjection" (or commitment) to spiritual direction, a delegate, and the other relationships which are established with standing in law all help the hermit to remain turned to the God who is the source of life and growth while also being sure the growth is regular, sustained, balanced, and fruitful.

As I have written very often here Canonical standing is not the only valid means to eremitical life. Lay eremitical life is equally valid and may in fact speak to certain groups of people more powerfully than canonical forms -- diocesan (solitary) or religious (semi-eremitical) --- for instance. The fact is some hermits will find they grow freely and productively without the constraints (or the specific stable relationships) established by profession in canon law; others will find that to grow freely and effectively they need canon law and the rights and obligations attached to canonical standing. In either case it is always God who is the source and ground of any authentic growth or fruitfulness. I am not aware of a hermit --- lay, diocesan, or religious --- who has said (or who would say) anything different.

My Own Credibility in Speaking of Valuing the Lay State (Reprised with Additional Explanation)

Originally posted in November, 2008 (Heading for the additional section is marked in bold below)

[[Doesn't your own canonical status undercut your ability to speak to the importance and witness of the non-canonical or lay hermit? Doesn't it make what you say even a bit hypocritical? You have written any number of times about the importance of canonical status/standing so how believeable are your opinions on the lay eremitical vocation? Why didn't you become/remain a lay hermit instead of seeking profession and consecration according to Canon 603 if you believed as you say you do in this?]]


These questions were not raised by a hostile reader, but in my own prayer and reflection on the matter. However, I suspect that they are questions which my own status and comments might well occasion in others, so I am including them here. First. let me say that there is truth in each question: to each, except, I think, for the one about hypocrisy and the last one which asks "Why didn't you become/remain. . .", I have to answer "Yes" before I qualify or nuance my responses. With regard to the last question ["Why didn't I become/remain. . .?], let me say right up front that I do not have a complete answer at this time, but only large parts of one, and that those parts involve both positive and negative elements.

In my previous post on the importance of lay hermits I noted that I had not realized how effectively I was cutting myself off from witnessing to particular segments of our church and world. My life as a canonical hermit still speaks to these people, I know that full well, but I suspect not nearly as powerfully as had I eschewed profession and consecration under Canon 603 and embraced a vocation as a lay hermit. I would have needed to find ways to do this, but those avenues are open to anyone really. This blog is an example. On the other hand, I have experienced both sides of the fence here and am aware of the shift (in witnessing) which has occured. Thus, I think I am able to speak effectively to the importance of both lay and consecrated eremitical vocations. The point of course is that a person who is consciously and voluntarily lay and eremitical can, in some ways. do so better than I can ever do.

So what about possible hypocrisy? Well, it is true that I am unabashedly excited by and enthusiastic about the eremitical vocation which is canonical, and that personally I see a lot of reasons to seek canonical standing, especially as a diocesan hermit with its unique charism. It is also true that on this blog I have posted a lot in order to combat misconceptions about canonical status, etc. In my Rule I wrote (several years ago now) that I felt that canonical status was imperative except in the early stages of a vocation or foundation --- though my views on this have changed considerably in the meantime. Is it possible to be enthusiastic about the graces and benefits of one way of living an eremitical life without denigrating another? I sincerely hope and believe so, otherwise there is no way to be honest about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in one vocation without denigrating them in another. And despite seeing this happen often in the history of mankind with regard to different religions, etc, surely none of us believe that is necessarily the case [with different vocations]!

With the issue of canonical and non-canonical hermits I believe the Holy Spirit is working in both ways in our church and world, speaking to different segments and calling them to different responsibilities, emphases and witness. So long as the eremitical life is being led with faithfulness these differing emphases, commissions and witnesses will emerge and reveal themselves clearly. That said, I must also say that I don't believe just anyone should call themselves a hermit, and I especially don't believe that someone who simply has a bent for some degree of solitude part of the time should do so, or be allowed to do so. (Here is one of the real benefits of canonical standing and oversight: one knows, at least generally, that the term is being used accurately and that the witness being given is genuine.) Still, if someone is living a fulltime life of prayer and penance, a life centered on God in silence and solitude --- not reclusively necessarily, but really --- then they have every right to call themselves a hermit and should do so, for this too is the work and gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world.

Again, it is not that canonical hermits are "real" hermits while non-canonical hermits are "pseudo" or "wannabe" hermits. While it is true that sometimes people use the term hermit too casually (for an active life with chunks of solitude, a part-time semi-solitary existence, for instance, as in a married life where the days are spent in prayer and work while children and husband are off to school and work!) or for the wrong reasons (social awkwardness or misanthopy, the need for self-indulgent introversion or simply for creative time and space are among these) -- these folks ARE pseudo hermits or wannabe's --- when the term really applies (that is, to a LIFE OF fulltime and genuine solitude lived for and in God) it signals the "realness" or inspired nature of the vocation, and whether this is a call to eremitism of the consecrated or lay states does not matter.

And regarding the last question, "why didn't I become and remain a lay hermit?" well, I am going to [mainly] leave that for another time and more thought. The simple answer is that initially and eventually I determined I was not called to this as did the Church, but that can be evasive as well as being true. Part of the answer is that it was this context which made sense of the whole spectrum of my life and the kind of freedom needed to live this call fully and faithfully, but that too needs some explaining --- which again requires both more thought and time to write. Still, the question is important, not only for me personally, but because it is really the question every hermit must answer in some form in discerning and embracing the call not only to eremitical life, but to lay or consecrated states as the critical context for their own charism, witness, and mission. At this point I wish to say merely that whichever choice one discerns and makes, the eremitical life they are discerning and choosing is a real and significant vocation and that we must learn to esteem not only the similarities they share with their counterpart (lay or consecrated), but especially their unique gift quality and capacity to speak variously to different segments of the church and world.

Addition to the Original Post:

Why did I not become or remain a lay hermit? Why pursue a call to the consecrated state if I truly value the lay vocation? I have thought about these questions more since I posed these queries to myself and here are the elements of my answer: 1) I felt called to an ecclesial vocation, one which the Church also discerned, 2) I did so because I became aware of a particular gift or charism this vocation was to the Church and world with regard to those who were marginalized in both church and world by chronic illness, old-age, and other isolating factors. Eremitical life spoke directly to these situations and their redemption whether or not any of the persons were called to eremitical life (though I supposed some would be and wished to assist them in knowing about and even hearing this call). 3) There was a certain unfreedom I experienced personally with regard to representing this charism fully as a lay hermit despite the fact that I published about it and had come to terms with the diocese's unwillingness to profess anyone under Canon 603 for the time being. I concluded (after another @20 years) that I still needed canonical standing to put an end to this "unfreedom".

(The solution to unfreedom of this type is often the assumption of new responsibilities. So it was for me. The assumption of the rights and responsibilities associated with canonical or consecrated eremitical life freed me to live the life (and my own life of course) as fully as I felt called to do. For some, as for instance the person who writes about the taint of increased institutionalization and the constraints of that preventing her living fully in the present moment, this would not be true. The same is the case for the person who wrote most recently with regard to, "what's the big deal?" or who desires to push the meaning of words in whatever way he personally likes. It would also be true for those who (more positively I think) just want to live in solitude without more ecclesial rights and responsibilities, or who wish to imitate the lay status of the desert Abbas and Ammas.)

4) I was living the final vows I had made in 1978 and desired to do this within the context of Canon 603 in a specifically eremitical framework and with the guidance, supervision, and assistance of the Church rather than privately in a way which did not allow others to have necessary expectations with regard to these vows. It also meant being present in a way which allowed others (lay, consecrated, and clerics) to appreciate the way the Holy Spirit was working in their midst with regard to both chronic illness and eremitical life, and 5) I had become more knowledgeable about the nature and history of eremitical life as a still-vital tradition and I wanted to assume what I discerned to be my own place in that tradition in ways which were both faithful to it and yet enlarged or added to it in contemporary terms. This included wishing to bring the diocesan hermit dimension more strongly into the Camaldolese charism while allowing the Camaldolese charism to be more explicitly present in diocesan eremitical life. In both of these I had the sense of being called to be part of a tradition, creatively, in faithful dialog with it, not in unthinking or careless rejection of it as I simply "did my own thing".

Canon 603 as a Stopgap Means of Achieving Profession.

[[Sister, I am involved in [a named group]. . . seeking to become a religious institute. I have been told I need the following before I contact the Bishop about becoming a diocesan hermit:. . . the Seven Pillars of New Foundations (rule, constitutions, horarium, formation program, remunerative work, stable source of habit parts, and four persevering members). When I have these in place. . . I will present my information to the Bishop. I live in my own home and the others in [the group] do that same in different cities, and dioceses. We decided we were not yet ready to live a cenobitical life so we are 'going the diocesan hermit route.' Can you give me any advice on these pillars or on approaching a diocese about this? Also, which Bishop do I contact, my own or that of the foundress of our group?]]

Hi there. I think there is some confusion on a number of points both in what you have cited and in your own understanding of Canon 603. Assuming then you only know what you have been told by the person you cited, I am going to answer at some length here. Pardon me if some of this is already clear to you. You will find this repeats other articles found in this blog as well.

First, Diocesan hermits are not part of communities. That is they are not religious hermits, but instead they are solitary hermits who MAY but need not join together for mutual support with other hermits from the diocese in what is called a laura. This possibility, contrary to popular opinion is NOT written into Canon 603 itself. It is seen by some as implicitly allowed, but the Canon itself clearly gives every preference to solitary eremitical life so lauras (some suggest) may NOT really be in accord with Canon 603. (They may instead be a form of eremitical life which requires use of Canon 605 which deals with new forms of consecrated life.) A laura (a name that comes from the Greek word (lavra) for the paths which link the individual hermitages) is not the same thing as a religious institute or community. Juridically, that is in Canon Law, the hermits remain solitary hermits even if they come together in a Laura (which, by the way, would be in a single diocese under the Diocesan Bishop).

Discernment is therefore a matter of determining a call to a solitary vocation, and while the process can (and ideally, I think, should) include an extended time in community or a monastery setting (or even in a Laura) --- say for a month or two -- discernment of this vocation for lay persons is primarily done outside these contexts. I say this not only because lay people usually do not have the kind of access to these that discernment requires, but more significantly, I think, because it makes no sense to discern a solitary eremitical vocation, or the form that is to take --- for instance whether lay or consecrated --- mainly (much less only) in community or even in a Laura. The same is true of formation. One can hardly say one has discerned or been formed in a vocation as a diocesan hermit if one has not largely done so in the ordinary setting of that life, namely, in solitary living where the parish is one's primary community and where one is responsible for one's own horarium, living situation, chores, business "in the world", ministry, income, etc.

This last comment does not apply to you directly it seems, but it does raise the pertinent question about both discernment and formation: What are you in the process of discerning a vocation to? Is it community life or is it diocesan eremitical life? You said you all decided to "go the diocesan hermit route" because you were not ready for cenobitical life. Besides the fact that the cenobium is traditionally and psychologically an important, even crucial, preparation for solitary life --- and not the other way around --- there seems to be some confusion about what you are either discerning or being formed in and for here. If you are trying to become a diocesan hermit you will do so under your own Bishop and no other. Further, you will need to be pursuing this because you believe in your heart of hearts that God has called you to this, not as a stopgap measure until something else is possible, but because it is a LIFE VOCATION and therefore, the way to your own and others' wholeness and holiness for the whole of your life from this point on.

Another question this raises then is, unfortunately, that of fraud. It is not uncommon to hear of people who believe Canon 603 is the "easy" way to get professed until they can find or found a community. I have written here before about this problem, especially in an incident occurring in Australia. Canonists, Vicars, and Bishops are increasingly aware of this difficulty and some are taking simple steps to make sure the person being professed under Canon 603 is doing so as a solitary person who has discerned a life vocation to diocesan eremitical life. One step is to include an introductory line as part of the vow formula itself: ". . .I earnestly desire to respond to the grace of vocation as a solitary hermit. . ." Another is to require the candidate for profession to sign an affidavit which states clearly that they are not and do not intend to become part of a religious community (even a fledgling or putative one), and are accepting profession as a solitary hermit. This leaves the option open in the future of joining with other diocesan hermits in a laura, but it makes it clear that the vocation being embraced is a life vocation and, as far as one knows and intends, not that of a religious hermit (one in community). If one made vows under Canon 603 while part of the kind of initiative you mentioned above, they would then be committing fraud, their vows would be invalid and they would conceivably be open to sanctions. These are, unfortunately, merely prudent safeguards of which I completely approve.

So, assuming that you have discerned you are truly called to life as a diocesan hermit under Canon 603, what about the other things you need before approaching your own Bishop? What you cite is correct about a couple of things. You will need to be able to support yourself in some way, and you will need a proven track record (or secure source) here while you are living as a hermit. You will need a Rule or Plan of Life which you have written on the basis of your own lived experience. (Ordinarily it takes several years of living as a hermit before one is really ready to write such a document, but it is one of the most crucial elements of the Canon and one of the most formative experiences a hermit can participate in.) Constitutions are appropriate for a religious community but diocesan hermits don't require them (the Rule is analogous to a Constitution in some ways). However, you will likely need a delegate who will serve you on a more day to day basis than chancery personnel usually can do. This person will assist you to work out the nuts and bolts of your calling, balancing activity with contemplative life, community and solitude, changes in horarium, concerns with physical welfare, finances, etc. She will also serve as someone whom the Bishop can call on if he has concerns or wishes additional input re the hermit's life. The passage you cite is also correct about a horarium. Ordinarily this schedule is simply part of your Rule of Life and has been worked out over time to make best use of time, and including what is fundamental to eremitical life in light of individual needs and capacities.

The passage you cite is not correct about formation program or habit parts or four persevering members, however --- not with regard to Canon 603 anyway. You will need to have provided for and achieved your own formation for a while before you approach a diocese, though dioceses may point you towards other resources you can pursue on your own. Your Rule of Life will also make clear your need and provisions for ongoing formation --- at least that this is a clear ongoing concern with some basic ideas on how this need will be met. As for habit parts, not all hermits wear habits (it can certainly be an important witness but is hardly a foundational element of eremitical life --- or of religious life for that matter) and those who do require their Bishop's approval to do so.

If you choose to wear a habit you will need to speak to your Bishop about whether and when that may be allowed. Ordinarily permission comes only when admission to profession is sure or with profession itself since the right to wear a habit is part of the rights and responsibilities associated with canonical standing. This is a reason part of temporary profession can include investing with the habit. (The cowl, if used, comes with perpetual profession -- as it always has in monastic life.) Too often today I hear of people styling themselves as religious and wearing habits on their own initiative who have no concept that it is actually a responsibility with which one must be vested --- not one they can honestly assume on their own. Again, four persevering members is unnecessary and does not refer to solitary diocesan eremitical life in any case.

But let's also back up a bit in looking at when it is likely time to contact your diocese. Assuming you are (and have been) working regularly with a trained and/or approved spiritual director, and that you have lived as a lay hermit for several years -- long enough to know eremitical life of some sort is your vocation -- you will be in a position to discern whether you are called to lay or to consecrated eremitical life. I think it is important to spend some time on this dimension of your discernment because the church recognizes both lay and consecrated eremitical vocations, but also because the need for lay hermits, their ministry and witness, is very great. (See other articles on this topic for an explanation of what I mean here.) After that, and if you truly determine it is the latter you are called to, you will need to determine whether that will be in community (as a religious hermit) or as a solitary (diocesan) hermit. If and once you have determined the latter is most likely, then it will be time to contact your diocese with your petition to discern further with them (since they mediate this particular call to the individual, they also need to discern the reality of the vocation!) and to be admitted to profession under Canon 603.

Note again that all of this is done within the context and competency of your own diocese with your own Bishop --- who becomes the hermit's legitimate superior, and whose "subject" you now are anyway. While it is possible to move to another diocese after profession, one must get the permission of both Bishops involved in the move to do so. (Remember that a Bishop must determine that this vocation is something the diocese can benefit from and is ready for. Some (perhaps many) have not yet done so. Moving to another diocese is not something one undertakes lightly, not only because of the monastic value of stability, but also because one's life is affirmed as a gift to the local Church at profession.) I personally can't even imagine how a religious-institute-to-be hopes to have individual members professed separately under different Bishops (not to mention under a Canon which deals with solitary and diocesan hermits who, because of something similar to monastic stability implicit in the Canon, cannot move to another diocese without the permission of both Bishops involved) and then, having planned to do so from the beginning, seeks to bring them together in another place under another Bishop and Rule as a religious institute! The whole set up, premeditated as it is, up smacks of manipulation, insincerity or hypocrisy, and not a little lack of understanding of or confusion regarding the gravity and nature of the vocations they are speaking about. Besides being a canonical nightmare it is a completely irresponsible and dishonest way to proceed.

In any case, I do urge you in your work with your director to discern whether or not you are called to life as a diocesan hermit. If so, you will then need to sever ties with the group you mentioned so that that piece of the confusion is cleared away and you can proceed more honestly and with more genuine commitment to this vocation rather than to another. (If, on the other hand, you wish to remain with this group, or otherwise determine you are called to cenobitical life, you should give up the idea of being professed under Canon 603; it is not meant for this situation.)

I hope this helps. As always if my response raises more questions or requires clarification, I hope you will get back to me.

Once again, Canonical Status: Motives for seeking approval, etc.

Well, I have had few questions emailed until recently with this "issue" of canonical status. While this may be my last post on this topic for a while (despite the questions, as interesting as it is to me, it is probably NOT that interesting to most!), here is a followup question I received and my response:

[[It is clear to me that you do not believe that hermits looking for canonical status do so out of pride, a desire for "status," the need for a title, and so forth. Yet, I have been reading everything I can online on eremitism and there is no doubt that some do believe this. It does appear to some that canonical hermits WANT a 'place' in the church, a title, public recognition, etc. Can you say more about the valid and invalid motivations for seeking canonical status under canon 603 as you see them?]]

Fair enough. When I began writing about the question of non-canonical vs canonical status for hermits in the church, I noted that I personally thought non-canonical status was something ONLY to be embraced early on in a vocation --- for instance, in the beginning of the discernment process or beginning of an institute's life. I envisioned most hermits discovering that they needed canonical status simply to live their lives with real integrity, to sense and embrace a genuine share in the church's mission, etc. I have come to revise that opinion and I have begun thinking that the charism of the non-canonical (lay) hermit is different than that of the canonical one, despite the overwhelming identity of the fundamentals of the lives each live. Thus some hermits may indeed be called specifically to non-canonical (lay) eremitical life. [Addendum: N.B., within a short space of time and in future posts I will come to affirm this unequivocally.]

Whether this is true or not, let me say at the outset that wanting a legitimate place in the church (that is, literally a place IN LAW) which validates who one is and what one does, especially when those things are associated with a really eccentric (away from the center) vocation like eremitism is completely understandable and reasonable. As I have also written here before, neither should one be ashamed if one NEEDS canonical status beyond that provided by Baptism in order to live out their vocation fully. We know that contexts give meaning and stability to individual words, and similarly, canonical status, like Baptism itself, gives a distinct meaning and stability to one's life as a hermit. It challenges on a daily basis, and supports in times of struggle. It provides a context when most of reality (including religious life with its accent on apostolic activity) militates against the eremitic vocation as something unworthy of human embrace and emulation. When one adds the element of ecclesiality to the vocation, and the recognition that such status is the way God's call is actually mediated to the canonical hermit, all of this becomes a cogent argument for the need for such standing in law.

It should be clear from my last two entries on this topic that I believe canonical status invests the hermit with legal obligations and rights, and also, that these can be spelled out in terms of expectations everyone in the church --- the hermit's superiors and her parish especially --- should feel free to have and express. These expectations are part and parcel of a public vocation and serve the hermit in a number of ways. The question is, I guess, does the hermit seeking canonical status understand this and ask for admission to public profession with this in mind (or at least in dim awareness at some level or other!), or is she really approaching the diocese on these matters because, as some are now writing about those with or seeking such standing, she is prideful, insecure, needs the approval of others, or has no real sense of self without it? Or again, is she exchanging the "purer" eremitical life of hidden prayer for a public role where prayer in hiddenness is given short shrift? Is she taken with the trappings of the canonical hermit, the prayer garment or cowl, the title, the "status" in the more common "social ranking" sense of the word or, is her request for admission a matter of genuinely needing canonical standing, that is, public standing in law, in order to realize the fullest potentials of the vocation itself?

In authentic vocations the person does not bring only her strengths to the commitment; she brings her whole self, and that means weaknesses, brokenness, inadequacies, etc. The vocation will embody these, heal them over time, etc, but still, they are there and it will sometimes seem (or at least arise as a personal question for the hermit) that perhaps she was merely trying to accommodate these things in embracing eremitism. What I want to suggest is that there are legitimate reasons for and ways of accommodating these things, and illegitimate ways of doing so. For instance, many hermits today experience chronic illness in one form and another. Of itself this does not constitute a vocation to eremitic life, nor would anyone be foolish enough to think it does. On the other hand, of itself it MAY NOT be an obstacle to eremitic life as it more often is in other forms of consecrated life; it could even be the ground for discovering a vocation which allows God's power to be perfected in obvious weakness and the gospel to be proclaimed with a special vividness. I have spoken of this before here. However, it is also the case that the illness MAY be an obstacle to a genuine vocation to eremitic life, and this is true whether the illness is physical or psychological. In one case, the hermit might come to wonder if her illness was the ONLY reason for embracing a call to eremitism when in fact, it was the occasion for considering a form of life she would never have considered otherwise, and one which God was indeed calling her to. In another instance though, the hermit's self-questioning might be pointing to the truth: her illness is an obstacle to a genuine eremitic call and is the only AND INSUFFICIENT reason for embracing it.

There are all manner of human needs for validation, or approval. Some of these are healthy and should be met, while others are unhealthy (or unChristian) and ought not be indulged. Some are motivated by a sinful or distorted pride, and some are not. Untangling the twisted skeins of motives within us is something that takes time and work! I also think it is something that cannot be done completely alone: it requires the help of a good therapist and/or spiritual director, good friends who are honest and insist on honesty from the hermit, but also, time and patience. This is true because, like the incarnation itself, eremitical vocations grow out of the most unpropitious appearing soil. What was barren becomes a womb for God's own presence; what was a desert that appeared without hope of fruitfulness blossoms with unimaginable life. What is true is that this side of eternity both life and death, barrenness and fruitfulness, disappointment and promise, co-exist within us at every moment. At least in the beginning stages of discernment, so will an individual's motives be ambiguous; later on they may be clarified and simply be paradoxical: there is a desire for status (legal standing) so that one may live a hidden life in real integrity and holiness, etc.

It seems to me then, that what can also happen is that, over time, motives are purified, the needs for validation, etc which are rooted in inadequacies in the hermit's personality can, in many cases, be outgrown or healed. This can allow one to discover the valid reasons for requiring approval or validation stemming from the potential of the vocation itself which were there right along, but were obscured by the hermit's own "deficiency needs". The vocation to eremitical life is MEANT to serve others in the church and world as a whole. Of course, the vocation is a gift of God to these, but it is also a gift to the hermit herself. It SHOULD summon her in her weakness to greater (greatest!) wholeness and perfection; it should not and must not merely bypass these things. At the same time, while it will use and even build on them, it cannot be built on them alone. Any vocation to serve others ordinarily requires various forms of authorization, and authorization says that the vocation is NOT built only on deficiency needs but also on true giftedness (also called "potentiality needs") which will serve others well.

What I am saying is critics of canonical status for the hermit especially can be correct in individual cases since the human need for approval can stem from both deficiencies AND potentialities or giftedness in the human personality. Where they are wrong is to generalize as though ALL those who seek or have canonical status do so because of motives which run counter to the very nature of the vocation itself. Even when more venal or unworthy motives are present, what tends to happen is that they are worked through and left behind before the hermit is admitted to profession and especially prior to perpetual profession. As this occurs, the hermit will discover there are deeper and more valid reasons for seeking the church's approval and canonical standing. She will, if her vocation is genuine, discover and also allow these reasons to motivate and challenge her. Otherwise, there should be no profession, especially perpetual profession! As I noted above, canonical standing allows certain potentials of the vocation to be realized. Once this is understood it can be seen that the motivation for seeking such standing need not be a betrayal of the true eremitic vocation, but rather the logical route for its fulfillment.

Originally I was rather moved by the argument that hermits SHOULD be non-canonical because the vocation began as a protest of the Church's capitulation to the world of privilege and power, and should therefore continue in this way. However, I also understood that some vocations are ecclesial realities that are mediated through the Church. Canonical status therefore need not be a matter of "selling out" to the power structure of the institutional church, and in fact is more likely in well-motivated people to allow their vocations to reach a maturity and fullness that remains merely potential in non-canonical forms. However, it remains true that the Church recognizes non-canonical hermits as a valid form of eremitical life. This means, I think, that we must understand there are completely valid motives for embracing EITHER form of eremitic life, and that neither can be disparaged.