Private Vows, Not an Act of Profession and Not the Way to Consecration as a Hermit

[[Dear Sister, if someone writes: that their vows were received by a Catholic priest on behalf of the Church and God Himself and that they are a consecrated hermit as a result, can this be the case? Can my spiritual director receive my vows and consecrate me in this way? I would rather do it this way than go to my bishop (just being honest!).]]

LOL!! I appreciate your honesty and understand what you are saying!! The answer to your question regarding intention is no, no priest or priest spiritual director unless specifically designated to do so on behalf of the diocese by the local ordinary, can receive vows or consecrate you in the eremitical life. The Church has only two ways for such a thing to happen: 1) she professes and consecrates you as a member of a semi-eremitical or eremitical congregation, and 2) using c.603, you make your profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop or his explicit designee. 

Both of these options involve public vows and a change in one's state of life. A priest can certainly witness private vows (a private dedication, not consecration) --- for these do not involve a public commitment, new rights and obligations, or a new state in life -- but (without acting on behalf of the bishop with regard to c 603) he cannot do so with the intention to consecrate nor to participate in an act of profession. (Profession, which involves more than the making of public vows, is, by definition, always a public act involving new canonical rights and obligations. If these new public rights and obligations are not involved, then the act is not profession even when vows are involved.) I've written a lot about this so check out labels re private vs public vows, etc., if you need more. 

Once Again: "Perennial" Questions and Problematical Statements

[[Dear Sister, the Vicar for Religious in my chancery explained to me that the following passage was mistaken in some important ways. She explained why and also said I might want to read what you had written about this in the past. I just can't find what you said about this. Can you help me?]]

[[This is simple enough to comprehend. The three evangelical counsels are chastity in celibacy, obedience, and poverty. These professions may be made publicly but not always: they can be private professions. If public, there is the option to go the way of Canon 603 which more formalizes the profession. This option can be read more in depth in a guide that was compiled by a religious sister about ten years ago and which is being revised. In that guide are collected writings and suggestions for the hermit life, including some revised statutes for the eremitic life by the Bishops' of France, the citation of CL603, and other sundry aides such as possible rites and sample rules of life. 

This guidebook has been used as that--a guide--in some Dioceses. Or, if public profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession of promises or vows, Canon 603 does not need to be utilized or incorporated. If not, the hermit is publicly avowed and consecrated, but not bound by that Canon. Regardless of Canon 603 or not, a public profession is that: public. People know. If private profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession, the process is not known to others in general and sometimes not in specific. A priest or Bishop may receive the profession (vows and promises). Perhaps it is between the cleric and the hermit, or perhaps a witness or a few are present. A ceremony may be selected from the above mentioned guidebook of compilations, or the hermit may research and develop a ceremony for this private profession. A token may be used, a type of habit may be selected, a form may be signed and dated. But these would all fall in the realm of that which would be hidden from the eyes of others. It is private.]]

Ah, unfortunately, there are a number of different posts which speak to the issues in this passage; I have written about them all over the past decade, sometimes many times. The labels you should look under are included below in emboldened and italicized type. The guidebook being spoken of is one written by Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck (for the Diocese of La Crosse) so you might check the labels of this blog to see if I have referred to her in any posts. I don't remember doing so except that I am pretty sure I once mentioned my own diocese used parts of her guidebook in 2007 for my own profession. Sister Wiesenbeck's work in this had significant value when it was written and, while updating is necessary, still does today for those dioceses implementing canon 603, and for those seeking to be professed under canon 603. I should say that it is emphatically not the source of any of the problematical statements you have cited in the passage commented on by your Vicar for Religious.

One fundamental problem, as I have written about a number of times here, is with the mistaken use of the term public and the purported optional nature of canon 603. "Public" in regard to profession does not refer to the number of persons who do or don't attend; it refers to the fact that profession initiates one into a new (and public or canonical) state of life with additional public (canonical) rights and obligations. Strictly speaking private vows are not profession because they don't initiate one into a new (in this case, consecrated) state of life. Similarly, then, private means simply "A commitment which does not grant or embrace canonical (public) rights or obligations beyond those granted and embraced at baptism."

Such commitments are still quite serious personally but they do not allow much less call for others in the Church or elsewhere to have specific expectations of the person making the commitment as public commitments do. (A public vow of poverty, for instance, which is part of the larger act of profession, sets up public expectations on how the person lives in terms of consumerism, simplicity, dependence on God, etc. People have a legitimate right to expect someone who is publicly professed to honor their vow. This is not the case with a private commitment/vow.) A second fundamental problem is with the notion that one may become a solitary hermit who is professed (profession is always a public act) and consecrated but without using canon 603. Canon 603 doesn't just formalize a profession, nor is it optional for solitary consecrated eremitical life; canon 603 is the only way one can  make profession or be consecrated as a solitary hermit. There is simply no other option if one is talking about public commitments and/or consecration in the Roman Catholic Church.

While there is room for creative expression and personal choice in these matters, especially in terms of readings and music, there are also limitations; certain elements will be required by your bishop and canonists as part of the ceremony if you are admitted to profession. Please check with them on this. My own diocese used the Rite of Religious Profession which is normative for such things and allowed usage of a couple of the vow formulas from Wiesenbeck's Guidebook (one can write one's own; I chose not to use any of these because I already had a vow formula which I had lived for some time and loved; I made some minimal changes in it to reflect this new (eremitical) context).

Also, in reading your Rule, a canonist will very specifically read your vow formula to be sure you are actually making vows in the way which will be valid,  I remember our Vicar for Religious who was also the canonist that did this for me for perpetual profession explaining why I could not say "I will. . ." in addition to "I vow" at one point in my vow formula. It seemed nit picky, especially since it followed and modified but was entirely dependent on the phrase, "I vow", but once I understood the explanation it made a lot of sense. (To say "I vow"  is a performative act which makes the commitment immediately real and binding in the very saying of the words; to say, "I will" is temporally indefinite, even conditional, and raises the question of "When (and under what conditions) will you. . . Do you mean next week, or maybe when you feel like it?")  The passage you are citing is pretty dated, so I am not sure when I wrote about it as such, but please look for posts on public profession vs private vows, consecration vs dedication, canon 603, reception vs witness (a question you should have a sense of), and perhaps Guidebook on Eremitical Life and/or Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck. Labels are found in the right hand upper column of this blog.

If these aren't as helpful as you need, please get back to me with another question or set of questions and I will try to give you a more comprehensive response. Especially, I would suggest you compare your notes of what your Vicar for Religious told you and what I have written. I appreciate her comments seem to indicate general agreement, but if there are gaps, or if we seem to be saying something different from one another here or there, please do get back to me on these specific points. If they seem substantive and there is real disagreement, I would like to talk about them --- perhaps with your Vicar --- to be sure I understand her reasoning on them. That would be of real help to me and to this blog.

On Private Vows as a Lay (Non-Canonical) Hermit

[[Dear Sister, if I choose to make private vows as a hermit, do I need to check with my bishop? Do I need his permission? Would bishops know the lay hermits (I mean the privately vowed hermits) in their diocese --- maybe because my pastor tells the bishop about me? I'm asking because of the following comments by (a lay hermit): "The choice may include the individual with spiritual director or if would-be hermit in a religious order with a superior. And as a Catholic in one manner or another, at some point in time, one's bishop is involved more directly or else indirectly, whichever the path of eremitic is discerned and taken." She also says she usually trusts her pastor to tell her bishop about her but does not need to get permission to move into a parish and live as a Catholic hermit because she has private vows.]]

Thanks for your questions. The simple answer to all of these is "no." I am not sure what the author meant by "whichever path of eremitic life is discerned. . ." in the passage you are citing (there are three, two of them for solitary hermits --- one of these non-canonical and one consecrated), but the only time one's bishop is involved directly or indirectly is when one is making public profession whether as a canon 603 hermit or as a member of a religious order of hermits. Otherwise one's commitment is a private matter entirely. Private vows do not change one's state of life, do not add canonical rights or obligations and as a result they can be dispensed easily without paper work, etc. Because of this there is simply no need for the bishop to be involved, whether directly or indirectly. Of course if the bishop is already one's spiritual director, friend, pastor, etc, he may become involved and even witness your vows --- but he will not do so as bishop per se, nor will he  receive such vows. Private vows may be made by anyone at any time and while one hopes these are well-considered and discerned precisely because they are an important personal commitment specifying one's baptismal commitment, there is no need for any kind of authorization, not least by one's bishop.

Similarly, unless one already knows one's bishop in some capacity chances are slim to non-existent that he will know of one's private vows. The Church does not keep any records of such private commitments precisely because they are private, not public and not undertaken in the name of the Church. Generally speaking, bishops may come to know of lay hermits (hermits in the lay or baptismal state alone) living in their dioceses but chances of this are greater if the hermits are sources of confusion or difficulty --- or, alternately, if these persons are particularly edifying or inspirational to their parishes and pastors. Another instance in which privately vowed (not professed since by definition this term implies a change in state of life) hermits may become known to their bishop is if such a person decides to seek public profession under canon 603. (In this instance the bishop may truly become "involved" in a real way and not simply know of the person.) Living as a lay hermit either with or without private vows can be an important way of preparing for a publicly professed life; in fact, unless one is already a religious, living as a lay hermit for some meaningful period of time (at least several years) during discernment and formation in anticipation of public profession is necessary. No one is professed under canon 603 unless they are already hermits in some essential sense.

I have waited to respond to the last piece of your question because it really raises significant issues of irresponsibility in claiming the name "Catholic hermit." Remember that a diocesan bishop is responsible in a direct way for anyone or anything in the diocese which is explicitly identified as "Catholic." A Catholic institute of religious, a Catholic priest, a Catholic broadcasting organization, a Catholic theologian, etc, etc. All of these claim to act in the name of the Church and as such, they do so under the specific authority of those commissioned by the Church to exercise such authority. In diocesan organizations or entities this is ordinarily the diocesan bishop. Again, no one may adopt the designation "Catholic" unless they are specifically authorized to do this. Canon Law is clear about this and the Church acts on significant instances of abuse where the name Catholic is being misused and/or misrepresented. (Ordinarily a single lay hermit mistakenly calling themselves a "Catholic Hermit" will not fall to the bishop to handle; it is more likely to be addressed by the parish priest or pastor.)

Baptism gives us the right to call ourselves Catholic but it does not give us the right, nor convey the obligations linked with being a Catholic Hermit --- a Catholic who lives eremitical life in the name of the Church and thus, under the specific supervision of the diocesan bishop. Remember c 603.2 reads, [[§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 under his direction.]]

It is irresponsible of one to claim the title "Catholic Hermit" and do so without being specifically and publicly (canonically) commissioned to do so by the Church. However, it is equally irresponsible for an individual claiming to be a member of the consecrated state of life and calling themselves a Catholic hermit to fail to contact the bishop of a new diocese directly. They do not hope or expect or count on someone doing this for them! They do not trust it to chance. Members of Catholic Institutes of Consecrated life know this and work out moves in location with those in legitimate authority. Consecrated virgins also know this, not least because it is specifically required in the guidelines codified for them by the Vatican. Solitary Catholic (c 603) Hermits know it because c 603 is clear re who is actively supervising their vocations!

Consecrated life is constituted by several different ecclesial vocations (canonical cenobitical, canonical eremitical, consecrated virginity, etc) and if one really is called to such a vocation one honors the Church and authority in the Church which has publicly professed, consecrated, and commissioned one. After all, ecclesial vocations belong in a special way to the treasure and patrimony of the Church. Thus, C 603 hermits must get approval of the bishop in the diocese to which they wish to move if they wish to remain a professed hermit. Otherwise, should they move, their vows cease to be valid due to a material change in the substance of those vows.

At this point the hermit would cease to be a Catholic Hermit and, if she continues in the eremitical life, becomes a Catholic who also happens to be a hermit with an entirely private commitment. Such a life is significant but it does not constitute an ecclesial vocation, is not lived in the name of the Church, and thus, is not specifically called by the term Catholic. The bottom line in all of this remains: solitary Catholic Hermits live under the direct supervision of a legitimate superior, namely the diocesan bishop; if she moves she will have contacted the new bishop directly re continuing to be a solitary Catholic Hermit before she makes her move, and again afterwards if he agrees to receive her as a diocesan hermit who will be living eremitical life in the name of the Church. Private vows are a possibility for her if the bishop will not receive her as a canonical hermit under c 603, but she cannot continue to represent herself as a Catholic Hermit. 

I sincerely hope your own discernment in eremitical life goes well. If you should decide to make private vows as a lay hermit (again, a hermit in the lay state) I wish you well in that especially. It is not easy living such a life without the moral support of one's parish family (though you can certainly secure that if you desire it) and the Church at large --- at least that is what I have found. As a lay hermit you may well have the support of members of your parish and find that you have something unique to offer the parish at large as well. As a lay hermit you will have something to offer the post Vatican II Church as well because this Church is still trying to implement Vatican II and its esteem for the laity. Because you will represent the desert Fathers and Mothers (who were lay hermits and a powerful prophetic presence for and in the Church) you may serve members of your local Church in ways canonical hermits might not be able to do. I hope so!

Reception vs Witnessing of Vows: Is there a Difference?

[[Sister Laurel,

What is the difference between private vows that are witnessed by a priest or even a Bishop, and vows that are received in the name of the Church by a priest or Bishop? I have heard someone with private vows say her vows were received by a priest. But were they?. . .]]

There are two ways of thinking and speaking about this. The first (and I would argue, the mistaken way) says all vows which are made to God in the presence of someone in the Church, usually a priest but sometimes a spiritual director, etc, are received but do not necessarily set up a legitimate relationship between the one receiving the vows and the one making them.  In such a case they may be private vows marking a private act of commitment or dedication and the person 'receiving' the vows does not become responsible in any way for the continued living out of these vows. The second and correct way of speaking reserves the use of the term received for those vows which are public, are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the Church, and result in public rights and obligations as well as establishing a legitimate relationship between the one making the vows and the one receiving them. For private vows which do not do this, the term witnessed is used instead.  Speaking in this second way distinguishes between receiving vows as a person acting in his/her own name because s/he does not have the intention or the authority to receive public vows in the name of the Church (which it calls witnessing these vows) and the act of one who has both the authority and the intent to receive these vows publicly in the name of the Church. In either case the real distinction is between private dedication and public profession and the shift in usage to the second way of speaking is meant to underscore this.

When one makes public vows one does so literally in the hands of a legitimate superior (a superior in law). This is reminiscent of the more ancient feudal oaths of fealty sworn by the subjects of Kings and other nobles in the hands of their superiors. The Lord/King received such an act of fealty and was bound himself by it. Such an act set up a mutual relations

In terms of public vows of religious/consecrated life, the act of profession/consecration sets up a similar relationship between the church in the person and office of a legitimate superior and the one making vows/being consecrated. Thus, for instance, the diocesan hermit has a right to certain expectations of her Bishop in assisting her to live out her vocation in the name of the Church, and the Bishop representing the Church as a whole has similar rights and expectations of the hermit. He commissions her to live out her vocation in the name of the Church. The reception of vows means that they are in this together: hermit and Bishop (and his successors) each with their own rights and obligations --- unless the relationship is substantially changed by the expiration, cessation (due to material changes in the situation) or the dispensation of vows. There is a mutuality of rights and obligations involved in reception of vows. In religious congregations individuals making public vows in the hands of a legitimate superior have the right to expect the superior (and his/her legitimate successors) to act in ways which nurture and protect the person/vocation, while the one making vows acquires rights and responsibilities she did not have before profession.

When vows are witnessed by priests, directors, or even Bishops, none of this occurs. One has committed a private act which is personally significant, but there is no explicit and mutual relationship set up in which both parties are responsible for the vocation being mediated, ratified, and lived out. Witnesses do not receive vows. Neither is there a correlative commissioning of the person to act in the name of the church. We see this kind of situation all the time in the execution of legal documents, etc. For instance, a person witnesses a will. In doing so they do not become part of a mutual relationship with regard to this will. They are not responsible in any way for the carrying out of the terms of the will because while they witness to the FACT of the will they are not a party to the actual legal arrangement being made. If the person executing the will never sees the witness again it is inconsequential to the nature of the document or the legal obligations which obtain. When a person makes public vows witnesses also sign the profession formula, but they do so as witnesses to the relationship and the rights and responsibilities entered into by individual and church in the act of profession. They do not themselves become part of the relationship or complex of mutual rights and obligations extended to or accepted by the one making her profession and the one in whose hands the profession was made.

By the way, it really does not matter if the witness is the Pope himself so long as he is not acting specifically and intentionally to receive these vows in the name of the Church and to enter into a relationship which both extends public rights and responsibilities to this person and accepts a legitimate place in the carrying out of these. But if the vows are private, then this intention (and often, the actual authority to act in this way) is absent. Conversely, if the intention and/or the authority to act in this way are absent, the vows are private. (An ordinary parish priest cannot receive public vows except when authorized to do so by a legitimate superior who may delegate this authority.) If the vows are public then this intention (and the authority to act in this way) are a part of the public nature of the vows themselves --- that is, these are part of what makes these vows public as opposed to private. Since the person you describe self-reported she made private vows, i.e., vows which were personally significant but issued in no legal rights or obligations beyond those already embraced in and mediated through Baptism and no differing legal relationship with her Bishop the second way of speaking would hold these vows were not received, but witnessed.
 

I hope this helps.