Questions on Spiritual Direction

[[Sister, if a spiritual director offers "companioning", does this mean they are simply offering companionship for the lonely? Would they be offering "in depth" spiritual direction? How about accompaniment? I have heard that term used also. Why is there such a difference in names? Since you do spiritual direction how would you feel about someone writing you to ask for prayer and for advice on or help in discerning what they should write about if they are planning a book? I read some of this recently on another blog but have no way to ask the author these same questions.]]

Thanks for your questions. The discipline and art of spiritual direction goes by a number of names including" direction, companioning, and accompaniment. A less-often used but very valuable term is spiritual midwife. Spiritual direction is often misunderstood because of the word direction: folks believe the director is going to be telling the directee what to do. Really, the term means assistance in discerning the presence and directions the Holy Spirit is taking in one's life. In conversations with a director one learns and is helped to attend and respond to the presence of the Holy Spirit in one's life. There is no such thing as superficial Spiritual Direction and that is true no matter the term used to describe the work. Still, because the term direction can be so misleading many directors today prefer other descriptions of the nature of the work.

The one I prefer is "accompaniment" because one accompanies another on their journey through life with God. If you have ever played in an orchestra or piano where you are asked to accompany a soloist you know a lot of what this word means in spiritual direction as well. In a piece I wrote here a while back I described the relationship between director and directee in terms of accompaniment. Here is a part of that post. One question which raised the notion of accompaniment was the inequality of the relationship and I address that here. Still, it is the idea of accompanying which is most fundamental.

[[While I understand your difficulty with terms here (it is indeed hard to characterize the inequality along with the equality of the relationship without thinking in terms of superior and inferior polarities); but I think we must find ways to do this. The direction relationship is one between persons relating to one another in two different roles. The director and directee are equals in Christ and the director serves Christ and the directee with her time, her commitment, her prayer and her expertise. At the same time, she necessarily sets her own story, desires, and needs aside (including the desire or need for friendship in the usual sense if it exists) for the benefit of the directee and her relationship with Christ. Everything that occurs in SD must serve Christ and his desire to love and be loved by the directee and it must do so in a focused  and self-deferential way. 

While some directees may want the relationship to be more like two violins playing the Bach double together, the work of direction makes the relationship more like that of a solo violin being accompanied in the attempt to play Bach's A minor concerto with passion and integrity. [For those who don't know the Bach Double, in this piece the two violins are incredibly equal voices and are sometimes almost indistinguishable regarding who is first violin and who is second; is is wonderful in this way among many others!] In this situation (the A minor concerto) the accompanist serves both the soloist and composer and/or the composition by stepping back. Her work requires a strong sense of what Bach wrote and what the soloist desires the music to be to reveal that fully. As accompanist she also needs technical virtuosity (and a psychological capacity) of a different kind than required in solo work; she may be a soloist in her own right, but in this situation she is there to facilitate the expression of a kind of union between artist and composer and/or composition. Her role is indispensable but unless she is able to work skillfully as an accompanist rather than someone playing a principal part of a duet, the entire theological dramaturgy will be damaged and the revelation that was meant to occur will be prevented or at least significantly impeded. Most directees come to understand such limitations on the director's part are part and parcel of a significant form of reverence and love. ]] (cf., Spiritual Direction and Mutuality

Companioning, however, has much the same meaning, perhaps with some slightly different connotations or overtones. A spiritual director is a companion to us in our Journey with God in Christ, She listens as we describe what is occurring for and within us, she finds ways to help us bring that to expression, she assists us to discern what God is calling us to and how we should live that out, and she celebrates with us when we are faithful to the God we both serve with our lives. Spiritual direction, though often therapeutic, is not therapy and it does not work like therapy does.

For instance, while transference and counter-transference may occur, they are not used in the way therapy uses and even depends upon them. Instead, they will be pointed out and the directee will work through the problems that led to the transference in the presence of God, just as the director will work through her own --- but in the privacy of her own space and time, and perhaps with a supervisor or her own director. Transference is a central tool in therapy. The therapist is a kind of blank slate to the patient or client upon whom transference can be worked out. The relationship is quite different in spiritual direction, for in direction transference gets in the way of one's relationship with God as well as with direction itself because direction always keeps that specific relationship at the center. Neither is the director to be seen in the way a therapist might by a person in therapy.

In such a relationship and process, companioning is a good description for what happens; one does not tell a directee how to live their life; one accompanies them in their living of it, and especially in their relationship with God. Spiritual direction is a long-term relationship which, while problems will be solved, does not generally focus on problems. Instead it focuses on living and living ever more fully the abundant life which God desires for and offers us at every instant. Both director and directee are focused in the same way on this single all-important reality and relationship. Both will gain from the spiritual direction relationship --- though not in the same way, for it is still not a relationship of absolute equality. Companioning is a good description and, contrary to what you read recently, it certainly is not a kind of glorified "baby-sitting" for the lost or lonely.

My own availability for the kinds of things you describe in your questions is quite limited. Neither of these is spiritual direction. If someone wants advice or is writing a book on eremitical life or some aspect of theology I am fairly expert in, I will find time to discuss the matter with them if I can, or I will refer them to someone who might be able to do this. Anyone is free to ask me for prayer anytime, however. Of course I have the time and will make the time for that. If they have a problem they want to talk with me about, I will make an appointment to meet in whatever way seems helpful in the short term. I simply won't call this spiritual direction nor, despite the intense listening which will be at its heart, will the appointment look like spiritual direction.

Followup Question: Sister, isn't transference inevitable in this kind of work? You don't simply "disallow it" so what does a spiritual director do when faced by transference?

Good question. Transference does occasionally occur, yes. When it does, I don't dismiss it, no. Neither do I dismiss my own counter-transference when it occurs. I am aware of these and when a client reacts in this way I will help them explore it and what triggered it. We will explore when else they have felt this way and in this way they will begin to understand (if they didn't already know this --- often they do) that they are projecting onto me/our relationship something with roots elsewhere. Then I will do whatever is necessary to help affirm the direction relationship in the present.

My job here is to do what I can to keep the client rooted in the present moment and especially in her relationship with God in the present moment; we can and do explore the past but, generally speaking, we do it from a strong rooting in the present. Transference and counter-transference militate against this. (My own countertransference is something I note, hold for later, and then work through as soon as I have the time and space to do that.) My point about transference and direction is not that directors don't work with it at all, but rather, that it is an obstacle to the direction relationship per se and so, generally speaking, we do not use it in the way therapy does.

What Happens to You if your Bishop Moves?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, what happens to a diocesan hermit whose bishop is assigned to another diocese or becomes an Archbishop there? I know this happened to you. I read that a canonical hermit's professing bishop remains liable and responsible for supervising and directing (spiritual direction) the hermit even after he leaves a diocese: [[Finally, when the hermit is canonically approved, one can contact that person's bishop who is liable and responsible for supervising and the spiritual direction of said hermit. This is the case, even if the bishop has left the diocese where and in whose hands (so to speak, per CL603), the hermit has professed his or her vows.]] (https://catholichermit.blogspot.com/2019/03/catholic-hermit-handling-hermit-wrong.html)

Thanks for the question. I don't know how common these misunderstandings are; I think this is the second or third time I have written about it (not a problem, of course), but no, this view of the way eremitical profession and mutual ecclesial accountability works for the diocesan hermit and her professing bishop is all wrong. First, a diocesan hermit is professed by the local or diocesan Church in the hands of the local ordinary on behalf of the Universal Church. So, for instance, I made my perpetual vows in the hands of Archbishop Allen Vigneron (then Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland) in Sept 2007. Whatever happens to Archbishop Vigneron subsequently (in this case he moved back to Detroit and was made Archbishop), I remain a "Hermit of the Diocese of Oakland." This also means that whichever bishops follow Archbishop Vigneron as ordinaries of the Diocese of Oakland, they will each become my legitimate superior in turn and assume responsibility for and authority over my vocation as I live that out  --- though the daily exercise of an authority or responsibility that empowers my own accountability usually falls to my delegate (Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF) and (to a much lesser degree at this point) co-delegate (Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF). (The idea of co-delegates is new and we are finding our way here.) Bishops exercise their jurisdiction until they move on to another See (as Bishop Cordileone also did when he became Archbishop of San Francisco.)

Not only is this a matter of jurisdiction under canon law (jurisdiction of a bishop over one's own diocese and subjects), but in entirely human and pragmatic ways it makes little sense to expect a bishop to retain responsibility for supervising a diocesan hermit after that bishop leaves a diocese. How could anyone (hermit or bishop) expect to maintain or grow a relationship in which meaningful authority and mutual accountability are exercised if the bishop  moves (for instance!) to the Archdiocese of Detroit while the hermit remains (for instance!) in the Diocese of Oakland (for the diocesan bishop is accountable for the diocesan's hermit's vocational well-being just as she is accountable to the Church through him)?

Other inaccuracies involve the affirmation that the bishop remains responsible for the hermit's spiritual direction and the notion of liability. In fact a diocesan bishop is rarely if ever a diocesan hermit's spiritual director because of potential clash between internal and external forums (fora). (As legitimate superior the bishop has authority over external matters; the spiritual director deals with matters of conscience and the hermit's inner life which may not be things the hermit can or would normally bring to one's legitimate superior.) This is not a matter of secrecy, much less lack of frankness but rather of ensuring the bishop's ability to act as superior is not muddled with matters better handled by one entirely committed to confidentiality. (Personally I find the separation between internal and external forums can be much less absolute with regard to delegates but this should be discerned; it will depend on the authority granted her and also on how she exercises that authority with regard to the hermit.) Also, as a matter of terminology, Canon 603 refers to the hermit's bishop as "director" but this does not mean "spiritual director"; it means director like "director of formation," "director of novices," "director of juniors," etc., in religious life. In these situations those in formation, etc., will have their own spiritual directors entirely separate from their legitimate superiors or "directors".

As to remaining liable for a hermit's behavior, the statement cited is flat wrong. This is something I have also addressed before (please see other articles on bishop as legitimate superior) but be aware that c 603 hermits sign waivers of liability at perpetual profession which free a diocese of any liability for remuneration (say, in a claim for wages) or costs tied to dimensions of the hermit's life or behavior. It is true that a diocesan bishop is responsible for dealing with the hermit's problems (or problems with the hermit for that matter!) but neither the diocese nor the bishop personally is in any way liable for debts accrued by the hermit, or, should this occur, costs associated with any misbehavior on the hermit's part. This of course does not suggest a bishop will not discipline a hermit if the need ever arises but it does say the diocese and ordinary are not liable for damages or debts if these should ever occur.

Do Hermits Outgrow the need for Spiritual Direction?

[[Dear Sister, does it ever happen that a hermit kind of "outgrows" the need for a spiritual director? Is a director something they need in their early years but then do not need as they grow as hermits and Christ becomes their director? What would happen to you if you decided you no longer needed a director or moved to a place where the Sacraments were unavailable to you?]]

Thanks for your questions. I would have to say no, hermits do not outgrow the need for direction; their need will shift and change over time and circumstances in terms of the content and frequency of meetings, but the place of spiritual direction in any life dedicated to obedience is constant. For instance when I first began meeting with my director we tended to meet monthly or bimonthly. These days we ordinarily meet every two or three months and in times of significant growth or healing we may meet weekly or even more frequently on a temporary basis. In this way we honor the movement of the Spirit. Growth is always possible; more growth in wholeness and holiness is always something God calls us to. (And, by the way, God in Christ and the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS the actual director in an SD relationship. It just happens that God's presence is ordinarily mediated through the profound mutual listening for God so characteristic of the direction relationship.

More, it almost always helps to discuss what one has experienced or discerned with another --- both to be sure one is not mistaken or deluded and to allow another spiritually attuned person to hear one in all of this.  We need to externalize, articulate, and share what happens between ourselves and God as part of claiming it completely. Remember that it was during the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth that both women came to share a fuller knowledge of the way God was working in their lives and the life of the whole of their People. Neither understood this apart from this sharing with the other. This is a significant lesson occurring several times in the Gospel of Luke; another version of it is found in the story of the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, for instance. Experiences of prayer are rich, multi-layered things and our own growth is similar. Unless we can talk about these regularly with someone who knows how to listen and how to help us see more clearly --- someone on the same journey --- we will never really plumb the depths of our own lives to the degree God invites and to the degree our commitment to God requires. Our vision and perception will continue to be narrow and contained. Spiritual direction helps us see and share the joy of Christ's presence and activity in our lives in ways every disciple needs.

But there are additional reasons a hermit more specifically requires a spiritual director and regular meetings or conversations with her. The first is there is rarely another way for the hermit to be sure she is not substituting her own biases, blindness, woundedness and other significant limitations for the voice of God. Living in solitude often means being unable to check one's perception and interpretations with anyone.  One reads, thinks, studies, does lectio, writes and prays, all in an intimate relationship with the God who at the same time never ceases being WHOLLY OTHER --- except as God is incarnated and/or mediated through the heart and mind of another. A spiritual director acts in ways which serve this need for an incarnate God. It is no small ministry! 

Of course this WHOLLY OTHER God is our companion in all things and of course we bring all things to him, but to treat him as though he is just like us but bigger, communicates like we do, and engages in the heavenly equivalent of instant messages or mystical Skype calls, especially on a routine or regular basis, is simply nonsense --- and idolatrous nonsense as well. A good director can remind us of the eternal mystery of God even as she helps in the process of incarnation; she can help prevent our falling into idolatry or otherwise deluding ourselves. After all,  God, along with many other things, inhabits, touches, illuminates and  moves our hearts and minds; he empowers our will. Over time God makes us truly human and truly free. But from within every one of us he has constant competition in this. As I have said before, the demons we each battle are all-too-often the demons of our own hearts and far more often they are these demons than they are something assailing us from without!!! For a hermit who claims no need for regular competent direction or participation in the Church's sacramental life I would suggest such a battle has actually been lost in some sense.

Additionally, the temptation to individualism (even in the more extreme form of narcissism) is huge in our world and culture. Hermits are, at least in part, products of this same world and culture. It is SO easy to clothe the impulses to individualism --- even as narcissism --- in distorted religious and pious language and then mistakenly call what one is doing in this way "Eremitical life" or "Eremitical solitude"!! Similarly, it is possible to turn one's back on the whole of God's good creation outside the hermitage in an act which is selfish, uncharitable, and driven by ego-centeredness and call this (wrongly) what the Church calls "Stricter separation from the world"!! In order to really discern what is in her heart and what truly drives her the hermit MUST have a competent director who understands the spiritual life, is a regular practitioner of prayer, and is committed to her own growth in wholeness and holiness. (By the way, the notion that such a director must be a hermit is fallacious. It is, however, helpful if she is a religious who prays contemplatively and who has experience (my vote) in formation  work and at least as much experience living the vows as the hermit.)

Spiritual Direction is NOT Spiritual Counsel

Finally, as something which may clarify my answer, let me point out that while spiritual direction is sometimes located within schools of "pastoral counseling", spiritual direction is NOT essentially a matter of giving others counsel or advice. Spiritual direction is ordinarily a long-term form of accompaniment where the director journeys with the directee in her sojourn with God. It is not essentially geared to problem solving nor, as one blogger wrote recently, does it require "progress within six weeks" lest the director refer the directee to someone new!! Direction is NOT therapy (even if it were the putative six week deadline would be nonsense)--- though it is profoundly therapeutic. I have worked with my director (a Sister of the Holy Family) since about 1982  and, God-willing, I pray she will be able to accompany me on this adventure for many more years! I routinely accompany directees for 10-15 years and more unless and until they journey beyond what I have to offer them in my own competencies or a move or some other set of circumstances occurs to cause us to part ways. Progress, however, is usually only visible over longer time frames and patience as well as humility is necessary if one is to accompany someone in a journey to holiness.

Neither is a director about discerning what a directee should or shouldn't do. The point of direction, which again is rightly understood as a long-term relationship, is to assist a person in their OWN journey with God, to help them pay attention to God's presence in the depths of their being (heart) or the world around them and to respond in the best (most human, most Christian) way possible, to assist them in THEIR discernment (one does not discern FOR a directee!!!), and to support them as they (continue to learn to) obey the call of God to union. As I noted in the posts I put up on intense inner work (which may be a kind of specialization within the discipline and art of spiritual direction not all directors may do), a competent director ALWAYS works toward the enhancement of the client's freedom and wholeness. Since the journey toward wholeness and holiness takes the whole of a person's life and since this journey (especially the eremitical version!) is always fraught with dangers --- most especially the danger of fooling oneself in significant ways --- a competent director is simply indispensable.

Changes in My Own Eremitical Life:

Your question about major changes in my own eremitical life is really significant.  Remember that if a diocese admits a hermit to definitive (perpetual or solemn) profession it will be WITH an approved Rule which binds the hermit both morally and legally. This Rule will include all the necessary elements of the life including how she understands and lives the elements of the canon and evangelical counsels, how she provides materially and spiritually for herself, etc. Let's be clear then that an ongoing arrangement for regular Spiritual direction and sacramental reception is INVARIABLY required of the consecrated hermit by all dioceses as is a reference or evaluation from the hermit's director prior to profession. No one is professed under canon 603 without meeting these requirements and, in fact, without living under direction for some time prior to profession as well to ensure the hermit's life is sound. The need for ongoing competent direction in eremitical life is a traditional position through centuries of eremitism. For the most part dioceses recognize and admit no one even to mutual discernment until this fundamental piece of things is in place. The same is true of regular participation in the Sacramental life of the Church.

Thus, should there be a material change in the way the hermit lives she will need to modify her Rule. There is no avoiding or ignoring such a necessity if one is truly responsible. This modification might be approved by her delegate on a temporary basis in instances of less substantial change but if the change is substantial (say, for instance, that illness, a major move within the diocese, or other circumstances do not allow for regular Mass attendance, regular spiritual direction, etc.) then the bishop supervising the hermit and those involved with such vocations in the diocese will evaluate the situation and 1) approve the change, 2) deny or disapprove the change, as well as 3) evaluate whether or not the person is even capable of living c 603 eremitical life in the name of the Church if the hermit refuses or proves unable to live her Rule as approved. Everything will be discussed between delegate, hermit, director and diocesan curia; solutions to any deficiencies will be sought first, of course, but a hermit insisting she needs none of the elements which were required and written into in her canonically  approved Rule would find the diocese well within its rights to begin a process of dispensation of vows. You see, the Church rightly believes that certain arrangements are indispensable for living eremitical life well --- ESPECIALLY if one is going to do so in the name of the Church because she is publicly consecrated and commissioned BY THE Church to do so.

Dedicated Lay Hermits vs Consecrated Hermits:

Dedicated lay hermits (those hermits in the lay or baptized state who have not been professed and consecrated BY THE CHURCH but who have private vows instead) may believe they can do whatever they wish or discern is appropriate with regard to spiritual direction, regular access to sacraments, moving to remote areas, and any number of other things --- though NB, such a hermit's baptismal obligations do not cease to bind her --- but a professed and consecrated hermit (one with public vows, etc) is even less free to behave in this way. Not only is she bound by baptismal obligations, but she is responsible in conjunction with her diocese and diocesan Bishop for living a public ECCLESIAL vocation with public rights, obligations, and expectations, because she is bound canonically via both canon and proper law to a NEW AND STABLE ECCLESIAL STATE OF LIFE. She must, therefore, live her life fully and abundantly within canonical and institutional structures which govern and articulate this specific incarnation or expression of the eremitical life.

Of course all of what I describe as being true for the canonical or publicly professed hermit is true for me. My eremitical life is a very free and flexible one and my obligation to obedience is one which finds my superiors and myself working together to hear the will of God in all things not only for my own good, but for the good of this vocation and that of the Church herself. Because we are faithful in this I experience ever greater degrees of wholeness and authentic freedom in my life. Profoundly free though I am, I am NOT at liberty to simply go my own way without supervision or mutual discernment and permission --- meaning of course that I am not free to simply go my own way by asserting I have some special knowledge of the will of God which is shared by no one else simply because I have lived as a hermit since 1985 or a diocesan hermit since 2007. Going one's own way in relative isolation may be individualism or it may be the way some privately vowed (not professed!) hermits operate, but it is not the way a canonical hermit living solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church operates. To the degree she lives an ecclesial vocation in witness and charity to others she cannot and will not do so.

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

Followup Questions on Discerning With One's Bishop

[[Hi Sister Laurel, your posts about legal standing and what happens if a diocesan hermit disagrees with a Bishop give the impression that the relationship between hermit and legitimate superiors is oppressive. Am I mistaken? I admit I don't really care for the way the Church seems to want to be in charge of our lives or make moral decisions for us. Have you ever had a disagreement with your Bishop where you needed to rethink things and come to a different conclusion on them about the way you live your life?]]

Well, I am more than a little sorry if that is the impression I have given. It was certainly not my intention nor does it correspond to my experience. In my own experience the place of law and legitimate superiors do not ordinarily interfere with my freedom or my choices at all. When I think or write about the freedom of this life I have tried to make clear that there are constraints, as in any life, but that these qualify and focus my life in ways which serve my ability to explore the depths of eremitical solitude in the name of the Church. That is the fundamental thing I have been called to, the fundamental thing I have committed to doing, and it is the thing which my superiors and law itself are responsible for assisting me to do with integrity. Let me be clear that no one is heavy handed in this matter. Neither my Bishops (there have been several) nor my delegate simply tell me what to do. The point of my post regarding a disagreement with one's Bishop was that when there were differing conclusions with discernment in a genuinely serious matter (and whether or not hermits may work full time, especially in highly social situations, is one of these) a hermit may be asked to resolve the situation differently than her original discernment led her to do. This was because her vocation is an ecclesial one which is responsible for and affects more than her own life alone.

Unfortunately, the hermit may not see this as clearly as her Bishop or delegate (though she might also see things more clearly, as might other diocesan hermits who live the life and are knowledgeable about the tradition); in such cases it is important that all parties share their own discernment in the process of seeking a resolution to the problem at hand. It remains true that if the Bishop should decide that whatever the best solution to the hermit's need for financial support, it is not (and can never be) full time work, she will not be allowed to do (or continue in) this. Hopefully, both Bishop, hermit, and the delegate will work together to seek a better solution which ensures the hermit's ongoing wellbeing but also protects her witness to the solitary eremitical life and the integrity of the eremitical tradition itself. Part of the reality of any vocation is ongoing discernment of the ways God is calling us and our continuing responses to that. A vocation is less something we "have" than it is something we receive and respond to freshly day by day.

One of the important pieces of standing in law is that one is, for the most part,  protected against arbitrary actions by others which might interfere with this ongoing responsiveness. If you have ever lived in a community or situation in which "power figures" inappropriately dictated what members might or might not do in the name of "governance", you will know what I mean when I say that standing in law can prevent and protect one from such vagaries of personality and agenda. Experiments in the governance of religious life have sometimes left openings into which stepped those whose (perhaps unconscious) desire was more for power than service. When I write about the relationships which are essential to the canonical eremitical vocation I am speaking about relationships that allow a hermit to live freely in the heart of the Church and devote herself to the silence of solitude while these others provide feedback and a sense of the needs of the Church more generally. It is, in my own experience, a true dialogue in which people cooperate for the good of the Church, her proclamation, and the eremitical life entrusted to her by the Spirit and is not at all oppressive.

I have not had had any situations in which the way I live or propose to live my life have conflicted with the way a Bishop, Vicar, or others discern is appropriate. I have, on the other hand, certainly had conversations with my delegate which have caused me to rethink things and modify the way I live. Similarly we have had conversation which have furthered or clarified my own discernment in matters and occasionally we have had conversations where my own failure to adequately discern a course of action was "unmasked". (Actually, it was only unmasked to me, not to anyone else. As I once recounted here, my delegate once said, "I will be interested to hear your discernment [in this matter]" and my immediate thought was, "Busted!" because I knew at the moment she made the comment that I had not really done a thoughtful discernment.) It was pretty funny really. Certainly the demand that one discern seriously and discuss the process with superiors is not oppressive because in all cases my decisions are my own! Sometimes they simply aren't made alone. In my experience this ("I really am interested in hearing your discernment"--- whether stated implicitly or explicitly) is more typical of the way conversations go between myself and any superiors than simply being dictated to.