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

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

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

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

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

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

Who can Live Canon 603 and in what sense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Bishops Writing a Hermit's Rule and the Requirement that a C 603 Hermit Write Her Own Rule

[[Dear Sister, must a Canon 603 hermit write his own Rule or "Program of living"? Couldn't his bishop write the Rule for others in the diocese and allow the new hermit to use that Rule? I can't see where the canon requires a hermit to write his own Rule either. Thanks.]]

Thanks for the question! I think some of it is new here. Let me point to the one place in the canon you may have missed. The second paragraph of canon 603 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" (Rule of Life) under his direction.]] 

Note the word "proper" above. It is not a "Britishism"  like, [[Though he was from the US, John still knew how to brew a proper cuppa (tea)!!]] In the Church, we have Canon, or universal law, and Proper, or particular, law. A canonical (established and normative) religious congregation, for example, is bound by canon law; all such institutes are thus bound. At the same time, each institute has a separate document or documents representing its own proper law (constitutions, and statutes) which allows members to govern themselves according to their own unique qualities, mission, and charism. While an institute's constitutions are ultimately canonically approved by Rome or their diocese, for instance, they are specific to the institute and composed by the professed members. After all, they are the ones who have been called by God to embrace and live the universal elements in ways members of other congregations have not been.

Thus, in an analogous way, the hermit's Rule of Life represents her own "proper law"; it complements and specifies (applies in specific and proper ways) canon law in a solitary eremitical life. The canonical elements every hermit lives are listed prior to the term "program of life" These include the elements of paragraph #1 (stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, a life lived for the salvation of the world, etc.), and commitment to the evangelical counsels, a Rule of Life lived under the bishop's supervision in paragraph #2. The "program of life" or "Rule" specifies the ways in which this hermit lives these elements in order to respond to God's uniquely personal and ecclesial call, and honors both the unity and the diversity of that vocation. Thus, canon 603 itself calls for a combination of universal and proper law allowing the hermit to tailor the terms of the canon in order to achieve the flexibility necessary to serve faithfulness to the vocation. This tailoring will not represent a mitigation of the terms of the canon, but rather, an exploration of their depths over time.

Bearing this in mind, we have the answer to both of your questions. First, the c 603 hermit writes her own Rule, she does not merely adopt a Rule written by someone else, because the Rule grows out of the values and praxis of eremitical life generally, but also out of her own relationship with God through her life and especially her life in the silence of solitude. The Rule must do justice to both of these dimensions! And second, a bishop supplying a ready-made Rule for hermits in his diocese actually has failed to take not only the terms of Canon 603 seriously enough, but the very vocation it codifies as well. (I wonder that a non-hermit bishop would even believe he could do such a thing.) By the way, this observation would also apply to a so-called Laura of hermits whose members fail to write their own Rules. Canon 603 is written for solitary hermits and requires that each one of us write our own.

All of this is the foundation for my comment in other articles that I thought the authors of Canon 603 had written well, perhaps better than they knew (though now I think they really knew exactly what they were doing!). All of this is also at the heart of why I find Canon 603 to be truly beautiful in the way it combines the constraints of law and the freedom of eremitical life. Finally, this combination of universal and proper law allows for an approach to the discernment and formation of such a vocation that relies on the gradual composition of a livable Rule rooted in the individual's lived experience and undertaken in collaboration with diocesan personnel and, if possible, the accompaniment of an experienced diocesan hermit. It takes time to "penetrate" the terms of the Canon and come to understand and live them deeply enough to see they are doors to the Mystery which is God and the hermit's relationship with God, not terms with a single fixed and infinitely more superficial meaning. Writing one's Rule is part of this process of "penetration" and a way one learns to be ever attentive to ongoing formation as well.