Why isn't your Vocation Selfishness Personified?

[[Dear Sr Laurel, I have long thought the hermit vocation is a selfish one. I have read blogs by so-called hermits and they seem to be completely self-centered --- I am not speaking of yours here, but if you google "hermit blogs" or "Catholic hermit" blogs you will find blogs by "hermits" whose entire focus is on how much they suffer and their own growth in holiness. It's all "me, me, me." You claim that the vocation is essentially one of love, but how do hermits really love others if they are living in solitude? You also claim that your vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but isn't this just a way of excusing selfishness? Anyone can say they are doing something because of "love" but the proof of that is in the pudding, as the saying goes. How does the church figure out whether someone is saying they are called to this as a way of loving others instead of just being selfish? It seems like a really easy lie to tell yourself and your diocese.]] (Redacted to shorten email)

You know, these are terrific questions. They are really excellent because they go to the heart of the matter of discerning, choosing, and living this life well; they also reprise a position that even a few great Church Fathers have held. Sometimes it is monastics more generally that are accused of selfishness. It is all that "fuga mundi" (flee the world) stuff (which is entirely valid and laudable when understood properly) coupled with a theology of consecrated life that strongly disparaged lay and secular vocations. We, as the People of God, are still outgrowing a lot of that but have begun making serious inroads thanks to Vatican II's emphasis on the universal call to holiness. Progress here is also due to the fact that we are becoming more sensitized to the place of active ministry in our world as well as to the importance of secularity and mission. Even so, we also are coming to a greater awareness that being has priority over doing, that mission depends upon the impulse and assistance of the missionary God empowering us, and that loving others is not possible unless we have been loved ourselves. This means there will always be a place for contemplative and even eremitical vocations which witness to this foundational relationship and need.

I have seen at least some of the blogs you seem to be speaking of and there is no doubt that if one is looking for self-centeredness one can find it by googling the terms you have cited. I have written about such supposedly "eremitical" lives in the past along with posts on hermit stereotypes and misunderstandings, inadequate reasons for seeking to live an eremitical life, the counter cultural nature of the vocation --- especially in a world which is strongly individualistic and even narcissistic, as well as on the charism of the vocation which presents genuine solitude as a form of communion which represents the redemption of individualism, isolation, and alienation. Recently I read an article called " The Urban Hermit Abnormal Personality" which takes some of what you have noted and a lot of what I have written against and identified it with the "urban hermit personality" in today's society. (To be honest, it is not clear the author is actually referring to urban diocesan hermits at all in this piece. While he might well think of these as selfishness personified AND institutionalized, he may merely have been giving a colorful name to misanthropes, and walking wounded who choose to live as isolated loners.)

The problem is that some "hermits" provide grist for this author's mill and, because they are truly seeking to validate as well as excuse their own self-centeredness, they do the vocation no favors when they write about being or becoming a hermit. (N.B., validation goes beyond excusing self-centeredness and is therefore more problematical.) So how is my vocation (both my own vocation and the vocation more generally) one which is founded on love then? How can a vocation which is more about being than doing really be loving in the way we usually associate with the lives of Religious? These are the ways I would restate your question, "How do hermits really love others?" and the approaches I would like to use to begin to respond to it.

Rooted in a Necessary Selfishness:

First of all, my vocation is grounded in the love of God. God has called me to it, that call has been validated and in fact mediated to me by the Church and I trust it. This means that I trust it is not merely selfishness masquerading as something worthy, much less something Divine or sacred. For me this is a piece of things I had not really appreciated sufficiently until after perpetual eremitical profession when several concerns and sources of anxiety dropped away. It is part of the freedom I experienced and have spoken about when I described not having to worry any longer about whether I was really called to something else, or whether I should be conforming my life to the expectations and norms of the world around me --- including the world of apostolic or ministerial Religious and the church more generally. Further, God continues to call me in this way on a daily basis and my own engagement with God in prayer and everyday living attests to growth in this love.

It is this growth which points to a necessary and entirely graced "selfishness" in answering any call. I have responded to God and done so out of love for God and his People but there is no doubt that I have also found this the means to personal healing and growth in human wholeness and holiness. I continue responding to God day by day. You see, my own life was once dominated by chronic illness. I have done a lot in spite of it (education, work, ministry) but even so most of the time achievements were hard-won things and often the illness itself "won out." As a result I was once simply unable to serve in the way I felt called to serve, whether that was directly because of the illness or because of the human brokenness, limitations, and incapacity which accompanied it. More fundamentally, my illness prevented me from being the human being I felt called to be, from relating to others or loving in the ways I thought (knew) I should love; it was a dominating, sometimes all-consuming reality and it crippled me on every level. Not least it prevented me from truly loving myself, and therefore, from effectively loving anyone else in the radical way Christ calls us each to do. It is at this point that eremitical life enters the picture and becomes important.

The first time I read canon 603 I realized that if this really pointed to a vital form of Christian life it could well provide the context for a life in which illness was deprived of its power to disrupt, dominate, and even define me. In other words it could provide a context in which every aspect of my life could make sense and thus become fruitful in some yet-to-be-defined sense. There is a selfishness involved here, a fundamental concern with the sense of one's own life, yes; it is a necessary form of selfishness which requires we love ourselves (and I mean truly love ourselves!!) in order that we may love our neighbors AS ourselves. In other words, I had to find a way to live a responsive and covenantal life with God in which God's grace could actually triumph over powers of darkness and death as they manifested themselves in my own life and heart. I had to find a way to deprive illness of its power to dominate and define, its ability to foster self-hatred in me. Solitary eremitical life provides the God-given context and means for that for me. In answering any divine call this particular form of "selfishness" will be present, and I would argue it must if we are to love others as we are truly called to do. This "truly loving oneself" is the necessary and graced form of selfishness on which the Great Commandment is based.

The Primacy of Being over Doing:

I think this points to a certain primacy of being over doing. We really must be persons who love ourselves in the power of God's love if we are to love others as God calls us to do. Of course we cannot omit the whole "going out and doing" dimension, but what I have found is that if  we touch others FROM a place of essential solitude (which means from a place of  personal communion with God) our very lives will be ministerial --- whether or not we are otherwise engaged in apostolic or ministerial activity. In other words what we do must and can only truly be a reflection of who we are; activity must and can only flow from contemplation; being must have priority so that it may define and guide whatever it is we do. More, it must be our primary ministry. This may sound counter cultural or contrary to the emphasis of so much  which is prevalent in our church and world today --- and it is! But it is also valid and an important lesson or witness our world and our Church needs.

Both our Church and our world often seem to preference doing over being, so much so that folks are out doing (teaching, ministering, etc) in all kinds of ways long before they have achieved the degree of human wholeness and wisdom necessary for that. (The stereotype of the psychologically wounded or crippled psychiatrist is a good symbol of this. So, unfortunately, is the image of the predatory priest turned loose to minister again because of a dearth of priests. So, for instance, is the glut of self-help books on the market offering instant wisdom and expertise for the price of a paperback, the "advanced degrees" which can be purchased for a couple of hundred dollars, or the prevalence of cheating and plagiarism in today's world!) While to some extent we all learn by doing, and while we all need to be interns and novices at various stages in our lives, my point is we tend to preference doing over being in ways which can be destructive.

But if the priority of being over doing is a profound truth which is in danger of being lost sight of today it is the very thing hermits and other contemplatives remind our church and world of --- and doing so is a profound act of love which, potentially at least, may leave no one untouched. For solitary hermits in particular, I think we witness to the profound sense life makes in communion with God, even when that life cannot issue in active ministry to others. For this reason I have written a lot in this blog about the witness we give to the chronically ill, the isolated elderly, the bereaved, and even to prisoners. I have spoken of it as the unique charism or gift quality of the hermit's life. As I have also noted here, all of these persons are marginalized, not least by the fact that they cannot measure the value and fruitfulness of their lives in the terms so prevalent today. They cannot compete in terms of productivity or various kinds of achievement (academic, political, etc). They cannot be terrific consumers or measure their lives in economic terms; often they require the assistance of others and government subsidies and aid even to live. But the hermit, and indeed all contemplatives say that such lives are infinitely valuable nonetheless.

And yet it is the Gospel message that we are justified (made right and truly human as part of a covenant relationship with God) through the gratuitous grace of God, not through any works of our own. By extension that message is also the message that our lives are of infinite worth simply because we are who we are, not because of what we do. Hermits proclaim that message with their lives in a unity of being and doing. I don't mean to suggest that others do not  act out of such a unity; I know they do. However, for hermits, our only role in the church is to be ourselves in God alone --- no one else. (It is this reason failing as a hermit is so easy, and trying to live as one is so risky. It is this reason mediocrity is so easy. Hermits do not tend to have active ministries they can use to distract from who they are first of all. They cannot use the roles they fill to soften the fact that they are not really WHO God has called them to be.) Who they ARE in God IS their ministry, and the fact that this happens by the grace of God in the silence of solitude IS their message. They can fall back on nothing else. (This too is one reason hermits are not called to active ministry and must be careful in even the limited amount in which they might engage. Their vocation really is to BE themselves in God alone. Their primary (or only) ministry really is in being and in calling folks to the primacy of being, not in doing.)

How does the Church Discern authentic vocations?

There is one main way the Church discerns the difference between inauthentic and authentic vocations. She demands that authentic vocations are vocations of love which contribute to the salvation of the world and praise and glorify God (make God manifest). One way of doing this is to look at the place of God in the hermit's life and discourse. While some self-proclaimed hermits do write about "Me, me, me" so that even their writing about spirituality becomes only secondarily about God, the genuine article makes it clear that they are who they are and do what they do only because of God.

So, for instance, if chronic illness is a piece of the hermit's life it is no longer the dominant or overarching theme; instead, what God has done (or does day by day!) in their lives both in spite of and with the illness will be the dominant theme. As a person matures even the illness may be seen as a genuine grace --- not articulated in some pious pretense of medieval mystical misery, but in the sense that this has brought the person to God and allowed God both a unique entry into her life and the achievement of a unique voice which will be mediated to others through both strength and weakness. That life then becomes "a silent preaching of the Lord" --- just as the CCC refers to in par 921. In other words, what God's grace makes possible in terms of human wholeness and holiness is their main focus and the key in which all else is set. The person becomes something very much greater and more articulate than a cry of anguish; she becomes instead an expression of the Gospel and an embodied reflection of God's own Logos. None of this means that the person cannot occasionally talk about themselves or their illness, sinfulness, brokennesses, etc, but it does mean that doing so occurs mainly in order to illustrate the grace of God's love and in contrast to the wholeness that grace has achieved in the person's life.

Thus, I would suggest that it is really not all that easy to lie about this matter. It is true that one can cover misery and brokenness with all kinds of pious platitudes, but the real person always shines through. More, the real God shines through in a compelling way when the hermit is authentic. The blogs you refer to affirm this in a kind of via negativa. Even for hermits in the early stages of grappling with this vocation and their own growth in it what comes through is their hope, their hunger to respond generously and wholeheartedly, their desire to give God free reign to work in their lives as God will. There will be some sense that this is primarily and sincerely done for God and those precious to God. Dioceses that take time to really listen to the candidate and get to know them will see clearly who has priority in their lives, even when the healing is partial or the grip of illness is still quite strong. On the other hand, I would agree with you that it is much easier to lie to oneself and I would note that this is one (but only one) of the reasons dioceses turn away FAR more applicants than they accept or eventually admit to temporary much less perpetual profession.

In my own experience dioceses usually look carefully at who the person is in light of their life of the silence of solitude. If they see increased growth in human maturity, wholeness, and holiness, if they see a greater capacity to love themselves and others, then they have reason to believe that the person is truly called by God to this. If they do not see this, or if the person seems to become more miserable or eccentric while living in this way, more isolated and alienated, or if they become more and more strident and bitter about not being admitted to vows, more critical of the vocation itself, etc, then the diocese is probably justified in their decision not to profess or even to admit them to serious discernment --- at least for the time being.

The Bottom Line in Discerning Eremitical Vocations:

At bottom there will always be questions of love: Is the person motivated by love? Does she love God and seek to respond wholeheartedly to God's love? Does she show signs of truly loving herself because of what she has experienced of God's love (especially) in solitude? Does she understand that simply living her life alone with God with the graced (in-Spired) integrity she is called to is an act of profound love the world desperately needs? And, finally, does she undertake (or desire to undertake) and embrace the WHOLE of this life, its discipline, monotony or tedium, sacrifices and rewards, occasional desolations and enormous consolations,  because she recognizes the gift (charism) it is not only to herself, but to the church, and to the world? Does she do so, in other words, on their behalf as well as on her own, and maybe better said, does she do so for them because that truly fulfills her as well? Again then, contrary to your own opinion I would argue that it is pretty difficult to fake convincing answers to these questions, especially as a vocation matures. A diocese whose vocational personnel are careful and discerning will recognize a life in which God (love-in-act) is glorified (made manifest), just as they will recognize its opposite.

By the way, this is a piece of why such vocations must be mutually discerned and why the Church reserves the term Catholic hermit for someone living the life in her name.  Hermits and other contemplatives tend to speak of themselves as living at the heart of the Church. This saying has a number of levels or dimensions but above all it means that the hermit represents a vocation to love which both precedes and grounds all apostolic activity. The journeying in the wilderness and the battling with demons a hermit does is mainly the sojourn she undertakes deep into her own heart and the heart of God so that love may truly predominate in all things. When I speak of taking on the rights and obligations of the eremitical life as a diocesan hermit I am speaking in large part of assuming the burdens and joy of these "bottom line" questions and this pilgrim role in a conscious and public way in the name of the Church and her Gospel.

Becoming a Hermit in the silence of solitude: Living the mystery of God's Good Time and God's own Purposes

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, if a diocese is unwilling to form me as a hermit, then why should I try living in solitude on my own? I read your post about dioceses not forming hermits after I spoke with them but it seems pretty unreasonable of them to expect me to just go off on my own and live as a hermit if there is no insurance that they will profess me in a couple of years. I mean c'mon, when one enters a religious community one looks forward to becoming a novice and then to profession. That is just normal! It helps the person get through formation. No one expects someone to give up three or more years without some assurance that they will be professed. Why can't a diocese set up a similar program for those desiring to become diocesan hermits?]]

Thanks for your questions. You have managed to mention most of the troublesome issues with regard to a lack of understanding of canon 603 that I have spent time writing about here. Perhaps the only ones you didn't explicitly refer to are the ideas of having someone else write your Rule for you, the eremitical life as one of misanthropy and isolation, or planning on going off and establishing a community as soon as you are professed under c 603!!

To be very frank, let me say that it really simply does not make sense that you are contacting your diocese to ask them to form you as a hermit if you do not feel called to live in solitude on your own. You see, hermits are formed in solitude --- and ordinarily in a number of years of solitude rather than the time frame you have spoken of! If you are not already living this life, at least in some rudimentary way, and doing so in a way which attests to its place in making you whole and holy, one wonders how your diocese is supposed to discern a vocation to solitude in your life?  Despite the fact that you have read what I have written on the diocese not forming hermits I think you may not have understood me. You still have the cart before the horse and even yet misunderstand the nature of eremitical formation.

The questions any diocese will ask you (or look for signs of the answers to in you) right from the beginning are "are you a hermit in any essential sense or are you just a dilettante or merely curious about it? Do you sincerely think God is calling you to live an eremitical life (and why is that) or is this really just a way to get professed because other avenues are not open to you, for instance?" (Remember that if other avenues are closed to you this can still occasionally mature into a true call to eremitical life, but rarely.) "Most importantly, can and will you follow this call whether or not your diocese decides to profess you in the future?" If your answers to all of these (or the answers your life embodies) are positive, then perhaps your diocese will (or at least should) be open to professing you one day. However, if you answered no to any of these questions (or your life suggests this was perhaps only a stopgap way of getting professed) the chances of your having a vocation to eremitical life drop quite significantly. Again, this is because hermits hear, respond to God's call, and are thus formed in solitude; this whole process is, more than anything else, a matter of the dialogue between the hermit and God in the silence of solitude. Nothing can substitute for this or replace it as primary. For this reason  if you truly feel there is no reason to live in solitude unless there is some promise the diocese will profess you, then there is something really and seriously amiss here.

Since something about the vocation intrigued you enough to go to your diocese I can't say the chances of your having an eremitical vocation drops to zero but depending upon what intrigued you that still might be true. (For instance, if it was the garb, the title (Sister, Brother, etc), the potential right to reserve Eucharist in your own place, the idea of being a religious without the complexities, demands, and challenges of community life, or if you thought this was a cool way to watch TV (or paint or whatever) all day and not be thought a colossal layabout while people treated you with the deference given to Religious then the chances do hover at nil.)

On Stages in Religious Life and the Absence of Assurances:

Before I respond  concerning the nature of eremitical life specifically, I guess I should also note that you are mistaken in your assumptions about those entering religious life. The majority of persons today do in fact live the life in initial formation for up to three years without ever being professed and without any assurance they will be professed, much less perpetually professed. Most leave before making first vows. Formation certainly does prepare a person for vows but it remains mainly a period of discernment as does the period of temporary profession (the period of up to six years in temporary vows). A congregation or an individual may well decide such a person does not have a call to religious life at any point along these nine years.

At each stage a person petitions the community to admit her to the next step: a postulant or candidate asks to be received into the community and begin a novitiate; a canonical or second year novice petitions to be admitted to first vows; these may be renewed in several different ways (for instance, yearly or  every two or three years) and each renewal requires the Sister petition and receive the permission of the congregation; finally, after six years of temporary vows, this Sister petitions to be admitted to perpetual profession. Although as time goes on it becomes less likely a person will leave (or not be admitted to the next stage of commitment) I have known people to leave just before perpetual profession. Again, there are no assurances that if one puts in x time and jumps through y hoops one will be professed. A vocation is more than this. One risks the time and effort because one truly believes God is calling one to this. Meanwhile, in some ways formation is more akin to Michaelangelo's idea of freeing and bringing to clarity or articulateness the obscure form within the marble than it is about creating a vocation out of a shapeless lump of raw material.

The Eremitical Vocation is Truly Heard and Responded to in Solitude

With hermits the situation is even more complicated or hard to reduce to a single program or time frame. Solitude itself can be temporary, transitional, maladaptive, or even dysfunctional and situations where any of these are the case do not equate to a call to live one's life as a hermit. Being a lone individual and somewhat pious, or even very pious, is also not the same as being a hermit or being called to be one. (cf. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Hermits as Desert Dwellers) Nor is merely needing some peace and quiet to do one's own intellectual or artistic work --- though true hermits tend to do both as part of their vocations. All of this takes varying amounts of time to discern. Presuming a true call to a life of solitude (what I qualify as "eremitical solitude"), even if a diocese sets up guidelines for all of its own diocesan hermits the individual hermit  in this local church will live out her vocation with reasonable flexibility and creativity.

She responds to a call which is altogether individual and the Rule she writes, even when taking account of diocesan guidelines, will reflect this. Because the eremitical vocation is so truly individual I don't think any "program" of formation can be set up which specifies exact time frames or stages. Once a person has become a hermit in some essential or fundamental sense rather than being merely a lone or isolated individual (and, again, this happens in solitude), a diocese might well determine a general set of parameters for temporary profession  prior to perpetual profession (3-5 years is not unusual, and this is often preceded by another period of at least five years without public vows), but otherwise, set periods really don't work too well.

The Eremitical Paradox: Only in God's Good Time and at God's Pleasure

Additionally, the eremitical vocation, especially the solitary eremitical vocation lived under canon 603, requires the individual's ability to respond to God on a day by day basis. She really must have a strong sense of initiative and be able to act, grow, and mature in all the ways anyone must, but with much less supervision or ability to check in with folks for immediate feedback, etc. Beyond this she must have a sense of the gift-quality of her life whether or not the Church ever admits to canonical standing or not.

It is only in light of such a sense of the value of her life to God and a world that is largely oblivious to her that she will be able to persevere in solitude. (That the world is largely oblivious, and that the church too may be oblivious in this case or that, is part of the essential hiddenness of the eremitical vocation.) It is true that canonical standing affirms this value and that it is helpful in this task of persevering, but my own experience says that the proven capacity to persevere in the silence of solitude apart from and prior to admission to public vows is essential to the vocation. (And here an aspect of the silence of  solitude is the absence of external verification or affirmation of value.) The somewhat difficult paradox operating here is that one must demonstrate to the diocese that one is committed and able to live this vocation without canonical standing and the relationships that come with this before one can show them one actually requires canonical standing and the relationships which are part of such standing.

 This last piece of things is one of the more important reasons a diocese cannot set up a formation program for diocesan hermits. The competence, available time, resources, willingness, etc of the diocesan personnel notwithstanding, a diocese can only recognize a vocation that stands in front of them; such vocations are formed in solitude and will persevere in solitude even without canonical standing or they are likely not authentic eremitical vocations. Once the vocation is truly discerned --- and this means once a person has responded to God's call in and to the silence of solitude and established a life characterized by this same charisma (gift) --- she (and the church as a whole) may find there are good reasons for public profession and canonical standing (not least that this gift c 603 calls "the silence of solitude" needs to be brought more consciously and mutually into the heart of the church). However, in my opinion this direction cannot really be reversed. The Church (meaning here a diocese's chancery and formation personnel) does not form hermits. Only God in solitude does that and this only in God's good time and according to God's own purposes and pleasure. This is an essential part of the vocation and  a central piece of what the hermit witnesses to with her life.

Looking at the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard from a new Perspective:

This asks that we see the parable of the laborers in the vineyard from a different perspective than usual -- from the perspective of those who were only hired quite late in the day. We hermits usually come to this vocation late in life or at least in the latter half of life. Sometimes we come to this vocation via years of chronic illness and often we have to wait long years for the Church to admit us to public profession (if that happens at all). There can be a sense that time is being wasted, that a life is being lost and opportunities for formation and ministry are tragically being missed; it may even seem that we are hanging about town waiting for an opportunity to be put to good use and that in the end our lives will return void to the God who created and sent us into the world. But the truth is quite different and is symbolized by the fact that in the parable all laborers are given the same wage (are valued the same).

At the same time we find that the laborers who came late to work in the vineyards had learned to wait on the Lord. Their own sense of poverty was profoundly honed during this time of waiting and they are open to God calling them and gifting them in whatever way God proposes. They are a countercultural witness because they have become someone very different in all of this than they might have been otherwise. But one comes to find it has all been done according to God's own time and purposes, that God has brought great good out of all this seeming emptiness and waste and the result is God's own gift to Church and World. Those proposing they be admitted to public profession as diocesan hermits need to have acquired a sense of all of this apart from canonical profession. I think it is the way to the essential formation of the hermit heart and can only come in the silence of solitude where one learns to wait on the Lord in radical poverty and dependence.

(Also cf: Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Hermits as Desert Wanderers and Dwellers)

Eschatological Secularity, What do you mean by this?

[Dear Sister,
      thank you for answering my last question [why you are personally interested in the vocation of CV's]. You have written about CV's embracing a consecrated or sacred secularity and I understand that. But you have also begun using the term eschatological secularity. I get it has to do with the Kingdom and end times, but why do you use it here and not in reference to other vocations?]]

Sure. I am using the term specifically to qualify and connect the secularity of the vocation with the Kingdom of God in which all things will be perfected and transformed and God will be all in all. Other terms (sacred secularity, consecrated secularity) don't do so nearly as well. They carry the idea of being made a sacred person and somehow being set apart from God but what they also do too often is suggest this has to be distinct from the saeculum rather than consistently embedded in it. (N.B., embeddedness and enmeshment are not the same things!) They tend to see consecrated lives as proleptic of heaven but that is a heaven which is wholly distinct from this world and has nothing to do with interpenetrating it, transfiguring, or ultimately perfecting it into the realm it is meant to be because God is truly and wholly sovereign there.

To link secularity closely with the word eschatological seems to me to do three things: 1) it immediately indicates the locus of God's transforming, reconciling, and hallowing power and presence, namely THIS world of space and time,  2) it underscores the incredible dignity and challenge of secular vocations --- but especially the vocation of CV's living in the world, and 3) it demands that CV's reflection on the specific graces of their vocation (spousal, virginal, maternal, and apostolic love) be spelled out in terms of the needs of heaven AND the needs of earth, the needs or yearnings of the Spirit and the needs or yearnings of the world. In other words it makes clear this vocation is a very profoundly pastoral one. It also suggests that systematically this is an avenue theologians would do well to pursue in thinking through the nature and implications of this ancient AND very new vocation.

I don't use this term with other vocations because it doesn't actually fit them as well. It may come close to an aspect of what secular institutes witness to, but there we are not dealing with a consecrated state of life; members are either in the lay or ordained states depending upon their state of life when they made semi-public vows. Thus I think the paradoxical vocation I have been speaking about is most sharply indicated in the term "eschatological secularity."  As importantly, I think this term charts a course for reflecting on and living out the vocation which focuses on its RADICAL secular and ultimately pastoral nature. Last year I was truly stunned to hear a CV suggest that she could see no pastoral need for a vocation which was specifically secular. I admit I am still a bit amazed by its lack of theological or pastoral acumen or sensitivity, but I believe it is actually a very common impression held by the majority in the world who see heaven as freeing us from or as an escape from this world rather than being the ultimate state of its transfiguration and perfection in God. It certainly helps explain why these particular CV's tend to want to be recognized, not as secular, but as quasi-religious. As part of this it seems clear to me that our world is yearning for models of secularity which are sacred rather than profane and which are radically informed and transformed by the values and ideals of the Kingdom of God rather than of all that opposes God.

Thus, one of the things I found missing in some CV's statements about their vocation was any significant reflection on or explanation of either the charism or the mission of the vocation. In other words, they spent no time reflecting on or articulating the gift quality of this vocation to OTHERS or why the Holy Spirit would have brought it forward again at this point in history, nor did they do anything similar with the idea of to whom they were specifically sent and in what way or why. Clearly consecration as a virgin was a personal gift to them, but that really seemed about all --- except perhaps that it added some to persons doing volunteer work for charities and the church.

To deny a profound pastoral need for a secular vocation which was at once also and radically eschatological was the most extreme example I could point to regarding this lack. It is one thing to say "I am a Bride of Christ" or "I am consecrated and called to be an apostle" or "I am an icon of the Church as Bride of Christ", but it is something else entirely to then articulate a theology of those things which is a gift to the Church and World because it gives hope and challenges others to see the ultimate significance of their own calls and lives. My almost immediate reaction to any of these affirmations is, "So what?" and then, "Why is that important pastorally?" or "Why is that a gift of the Holy Spirit?" Others I have heard have said something dismissive like, "Well, that's nice, but [followed by a shrug of one shoulder and a quizzical look]?" To draw attention to the eschatologically secular nature of the vocation is provocative and challenges CV's to do the required reflection on the import of their uniquely qualified (consecrated) and radically secular vocations which exist for the sake of the Church and World.


 If you have read this blog apart from the posts I have written on consecrated virginity of women living in the world you know that I believe eremitical life has a tremendous charism ("the silence of solitude") which is a gift specifically to the millions and millions of socially isolated in our world who are looking and hungering for ways to redeem and transform isolation. As our societies become increasingly media-dominated the isolation grows and varies in forms and intensity while it expands in universality. The need for people who can speak to this with their lives grows exponentially. Hermits, lay or consecrated and rare as we are, are among those who speak most vividly to this situation. So are monastics more generally. Thus, at the heart of what often can seem to outsiders to be a very selfish vocation is a profound charismatic element which makes  it God's gift to a very thirsty world. Consecrated virgins MUST discover and articulate their own vision of the charismatic and, thus, the profoundly consecrated AND secular nature of their vocation. They must discover the mission they are called to embrace by God through the mediation of the Church. Otherwise, the vocation of CV's living in the world remains an irrelevant, anachronistic, and somewhat elitist bit of preciousness which speaks effectively or prophetically to no one. I believe the term "eschatological secularity" will help some CV's and theologians more generally to do this.

Ongoing Formation of the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, What does ongoing formation for the diocesan hermit consist of? How would a diocese ensure that the hermit is achieving the level of ongoing formation she or he requires?]]

Wow, brand new question for me! Excellent as well! In some ways I think this is uncharted territory, at least in the formal sense. Let me suggest some of the things I do to continue my formation as a diocesan hermit and also some things which might be especially helpful to the diocese and hermit together in what is a mutual or collaborative responsibility. It is this latter area where I think we are mainly in uncharted territory and in a general sense could do better for diocesan hermits and their Bishops and delegates.

Things the Hermit does to Ensure Ongoing Formation:

The first thing necessary is anything coming under the rubric, "custody of the cell." What I mean by this is anything necessary to living the silence of solitude in the hermitage. For the most part this means living one's Rule of Life (including every spiritual and other regular practice), reflecting on this in light of one's prayer and journaling (inner work), spiritual direction, and further, in light of one's reading and reflection on the eremitical tradition and the contemporary world. Over some time one will reflect on one's life in the hermitage, one's life and role in the parish, the place of friendships and other relationships in one's life, one's physical, intellectual, and emotional needs, and the demands on one's gifts which all of these make. One then makes whatever changes are necessary to ensure continuing growth in the eremitical life and the essential elements of canon 603. At the same time one will make decisions about needed education (usually online but not always), reading trajectories (if this is applicable to personal work or one's professional competencies), writing projects (or whatever form of work one does), greater reclusion, periods of retreat beyond an annual retreat, and so forth.

Parts of all this will include then, regular spiritual direction and meetings with one's delegate, regular reflection on one's Rule and vows, regular desert days, at least occasional periods of reclusion, and annual retreat. It may require time away from the hermitage at a monastery beyond what is required for retreat itself. In general all of these things are parts of the hermit's own Rule because, after all, the life itself is formative and living it with integrity is the major piece of actual formation --- no matter whether that is initial or ongoing. Still, the evaluative part of things is usually not treated in one's Rule and it may well be that this should be worked out in the section on ongoing formation. For instance, one might well determine that once a year (or less frequently) a meeting with one's delegate which is dedicated simply to looking at one's needs for ongoing formation for the following year (or several years) will occur. While very little of the hermit's day-to-day life might change as a result and while one might simply continue on as one has, such a meeting could still be invaluable.

Others' Roles in Ensuring Ongoing Formation:

While responsibility for ongoing formation is mainly the hermit's own, her Spiritual Director and diocesan delegate play major roles in helping her grow in holiness and assisting her to articulate regularly how she has grown, where she sees God taking her in terms of eremitical life, how it is the parish and diocese assist (or could well assist) her in this and how that may be improved upon. The delegate might well discuss some of these things with the Bishop if they seem to be something the diocese should assist with. That is especially true if she and the hermit meet for a regular meeting dedicated to ongoing formation needs mentioned above.

This, of course, suggests that the Bishop also has a part to play in ensuring the hermit's ongoing formation in this life. While this role should not be surprising it is an underdeveloped and under-appreciated aspect of the situation set up by Canon 603. Canon 603 outlines a solitary eremitical life of the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the evangelical counsels, all lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes and is faithful to under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop. While the hermit does not receive any financial assistance or remuneration from the diocese, there is no reason to believe the Bishop cannot or should not assist her in locating or helping make available selected and occasional diocesan or other resources which contribute to ongoing formation in her vocation. Hermits tend to meet with their Bishops once a year. That meeting usually serves to fill the Bishop in on how things are going, how the hermit lives her life, what is most important to her in all of this, and what needs she has run into and how she has managed to meet these. Occasionally (every three to five years or so), an important part of such a meeting might  be a discussion of the ways in which the hermit has revised or proposes to revise her Rule before submitting it to the Bishop for formal approval.

With regard to ongoing formation what I would like to suggest is that if necessary and if the Bishop is willing (and I have to say my sense is most would be very willing given their concern with the issue of eremitical formation), an additional meeting with the hermit's delegate might also take place for the specific purpose of discussing specific needs and concerns. With the Bishop's permission, this could free the delegate up to line up (or help the hermit to line up) the resources necessary here or formulate a plan for meeting those needs and concerns. For instance, if the hermit truly needs additional time away in a monastery, or could benefit significantly from a workshop on Scripture or prayer or spiritual direction (etc), a Bishop (or the delegate acting in his stead) might be able to arrange for something which meets the limited resources the hermit has available and at little or no expense for the diocese.

The point is that the hermit vocation is fragile and vital; for this reason the diocese, especially in the persons of the Bishop (legitimate superior) and delegate (quasi-superior), should work with the hermit in helping ensure her needs for ongoing formation are met. At this point the hermit's relationship with her Bishop is a little-addressed and less-understood element of the canon. Hermits and Bishops work to find their way in this matter, sometimes with little sense of what is actually being accomplished (or is meant to be accomplished) by their meetings. A focus or partial focus on ongoing formation and a collaborative relationship with the hermit's delegate in meeting the hermit's needs here might be just what is needed periodically. (For the most part meetings with one's Bishop are not agenda-driven. They are a chance for both persons to get to know one another and to learn about eremitical life lived out in a contemporary context; they are typically fairly relaxed and informative and should be allowed to be this unless there is something specific either party needs to discuss).

The hermit's pastor may also fill a role in the hermit's ongoing formation. It is certainly true for me that my own pastor plays a very large if informal role here and I think that is both fortunate and a very great gift. For instance he affords me opportunities to use my own gifts in the parish --- always with an accepting eye towards my own fidelity to my contemplative and eremitical vocation. As a result, however, my own regular grappling with Scripture has become more central and fruitful. My pastor has given me opportunities to do Communion Services (Services of the Word with Communion) on days when the parish has no priest available, to write written reflections on the Scriptures or on theological themes, to give or assist with occasional workshops to the parish (Advent, Lenten, Anniversary of Vatican II), to speak to the school children or teen faith formation once in a while (once a semester or year) about prayer, living as a hermit, religious life, etc, and he has made it possible for me to attend a continuing education workshop several times in the area of Scripture.

One of the most helpful features of this relationship with my pastor and parish has been my own discernment of how to negotiate the demands of my vocation to the silence of solitude while sharing the fruits of that vocation and my own gifts. It isn't always easy nor is it always neat, but it is a dynamic which is an integral part of the eremitical (and especially the Camaldolese eremitical) tradition so it is a dynamic which, in all likelihood, is not going to go away. My pastor's respect and concern for my eremitical vocation (not to mention his patience with my own sometimes-awkward efforts to negotiate things) are as helpful as the opportunities he affords me. While this situation may not be typical, I think most diocesan hermits could work out at least a similar situation with their pastors and parishes.


I should also mention the role of friends and other religious in the hermit's ongoing formation. Though more casual there is no doubt that friends, especially when they are Religious, play a significant part here in my own ongoing formation. In the latter case we discuss prayer, reading, Scripture, the Church, spiritual direction, daily struggles and joys, the requirements of  personal ongoing formation, and just generally do what friends do for one another in encouraging faithfulness to God's call. I have coffee with one Sister every Sunday I can and we go out very occasionally at other times as well (e.g., once a movie and dinner, once a museum exhibit, etc). Beyond that I have spent a week the last two Spring breaks with her at her congregation's vacation house in what is a fairly relaxed period of shared solitude. Because of this relationship and others I have grown as a human bring and as a hermit. I am also more tuned into the Church, to trends in religious life, and have met other contemplatives I would never have had the chance to meet otherwise. I have been challenged, empowered, and consoled by this and other friendships (especially those I enjoy with a handful of parishioners), for instance, and have to consider these an asset to ongoing formation.

Assessing Ongoing Formation:

If the silence of solitude is the charism of the diocesan hermit's life and the single element which can be used to mea-sure the quality of all other parts of the hermit's life (and I argue strongly that it is), then the degree to which the hermit is growing in living this reality is the key to assessing the quality of her ongoing formation, or her needs for the same. If it seems that she is distracted or unhappy in solitude, if the opportunities that come her way through the parish detract from her ability to easily step back into the hermitage, or if they are not natural spillovers of her life there, then they are probably not helpful to ongoing formation as a hermit. If her life begins to be disorderly or unfaithful in small and bigger things, then something needs to be addressed. If solitude begins to devolve into mere isolation, then problems requiring a solution exist. The "silence of solitude" is the key here just as it is in initial discernment and formation. Only the hermit, her director, her delegate, and to a lesser degree her Bishop can really discern or determine how well she is progressing in her ongoing response to God's call, but they definitely need to collaborate to ensure this is as God wills and the Church needs.

Appreciating the Charism of Diocesan Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, I can see why Bishops might choose to profess an individual who is not really a hermit and ask questions like, "Besides, who will it hurt?" Isn't it more important to deal pastorally with the individual than to be concerned with an abstract idea of a vocation? If a person wants to serve God and do it as a "hermit", why shouldn't he be allowed to do this? I really don't see who it would hurt. After all hermits don't minister to people and are shut away from contact. Isn't this up to Bishops to decide?]]

Thanks for your questions. I am linking this post to another one on the charism of the diocesan hermit and the relation of the life to the exaggerated individualism and narcissism of our culture. I don't want to repeat everything I have already said there so please click on the title of this post to be taken to that one for further reading. 

The Charism of Solitary Eremitical Life

In attempting to clarify why I am not speaking about a mere abstraction but rather concrete circumstances where the eremitical vocation is particularly effective and redemptive perhaps I should restate what the charism or gift quality of the solitary diocesan hermit is to her parish, diocese, and the church and world at large. I tend to point to the canon 603 essential element, "the silence of solitude" as that unique gift. There are a couple of reasons for that. First, we in the first world live in a culture of exaggerated individualism and narcissism. While people living in community combat this problem by their accent on community life and its importance in authentic humanity, hermits participate in this "battle" in their own way, namely by living a life of "the silence of solitude." Eremitical solitude is not about living alone, but living alone WITH God and FOR others. It emphasizes and reveals that human beings are not made to live individualistic or narcissistic lives but instead are completed by God and called to give their lives FOR others. Eremitical solitude is a paradoxical reality and a gift to a world disintegrating under the influence of individualism, narcissism, and a notion of freedom which really means the license to do anything one wants without regard to (or for) others.

Secondly, we live in a world where people live longer, where consumerism and productivity are the major markers of the supposed meaningfulness and value of one's life. Often then people in such a culture have lost (or never had) a sense of the meaningfulness of their lives apart from work, family, etc. Some are bereaved, some are chronically ill, some are isolated elderly, some are prisoners, etc. Hermits do not buy into the consumerist, productivity-as-measure-of value perspectives. At the same time they are physically as isolated as any of the people mentioned above. What is different is that they say with their lives that meaningfulness is a function of one's relation to God and that they are infinitely precious because God holds them to be precious. Through the grace of God the hermit's life takes physical isolation and transforms it into solitude ---- a communal or dialogical reality measured in terms of relationship with God. The experience of eremitical solitude is the experience of meaning, completion, and authentic humanity which is capable of giving to others. Not least, hermits say to people that the redemption of isolation is possible and that even those who cannot compete as consumers or "producers" can live incredibly meaningful and generous lives which contribute to the well-being of society.

Thirdly we live in a world of unrelenting, ubiquitous noise. People not only don't know what silence is, they fear it, think it unnatural, and avoid it at all costs. Most people believe that silence means turning off the TV while listening to an iPod or something similar. Businesses deal with noise by overlaying it with another layer of noise; office buildings pipe in music meant to soothe and distract from silence but also to distract from the constant noise. The problem with this, however, is that unless we have silence in our lives we never learn to truly listen --- especially to the voice of God in our hearts. Articulate speech requires silence, music requires silence if it is not to be mere noise, and human beings require silence if they are to come to the full articulation of selfhood. Hermits attest to the fullness of silence and the silence of solitude.

As I have written before, [[As a hermit I am not silent (or solitary) for instance, because woundedness and pain have rendered me mute and cut off from others, but because silence and solitude are the accompaniment and context for profound speech and articulateness. Silence is part of the music of being loved completely by God; it is a piece of allowing the separate notes of one's life to sound fully, but also to be connected to one another so that noise is transformed into a composition worthy of being heard and powerful and true enough to be inspiring to others. It is an empowered silence and solitude, the silence of solitude, which finds its source in God's love and reflects relatedness to God and others at its very core. Something similar could be said of all of the elements which comprise the life described in Canon 603. The eremitical life, especially in its freedom, is one of relatedness and love in all of its dimensions.]]

Hermits know all of this because, by the grace of God, they live it daily. They live the physical solitude of eremitical life without significant  distraction. They live the silence of others' absence, for instance, and discover it leads to a world of amazing presence --- the presence of God in the ordinary and in their own hearts. They say with their own lives that each person is infinitely valuable, that life is hopeful, no matter the stage or conditions which mark or mar it. Thus, hermits commit to living their vowed lives of stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop and those he appoints as delegates precisely as a significant gift (charisma) God has given to his Church and world. Unless one sees the gift this life is, they will not appreciate it or live it with integrity.

Professing Individuals Who are not Hermits and Will not live Eremitical Life

However, if one DOES understand the gift this life is, they will not profess those who  are not called to live this precise gift. Everyone can learn to tolerate and many even to love silence, but very few are called on to live the gift of eremitical "silence of solitude." To profess those who are not called to this is to short-circuit their own true vocations --- the paths they are summoned to embrace to become fully and authentically human. Eremitical solitude is especially dangerous here since so few are called to authentic humanity in this way.  Those who may be newly bereaved, or yet significantly psychologically wounded, or chronically ill and still needing to deal effectively with this reality will find that eremitical solitude demands more than they are capable of giving at this particular time. Solitude is often needed in all of these situations but ordinarily it is solitude as transitional reality, solitude preparing the way for a reinvigorated or reinvented way of relating to others in more ordinary community. Again, to profess such persons prematurely and with inadequate time and discernment will not serve them well and could be damaging. In any case, I would dispute that there is anything truly pastoral about doing so.

And of course professing those without an authentic call to eremitical solitude means professing those whose lives will not be able to witness effectively to the gift which the silence of solitude really is to the isolated and marginalized of our world. There are such inauthentic vocations today: "hermits" who watch hours of TV in order to distract themselves from illness and isolation; "hermits" who really want to be living in community and ministering full time and whose "solitude" and life of "assiduous prayer and penance" is lived out mainly with a desert day per week; and so forth. To whom do these lives effectively speak? Certainly not to the persons mentioned in the section above this one. It is arrogance and presumption to think that such lives can be called "eremitical". Professing inauthentic vocations may well involve the person professed in a life of hypocrisy, failure, and even therefore, significant sin. More, far from serving God, it is a disservice --- to God, to the vocation itself, and to those who need the gift of the "silence of solitude" because they live full time lives of isolation --- to call such vocations "eremitical." In an individualistic and narcissistic world such professions only extend and intensify the reign of individualism and narcissism within the very vocation meant to stand clearly against them. In short it is a betrayal of God, of God's own gift to the Church and world and, at least potentially, it hurts many people! This is hardly a pastoral approach to the matter nor to the person seeking to be admitted to profession.

The Ministry of the Hermit

While it is true that diocesan hermits do only some limited ministry outside the hermitage (if they do any at all), their lives are a ministry. Eremitical ministry is not so much about what one does as who one is in and with and through God in the silence of solitude. It is not true to suggest that professing people without an authentic vocation will not matter much because hermits are shut away. To the degree they are separated from others physically their lives MUST still speak to others effectively and faithfully --- especially to those who are themselves isolated in some way. This is an integral part of a vocation: God calls, we answer with our profession and lives, and God through his Church commissions us to minister in his name and the name of the Church.

Are Bishops the ones who ultimately determine the matter of who is professed in their dioceses? Yes, but they do so within the constraints of the Canon (603), and the eremitical tradition --- which includes the life experience of contemporary hermits who truly help clarify the nature and establish the limits of the vocation in our contemporary world. Bishops are required to listen carefully to these, to discern carefully with regard to an individual seeking profession under canon 603, to have a clear sense of the gift or charisma this vocation is and to whom, and only then to make decisions which respect all of these elements. Bishops especially cannot disregard any of these elements and simply use the canon as a stopgap means to profess an individual who cannot be professed in any other way, who simply desires it for inadequate reasons (wearing a habit, being a Religious, using a title, validating a failed or merely isolated life, etc), or who wishes to use this profession as an entrance into consecrated life so s/he can then do something else with that life (like founding a community, gaining access to ministries she might not have had access to otherwise, etc). Allowing such professions would actually be a betrayal of the Bishop's own commission to seek out, protect, and nurture new forms of consecrated life --- at least if new means something more than novel, transitory, and disedifying.

I  hope this helps.

Rejecting Eremitical Vocations vs Creating Readiness for Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel,
      it seems to me that if Dioceses don't agree that Diocesan Hermit candidates have adequate formation then they should just not profess them until they HAVE adequate formation.  I mean that doesn't seem like rocket science to me! Also how can they simply make a blanket judgment against the vocation itself? So what is the diocesan responsibility in forming diocesan hermits? Is it really possible for solitary hermits to get sufficient formation themselves with a bit of help from a spiritual director? Thank you.]]

Well, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Reaching the conclusion you have is not rocket science, is it? First, a diocese is not actually responsible for forming a hermit; they are primarily about discerning the nature and quality of the vocation present before them. However, if a diocese believes the person requires more formation before being admitted to profession, they do need to work with resources available to the hermit to help her determine a plan so that she can get this formation. Thus, a diocese needs to be specific with the individual involved with regard to what areas in which she is deficient , what kinds of things would help with these, and so forth. The reference to needed formation cannot be vague nor can it replace actual discernment on the reality of the vocation itself. For instance, it is not okay to make an aspirant for profession jump through a number of formative hoops if the diocese has already determined she is not called to be a diocesan hermit and will not be admitted to profession. The only way this could work is if the diocese is honest with the person, says they are truly open to seeing things in a new way once the formation issues are taken care of, and then follows through with that.

It is true that sometimes elements in formation can clarify areas of the candidate's life which have caused questions about the reality or nature of a vocation, but in such cases the candidate must know that admission to profession is in serious doubt and that while further formation may assist in clarifying matters and even help take care of areas which lead to doubt, at the same time they may not change the doubtfulness. Honesty and good faith communication is imperative in such instances. Dioceses have not always been good at achieving this kind of openness in communication.  A candidate must agree to get the formation they need --- especially since they bear the brunt of any expense or time commitment required.

How can dioceses make such blanket judgments against vocations per se? Excellent question but not one for which there is a single answer. Some Vicars for Religious (few I hope!), for instance, do not value the contemplative life; if this is so, eremitical life will seem even less valuable. Some Vicars and even Bishops may have seen abuses of canon 603 and have been put off by these. Some dioceses realize that, despite the fact that dioceses do not form hermits, working with hermit candidates involves a long-term commitment to the person as well as a kind of patience and expertise their usual work may not require. They may not be up to that for a single vocation which is rare and seemingly not very fruitful or contemporary. Also, the process of discernment here involves a life with which few Vicars or even Bishops are really familiar in any meaningful sense at all. It is not uncommon for the same stereotypes which plague the world at large in regard to hermits to also plague chancery staff. Some dioceses may indeed have had several poor candidates show up at the chancery door looking for a sinecure, or may even have professed someone and had it turn into a nightmare for everyone involved. Communities have ways of socializing (forming) and supervising members at least partly simply by living with them and also may ask them to leave before perpetual vows. With hermits and consecrated virgins the same safeguards do not exist so the diocese itself needs to be patient and careful over a longer period of discernment.

If a hermit is admitted too soon to perpetual or even temporary profession, especially if the diocese doing so has not confirmed the adequacy of formation (or don't even know how to do so), if the diocese has insufficient knowledge of the eremitical tradition and life,  or if they are unwilling to invest (and demand) the appropriate time for the formation of a solitary eremitical vocation (which the hermit herself must secure), then the eremitical vocation itself is endangered. In such cases I would say better there be NO professions than bad ones. Even so, a blanket refusal to profess anyone is obviously not optimal or even acceptable in the face of canon 605 (which requires Bishops be attentive to new forms of consecrated life) and the movement of the Holy Spirit with regard to true vocations. There are sound solitary eremitical vocations in a number of countries; dioceses must become aware of that and learn from them. Meanwhile, solitary hermits have gotten the formation they have needed to live this life --- and most have done it "on their own" with assistance and mentoring they themselves have acted to include in their lives. Most of the time diocesan hermits are partly formed in religious life and only late discovered a call to solitary life. Still, while it is a longer and more difficult process for those who have no background in religious life, it is generally possible for individuals to come to all that is necessary to live this life by themselves with the assistance of a director and an openness to doing what is necessary to learn and grow theologically, spiritually, and humanly.

What is at least equally essential however, is that dioceses themselves become educated in regard to the eremitical life (especially the solitary eremitical life). They must, for instance, know the difference between a hermit and a pious person who lives alone; they must have done some work in jettisoning the common stereotypes associated with the term "hermit" --- but also be proficient in spotting those same stereotypes when they show up in a candidate who has just arrived on the chancery doorstep. They must have a sense that hermits are created by time as well as by and for  the  silence of solitude and be able to allow those to do their work in a candidate's life. They must have a sense of the normally extended time frame for moving through a discernment process and not be tempted to ignore it --- an act which disrespects the vocation and fails to act with charity towards the candidate. Finally they must understand the central elements of Canon 603, especially the silence of solitude and its function as charism of the eremitical life. As already noted, bishops are called and canonically required to be aware of and foster new forms of consecrated life. While it is a serious commitment in time given the rarity of these vocations, chancery personnel (Bishops, Vicars for Religious or Consecrated Life, Vocations directors, etc) must foster a readiness to patiently discern and assist such vocations instead of simply rejecting their possibility out of hand.

How does the Silence of Solitude involve God?

[[Hi Sister Laurel,

I am glad to see you posting. I missed your posts. Probably you have said this already, but when I read that the silence of solitude is the charism of diocesan eremitical life I don't see God in it. Can you explain this to me?]]

Sure, let me try and let me be really brief. Ordinarily solitude is thought of as being alone, being physically alone, and little more. That is one legitimate meaning of the term and it applies to hermits, but it also stops short of being the solitude to which a hermit is called. One of the reasons I refer often to eremitical solitude is because it is not a matter of just being physically alone, but rather being alone with and in God. This means as well that one is profoundly related to all else that is related to God, and in fact, that one lives her life for them as well. But this kind of solitude is not automatic. It requires a continuing practice of prayer, silence, physical solitude, kenosis (self-emptying), and commitment to that foundational relationship with love-in-act which makes us each human. It also implies commitments to community (for instance to the parish community which is one's primary community, or to the handful of good friends with whom one really shares her daily life) because it is a reality stemming from and leading to love. At bottom, eremitical solitude is communal or "dialogical" because it always means communion or dialogue with God who is the source, ground, and very paradigm of solitude.

Similarly, silence is ordinarily thought to be the absence of sound --- and today, merely a relative absence of noise since our culture's way of covering or distracting us from noise is to add more sound to the mix! But silence is multidimensional and more than just the absence of sound. If you have ever sat in church next to someone who is making no sound but is jiggling their legs, you know this. If you have ever walked into a quiet room of people waiting for you to speak and felt terrified or anxious, you know it. If you have ever been lying in the dark before sleep and felt driven to the kitchen by a desire for chocolate, compelled by thoughts which are obsessive, or struck with a terrible feeling of emptiness or failure, you know that silence is not merely the absence of sound. Instead it has to do with being at peace, with being comfortable with who one is in God, with not having to prove oneself and with letting what comes come in its own time. (I have to remind everyone including myself that this "silence of solitude" is a goal of eremitical life and its realization only comes over time, even when it is present in degrees throughout that life.)

So, the silence of solitude is the silence, and better, the quies which results from being alone in and with God. It refers to the life of wholeness and security of one who knows how profoundly loved she is and who is able to live within and from that love for the sake of others. It involves physical silence, of course, but it is much more and richer than that. What is at its root is God and one's relationship with God and all those whom God holds as precious. It does not exist otherwise.

I hope this helps.

Living Alone vs Eremitical Solitude

[[Dear Sister,
you said something interesting in your post from December 7th. You distinguished an eremitical life of the silence of solitude from that of people living a merely pious life alone. To be honest I thought that a hermit life WAS the pious life of someone living alone. Can you explain what you mean to me?]]

Yes, it is a really important distinction and one that is rarely sufficiently understood whether by aspirants and some candidates for canon 603 profession, by chanceries who are responsible for the mutual discernment and profession of these candidates, or by the usual person on the street. Your own description, [[ a pious life of someone living alone]] is not quite the same as what I said, [[ some... mistake living a relatively pious life alone for an eremitical life of the silence of solitude. . ]]. Lots of people live alone; lots of these are relatively pious, and some are downright holy --- holier than many hermits. Very, very few of these are hermits in the sense canon 603 defines. I am reminded of a friend (a very funny and generous friend) in my parish who sometimes jokes to people she introduces me to that there is nothing really different from her life and mine --- though she thinks she owns more shoes than I do! (In that I think she is right!) She is a faithful Catholic, spends her life in direct service of the church and parish, and she lives alone; she sees me as doing the same. I suspect there are many people who think something similar and believe canon 603 is meant to profess more than usually religious people who simply live alone.

But these opinions, despite elements of truth, are generally mistaken. While it is certainly necessary to have a regular spiritual praxis and to live alone in relative silence, there is something more involved. It is summarized in canon 603 with the term, "the silence of solitude." One of the things I have noted about this phrase is that it refers not just to the physical environment of the eremitical life, but to its goal, and gift quality or charism as well. The silence of solitude is an immensely rich symbol, then, and hard to define precisely; it refers first of all to God's own life, for God is the abyss of this kind of silence and solitude. It refers then to a continuing dialogue with God usually carried out in and constituting one's own heart, but also in the prayer and other activities undertaken in the hermitage which are expressions and explicitations of this inner dialogue.

It refers to the communion which comes to be between two freedoms (cf Wencel, Cornelius, Er Cam, The Eremitic Life), the freedom which is God and the freedom which is the hermit, a communion which we are each made for but often forget, ignore, or dismiss for any number of reasons. Finally it also refers to the redemption of isolation, alienation, and emptiness, the healing of sin and the effects of sin. It requires external silence and physical aloneness but is much much more than this. The hermit's life is devoted to "the silence of solitude"; it is lived out within it, in light of it, and for it because this "silence of solitude" is something the world is made and hungers for. It is, insofar as it involves a heart-deep dialogue and communion, something both God and the hermit herself yearn for. Living alone is one thing; living alone with and for God and for all that is precious to God is very different indeed.

Although canon 603 does not explicitly preference this element over assiduous prayer and penance and the other non-negotiable elements of eremitical life, I think the hermit must --- though only in a way which allows the other elements to inform and qualify it. Truly, none of the elements of the canon and the life (a vowed life of stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world) can be separated off from the others. As interrelated they form a complex and dynamic whole which constitutes eremitical life as something far more than just living alone --- even in physical silence or separation. Still, "the silence of solitude" is the truly distinguishing or definitive element of the canon, I think; it represents the depth dimension or inner heart and purpose of the other elements in the canon.

Dioceses and chancery officials and personnel must also preference this element in this way, I think; it is critical to discerning what kind of vocation one has before one. When I have written in the past that a candidate for profession under canon 603 must have become a hermit in some essential sense before a diocese can consider her seriously for even temporary profession this is what I was referring to: she must know the silence of solitude (in the above senses) personally, existentially, and she must have made at least some of the choices and sacrifices necessary to make this the defining reality and goal of her life while demonstrating a faithfulness and commitment to go wherever this gift of God takes her.

Eremitism or Exaggerated Individualism?

Recently I was asked to consider whether there was a new resurgence in interest in the eremitical life, and, more importantly, what was driving that if I thought it was demonstrable. I happen to agree there is considerable interest in this vocation, but I am afraid I did not come away from the question of motivation with the most positive of answers. Similarly another questioner wrote:

[[Sister O'Neal, I have read that there is a resurgence in interest in the hermit life. At the same time I have heard that Bishops are reluctant to profess hermits. If the resurgence is of the Holy Spirit then why are Bishops unwilling to profess individuals in this way? I know you have written this is not a numbers game but if large numbers of people are interested in the vocation shouldn't Bishops be pressed to profess/consecrate them?]]

While there is a clear resurgence of interest, I don't think the actual incidence of the vocation has generally increased (except that the Church (meaning here the Western or Latin Church) now recognizes some very small percentage of these and admits them to profession and consecration; this has led, for instance, to a number of vocations among the disabled and chronically ill which would never have been recognized otherwise). In general however, what I am afraid is happening is that this interest is more a symptom of our individualistic and even narcissistic society and culture than it is a response to the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Further, I suspect that the failure to understand or to esteem the vocation profoundly enough leads some Bishops to profess individuals when this actually fosters an individualism (whether exaggerated or not) which is "worldly" in the most blatant sense possible.

So many of the things which pass for eremitical life, and which I have written about in the past several years, come together here and are definitely not inspired as truly eremitical. These include: 1) individuals who choose canon 603 on their way to community life (or community foundation) because it is supposedly the easy way to be professed; 2) individuals who mistake living a relatively pious life alone for an eremitical life of the silence of solitude; 3) those who wish to escape the complex and demanding life of ordinary social contacts or who have failed at life and seek to validate that failure; 4) those who see eremitical life as a part time activity and therefore seek to "have their cake and eat it too" by being recognized as a hermit while living just as they have always done in terms of work, recreation, relationships, and the like (this applies to those in #2 above as well); 5) married "hermits" or 6) those who work full time outside the hermitage, especially in highly social jobs while living a more or less prayerful life alone (some, as I have noted before, set aside one day a week for contemplative prayer and mistakenly consider this an eremitical life meeting the terms of the canon); 7) misanthropes looking for an escape and 8) folks seeking a sinecure who simply desire a way to validate their need for space to pursue their hobbies and avocations --- artistic, literary, etc --- but desire the church's stamp of approval on that. Note how easy it is to mistake these for authentic eremitical life which, when viewed only in terms of external characteristics or stereotypes, certainly seems to share some of these attributes.

But what is missing from them all is a sense that eremitical life is one of self-emptying and compassionate generosity for God's own sake, and the sake of those precious to God. What is lacking in these instances is a commitment to the silence of solitude and all that signifies. I don't suggest here that distinguishing between authentic diocesan or solitary eremitical vocations and these forms of hyper-individualism is always easy or completely straightforward; it is not. It takes time and serious discernment on the part of the candidates, their Bishops, directors, Vicars, etc. But it is a real problem today and one we cannot refuse to see as a threat to the eremitical vocation. Personally, I think the incidence of this kind of thing is very high while the incidence of authentic eremitical vocations is still as relatively rare as it has always been.

Thus, Bishops are right to be cautious in admitting aspirants to profession under canon 603. They are right to demand relatively longer terms of (personal) formation and probation of aspirants --- though at the same time these should be supervised and not inordinately prolonged. They are right to test candidates to see how committed to ongoing formation and how generously motivated they are. Where they are mistaken, I think, is in dismissing the vocation per se --- as though it is impossible to live, could have no really suitable candidates, or is without concrete value in our Church and world. (And again, it should be underscored that an understanding of and attention to the nature of "the silence of solitude" which constitutes the charism of this vocation is a significant if partial solution to such a problem.) In any case, presuming a higher instance of interest in this vocation, I think Bishops should take great care in discerning these vocations and should not be pressed unduly to profess diocesan hermits simply because a person demonstrates an interest in it. Given the individualism prevalent in our world today many candidates will not have vocations to eremitical life and of those that do, semi-eremitical or religious (communal) eremitical life on the one hand, or lay eremitical life on the other will often be the better option or context for living the life.

A Note on terminology: I have often used the terms aspirant, candidate, or even novice in my posts regarding diocesan eremitical life. Please understand that Canon 603 does not call or allow for an actual formal aspirancy or candidacy (postulancy). Neither is there such a thing as a formal novitiate. My use of such terms in this blog is entirely informal referring to someone who 1) literally aspires to profession and consecration, 2) who is accepted to participate in a process of mutual discernment by a diocese to see if perhaps they have such a vocation, or 3) who is relatively new to the life or who feels they are new and a beginner (something I suspect never really goes away; from what I have heard we all feel like novices even after decades of living eremitical life).

Follow-up on Part-time Eremitical Life (Yet Again!)

[[Sister, I am a lay person and live in solitude two days a week; I consider myself a hermit. I read where you would not. I also see where you have argued against extending the term "hermit" to part-time hermits. Is your own solitude really so different than mine? Is it really so much better? Like an earlier reader, I am offended you would be stuck in outdated definitions and not be open to people opening up this category of life to people like me. I am also in disagreement that a vocation to solitude would take as much time to discern as you seem to believe it does. . . . Get over yourself!]]

Thanks for your questions and objections. To be frank, I don't think I can set forth any more clearly why I believe what I believe than I have already done --- and done in posts which it seems you have read yourself. My own solitude is "better" mainly in the sense that it may speak more clearly to those who have no choice regarding their circumstances, that is, those who find themselves isolated and alienated because of life circumstances they cannot change. I think that this is the only way I might use the term "better" in comparing the solitude I am vowed to live with your own. Otherwise, yes, it is different, and I think it is different in significant (very meaningful) ways.

The Place of Eremitical Solitude in Confronting oneself and in Self-Emptying

Besides being able to speak more effectively to those whose physical solitude is not chosen or needs redemption another piece of this difference is the fact that eremitical solitude is one which ensures that one discovers and confronts one's own essential poverty when left to oneself. Over time in silence and solitude one faces oneself in a multitude of inescapable ways; with prayer and inner work (which mediate the grace of God), one comes to exist more truthfully and transparently. God is central to this whole process because it is in extended silence and solitude that one comes to know God's love. It is this love which allows one to participate in the kenosis or self-emptying accomplished in the desert as well as in the process of perceiving and embracing the authentic covenantal identity God calls one to. In the desert, solitude is not a distraction from one's usual environment. Neither does it allow for much distraction, for distraction in the desert can be deadly. I believe eremitical solitude is the solitude of the desert where I believe yours is not. (Please see the articles on the difference between an experience of the desert and a desert experience.) Further, because the heart of eremitical solitude is union with God, the silence of solitude reflects both the environment and goal of the hermit's life where yours, it seems to me, represents either a respite from these or something which MAY contribute to them some but without being them.

The Total Demand of Eremitical Solitude

In reflecting on this notion of "part-time hermits" or of folks' inability to see the difference between a life of solitude and occasional periods of physical solitude I am reminded of a couple of passages from a Carthusian monk's notes for a conference given to new postulants and novices. Dom Joseph wrote: Many "try" solitude and come away in raptures. But they have never really experienced its total demand on human nature; whilst they were in cell, they knew that at the weekend they would be back home at the sea-side. But solitude is far from romantic.

After thinking of the applicants who had left, often during their first night in cell, Dom Joseph continued: Before entering, the postulant dreamed of closing his door upon himself and calling to Jesus the Beloved, but he did not dream that it would be a desperate cry for help. That is, the only prayer he now knows. It is just, "Jesus mercy, Jesus help" all day long. All his pretensions, all his confidence in self, all his assurance that he was strong enough for solitude, have gone long ago. MacGuire, Nancy, An Infinity of Little Hours (p 74)

It is the notion of total demand on one's human nature and the way one is cast upon God in complete dependence which defines the seriousness of a life commitment to "the silence of solitude." It also explains in part the reason that discernment can only occur over time frames which are ordinarily longer than those required by other vocations to consecrated life. When a hermit is canonically professed, for instance, the Bishop asks a series of questions regarding her readiness to make the necessary commitments in preparation for accepting the hermit's vows. He asks publicly if she is resolved to "give (her)self to God alone, in solitude and silence, in persevering prayer and willing penance, in humble labor and holiness of life". To be honest, I don't see how a person can answer such questions in an informed or affirmative way without an existential background in their meaning. This raises several points pertinent to your comments: 1) the Church understands the eremitical vocation as a serious and full-time proposition, 2) one must know that eremitical solitude is a LIFE call, not a transitional or therapeutic period leading to something else --- significant as these may be, and 3) the ability to say yes to such questions, to make a life commitment to them and to God in this way, requires one experience them over a significant period of time prior to such a commitment.

In other words, one needs to know the experience that Dom Joseph describes in his conference notes first hand, and I honestly don't think that spending two days a week in solitude allows for this. There is simply something different in an experience of solitude where one's time there is not going to end in a day or two, a month or two (or even in a year or two!), where the wrestling one does with one's own incapacity is not something one has the resources to end or resolve of oneself, where distractions are, in the main, something one is obligated by choice and by vow to avoid while one faces full on the things which cause us all to turn to distractions in the first place. There is a vast difference between solitude as respite and solitude as a committed way of intense encounter and life. We all know how different a difficult experience is when one can see a light at the end of the tunnel from an experience where there is no light, no real end in sight.

Tedium, Boredom, and Doing Battle with Personal Demons

Now, obviously I don't experience solitude as generally miserable or as bleak as all that (at least I hope it is obvious from this blog!), but rather as amazingly compelling and humanizing in its communion. It is ordinarily a source of joy in God. However, neither do I want to sugar coat the nature or difficulties of eremitical solitude. Even when one is sure that solitude herself has opened the door to the hermit and that the silence of solitude represents a life vocation, this does not mean that one's experience in cell is unending bliss. Prayer may be a joy, but it is also demanding, intense, and challenging in ways love and any genuine commitment to another is always challenging.

Beyond this, the tedium of one's day to day schedule (horarium) in cell means that boredom can be a real problem as can fidelity be in such instances. Stability and one's commitment to it demands that one live through the difficulties, not avoid them with this distraction or that, this shift in place, activity, focus, or that. Despite common misunderstandings of solitary life in a hermitage, it is not an extended vacation, nor a time to simply kick back and do what one likes. It is often less about peace and quiet than it is about doing battle with personal demons. One experiences peace and is able to rest in Christ, but entrusting oneself to Him is also demanding and something which one must grow in one's ability to do. Eremitical solitude, as I have said several times now, is a vocation and a way of life which, when lived well, is a gift to Church and World. Lived badly it is more apt to be an instance of our culture's (or sin's) exaggerated selfishness and individualism.

The Bottom line Questions

My bottom line questions to you (or to myself, for that matter) are, "Is there a way you can say definitely and concretely that your own solitude is a gift to Church and world? Is it consistent with the tradition of eremitical solitude in either Western or Eastern Churches before and even while it varies in some way? Does it speak in some prophetic way to any particular segment of the population?" And finally, "is it something worthy of giving your very life for --- not just abstractly, but in terms of every minute, and hour, and day, and month, and year for the rest of your life?" My own answer to these questions is yes --- even when I live that answer badly at this point or that. It is this affirmative answer and all it implies that allows me not simply to succeed in living this solitude, but to renew my efforts when I have failed to live it well. I suspect this too is a very big difference between the solitude you describe and the solitude I call eremitical.