Does a Rule Have to be Perfect before Submission to One's Diocese?

[[Dear Sister,  I am wondering if my Rule has to be perfect before turning it into my diocese? You wrote about writing several different Rules over a period of time. Was part of the reason so the Rule could be better after several drafts? Do dioceses expect a hermit to write several Rules over time or do they expect a person to be able to write one immediately? Did your own diocese ask you to write several versions?]]

The Reasons for Writing Several Versions:

In suggesting a candidate for eremitical profession write several versions of a Rule over time I had several things in mind: 1) Dioceses use the hermit's Rule to discern the quality of the vocation standing in front of them. While I was fortunate in having a Vicar follow me and meet regularly with me over a five year period at other times chancery personnel had to depend more on what I had written and how well it reflected my own knowledge and experience of this vocation. I think this is not uncommon in dioceses. 2) besides aiding in discernment Rules written over a period of five to seven years can assist the candidate, diocese, and delegate or director in gauging the way formation is going. It is not so much that a candidate will write a better Rule as opposed to draft versions --- as though this is a literary exercise; instead it is that the candidate's understanding of the vocation will change and grow as will her prayer life and experience of living the canon and all of its elements.

With the requirement that a candidate write an experi-mental Rule that allows her to grapple with these things, and then in a couple of years that she write another one which will be considered less experimental and more truly binding the diocese should be able to discern actual unsuitability for the vocation. If the candidate is allowed to continue the process of discernment as she works on her own formation, then a couple of years later she may be ready for temporary profession. At that point I would expect the Rule she submits to need little change and be something she tweaks only as growth requires and as work with her director verifies. Finally, the hermit should write a Rule which becomes binding on the day of perpetual profession. Like the Rule submitted for temporary profession this one becomes binding in law but now perpetually. This is not to say it cannot be changed (one will continue to grow and mature in all of this) but besides discussion with one's director or delegate such changes would need to be approved by one's Bishop at this point.

3) the (proposed) "requirement" that one write several Rules over the first years of living the canon provides a kind of space where one can work out the ways each non-negotiable element of the canon is reflected in this particular life. For instance, most canon 603 hermits deal with silence and solitude in their early Rule but few that I have spoken to either did write about or were ready to write about  the silence OF solitude. As the vocation becomes more well known (though still not well-understood!) this situation will be exacerbated. Not only does one need to deal with the silence of solitude in a different way than one does external silence and physical solitude but the ability to do so is the result of eremitical experience one acquires only over a period of years. So, for instance, my original Rule wrote about the concrete practices assuring external silence and physical solitude but it took years before my Rule came to reflect my understanding of the silence of solitude as environment, goal, and finally, as unique gift or charism of solitary eremitical life lived under canon 603. It took time to come to understand the human person as a covenant reality and the silence of solitude as particularly antithetical to the individualism and isolationism which plagues contemporary society.

Similarly, when I first wrote a Rule I skipped over "stricter separation from the world." Not only did I not truly understand what was needed here but I also didn't trust the reality I thought this element of the canon demanded. I read "world" in a relatively unnuanced way and I read "separation" in terms of "turning one's back on" others. It took me several years --- in fact a number of years of prayer, reflection, and personal work before I came to understand how it is a hermit both lives FOR the world  God so loves even as she separates herself from and rejects significant dimensions of it. It took time to perceive what the vocation asked of me as a person and what that witnessed to; in other words it took me  a number of years to understand the unique generosity and hospitality of the eremitical vocation and how that contrasts with a dangerous enmeshment which is often seen as legitimate engagement. All of this impacts the way a Rule is formulated; it also will impact the way a diocese discerns this vocation and the authenticity of other vocations to solitary eremitical life.

This leads to a final reason for writing several Rules over time, namely 4) one is called to represent an ancient desert tradition present in Judaism and Christianity. (Obviously it is present in other faiths as well, but my concern here is with the specifically Judeo-Christian eremitical tradition.) This tradition is associated with the prophetic and counter cultural dimensions of both faiths and is consistently linked to the assumption of a new identity and maturity vis-a-vis God, God's People and God's future in and with regard to our world. While a Rule is meant to help one live one's own individual call it also is meant to reflect the continuity of one's life with the eremitical tradition. It takes time to appreciate this --- especially seeing the importance of modifying traditional expressions of eremitical life in the face of contemporary pastoral needs while maintaining significant continuity. Diocesan hermit Rules are approved with a Bishop's declaration of approval. This does not make them public documents but it does, I think, make them quasi public documents which can serve the Church, canonists, and other interested in canon 603 eremitical life. In other words, they have the potential to serve more than the individual hermit and her diocese.

Diocesan Expectations:

My own diocese did not expect me to write several versions of a Rule over time. They simply expected a Rule which was then submitted to canonists and the Bishop for approval. However, when I reapproached the diocese in @ 2003-2004, the first Rule I submitted was written around 1983-4 and, though approved by canonists, was no longer sufficient to reflect either the way I lived this vocation nor my growth in understanding and embracing it. A newer Rule written at this time was approved by my diocese and became my own proper law on the day of my perpetual profession. In 2010-11 I revised it and I suppose in time I may do so again as my own prayer life develops and other priorities change or shift around a bit.

I do hope that dioceses will see the potential of using the Rules individuals write to aid the processes of discernment and supervising of formation along with determining readiness for temporary or perpetual profession, but I don't know if any have adopted this approach. One diocesan Bishop gave a hermit candidate in his diocese a Rule which I am told she was then free to revise and modify under supervision. I suspect we are on the same track here --- so long as the Bishop's version really was a starting point the hermit was free to work with and revise over time. I believe that to the extent a diocese really understands what it takes to write a livable Rule which reflects a healthy and meaningful eremitical life they will not expect a candidate to be able to write one straight away nor will they dismiss a candidate simply because they are initially unable.

However, it is also the case that dioceses and curial staff do not have experience with writing Rules. Since it is the one tangible element of the canon they might well ask the candidate to write one prematurely or fail to understand the reasons it may take several attempts to write an adequate one. Both the candidate and the diocesan staff need to understand that to some extent one writes to learn and grow. The diocese that does approach the requirement that the hermit write her own Rule in this positive and dynamic way is apt to have good experiences with hermits eventually making perpetual profession and consecration. You yourself can assist a diocese in coming to see the importance of the Rule and of several different versions over time.

Rule as Law and Gospel Vision:

The hermit's Rule will be her own proper law, similar to the Constitutions and Statutes for religious living in community, and this is certainly an important function all by itself. However, historically Rules have had more than this function. They have often served to provide a vision of the life being lived and enough of a sense of the values being embodied to inspire the person to live the Rule as law. In other words a Rule can be a specific picture of Gospel living which captures one's imagination and reflects what it means to live as Christ in this specific context.

Most Rules regarding canon 603 begin with the terms of the canon and outline concrete ways in which those essential elements are to be lived out. At some point, however, hermits tend to find a list of do's and don't's, shall's and shall not's is simply insufficient to help them live eremitical life with real integrity. Either they will construct another document which serves to summarize the theology they live out and that helps inspire them to do so, or they will write their Rule or Plan of Life with this focus and include the concrete practices which are part and parcel of honoring such a vision. In either case the hermit will typically rewrite her Rule at various points along the course of her life. In the period sometimes referred to as "initial formation" this practice is a major help to the hermit and those discerning and supervising her vocation.

Your own Rule does not need to be perfect --- though to be honest,  I am not sure I even know what that means! It needs to reflect the life you are living and convey something of your vision of eremitical life and reasons for embracing it. It should include your current understanding of the central elements of the canon, the vows, and the significance of this life in the life of the Church. Eventually you will come to see, understand, and feel responsible for these things even more profoundly and extensively than you do currently and at that point you may need to rewrite your Rule. For instance, I came to understand the silence of solitude as the charism of solitary eremitical life which the hermit brings both our Church and world. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit our world in particular cries out for just as it is something the Church's own kerygma (proclamation) reflects and the eremitical life mediates in an especially vivid way. None of this was present in my first (1985) Rule but I could not live the life without it today. It gives coherence and significance to external practices in the hermit's life and anchors them deeply in both eremitical tradition and contemporary pastoral necessity. It is the central transfiguring reality which allows me to be a hermit rather than merely an isolated and relatively pious person.

On Stricter Separation From the World

[[Dear Sister Laurel, does the phrase "stricter separation from the world" mean something stricter than the Gospel counsel to be in the world but not of it? You write that it means separation from those things which are resistant to Christ but aren't all Christians called to this? Is the key word in this phrase, "stricter"?  To me the phrase sounds negative and kind of "world hating"; is the purpose a negative one --- like to keep one away from things that might contaminate one?]]

Thanks for the questions. I have written about some of this before under the label "Stricter Separation from the Word" but especially in the pieces on "spiritualizing stricter separation from the world" (cf On Spiritualizing Stricter Separation and More on Stricter Separation and The Purpose of Stricter Separation.  In each of those I think I make clear that the withdrawal or separation that hermits are called to differs from that of other Christians and also other Religious. The term stricter is therefore a key word, yes but perhaps not the key word. Still it does indicate a true withdrawal, not a merely spiritualized one like that incumbent on all Christians called to secular vocations (vocations in the ordinary world of economics, politics, power or influence, and relationships). It involves not just withdrawal from the things which are resistant to Christ, but also withdrawal even from many of the very good things of creation (both Divine and human)  most Christians find inspiring or sacramental.


There are negative reasons for stricter separation, yes, but in general it allows for a focused commitment to the search or quest for God and all that comes from such a quest. A second positive reason is that it allows us to see the larger world of creation with new eyes, eyes that can recognize the truly sacred and hearts that can honor that. A third is that it allows us to see ourselves apart from all the hype, all the definitions and props supplied by the world around us. The separation that seems so negative serves more positive goals. So, while it is important to draw away from the perspectives which distort a truly Christian view of reality, and while it is especially important to draw away from those things which eventually affect our commitment to Christ and may lead to outright sin --- which I guess might be spoken of in terms of keeping away from things that contaminate --- the more important reason is entirely positive: namely, to seek God and to find our truest selves at the same time. Again, please check the articles linked above.

[[Are diocesan hermits considered cloistered? ]]

Great question. I don't think I have been asked this before. I have referred to the diocesan hermit living a kind of functional enclosure; by this I meant that even the hermit who allows clients or occasional visitors in the hermitage tend to have a private prayer space which is not really open to others. I also meant, however, that there is a wider sense of being separated from others, from certain activities, kinds of media, and so forth which create an enclosed space that functions like the material enclosure of a monastery with its wall, grills or signs marking cloister or saying, "private" along with the restrictions written into the community's statutes. Some speak of cloister in terms of papal cloister or other forms of formal cloister marked and governed by canon and proper law, etc. In these senses diocesan hermit have not ordinarily been considered to be cloistered.

However, at this point I think we have to say that diocesan hermits are called, by the very terms of canon 603, to a form of cloister or enclosure. I say this because both stricter separation from the world and the physical silence of the life mark off very real dimensions of enclosure. Silence, for instance, has always been seen as the more personal level of enclosure within the physical (material) cloister marked by walls and grills. Similarly, I am reminded of a comment by Dom Jean LeClercq ** which noted that enclosure could be ensured not only by wall and grill, but by a simple row of stones used by someone like Charles de Foucauld or "even by a simple agreement". There is no doubt that canon 603 calls for stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, and the silence of solitude all lived according to an approved Rule under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop. This certainly sounds like a form of enclosure or cloister to me, especially given the fact that it is governed by approved proper law (the hermit's Rule) and overseen by legitimate superiors.

Of course this is not strict or papal enclosure. As in institutes of religious life who, according to c 667.1, are required to adopt cloister to the character and mission of the institute, a canonical hermit is both obliged to enclosure and free to discern the degree of time and activity outside the hermitage which is required by daily needs (doctor's appointments, shopping, Mass, etc.), though one does so within the limits and values codified in one's Rule and sometimes in collaboration with one's director or delegate. One does not usually need specific permission to leave the hermitage nor to have occasional visitors as guests. Still, the pattern of these mitigations or exceptions will be examined and discussed with one's delegate, and perhaps one's bishop, to see how well they contribute to or detract from the hermit's need for and commitment to silence, solitude, privacy, etc., as well as providing for necessary community and hospitality. I think we have to think of the diocesan hermit as bound by a form of cloister or enclosure whether we call it "functional", "eremitical," and so forth. Whatever we choose to call it we need to see it is both recognizable and real; it is also, to the degree specified in the hermit's proper law and c. 667, a juridical matter.

** LeClercq, Jean, Contemplative Life, "Separation From the World" Cistercian Studies 19, p 35

A Few Thoughts on Custody of the Eyes

[[Hello Sister Laurel, Thank you for putting up the piece about the new movie. Custody of the eyes is not a phrase we hear much about today. When I looked it up I found a reference to "10 reasons men should always practice custody of the eyes" and some forum posts talking about avoiding lust, but why would cloistered nuns be practicing custody of the eyes so much to name a film about it? I mean is it really that central to life in a cloister? What am I missing?]]

Hi there and thanks for the questions. I agree that custody of the eyes is kind of an old-fashioned term and not one we use or, for that matter, practice much today, but in a congregation such as the Poor Clares or the Trappistines, for instance, it is a significant value which has a good deal less to do with avoiding lustful feelings and more with protecting the privacy, and more, the silence of solitude of one's Sisters and of the house more generally. Interestingly, custody of the eyes is meant to be combined with a genuine sensitivity to the needs of one's Sisters (or others more generally); for instance, one is expected to be aware if someone needs something at table and offer it, or to do something similar in work situations with tools and materials being used, so custody of the eyes does not mean closing oneself off to others, cultivating general unawareness, isolation, or anything similar. I think custody understood in this more balanced way is one of those values we ought all to cultivate as appropriate to our own states of life. It seems to me in some ways it is a vital practice our own technological and media-driven world really needs.

In last Friday's Gospel lection we heard the Matthean observation that the eye is the lamp of the body. In Matthew a good eye is a generous one; a bad or evil eye is the opposite. Additionally, one of the meanings of Matt's observation is that what we look on changes us and can be a source of light or (increasing) darkness. This can occur in many ways. We read classic works of literature or contemporary books that enlighten and shape us. We do the same with art and media of all sorts. Unfortunately, this may involve "literature" which demeans the human person, or it may involve visual input that does not even pretend to be art --- and rightly so. More commonly for most of us, it involves commercials or TV programs which objectify us, make a parody of and trivialize our lives even as they presume to tell us who we are, what we desire, and need, what we ought to value, buy, otherwise spend resources on, and so forth. Custody of the eyes in this kind of thing means allowing God to shape us and show us who we are and what we really need. It means refusing to allow others to define us or our own hearts especially. Custody of the eyes is a necessary element in being our (and God's!) own persons.

On the other hand, what we look on, that is, what we choose to look on and the way in which we do so speaks about our hearts; that is, it reflects either the light or the darknesses of our own hearts. Here is where generosity or its opposite become critical. We see this when we look on another person and judge them on the basis of appearances, or otherwise jump to conclusions on the basis of past hurts; but we also see it when we allow our compassion to perceive a person as God's own precious one who is really very like us, when we look with awe at the beauty which surrounds us or find beauty in the simplest thing rather than with the vision of someone who is bored and jaded and incapable of being truly surprised, and so forth. Custody of the eyes has as much to do with truly allowing the eyes to be the lamp of the whole person as with simply avoiding lust or lasciviousness.

Custody of the eyes allows a person to attend to their own hearts without constantly being distracted by the activity and sights around them. Especially, as it does this, it assists us in becoming people who see things truly, that is, who see things as God sees them. Moreover, it provides space and the gift of privacy for others with whom one lives; especially it provides for the communion we call "the silence of solitude" in which they too are seeking to dwell so that they too may be persons who see as God sees. Custody of the eyes intends our living with focus; it fosters the containment and denial of the incessant voice of curiosity and even prurience that has been intensified with the computer and social media environment and assists in following through on a project without getting distracted. (N.B., even the monastic cowl or cuculla ("hood") helps us maintain custody of the eyes and appropriate focus.) Thus, I think, the practice of custody of the eyes is rooted in a true reverence for others and for ourselves even as it helps create an environment where others may experience the same.

In a cloister or a lavra, for instance, silence does not cut us off from others or the demands of love. It is not a neutral reality but one that is carefully cultivated and allowed to flourish in love for the others who are also seeking God just as we are. It enfolds us each and joins us together in a supremely respectful embrace which is deeper than any word. It is a gift we offer one another. Custody of the eyes serves similarly and seems to me to be a piece of the monastic and eremitical values of stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude especially. It too is ordered toward loving others and providing the gifts of space and privacy in which they may seek and commune with God while at the same time making sure they are profoundly supported in this.

Brainstorming: Sabbath Rest and Stricter Separation From the World, etc.

In the last couple of weeks I have done more thinking than I have ever done in the past on the Sabbath. Now that is embarrassing to admit. How could someone do theology and miss focusing on Sabbath? It also means though that this post is more a matter of initial  and somewhat chaotic brainstorming than finished post. There are several threads below that I am hoping to flesh out in more concrete and helpful ways.

As part of my reflection on last Friday's first reading from Hebrews I was moved by Walter Brueggemann's book, Sabbath as Resistance, and as a result have moved on to Elton Fishbane's, The Sabbath Soul: Mystical Reflections on the Transformative Power of Holy Time. What struck me most last week was how far from the real understanding and practice of Sabbath we have come. It is remarkable and tragic how easily we have transformed it into a time which has nothing to do with God, our deepest selves, or with genuine rest and even more remarkable how little we tend to understand what it even means to truly rest. I was especially struck by how similar Sabbath rest is to many dimensions of the requirement of canon 603 (or monastic and eremitical life generally) described as, "stricter separation from the world," and how truly prophetic the Sabbath actually is.

One of the most unfortunate terms that comes up in monastic literature is "contemptus mundi" (hatred of the world) or, similarly, "fuga mundi" (the imperative that we flee the world) and in canon 603 there is another form of the same demand, "arctiore a mundo secessu" (a stricter, closer, tighter, or more narrow separation from the world) in canon 603. In Scripture we know that the term "the world" has several meanings and that in its negative sense it means that which is resistant to Christ. In it's more ambiguous sense it means the world around us that is not completely as God created it to be but is still essentially good. We are generally called to be in the world but not of it and we are called to this relative separation so that we might actually help in the transformation of the "ambiguous world" into one where God is all in all. What fuga mundi and related terms NEVER mean, is the wholesale rejection of material reality. Neither is it the rejection of all reality outside the monastery or hermitage. Instead it is primarily a state of heart and mind brought about when we rest in God. That requires some physical separation, of course, but I am convinced that monastic literature would be more helpful to many if we understood that "separation from the world" is better expressed as a form or variation on "Sabbath observance" or "Sabbath rest."

It may surprise us that one of the most significant ways in which we achieve this "flight" or "live in the world without being of it" is to learn to rest. Dependence upon God means learning to rest in faith -- that is, rest in the trust we have for God and God's sovereignty. Renunciation of the driven, sometimes frantic attempts to secure ourselves whether in work, investing, overscheduled and addictive behaviors of all sorts, etc, is really a commitment to rest, to stop, to step back, make a clear break with so much of the dominant culture and adopt a different rhythm in our lives. It also means a commitment to ground our lives on the rock of God's love and mercy rather than on the shifting sands of our own unceasing and futile efforts to bring meaning to those same lives.

The attitude of one who has learned to do this efectively is identified in today's readings as being hope-filled. The certainty of hope is rooted in the certainty of God's faithfulness and in our trust in that. The restfulness of hope is similarly grounded and depends on similar renunciations. Learning to really rest, to stop and let God be God will involve all the kinds of weaning, unlearning, and "detoxification" that addictions demand. After all, we know how to do and do and do; we think we know how to BE --- if being is defined in terms of doing. Even prayer is too-often seen as something we do rather than as something we allow God to do within us while all-too-often spirituality is a matter of struggling to "climb" or "achieve", etc. Sabbath is profoundly prayerful and certainly leads to spiritual growth but it does so by resting in the God who makes all things holy.

 We find ourselves in a culture that does not know how to truly rest or celebrate Sabbath. There is nothing simple either about how we have come to this essentially "Sabbathless" place in our culture or, should we choose to make the journey, in our way from non-observance to observance. As I think about either dynamic they seem almost overwhelming in their complexity and difficulty. Especially I wonder how do we move from being persons who do not even know what Sabbath and Sabbath observance are to being persons who understand in the depths of our souls the profound light and joy of these realities? Still, Christians struggle to find effective ways to proclaim the Good News to the world and to do so with our lives. How powerful it would be, and how tremendously countercultural and authentically prophetic if we each and all of us undertook to do what we are legitimately expected to do as a sign of our baptismal consecration, our freedom in Christ --- our covenant existence with God (Exodus 30) --- and simply rested in all the ways Sabbath observance calls us to!

Followup on the Prayer Lives of Hermits

Dear Sister Laurel, I wanted to thank you for what you wrote about the prayer lives of hermits. As someone trying to become a lay hermit and write my own Rule I found your recent post on this very helpful. I have also been led to look at what you have written about "stricter separation from the world" by your comments on using pious practices to cover over what is really worldliness: 

[[One journals and talks with her director to see if she might be using one form of prayer to avoid something else --- that profound listening that requires one be in touch with her deepest heart, for instance, or monastic leisure and letting go of the need to "produce" or do rather than be. These latter difficulties are or can be reflections of the worldliness that follows us into the hermitage so we must not simply slap a pious practice over it and think we have "left the world" or begun to truly pray as a hermit in so doing. (It is the case that even certain practices in prayer, certain affectations or attachments may be more worldly than not.)]]

I have always thought that any prayer is a way of combating worldliness but I guess in the contemplative life that really may not be so. Can you please say more about this? Thank you.]]

Yes, when I wrote that I was thinking of, several things. First, and most incidentally or tangentially, there was a phrase I personally hate, namely that of "prayer warrior." So let me dispense with this piece of things before moving on to my more central concerns. Often I have seen the all-too-human desires for control, power, or fear translated into prayer-as-weapon. The idea of storming heaven with our prayers causes me to cringe because when you scratch the pious veneer off of the practice there is an idea of controlling God, getting God to take notice, a desire to recruit God to "our" side of some belligerence, etc. This is all very far removed from the contemplative prayer of hermits or a love that makes whole, for instance, and while I believe we all ought to lend our hearts and minds in support of the concerns and needs of our brothers and sisters (which is what intercessory prayer allows), I don't think any genuine prayer can be about getting God's attention (which does not mean we should not pour out our profound sense of need!!), attempting to control God, convincing God with our needs, bargaining, etc. I do think that this tendency in our prayer can be considered a form of worldliness and needs to be relinquished or otherwise outgrown.

The same is true of the second issue I had in mind, namely, treating prayer as a busy-making, productive activity in a world which is all about doing, making, producing and never enough about truly being, much less being truly ourselves and resting in God! If prayer is conceived of as a pious undertaking of our own doing, even if it involves pleading on behalf of others, we may well simply be perpetuating a very worldly pattern of self-assertion and the inability or even outright refusal to listen. I think it is essential to pour out our hearts to God, that is, to open every concern to Him and allow him to touch, hallow, and make that same heart one. Likewise I believe that in pouring out our hearts we mediate God's love to those we carry in those same hearts. Even so, we can do this in silence trusting that God will find his way into all of the nooks and crannies of our hearts, that he will move us to pour ourselves out to him, and that generally all we can provide (which we still do by God's grace) is our permission in what is really God's own work and movement. To treat prayer otherwise may be to perpetuate a worldliness that resists such utter dependence, is allergic to silence, and seeks to make prayer a work we succeed (or at least attempt to succeed) at ourselves.

A third thing I was thinking of when I made that comment was the tendency I sometimes see in those who would be hermits. Too often isolation and eccentricity are "baptized" by these folks with the title "hermit." Instead of working on the personal changes that need to be made so that one may overcome continuing occasions of alienation and rejection, these are "consecrated" with the notion that God desires these things or even that he causes or accomplishes them in one's life. But individualism, avoidance of conversion, and self-justification are pretty worldly attitudes and behaviors and to affirm that God desires (or even causes) their exacerbation rather than their healing and redemption in the name of mysticism, eremitism, or a "victim soul spirituality" is to slap a pious label on something which is worldly in the most destructive way. Self-described hermits may really be more about this kind of worldliness than they are about eremitical solitude --- which is being alone with God for the sake of others. It is ironic that the eremitical life as the Church understands it is NOT a good solution (much less vocation!) for those who refuse to be related to others. Because eremitical solitude is partly about loving others IN God (it is first of all about dwelling in God for God's own sake), isolation and a failure to love in concrete ways are actually antithetical to eremitical solitude.

Finally, I was thinking of those who pretend to be mystics or contemplatives. This can happen for many reasons but whether it occurs because this is thought to be a "higher" form of prayer, or because it allows them to opt out of the demanding commission given to every Christian to help build the Kingdom and participate in some integral way in the Body of Christ, it is worldly. If it occurs because it saves them from the everyday toil of maturing spiritually (humanly) or  learning to pray and to allow God to work in and with one, or because pseudo-mystical experiences are distracting from the pain of loss, rejection, alienation, illness, etc, or simply because they make the person feel special and loved (which, when authentic, of course these can and do, but in a way which produces incredible  fruit for others) --- these (inauthentic experiences) too are simply entirely worldly ways of living over which pious labels or activities have been plastered. Especially in contemplative life (and particularly when this is marked by mystical prayer) one must learn to really pray, learn to genuinely and wholly give oneself over to God in true humility. During this process one will experience tedium, boredom, a sense that one is getting nowhere in prayer, etc. In such instances to go back to an earlier form of prayer which was exciting or fulfilling in an attempt to avoid the difficulties of the present stage of growth is another version of a worldliness which eschews dependence on God, powerlessness, darkness or a lack of understanding and control, and certainly boredom or tedium of any sort.

It is simply all-too-easy to carry over attitudes and ways of approaching reality which are indeed worldly into our prayer -- and to do so in ways which are meant to protect these. Attempts to impress, to show only our best selves, to stand on our own merits, to succeed, to speak eloquently (when we ought to listen) or not at all (when we are called to speak up!), to create a prayer-as-achievement or settle for prayer experiences rather than to be a prayer, to be distracted from pain or to embrace an irresponsible quietism, to justify a refusal to be well (or to work toward wellness) by choosing isolation in the name of victimhood  or eremitical life, to mask anger and bitterness (especially at God!) under a layer of the language and thought of pseudo mystical misery and a distorted theology of suffering --- all of these and many more can be ways of what I described as trying to [[slap a pious practice over [something which is really worldly] and think we have "left the world" or begun to truly pray as a hermit in so doing.]] 

As I have written before, one of the really critical mistakes beginning hermits make is to believe they leave "the world" simply by shutting the door of their hermitage on everything outside it.  That simply makes of the hermitage a particularly dishonest (or deluded) outpost of the world one is seeking to redeem. But to really leave "the world" behind means to leave those attitudes and behaviors which are so much a part of the way we have been acculturated to think, perceive, and judge while we allow our hearts and minds to be entirely remade by God. When this happens, the hermitage becomes what one friend reminded me it should be, namely, a place where the cries and anguish of the world are truly heard --- and, I would add, where they are taken up into the very heart of God through the hermit's heart at prayer.

As a kind of postscript, please remember a couple of the things Merton says about "the world" and the danger of hypostasizing it. I have cited these before: "The way to find the real 'world' is not merely to measure and observe what is outside us, but to discover our own inner ground. For that is where the world is, first of all: in my deepest self.. . . This 'ground', this 'world' where I am mysteriously present at once to my own self and to the freedoms of all other men, is not a visible, objective and determined structure with fixed laws and demands. It is a living and self-creating mystery of which I am myself a part, to which I am myself my own unique door. When I find the world in my own ground, it is impossible for me to be alienated by it. . ." (The Inner Ground of Love)

"There remains a profound wisdom in the traditional Christian approach to the world as an object of choice. But we have to admit that the mechanical and habitual compulsions of a certain limited type of Christian thought have falsified the true value-perspective in which the world can be discovered and chosen as it is. To treat the world merely as an agglomeration of material goods and objects outside ourselves, and to reject these goods and objects in order to seek others which are "interior" or "spiritual" is in fact to miss the whole point of the challenging confrontation of the world and Christ. Do we really choose between the world and Christ as between two conflicting realities absolutely opposed? Or do we choose Christ by choosing the world as it really is in him, that is to say, redeemed by him, and encountered in the ground of our own personal freedom and love?" (The Inner Ground of Love, Emphasis added)

Followup on Hermits and Home Visits (Critical questions)

[[Dear Sr,  How can it be edifying to your family if they are not Catholic if you are unfaithful to your Rule during home visits?? Its not that I think you shouldn't see your  family sometimes but I don't think the Carthusians get to go home for visits. They are the real deal. Can't your family visit you where you are?. . . I guess I wonder why do hermits need to go away to visit family and friends anyway?. . . You are vowed to a life of constant prayer and penance like the Carthusians.. . . And what about stricter separation from the world??]]

Wow, where to begin? I am not going to answer every specific question but I will give you enough to draw sound conclusions about where I stand on these things. Thus, I guess the place to start is with a post I put up about hermits and "vacations." That can be found here: Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Hermits and Vacations but what is most important about it is probably a text taken from Cassian's Conferences which demonstrates both that there is nothing new in your own objections nor anything novel in my own need for (or practice of) time away from the hermitage and its stricter rhythms. As I cited there:

[[IT is said that the blessed John, while he was gently stroking a partridge with his hands suddenly saw a philosopher approaching him in the garb of a hunter, who was astonished that a man of so great fame and reputation should demean himself to such paltry and trivial amusements, and said: "Can you be that John, whose great and famous reputation attracted me also with the greatest desire for your acquaintance? Why then do you occupy yourself with such poor amusements?" To whom the blessed John replied: "What is it," said he, "that you are carrying in your hand?" The other replied: "a bow. "And why," said he, "do you not always carry it everywhere bent?" To whom the other replied: "It would not do, for the force of its stiffness would be relaxed by its being continually bent, and it would be lessened and destroyed, and when the time came for it to send stouter arrows after some beast, its stiffness would be lost by the excessive and continuous strain. and it would be impossible for the more powerful bolts to be shot." "And, my lad," said the blessed John, "do not let this slight and short relaxation of my mind disturb you, as unless it sometimes relieved and relaxed the rigour of its purpose by some recreation, the spirit would lose its spring owing to the unbroken strain, and would be unable when need required, implicitly to follow what was right."]] John Cassian, Conferences. Conference of Abbot Abraham, chapter XXI, but cf. chapter XX of the same book which is also very helpful in this matter.

While it is true that John was speaking of a very brief time away from his eremitical discipline (if, indeed, this was even considered time away; he seems simply to have been taking a quiet moment like I might with my cat) he raises the question of a hermit determining what is necessary for her to remain in good shape in terms of this very discipline. (The story would be equally effective if used to illustrate the principle of judging from exterior appearances.) Remember that eremitical life is intense and focused on growing in authentic holiness. Much of a day is spent in prayer and penance and that often means in doing battle with the demons of one's own heart. In other words personal growth work is demanding and tiring. One cannot keep focused on it without these kinds of breaks or changes in one's focus. Beyond this, eremitical life demands hospitality and often this ministry to others takes a form in which they are loved as they need to be loved. In my own life this ordinarily takes the form of spiritual direction. This too is intense --- though it is usually as nourishing as it is challenging. Still, every truly spiritual life demands what is often called "holy leisure"  or it really will cease to be capable of perceiving or responding adequately to its source.

After all, we are each called to discern what the Holy Spirit calls us to in changing circumstances and fresh situations. A Rule is immensely helpful in this,  but in my opinion, it really cannot spell everything out. Instead it often serves a person more like a banister on a stairway ---  helpful when the climb gets tiring or too steep, protecting us and keeping us from stepping off the treads or falling, and giving us something to hold onto as we move forward in the darkness of night, but it is not the stairway itself.  I do continue to live my Rule, or more accurately maybe, the eremitical life it defines on home visits or on visits with friends but the usual horarium is suspended.

What is Edifying to my Family and Friends?

To be very blunt, I don't think it would be at all "edifying" or upbuilding for members of my family to see me as a self-righteous prig who was incapable of loving, taking delight in them and time with them, or who is prevented from being able to be truly being present to them on a home visit. (Better one forego any visits than play the hermit during one.) For that matter I don't think my delegate, my pastor, other parishioners, the Vicar for Religious or my Bishop would find that particularly edifying either. I'm pretty sure God wouldn't care much for that arrangement! In a word, I find it offensive and pretentious. What you seem to me to be missing is that a home visit doesn't mean simply blowing off one's vocation or one's commitment to it. It means living it in different ways so the usual framework (banister or trellis) doesn't get in the way of those who want some significant share in the person WITH the vocation. In some ways I see my more usual schedule and eremitical praxis as preparing me for and being tested for its soundness by these moments, not preventing them.

Also, it is here the distinction between playing a role as a hermit and living an eremitical life becomes sharpest and most important. It is in these moments that I (and others) see most clearly the hermit I have become --- not because I do a lot of stereotypically "hermit things" or keep a detailed hermit schedule, but because at these times when the banister is removed  I live these days with the heart of a hermit for whom communion with God is an everyday reality and the silence of solitude brings something new and unexpected to my family and friends as well -- someone joyful, more whole and more loving, someone they could not have experienced in this way so clearly apart from her life as a hermit. To use another image, when a plant is given a trellis to help it grow straight and strong, removing the trellis --- at least temporarily --- can show us how strong the plant is becoming. More, it can subject the plant to new and necessary stresses and pressures which allow it to grow even stronger and more independent. Plants need this time just as they need the trellis. But most importantly these times can show us who the hermit really is and allow us each and all to take delight in one another and who God has made us.

I think it is THIS that will be edifying and even inspiring to my family (and friends) and this which will speak powerfully to them about the God I want them to know as I know him. (I accept that they know him in their own ways as well, by the way). I hope this makes some sense to you. You see, I am not trying to sell my family on eremitical life or even on the Catholic faith (though I would love for them to discover it as a way to Christ and abundant life for themselves); I want them to know the God who makes all things new and heals us of all brokenness and inhumanity. The only way that happens is by knowing the person I become in light of that God. THAT is what will be really edifying to them or to anyone.

On Carthusians, Camaldolese, and Stricter Separation from the World:

Carthusians are not the only species of the genus "hermit" to exist and I am not a Carthusian. I am Camaldolese in my spirituality and for that reason my life reflects (and I hope will do so more and more) the threefold good of Camaldolese life: solitude, community, and evangelization or martyrdom (witness). Each of these is a dimension of what is sometimes called "The Privilege of Love." All hermits who live the silence of solitude on a daily basis are the "real deal" and I would suggest that is something you need to get your mind and heart around despite your preferences for the form of eremitical life lived by the Carthusians.

Still, let me remind you, Carthusians, who are bound by cloister in ways diocesan hermits are not, have guest houses as part of their monastery and families may come there to stay to see their son/daughter or brother/sister (etc) 2 days per year. I don't have that kind of  accommodations available. Neither, unfortunately, do I see my family that often (though it would be entirely permitted). The real point however is that home visits or visits by one's family are allowed and universally seen as an important part of healthy eremitical life; they are important for the family as well. As noted above, hermitage life is not one of  "peace and quiet"  if by that one means a life where one simply kicks back and does nothing or is completely taken up with rest and recreational activities (again in the common sense of those terms).

Finally, regarding stricter separation from the world I would ask that you check the labels both below and to the right. I have written a good bit about this in the past and I am not going to repeat it here. The posts you are asking about also touched on this. I will point out that when I suggest a hermit (or anyone else) can structure home visits in a way which is best and most lifegiving for everyone that can be considered a form of "stricter separation" --- especially when "world" is seen in terms of that which is destructive, resistant to life and truth, etc. It is not its usual meaning but it comports with this nonetheless.

Why is it Diocesan Hermits can Wear Habits?

Sisters of Bethlehem (Not Canon 603)

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it consecrated hermits can wear habits?]]

Thanks for your question. There are several reasons which make it appropriate to allow publicly professed hermits to wear habits.  First, in light of canon 603 solitary canonical hermits are now seen as religious. In the Handbook on Canons 573-746 in the section on norms common to Institutes of Consecrated Life, canonist Ellen O'Hara, CSJ writes regarding canon 603 specifically, "The term "religious" now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relation to an institute." Thus, the same canonical obligations regarding garb witnessing to consecration and religious poverty can be applied to diocesan hermits. (Note well that in all of this I am referring to canon 603 and those who make public vows under that canon. Privately dedicated hermits are not included in Sister Ellen O'Hara's characterization above.)

Secondly, the eremitical life is traditionally associated with an eremitical or monastic habit. Ordinarily an elder hermit granted the habit to the novice; s/he also monitored the wearing of it as a piece of mentoring the novice in the eremitical life. If the novice lived the life well, the habit stayed; if the novice did not live the life well, permission to wear the habit was withdrawn and the habit was taken away. This use of specific religious garb is older than any other in the history of Christian religious or monastic life. Since, along with congregations of hermits like the Carthusians and Camaldolese, c 603 represents a public, ecclesial continuation of this tradition, the granting of the habit is entirely appropriate to diocesan hermits, despite the fact that they are solitary hermits. The Bishop replaces an elder hermit or mentor, however, in granting permission for and clothing with the habit.

Thirdly, the habit, today especially, marks the person wearing it as somehow "separated" from the world, not only in the sense of that which is resistant to Christ, but also to some extent from the world of social relationships and some related obligations. For instance, as I have noted before, vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience significantly qualify the ways in which the professed person relates to the world of commerce, relationships, and power. For hermits who are, in fact and by definition, more strictly separated from these than apostolic or ministerial religious, the habit can serve to remind her of this dimension of her vocation even when she is out and about. While it should not make her in any way remote or distant from those with whom she comes in contact, it signals a distinction which is not always appropriate in ministerial religious.

Permission to wear the habit, as noted above, is granted by the diocesan Bishop. Beyond this, it is customary (though not strictly required) that the hermit is clothed in a cowl or other prayer garment at perpetual profession. My own diocese required the latter (cowl or other prayer garment) and desired or were open to (but did not require) my wearing a habit. Still, some hermits may choose not to adopt these forms of garb and some dioceses may not require (or even be open to) either habit or prayer garment. Reasons vary. Some Bishops dislike allowing individuals who are not members of an institute of consecrated life to wear a habit (especially if the habit is typically Franciscan or Dominican or something similar --- a practice which cannot be allowed!); sometimes, however, this is a piece of legitimately discerning an authentic eremitical vocation (bishops or Vicars may say the diocese is not open to hermits wearing habits because sometimes folks who live alone merely want to wear a habit and are not really interested in the vocation itself or in living an authentic eremitical solitude). 

In all such cases there is really no need for a habit until one is professed; one will dress simply otherwise; neither is a habit necessary for discerning an eremitical vocation. At the same time, as noted, in some cases withholding the granting of the habit may be part of discerning and demonstrating a candidate is not really interested in or able to live an eremitical life per se. Some hermits accent the hiddeness of the vocation and see a habit as clashing with this dimension of the eremitical life. Others feel that wearing such garb is contrived or unnatural outside a monastic setting and are simply uncomfortable with it. When these things are true for the individual hermit, when, that is, they are positions she holds or agrees with, her own Rule (her own "proper law") will not support the wearing of a habit.

Still, hermits professed and consecrated under canon 603 are generally allowed to wear habits if and when their Bishops agree. (Again, such permission, which seems to be granted by the majority of bishops with c 603 hermits in their dioceses, is usually not granted apart from profession, especially if the hermit is out in public because, as I have noted before (something which could be called a fourth reason), habits are associated with the assumption of public rights and obligations of a particular state of life (Religious). A habit is unnecessary and superfluous apart from the assumption of such rights and obligations, or such a state; it is also misleading and dishonest. People rightly associate habits with the assumption of public rights and obligations and tailor their expectations accordingly, It is for this reason habits are not usually approved apart from admission to vows. The cowl, when given, is always linked to perpetual profession and not to temporary profession.

Responding to Questions Critical of the Sisters of the LCWR

[[Dear Sister, I have read your blog for some time and have admired a lot of what you have written. You pursue a hermit life of holiness and prayer in separation from the world but how can you speak of the Sisters of the LCWR and Network as though their lives are also about holiness and prayer? They are too immersed in the world. They are too involved in social justice. When the Church talks about "consecration" she means "set apart for God". These sisters are consecrated but who can tell? They don't dress like it, act like it, or live like it.]] (Redacted)

Thanks for your comments and questions. I assume these are in response to my post about Holiness as a Love that does Justice so I would prefer not to repeat what I already wrote there. Let me just say that the active, effective love of God that reconciles, heals, and therefore does justice (sets everything to rights) always spills over into ministry. Reconciliation is not only about our own souls, but about our entire lives, the lives of everyone around us, and in fact, our entire world. It always impels us to reach out to others and work for their own dignity and welfare, their own human wholeness and holiness. It compels us to work for the Kingdom of God --- that realm in which God is truly sovereign and so, that realm marked by a covenantal love that makes completely just. For a very very few of us that means a solitary life of prayer and penance, a life of the silence of solitude. We believe such a life signals to the whole church that there is a foundational relationship which is the source and ground of our lives, identities, and integrity. The very nature of human life is dialogical, and in fact, covenantal; hermits call attention in an especially vivid way to one dimension of this truth in particular.

But the rest of the Church calls attention to this truth in other ways, focusing on different facets of it. In Baptism all of us are consecrated into this truth and commissioned to discern how it is God calls us to make it real in our society and world. But note that consecration here has two interrelated senses. First it means set apart in and for holiness BY God --- for only God who is the Holy One consecrates. Secondly it means set apart for God, for his will, for all that he holds precious. For the majority of people this means vocations which are secular. As leaven in bread most express their consecration in the world. They do so in the world they are immersed in, the world of family, business, politics, economics, academia, etc. As Vatican II emphasized, ALL are called to an exhaustive holiness no matter the context of their lives and mission.

Men and Women Religious are also called to this SAME exhaustive holiness. However, their own call means letting go of various possibilities so that they may live out this call to holiness in a life which is more clearly countercultural and more explicitly set apart by and for God. Through their profession of the evangelical counsels they forego some ways of living which may mitigate or distort this countercultural stance. They do not build themselves into their worlds by having families, pursuing wealth, creating business empires, and the like. They live compassionate lives of prayer focused on their call to live a holiness where God's love does justice. These two dimensions of their lives allow them to address the world which God loves with an everlasting love with greater vision and generosity than THEY might otherwise be capable of --- NOT necessarily with greater generosity than others who are called to a different vocation are capable of. They are not, as you say, immersed in the world yet neither are they uninvolved in it nor ignorant or uncaring of it; neither are they called to live apart from it in the same way a hermit or cloistered religious is. They are called, again, to live countercultural lives which summon the world to become the Kingdom God wills it to be --- the Kingdom where the Divine completely interpenetrates reality and all of us live as brothers and sisters in God. Afterall, this incarnational way of working for the Kingdom is precisely the way Jesus lived it and summoned his disciples to do.

Remember that "separation from the world" can have a number of meanings and expressions. While some treat this term as meaning separation from anything except a convent, monastery, or hermitage environment and life, in canon law it means separation from that which is resistant to Christ and NOT from the whole of God's good creation. Given this latter sense women religious who live more radically countercultural lives rooted in prayer and commitment to a love that does justice can be said to be every bit as faithful to this element of their lives as anyone else. In fact, to the extent they really are grounded in the countercultural values and vision of Christ, they may be more sincerely faithful to it than the so-called hermit who closes the door of her hermitage out of selfishness or individualism and does whatever she wants, or the Sister who lives comfortably in her convent pursuing personal holiness but who cannot or will not muster the compassion or real concern she should have for those living in poverty and/or in separation from love that makes whole.

You complain that the Sisters whose congregations belong to the LCWR are too involved in social justice to the detriment of any personal pursuit of prayer and holiness. But remember that Jesus spoke often about things like feeding the poor, visiting prisoners, etc, and one of the Gospel counsels we have is, "Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do for/to me." Apart from what I have already mentioned above about commitment to a love that does justice and flows from personal holiness, what seems to be critical for the Sisters we have been speaking of is the reason they are engaged in social justice. Sister Simone Campbell, who was featured in the video I posted, once noted that early on in the days of the civil rights movement she scanned the room in which a lot of fellow demonstrators were clustered and realized that while they all agreed on the action taken, no one else there was there on behalf of the Gospel of Christ. The Sisters who are involved in social justice activities are involved not only because of a holiness which issues in a love that does justice, but precisely because they take the Gospel counsels seriously --- including the counsels about the poor and least. I would suggest to you that this may not be maintained UNLESS the person is deeply grounded in prayer.

The life of women and men religious is a large and vital reality. It is composed of many streams and tributaries. We mustn't make the mistake of identifying one stream or current as the sole representative of a religious life of holiness and prayer, nor one as the only cogent expression of separation from the world. At the same time we cannot draw an absolute dichotomy between social justice and concern with individual holiness and lives of prayer. To do so is to call Jesus and the Gospel of Jesus liars. I hope this answers most of your objections and questions. The question of garb is one I will write about separately if you don't mind.

"Hermits Living in the World" and other Confusions

[[(Culled from recent emails) Sister Laurel, wouldn't hermits living in the world also be called to a secular vocation then? As a diocesan hermit aren't you a secular hermit, then, a hermit "living in the world"? Should you be wearing a habit, using a title, etc?]]

Good questions. There is some fairly understandable but significant confusion regarding terms in these questions though, I think. First, a hermit is, by definition, one who lives in "stricter separation from the world." This is true whether the hermit is lay or consecrated, Religious (professed in community) or Diocesan (professed as solitary). If the person is truly a hermit they are, in an essential way, not living "in the world" even if their hermitage is located in the middle of San Francisco. Just as the silence a hermit is called to and which defines who she is is not merely or even primarily external silence, but instead an inner silence of solitude, so too is the hermit's separation from the world not merely a matter of external environment --- that is, it is not a matter of living in a monastery or not. Living in a monastery is only the most superficial or externally identifiable part of not "living in the world," and wherever a hermit is physically located she is meant to be "more strictly separated from the world" in those less superficial ways. Thus, where most disciples are called to be in the world but not of it, hermits, no matter where they live physically, are called to be neither "in the world" (in the theological and canonical senses of the term) nor of it. For diocesan hermits this is a central and non-negotiable element of the Canon defining and governing their lives.

"In the world" then, in the theological/canonical sense of the term (the sense which applies to both Canons 604 and 603), means that the world is one's normal sphere of living, activity, and ministry. This means that one works out one's salvation and serves to assist others to do the same in the secular arenas of family, business, politics, academia, economics, science, technology, industry, and even in more usual active ministry in the Church, etc. Thus, one living in the world generally does so without public vows of poverty, chastity and obedience because these, in some sense, establish a degree of separation from "the world," and the normal (and completely healthy) ways of relating to it. But none of this describes the hermit whose life is canonically defined as one of "stricter separation from the world." Thus, the term "hermit living in the world" is somewhat incoherent (i.e., it doesn't hold together or make sense as formulated).

Secondly, the term diocesan. Despite the valid and good analogy many CV's draw between themselves and diocesan priests, some of the same elements of comparison comprising the analogy are less than accurate or true with regard to Diocesan Hermits. When referring to C 603 hermits the term "diocesan" refers to a legal, not merely pastoral relationship with the diocesan Bishop. Diocesan hermits are not professed in institutes of any kind, and so are not legally bound there. Their public vows are made in the hands of the local Bishop and this means he is their legitimate superior, not merely their pastor. He supervises their lives and approves their Rules of Life and specific changes to these. He assigns or accepts a delegate (quasi superior) to meet regularly with the hermit between meetings with the Bishop. If such a hermit needs to leave the diocese, she requires the permission of Bishops on either end of the move --- unlike CV's, for instance, who may move wherever they will (a notification of the new Bishop is appropriate, of course, but they do not need his approval to move there and still be a Consecrated Virgin. It is not the case, despite comments I have read to the contrary, that CV's are tied canonically to a specific diocese or are in essentially the same positions as those incardinated as diocesan priests). Instead, CV's are initiated into a universal Order of Consecrated Virgins by their consecration. Canon 603 hermits are tied to their diocese legally unless and until another Bishop allows something akin to a monastic transfer of stability and accepts responsibility for them.)

Thus, in the life of Canon 603 hermits, the term "diocesan" which is now being applied so widely, is a legal and jurisdictional term; it does not refer to a specific kind of spirituality, or even necessarily to a particularly explicit commitment to the local Church (though I happen to strongly believe it should call for the presence of such), and it certainly is not used to indicate secularity in the same way the term "diocesan" serves to do for diocesan priests when it is used as a synonym for "secular" or "without religious vows". Thus, one should be careful when drawing parallels between those who are "diocesan." To extend these across the board --- especially into the affirmation of secularity --- will be seriously misleading.

As for the habit, use of title, etc, these serve to mark separation from the world as well as the hermit's public profession of the evangelical counsels and solemn consecration. Again, hermits are not called to be secular, and in A Handbook on Canons 573-746, Ellen O'Hara, CSJ writes regarding Canon 603 hermits, "the term "religious" now applies to individuals with no obligation to common or community life and no relationship to an institute." (p.55, "Norms Common to Institutes of Consecrated Life") Their public vows underscore this new and more qualified standing vis-a-vis the world. Thus, hermits are clothed in their habits and cowls (or other prayer garment) in part as symbols of their relation to the world: both more strictly separated from it than even most religious or monastics, and yet, initiated into this vocation for the praise of God and the salvation of the world as well.

If parts of this discussion are confusing remember that "the world" is a polyvalent symbol which refers to 1) God's good creation, 2) the world which is distorted by sin, and so, ambiguous, and 3) that which is resistant to Christ and not open to God's saving presence. Some sentences above may use more than one sense of the term in trying to describe the paradox and tensions involved. Again though, hermits are called to absolutely reject "the world" in the third sense (both outside and within themselves), to more strictly limit their contact with and participation in "the world" in the second sense (even from ministry, relationships, and other aspects which may be significantly good and graced), and quite often, to refuse themselves participation in some aspects of "the world" even in the first and completely positive or graced sense. This is not the picture of a secular life "lived in the world."

Secondly, remember that except in the case of priests the terms diocesan and secular are not necessarily synonyms. Neither, again except in the case of priests (especially given Ellen O'Hara's description of C 603 hermits which qualifies them as Religious), is religious the opposite of diocesan. Instead the opposite of diocesan is ordinarily universal or pontifical, while secular (i.e., pertaining to being in the world in an integral way) ordinarily contrasts with Religious (separated from or related to "the world" in a qualified way). Again, hermits may be lay or consecrated, Religious (in the strict sense of the term) or solitary and diocesan, but the notion of a secular hermit is an oxymoron.

More On Spiritualizing "Stricter Separation from the World"

In an earlier post (June 25,2011), I explained that I had not intended to spiritualize the essential element in Canon 603 known as "stricter separation from the world." In the first place I was trying to counter a rather common misconception in eremitical life, and especially the eremitical life of beginners, namely, that "the world" can be hypostatized or treated as a wholly separate reality external to the hermitage. When this occurs one hears hermits (or monastics more generally) speaking as though the hermitage or monastery is not an instance of the world, while condemning everything outside the cell, hermitage, or monastery as "worldly". We have all heard monastics say, "When I left the world" --- speaking about entering the monastery --- or, "Brother so and so has returned to the world" --- speaking about leaving monastic life, etc. Only when very carefully explained can these statements cease to mislead us into thinking of "out there" -- the everyday world -- as "the world."

But, in Scripture and in theological reflection on everyday spatio-temporal reality, "the world" is a polyvalent or tensive symbol --- a symbol which has several meanings which create tension between them --- which includes God's good creation as well as that which resists Christ. It also refers to the sinful human heart which is equally ambiguous. Because of this, the notion that one can simply close the monastery or hermitage door on "the world" is false, a distortion of reality, and in affirming this fundamental untruth one actually makes of the hermitage an outpost of that which is resistant to Christ. Because of this, I stressed that the term "Stricter separation from the world," as Canon 603 uses the term, was primarily about the state of the individual heart and its conversion, and only secondarily (though necessarily!) about physical separation from significant aspects of reality.

Abdicating our Responsibility to Discern the Incarnate God's Presence in Everyday Life

There were two other reasons I stressed the spiritual dimension of this term as well. Both are related to hypostatizing "the world" and treating it as "that which is outside the hermitage or monastery." In the first one, what we find is that when one forgets about the ambiguity of reality and embraces such an unnuanced perspective, one abdicates one's responsibility to discern what is of God and what is not. One rejects everything as "the world" in the pejorative sense of the term, (i.e., that which is resistant to Christ) when in fact much of what one is thus rejecting is good, beautiful, true, and more than capable of mediating God's presence and summoning to holiness. This affects the soundness of one's spirituality on every level. It fosters dangerous judgments about what is possible outside the monastery (for instance that holiness is not possible out in the everyday world, that lay life is an inferior form of vocation, that the ordinary affairs of people are necessarily distractions from genuinely spiritual life and divide the human heart, etc, etc).

It can lead to notions of contemplative life which are insensitive to and unappreciative of God's presence in significant ways; it can lead to notions of spirituality rooted in an anti-pleasure principle and overly dependent on pain and other forms of unpleasantness (if food is unpalatable eat it, if pleasant avoid it; if something is beautiful eschew it, if it is gratifying to the other senses, reject it, etc, etc). This all seems to me to be counter to the truth of the Incarnation: namely, that God comes to us in everyday reality and asks us to recognize and affirm him there rather than being scandalized by his presence in life's ordinariness.

The Parable of the Weeds and the Wheat Applied to this Situation

It also seems to me that Jesus' parable of the weeds and the wheat speaks to this situation very pointedly. We must not precipitously and simply attempt to pull up the weeds as though they are clearly evident and wholly separate from the wheat. In fact, this is simply not so, and we cannot see clearly enough to do this. Discernment and patience are necessary. We must live with ambiguity because otherwise we will certainly throw out some plants that actually witness to and mediate the presence of God to nourish us. More, we must allow God to clarify our own vision and hearts through all of this. Stricter physical separation from much of the ambiguity is necessary, but the hermit must always remember that "the world" Canon 603 inveighs against is a function first of all of the human heart, and it is this which is the source of our world's ambiguity.

Let me give one example of the way Jesus' parable might work with regard to conversation with others, for instance. I have spoken with a person who wishes to be a hermit who refuses to speak of anything but "spiritual matters" with those she meets. What qualifies as spiritual is God, Christ, the Saints, spiritual books (19th C or earlier --- nothing contemporary!), monastic values, etc. All other topics have been torn out at the roots, so to speak. The result, of course, is not only a loss of friends, but the very matter in and through which God reveals himself. Everything is abstracted from the concrete, and thus, rendered empty. For instance, while one can speak of love, hope, holiness, etc, one cannot speak of the nitty gritty situations, relationships, and daily struggles which give rise to these as concerns, questions, problems, etc.

Karl Barth once referred to religious discourse of this sort, especially in terms of preaching the Gospel without either listening or responding to the every day lives and questions of those to whom the preacher is speaking. It is akin to throwing a rock into a lake. It profoundly disturbs the surface of the pool and immediately sinks to the bottom; it makes ripples, the ripples spread, die away quickly, and everything is left as before --- except that now religion seems to be extraneous and even irrelevant to every day life while the Gospel is seen as incapable of speaking in an effective way to people who use non-religious language. But of course, this is what the incarnation never allows us to do. In Christ our God uses a new and scandalous form of discourse; he comes to us PERSONALLY in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. He comes to understand our situation intimately from the inside out and he redeems us in the same way. He loves, not abstractly, but concretely. The Word he speaks to us is his own self, but it addresses our deepest needs and desires, in whatever way and language we use to pose them. If we forget this, we may well forget ourselves to listen to the person's own spiritual language, classify it as "the world," and tear up the wheat along with the weeds, long before it is able to produce fruit. This is a serious problem with those who tend to hypostatize the term "the world" as this person does.

Abdicating our Responsibility to Speak Prophetically to our World by Hypostatizing "the World"

The second problem I wanted to deal with is intimately related to this. It had to do with the responsibility of the hermit to speak prophetically to the world outside the hermitage. While the prophet certainly summons to repentance, more fundamentally that repentance is a way of affirming the deeper truth and potential of reality. It is meant to recall the world which has moved from God, and therefore to fragmentation, incompleteness, and bondage,  and draw it into true freedom in God. The hermit separates herself from the world to some extent so that she may see it clearly, and address it honestly from a perspective of relative spiritual freedom from entanglements and enmeshment in that which is resistant to Christ or contrary to true dependence upon God. The desert is not so much a destination as it is a context which allows the hermit to achieve freedom and then to summon the rest of reality to the same freedom. Hermits journey for many years in the desert, but the purpose is not only the purification of the hermit's own heart, but a return in some appropriate way to that which was left behind so that it can be loved to wholeness and reminded of its truest destiny.

When the hermit hypostatizes the world so that everything outside the hermitage is treated as though it is sinful, false, distorted, and estranged from God without also being ambiguous and so, true, beautiful, valuable, and capable of mediating God's very self to us, there ceases to be any reason to return to that world with the message of the Kingdom. We are unable to return to the world with the Gospel message and a purified heart which allows us to call the world to fulfillment not only because we treated "the world" as that which was outside us, but because we refused to see its potentialities --- the fact that it is ALSO God's good creation meant to be reconciled and brought to fulfillment as the new heaven and earth spoken of in Scripture.

The hermit does not turn her back on "the world." She attends to "the world" with and in the love of God, first as she discovers that love in the conflicted and fragmented space of her own heart, her own personal center, and then, by finding ways to address "the world" as it exists outside of herself with the hope she comes to know and embody in the silence of solitude. She learns to see what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, what is holy in everyday reality. She learns to see not only the distortion and untruth but also the potential hidden in that reality just as she learned to discern and accept the distortions and potential in her own heart. In so doing, God is allowed to bring reality to perfection and fullness.

So, again, I had no intention of spiritualizing c 603's requirement of stricter separation from the world. Physical separation is essential, but again it is meant to serve what is primary: the personal healing and sanctification of the hermit's own self, a freeing from enmeshment in "the world" precisely so she may serve reality in sympathetic detachment and prophetic presence. Once again, many thanks to the diocesan hermit/friend who raised the question!

On Spiritualizing "Stricter Separation From the World"

I received the following excellent comments from a friend and diocesan hermit about something I wrote on "stricter separation from the world." They have been edited to make them more general in application, but raise a very good point on which I have been apparently unclear. I want to try to remedy that in this post.

[[Regarding “greater separation from the world”, I’ve read on your blog about separation from what isn’t Christ-like, was that it? More a spiritual separation/renunciation from whatever is worldly. I still believe that physical separation is essential because interpretations can lead to [a] situation [where one really isn't a hermit at all]. [In an apostolic sister's life] . . . she prays and serves God. What could be considered unworldly about that? . . . Emphasizing physical separation and restricted social contact [is necessary to understand the eremitical life]. I think we need to be careful about spiritualizing the separation. It’s also a practical, physical separation which is a sacrifice in relation to apostolate, work and visits.]]

First of all, let me say I agree completely with your comments. It was not my intention to spiritualize the essential element in Canon 603 which requires "stricter separation from the world." However, I did want to indicate that this element has a primarily spiritual sense even for canonists, and thus too for Canon 603. I see this as a different matter than spiritualizing the term. In that context, "the world" is defined as "that which is not redeemed or open to the salvific action of Christ" (cf A Handbook on Canons 573-746, "Norms. . ." O'Hara, p 33) and I would add that it is also, "that which promises fulfillment or completion apart from him."   In particular, the first problem I was trying to confront which created the context for some of my posts, was the situation involving a person who simply closes the hermitage door on everything outside this place and concludes that they have thus achieved stricter separation from the world. This is theologically and spiritually naive at best, and simply dishonest and even sacrilegious at worst. What is far more likely in such a situation is that the would-be hermit has shut the world securely in with her while the hermitage has become an outpost of "the world" of illusions, falsehood, and distortion in the process.

After all, in the act of closing the "hermitage" door in this specific way, one leaves one's own heart unchanged (and, as long as one embraces this perspective, unchangeable) to the extent she embraces falsehood in a foundational way! But the heart is precisely the first thing which requires attention. In its divisions, distortions, woundedness, and enmeshment, it is not only an instance of "the world," it is the source of all the rest of the distortion and illusion which represents "the world" more generally. In my view stricter separation from the world, then, is a way of speaking first of all about conversion of heart and the freedom from enmeshment in the the structures, behaviors, values, distorted relationships, etc, of reality which is resistant to Christ. It is a goal of eremitical life more than it is a means to that, though it will also necessarily include the means to that goal.

In monastic life this goal is usually referred to as conversatio morum --- a continuing conversion of self where one's heart is made whole and undivided and one's whole self is therefore made true and holy. I think this is truly the heart of the element of SSW referred to in the Canon. But, as just noted, SSW will also include and require the hermit to embrace the means to this goal. How could she not? One cannot allow oneself to be wholly embraced by God and embrace him in return if one cannot even hear his voice clearly. Far less can one do so if one is seduced by and entangled in other realities and will not or cannot let go of those. Neither (more about this in another post) can one see reality clearly for its essential goodness and potential, nor address it in a prophetic way if one is wholly enmeshed in it. One MUST step apart physically as well. Just as physical solitude is necessary to achieve the eremitical goal of the silence OF solitude, so too does the achievement of purity of heart and authentic humanity require physical separation from the ambiguities, distortions, and untruths of reality more generally. (This will mean physical separation even from much of what is good and holy as well. Partly this is a function of the ambiguity of reality; partly it is because the hermit witnesses to the priority of the reality and relationship which is the source and ground of every other reality and relationship, the One thing necessary, namely, God alone.)

But at the same time, just as we know that physical solitude per se is NOT the true goal of the Canon nor of eremitical life, neither is physical separation the goal or primary meaning of the term "stricter separation from the world." The problem on one hand is not to mistake the means (physical separation) for the goal (personal conversion and healing) nor on the other hand, as you say so well, to believe one can reach one's goal (personal conversion and union with God) by jettisoning essential means (physical separation). In the first instance the "hermitage" might well simply be the isolated residence of the unconverted misanthrope or failure at life --- and we know if it is to be worthy of the name "hermitage" it must not be this! In the second instance, we will find people completely immersed in the activities, relationships, structures, and rhythms of the world who simply call themselves "hermits". They will empty the terms hermitage and hermit of meaning because while they live a different kind of spirituality in the midst of everyday reality, they may merely consider the term eremitical "a metaphor for (their) lives" rather than a literal state and vocation to be lived out.

There were a couple of related problems I was also dealing with in regard to authentic versus false eremitical life in the posts which gave the impression I was spiritualizing stricter separation from the world and I will bring those up in another post. In the meantime I am very grateful for the comments which provided this opportunity to clarify my earlier remarks, and more importantly, the nature of eremitical separation from the world.