Am I supervised by my Diocese and Questions on Spiritual Direction

[[Sister Laurel, are you supervised by your diocese? Does your delegate do this for you? If so, do you think this is an adequate model for c 603 hermits? How would you improve upon it? You are aware, aren't you that someone is arguing you are not supervised by your diocese and that you are being hypocritical and deceitful in your living out of c 603, aren't you? Also, I wondered if you were aware of a video speaking of c 603 hermits who do spiritual direction that calls them Sister Shyster and Brother Bilker when they accept fees for service or deal with the dying, except under hospice control and supervision. This person argues that hermits are not licensed therapists and should never accept pay for their work, nor should they work with the dying except under the direct supervision of hospice. See, You Tube Video. ]]

Yes, I am aware of the accusations having been made about me in regard to supervision by my diocese. I have responded to these in other posts from other questioners.  (This is the last time I will address the accusations here. I am doing so because you have asked good substantive questions rooted in and going beyond the accusations. Thanks for that!). Again, to state things plainly, the person making the accusations is simply mistaken and seems to be closed to correcting that misunderstanding or accepting as valid any arrangements bishops have requested that don't comport with her narrow way of reading c 603. There is an almost studied literalism in this person's take on supervision that results in an intransigence that refuses to hear that hers is merely one possible point of view, but certainly not the only one, nor even the most effective or workable one.  The objection to spiritual directors earning an income from their ministry is something I have also responded to in the past because there are valid differing opinions on this, but the "Sister Shyster" and "Brother Bilker" appellations are new to me and strikingly crass.

Again, I am supervised by two religious Sisters who know me well, understand this vocation, have been in formation and leadership of their own congregations or in a diocesan office, and have undertaken this role at the bishop's request. They have likewise been available to the bishop whenever he sought their opinion or assistance. I was asked to choose such a delegate in 2006, before perpetual profession in 2007, by the Vicars for Religious acting in the Bishop's name. Given that there have been four Bishops since I was finally professed and consecrated under c 603, and the consistent supervision one of these delegates has provided for me and for the diocesan Bishop whenever requested, the simple answer to your question is yes. The second Sister agreed to work as a co-delegate several years ago in case of need. She was formerly the diocese's Vicar for religious and Assistant Director of vocations when I first sought profession under c 603. I think it has been a really wise and prudent arrangement. I recommend it to other dioceses and to those with whom I work, precisely because it has been so effective and good for both the vocation and the diocese. The fact is that sometimes bishops have neither the time nor, perhaps, the expertise to supervise a hermit's vocation. When that is the case, or when other things intervene to make a bishop unable to meet with the hermit regularly, it hardly rises to the level of hypocrisy or deception on the hermit's part!

If I could improve this model in any way at all (really good question, by the way), it would be to require the local ordinary meet with both the hermit and the delegate(s) about once every three years to supplement the annual or biannual meeting he holds with the hermit. (The timing is not critical here; what is important is that the bishop meets with both the hermit and the delegate and is given a chance to discuss life under c 603 together at least every few years. This provides a chance to see different perspectives at the same time and evaluate the local church's place in the life of the hermit and hers in the life of the local Church. It also allows the hermit a chance to see herself through others' eyes; this can be especially helpful in allowing the hermit to appreciate the ways her life touches people in the local community and it may give everyone ideas of how this might be strengthened or intensified. At the same time, bishops would `come to a greater understanding of the nature and gift this vocation is to the Church. All of this has positive ramifications for the discernment and formation of future hermit candidates as well.)

Regarding spiritual direction and/or working with dying clients (directees), there are other ways to qualify to work with the dying than under the tutelage of hospice. Perhaps the person complaining about this doesn't realize that. Graduate courses in theology and Clinical Pastoral Education (and experience) tend to be one of the more standard ways, and the training there is both more extensive and intensive than hospice offers. For that matter doing spiritual direction under a supervisor (or, later, when one is more experienced, working with someone one can turn to for assistance in such matters) also allows one to learn how to accompany the client who is dying. Finally, the person one is directing ordinarily will have a choice in who she wants working with her besides the nursing staff and it is typical they pick the person who has worked with them for years.  Personally, I find that having a strong background in theology allows a director to bring things to the table hospice workers do not have ; once again, the SD and the hospice workers form something of a team along with anyone else from the place's pastoral team who might be involved.

In spiritual direction, we accompany the person on (some part of) their life journey with God. We are not pretending to be therapists (unless we also are credentialed in that way), nor do we pretend to be able to do therapy --- though quite often we will assist the directee to work through their own problems. We are people of prayer who know how to listen and help others do the same. When there is a need for therapy, some of us will, with permission, collaborate with the directee's therapist to be sure the work of direction does not interfere with the therapeutic relationship or process. I have done this several times over the years and both the therapists (psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) and I find or have found it works very well --- especially when the directee can benefit from medication for some reason. 

Do some directors accept a fee for spiritual direction? Yes, many do. Often, they charge on a sliding scale because it is one of the ways they make an income. Many directors who are consecrated are supported by their religious congregations though, of course, they support the congregation with their earnings as well. (Their salaries go to their congregations, and their needs are then provided for by the congregation.) But c 603 hermits have no congregations to support them, and while they likely empathize with the desire of other directors to give freely of what God has given freely to them, those who charge for their expertise may also recognize, that "the laborer is worthy of (her) hire". 

There are codes of ethics guiding spiritual direction and other forms of pastoral ministry or counseling and I have never known a SD who did not follow these. Labeling these persons, Sister Shyster or Brother Bilker because they supposedly don't have a license to "do therapy" (or charge fees for service) also demonstrates ignorance of both the art being practiced and the degree of training and/or education, skill, and giftedness in hearing and responding to both persons and the Holy Spirit that are ordinarily possessed by the individual director. Casting aspersions about people one does not actually know, or tarring an entire group of people (like c 603 hermits) with the same brush because one has a beef with one particular c 603 hermit (or with a diocese that refused to admit one to profession and consecration) is hardly helpful to anyone.

Again, thanks for taking the questions beyond the stale accusations!! I appreciate it!

Uncomfortable Questions and Answers!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it you don't want a bishop or priest supervising or directing you? If canon 603 says that you are to live under your bishop's direction then why don't you let him to do that? Why do you use a woman from a dissident [religious] community as a spiritual director? You write a lot about c 603 but how can you do that if you don't live the canon yourself? I want to support Joyful Hermit because she suffers so much and all for the love of God. She hasn't even been approved by the church like you have and lives a heroic hermit life. You should be ashamed for harassing her!!]]

Thanks for writing. I've decided to post your questions and answers because I keep getting similar ones. They require more than a private email response if others are going to stop writing me with the same kinds of questions. However, let me say that if you are a friend of Joyful's, or if you want to support her, I would encourage you not only to learn the truth yourself but that you help her to face (and tell) the truth as well. Because asking me directly is the first step toward this goal, I want to answer your questions but let me ask you some questions as well. For instance, what besides what you have heard from Joyful makes you think I do not want my bishop to supervise me? Have I ever said or written such a thing? The answer to that is of course not! I am a c 603 hermit and I have committed to live the canon as fully as I can. That includes accepting diocesan bishops' supervision of my life. That said, let me point out that neither I nor any other c 603 hermit can control our bishops and the way they supervise or fail to supervise this vocation!! If Joyful ever truly becomes a c 603 hermit, she will not be able to do that either.

Remember, when one's bishop retires or is moved to be made an Archbishop, for instance, they are replaced by someone who may not be prepared to supervise a hermit, and some bishops are simply unwilling or unable. My own diocese was very wise in requiring me to choose a delegate who would work with me on behalf of my bishop. (And no, the chancery did not require that this person be a priest!) As already noted, Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, serves both the diocese and me in this way and so does my co-delegate, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. Both are qualified to do this for me and for the sake of this vocation in ways most bishops cannot even imagine doing themselves. I have written about the competence and quality of both of these Sisters recently, so feel free to look those posts up if you are interested in the truth about them. It is not as Joyful has imagined it. But to be blunt, very little of what Joyful has imagined (i.e., fantasized!) about me or others she has maligned in her videos, is anything even remotely near the truth. 

As I have written now several times, a bishop is not asked to be a c 603 hermit's spiritual director but to supervise her living out of her vocation. If the word director is used in a translation of c 603, it does not mean spiritual director. Since a c 603's bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior, he, in fact, cannot be her spiritual director. That would lead to conflicts between internal and external fora. Instead, he is asked to supervise this ecclesial vocation and there are no rules specifying how that supervision must be carried out. In the arrangement my own diocese specified, I think I am better served than if I had only been supervised by the bishop.

As I have also written several times now, the use of a delegate who has a closer relationship with the hermit works very well for both the diocese and the hermit; it also maintains the distinction between internal and external fora. Joyful has a single narrow idea of what the canon means by supervision or direction, and if a diocese uses a different understanding of supervision, she declares this to be evidence the hermit is not following the canon. But let me again be frank. Joyful also does not demonstrate any real understanding c 603 --- not the reasons for its existence, not its nature, not the language it uses, and not the life it defines and governs.  She has never met me, nor corresponded with me regarding the supposed issues with me she raises and she claims she does not even read this blog. She doesn't know me nor understand my life nor how I live it; all of that and more means she is in no position to say I don't live the canon (nor most of the other things she claims about me).

You are correct that Joyful has not been approved for admission to c 603 profession. She is not a consecrated or Catholic Hermit, despite what she claims. That takes the church's admission to profession and consecration and commissioning to live the vocation in the Church's name. While Joyful has petitioned that this standing be granted to her, it has not happened yet, and may never happen. (Here I have to ask you, if Joyful is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, why would she seek admission to profession and consecration under a canon she reviles as inadequate ("full of loopholes") and a destructive influence on traditional eremitical life?) 

And if she is never admitted to c 603 standing then where's the harm?  She does not truly feel called to this specific vocation or even believe in its value; it should not be a great disappointment or source of suffering if she is not admitted to profession. Perhaps more importantly, she can continue living as a non-canonical hermit and write about it in a more compelling way than she could ever do with c 603, the canon she so reviles. Granted, to do this effectively and credibly, she would need to adopt the Church's own distinction between consecrated (canonical) and non-canonical eremitical life, and she would need to espouse this as a significant lay vocation in her case. (For priests it could be a significant clerical vocation.) As Joyful's friend or supporter, you could assist her with that. 

Beyond that, though, the best way any friend or supporter could help Joyful, I think, is to get her to stop drawing gratuitous conclusions about peoples' motivations, presumed behavior, faithfulness to their vocation, state of their soul, etc. She does not and cannot know these things without the person sharing them with her or confirming them for her. If she has questions about how someone understands or lives eremitical life, or why they do what they do, then please encourage her to write that person directly and ask them as you have done to me!! You see, while I find your questions somewhat rude and entirely spurious (they are rooted in untrue assumptions), I absolutely respect that you posed them directly. Thank you for that.

Clarifying Misconceptions and Wholecloth-Untruths From "Joyful Hermit"

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I discovered your blog through the You Tube videos of Joyful Hermit. She has been pretty critical of "a lady hermit in California who has been stalking and harrassing her for 17 years" and recently recorded a long tirade commenting on OSV and how they used quotes from your blog without taking time to vet you or be sure you are who you say you are. cf: Joyful Hermit Speaks Tirade [the pertinent section begins around 28:40 in this video and continues throughout the rest, Sister Laurel]. It wasn't hard to make the connection from the OSV articles and your name, diocese, blog, etc.!!! Joyful hermit claims your diocese doesn't know you and wants no responsibility for you. She also says that your bishop doesn't supervise you because you don't want that and that you have a "girlfriend" instead (sorry, she didn't explain  or nuance that at all) who is apparently a Sister from a rabble-rousing community that is not approved by the Vatican. 

She complained that you have no right to write about the situation in KY because you don't follow c 603 yourself. And she claims that you objected to the vows of the hermit in KY because he spoke out instead of remaining hidden as hermits are supposed to do. Pretty sure there are other things I have missed but these are the ones I remember from this week. So, since you take questions, could I please ask you what parts of all  this are true? I ask this partly because while checking out your blog to try to see who you are and what you write about, I was surprised to find something very different from what I had expected. I have read several of your posts from the last month or more and I think I understand why you are involved in the Cole Matson situation. It had little to do with him speaking out contrary to the hiddenness of the hermit vocation, did it?  I also looked for posts referring to Joyful Hermit and didn't find what I had been led to expect. No where near! I'll leave this for now and come back if I think of more that needs sharing and clarifying.]]

Wow! First, thanks for taking the time to look me up (or track me down) --- though it does seem that Ms McClure (Joyful Hermit) made that pretty simple; thanks also for taking the time to read some posts from this blog and perusing it more generally. Several others did some of that this week. Some just wrote snarky letters with "How dare you. . .?" kinds of questions. You are the first to simply ask me what is true, so thank you for that. I will try to lay out the major points here one by one. I hope that will be helpful to you and to others who are now writing me because of the video you referred me to. Unless there are remaining questions for you, for instance, I don't plan on addressing these issues again.

Ms McClure aka Joyful Hermit aka Catholic Hermit aka Complete Hermit, aka Victim Soul, etc. has been blogging about eremitical life for 18-20 years, from before I was perpetually professed. She first wrote me @ 17 years ago before my perpetual profession and after I had begun this blog to ask about becoming a professed and consecrated hermit and congratulating me on my upcoming consecration. I wrote her back and checked out the blog she linked me to or told me about (not sure which it was now). When I was consecrated  McClure wrote about it in her then-current blog, The Complete Hermit. She clearly knows I am a diocesan hermit for the Diocese of Oakland and has known that for 17 years: (cf The Complete Hermit) 

• [[Part of the day has been spent in watching. . . Sr. Laurel's final profession of vows in a Mass for her consecration as a Diocese hermit in CA. It is lovely! I know I have been questioning if the public vows are necessary, and if it is too much hoopla for a hermit, but I find it all necessary especially for a healthy hermit or at least those more healthy than this one. More active hermits can better interface with people, and people, being comfortable with them and helping in matters of the soul, are part of a hermit's call. In that, Sr. Laurel's life and her blog site are very beneficial for the hermit vocation in general. 
• I was particularly taken by her Bishop's warmth and gentleness, his being so comfortable with her vocation and in consecrating her soul to the eremitical life. As for this hermit, my diocese milieu and circumstances thus far are not heading in such a warm and embracing event. But, one cannot know what God will do in future. . . . By watching the Mass celebrating Sr. Laurel's final vows, I did see that there would be built-in support and positivity in public vows, in people knowing, in the Bishop making his approval known. It creates a certain validity for the hermit, in an outer way, and of course is supernatural in the graces of the interior. It builds the Church with another dimension.]]

Accusations of stalking, etc. Please note that Ms McClure has had public blogs focusing on eremitism and put up public videos about hermit life in the past 17+ years. Note the word PUBLIC here. Moreover she has allowed subscribers or followers on/for these sites and the name Joyful Hermit has been linked to LinkdIN and Facebook pages with detailed profiles (given name, education, locations, etc.). Initially, she invited me to read her blog and over time I discovered newer blogs because I do indeed google hermit-related topics and follow public blogs on the topic (that is especially true when these are linked together on Blogspot under the same owner). That is especially true when someone writes about c 603 or c 603 vocations. McClure did that routinely during at least 14 of those years. Yes, I often criticized what she wrote in this venue because she was frequently mistaken and was apparently misleading readers about c 603; (a couple of these wrote me in pain because they had followed Ms McClure's directions on becoming a Catholic Hermit and been corrected by their pastors or chancery.) Moreover, she often misconstrued what I had written. At first, I was simply trying to assist her to come to greater understanding of things she didn't seem to know; I attributed this to the fact that she was a convert and I assumed she would accept the information. In time her misrepresentations became more complex and intransigent and it became personally important that I not let her misrepresent or demean a vocation I both live and love. 

Today I tend not to read Ms McClure's stuff. I know she has been posting videos on YouTube again (I discovered this a couple of months ago when a video popped up on my YouTube feed in the middle of the night); I also watched the one you referred me to (Joyful Hermit Speaks Tirade )  and read some of the coments. Otherwise, they are of no interest. What I would hope Ms McClure would come to understand is that so long as blogs and videos are public and invite subscribers or followers, following the author of these from one blog to another, or responding to one's video feed to public videos, etc., is not stalking. Commenting on what is written or said in such venues is not harassment, particularly when those criticisms involve a topic the listener is publicly committed to representing. I have not commented on Ms McClure's posts in some time except when they have concerned canon 603 or the issue of becoming a consecrated hermit; I criticized the problem of counterfeit hermits, but what was on my mind then was the situation in Lexington beginning in 2022, so I wonder if Ms McClure mistook those conversations as being about her. The bottom line here is that so long as she is silent about me and c 603, I tend not to speak of her at all.                                                               

Supervision by a Bishop: It should go without saying that not every bishop desires to supervise a hermit, nor are some gifted with either the time or expertise. (And, since he is her legitimate superior, it especially goes without saying that c 603 does not expect a bishop to be a hermit's spiritual director!!) Some do not believe in or understand the vocation or c 603 itself and yet, they "inherit" hermits professed before their own tenure began. To assist with all of that, my diocese asked me to select a delegate (their term, along with "quasi superior") to serve me when bishops were unavailable or could not do so. Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, who has a strong background in personal and religious formation and spiritual direction, has served as my delegate since perhaps a year before I was finally professed. In the last few years, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF has agreed to serve as co-delegate (she prefers the term Advocate) and is mainly available to me and my diocese should Marietta not be. Both Sisters belong to canonical congregations and both have served in leadership. Susan is doing so currently, not for the first time! Sister Marietta's congregation is of Pontifical right. I think the same is true of Sister Susan's since it is an international institute (Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity). 

This arrangement has been very effective for continuity in supervision considering we have had 5 bishops since I began living as a hermit. The first three (Cummins, Vigneron, and Cordileone) were more accessible to me, Archbishop Burnett was an interim whom I met and joked with a bit, but whom I never met with --- instead I met with the Vicar for Religious (Rev Robert Herbst, OFM, Conv) per the former bishop's instructions (unfortunately, Rev Herbst left Oakland for the Diocese of Las Vegas in 2018) --- and Michael Barber,SJ, whom I first met in the sacristy of St Perpetua parish during his first visitation, has been less accessible, but I have been (and remain) a diocesan hermit in good standing in my diocese under competent Direction all these years. 

To repeat, throughout these years and any changes in diocesan leadership, Sister Marietta has consistently served both me and the diocese as my delegate. Sister Susan was Vicar for Religious or Vocations Director for the Diocese of Oakland when I first started becoming a diocesan hermit; she worked with me for five years; then, though the diocese and I had begun trying to regularize my situation before Bp Cummins actually retired, and though Susan was now in Santa Barbara, she wrote a letter of recommendation for perpetual profession in 2007 to Bp Vigneron. She continues to assist me in this vocation but now mainly from the position of a good (dare I use the word?) friend. Please recognize that Ms McClure casts aspersions on these Sisters, their competence and fidelity to their commitments when she trash-talks me. That is particularly upsetting to me because I know how they have poured out their lives for Christ and so too, for me. Meanwhile, the comment that Sister Marietta is my "girlfriend" is unworthy of even a response.

OSV and the Lexington Situation: The OSV did not cite my blog. They interviewed me directly, as they say quite clearly in the article itself. Gina Christian (Gina Christian) and I had nearly an hour-long initial conversation via ZOOM, and follow-up phone calls and email exchanges to help flesh out the story so it was complete and transparent. How OSV found me or got my contact info I don't know. I assume they took all the usual steps in checking me out before printing anything I had to say. They also had copies of letters sent to Bishop Stowe and other churchmen where I was identified by name, diocese, date of profession and consecration, etc. If any of these people (not just reporters but bishops and the Papal Nuncio) had doubts about me or needed to verify my identity and standing in my diocese and vocation they could well and easily have done so at any time from July or August of 2022 on. Given the seriousness of my concerns, I feel confident they did verify my bona fides. That said, let me point out that the Diocese of Oakland is, relatively speaking, a big place; there is turnover in staffing with every new bishop, just as one would expect; not everyone knows me or even knows of me so ordinarily it might take a day or so for people to verify I am a diocesan hermit in good standing with the Diocese of Oakland. (Given the notoriety of the situation in Lexington, I suspect it would not take that long presently.) Also, please be aware, apart from acknowledging I am a hermit in good standing, they would give no other information.

The situation in Lexington, KY, and the USCCB's complaint about Cole Matson is not primarily about eremitical hiddenness, nor even about the fact that Cole spoke out about his transgendered status. It is about 1) the fact of his transgendered status and how that cannot work with consecrated life and its call to authentic manliness or womanliness, and 2) (my own focus) the validity of his vows for the additional reason that he explicitly claimed to be using c 603 as a stopgap when he did not really feel called to eremitical life but could not find another way to become publicly professed. These are the issues the USCCB will be addressing. I believe they are also likely to address concerns that Matson's work in the theatre and outside the hermitage conflicts with the vocation of the canonical hermit, not because it involves theatre per se, but because it involves both afternoons and evenings away from the hermitage in an active and highly social context. I don't see how anyone could have misunderstood the situation so thoroughly as Ms McClure seems to have done.

PART II 

[[Sister Laurel, here is some of what I forgot in my first email. Joyful Hermit also writes that you don't write spiritual articles on your blog and that you are only into power, prestige and precedent-setting while trying to make an authority of yourself. She seems to believe that you have skewed the traditional historic hermit way and influenced c 603 single-handedly by developing precedents that are contrary to hermit life because they "temporalize it". She says your life is too public or not hidden enough because you wear a habit, work as a pastoral associate in a parish, and use a title you have no right to because you do not belong to a religious order. She also claims you wear a Franciscan habit despite not having been a Franciscan yourself and that you believe only c 603 hermits are valid ways of living an eremitical life despite c 603 saying "besides non-canonical profession". Again, let me ask the same question, what of this is true? Thanks very much.]]

First of all, I have skewed nothing. Ms McClure's take on eremitical life is limited, and unfortunately, one-dimensional. In my opinion, she has an even less adequate understanding of c 603 eremitical life. She fails to appreciate that in various ways throughout the centuries hermit life has been regulated by the Church (usually via the local church and ordinary) and that without regulation (or despite it) what Ms. McClure calls, "tried and true" or labels "traditional" or "historic," eremitical life through the centuries has been punctuated by nutcases, individualists, and eccentrics that lived fairly disedifying hermit lives and became the source of stereotypes most folks today would, unfortunately, immediately associate with the word "hermit". Since the third century in the church, there have always been a variety of ways to live an eremitical life; during some periods of the church's life, episcopal supervision and permission was typical. Ponam in Deserto Viam (DICLSAL's Guidelines on the c 603 vocation, 2021) reminds us that this kind of oversight was codified as early as the canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

Three or four main ways of living eremitical life are evident throughout history: 1) semi-eremitical where hermits live alone (in a separate hermitage) but within a community context. (This includes Carthusians, Camaldolese, some Carmelites, et al), 2) solitary canonical eremitical life (often under a bishop's authority), this includes anchorites, hermits who wished to wear a hermit's tunic or preach in a town and received episcopal permission, and today -- centuries later --- consecrated diocesan hermits who are consecrated by God via the Church's mediation in the hands of one's bishop, 3) lauras of hermits (both canonical and non-canonical), colonies of hermits which do not rise to the level of a juridical community, and 4) solitary non-canonical hermits. Of these, #2's diocesan hermits came into existence in 1983; Canon 603, the canon governing the life, replaced all the various statutes and disparate diocesan attempts to regulate hermits, as part of the revised Code of Canon Law of the entire Roman Catholic Church. It did not replace non-canonical eremitical life and, in part, had its origin in the Vatican II intervention of Bishop Remi de Roo who saw great value and the gift of God in the eremitical vocation. (Please note, c 603 does not refer to non-canonical profession, not least because profession is always a public (canonical) act. It does refer to institutes of religious life and says c 603 establishes the hermit life besides these.)

I have written many times over the years that there are three main ways of living eremitical life. All are valid and each is valuable: 1) solitary consecrated eremitical life, 2) consecrated semi-eremitical life, and 3) non-canonical eremitical life. I have never suggested non-canonical eremitical life is invalid, nor have I ever said diocesan hermits are the only valid way of living solitary eremitical life. Still, numbers 1 and 2 above are normative of eremitical life in the Catholic Church, that is, they are canonical forms of life. All three forms are licit either because of baptism or because of additional canons and a "second consecration", still, to the extent they are prudent, all three will measure themselves, at least in part, according to c 603. 

We all, I think, want to make a return to God and the Church for the ways God called us to himself and redeemed us. One of the ways I do that is by exploring and reflecting on c 603. Over the years this blog has taken on a weight and seriousness I never imagined or expected. Many diocesan hermits have begun blogs; as far as I know, mine is the only one that has remained active through the years. (Perhaps I can ask other Diocesan hermits to contribute here, as Rachel Denton did recently?!) Generally, I try to write about c 603 and the life it defines and governs. "How shall I make a return to the Lord?" Canon 603 has been a very great gift to me and, I believe, to the church. I try to honor that, learn and educate about it, and assist the church in implementing it prudently. Over the years I have experienced and learned a lot about this. I am grateful for that and have no reason to be apologetic about my interest. It means I spend long hours every day praising God for this vocation, for the beauty of c 603, and the excitement it can bring to some as they begin to explore its depths.

Temporal vs Spiritual? Ms McClure's take on the temporal vs the spiritual is Gnostic***, not Christian. The center of the Christian faith is a God who chose to dwell with us in space and time and who promises in Christ to create a new heaven and a new earth (a single reality) through this Incarnate One. In the Lord's Prayer, we find this key petition, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," meaning, "May you, God, be sovereign in this spatio-temporal realm just as you are in your own divinely eternal realm, may you be glorified in all of it"! Jesus incarnated the word of God in his life and became the New Temple of God here on earth meaning he is the place where heaven and earth come together or definitively interpenetrate one another. Christians are called upon to participate in this same dynamic in Christ.This is our vocation. In our own lives we are to allow heaven to interpenetrate ourselves and the world, and thus, to divinize the whole of creation ever more fully. In this way, God is and will be fully revealed and glorified. This is the theological perspective from which I live my life and approach my vocation. It is both profoundly sacramental and eschatological. I am clear that what I write is generally done under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. That is the very definition of something being spiritual.

Pastoral Associate? Nope, Ms McClure got that wrong as well. I've never been a pastoral associate in any parish and never claimed to be. I was a pastoral assistant for St Perpetua's Catholic Community for about 14-15 years (until about a year ago). There is a big difference between these two positions, but one pertinent one is the fact that the assistant's realm of activity is more focused, or specialized, and so, less involved with people in a general way.

Sister? Wearing a Habit? Just noticed I omitted this. Regarding being called Sister and wearing a habit, Ms McClure apparently opines I ought not be allowed to do so because I am no longer part of a religious institute. Let me point out, as I have done in my blog several times (cf. Notes From Stillsong), that, [[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 [rights and] obligations regarding garb [and other matters like title] witnessing to consecration and religious [life] can be applied to diocesan hermits.]]

Setting Precedents? Seeking to be an Authority? Truly, Ms McClure way overestimates my influence!! I am responsible for establishing one precedent, namely the post-nomial initials Er Dio (and variations) which (then) Bishop Vigneron approved on 2.Sept.2008; a number of bishops in the US and other countries have subsequently approved these initials for hermits in their dioceses. Otherwise, this is a really small blog in a tiny niche area of interest. These days it receives an average readership of slightly more than 100 persons a day (though yes, this includes someone or several someone's from the Vatican from time to time). Still, I doubt bishops generally read this blog unless someone specifically brings it to their attention; moreover, if it is as flawed and "unspiritual" or ego-driven as Ms McClure claims, why would they pay attention to what they do read here anyway? 

At the same time, I do write about what works or doesn't work regarding c603 and try to supply theological underpinnings wherever necessary; thus, I certainly hope it has some influence and helps both dioceses and candidates for c 603 life. I did not establish this blog to assert or pretend to have authority but to explore and educate because of my own experience. I do recognize, however, that I have slowly become something of an authority during these last 17-41 years and again, I am grateful to God and gratified to be of assistance where I can!

Ruth Burrows, OCD

Franciscan habit? Although formerly a Franciscan, I do not wear a Franciscan habit. Today, however, many of us Sisters wear the same or very similarly uniform clothes we call a habit. We don't wear identifiable garb unique to one institute or another. (What tends to be identifiable is our jewelry, viz., our crucifix and ring; even our cowls tend to be generic.) Partly this is because most congregations no longer wear habits, and also because there are very few makers while those few that still exist sell the same styles (mostly caps and veils) to everyone buying from them. Diocesan hermits, however, generally take care not to wear proprietary habits. They do not have the right to wear proprietary habits nor does (or can) their bishop give them this right. (That right only comes from the institute whose habilt is at issue.)

Hiddenness: I have written some about hiddenness recently and won't repeat it here. Clearly Ms McClure and I disagree on the place, importance, and even the nature of eremitical hiddenness. Of course, I embraced public rights and responsibilities when I was professed and consecrated so there is some tension between hiddenness and the responsibility to witness to the Gospel of God in an ecclesial vocation. I believe it is an incredibly creative tension and try to accept it obediently. I would suggest you look up other posts on eremitical hiddenness here and then get back to me again if the way I conceive it needs clarification.

PART III

Sister, what do you mean by the term Gnostic above?***

To clarify, my use of the term, Gnosticism is a variegated form of belief present in the ancient world when Jesus lived and continuing forward; it is present in some approaches to Christianity even to this day. 

It has a number of characteristics but generally is seen as a danger to authentic Christianity. One central idea was that salvation would be had by deliverance from imprisonment by the material world. Others include various dualisms, temporal vs spiritual, matter vs spirit, light vs dark, good vs evil, etc. Much of it can be linked to Platonism or neo-Platonism where only the spiritual is considered really real and the material is unreal or less than real.

As you can likely see, much of this is in complete contrast with a God whose entire creation is good and who wills to be Emmanuel, God with Us. It is antithetical to the Incarnation where God is fully and definitively revealed in human flesh. And it is antithetical to what is revealed in Scripture as our ultimate goal and destiny --- not disembodied existence in heaven, but re-embodied existence as part of a new creation involving "a new heaven and earth together". (This is a single reality where God is all in all.) I  posit that Ms McClure embraces a version of Gnosticism because she writes and speaks consistently about the evil of temporality or the temporal world (including the church) and contrasts that with the spiritual; but sacramentality involves the transformation of the temporal with the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. We do not reject the temporal; we allow it to be transfigured by God.

On Bishops' Supervision of Hermit Vocations and the Importance of Life Commitments

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, I have several questions about the requirement of Canon 603 that bishops supervise the life of the diocesan hermit. What does this mean? I mean that the canon reads "under the supervision of the bishop" and seems to be talking about the whole scope of the canon. So does it mean he meets regularly with the hermit and assumes an active supervisory role or that he acts in other ways to assure the hermit's well-being, and such? Also, what happens when a new bishop comes into the picture --- does he simply inherit responsibility for the hermit or can he ask the hermit to go through some vetting process all over again? I have read [someone] who believes this is important and should be implemented. What happens when a bishop chooses not to oversee the hermit's vocation, does that ever happen? What I am thinking is that the supervision of the bishop might refer just to the initial discernment and formation but not to ongoing discernment. Would you agree?]]

Thanks for the questions. I have answered some of them in the past, so please do check out the labels in the right-hand column for further information. As I read the Canon it establishes a relationship of mutual responsibility between the hermit who is to be a diocesan hermit, and the bishop of the diocese. I don't think anything else makes sense. One cannot profess and consecrate a person to eremitical life lived under the supervision of the local bishop and then allow them to go without such supervision!! However, you raise a very good question when you ask what such supervision must look like. Must it be a hand's-on direct supervision where the bishop meets annually or bi-annually with the hermit (or even more frequently if the bishop has the time and inclination), or can the job of direct supervision be placed in someone else's hands? The canon is not specific here and leaves things up to the discretion of the bishop it seems to me.

When I was petitioning for admission to (perpetual) profession, the Vicars for Religious (we had two under Bishop Vigneron) asked me to select a "delegate" who would serve as a "quasi-superior" on my behalf and on behalf of the bishop and diocese. I would be unlikely to be meeting particularly frequently with him, and they wanted to be sure both I and the diocese were served by what we tend to call today, "the ministry of authority". A canonical hermit is not a lone wolf. She is not professed and consecrated and then turned loose to do whatever she wants in whatever way she wants. She has rights and obligations she is expected to meet. Even more importantly, because of her stricter separation and significant silence and solitude, she requires someone who will come to know her well and work with her in terms of her vocation so she is genuinely a hermit living an ecclesial vocation in and towards the silence of solitude central to C 603 and any eremitical vocation. Usually, bishops are simply not the best people to fill such a role. I am more grateful than I can say to Archbishop Vigneron and to the Vicars for Religious for requiring such an arrangement prior to perpetual profession!!!

Because of this, I have only needed to meet with the bishop once a year or so. For that matter, it would likely be enough for my delegates to do so to give him an accounting of my own vocation as they see it. (I have 2 Religious Sisters who serve as co-delegates or Directors.)  Even so, bishops need to learn from their diocesan hermits and it is ideal for bishops to meet with the hermit's delegate(s) and also with the hermit approximately annually. Sometimes, however, when new bishops come into the picture things fall through the cracks. Since I first petitioned for admission to c 603 standing, my diocese has seen 5 bishops. One of these professed and consecrated me, one was merely interim and had the Vicar for Religious communicate with me, two inherited me from the bishop who professed me, and of these two, one met with me annually (more frequently if I needed to do so), and the other, though introduced to me, informed that he was my legitimate superior, and assured that the diocese had all of my contact information, has simply been less available than the others, nor have I pressed the issue. Fortunately, my co-delegates serve me and the diocese well in keeping their fingers on the pulse points of my life, calling, and work so this has not been problematical.

So, I have had bishops that assume direct responsibility for my vocation and others that supervise my vocation less directly. I think both arrangements, presuming both involve real communication with hermits and/or delegates, work well. What is not acceptable in terms of the canon and the vocation itself is for a bishop to refuse to accept any responsibility for a hermit who is publicly professed in his diocese --- and I have certainly heard stories about this kind of situation from across the country. Usually, this occurs when a new bishop is ordained or installed. Sometimes he has no experience with hermits at all and does not understand the vocation; sometimes he may not believe in the vocation itself; sometimes he seems to believe he is just too busy (and perhaps too important) to meet with a lowly hermit by him/herself and seeks to meet with any diocesan hermits present in the diocese as a group. And sometimes things just fall through the cracks (which can include the gatekeepers to the bishop's appointment calendar, etc.) 

The bottom line in all of this is that Canon 603 legislates a vocation that is to be lived under the REAL supervision of the local ordinary. If the hermit assumes rights and obligations in making profession or being consecrated under this canon, so too does ANY bishop who takes on the reins of diocesan leadership in a diocese with c 603 hermits --- no matter how he feels about c 603 or those professed accordingly! Regarding the idea that when a bishop moves on, retires, dies, etc., and a new bishop assumes leadership of the diocese, any diocesan hermit should go through the vetting typical of initial formation and discernment yet again, let me say straight out that that is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. Remember that we are dealing with the church's own theology of consecrated life and that with initiation into the consecrated state of life one is initiated into a STABLE state of life where a life commitment can grow in whatever direction and to whatever depth and extent God wills it. The situation you have described would completely vitiate any sense of stability or persistent meaningfulness in such a vocation. It would thus, also compromise one's ability to grow in it as exhaustively as one is called to do. For this one needs a truly perpetually binding commitment.

Bishops DO die; some become Archbishops and move to an Archdiocese, while others retire or ask to be moved to another diocese or Military Ordinariate (now Archdiocese). Since beginning to live as a hermit @ 1984, I personally have seen 5 bishops go and come. Should I really have been made to redo professions again and again? And what of consecration? God consecrates on the occasion of one's perpetual profession and one enters the consecrated state of life. Yes, the state can be undone, but not the consecration!! Why would we act in such a way with what is both a hardy and a fragile gift? And what about what we recognize as admission to PERPETUAL profession? Do we simply admit to temporary profession again and again and never allow the person to make a definitive or life commitment leading to God's own consecration of the person for the whole of her life??? 

Our world is changeable enough. We really do need people making various life commitments. More, we need to believe in the possibility of life commitments!! We need to be able to celebrate them in ways that really recognize their value to the church and the whole of society! I have watched Sisters dealing with the completion of their congregations' work as numbers dwindle. It is both one of the saddest and most inspiring things I have ever experienced. Day in and day out Sisters renew life commitments and pour out their lives in light of these professions. They do not say, "Wow, this is difficult, this isn't what I signed up for. At the end of the year, instead of making vows again, I will just leave for something easier"!! Other Sisters recognize the difficulty of living together with all kinds of personalities -- especially as everyone ages. Life commitments don't allow them to say, "You know, Sister x is really a pain in the behind (and well she might be!); let's ask her to go through another mutual discernment process and get her out of here when the time comes for her vows to expire." No, they have life commitments, not just to serve the church, but to love one another and to serve one another in community!! It is the quality of the commitment that keeps us going forward and growing more deeply rooted when things become difficult or take turns we never anticipated or expected.  Love requires commitments and I think to pour out one's whole heart --- one's whole being --- one requires a perpetual or definitive commitment.

There is a kind of quantum leap made between a temporary profession and a definitive, solemn, or perpetual profession, even though we always make vows with the idea that we are called to them the rest of our lives. While discernment is always part of our daily lives, we do not continue to anguish over or consider things in the way we do before making a definitive/life commitment. That has been done, usually several times before admission to perpetual profession. Once we have committed ourselves for the whole of our lives, the discernment shifts focus from some version of [[Do I or do I not truly have this vocation?]] to variations on [[What is my place in this stream of vocational tradition? How do I live this historical reality out with integrity in this time and this place?]] In community life, discernment involves questions about the direction, growth, and leadership of the congregation, the nature and shape of the congregation's charism and mission, how one is uniquely called to carry these into the world, and so forth. In eremitical life, there are similar questions regarding eremitical tradition, the nature and charism of the vocation, the important values brought to this world in this space and time, etc. Once a definitive commitment has been made, one lives into the vocation as one whose entire life has been summoned to it and given over to it and to the God who gives it to the world through us. One now knows oneself as "gift-bearer" in a way the temporarily committed simply cannot do.

With regard to hermits per se, if a bishop is leaving the diocese and the publicly professed hermit is only temporary professed, yes the incoming bishop could ask for a new discernment process; he could ask for a longer period of temporary vows --- which means he could ask the hermit renew a temporary commitment so that he might be truly sure of this vocation himself before admitting to perpetual profession. What is more likely is that the outgoing bishop will admit such a hermit to perpetual profession before he leaves, assuming the recommendations of all involved in working with the person encouraged this. If the hermit is not yet professed but it is clear as it can be that she has this vocation, then the departing bishop can admit to temporary vows. It is unlikely the incoming bishop will not listen to the people working with the candidate and their recommendation to admit to perpetual profession when the time for that comes. We act in good faith in entering into such processes of discernment and formation, and we trust that everyone will act in a similar way as the process unfolds. 

Sometimes that trust is betrayed, and sometimes mistakes are made in discernment while formation can be inadequate and require more attention. Yes. (Though formation will always continue throughout one's life.) There is a reason the Bishop's Decree of Approval/ Rule of Life said in regard to my own Rule, [[I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life.]] Yes, the remainder of the decree was entirely positive, but when dealing with Divine Vocations we can only do what we can truly do. Everything, including ongoing discernment and formation, and the deepening of the vocation, must be left in God's hands. What we know is that God calls persons to such vocations and consecrates them perpetually to his service and love. We must trust this I think, and respond as corresponding grace empowers us to do. 

I sincerely hope this is helpful.