Questions on Writing a Rule of Life: Can I Write One Before I live as a Hermit?

[[Dear Sister, I would like to become a diocesan hermit in the future, but am not living alone presently and have not been able to do so yet. I would like to write a Rule of Life for that future time. I dream about it a lot. For example, I imagine what the life must be like and think I could do a good job of describing it and writing a Rule to reflect that. What do you think?]]

Hi there! This is a really important question. It is, surprisingly, also actually the third time this month I have been presented with a similar problem or scenario. One person, for instance, wrote a Rule of life a couple of months ago and only then started living as a solitary person according to this Rule; she wanted to know if it was time to approach her diocese at this point to petition for admission to profession. Another person began writing a rule of life as though he was already set up in a hermitage as a lay hermit (he does not have a hermitage, is not a solitary person, and will not be for some time); he wrote about what the ambience of the place would feel like and how he would feel walking in the door and into the silence and solitude, etc. And now you have written a question about the same kind of thing. The reason these scenarios and the questions which they ask are important is because they fail to understand how a Rule functions, how much life experience must exist before one can write one effectively, and finally, they are actually contrary to the very nature of contemplative life itself -- not least eremitical life!

It is true that Canon 603 says nothing about all this stuff and so is not clearly helpful. It simply lists a series of qualifications for admission to Canon 603 profession. Still, what is implicit in Canon 603 is the required experience of living a "Rule" to some significant if completely informal extent before one wrestles with it consciously and attempts to codify it in writing. It is easy to look at Canon 603 and think: what parts of this can I get out of the way so I can approach a diocese with my petition? The answer which comes, unfortunately all-too-easily is, "I can write a Rule of Life. That sounds the easiest!" (The same is a temptation for diocesan officials who look to the one concrete requirement in the Canon, and who then tell a person they need to write a Rule or Plan of Life; it is easiest to deal with this dimension of things whether a person is ready to write such a thing or not!) And then one looks to others and the Rules they have written, one copies from them (or is strongly tempted to!), borrows their ideas and theology, mimics their content and horarium, and passes it off as the fruit of one's own experience when one's diocese requires one submit a Rule that will pass canonical muster. The problem is that this is not based on lived experience and for that reason it does not indicate one's own hard-won wisdom (for one's Rule must reflect this even when it is consistent with the Rules of others). It is, to put it bluntly, fraudulent and hypocritical. If it occured in some other way, we would recognize immediately why such a thing would not work.

Let's say for instance that I decided I wanted to write a Rule of Life for married persons. I imagined myself as married, I imagined the way the house would be set up; I imagined the way it would feel when my husband came in through the door at the end of his work day. I imagined the love that would fill the house, the sounds that would and would not be there, the way we would pray together, our schedules and how we would live out our lives together, the problems we would have and how we worked through them, the strengths and weaknesses in the relationship and how we addressed and expressed those, etc. And then I wrote a description of all of that as though it reflected my own lived experience and described what was necessary for this to be true. Let's say I then submitted this to my diocese as a plan or guide to how married people (especially I and my "someday-husband") should live their vows. What is wrong with this picture?

Another example. Assume I have wanted to be a parish priest for as long as I can remember (this is actually NOT the case -- emphatically not!!--- but it's a good illustration). I imagine how I will deal with parishioners, how I will celebrate the Sacraments for them, how I will balance ministry with prayer, what training I will need and what reading I will have to do for continuing education, what I will wear and when, etc. I spend a lot of time dreaming and reading about what I think this vocation is about and I decide I had better write a Rule of Life for myself for when this becomes a reality. I address all the issues mentioned and many more. I describe what I imagine the problems and concerns a parish priest meets daily to be; I contruct a daily schedule which I believe will work for me in such a life. I even go so far as to describe the character of the priest's residence, what it will feel like to enter the door after being out, how this prayer or that devotional will comfort and soothe or strengthen and challenge me in given circumstances, how often I meet with a support group of other priests or spiritual directors and why it needs to be this way rather than another. I then submit this to the church as a guide or Rule for myself and for parish priests more generally. Should the church listen to me? Should they give the guide to diocesan priests as something they might use effectively or even normatively? Should they ordain me on the basis of this Rule? Again, what is wrong with this picture?

Would you credit (that is, treat as credible) a user's guide written by someone who had never used the product? Would you adopt a guide to spiritual direction or marriage, or brain surgery by persons who have never done spiritual direction, never been married, never been to medical school (much less through all the specialty training in neurosurgery)? Would you discern that someone has a calling to live these or an eremitical life if they write a completely fictional account about what these vocations or life in the hermitage will be like? I doubt it. The problem with all these examples of course is that they are built on complete fiction; they are based on imagination and dreams, not reality and lived experience.

When a hermit writes about the silence of solitude it is about living the reality of that --- not some abstract notion of what it WILL be like and mean. The same is true of the other foundational elements of the life, poverty, consecrated celibacy, stricter separation from the world (what IS that and what is it emphatically NOT!?) assiduous prayer and penance, the relation between solitude and ministry or evangelization, the shape of hospitality, the degree of reclusion one needs for healthy solitary life, etc. How do these take shape in THIS person's life? How do they differ from stereotypes? How do they challenge a person, foster growth, create problems? How must classic formulations within Eremitical Rules change in THIS individual's life and in today's church and world? The questions one must consider are raised by the life itself and by the individual's embodiment of the correspondence (and conflict) between an ideal (or traditional) version of that life and the concrete circumstances in which she attempts to live it. One cannot simply imagine all this and write a cogent Rule; to do so in this way is a self-contradiction, an oxymoron in fact.

Rules of Life are not, as I have mentioned before, just lists of what one does or does not do. They do indeed list what practices are essential to the life one lives, but they include sections on theology, reflection on the nature of the essential elements of the life, sections on the nature and content of the vows, Scriptures that are especially inspirational to one personally and which may have been fulfilled in unique ways in coming to live this vocation. They serve to remind a person what they should be doing and why (and in fact, what they are bound to in obedience), but more than that they function to convey a vision of the vocation which continues to inspire not only the hermit's perseverence, but the church herself because this document was born in the conjunction of the Holy Spirit and the person's lived experience. Especially they are not documents reflecting romanticized versions of eremitical life or of the practices and promise which are part and parcel of it. A document with vision and a romanticized fictional version of a reality are not at all the same thing!

All of this implies that the writing of a Rule of life takes some years of experience, research (on all the elements of the canon, on eremitical and monastic life, on spituality, and lots else), reflection, and then the hard work of putting it all in words --- writing and re-writing, and re-writing again --- expressing the way God really works in solitude, silence, poverty, etc, and what is necessary to allow him to work thusly in YOUR own life. And of course, this is as it should be for a contemplative committed to attentive life in the present moment. Such a life is a reflective life rooted in the reality of the present flavored always by hope which itself is not a matter of wishfulness or fantasy but rather of certainty and promise functioning in the present moment.

What I would suggest you do with regard to this Rule of Life you propose to write is to write it on the basis of who you are right now. What is necessary for you to be healthy? What vision inspires you today? How do you pray now and how does that affect your own maturation and growth in holiness? What does holiness look like to you right here and right now? How do you embody the essential values of the eremitical life? How do they challenge you? What do you sense you NEED to live all these even more fully and why? Don't touch on the things you know nothing about yet. Make notes about needing to reflect on them, read about them, find ways to live them, but especially do not make a Rule of Life into a fictional account of someone who has not yet drawn breath!

In time you will revise this. Perhaps you will do so several times as you continue to read, reflect, pray and LIVE the life. As you grow in your vocation it too may become the document the church envisions in Canon 603, both completely personal and capable of guiding and inspiring you and others in the real living of the life. Only then will it be a document the Church can look to for her own edification and guidance. Only then will it be a Rule of Life which the Church can use to help her discern the nature and reality of true eremitical vocations --- first your own, if that is the case, and then those who follow you seeking admission to Canon 603 profession. This Rule of course will be yours, but it will also become the Church's and part of the tradition of eremitical life in the church. For all these reasons it is imperative it be based on lived experience and not a hermit candidate's imagination or romanticized ideas of what it will all be like.

Balancing the Cenobitical (Communal) and Solitary dimensions of Diocesan (and Camaldolese) Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, how is it you balance the two aspects of Camaldolese life? I am asking in light of the goals or resolutions you wrote about yesterday. Doesn't your Rule simply tell you what you may and may not do? Thanks.]]

Speaking as a diocesan (solitary canonical) hermit who is also Camaldolese (an oblate), let me begin by saying that discerning what is necessary and what is unnecessary, or what is the apropriate balance between cenobitical and strictly solitary dimensions is first of all, not always easy to achieve. (I read recently that one young monk at a Camaldolese house pronounced it an impossible task!), Also, it is not a solution which is set in stone for all time. That is to say, it is a "balance" which is fluid and dynamic and what works for some time may not work at other periods. Bearing this in mind, I suppose there are two basic approaches one might adopt: the first is to begin with the communal demands and dimensions of one's life and then be sure to build in lots of solitude to counterbalance it. This would be the approach taken by those who treat "solitary life" as a part-time vocation, something married folks could undertake, for instance. More legitimately to my mind, it would also be the basic approach taken by apostolic or active religious in insuring that ministry does not swallow up an inner life. In my own experience however, helpful as this may be in some situations, it does not result in essentially solitary or eremitical life and is not the way to go (for the hermit, that is) except as one needs to intensify the more strictly solitary dimension of one's life because solitude itself calls one to this. (How cenobites should or do approach these matters is another question.)

The second basic approach is to begin with what is called by many hermits, "custody of the cell" and faithfulness to that, modifying it with the communal demands and dimensions necessary for a healthy psycho-spiritual life, as well as to those which one's Rule binds one in obedience (ideally these are largely synonymous). Personally I think this is the better approach since it demands faithfulness to an essentially solitary life, but respects the ways in which that must be modified because of 1) external demands (parish, community, limited ministry, directives of superiors, etc), and 2) internal demands the hermit herself requires either for well-being or as a natural outgrowth of solitude. This latter point (internal demands) is an important one, however, because I think it is the internal demands which must ultimately govern the external ones. What I mean by this is that one cannot really just do a quick (or even complex) calculation of solitary vs communal demands and give 60% (or 75% or 50%) to one and 40% (or 25% or 50%) to the other, for instance. Instead one must look at the reality that defines one primarily (in the life of a hermit it will always be faithfulness to, or perserverence in cell with all that implies re personal encounter with God and personal growth, growth work, etc), and then work out the ways one is called BECAUSE OF THAT FIDELITY, to communal expression and sharing of the fruit of one's solitude.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. In my own life I can draw up a balance sheet between the things which occur outside of the hermitage and the things which occur within it. (In fact, this can come in handy when someone objects that you spend a lot of time outside the hermitage, but when statistically it really adds up to a day or two out of each month. I recently resorted to this as the result of one person's objections to the degree of contact I SEEMED to her to have with others. it put things into new perspective nicely.) But this is only helpful to this very limited degree, and is not a method I ordinarily use. Thus, a few months ago when I decided to take one week per month of strict reclusion, and then eventually changed that (experimentally and temporarily) to ten days per month, it was not a matter of adding up the hours spent in and out of the hermitage and tinkering with those that assisted me. Instead, solitude itself was demanding more time alone with God; my prayer life was demanding it; my time with others and capacity for loving them was demanding it and these demands had to be accommodated.

Similarly, as my life in the parish changes and intensifies, I am faced with various choices (not given in any order of preference but merely to indicate some of the major choices I would need to consider): 1) Do I drop or further limit direction clients in order to meet the challenges coming from the parish ? 2) do I drop other major activities (orchestra, quartets), or 3) Do I cut back on my involvement in the parish or refuse further (more extensive and intensive) involvement? Alternately, do I continue as I am or, do I increase this where asked and/or appropriate? 4) Do I enlist parishioners' aid in meeting needs which take me outside the hermitage regularly, and if so, how often and to what extent? How would I determine such things since most of these activities in varying degrees and ways, are life-giving to me and tend to involve personal commitments which are significant? (I admit having friends/parishioners run errands for me because this is a somewhat difficult part of my life is attractive, but for that very reason, I am not apt to request it unless it is clear this is done BECAUSE the combination of solitude AND life in the parish requires it.)

It seems to me that the way to discern what steps should be taken therefore involve first, being sure that I am completely faithful to "the discipline of the cell" (custody of the cell) apart from these things, and then, determining which of these, and in what way and degree contribute to that, flow from it, or mitigate and disrupt it, etc. Discernment would ALSO include a look at the various ways each of these things challenges and enriches me since it would be possible to choose to drop one thing simply because it was more challenging personally, or more uncomfortable, or simply more difficult to harmonize with some merely exterior idea of eremitical life. While that last criterion might be a telling and genuinely significant one, it also might cause me to let go of something which would be the occasion of greater growth rather than less, so discernment is necessary. (And of course, these are not the only questions I ask in discernment, but they are two of the basic thrusts of my questions.) One of the things which is assumed but not explained here in any depth is the notion of custody of the cell. I can say more about that at another point if you wish. For now let me merely point out that as an instance of Benedictine stability it is not simply about place and commitment to place, but about love of God (and those he cherishes) and obedience to him within the context of this place. In its own way it is as much an interpersonal term as is Benedictine stability.)

As for your second question, I wrote here in the recent past that a Rule was not a list of things to do and not do, and that while such a document is legislative (that is, while it has the force of law), it is more essentially inspirational. Thus the short answer is that generally, no, my Rule does NOT SIMPLY tell me what I must or must not do (especially the latter!) in detailed ways. The above considerations relate directly to this observation. Part of maintaining "balance", as your first question put it, involves reflecting on my Rule and what it calls for, but in discerning what my Rule allows and what I am called to do in regard to it beyond the general requirements of liturgical prayer, lectio, and the like, it is in rereading the sections of it (and by reading I mean lectio or prayerful reading!!) which describe the essence of solitary life for me, and especially the Scriptures or other texts which moved me to embrace this life in the first place that are most helpful.

For instance, it is in reflecting anew on the story of Jesus' post-baptismal sojourn in the desert, what occured there, what led there, and where that led him subsequently that assists me in determining where God is calling me at this point in terms of the two poles of Camaldolese life. Remembering that the Spirit lead him to the desert where he worked to consolidate his baptismal experience and new appreciation of Sonship, and only thereafter moved back into community to minister from this new vantage point is really helpful to me. Likewise, remembering that in all things he was obedient to the Spirit, including in his ministry to others and his returns to solitude, is really helpful. It is not that it tells me precisely what to do in a given situation, but rather it inspires me that the pattern and priorities of my life represent authentic eremitical life and encourages me always to put Daughtership in Christ and growth in that personal identity/being first. Thus, this story is a fundamental and primary part of my Rule of Life, and it functions far better for me than a list of "can's" and "can't's" ever could.

Other parts of my Rule (theology of the eremitical life, place of silence, theology of the vows, etc) function similarly despite there being very few statements of what is or is not allowed me. (This is not to say that a few can's and can't's are not helpful, but only that my own Rule is not generally composed in that way, and functions more to inspire rather than to legislate. There are sections which include concrete guidelines and goals, but again, not lists of things which cannot be done. I think this is a fairly good rule of thumb for all Rules of Life. Constitutions and Statutes, which are necessary for congregations but not for solitary hermits, are a different matter.)

In the same way St Romuald's brief Rule becomes more and more important to me as well, not as a legislative text (though I recognize and respect this dimension of it), but because it is clear Romuald has captured the very essence of eremitical life in this short passage, and that to the degree I am doing what he advises here, discerning what else is legitimate and spirit-driven for me will be much easier. What I am saying here is that St Romuald, despite the fact that he mainly did not LOOK like most people's idea of a hermit for much of his life, lived this Rule profoundly and thus was able to discern what the Spirit wanted from him which flowed FROM this Rule, even if it SEEMED to conflict with it. I trust this Rule and it inspires me (empowers me with a vision of who I am called to be) more than it sets up a legislative calculus of some sort. (See below for a copy of Romuald's Brief Rule.)

One thing I must say about discernment in this matter of balance is that one of the the most basic things I can say about the eremitical life is that it is one of love, love first of all for God, and secondly and integrally, for all that he cherishes. For some it is possible to love God mainly (though not only) through loving others. For the hermit, the truth is the other way around: one loves God first and foremost and to the degree one does this (and allows him to really love us), this love will, in one way and another, spill over to others, demand others and service to them, be called by others, etc. If these demands lead away from the hermitage (and here, assuming a definitive commitment and vocation to eremitical life, I mean more than occasionally and in a way which doesn't lead right BACK to the hermitage as well), or from "custody of the cell" with its personal and interpersonal demands for growth, then something has gone seriously awry and one has made a mistake somewhere along the line. Perhaps then, "balance" is not the best way of describing this matter (though I have used the term myself a number of times). It is perhaps not so much a matter of balance as a creative and dynamic tension between two dimensions which mutually reinforce and call for one another. If one dimension dies, so, perforce, will the other.

You may want a more concrete answer to parts of your questions. Please let me know if this is the case, or if what I have written is less than helpful to you. Meanwhile, here is Romuald's Brief Rule:

Sit in your cell as in paradise.
Put the whole world behind you and forget it.
Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish.
The path you must follow is the psalms --- never leave it.
If you have just come to the monastery, and in spite of your good will you cannot accomplish what you want, take every opportunity you can to sing the psalms in your heart and to understand them with your mind.

And if your mind wanders as you read, do not give up; hurry back and apply your mind to the words once more.

Realize above all that you are in the presence of God, and stand there with the attitude of one who stands before the emperor.
Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes nothing and eats nothing but what his Mother brings him.

Questions on your Rule of Life. It is Missing!

[[Hi Sister O'Neal. I have been reading your blog regularly for some time and I was looking for some of the older posts you had put up from your own Rule of Life. I can't locate them though. Did I mistakenly miss them? I have been writing a Rule and wanted to compare what I have with yours.]]



LOL! I have been waiting for someone to complain (or ask anyway) about the missing posts! Over the past year I have received a number of requests for assistance in writing a personal Plan or Rule of Life. Several of these (three quite recent and not counting your question) were from serious candidates for Canon 603 profession. In the meantime I have worked on a couple of serious revisions of my own Rule which still need to be incorporated and approved by my Bishop, and I also am working on a project which would provide an eremitical Rule and essays on aspects of the contents -- sort of a Rule and Commentary -- as a model for those interested in writing and living their own, for whatever the reason. (As noted in other posts, many could benefit from writing such a Rule, and my own Rule has been used by non-hermit seniors who live alone and deal with many of the dynamics of the hermit.) In discussing the project with my diocesan delegate about a month ago we talked about publishing a kind of "how to" book on writing a Rule, and while I could not do that precise thing I could address some of the issues involved which hermit candidates should consider in undertaking the writing of a Rule. That is the project on hand and I am pretty excited about it.

Because of this project, and my hope to publish my own Rule as a piece of it, along with concern about giving too much assistance to folks , I have removed my own Rule from this site for the time being. While I want to assist people in writing Rules, I am completely convinced of the messy but undeniable wisdom of the person muddling through until they come up with their own Rule, and that includes doing as many drafts as it takes to come to clarity on what they are living and why. Writing is a creative act --- we all know this. But what some may not understand, especially if they do not spend much time writing, is that writing is also an act where we come to know things which were hitherto unclear or even completely unknown. We write to learn, not simply to share what we already know.

Further, as I noted in a couple of earlier posts, it remains the case that dioceses look to the quality and content of the Rule to assist in discernment of a vocation to diocesan (C 603) eremitical life. Now, I know that my rule of life gets lots of hits by readers as does the key phrase "writing a Rule of Life" and I suspect some will miss these posts. Hopefully I can restore them when the project is finished or largely completed. I am hoping to do this in several months. For now, I am sorry for the inconvenience and offer my thanks for your patience. In the meantime, if you have specific questions or are struggling with some particular issue, feel free to write me about it. If I can help, I will be happy to do so.

Problems Related to the Misuse of Canon 603 by Non-Canonical Communities

I wrote a post awhile back defending the linkage between Diocesan Hermits and specific spiritual traditions. What I argued there was that specific spiritualities (Benedictine, Franciscan, Camaldolese, et al) could contribute to rather than detract from the diocesan charism of the diocesan hermit. Hermits are part of both eremitical/monastic and, if they are diocesan, cathedral traditions and can draw from both in living out their eremitical lives. However, as I have also written in other posts, the diocesan hermit is first of all Diocesan, not Camaldolese, not Carthusian, etc. Better perhaps, they are Diocesan who MAY apply various spiritualities to their commitments as Diocesan. In particular they are not hermits who are merely using Canon 603 to circumvent the inability of a non-canonical community to profess members canonically. This would indeed, as the author of the Sponsa Christi blog wrote three months ago, defeat the purpose of being diocesan. More than that, in my estimation, it would be dishonest and create problems on a number of different levels.

The fundamental difficulty (or set of difficulties) relates to a lack of clarity as to what is the primary context for one's eremitical life. Is it one's community or is it one's diocese and parish? I have already seen one case where someone ostensibly professed under canon 603 approached the entire admission to profession to his Bishop (and to the public) as a canonical profession in community; canon 603 was supposedly the usual means the community's hermits used to make solemn profession. Because the community's status was misrepresented to the Bishop (inadvertently by the candidate for profession who was also deceived to some extent!) he later determined the vows made were private not public vows. (The situation is more complex than this, but this is enough of the "gist" of it to point to the kinds of confusions that can occur when Canon 603 is misused in this way.) One question in particular this raises then (others follow) is has one embraced eremitism because one has accepted the charism of diocesan eremitism? Or is this merely a way of achieving canonical profession when one's community is not allowed to profess canonically? Is one's profession first of all an expression of one's commitment to parish and diocese and does it especially reflect the kind of stability such a commiment implies, or is it an expression of one's more primary commitment to a religious community?

Problems regarding discernment and formation are pieces of this fundamental difficulty with context. First discernment: who is the primary ecclesial representative in the process of discernment? Is it the diocese, that is the Bishop and his representatives, or is it the community, and if a non-canonical community then who has discerned and formed the vocations of the formators? Is the Bishop admitting to profession (or presiding at the profession) on behalf of the community, or under the authority of Canon 603, and who will be the hermit's legitimate superior? Likewise, has the hermit candidate herself truly discerned a vocation to diocesan eremitism or is Canon 603 being used because access to it seems to be less difficult than the canons governing religious life and the foundation of institutes?

Questions relating to formation would also need to be raised then. Who is in charge of formation for such a hermit? Is it non-hermit members who are themselves not canonically professed and not preparing for this? Beyond this but related to it as well, who, besides the hermit herself, is responsible to the church for the this vocation? Who attests to it in the name of the Church? Who nurtures it and is officially responsible for its continued development and integrity? When a person petitions for Canon 603 status and admission to profession and consecration in this way, the Bishop and his own diocesan officials are responsible for discernment. They are also responsible for being sure adequate initial and continuing formation is gotten by the candidate or professed hermit. If a community is involved then does the Bishop or the community have the primary say in formation and discernment? (And of course, is this completely understood by all involved?) Who follows through on all of this; who is the legitimate superior? (In the situation described above, the Bishop told the person to go to his community for permissions, advice, etc. They, on the other hand told him to go to his Bishop as his "legitimate superior." Neither would take responsibility for the hermit and as a result, he fell through gaping cracks that should not have been there and would not have been had Canon 603 not been abused in the way it was.)

Related to both discernment and formation is the further question of who writes the Rule of life? In Canon 603 what we read is that the hermit lives her own Plan of life under the direction of the diocesan Bishop. While it is not stated specifically, I understand this as implying the person writes her own Rule. Why is this important? Why not just borrow a Rule that has already been written and approved, whether by another hermit, a community or Congregation, etc? Well, in this matter I think the Church has shown real wisdom, and I grow to appreciate it more and more as I see individuals borrowing from or adopting Rules they did not write themselves. In a situation demanding serious discernment of a vocation one of the primary ways to ascertain the nature and quality of the vocation one has is to look at how the hermit candidate lives her life. More, one needs to see the theology that informs it, the reasons for embracing the life, the values, goals, and practices underpinning and motivating it. The very best way to do this apart from (but along with) private interviews is to look at a Rule or Plan of Life which an individual hermit has herself written.

Not only is the writing of a personal Rule a tremendously demanding and probative exercise, it is also one of the most powerfully consolidating and formative exercises a hermit will undertake in preparing for profession and consecration. (By the way, it is an exercise I would recommend to anyone preparing for vows, whether under Canon 603 or as a member of a Congregation under another Rule. If you choose to take on such an exercise allow several weeks for its completion beyond the weeks and months you take considering it prior to actual writing.) To bypass this requirement of Canon 603 and allow the hermit to simply adopt a Rule which she herself has not written is to miss a particularly important element in the discernment AND formation processes. The results may be very disappointing, and they will surely mean that the hermit candidate misses an important opportunity to clarify and claim her own journey as completely as possible; additionally they will mean a failure to clearly embrace the charism of diocesan hermit (as opposed to being a religious hermit in a community with its own Rule). It is this I think the author of "Sponsa Christi" was partly referring to in her own blog, and if so, then she was completely correct in this.

Some canonists have been clear that Canon 603 is not to be used to give canonical status to members of non-canonical communities who cannot grant such status themselves. It is NOT meant to be a way of skirting the process and issues in becoming canonical as a community. As I have written before, there is a reason my Diocese insisted on the formula at the beginning of my vow formula per se: "I earnestly desire to respond to the gift of vocation to the eremitical life . . . as a solitary hermit." While I am an Oblate with Transfiguration Monastery, and am in that sense Camaldolese Benedictine, I am first of all a Diocesan Hermit, not a religious one. While I can join other diocesan hermits in a Lavra, I remain a solitary hermit with my OWN Rule of Life, eventhough that is subsumed under the Rule of Benedict and the Constitutions of the Camaldolese. (I must say that my command of the Benedictine Rule, or its command of me is still in its infancy, and while I live by it as PART of what my own Rule enjoins on me, I am very glad to be bound to my own Rule which, at this point in time at least, is far and away more intimately expressive of who I am and who I feel called to be.) While I maintain a good relationship with (my) Prioress (and one which is formative and supportive) my legitimate superior is my Bishop and those he has appointed or delegated. Above all then, my commitment is to diocese and parish and my stability is here. This is the charism I have discovered and embraced in accepting profession and consecration according to Canon 603. It is what I seek to reflect in the adoption of the initials recently authorized by my Bishop. This, I think, is what Canon 603 envisioned and continues to envision; to attempt to use the Canon in other ways is to betray not only its spirit but its very content.

One final note: my concern with this is not a concern for law for law's sake. As I have written in other posts the unique charism of the diocesan hermit can be framed or expressed in terms of expectations which others necessarily may have because of the hermit's status as canonical AND diocesan. These expectations are a direct outgrowth of discernment, formation, supervision, authorization, and commitment and consecration. While it is true that the non-canonical hermit may live the basic characteristics of the eremitic life as well as or even better than the diocesan hermit she does not share in their unique charism nor are others allowed to necessarily have the same expectations they have of someone with canonical standing. Canon 603 is meant to ensure the solitary eremitical life of the diocesan hermit and to do so on behalf of the church and world.