Hermits, The Antithesis of the Rugged Individualist or the One Who is a Law unto Herself!

[[Dear Sister, I have two different questions. 1) You once wrote a piece about hermits, canon law, and herding cats. I remember you both agreed and disagreed with the person who said legislating for hermits was impossible and like herding cats. Recently you said in another piece that hermits were like fingerprints, each unique but with recognizable patterns, whorls, loops, etc. I know you think highly of canon 603 but I wondered if you thought it was sufficient to legislate the life of solitary hermits. Does there need to be canon  law on the formation of hermits, on time frames prior to profession and final profession?  2) Also, why do you see individualism as so completely antithetical to eremitical life?  Aren't hermits the consummate individualists? If each is an 'ecclesiola' as Peter Damian (and you too) say, then doesn't this make each hermit a kind of law to him or herself?]]

Is Canon 603 Sufficient to Govern and Nurture Solitary Eremitical Life?

First of all I do believe canon 603 is sufficient, generally speaking. I think there need to be some guidelines about formation, time frames, minimum ages and experience required for admission to discernment and profession, as well as regarding the distinction between being a lone individual and being a hermit in some essential sense, and also some significant cautions on what canon 603 is NOT meant for. However, at this point in time I don't see any reason these things would need to be codified in canon law or through an actual papal motu proprio for instance.

Bishops  and Vicars for Religious need to be able to discern with each candidate while doing justice to the flexibility of canon 603 and the diversity which is part of the history of eremitical life itself, but they also need additional help understanding the Church's desert tradition and the very challenging history of this canon so that not just anything is called eremitism. Especially they must recognize that not just any form of aloneness is called "eremitical solitude" nor can just any form of living and working alone be called eremitical life. The misuse of canon 603 as a stopgap to profess individuals who wish to be religious while merely desiring or needing to live alone is a significant problem that must be avoided. The vocation must be a truly eremitical one. At this point it seems sufficient that in addition to the canon and the expertise of canonists and theologians (especially ecclesiologists), hermits contribute their own experience in these matters and dioceses do the same. One of the reasons for this blog as well as for something like the Network of Diocesan Hermits is to allow for this kind of reflection in a way which is available to anyone looking for assistance in implementing canon 603.

Solitary Hermits and Individualism:

Some critics of this blog have been very critical of diocesan hermits providing insights from their own living and reflecting on canon 603, the life it governs and nurtures, and therefore, their reflection on the kinds of life it absolutely should not be mistaken for. Whenever I have fielded questions or objections or even quotations from these folks I have the sense that they are most upset by my position that not just anything goes, not just anything can be called eremitical life in line with the Church's own understanding and eremitical tradition. Canon 603 is not meant to profess those who simply could not be professed any other way (though there will be a handful who could not be professed in community and who discover a genuine call to eremitical life). It is not meant to govern a nominally pious life without meaningful theological education and formation in spirituality --- especially in desert spirituality. Neither is it meant for those who want to live some silence and some solitude (even significant amounts of these) or desire mainly to separate themselves from others or from the post-conciliar Church, but who do not really hunger to live a LIFE of the silence of solitude.

It is the notion that "the silence of solitude" is the charism of the diocesan hermit, the gift the Holy Spirit creates in her life and the gift she herself brings to the Church and world that might help me answer your questions about individualism. A lot of people think of a hermit's work as praying for people and while I agree that is an important piece of our lives, I don't think it is the main work we do. Rather, our main work is to allow God to work in us, that is to become God's own prayer --- a prayer that witnesses to the fact that the grace of God is truly sufficient for us and God's power is made all-embracing (i.e., is perfected) in weakness. There is nothing individualistic in this. Instead there is a real dying to self so that one might be fully transparent to God, fully human in God, and witness to all of this so that others might also allow themselves to become who and what they were made to be in God. The hermit is a person in communion; they live in communion with God, with themselves, and in the heart of the Church for the sake of others. There is no room for individualism nor selfishness here.

Like a local Church the hermit is an ecclesiola, a little Church. But this means she represents the whole and is intimately related to the larger Church, first every other ecclesiola (Christian person), then the parish, then the diocesan Church, and then finally the universal Church. Each person, but especially the hermit is a microcosm of what it means to be called, to live the response in a way which is always transparent to the God who calls, and to do so for the sake of others. The hermit lives a life in which she is free to plumb the depths of communion with God. She is free to be herself in the fullest way possible in an intense and all-encompassing relatedness. She is not, however free to do just anything she wants. That is not freedom after all; it is license and it is similarly the hallmark of individualism. Thus I say the eremitical vocation is actually antithetical to individualism. To represent the Church (as any Christian is ecclesiola) and to live this vocation in the name of the Church is to be a person-in-relationship more than it is to be an individual in some senses of that term.

Hermits, A Law Unto Themselves?

The canon 603 hermit is never a law unto him or herself. Her life is given over to the will of God and to the law which that God writes on her heart. She lives a life whose parameters are defined by Canon and proper law (Rule or Plan of Life) as well as by the living eremitical tradition of the Church. It is a life nurtured by the Sacraments, fed by the Word of God and lived under the various forms of supervision of Bishop, delegate, spiritual director, and pastor as well as by an oblate chaplain or other similar figure in cases of oblature or associateship with an institute of consecrated life. She is vowed to God through profession of the evangelical counsels and thus she is bound to obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior; she is bound, in other words, both morally and in law. The "hermit" who is not so bound (and who thus mistakes license for genuine freedom) has been a perennial thorn in the side of eremitical leaders and reformers throughout the history of the Church. St Benedict castigated these, St Peter Damian did likewise as did Paul Giustiniani and many many others.

Certainly the notion of hermit as rugged individualist and law to him or herself is common as a stereotype. A few years ago I blogged about a journalist's t stupid identification (sorry but it's true!) of Tom Leppard and one other person as living classic and somehow edifying lives of eremitical solitude. I would suggest you check out those posts with labels like "stereotypes," "Tom Leppard," etc. In contemporary theology (Paul Tillich, 20 C.) we would recognize the autonomous person as antithetical to the theonomous person; that is, we would find the person who was a law unto herself as antithetical to the one who has God as her law (that is, the Lord and driving dynamic of her heart). The hermit is almost a pure paradigm of theonomous life. Certainly this alone is what s/he aspires to and represents when s/he says that by her life s/he witnesses to the fact that God alone is sufficient or that in God we are called and fulfilled as human beings who live for one another. And isn't this also the definition of Church, namely the community of the called who find their fulfillment and missionary purpose in the God of Love who is both their nomos (law) and telos (goal)?

I sincerely hope this is helpful. Your questions are important ones and ones I am keenly interested in so thanks for those!

On Making the Transition from Lone Person to Hermit and then Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister, I have the impression that you did not choose the circumstances that eventually led you to become a hermit. I also get the impression that you stress that those circumstances weren't enough to make you a hermit or to discern a call to eremitical life. What was it that made the difference for you personally? Did your circumstances change? How did you make the transition from being a lone person to being a hermit "in some essential sense," as you put it, and then, a diocesan (Catholic) hermit who embraced not only an individual vocation but a place in fostering the eremitical vocation in the Church? Is this typical of diocesan hermits?]]

Wow, I am impressed! You have managed to summarize so much important stuff in a few sentences, some of it stuff I have not really written about directly here. Your impressions are spot on too. Add to that your questions are good ones and I have to give you kudos across the board! Thanks! But that being said, the question about making the transition from being a lone person to becoming a hermit in some essential sense is not an easy one to answer. That is true because it is not about any one thing that was helpful, but about a number of things which all came together to confirm a call to eremitical solitude. Anyway, great questions. Let me give them a shot!

No, I did not choose the circumstances which eventually led me to become a hermit. As an adult (and while still a Franciscan) I developed or manifested an adult form of  mixed seizure disorder (Epilepsy) which later proved to be both medically and surgically intractable. Coupled with that, probably because of injuries that occurred during seizures, I developed chronic pain, eventually diagnosed as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy or (the preferred term these days) Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Both conditions isolated me from others (including from Mass attendance, or contributions to parish and diocesan life), prevented me from pursuing the career I had been educated and trained for (mainly teaching systematic theology but some clinical pastoral work as well), and caused me some serious and extended questioning about the meaning and value of my life more generally. Today the seizure disorder is better controlled for several separate but mutually contributory reasons (including physical solitude and silence!) while the chronic pain remains a daily reality which requires medications and adjunct therapy "to keep the fire down." While this was enough to isolate me from others, including from the local faith community and most friends, you are correct that it was no where near enough to conclude, 1) I was actually called to become a hermit, nor (much less!) 2) that I was actually a hermit in some essential sense! A transition was required!

Making the Transition from Lone Person to Eremite:

The first real shift occurred in my prayer. Over time I began to develop a more contemplative prayer life and I began to trust that more and more. By the early 80's besides my own doctors who continued to try to control both the seizures and the pain, I was working regularly with a spiritual director and was developing the tools I needed to work through the various bits of healing required by having my life sidetracked by illness and injury. At the same time she helped me begin to trust the various ways God was working in my life and I began to imagine this thing called eremitical life as a result of reading canon 603, which had been published in October of 1983, and then Merton's Contemplation in a World of Action and LeClerq's Alone With the Alone. Merton's work especially fired my imagination here. More and more my work with my director had to do with essential wholeness in the face of disability and my work with doctors became less about control of seizures and more about dealing with disability. While I continued medications, etc, for the medical stuff, the work I was doing with my director became far more important in freeing me to embrace life and become open to seeing the good God would bring out of the situation.

I had begun to experiment with living as a hermit in a conscious way and it began to be the focus of reading, discernment, research, and so forth. Early on in this process I began to write for publication (mainly Review for Religious) so it became clear that as a context for my life eremitism of some sort was truly fruitful in these terms and would lead me to contribute to the life of others and to that of the Church more generally.

Within this context then several things happened. Among them, I embraced a contemplative prayer life marked out by monastic regularity and liturgy, I undertook the lifelong work of regular spiritual direction in a focused way which led to my own increasing and essential wellness in spite of disability, I began to understand the importance of a vocation to be ill within the Church as potentially a way of proclaiming the Gospel of God (whose power is made perfect in weakness!) with a special vividness. This meant that I had begun to see my life and prayer as an important opportunity to make God manifest to others where in the past I would not have seen disability as anything other than an obstacle to a life of such significance.  In time I began to consider and write about Chronic illness as vocation and, for some relative few, as a potential call to eremitical life. Additionally then, I began to understand the main focus of my prayer as being there for God's own sake; solitude took on a distinctly communal hue, the silence of solitude assumed a more Eastern and Desert Elders cast of quies or hesychasm, while ministry to others seemed the natural expression of the compassion empowered by the silence of solitude. Thus, over time I also came to understand the terms of canon 603 radically differently than I had in 1983. All of this growth and integration was spurred by reflection on the eremitical life outlined in Canon 603 and expanded on in other texts.

Throughout these years (@1983-1995+) then, my life shifted from being mainly about myself and my own disability along with the lost opportunities or potential associated with disability and grew in this new perspective. The focus on the illness, and all it brought in its wake had been necessary for a time but now it needed to become more of a subtext in my life -- even as it continued to bring a degree of pathos and gravitas to my life. That is the shift that occurred during this period.) It became very clear that whether I eventually lived my life as a lay hermit or continued pursuing perpetual profession as a diocesan hermit,  eremitism was truly the vocational path which made my own life fruitful and other-centered. Thus, I continued to reflect on and research canon 603; I did so within a Camaldolese context now because I understood the threefold good of the Camaldolese (community, solitude, outreach or evangelization) to be a dynamic expression of the very best that eremitical life could be, not only for hermits but for the whole Church and world-at-large as well.

In other words, eremitical life began to be not only the context of a life of essential wholeness and communion with God which embraced disability and transformed it into an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel with my life, but it was the vocational pathway which made essential wholeness as well as real generosity and concern for others possible. It drove my reading and my theology to some extent (though my theology, which centered on the cross in Paul and Mark, supported this vocational pathway at every point), and it challenged me physically and spiritually to become both more truly solitary (in an eremitical sense) and contemplative as well as more open to community. In short, it engaged me on every level in a constructive way; it made me more compassionate and capable of love, more genuinely dependent on the grace of God for the meaning and shape of my life, and, while it did not bring physical healing, it deprived illness of the power to define, fragment, and dominate my life and over time would even make a gift of disability and limitations. It is what allowed me to eventually write here:

[[In the power of the Spirit and from the perspective of the Kingdom --- it is all of a piece:  Mountaintop experiences and years in the desert; a power made perfect in weakness; a  bit of human brokenness and poverty made a gift to others by the whole-making grace of God; mute isolation  transfigured into the rich communion and communicative silence of solitude; a life redeemed and enriched by love. It is all of a piece ---  epilepsy and ecstasy. I am grateful to have learned that. In fact, I am grateful to have needed and been called to learn that!]] Ecstasy and Epilepsy: It is all of a Piece

When I look back at the main stages this journey required it involved (in a pretty simplified form) movement from 1) being a lone or isolated person who merely imagined what being a hermit might mean to 2) being a hermit as the Church herself understands the term, and finally to 3) being a hermit who lives the life in the name of the Church. Each stage was either preceded or accompanied by significant and entirely necessary theological preparation and spiritual formation. This process has taken 31 years so far and exploring the last stage, both in terms of communion with God and the ecclesial implications of the vocation as I continue to grow personally, will no doubt occupy the rest of my life. I am grateful to God for what (he) has done; God is indeed a master story teller who, from the perspective of absolute futurity, weaves amazingly coherent tapestries with the most inadequate and broken threads!

Transition to Diocesan Eremitical Life:

The last question you ask has to do with the last piece of transition, namely embracing canon 603 life in a way which allowed me to be concerned not only with my own vocation, but with the eremitical tradition itself and diocesan eremitical life as a piece of that living reality. I pursued canon 603 profession beginning in 1985 or so and continued doing so right through perpetual profession in 2007; this is a complicated story and there is no reason to detail it here or now. What is important is that until a few years prior to admission to perpetual profession in 2007 and the years immediately after that, I did not have a particularly strong sense that I was part of a living eremitical tradition, much less that I would have some (small but very real) place in handing on or nurturing that tradition.

Oblature with the Camaldolese certainly was important here but I found that with perpetual canonical profession one comes to know that one has been gifted with rights and obligations beyond baptism; this sense developed especially as people asked questions about the difference between private and public vows or between personal dedication to God and public consecration by God. The difference between validating one's isolation and allowing God to redeem it so that it is transfigured into eremitical solitude was another huge piece of my developing sense of the gift and obligation held in my own eremitical life. It also developed for me as I became more sure I not only understood canon 603 but embodied it in my own way.

Something similar happened with regard to the Camaldolese charism as I moved from understanding it intellectually to having the sense I was a living expression of it and the dynamic within the threefold good which is so characteristic of it. (My life in my parish during the past 8 years contributed greatly to this bit of internalization and integration; in fact it would be hard to overstate its importance here.) A final piece of all this, and one which is not yet solidified within me has to do with my own Franciscanism and where that actually fits. You see, St Francis lived as a hermit for a time and wrote a Rule for hermits which is pretty different from the monastic approaches to eremitical life. I have the sense that my own Franciscanism is stronger than I realized and I am freer to explore that now that I have not only understood but internalized the Camaldolese charism in a foundational way.

I don't know how this Franciscan piece of things will actually shake out but it is part of my own history and life which I am currently examining more closely; in one way or another it will be another piece of becoming responsible for the living tradition we call eremitical life in the Church. It seems to me this concern with the vitality of the tradition itself is really a normal culmination of the movement in my adult life. I moved from an active and largely other-centered life of ministry and preparation for ministry, to a life isolated by chronic illness and concerned with making sense of itself; from there my life shifted again to a solitary and contemplative one which, through the context of eremitical life, was empowered to be lived for God and others in the silence of solitude. Next my life shifted to one which consciously embraced and reflected the place of the Camaldolese charism in achieving this movement, and finally, it involved canonically and publicly embracing eremitical life more generally as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church and world. Many things mediated the grace of God and brought me to embrace eremitical life; it is this vital if rare and fragile tradition which has made a gift of my life. I am responsible for it both morally and legitimately (in law) --- a responsibility I accept with real joy and not a little awe.

Is this Typical of Diocesan Hermits?

To be honest I don't know if there is a "typical story" for diocesan hermits. I do know that a number of us contend with disability and chronic illness of various types and severity. I also know that none of those with whom I am acquainted believe it is enough to be chronically ill or disabled and isolated in the way this can bring about to conclude one has a vocation to eremitical life! Still, over time each of us discerned that eremitical life created the potential for significantly meaningful and fruitful lives when our illnesses militated against that. We each recognize that eremitical life allows us to live an authentic religious life which is not self-centered even while it requires signifcant physical solitude. Moreover my sense is that each of us has come to an essential wholeness and even holiness in which illness is deprived of its capacity to define and dominate our lives despite the symptoms that trouble us every single day. (This is one of the reasons I personally have very little tolerance for self-labeled "Catholic hermits" for whom eremitical life is little more than an opportunity to justify and wax endlessly about their own "God-willed" isolation and unrelenting physical problems.) Here as in everything in Christian life the truth is, "By their fruits ye shall know them!" --- that reflection of what God has done in one's life in the desert is, perhaps, the only really typical (and compelling!) piece of any genuine hermit's story!

I hope these answers are helpful. It is unlikely I will write about some parts of this again very soon. Still, if I have been unclear or raised additional questions, I hope you will get back to me with those.

More on Hermits and Private vs Public Obligations, Relationships and Witness, etc.

[[Dear Sister, am I right in saying you are in charge of determining how much solitude is healthy for you, or how much is allowed while maintaining other ecclesial obligations? What if you wanted to spend three months or more in absolute reclusion? Could you do that? How does that work? Your own life is governed by a Rule which you wrote. Could a lay hermit (I mean a hermit who is not a canonical hermit) write a Rule which allowed her to be completely reclusive and not go to Mass regularly? Would this be an example of the competing obligations you spoke of earlier today? My guess is this wouldn't work even though she is doing it to be a hermit --- a good thing and pleasing to God as the Catholicam blogger wrote! I say that because it seems kind of elitist to me.]]

Really great questions and points, especially because they tie into yesterday's posts and the discussion begun on two other blogs and continued here.

Yes, I am largely the one responsible for discerning how much solitude and what kind God is calling me to, what I need for a healthy eremitical life as well as what degree and kind of solitude honors other (sometimes competing) ecclesial and personal obligations. However, neither do I do this alone --- nor could I. I couldn't even say that God alone and I determine this without need for others because it is so easy to delude oneself about what is of God, what God is saying, etc. That was one of the reasons people like Peter Damian and Paul Giustiniani had a healthy caution when it came to the solitary eremitical life which they both esteemed; they saw this life as fraught with peril. One really does need to discuss things, consider what others see and hear (especially what they observe in terms of growth in the hermit's own life and the fruitfulness of her solitude), weigh the consequences, engage in mutual prayer, and so forth. The stable relationships canonical standing creates are necessary for truly discerning what God is calling one to. When a large change like that of reclusion is being considered (and even for a diocesan hermit already living substantial physical solitude reclusion is still a significant change and commitment, and not just for the hermit herself  --- more about that below).

You see, complete reclusion is difficult for a diocesan hermit because she really is responsible for her own upkeep, shopping, errands, and sometimes a limited degree of ministry. For me that means I do regular spiritual direction and assist at the parish for a brief time about one morning a week. However, if I were to determine that I really needed to do something like what you suggest, what I would be likely to do to begin anyway, is to 1) take one or two days a month to see clients during the three month period (I cannot responsibly stop working with people while I am discerning this matter), 2) ask for others in the parish to take on what I am doing there while I continued doing maybe one morning a month for that three month period (if someone can take over that day as well, then that would be fine), and 3) request parishioners to help me by shopping for me, bringing me Communion for the week (there are some alternatives to this but something needs to be worked out), etc. I would probably also elect to meet with my own director at least once or twice during this time. This would not be complete reclusion but it would be the closest to which I could responsibly come right now; if after this kind of period of discernment I determined I was being called to even greater solitude for a longer time then I would need to find ways to achieve that. But, again, all this needs to be discerned.

I have written here before that one of the things a diocesan hermit must be open to is the possibility that God is calling her to reclusion and I am quite serious about that. If I were to discern a call to reclusion, then my Bishop would need to agree and an arrangement with my parish and pastor made to ensure regular reception of the Sacraments, occasional Mass here in the hermitage, and some way to get provisions and have errands run. My expectation would be the diocese and parish would assist with some of this but, as you can see, a lot would need to be worked out and other people would need to make commitments to enable my reclusion. A hermit can never forget the love and faith of those who allow  and often help support and empower her to live solitude in their midst; the situation with reclusion is, again, even more dependent on others as she is given the freedom to explore communion with God. Remember that when, and to whatever extent, we are in union with God we will be called and empowered to regard and treat our brothers and sisters with greater love and solicitude, not with less, and certainly not with a mere abstraction of the word love (e.g., "I love humanity; it's people I despise!" "I love souls, but embodied historical persons are not my concern!") even as we spend our time navel-gazing in the "contemplation" of our own existences! Communion with God fires our hearts and focuses us outward even as it draws us in and requires a real and creative introspection. In my experience, that introspection is meant to be at the service of a greater outward focus toward real people.

Private vs Public Commitments, Rights and Obligations

I am sorry if I was not clear regarding what happens when a lay hermit takes on private obligations (as opposed to the public obligations assumed in public profession); let me repeat some and try to clarify as I go. Since a lay hermit is a baptized Catholic she will have assumed and been charged with the public rights and obligations associated with that commitment. The obligation to attend Mass (Sunday obligation) is part of this. These rights and obligations are legitimate ones meaning the person is bound in law to make them a true priority in her life. If a person makes a private dedication as a hermit she or he remains in his/her current state of life and assumes no additional (or potentially modifying) rights and obligations. Additional rights and obligations are extended to a person by the Church and assumed by that person in public professions and consecrations as well as in ordinations and marriages (!). In Public (canonical) vows the Church mediates God's call and the person's response in a way which binds both the person and the Church in a public act and a new ecclesial relationship.

This means that if a non-canonical or lay hermit decides to write a Rule which demanded she miss Mass on Sundays, for instance, she would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public and ecclesial one she has already accepted as a life obligation. She would be putting an entirely private commitment over a public (legal and moral) one she accepted freely and was charged or commissioned with by the Church. One could not do this apart from other really significant extenuating circumstances and remain a Catholic in good standing --- at least not without seriously deceiving oneself. In such a case, the extenuating circumstances would themselves need to be serious enough to permit the person to miss Mass; being a lay hermit who is privately dedicated to solitude simply wouldn't be sufficient in this way.  In other words, public rights and obligations trump private rights and obligations while legitimate or canonical rights and obligations trump non-canonical rights and obligations in this regard. Because of the differing weights or seriousness of the person's commitments (that is, some that are public and canonical or legitimate, and some which are entirely private) this would not be a good example of what I was speaking about when I mentioned competing obligations; in my usage about that I was referring to competing public and canonical or legitimate obligations all of which publicly (legally and morally) bind the canonically professed hermit.

Public Commitments, A Matter of Relationships and Witness

The reason public vs private are "weighted" in this way is important because of the correlative relationships and witness which attach. Private commitments are, while not unimportant, of less social consequence. After all they are called called private for a reason!  Public commitments issue in public responsibilities to live one's ecclesial commitments in an edifying way and thus, with integrity and with an eye toward how one's actions affect others; this is true even of the hermit whose life is essentially hidden! They involve others, not least in the expectations they allow others to necessarily hold in the committed person's regard; further they are either a witness to others or they represent a betrayal of one's responsibility to witness appropriately to those others. If an avid soccer fan (and a Catholic) sincerely believes God is calling her to watch every game of the World Cup no matter her obligations to spouse, or children, or parish (Church) or God via these other relationships, and decides she is justified in this way, she is lying to herself in one way or another.  Nor is the example she is giving particularly edifying.

To take a  more serious example, if a wife decided she no longer wished to take part in marital relations, nor to care for her family because God was calling her to embrace celibacy and live as a hermit, once again she would be lying to herself and others and failing to witness to the sanctity of marriage and sexual love as she has PUBLICLY committed herself and been commissioned by the Church to do. The Church no longer effectively devalues the Sacramental and legal state of marriage nor profanes marital love in the name of religious life or celibacy as higher values. What then of someone who is legitimately allowed by the Church to call herself a Catholic Hermit and who, without the mutual discernment or approval of legitimate superiors, thereafter claims that God has blocked her way to participate in any significant way in normal ecclesial life (including Mass and the Sacraments) or who contends that the abstract (bloodless) "love of souls" takes the place of concrete love of others? Is this really the message of the Gospel entrusted to the Church? Does this constitute an edifying example of Christian witness? Does it even witness to the vocation of the Catholic Hermit and the way the Church understands that today?

You see, what is also true is that the public commitments in each of these situations is presumed to be an expression of God's will! This is especially so because, as ecclesial realities, they are sanctioned and blessed by the Church. That means there must be pretty significant indications when one proposes changing them for what one privately experiences as the will of God! It also means in some way these private experiences and determinations need to be corroborated or affirmed by others in the Church (meaning pastors, Bishops and their delegates, etc) as well. In the situation you referred to --- a privately dedicated hermit determines she is called by God to reclusion and to cutting herself off from the Sacramental and ecclesial life of the Church symbolized in the minimal obligation of Sunday Mass -- I  was not struck so much by the elitism of the determination (though I certainly agree this person would never allow other Catholics to make the same determination in the name of private revelations and discernment) as I was struck by the extreme individualism, and even narcissism of the situation.

Canon 603 allows for the first time ever in universal law for individuals who are not part of religious communities and congregations to live and explore the depths of the vowed life within the realm of eremitical solitude (communion with God), that is, a life which says God alone is sufficient for us human beings. But it does this with ecclesial vetting, oversight, and support. Far from getting in the way of the individual's relationship with God the structures and relationships set up in canonical standing create a realm of freedom where the individual may truly live a life of assiduous prayer and penance without real concern that she ought to be about something else, some more active ministry, some money-making project for the sake of others, etc.

But the paradox is that this solitary enterprise is taken on for the sake of others and as a specifically ecclesial reality. While other people do not occupy the hermitage with the hermit, their faith and support make this life possible; moreover they look to the hermit for a witness which illumines some dimensions of the Gospel in a particularly sharp or compelling way. The Church has given the faithful this right when it called, professed, and consecrated this hermit from their very midst and then established her hermitage there as well. The bottom line truth here is that the hermitage is a still point in an often chaotic world and this is not for the hermit's benefit alone! She is there at the service of God and others. Not all hermits' lives are good and pleasing to God. A misanthrope's (or other individualist's) isolated shack is not the same as the hermit's dwelling which is always situated in profound relationship to God and others in the heart of the Church.

Physical Solitude as Destructive

[[Sister Laurel, how do what you have called the central or non-negotiable elements of canon 603 rule out people from living an eremitical life? Everyone is supposed to pray assiduously, live more or less penitential lives and I think everyone needs silence and solitude as a regular part of their spiritual lives. Wouldn't you agree? So what is it about canon 603 that helps a diocese determine someone is NOT called to be a hermit? Am I making sense? Also sometimes people say that solitude is dangerous for people. Have you ever seen a case where a person is harmed by living in physical solitude? What happened?]]

Yes, I think this is a sensible and very good question. While all the elements of the canon would suffer in one who was not really called to the life the one that comes to mind first and foremost for me is "the silence of solitude." I have treated it here as the environment, the goal, and the charism or gift of the eremitical life to the Church and world.  I have also noted that it is the unique element of canon 603 which is not the same as silence AND solitude and also distinguishes this life from that of most Christians and most other religious as well.  Just as I believe the silence of solitude is the environment, goal, and gift of eremitical life, I believe it is a key piece of discerning whether or not one is called to eremitical solitude. Perhaps you have watched the downward spiral of someone who is living a form of relative reclusion and who has become isolated from his/her family, friends, and from his/her local parish. Often such persons become depressed, angry, bitter, self-centered and anguish over the meaning of their lives; they may try to compensate in ways which are clearly self-destructive and/or which lash out at others. Some turn to constant (or very significant) distraction (TV, shopping, etc) while others use religion to justify their isolation and wrap their efforts at self-justification as well as the self-destruction, bitterness, and pain in pious language. One expression of this is to consider themselves (or actually attempt to become!) hermits.


Whatever else is true about their situation it seems undeniable that such a person is NOT called to be a hermit, does not thrive in physical solitude and gives no evidence of living what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude." In its own way it is terrifying and very sad to watch what isolation does to an individual who is not really called to eremitical solitude or actual reclusion. There is plenty of documentation on this including from prisons where such isolation is enforced and leads to serious mental and emotional consequences. At the very least we see it is ordinarily destructive of personhood and can be deeply damaging psychologically.

Regarding your questions about whether I have ever seen such a situation and what this looked like, the initial answer is yes. Over the past several years (about 7), but especially over the past 3 years, I have watched such a downward spiral occur in someone who wished and attempted to live as a hermit. Besides the signs and symptoms mentioned above, this person's image of God is appalling and has become more so in response to the difficulties of her now-even-stricter isolation; in trying to make sense of her experiences she has come to believe that God directly tests her with tragedies and persecution, causes her to suffer chronic, even unremitting pain, supposedly demands she cut herself off from friends, family, clergy, et al (which, at least as she reports it, always seems to happen in a way which is traumatic for all involved) and seems to encourage her to cultivate a judgmental attitude toward others whose souls she contends she can read. Tendencies to an unhealthy spirituality and self-centeredness in which this person considers herself to be directly inspired by God while everyone else is moved by the devil, where she is right and everyone else is wrong, where she is unhappy and feels persecuted when concern is expressed, etc, have hardened as she holds onto these "certainties" as the only things remaining to her to make any kind of sense of her life.

It is, for me at least, both saddening and incredibly frustrating. I want somehow to shake this person and say, "Wake up! When everyone else disagrees with you, when every parish finds certain regular occurrences disruptive and divisive while you contend these are of God, consider you may have gotten it wrong!! You would not be the first nor will you be the last! When the fruits of these occurrences are negative for everyone else and seem to lead to increased isolation and unhappiness for you, please at least consider they are are NOT of God!! When physical solitude is a source of misery and desperation rather than joy and profound hope, when it leads to a "me vs the world" perspective (and I am not referring to 'world' in the sense canon 603 or monastic life uses it in the phrase 'fuga Mundi'!!) rather than to finding oneself belonging profoundly (e.g., in Christ or in one's shared humanity which is grounded in God)--- even when apart from others, consider that what you are living is not right for you. God wants you to be complete and fulfilled in him; more, he wills it! He sent his Son so that you might have abundant life, that you might know his profound love and experience true peace and communion -- even and perhaps especially in your daily struggles! Eremitical solitude can be destructive; it is not the way for you! The personal "noisiness" (physical, emotional, and spiritual) of your isolation is NOT what canon 603 is talking about when it refers to the silence of solitude. Please, at least consider these points!


One of the things this ongoing situation has under-scored for me is the wisdom of canon 603's choice of "the silence of solitude" rather than "silence and solitude" as a defining element of the life. It also underscores for me the fact that eremitical solitude is a relational or dialogical reality which has nothing to do with personal isolation or self-centeredness. (Obviously there is a significant degree of physical solitude but this is other-centered, first God and then other people and the whole of creation.) Especially too it says that "the silence of solitude" is about an inner wholeness and peace (shalom) that comes from resting in God so that one may be and give oneself in concrete ways for the love of others. One lives in this way because it is edifying both to oneself as authentically human, and to others who catch the scent of God that is linked to this gift of the Holy Spirit.

A hermit, as I have said many times here, is NOT simply a lone person living an isolated life; neither is eremitical solitude one long vacation nor an escape from personal problems or the demands of life in relationship. In Christianity a hermit lives alone with God in the heart of the Church for the sake of others and she tailors her physical solitude so that her needs (and obligations) for community and all that implies are met. Moreover, not everyone CAN or SHOULD become a hermit any more than anyone can or should become a Mother or a psychiatrist or parish priest or spiritual director. Most people do not come to human wholeness or holiness in extended solitude; further, since extended solitude always breaks down but builds up only in rare cases, embracing it as a vocation can be harmful for one not truly called to it. As I have also written before, the Church recognizes the truth of this by professing very few hermits under canon 603 and by canonically establishing only a handful of communities which allow for either eremitical life or actual reclusion. (Only the Camaldolese and the Carthusians may allow reclusion.) In all of these cases the hermits or recluses are closely supervised and made accountable to legitimate superiors. Medical and psychological evaluations are generally required for candidates and are certainly sought in the presence of unusual or questionable and concerning characteristics.

Please note that the situation I described is unusual in some ways and generally extreme. In every case however, whether extreme or not, a diocese will use the characteristics of canon 603, but particularly "the silence of solitude" understood as Carthusians and other hermits do to measure or discern the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them. They will not use the canon to baptize mere eccentricity or illness and they will look for deep peace, joy, and convincing senses of meaning and belonging which have grown in eremitical solitude over at least several years. Similarly they will look for personal maturity, spiritual authenticity and the ability to commit oneself, persevere in that commitment, and love deeply and concretely. Perhaps I can say something in another post about the other central characteristics of canon 603 and the way they are used to discern when someone does NOT have a vocation to diocesan eremitical life. Assiduous prayer and penance and a life lived for the salvation of others, for instance, can certainly assist the diocese in this way.

Lauras: On hermits and Community

[[ Dear Sister, I have one question. Why are colonies of hermits called lauras. How can hermits live in colonies and still be hermits?]]

Thanks, good questions. The term laura comes from the Latin word for pathways or paths. A colony of hermits usually consists of individual hermitages, each fairly isolated from the others whether architecturally, by geography, etc. These individual hermitages are linked to one another by paths (including by cloisters) and as well to the central Church or chapel. I think it is particularly telling that such colonies are named after the external reality which links all the hermits and makes of each hermitage or "cell" an integral part of a local church or living organism. This makes clear that hermits are always part of a larger body; their lives are lives of communion, first with God and through God with one another and the whole of Creation. No hermit is ever truly alone. They are always alone with God for others --- and quite often, with others as well. Certainly they live their vocations in the heart of the Church.

In colonies, of course, the lion's share of the hermit's life is spent alone with God. Hermits in lauras come together for Mass, for occasional meals and some celebrations of the Liturgy of the Hours. They may also join once a week or so in a long walk or other recreation. As I have written here a number of times solitude, including eremitical solitude does not refer simply to physical isolation from others, but to a form of communion with God lived for the sake of others in the heart of the Church. This means it is supported solitude which contributes to life in the Church. While it is not the same as cenobitical life in community, and while it means aloneness with God, neither is it in conflict with some degree of community.

The Camaldolese, for instance refer to it as "living together alone." For the diocesan or "solitary" hermit who does not ordinarily have other hermits to live in a colony with, her primary community will be her parish and though she spends the majority of her time alone with God, she may also see folks at Mass several times a week, meet with a couple of clients during the week, and interact briefly with folks at the grocery store, drug store, etc. What defines her life however is aloneness with God lived for the sake of others in the heart of the Church and this remains true whether she sees one person in a month or several people in a week, or whether her only companions during this time are the people she reads, or the Communion of Saints and pilgrim ecclesial community in which she prays as an integral part.

I hope this is helpful.

Canon 603: Normativity and the Prevention of Distortions, Abuses, Counterfeits and Frauds

[[Sister, you wrote that Bishop Remi de Roo gave several different reasons for asking the II Vatican Council to make eremitical life a state of perfection and include it in canon law. Could you please post these here? I could not copy them.]]

Sure. They are 1) The fact of a growing renewal of the life, 2) the sanctifying value of the hermit's life, 3) the hermit's contribution to the life of the church. This would include the hermit's prophetic role, a modeling of the Church's call to contemplation and the centrality of prayer, being a paradigm of the way we are each called to confront evil within our own lives and world, or allow heaven (God's own life shared with others) to interpenetrate our reality, etc 4) the ecumenical value of the hermit's life (especially re dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity) 5) a correction of the impression that the evangelical counsels is limited to institutionalized community life known as religious life. Question continues:

[[I can see where these really are positive reasons for establishing Canon 603. Was it also a way to regulate the growth of the vocation or minimize distortions or abuses even if these weren't the reason the Canon came into existence? Thank you.]]

Yes. to point out the normative and ecclesial nature of canon 603 vocations is to say that the Church desires to respond to the Holy Spirit in authentic ways. This also therefore means that abuses, distortions, disedifying stereotypes, and destructive eccentrics or eccentricities cannot mask themselves as Catholic hermits or the stuff of canon 603 life as well as that the Church has a stake in being sure this does not occur. The big difference between noting that canon 603 ALSO helps prevent abuses and saying that it actually grew out of an attempt to deal with abuses should be clear. Since these elements are something of an informal vision of the place of the eremitical vocation in the Church, and since they are positive and ecclesially focused, they too underscore that the flip side of the positive normative nature of the canon involves the prevention of abuses.

What remains true however, is that unless the Church was (and is) faced with a true gift of the Holy Spirit  in eremitical life no canon would be necessary; nor would any exist. The Church could simply ignore (as "hermits", not as needy people!) the fraudulent or counterfeit "hermits" populating the various wildernesses (including internet sites!) of the world. The corollary then is that with this canon (i.e., this norm) the proliferation of counterfeits and frauds alongside those very few authentic vocations who consider this vocation seriously because of the canon, makes recognizing, exploring, and honoring the normative nature of the canon even more critical. While it is not meant to validate eccentricity and inauthenticity, it does pique the interest of many lone individuals who will never be professed accordingly for these same reasons (and better ones as well!).** As former detective Monk might say, in this regard Canon 603 is both a blessing and a curse.

I am not entirely sure about the idea that the canon was meant to regulate the growth of such vocations if by that you mean it was meant to prevent there from being lots and lots of them, for instance. The Church knows this is a relatively rare vocation and that few are called to human wholeness in this way. However, the specific non-negotiable  or defining elements of the canon do prevent just any lone pious person from thinking of themselves (much less portraying themselves publicly) as a hermit just as it prevents some of the practices which would surely proliferate without it: e.g., solitary apostolic religious for whom being a hermit is a "metaphor" for their lives, misanthropes, and others seeking to validate their strangeness or their failures at charity and relationships by applying the word "hermit" to their lives, Saturday-only contemplatives, married hermits, and any number of other examples I have mentioned in the past 7 years.

You may have noticed that I posted an answer to the question as to whether the Episcopal solitary was the same as the RC Hermit. In fact, it turns out that the Episcopalians use a canon which is sort of a catchall for unusual cases --- cases in which a person is not professed as part of a recognized Order or Community, for instance. While the solitaries I know personally in the Episcopal Church live lives which resemble my own in all the elements Canon 603 requires of the hermit, the Canon under which they are professed does NOT spell out these elements in the same way Canon 603 does. Thus, while I don't know if the Episcopal Church has problems with Bishops professing individuals as "solitaries" even if they do not live a desert spirituality, this too makes it clear that Canon 603 does limit the growth of the vocation to those persons who DO live its central and non-negotiable elements.

** Should anyone doubt that Canon 603 (and those professed under it) has subsequently led to MANY people seeking to be professed accordingly one story might help here. I was speaking to a Vicar for Consecrated Life about his diocese's experience with hermits, hermit candidates for profession, etc. This diocese has professed one diocesan hermit in the history of the canon, and that was only within the past decade. However, he said that every month (he may have said every week, I can't recall exactly now) people approach the diocese seeking to be admitted to profession as diocesan hermits. None of them has gotten as far as this one diocesan hermit in regard to the process of discernment and admission to public profession. (Note well that this is a diocese open to having diocesan hermits.)

If we take the lowest average possible while omitting periods of holidays and possibly the Summer months (and my sense is this is a fairly conservative number) that means that of at least 100 or so persons seeking admission to profession as a diocesan hermit in the past decade only 1 has been professed under canon 603 in this one diocese. Many dioceses of course have professed none and some have actually determined they will profess none in the foreseeable future. (There are significant pros and cons to this decision.) A few have professed several (we sort of laughingly call them "hotbeds" of eremitical life!). I think this too indicates that Canon 603 does naturally limit the growth of this vocation --- and rightly so. It also indicates, I think, why it is important to write publicly about this canon and the meaning of its central or defining elements. Some of these people will  actually one day become diocesan hermits if they can only come to understand and embrace the life it defines. Others never will, while a number of others probably never should.

Will Canon 603 disappear due to the many Abuses it has Suffered in its short life?

[[One lay hermit has said that because of "all the abuses" of canon 603 by canonical hermits and Bishops, the church will one day go back to having only one pathway of hermit life. She says that Bishop's (sic) leniency and lack of knowledge about the lives of eremitical saints or rules of life have allowed dissident nuns to be professed in some dioceses when others [bishops] like her own would never allow them because they are too visible, read books by heterodox nuns, etc. . . . even while orthodox candidates are prohibited from being canonically professed because they must work in hospitals. She forecasts the situation will continue to require more and more laws because of such abuses. It seems like she believes one day the Church will just get rid of c 603 which only came to be to prevent abuses anyway but she didn't [specify] this. How accurate is this perception and how reasonable this opinion?]]

Hmmm, this hermit's version of the situation sort of makes me want to check to see what books I have either mentioned reading or recommended here!

But seriously, I think that first of all it must be granted that canon 603 is a new (31 year old), demanding, and at the same time, flexible canon governing a little-known and less-well understood vocation which, as I have mentioned just recently, combines non-negotiable elements with the requirement that a hermit write her own Rule. Some problems associated with the common requirement that a hermit be self-supporting in some way have occurred for instance; this requirement does mean that Bishops differ on things like the amount of active ministry or other work outside the hermitage a hermit may do --- though all tend to prohibit full time work, especially outside the hermitage. Others problems have occurred because the central elements of the canon must be read from within the desert and hesychastic traditions if they are to be understood, and Bishops and would-be hermits have not always done so. When I spoke of some Bishops needing to learn that "the silence of solitude" was a Carthusian term this was part of what I mean here. Have there been abuses or at least misuses? Yes, and I would call one or two of these doozies! However, I would not call the number high. In fact, to suggest the canon has been fraught with abuses to the extent that it will simply go by the wayside is alarmist nonsense I think.

What is more the case is that there have been occasional mistakes made as Bishops and chanceries continue to determine what authentic contemporary vocations which embody traditional essential elements look like on the ground. These mistakes, however, are more like growing pains than actual abuses and because there are so few hermits in an absolute sense, they are of greater import for the faithful and the vocation itself than they might be otherwise. As the canon gets older, however, and examples of authentic contemporary solitary eremitical life become more numerous, more prevalent, as well as better established and known, and as the problematical issues involved in practical implementation of the canon which have not and cannot really be specifically dealt with by the canon itself are explored by those living the life,  or by theologians, canonists, and historians, the misuses of the canon as well as simple misjudgments or mistakes will diminish and outright abuses (which are truly rare) will cease. I should note that it is precisely because the Church has not multiplied laws that ambiguities and unclarities continue or remain.

At the same time I think we must be careful to not identify legitimate diversity or variation as "abuses." Hermits have always differed from one another: some are scholars, some are not; some are very conservative in various ways while others are less so. Some are completely reclusive or anchorites while others are more peripatetic or at least more involved in their parishes; some are writers and spiritual directors while others, of course, are not. Some strike us as eminently sane and others strike us as complete nutcases. They may all be authentic hermits.  We must realize that canon 603 allows for genuine diversity even as it remains normative of eremitical life in the Catholic Church. What we must let go of is the notion that canonical standing is necessarily related to legalism or that admission to canonical standing under canon 603 is equivalent to a diocese's or bishop's imprimatur or even a nihil obstat on a book --- only applied to a person. It is not.

"Canonical Standing" is not really "Canonical Approval"

You see, as my response to an email last week noted, the use of the term "approval" in the phrase "canonical approval" is misleading and more than a little superficial when it leads to these kinds of notions. It should probably be used only very cautiously to indicate "approval for admittance to profession and canonical standing". Otherwise, "canonical standing" is the better phrase. After all, what the church does in extending or admitting to canonical standing is not precisely the same as "approving" the person's theological preferences, taste in reading material, or even their orthodoxy (though we can of course presume they are faithful Catholics!). Instead the church has discerned the presence of a Divine vocation and is admitting the person to the constellation of stable relationships which will continue to mediate this very call to the person and, hopefully, allow her to respond with fidelity, integrity, and grace. What approval exists does so for the sake of admitting the person to a place of  ecclesial trust and commensurate obligations with regard to this specific vocation in the life of the Church.

Neither does the church thereby say that THIS person has status in the church whereas, for instance, the lay hermit has either a lesser status or none at all. They both have status in the church (meaning they each have standing in law and are (or, in the case of a lay hermit, are already) initiated into a state of life; as I have said a number of times, status in this case is not a matter of social priority or different positions in a merely social hierarchy); in one hermit this occurs by virtue of the sacrament of baptism alone, and in the other hermit by virtue of baptism and a new consecration which involves the acceptance of the rights and obligations linked to additional canon laws and the relationships these imply.

It is true that bishops, like anyone charged in the Church with nurturing, protecting and discerning the existence and quality of a vocation, exercise some subjectivity in professing and consecrating hermits, but my own (admittedly limited) experience is that generally they move beyond their own personal biases or theological preferences and look to the good of the vocation itself. Neither, again, can we identify legitimate mistakes or missteps as abuses. For instance, occasionally some bishops will profess very young adults as solitary hermits only to find when s/he seeks a dispensation from her vows and/or desires to start or enter a community that the c 603 or solitary eremitical vocation tends to be a second-half of life vocation and that the young person usually does better entering an eremitical community. At worst this is simply a mistake --- if in fact, it even qualifies as that.

Abuses, on the other hand, occur when the non-negotiable elements of the canon are  actually disregarded or treated as optional or merely "metaphorical." (By the way if one cannot live these elements one's supposed orthodoxy hardly matters.) As we discussed recently, one of the reason for blogs like mine is to discuss the nature of canon 603 and of profession and consecration under this canon from the perspective of lived experience. What I write comes out of my reflection on my own vocation and how the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and world today with regard to this form of eremitism. Other diocesan hermits are also contributing by sharing their own experience with their bishops.

Proliferation of Laws and the Disappearance of C 603??

I honestly don't have a clue what the hermit you are referring to is talking about when s/he suggests there is or has been some proliferation of rules to combat abuses. That simply is not happening --- nor is it the way the Church deals with difficulties on such a small scale. At most what we see with regard to canon 603 are anecdotes about experiments (or trials) with the canon in specific dioceses which resulted in problems along with calls for informal guidelines on specific topics (age, formation, work, insurance, ministry, etc). These guidelines will again come from lived experience gained through dialogue between Bishops, canonists and hermits in their dioceses. Still, I don't foresee a proliferation of rules --- not with regard to eremitical life under canon 603 --- and certainly I don't foresee a proliferation of canons per se. With history and lived experience will come wisdom, and with wisdom, resources (commentaries, dissertations, guidebooks, articles, even blogs (!) etc) that dioceses may draw on and which can guide further prudent and inspired (discerning) usage of canon 603. Even so, ordinarily Bishops and those that assist them in their discernment will have the final word here --- not another law or laws. They will use or refrain from using both these resources and canon 603 as they deem wise in each individual case and they and their curia will grow in their own ability to determine appropriate usage and evaluate the candidates that come before them.

More specifically, I don't see canon 603 going anywhere or disappearing from the Code of Canon Law. It will continue to be used more and more wisely and prudently across the board --- which will free some who have hesitated to use it at all to go ahead when authentic vocations come their way. What is unquestionable is that it is an important piece of legislation which stops the gap in universal law regarding one of the most ancient, rare, and significant forms of Christian existence in the life of the church. It helps protect a gift of the Holy Spirit; any other way of seeing it is inadequate at best. Further, by the way, it is not the second of two pathways to eremitical life; it is the third of three main avenues, lay (non-canonical), semi-eremitical (usually canonical and associated with congregations), and diocesan eremitical life (canonical and solitary) --- each admitting some variation or personal diversity.

Neither, as I have now written several times, is establishment in law really merely a Johnny-come-lately idea whose birth was due to abuses or the desire for social status by some unhappy lay hermits. Eremitical life since at least @ the 5th C. has often been lived under the supervision of diocesan Bishops, or other local ordinaries (e.g., Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, etc). Correspondingly, dioceses and regions had canons and statutes regulating these vocations on the local level. To suggest otherwise is historically (and ecclesiastically) naive. Canon 603 differs because it is a universal law and a precedent-setting one at that. For these reasons I have to say I think the hermit you referred to is mistaken in her conclusions, more than a little overly-cynical in her analysis, and inaccurate in her perceptions and predictions.

Followup Questions on Ecclesial Vocations, Canon 603, Freedom, Constraints, and Commitment

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am so profoundly grateful for the article in which you tackle some of the differences between lay and canonical eremitism.  One thought that struck me was, when a person opts to remain a lay hermit (or solitary as in the Episcopal Church), might that imply that the words, the obligations, of Canon 603 could be modified?  Well, now, I mean, what if my understanding of solitary life is different in some ways? ]]

Of course one can remain a lay hermit in either Church community and act with the same Christian freedom but with greater liberty in some ways as well. While I think that canon 603 is remarkably adaptable (witness the fact that no two diocesan hermits write the same Rule, follow the same horarium, or approach the question of active ministry in exactly the same way), and while I have never found the relationship with superiors to be onerous, it is true that in accepting the rights and obligations associated with a public commitment to and under canon 603, I am not able to simply explore anything that captures my imagination or shape my life in any way at all. While I think the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 apply to any form of eremitical life worthy of the name (and here I mean stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance as well as some form of the evangelical counsels and the notion that this is lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes --- all for the praise of God and the salvation of the world --- I can't really imagine or recall a meaningful or authentic eremitical life that wasn't an expression of these in one way and another) the other elements are not strictly necessary and certainly not in the same way for lay hermits.

You clarify your question when you write: [[I do not feel that my vocation is an ecclesial one.  It would exist if there were no institutional religion on the face of the earth.  Ideally, the church and its structures should be supports for spiritual life, not members of the church living to support the church qua institution, and a top-heavy one at that. Yes, Jesus described us as part of himself, himself and the father as one, so that we are all members one of another.  But where does he say that law should be multiplied and that each personal spiritual expression must be defined by a hierarchical structures of men? I take advantage of the church for my prayer.  I go on retreat at RC retreat houses.  But any manifestation of institutionalism just doesn’t work for me.  I feel as if, were I much younger and went through the steps to become a professed Hermit, I would probably then run away to have more freedom.  And I know the freedom of life in Christ.  It’s just that that is not quite the same as any hypothetical freedom of life in the Church.]]

The Church seems pretty present in your life:

 Well, first of all let me point out that in "taking advantage" of the Church as you describe, or even in considering canon 603 as a guide for your life in some way, reading about hermits (much less articles BY hermits!), considering writing for your church publication or newsletter, seeking spiritual direction, etc, etc, you are indeed dealing with expressions of the institutional church. While an institution, organization, or even an organism can become deformed or dysfunctional the simple fact is that even the simplest grouping of people will have institutional elements, rules, customs, standards, values, common beliefs and practices (rituals, etc), boundaries, and so forth. In your own home I know for a fact that you have instituted (note that word!) some of these in order to protect and nurture the quality of your eremitical (solitary) life. Because of this you also know, I think, that the constraints applied here have led to a real freedom to pursue your vocation as you perceive and receive it from God.

I think what you are concerned with is not the institution of the Church which is a living reality manifest in even the least among us (which is one reason Peter Damian referred to hermits as eccesiolae -- little churches) but, as you say, institutionalism, which is a rather different animal. To that end I would caution you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Similarly, I think you are confusing freedom with license to some degree. The same caveat applies here. When I chose to seek admission to vows, whether as a Sister in community or as a solitary hermit under canon 603 it was my experience that I was choosing among goods and that though there were significant constraints in the choices I had made, these served a deeper freedom.

No place we go or choice we make in this world is free from constraints --- even when those are the constraints of age or heath or intelligence, etc. The task is always to choose that set of constraints (or embrace them in a way) which allows God to do the very best within and with these. To do otherwise is indeed to choose a merely hypothetical freedom and to mistake mere license for genuine freedom. So long as we are not choosing sin vs faithfulness or indulging our falsely autonomous self I think our choice is always not so much freedom versus unfreedom as it is the choice between one expression of freedom and another one, one set of constraints and another one. If the constraints associated with the expression of freedom you choose do not serve you well or are impossible to bear, then by all means, you should select a different expression of freedom (by which I do not mean a different version of freedom) with a different set of constraints insofar as that is possible or prudent --- for sometimes, as you well know, our inability to bear constraints points to our own need for growth, faith (trust), and conversion. That is one of the key lessons of monastic (and eremitical) stability.

On Constraints and Commitment

One point here, of course, is that we cannot do away with constraints. That is simply impossible. Constraints help define our truest freedom. They are the result and the way of genuine commitment! Commitment always entails both constraints and freedom; in fact the language of commitment is that of responsibility and obligation. Both curtail our liberty while they lead to a more profound freedom. Another is that the constraints  themselves are not the point; the reality (or true freedom) they serve is. You also write: [[If it comes right down to the truth of the matter, I feel very deeply and definitely Christian, and called at the same depth to a life of liberty in solitude, with no one and no rules or expectations of how I’m going to live.  I trust myself, I trust in Jesus to lead me.  Because I’ve begged for this opportunity for so many years, studied about it, lived bits and pieces up until the past few years when I’ve been able to “grow” it, I feel pretty clear that the openings which have come my way, in bunches and with the feel of God all over them, this is what I’m called to. ]]

You may recall that  at one point when you wrote me before you said, [[I am writing a provisional Rule of Life and the variety of hermit lives and Rules raise some questions for me. For instance] if someone is a true Christian, and who can judge that?, and says she is a hermit, lives alone sincerely giving herself to prayer, to the heart of the world and by extension and above all, to God, what makes her less a hermit? Less "worthy" (and I know how you hate that distinction) of being called a hermit?]] I responded: [[Dear Poster, Thanks for your questions! If you take a look at the content of your conditional sentence above you will see that you have laid down some very stringent requirements for recognizing someone as a hermit (although I personally would switch God and world in your sentence so that the heart of God comes first and then the heart of the [next] world by extension). Essentially you have described what I refer to as the distinction between a person merely living alone (implicit in your post) and a desert dweller or hermit (which you actually describe explicitly):

IF someone is a true Christian

IF she consciously claims the life of a hermit (desert dweller) and lets that define her (desert spirituality)

IF she lives alone (or, in cases of real need, with a caregiver who does not get in the way of her Rule and actually allows her to live it as fully as she feels called)

IF she sincerely gives herself (not just a bit of time here or there) to prayer, (add penance, silence, solitude and the silence OF solitude).

IF she lives in the heart of God (or is genuinely committed to doing so) and by extension gives herself to the world in this way. . . (all of this I refer to especially as the silence of solitude). The devil is in the details.]]

Definitions as Constraints that Free Words to Have Meaning

I might also have noted in that post that your very description implies a set of constraints which allow you to see or establish the reality of someone and the genuineness of their commitments. Definitions are nothing more than constraints which allow (i.e., free) a word to be meaningful in a particular way. If you look carefully at your own life you will finds rules and other constraints galore. There is simply no meaningful or truthful life without them, and there is certainly no way to be the persons God calls us to be without them. Freedom, after all, is the power to be the persons God calls us to be and that also means not being the persons so much of reality (including our own super egos) tells us we can or cannot, must or must not, should or should not be.  The whole question is full of constraints --- those we must embrace to be true to ourselves and those we must eschew at the same time if we are to reject or at least refuse to collude with our false selves. Sin is a reality; false selves are realities; the presence of cultural voices and norms which militate against truthful or authentic humanity not only exist, they are rampant.

In my own life I also trust myself and I certainly trust Christ to guide me. He has never failed in that. But I also know myself as sinful and I know that the Rule I follow, the Canon which governs my life, the Word of God I focus my life on and in, the Sacraments that only come through the institutional Church, and  the superiors I am obligated by vow to listen carefully to in obedience, are some of the privileged and necessary ways I hear Jesus speak to me daily, sometimes even moment by moment. That is especially true not only with regard to Scripture and prayer, but with regard to my delegate, to those friends who know me well and challenge me to transcend and leave behind the false self who so often is too much a dominant voice in my life. Even so, I do not always listen well or respond generously or lovingly. These bits of "institutional life" are part of the way Christ speaks to me, but for that very reason I also need them to help mediate the grace which transforms my mind and heart. To be frank, I believe anyone who says they can hear Christ adequately apart from the institutional Church is probably kidding themselves. Calling the ecclesial the body of Christ is not merely some touching bit of poetry; it is also literally true.

You see, I could not say with you that my vocation would exist "if there was no institutional religion on the face of the planet". If Christ's church did not exist neither would my vocation; that is true because it is profoundly Christian in every way, not simply because it is a formally ecclesial vocation. I need Christ --- not least to call me to authenticity in the desert. I need Christ to show me the difference between isolation and solitude, between real independence in God (what Tillich called theonomy) and individualism, between the eremitism of the Tom Leppards of this world and his own. And that means I need the mediation provided by the Body of Christ. There is no resurrected Christ unless there is also still an embodied Christ and that implies a Church. By the way, while I am sure you meant no offense, let me point out there is absolutely nothing hypothetical in the freedom to which Christ has called me through and within his Church. I sincerely wonder if you and I are really all that different.

Discerning one is not Called to an Ecclesial Vocation:

The bottom line, however is that you have clearly identified that for the time being at least you are NOT called to embrace an ecclesial vocation. There is a thread of anti-institutionalism running through your heart and mind which, in some ways mirrors the concerns and lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. The difference is that the Desert Fathers and Mothers truly loved the Church and worked at their lives as an important part of being and encouraging the existence of what they perceived to be the TRUE Body of Christ and its Gospel. You see, they were committed to that and that made their vocations ecclesial in yet another and profound sense. While I don't think you are entirely different than they are they did have rules, customs, mentoring, etc to prevent them from simply going their own way on a whim (or in the clutches of the noonday devil!). I believe that is also true of you but some of what you have said makes me wonder. In any case, your desire to be entirely free of rules, etc means you will spend a lot of energy and time re-inventing the wheel. In some ways it will mean you will fail unnecessarily. In some ways it means that bias will keep your heart closed to some of the central ways Christ's presence comes to us and challenges us to commit ourselves and be remade. But it also means that to the extent you are truly committed to and in Christ you may discover a way to be a prophetic presence in the world which I will not.


As to your original question none of the essential terms of the canon can be modified in any significant way if one wants to live the vision of the eremitical life Christ's own Church sets forth as consistent with her tradition. Remember that the central elements of this canon were also lived by the Desert Fathers and Mothers who ALSO were engaged in a profound and extensive criticism of the worldliness of the Church. Indeed, they are part of these elements' very source as normative.

How you or anyone else chooses to embody these elements is actually part of the flexibility of the canon --- within limits of course (remember words can be emptied of meaning). Part of the canon need never apply to you, namely section 2 which reads, [[A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by a vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.]] You need never embrace any part of this section of the canon. You, like many other lay people will live as a hermit or solitary in exemplary ways perhaps, but you will simply not do so in the same way as one publicly professed/consecrated in an ecclesial vocation.

Fraudulent "Catholic Hermits": Is it a Big Problem?

[[[Hi Sister Laurel, is the problem of fraudulent hermits a big one? Do many people claim to be Catholic hermits when they are not? I am asking because you have written recently about the normative character of c 603 vocations and some who pretend to be Catholic hermits. Was the Church concerned with frauds and people like that when they decided to create this canon?]] (redacted)

No, on the whole this is not really a huge problem, or at least it was not a problem when I first started the process of becoming a diocesan hermit. I don't think it is that much of a problem even now though I do hear (or know firsthand) of cases here and there of folks who pull on a habit (or the gaunt visage and behavior of a  supposed "mystic"), don the title "Catholic hermit" and then turn up on the doorstep of a parish expecting to be recognized and known in this way. There was also a website a couple of years ago using the names of legitimate (canonical) diocesan hermits to get money through paypal without the knowledge of these same diocesan hermits. Part of the problem is that the authentic vocation is so rare and little-understood in absolute terms that a handful of counterfeits or frauds can have a greater impact relatively speaking. Those disedifying and fraudulent cases aside, however, the origins of the canon are actually pretty inspiring and  had nothing to do with frauds or counterfeits. To reprise that here:

A number of monks, long solemnly professed, had grown in their vocations to a call to solitude (traditionally this is considered the summit of monastic life); unfortunately, their monasteries did not have anything in their own proper law that accommodated such a calling. Their constitutions and Rule were geared to community life and though this also meant a significant degree of solitude, it did NOT mean eremitical solitude. Consequently these monks had to either give up their sense that they were called to eremitical life or they had to leave their monastic vows, be secularized, and try to live as hermits apart from their monastic lives and vows. Eventually, about a dozen of these hermits came together under the leadership of Dom Jacques Winandy and the aegis of Bishop Remi De Roo in British Columbia (he became their "Bishop Protector"); this gave him time to come to know the  contemporary eremitical vocation and to esteem it and these hermits rather highly.

When Vatican II was in session Bishop de Roo, one of the youngest Bishops present, gave a written intervention asking that the hermit life be recognized in law as a state of perfection and the possibility of public profession and consecration for contemporary hermits made a reality. The grounds provided in Bishop Remi's intervention were all positive and reflect today part of the informal vision the Church has of this vocation. (You will find them listed in this post, Followup on the Visibility of the c 603 Vocation.) Nothing happened directly at the Council (even Perfectae Caritatis did not mention hermits), but VII did require the revision of the Code of Canon Law in order to accommodate the spirit embraced by the Council as well as other substantive changes it made necessary; when this revised code eventually came out in October of 1983 it included c. 603 which defined the Church's vision of eremitical life generally and, for the first time ever in universal law, provided a legal framework for the public profession and consecration of those hermits who desired and felt called to live an ecclesial eremitical vocation.

So you see, the Church was asked at the highest level by a Bishop with significant experience with about a dozen hermits living in a laura in BC to codify this life so that it: 1) was formally recognized as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and 2) so that others seeking to live such a life would not have the significant difficulties that these original dozen hermits did because there was no provision in either Canon Law nor in their congregations' proper laws.

The majority of diocesan hermits (i.e., hermits professed in the hands of a diocesan Bishop) have tended to have a background in religious life; it is only in the past years that more individuals without such formation and background have sought to become diocesan hermits. This has left a bit of a hole in terms of writing about the vocation; it has meant not only that the nuts and bolts issues of writing a Rule of life, understanding the vows, and learning to pray in all the ways religious routinely pray have needed to be discussed somewhere publicly, but that the problems of the meaning and significance of the terms, "ecclesial vocation", "Catholic hermit," etc. as well as basic approaches to formation, the central elements of the canon, and so forth have needed to be clarified for lay persons, some diocesan hermits, and even for those chanceries without much experience of this vocation.

My Own Interest in the Ecclesiality of the C 603 vocation:

I have been interested in all of these issues since I decided to pursue admittance to canon 603 profession --- now about 30 years ago ---  and as I grow in this vocation, in my appreciation of it and of the wisdom and beauty of the canon which governs it, my interest remains --- but for rather different reasons. It took me 23 years to work out for myself many of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph; now I am able to give back to the larger Church community in ways that I sincerely hope allow others to more fully understand and esteem this vocation. Most important is what I have said over the past few days (and the past several years!!): this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. In particular it can witness to the fact that the isolation and marginality so many experience today can be redeemed by one's relationship with God, just as it stands as a prophetic witness against the individualism, narcissism, and addictions (especially to media and to remote, packaged, and soundbite-approaches to reality and relationships) which almost define the world around us today. However, frauds, counterfeits and curmudgeons can get in the way of or detract from this witness --- not least because, unless they are simply ignorant, they are generally mired in pretense and self-centeredness which makes the vocation incredible.

One of the least spoken of non-negotiable elements of canon 603 is that this is a life lived for the praise of God and the sake and indeed, the salvation of others. The usual focus in most discussions and in discernment as well tends to be on the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world, as well as on the content of the vows, but I have not heard many talking about or centering attention on the phrase, "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." However, this element very clearly signals that this vocation is not a selfish one and is not meant only for the well-being of the hermit. It also, I believe, is integral to the notion that this is an ecclesial vocation with defined rights and obligations lived in dialogue with the contemporary situation.  

To say this vocation has a normative shape and definition is also to say that not everything called eremitism in human history glorifies God. Further, calling attention to the fact that this is a normative or ecclesial vocation is just the flip side of pointing out that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit meant for the well-being of all who come to know it (as well as those who do not). I am keen that diocesan hermits embrace this element of their lives fully --- and certainly I also desire that chanceries understand that the discernment of vocations cannot occur adequately unless the charism of the vocation is truly understood and esteemed. The ecclesial nature of the vocation is part of this charism as is the prophetic witness I spoke of earlier. By far this is the larger issue driving my writing about the normative and ecclesial nature of this vocation or continuing to point out the significance of canonical standing than the existence of a few counterfeit "Catholic hermits".

 Letting Go of Impersonation: the Real Issue for all of us

As I consider this then, I suppose the problem of frauds (or counterfeits) is certainly more real than when I first sought admission to profession under canon 603 (the canon was brand new then and few knew about it), but for most of us diocesan hermits the real issue is our own integrity in living this life and allowing the Church to discern and celebrate other instances of it rather than dealing with the sorry pretense and insecurity which seems to drive some to claim titles to which they have no right. What serious debate takes place does so on this level, not on more trivial ones. The question of fraud is an important one for the hermit both personally and ecclesially because as Thomas Merton reminds us all: [[The . . .hermit has as his first duty, to live happily without affectation in his solitude. He owes this not only to himself but to his community [by extension diocesan hermits would say parish, diocese, or Church] that has gone so far as to give him a chance to live it out. . . . this is the chief obligation of the . . .hermit because, as I said above, it can restore to others their faith in certain latent possibilities of nature and of grace.]] (Emphasis added,  Contemplation in a World of Action, p. 242)

In any case, as Thomas Merton also knew very well, some of those who are frauds (and I am emphatically NOT speaking here of lay hermits who identify themselves as such) might well embrace true solitude in  the midst of their pretense; if they do, if they find they have a true eremitical vocation, it will only be by discovering themselves getting rid of any pretense or impersonation as well as finding their craziness or eccentricity dropping away. After all, as Merton also noted, one cannot ultimately remain crazy in the desert (that is, in the absence of others and presence of God in solitude) for it takes other people to make and allow us to be crazy. He writes: [[To be really mad you need other people. When you are by yourself you soon get tired of your craziness. It is too exhausting. It does not fit in with the eminent sanity of trees, birds, water, sky. You have to shut up and go about the business of living. The silence of the woods forces you to make a decision which the tensions and artificialities of society help you to evade forever. Do you want to be yourself or don't you?]] (Idem, 245, emphasis added)

You see, the simple truth which makes the existence of fraudulent hermits not only intriguing but also tremendously sad and ironic -- and which is also the universal truth we all must discover for ourselves -- is that alone with God we find and embrace our true selves. If we must continue in our pretense or various forms of impersonation then something is seriously askew with our solitude and therefore too, with our relationship with God (and vice versa).