Should Dioceses Supply Guidelines for the c 603 Hermit?

One of the questions that comes up in regard to Dioceses and the Hermit's Rule of Life is whether it is appropriate for the Bishop to write the hermit's Rule and simply require she live accordingly. In the past I have argued that it is inappropriate, and I have put forth reflections on c 603 vocations and the importance for both discernment and formation that the hermit write her own Rule. Also, of course, this respects the unique way the Holy Spirit works in each hermit's life and assists her to be truly attentive to that. But the idea of the diocese supplying guidelines on living eremitical life in this diocese that one lives prior to writing a truly liveable Rule, and that will also be subsequently embodied in some way in that Rule is a really good one and one I have written about only a couple of times perhaps a decade ago or so. It's time to pull that topic up once again, partly because it belongs to my larger project on the discernment and formation of diocesan hermits, and partly because both hermits and dioceses need to understand the appropriateness, nature, and place of such guidelines as they move forward with processes of discernment and formation.

Quite often I hear stories about dioceses that tend to expect a hermit to go off and write a liveable Rule in a few weeks. They may leave this single concrete requirement of the canon to the last on a "to do" list while considering it the easiest part of the canon to fulfill. They will sometimes do this saying something like, [[There, now all we need is your Rule of Life!! Just go off and write that and we will be all set!]] But such an approach misunderstands the nature of a Rule and the difficulty of writing one, especially a liveable one or one that belongs integrally to the diocese's own discernment and formation processes with a c 603 hermit-to-be! Other times, dioceses go the opposite direction and write the hermit's Rule for her, although my sense is this is a much rarer problem. I addressed all of this in 2012, Should a Bishop Write the Hermit's Rule?

Failures by Diocese and Hermit:

Bearing that article in mind, what happens when either a diocese refuses to treat what they provide as true guidelines or the hermit decides s/he knows too much about eremitical life to accept such guidelines -- the two entirely antithetical possibilities? The basic answer to both questions is that strong and authentic ecclesial vocations will be lost, immature and slavish ones incapable of mature obedience will be established, and the Church's understanding of c 603 and its vocations will not grow as these need to -- meaning further solitary eremitical vocations will not be admitted to profession or even to mutual discernment processes. If the bishop or other diocesan personnel write the hermit's Rule for her, they are failing to discern this vocation. Likewise, they are failing to listen to the Holy Spirit and the way she is working in the contemporary church. If, on the other hand, the hermit acts as though she knows it all already and refuses to at least prayerfully consider the vision of the life the Diocese has provided as preparation for a meeting to discuss what works and what does not and why, she is simply demonstrating a lack of calling to an ecclesial vocation and possibly her unreadiness for vows of obedience or religious poverty.

A set of guidelines is important for the diocese to provide for all candidates. Not only will this assist the hermit in writing an adequate Rule of life based on lived experience, but every candidate will have the same starting point and the adaptation they each make will be able to be assessed more easily in terms of the Holy Spirit, contemporary eremitical life, and the healthiness of the individual hermit's spirituality. Still, it is critical the Diocese regards these as guidelines the hermit herself will flesh out (or prune as she truly feels called to) over time. The diocese might say, your Rule should cover religious poverty, but not spell out what that must look like in a particular hermit's life. At the same time, it is critical the hermit uses these guidelines in considering her Rule of Life, and that she tries to embody them in some real way in whatever Rule she eventually writes. (Thus, to continue the example, a hermit will take what is in the guidelines re religious poverty, and spell out the nature of that poverty and how she personally lives this out before profession and, after profession, how she will live it in law under c 603.)

What Should Such Guidelines Include?

So what should such guidelines include? It seems to me that these need to spell out the elements any liveable Rule must address. These include, 1) the requirement of a brief history and discussion of the place of eremitical life in the life of the Church. (Here, because of the way she recounts this story, is where the candidate begins to formulate the vision of eremitical life she intends to live in the 21st century as a piece of living history!) 2) The central elements of c 603 and the Evangelical Counsels; in dealing with this guideline, the candidate must be able to spell out how she understands each of these, why she understands them as she does, and how she lives them out in the present. 3) The importance of the public and especially the ecclesial nature of the vocation. Here the candidate will need to address her place in both the universal and the local Church, including her sacramental life, any limited ministry she needs to undertake, and the degree and nature of contact she will have with the parish community. 4) Relationships with the Bishop, delegate, and spiritual director. Here the candidate or hermit needs to spell out how she understands herself to be related to and participate in the Church's ministry of authority; she would include the role of a delegate (if she has one), frequency of meetings with the Bishop (once or twice a year is typical but not carved in stone), spiritual direction, and the way she regards both c 603 and her own Rule of Life.

Such guidelines will have subsections that spell out expectations and, for the hermit's part, the nuts and bolts of each larger section. For instance, in section #2, the hermit will discuss finances, living poverty, provision for health insurance, living space, work and how this meets her needs for stricter separation from the world, religious poverty, the silence of solitude, penitential life,  persevering prayer, and so forth. Also included, for example, will be use of social media, to what extent this is allowed and for what legitimate purposes, etc. This list is not exhaustive, but suggestive of some of what guidelines might list and what any good and liveable Rule must contain.

What if the Diocese and Hermit Cannot Agree?

If the diocese and the hermit find themselves far apart on this or on any element of the guidelines, these can be worked out in a series of conversations over time as both parties come to know the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them, and the hermit/candidate writes this or that draft or draft portion of a liveable Rule. The point is that the diocese provides guidelines of what she requires a hermit life to reflect along with what a sufficient Rule will include, and the hermit tries to accommodate all of these elements in a mature way as she explores the nature of an ecclesial vocation as she personally is called to live it!! As the process of discernment and formation moves forward, both parties will learn from the other, flexibility will increase, trust between the candidate and diocesan staff will grow, as will the sense either that this vocation is truly of the Holy Spirit, or it is not. 

Eventually, either the Hermit's Rule will be granted a Bishop's Decree of Approval and the guidelines will have done their job and be left behind for the more adequate and personal Rule of Life, or the candidate will be unable to write a liveable Rule that both meets the requirements of both the universal and the local Church and is true to the way God is calling her, and she will cease to be a candidate for c 603 profession and consecration -- at least for the time being!! So long as both parties have truly listened to one another and the Holy Spirit in this process and grown in their understanding of contemporary eremitical life under c 603, it can be considered successful.

On Bishops Writing a Hermit's Rule and the Requirement that a C 603 Hermit Write Her Own Rule

[[Dear Sister, must a Canon 603 hermit write his own Rule or "Program of living"? Couldn't his bishop write the Rule for others in the diocese and allow the new hermit to use that Rule? I can't see where the canon requires a hermit to write his own Rule either. Thanks.]]

Thanks for the question! I think some of it is new here. Let me point to the one place in the canon you may have missed. The second paragraph of canon 603 reads: [[ §2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper "program of living" (Rule of Life) under his direction.]] 

Note the word "proper" above. It is not a "Britishism"  like, [[Though he was from the US, John still knew how to brew a proper cuppa (tea)!!]] In the Church, we have Canon, or universal law, and Proper, or particular, law. A canonical (established and normative) religious congregation, for example, is bound by canon law; all such institutes are thus bound. At the same time, each institute has a separate document or documents representing its own proper law (constitutions, and statutes) which allows members to govern themselves according to their own unique qualities, mission, and charism. While an institute's constitutions are ultimately canonically approved by Rome or their diocese, for instance, they are specific to the institute and composed by the professed members. After all, they are the ones who have been called by God to embrace and live the universal elements in ways members of other congregations have not been.

Thus, in an analogous way, the hermit's Rule of Life represents her own "proper law"; it complements and specifies (applies in specific and proper ways) canon law in a solitary eremitical life. The canonical elements every hermit lives are listed prior to the term "program of life" These include the elements of paragraph #1 (stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, a life lived for the salvation of the world, etc.), and commitment to the evangelical counsels, a Rule of Life lived under the bishop's supervision in paragraph #2. The "program of life" or "Rule" specifies the ways in which this hermit lives these elements in order to respond to God's uniquely personal and ecclesial call, and honors both the unity and the diversity of that vocation. Thus, canon 603 itself calls for a combination of universal and proper law allowing the hermit to tailor the terms of the canon in order to achieve the flexibility necessary to serve faithfulness to the vocation. This tailoring will not represent a mitigation of the terms of the canon, but rather, an exploration of their depths over time.

Bearing this in mind, we have the answer to both of your questions. First, the c 603 hermit writes her own Rule, she does not merely adopt a Rule written by someone else, because the Rule grows out of the values and praxis of eremitical life generally, but also out of her own relationship with God through her life and especially her life in the silence of solitude. The Rule must do justice to both of these dimensions! And second, a bishop supplying a ready-made Rule for hermits in his diocese actually has failed to take not only the terms of Canon 603 seriously enough, but the very vocation it codifies as well. (I wonder that a non-hermit bishop would even believe he could do such a thing.) By the way, this observation would also apply to a so-called Laura of hermits whose members fail to write their own Rules. Canon 603 is written for solitary hermits and requires that each one of us write our own.

All of this is the foundation for my comment in other articles that I thought the authors of Canon 603 had written well, perhaps better than they knew (though now I think they really knew exactly what they were doing!). All of this is also at the heart of why I find Canon 603 to be truly beautiful in the way it combines the constraints of law and the freedom of eremitical life. Finally, this combination of universal and proper law allows for an approach to the discernment and formation of such a vocation that relies on the gradual composition of a livable Rule rooted in the individual's lived experience and undertaken in collaboration with diocesan personnel and, if possible, the accompaniment of an experienced diocesan hermit. It takes time to "penetrate" the terms of the Canon and come to understand and live them deeply enough to see they are doors to the Mystery which is God and the hermit's relationship with God, not terms with a single fixed and infinitely more superficial meaning. Writing one's Rule is part of this process of "penetration" and a way one learns to be ever attentive to ongoing formation as well.

The Diocesan Hermit: Some Considerations by Therese Ivers, JCL

 I said I would speak to a canonist or two and see if they would be willing to weigh in on the issue of c 603, lauras vs communities, etc. Well, I was able to have a long conversation with a canonist this last weekend and she wrote a piece for her own blog which (as she and I talked about) I am also posting here. The author is Therese Ivers, JCL and her blog is: Do I Have a Vocation? As readers can see, I think the author and I are in general agreement on the basic characteristics of a laura as opposed to a community. 

The one dimension Ivers brings out which I had not spelled out explicitly myself is the temporary nature of a laura. (I realize much of what I have written necessarily implies this but Therese is definitely a step (or three!) ahead of me here. Regarding the diocese's responsibility in formation, both initial and ongoing, Ivers and I are also in essential agreement; I believe, however, we may differ on the way this responsibility is exercised. Meanwhile, I very much appreciate the various comments she has made on candidates for profession, discernment, formation, the desert fathers and Mothers, and so forth. Please note, I do add one element to the lists of distinguishing qualities Ivers supplied below, namely, spirituality; the approach to diverse spiritualities differs significantly from laura to community. The one thread that runs throughout Iver's analysis is the significance and uniqueness of the c 603 vocation. Emphasis on formation, discernment, the continuing role of the bishop, and the individual nature of the vocation are dimensions of this extraordinary significance. My sincerest thanks to Therese for sharing her work and time in this!

“Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything!”

In the early centuries of the Church, men and women fled to the desert as the Church’s first hermits. Christianity had become the official religion of the empire, and as a result of external prosperity and growth, Christian praxis became lax in the cities. Virgins, hermits, and ascetics grew in numbers to fill the vacuum of those intent on a life devoted to the sole focus on the service of Christ in a life of perfect chastity lived in the manner of their respective calling.

It should be noted that these were hard-core practicing Catholics who were familiar with their faith and extremely familiar with those things “in the world” that could distract them from their focus. In today’s language, we would say that these men and women were “well catechized” or “well formed”.

Hermits were no exception to the general quality of being “well catechized”. Nevertheless, not all were prepared for life in the desert or to the specific challenges of their calling. As a result, “mentors” naturally arose when hermits of great fame for holiness began to accept followers in their lifestyle. Likewise, hermits began to gather together at times for communal exercises albeit infrequently. How else would we know the doings of various hermits through the sayings of the Hermit fathers and mothers?

Some clusters of hermits (many lived at great geographical distance from each other but could be considered a “cluster” or “group”) eventually self organized and consolidated into proper monasteries. Others retained their proper eremitical character which consisted of individual hermits who lived their own very distinctive lifestyles who occasionally met up with one or more hermits. Clusters of such individuals came to be known as “lauras”. [The word lauras or lavras, in case I have not said this recently, comes from the Latin word for pathways; it was the pathways that linked these hermits and their individual hermitages to one another that defined such "clusters". SrL.]

Today, we have two forms of individual consecrated life in the Latin Church. One is that of hermits (canon 603) and the other, the portion of the order of virgins (canon 604) who are not also members of a religious institute. There are many myths about both forms of life, which have arisen for many reasons, particularly because of a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the vocation to be a hermit or to be a spouse of Christ respectively. The purpose of this article is to discuss some aspects of the eremitic vocation that is not always clear to those who are not cognizant of this vocation.

Individual Life Lived “In the Silence of Solitude” is the Primary Reality or Framework Designated by Canon. 603

As some people are aware, my original proposal for my doctoral dissertation in canon law was centered on the “Silence of Solitude” aspect of canon 603. It encapsulates the solitary lifestyle which is permeated with the mental and physical silence required for the “desert” substitution which provides the backdrop of the intense grappling of the soul with itself and heavenly -and not so heavenly- things.

Solitude, or a “stricter withdrawal from the world” is not a mere metaphor. It requires a similitude to the desert in which an individual is not rubbing shoulders with people on a daily basis [with the exception, perhaps of attendance at daily Mass if this is called for in the hermit’s rule]. Encounters with people should be infrequent, even in the running of a guest house, which should have periods of unoccupancy to facilitate the solitude of the hermit manager.

This is not a “religious of one” paradigm in which a hermit is free to do apostolic activity willy-nilly. On the contrary, the lay hermit (or diocesan hermit) is expected to be extremely withdrawn from the everyday hustle and bustle of the world. This includes apostolic works.

Some individuals imagine that they can live as a “caretaker” for someone else and live authentically as a hermit. Again, this is simply not the case. Caring for another person on a daily or frequent basis goes against the solitary nature of this vocation. But it is compatible for reasons of age or illness for the lay or diocesan hermit to be cared for, as there is a profound difference between caring for another in their daily necessities and being cared for in daily necessities when one is unable to do so.

The implication for a “laura” is also clear. That it is not the responsibility of individual hermits living in a laura (inside their individual hermitages) to administrate long-term care for an elderly or chronically ill fellow-hermit, and that provisions must have already been made and executed for the long term care of such hermits in appropriate facilities or with relatives [ideally Catholic].

A Word on Lauras:

Although it is possible for diocesan hermits to gather together in a geographic place, a laura is intended to be strictly distinct from a religious eremitic or semi-eremitic institute. Here are some of the key differences: (Apologies to Therese Ivers, because here she has a great chart laid out side by side; I couldn't use that here (space limitations) so I have set these two sets of characteristics out sequentially.)

Religious Institute:

• Common Superior to whom obedience is vowed who is not the bishop
• Common purse; the institute is jointly responsible for the wellbeing of the religious from the day of entrance until their deaths.
• Common rule of life
• Meals in common. Meals are eaten together in a refectory or at the same time in the hermitage.
• Communal Office or synchronized hours designated at common times [e.g. the horarium is the same for every individual even if the office is said alone in the hermitage such as in a Carthusian charterhouse]
• [In addition I would add here the single spirituality which characterizes an Institute and in which members are formed. An Institute of Consecrated Life will serve as a paradigm of a particular spirituality and its founder/foundress; it stands within the living tradition of this particular current of spirituality and consciously reflects and extends it. Thus a community will be Franciscan or Carmelite, or Camaldolese, and so forth. (SLO'N)]

Lauras:

• Obedience directly to the bishop as superior is professed
• Each individual hermit has their own bank account, retirement funds, health care and other insurances, and is expected to manage their finances individually. The individual hermit is expected to be independent regardless of whether they stay in a laura all their life, leave of their own accord, or are asked to leave.
• Individual rule of life that has been lived outside of the laura and which will be observed before, during [and even after] life in a laura.
• Generally meals should be taken alone and within the cell even if cooked for the whole laura. What is eaten, how it is eaten, and when it is eaten will be autonomously decided by the individual hermit.
• The individual hermit recites the liturgical hours or other prayers [non-cleric hermits are not obligated to say the liturgy of the hours and may in fact choose other forms of prayer to occupy their time] within the hermitage. This prayer-cycle is individualized for the growth of the hermit and therefore is highly unlikely to be synchronized with other hermits.
• [In addition to Therese Iver's list I would add here that there is no single spirituality beyond the general desert spirituality of the solitary hermit. A laura does not inculcate, much less form persons in a single spirituality like Franciscan, Camaldolese, Carmelite, etc. Instead it welcomes a diversity of spiritualities which will exist in harmony within a desert framework marked by the charity (in both rigor and flexibility) of the Desert Ammas and Abbas. Since a laura as such does not engage in the initial formation of hermits, and since it is a second half of life vocation, there is no concern with forming novices in a particular spirituality. (SLO'N)]

A laura, is in short, a temporary living arrangement of independent diocesan [or] lay hermits who maintain their own rule of life, finances, hermitage, etc. on a piece of property. It is not the “ideal” way of living to which a canon 603 hermit “aspires” but is merely an arrangement that can be permitted for the good of hermits on an ad hoc and temporary basis [even if such an arrangement de facto lasts decades]. Practically speaking, the numbers of hermits on the property in a laura should be limited as it would become too unwieldy to have over a handful unless the property is vast and perhaps owned in trust by some entity that rents out hermitages.

Canon 603 is not intended to encourage the formation of lauras, but is primarily focused on the actual solitary vocation for which membership in a laura may be a help or a hindrance. In any and all events, membership in a laura cannot be a condition for profession as a hermit and it must always be the result of a voluntary and seriously discerned path on the part of the experienced and [ideally] already professed hermit who believes it may be of benefit.

Unfortunately, due to greater familiarity with religious institutes, dioceses may have an incorrect understanding of the difference between a laura and a budding religious institute. This may cause abuses of canon 603 when a “hermit” is really an aspiring founder/ess of an eremitical or semi-eremitical religious institute. If the “hermit” really intends to be a religious founder, then the steps for the founding of a religious institute are to be utilized and the “vocation” tested.

As a canonist, I have heard all too often the opinion that the “ideal” hermit is one who has membership in a laura. To the contrary, I would say that membership in a laura by its very nature would merely be a temporary living situation for a diocesan hermit. The diocesan hermit cannot escape the hard work of crafting a personal rule of life over the course of several years – I consider the minimum for this to be at least 7-9 years as a prudential measure not unlike the requirement for final profession of contemplatives to have had no less than 9 years of formation reasonable. [Emphasis added to original]

This rule of life cannot be a mere appropriation or light tinkering of existing rule(s) of religious institutes or even that of other hermits. It must result from experimentation and the self-knowledge of what is helpful for this particular person in his/her struggles in “the desert”. This hermit must know what a balanced lifestyle for himself looks like and that will not be identical to that of anyone else.

The relationship between the hermit and his/her bishop is a direct one, as the bishop is the lawful superior of the diocesan hermit. This remains true even in a laura, as the position of hermits in a laura is that of equals among equals. Any “leadership” position would be only to assist with certain communal exigencies of living on the same property; real authority is not canonically granted. The diocese continues to have the obligation of furnishing continuing formation and supervision to the individual hermits, whether they belong to lauras or not.

If a diocese thinks it can “escape” its responsibilities to hermits by abdicating its duties to a fictitious “superior” of a laura, then it is gravely mistaken. The hermit has the right to direct access to his/her lawful superior who is the bishop, any “delegate” notwithstanding and the bishop has the obligation of knowing the individual hermits in his diocese.

Initial and Continuing Formation of Hermits

The problem faced by hermits today, whether they be in the pre-formation/candidacy stage, initial formation stage, or post-profession stage, is that of formation. This is a complex reality as “living in the cell” is a large part of the formation process. But it is not the only part of the process. For diocesan candidates or hermits, the diocese has an intrinsic and serious responsibility to provide initial and ongoing formation to its hermits. This must be tailored and adapted to the reality that there will be no “companions” or live-in superiors to ensure continued growth of virtue and of wholeness in humanity of the hermit.

The individual hermits themselves have a grave obligation of growing in the practice of virtue, growing in prayer, widening their understanding of sacred scripture, theology, etc. They also need to be well aware of their own holy patrimony in the Church, and steeped in the mindset of the desert fathers/mothers.

Given the complexity of all that has been said above, the bishop, whose duty it is to carefully discern with those who believe that they may have a vocation to the eremitical life, should consult with true experts on the eremitic vocation. It is not enough for the people tasked with assisting the bishop in the discernment of eremitic vocations and/or formation to be ordained or possess a diploma in theology [unless their role is to give formation in say liturgy or theology]. Bishops should collaborate with those who actually know the canonical and practical framework of the vocation for viable candidates and those in need of continuing formation.

Likewise, the eremitical vocation is not a mere matter of the internal forum. It is a public vocation even if it is lived in solitude and therefore it has a visible framework. Thus, it is highly inappropriate and a grave abuse to relegate all work with the individual aspiring hermit to the “spiritual director”. The division between the internal forum and external must be maintained and those entrusted with roles in either must be suitably competent in their area.

While this may sound intimidating, it is the Church’s intent that both parties do their due diligence and not shirk their individual responsibilities. The bishop has the obligation of authenticating and promoting true vocations to the hermit life and the hermit aspirant has the obligation of discerning and following their vocation even if the diocese refuses to profess hermits for valid or invalid reasons. Someone called to the silence of solitude will do it regardless of whether the diocese is willing to profess hermits.

On Canon 603 Hermits and Some Supposed Drawbacks of Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I saw two videos on You Tube from someone called "J__H__" (name omitted by Sr L.). She writes against canonical status for hermits and says it is not necessary even though it may have been thought to be necessary by some well-intentioned Bishops. She also complains that there are all kinds of rules and laws coming to be about hermit life which in her opinion seem to trespass against the individuality of the hermit. I felt she believed that canonical hermits were at the mercy of their Bishops too. She gave the example of a young woman living a reclusive life according to the will of her Bishop and said that if another Bishop came in the young woman might find him changing her life from reclusive to something else. Is this true? I am sending you the links for the videos I watched. There are a number of others too.]]

Thanks for your questions. I am personally sorry to hear these videos are still available. (Yes, I was already aware of them.) I have received questions about them in the past -- though I knew of them anyway -- but nothing recently. I found that the videos I saw, which included the ones you linked me to, were full of misconceptions about canon 603 life, the history of canon 603, the reasons for the existence of the canon, etc. The questions you are asking touch on some of these issues.

The remarkable Balance of Canon 603:

To be honest I think canon 603 does an amazing job of protecting the individuality of  hermits professed under it. While it is true that there are non-negotiable elements which are part of the canon, namely a publicly vowed** and consecrated life of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, all carried out under a Rule the hermit writes for herself and lives under the supervision of her Bishop --- it is also the case that the Rule the hermit writes ensures that the non-negotiable elements as well as anything else which the hermit considers critical for her life are combined in a wholly individual constellation. These are then lived out under the supervision of the Bishop and (ordinarily) with the assistance of a delegate (a quasi superior) either the Bishop or the hermit chooses for this service role.

This combination of non-negotiable elements, individual experience and needs, along with supervision which is geared entirely towards assisting the hermit in these things, is an aspect of true brilliance in the composition of canon 603. It manages to allow for serious and mature individuality while protecting the very nature of eremitical life itself and the charisma it is for the contemporary Church and world. In other words, it protects the authentic freedom of the Holy Spirit and the Tradition that Spirit is inspiring now as a gift to the life of the Church --- just as the Spirit also originally was 1700 years ago and has done throughout the centuries.

When New Bishops Come into Office:

Regarding your question about new Bishops, I have received similar questions in the past so you might want to look those up as well. The basic answer is that a new Bishop will not unilaterally make serious changes in the hermit's life or Rule because that Rule has been approved canonically by another Bishop. (On the day of profession the hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Declaration of Approval because it becomes legally binding on the hermit.) If, for example, after meeting with the hermit, a new Bishop believes she needs to be seeing more or less of  her family, or needs to be either more or less reclusive generally, or any number of other things,  these beliefs would have to be based on serious concerns about the hermit's well-being and that of the vocation itself for him to demand changes. In such a case, especially if the hermit disputes these opinions, there will be continuing conversations with the hermit, as well as a conversation with her delegate; others might also be involved: Vicars for Religious who might know and have worked with the hermit, the hermit's pastor and, conceivably, the Bishop in whose hands she was originally or perpetually professed and under whose supervision she had been living for some time.What does not (and I would think, cannot) happen is that a Bishop who believes that all hermits should (or should not) be recluses (or whatever) can change the character of a hermit's Rule and life by mere fiat.

Your question had another problem (or constellation of problems) embedded in it. It seemed to indicate that the hermit is living a certain way because her Bishop demanded she do so in the first place --- possibly in order to be professed at all. In the video you referred me to JH did indeed seem to indicate that a young woman embraced this form of eremitical life because her Bishop mistakenly believed it was the only way to live an eremitical life. Assuming JH has her facts right, then a new Bishop, especially if he was more knowledgeable about the diversity and continuity of eremitical life, could indeed open up new possibilities for this hermit. Were he to sense that the young woman (assuming she truly made her vows freely) was living a Rule, elements of which she felt forced to embrace despite her own experience and discernment, the new Bishop would need to assist her to find a better expression of it. The same conversations mentioned above would need to take place and the diocese (perhaps through the assistance of the delegate) would need to work with the hermit to be sure she rewrote her Rule in a way which best suited her own unique call even as it protected the essential nature of the vocation and the non-negotiable elements of canon 603.

But let me be clear about two things: first, unless the hermit herself decided she was no longer called to live as a hermit and requested dispensation from her vows, the resolution of the situation comes from the hermit's own revision of her Rule so that it better reflects what is healthy for her AND for her vocation. Second, if the original Bishop was merely demanding the essential living out of the non-negotiable elements of the canon in ways which are typical of diocesan hermits everywhere with reasonable accommodations for home visits, contact with friends, horarium, prayer styles and patterns, etc, then the question would become one of whether or not the person was really called to this vocation. Here we have another reason dioceses should be sure candidates for profession have sufficient experience before writing a Rule which will bind them in law as well as a reason which argues against a Bishop being the one to author the Rule himself. It also argues for temporary professions as a matter of course *** and different Rules at each stage of the individual's growth in becoming a diocesan hermit.

Resolving Problems related to a Hermit Who is not living her Rule or the Elements of the Canon:

Let's also look at a similar question which might indeed come up when a new Bishop comes on the scene. If, after 2-3 meetings with the hermit, at least one of which has to do with the contents and living out of her Rule, and perhaps a subsequent clarifying conversation with the hermit's delegate, such a Bishop decides a hermit is not living her Rule with sufficient seriousness or integrity, then he has every right to explain the matter to her and demand that she make appropriate changes. If she is truly being lax then she will need to take necessary steps to resolve this; if changes in her physical health or other changes in her spirituality or her more general situation have led to parts of her Rule no longer working for her, then  she must write appropriate alternatives into the Rule and have these approved by the Bishop. The delegate may again have a significant role in assisting both the Bishop and the Hermit in such a situation. She may have a sense of resources the hermit needs to live her Rule with fidelity or be aware of concerns the Bishop is not; she can also assist the hermit to articulate the ways in which she will revise her Rule if that is part of the solution. (It is possible the new bishop perceives the Rule itself is not strict enough. That is a different situation and in such a case the bishop himself may benefit from education and more contact with the hermit involved.)

The point, however, is that in this situation as with the others mentioned, canonical standing sets up a series of relationships meant to allow the individual hermit to truly respond to her vocation as is best for her and as God truly wills. Canonical standing ("status") does not mean a position of privilege or superficial "approval". Instead it means that the persons involved have been granted legal rights and accepted legal obligations as well. This is not about legalism. The prudent use of law is simply the way genuine freedom is exercised and protected in both Church and society. Canonical standing protects the Church from the eccentricities and destruction of narcissism or excessive individualism of loners seeking to call themselves "Catholic hermits" while it protects diocesan hermits from the whims of those who neither understand nor approve of the vocation. Contrary to the points made in the videos you referenced, it is precisely the individual nature of eremitical life that calls for Canon 603. In this way the Church makes sure traditional eremitical life itself (and not some form of self-indulgent isolation or misanthropy) is being lived while making sure that the individual hermit has the support and genuine freedom required to do so.

** Some canon 603 hermits use sacred bonds other than vows just as Canon 603 allows for.
*** Individual cases may allow for perpetual profession without temporary vows preceding this commitment, but this will be a rare situation and this option is usually inadvisable.

What if a Diocese is Unwilling to "Help With Formation"?

[[Sister Laurel, I think your idea about formation as a process worked out with one's diocese sounds good. It gives me a way to think about structuring my own approach to personal formation, but I really don't think my own diocese would do this. I have heard stories that people who would like to become c 603 hermits can't even get appointments to talk about the matter with the Bishop. One person said they were told to just go off and live in solitude, it was all he needed. How would a candidate, assuming one can even become one, say to diocesan personnel, "I would like formation as a hermit?"]]

Thanks for your questions. I have heard similar stories and talked about the "just go and live in solitude. . ." comment before. (Given the frequency it is referred to, it seems to actually be becoming something of an urban legend today which people use to suggest dioceses are unwilling to profess anyone under canon 603 more than something actually occurring in many different dioceses.) Even so, which ever the case, depending on the candidate and the motivation of the person making the comment, it can be either disingenuous and evasive or the wisest most prudent piece of advice one can hear.  For most inquirers who may have lived alone, but never lived any time in real solitude, this is precisely what they need to be told. It is the contemporary version of the desert Fathers': " remain in your cell and your cell will teach you everything." Thus, one needs more information before one can conclude, for example, that a diocese is simply unwilling to deal with possible vocations to canon 603 life.

Regarding getting an appointment with the Bishop, what is generally true, at least in larger dioceses, is that an inquirer regarding canon 603 is not apt to speak to the Bishop until the Vicar for Religious or Consecrated Life actually reaches a place where they will recommend the person for profession. This usually takes several years at least and a Rule which passes canonical and spiritual muster. Then things move to the Bishop and he will meet with the candidate, get to know her, read what she has written, and consider whether, at this point in time, this is a good thing for the diocese. I think that too often inquirers reading "under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop" expect, unrealistically, that he will be intimately involved with them right from the beginning. As in many things with regard to this canon, this is not at all likely.

Another unreasonable expectation is that a diocese will "form one" as a hermit. Because that expectation is repeated all the time, and because I have been asked about it myself a number of times, let me make one point really clear: the formation I have spoken of here is primarily up to the hermit's initiative and occurs mainly in the silence of solitude. I have not talked about a formation "program" a diocese administers because I don't think it is feasible with this vocation. It is also usually not possible for diocesan personnel even when they have expertise in formation to religious life. Presuming the person may even have had no formation in religious life (the majority of folks approaching dioceses today fall into this category), what I have tried to outline is an approach to a process of necessary growth and maturation in the eremitical life which builds on the actual canonical requirement that a hermit writes a Rule prior to profession, and (implicitly) that this is necessarily a livable Rule based on eremitical experience and growth. At every point the responsibility for growth (continued formation) is the hermit candidate's. She will work out what is needed with the help of her director and with occasional assessments by diocesan personnel. What she will not do, especially if she understands the vocation, is approach a diocese telling them she would like "formation as a hermit."

Bear in mind that there are a number of reasons dioceses don't have c 603 hermits. These include unsuitable inquirers, unfamiliarity with the vocation (on the part of both diocesan personnel and inquirers) or a similar failure to esteem it (for instance, some dioceses consider it refers to something other than a true vocation, while some do not esteem even contemplative life adequately), as well as uncertainty as to how to effectively implement the canon --- including uncertainty as to how one can work with a person over an extended period of time to assist her growth and to discern the possibility of an eremitical vocation without  on the one hand promising or implying that the person will be professed and on the other hand without simply "stringing her along" fruitlessly.

One of the primary legitimate reasons dioceses tell inquirers to just go off and live in solitude is precisely because folks interested in canon 603 may be interested in becoming a "religious" but are seeking to use canon 603 as a stopgap to that when other avenues are not open to them or when they are merely using canon 603 to escape the demands of life in community. These folks tend not to have EVER lived in genuine solitude and believe that simply being alone in a dwelling is eremitical solitude. It is not. Another reason some inquirers hear this is because diocesan staff know that solitude (which implies life with God alone) is the primary formator in the hermit's life. A third reason is because they feel wholly unable to deal with this canon or to recognize a good candidate for solitary eremitical life. (One may be a good candidate for religious life, but not for eremitical life; similarly, simply because one cannot join a community does NOT mean they are called to eremitical life.)

What I am getting to in this abbreviated listing is that the kind of process I have outlined in the past several posts can help a diocese learn about the eremitical vocation firsthand and provides for an intelligent and truly mutual discernment process. At the same time it can assist an individual negotiate all the tensions, growth, and transitions necessary if they are EVER to be someone who lives in, out of, and toward the silence of solitude --- and then, if this is where discernment leads, if she is to be professed for life as a diocesan hermit. It provides structure geared towards to hermit's growth which will not be onerous to the diocese, and it provides a means to protect and nurture the responsible, attentive, freedom and discipline eremitical life demands.

Finally, the "process" I have outlined is specifically keyed to the requirements and presuppositions implied by the origins of canon 603; it allows one to become a person whose life is truly defined by the terms of that canon. Whether one proceeds to public profession under canon 603.2 or remains a lay hermit living the essential elements of 603.1 this process should be helpful with both discernment and formation. Because canon 603 cannot be implemented the way formation in religious life is usually implemented (one cannot simply become a postulant, a novice, and in a year or two, become temporary professed), and because dioceses do not always have a "process" or "protocol" to follow in dealing with inquirers seeking to DISCERN a vocation to canon 603 life with the diocese itself, were you to outline and suggest such a process to them, you might in fact, find they are receptive.

Charges of "Over-institutionalization": Why Several Rules Written at Different Stages?

[[Sister Laurel, Canon 603 only requires one write ONE Rule. Aren't you making something simple much more difficult and complicated? You have been criticized before for "institutionalizing" what is a free and simple vocation. So aren't you doing this once again with all these made up ideas about writing several Rules and stages of formation or "readiness" for consecration"? The canon is straightforward and so are paragraphs 920-21 of the Catechism.. Why not let them just speak for themselves?]]

Thanks for your questions. As I have noted before, I personally agree the eremitical life should not be overly "institutionalized" in some of the ways I think you mean; however I continue to disagree that what I am suggesting in Notes From Stillsong: Role of Diocese, Writing a Rule, and Possible Stages of Discernment actually does that. Instead I think my suggestions protect not only the vocation generally, but the legitimate freedom authentic hermits need. At the same time it provides assistance to dioceses on the basis of my own lived experience and the experience of other hermits I know, as well as that of folks writing about formation, etc whom I have read. I can state with all sincerity that such a practice and its attendant process would have helped me immensely in negotiating the time frame and "tasks" involved in becoming a hermit (instead of  remaining or being "just" a lone pious person) and then, a diocesan hermit; I similarly believe it also would have assisted my diocese in discerning not only my own vocation but in evaluating and implementing canon 603 in prudent ways more generally. I also believe it answers some of the questions I occasionally get from Bishops and Vicars who deal with candidates or inquirers for canon 603.

The Context:

First, while canon 603 is very simply stated, and while on one level it can be said to be straightforward (especially for one who has lived eremitical solitude for some time and has the experience to read it with an appropriately enlarged "desert" understanding), for most people these simple or straightforward elements are deceptive in their supposed simplicity. For instance, and as I have noted before, the canon speaks of "the silence of solitude," rather than silence AND solitude. It does not note that this phrase has Carthusian underpinnings, for instance, nor that it means MUCH more than the simple absence of noise or company. For instance, it presupposes that chancery personnel who read this canon and try to implement it know that "the silence of solitude" has to do not only with external silence and physical solitude, but that it is more than the sum of these two elements and involves the unique wholeness and individuation achieved in communion with God within the context of a desert spirituality. It has to do with being oneself in and with and through God alone --- and the various kinds and degrees of silence (or song!) that occasions. You see, despite the apparent simplicity of the canon, the reality to which it points in this instance is neither so simple nor so straightforward as most readers think.


Similarly, and related to this, we are speaking of a vocation that is truly little known and often misunderstood in our contemporary world. It is a vocation fraught with stereotypes and it is being attempted (or actually lived) in a world which distrusts solitude, hardly understands the meaning of real silence, rejects the possibility of life commitments, trivializes sexual love and in conjunction with that does not understand celibate love, is overly enamored of affluence and efficiency, and generally idolizes these as well as individualism (which is often mistaken for eremitical life). In contrast however, eremitical life is counter cultural to all of these and someone proposing to be consecrated under canon 603 needs to be very clear they are not simply using (or trying to use) the canon to "consecrate" any of these serious temptations. It takes time to clarify one's own motivations, first to become clear about what they are and secondly to purify them. This is especially true if one has never lived religious life before and is really starting right from the beginning sans adequate mentors, and models --- and, for the most part today, chanceries are mainly getting inquiries re canon 603 from lay persons who have never lived religious life and never lived in eremitical solitude.

Thirdly, we are talking about an ecclesial vocation in which one represents the eremitical tradition in dialogue with the contemporary church and world and does so in a way which is publicly responsible. While there is a great deal of freedom (especially authentic freedom)  in the eremitical life, it is not the case that one simply lives alone and does whatever one wants and calls that "eremitical". Especially one cannot justify misanthropy, selfishness, a lack of generosity, individualism (including pietistic or devotional privatism), a lack of discipline, ignorance of the tradition, or the isolation of personal eccentricity via this canon. In other words, not every form of aloneness or physical solitude is eremitical nor consistent with eremitical tradition or attuned to the needs of contemporary church and society. Not every form of liberty is synonymous or consonant with eremitical freedom. Not every form of physical silence contributes to the silence of solitude and some may be a sign of a destructive antithesis. Thus, we are speaking of an institutionalized reality which involves canonical rights and obligations, legitimate definitions and public expectations and hopes, as well as the hermit's public commitment to be responsive to the Holy Spirit and responsible in all the ways this vocation calls for.

These lines are part of the horizon against which my suggestions about the writing of various Rules need to be measured. They form the context which is a necessary PART of allowing the canon to speak for itself. They are a large part of the context which prevents us from reading the canon in a theological, historical, or spiritual vacuum and distorting it completely.

The Reason for Several Rules:

The simple fact is even for those with a true vocation we grow into eremitical life. It takes time not only to discern whether or not we have such a vocation, but in the process, to learn either that it is not simply about living alone, or that it is truly a a gift to others. It takes time to intelligently and faithfully appropriate a living tradition that is capable of speaking to the contemporary situation. It takes time not only to learn to pray and live in the ways that monks, nuns, and hermits live, but to be able to articulate the what and why of all that. If one is to take all of this on and then modify it in ways which fits one's own specific vocation, that too takes time, experimentation, and lots of thought and prayer --- not to mention consultation and supervision. While one will discuss all of this with one's director and delegate (or diocesan Vicar, etc), one also needs to prepare to write a Rule which is the result of years of practical learning and which will be canonically binding. It seems to me the only reasonable way to do this is to 1) recognize the basic stages involved in becoming a hermit, and then 2) write a Rule which corresponds to what one knows and is ready to live and live into.

A related fact is that very few of those who contact dioceses with inquiries about canon 603 ever advance to even temporary profession. Some of those who do not advance may in fact have eremitical vocations which, in time, they can make evident to their dioceses. Of those who do advance, some who are prematurely professed or who are using canon 603 as a stopgap solution to canon law's lack of any other means of professing an individual person, will live the life badly or leave it altogether. How do we  allow all possible vocations to participate in a serious discernment process? How, at the same time, do we prevent inappropriate professions or uses of canon 603 which create seriously disedifying precedents? How, in other words, do we intelligently and wisely implement canon 603 without 1) infringing on eremitical freedom, and 2) without betraying the eremitical tradition or the meaning of the canon itself?  Diocese's need a better means of discerning authentic eremitical vocations while they also minister to those who approach them with interest in canon 603. It really seems to me the suggestions I have made help do that.

Likewise, too often today dioceses ask candidates for profession to write the Rule required by canon 603 before they are ready to do so. One solution to all of this is to expect several Rules over a longer period of time --- each of which allows for growth and may be used for discernment. So often our first attempts at writing such a Rule serve only to show us and our dioceses how unready we really are. Anyone who has tried to write a Rule or Plan of Life knows how truly difficult a project this is. So often what we live, we live unconsciously and without real understanding. So often we think we are living certain values and then discover that we have never actually taken time to define them, much less to understand how a tradition defines and lives them. So often we think living a life is merely about doing certain things when in fact it is about committing to be or become persons whose hearts are configured a certain way; we do certain things in certain ways and often over long periods of time precisely so that this transformation of our hearts can occur. Writing several Rules over a relatively brief period allows us to accommodate (and consolidate) the changes disciplined living and the grace of God occasions in our hearts.

The Bottom Line:

I personally think it is either arrogance, naivete (sometimes a helpful naivete!), or both, to believe that someone with no background in religious life, no real background in eremitical life, no particular theological background, and limited experience of spiritual direction, etc would be able to write the Rule which canon 603 calls for on their first attempt. At the same time no one in the chancery can or should relieve the hermit of this obligation. And here is really the bottom line: Canon 603 requires one Rule written by the hermit who will be professed, but it is meant to be a livable Rule which is consonant with the eremitical tradition, appreciates the charism of the vowed diocesan hermit, is tailored to the individual living and writing it, appropriately inspires, guides, legislates, and finally, which can also serve others in demonstrating what this life is really all about.

When Canon 603 was promulgated it presumed that candidates would mainly come from the ranks of religious/monastics who had grown into a solitary vocation; it therefore presumed an extensive background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom on the part of the candidate. In fact it grew out of such a situation. Today, however, individuals inquiring into or seeking profession mainly do not have this background or experience. We must find ways to remedy this deficit and prepare candidates (or, better put perhaps, assist them to achieve the requisite preparation)  to write the Rule the canon requires. Adequate discernment of and formation in the vocation presuppose and necessitate this and my suggestions are one piece of a process meeting this requirement while protecting eremitical freedom and diversity.

Role of the Diocese, Writing the Rule, and Possible Stages in Hermit Discernment

[[Dear Sister, I have read what you have said about dioceses not being responsible for forming diocesan hermits but isn't it true that a diocese plays an important role in being sure that  persons who approach them requesting to become diocesan hermits really are called to this vocation? Are most dioceses really ready and willing to follow candidates for profession through the stages you have listed here: lay eremitical life, temporary profession, perpetual profession? As you have described it this could take nearly a decade. How reasonable is it to expect dioceses to do this?]]

Introduction to the "Stages" I have already spoken of:

Great questions. As an introduction for those who have not read what I have written on this before, the stages I have described include 1) a period of trying out solitude for an indefinite length of time on one's own (one is not really a hermit at this point, neither lay nor consecrated and will live this period until one makes the transition from being a lone pious person to actually being a lay hermit in some essential sense and is ready to approach their diocese with a petition regarding c 603), 2) a period as a lay hermit (this is NOT a novitiate!) while one discerns initially and with one's diocese whether one is called to continue as a lay hermit or to (possibly) be consecrated under canon 603, 3) a period of temporary profession (3-5 years) if and when the diocese discerns this is appropriate, and 4) perpetual profession --- again if the diocese and the hermit discern this is what one is called to. The time frame from actually approaching the diocese (as one who is already essentially a lay hermit) to perpetual profession could well reasonably take 6-9 years. The time prior to this could also well take several years and in fact, the transition I spoke of might never occur. (Dioceses need to be aware that a person may never make this fundamental shift from lone person to hermit in an essential sense and act accordingly.) Still, generally I am speaking of a diocese working with a candidate or temporary professed hermit for anywhere from 6-9 years to discern the nature and quality of the vocation in front of them. How reasonable is it to expect this?


Reasonable and Essential:

It is not only reasonable, it is essential if a diocese is to be responsible for the solitary eremitical vocation generally as well as for an individual candidate. I would argue that if a diocese is NOT willing to follow and accompany a candidate for the requisite period of time up to (and of course beyond) perpetual profession, then they ought not implement canon 603 in their diocese; that is, they ought not profess anyone accordingly. Instead they ought to encourage folks either become or remain lay hermits and simply be clear that they will not publicly profess anyone under canon 603. At the same time that I argue this lengthy process of accompaniment and discernment is not only reasonable but essential, I recognize that it is a demanding requirement not only for the diocese's own chancery personnel but for candidates who are serious about living eremitical life and perhaps being consecrated. For this reason I also think it is helpful to provide some basic signposts along what might otherwise be an entirely trackless and therefore an unnecessarily risky and difficult journey for both hermit and diocese. (There is risk  and difficulty enough in the eremitical life; it need not be added to unnecessarily.)

Discerning the Place of Solitude in the Person's Life

Because a hermit is formed only over time in solitude, a diocese (and certainly a candidate) MUST expect and allow this formation to require significant measures of both. A diocese cannot be expected to form a hermit and must not interfere with the formative place of silence and solitude. At the same time, because solitude can deform a person not really called to it beyond those occasional periods of solitude-as-transition life throws our way or makes necessary (solitude always breaks a person down!), a diocese must be very sure that 1) the hermit is well-directed or followed both by a spiritual director and by the staff of the offices of Vicar of Religious / Consecrated Life or Vocations, and 2) that the hermit gives every indication of growing in solitude emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and just generally as a whole and holy person. (For the hermit solitude not only breaks down, it edifies or builds up in the truest sense of that word; it also occasions growth in wholeness and communion with God and others. The inquirer's diocese must be keenly aware of the power of physical solitude to lead to either personal disintegration or to profound personal integration and watch for both as part of the process of discernment.)

In fact, this kind of  vigilant acompanying and evaluating is really what discernment is about: namely, one attends to how the candidate is formed, deformed, or simply fails to thrive in a given life or set of circumstances and from this determines whether or not God is calling a person to this at this point in time. (Formation overlaps this by adding the dimension of supplying (or discovering and taking advantage of) resources and experiences which allow the person to grow not only to wholeness, but to wholeness as a credible  and responsible representative of a lifestyle, congregation, Rule, tradition, etc. It cannot be stressed strongly enough, for both hermits who might like dioceses to "form them" or for dioceses that might desire a more structured "formation program",  that for the diocesan hermit, despite the diocese's critical role in accompanying and in recommending resources for the candidate, formation is achieved mainly through the hermit's own initiative and (in cooperation with God) in the context of the silence of solitude.) Discernment of a vocation to consecrated life under canon 603 depends on a hermit candidate being able to negotiate the transitions and personal growth which occur in eremitical solitude.

Signposts: The stages of writing a Rule and discerning a vocation coincide

In what I have written previously about writing a Rule, the Bishop's/diocese's role (or non role!) in that, what it means to be ready to write a livable Rule, etc, I believe the steps to readiness I have outlined  tie in well to the stages I have outlined above. I also believe the time periods required for each stage can be more or less gauged by the candidate's ability to write: 1) an experimental Rule or plan of life based on a limited but still-sufficient experience of solitude and the requirements of canon 603, 2) a Rule which will be canonically binding for a period of temporary profession, and finally, 3) a more definitive Rule which is adequate for the living of the life for the time being and can be granted a Bishop's Decree of Approval without temporal limitations.

What I am thinking here is first, that if someone comes to a chancery and seems to be serious about canon 603 they may be given some guidelines on the eremitical life and asked to write an experimental Rule or Plan which reflects their own experience, meets their own current spiritual needs, and will also help the diocese gauge whether they have made the transition from lone person to being a hermit in some essential sense. Let me be clear. This is not ordinarily to be considered the Rule required by Canon 603; it is usually merely going to be part of a person's preparation for gaining the experience needed to eventually write such a Rule. Next, they can be asked to live this plan for three years or so to discern how faithfully they live it, how mature and discerning their necessary modifications and adaptations of it are, what the nature of their struggles with it are as well as how those have changed, and again, how it contributes to their growth in wholeness and holiness. (This particular period could be varied if the person already has experience living religious life according to a Rule or, on the other hand, if the diocese still has questions but not significant doubts about the person's suitability for eremitical life.)

If this goes well and the person (and diocese) believe in the wisdom of petitioning for admission to profession (they might also agree the person is called to remain a lay hermit for instance or they might decide the period of solitude has been transitional or will never really be eremitical), the candidate can then be asked to revise the Rule as needed to deal with new elements. For instance she will need to demonstrate some significant understanding of the vows she is now proposing to make, add a vow formula, include a section on ongoing supervision or accountability, and consider adding other sections regarding canon 603's defining elements she has not yet addressed adequately. In other words, candidates can be asked to write a Rule that reflects their own lived experience of eremitical life and that can be binding under law for a temporary period. If this (writing) also goes well and the Bishop agrees, they can be admitted to temporary profession and become publicly obligated for the living of this Rule. Finally, if this period of living the Rule under temporary vows goes well and the hermit continues to demonstrate fidelity, integrity, along with an intelligent and faithful flexibility with regard to the Rule, then a "final" version can be submitted some time prior to admission to perpetual profession and consecration. While I refer to this last version as "final" I have included quotation marks to indicate that the hermit may well both need and want to change pieces of it in another few years.

Evaluations at Each Stage:

What this kind of arrangement makes possible is not only intelligent discernment, but serious discussions at each stage where the diocese, hermit, and spiritual director can evaluate how things are going and whether there are significant experiences the candidate needs to have if she is to continue to grow in this vocation. For instance, it might be very important for the candidate to spend some time in a monastic community following a regular horarium, praying office, experiencing the kind of silence she is being asked to embrace in her urban hermitage, learning to do lectio, dealing with monastic tedium, balancing the parts of her life (work, prayer, study, and leisure) and generally learning what monastic attentiveness in everything actually involves.

Personally, I would think that one month every year or two would be really helpful and for those who have no background in religious life, essential. Similarly, to name just a few things that might come up or be helpful during these years, it might be important for the candidate to break with active ministry, or family, or friends to a greater extent than she already has; on the other hand or at another point in her formation, it might be important for her to do a limited amount of  ministry under pastoral supervision, reestablish regular but limited contact with family and friends, and so forth. At given points it might be necessary for a candidate to "put her TV in storage" (some would-be hermits actually watch a lot of TV and don't realize it is both contrary and profoundly detrimental to the vocation), or become more active in her parish community (some candidates really lack a sense of the vocation's ecclesiality), or speak with a therapist, or take a series of classes in theology, monastic life, etc. Meanwhile periodic meetings (every 4-6 months) at the chancery and some at the candidate's own place would be necessary. (If this were pertinent the monastery's formation personnel could also contribute informally to any evaluation process.)

At the same time, in writing a Rule at each stage the candidate and the diocese will come to see what parts of the canon/life she is living and which she has not yet embraced, which she understands and which she does not, how she sees her life contributing to the understanding and living out of the canon and eremitical tradition more generally, how this life is a gift to the church and world, etc. The candidate moves to the next stage only when she is genuinely ready to do so and that readiness is marked by the ability to write a livable Rule for the next stage. The point is that each stage is geared towards growth and discernment rooted in the candidate's increasing experience of living the eremitical life per se and this growth is reflected in the Rule she writes at each point.

Further, while eventual profession is not guaranteed of course, the candidate should still find the process challenging and fruitful without it also feeling interminable or being onerous. Diocesan personnel would also find such a process helpful; they would neither be tempted to rush to premature profession or to simply match the time frames provided in canon law for active and contemplative cenobitical religious life, nor would they be forced to simply dismiss someone of whom they are simply uncertain as "unsuitable" without giving them an adequate "hearing" or chance to grow into the vocation to whatever extent they are capable.  If, during the course of this process, a person is discerned not to have a diocesan eremitical vocation, she will still have experienced a significantly growth-oriented process enabling her to seek the vocation to which she IS called.

The Role of the Diocese is Significant:

Thus, it is true that dioceses play a significant role in discerning the nature and quality of vocations in front of them even though with hermits dioceses do not actually form them. What a diocese has to convey to a candidate or possible candidate, I think, is 1) that they value the authentic (and contemporary!) eremitical vocation and will not consecrate someone without real evidence of a life call to the silence of  eremitical solitude, 2) that they value the formation that comes in the silence of solitude and expect the solitary hermit to take responsibility for this, 3) that they will follow the candidate with care and assist as they can and as appropriate, and 4) that when and as the candidate or hermit is ready, they will evaluate this readiness to proceed toward or to consecration, not only with conversations, but through the versions of a Rule she has written as reflections of where her individual vocation stands at any given moment.

As I have noted before, Canon 603 includes a marvelous mix of non-negotiable elements along with the freedom to structure and live these elements according to the will of God via one's own Rule. It is in the writing of the Rule that the hermit truly comes to understand and claim her overall life as an instance of a vital and fragile tradition; it is here that the dialogue she negotiates every day between the traditional eremitical life and the contemporary situation comes to fullest articulation and summing up. It simply makes sense for dioceses to use this tool as a key to discernment, and to do so in a way which helps the hermit or candidate to grow in both eremitical freedom AND necessary accountability in relation to canon 603. What I have suggested here is one way of doing that.

Writing a Rule of Life: When Should a Diocese Request One Write a Rule?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when should one write a Rule of Life? You have written that a Rule can only be written on the basis of lived experience. If a diocese asks one to do so right away what should one do?]]

You have put your finger on one of the most problematical elements of Canon 603 and of diocese's approach to its requirements, namely, the request that someone write a Rule of Life before they are really ready to do so, that is before someone has the lived experience and education (in things like the vows, etc) to do so. As I have written here before, the actual preparation for and writing of a Rule is one of the most formative experiences a hermit will have; it is also something one can only do on the basis of ample reading, reflection, and lived experience. This is because it is not simply a list of do's and don't's but a document which codifies the vision and values of the hermit's life in their interplay with eremitical tradition and the world in which the hermit lives (cf Negotiating the Tensions between Tradition and the Contemporary Situation); a Rule is the way she ensures the environment needed for God to love her (and vice versa) in the silence of solitude as well as achieving the goal of her life which IS the silence of solitude (eremitical communion with God in service to those precious to him). Thus, it should inspire before it legislates and it should legislate only as it inspires.

At the same time the Rule is the single concrete element of canon 603 which lends itself to a diocese's directives; for this reason there is a tendency for chancery personnel to ask candidates to go and write one whether there has been time to discern whether the person has the experience to do so or not. Meanwhile, the Rule that is eventually written by a candidate will help allow the diocese to discern the quality of vocation in front of them. All of this argues that, tempting as it is to do otherwise, the directive to write a Rule should not, and in fact must not, be given prematurely. Still, the hermit candidate needs some sort of provisional Rule or set of guidelines to help her live her life, and her diocese may be seriously tempted to ask her to write A single "finished" Rule before she is really ready, so what is the solution? Part of what follows is meant for dioceses; some will apply to you more directly. I hope that all of it will help you to understand what actually goes into the writing of a Rule.

1) begin with a set of guidelines. Here I merely mean a list of those things the diocese or church more generally expects to see in the life of an authentic hermit. These may come from the diocese or from the hermit herself as a result of her own study --- whichever is more comprehensive. Obviously the elements of canon 603 will be part of this (I will not go into those here), but, for instance, the single element of assiduous prayer will imply various kinds of prayer: Liturgy of the Hours, quiet prayer, meditation, lectio divina, rosary, Mass or Communion service, adoration, chant, Taize, etc.

(N.B., Any one hermit may not use all of these forms of prayer all the time, but she should be acquainted with them and have worked with her director to determine which ones are best for her at this point in time as well, for instance, as which ones work well when she is ill, on vacation or otherwise away from the hermitage, etc). Similarly, elements included in these guidelines will likely include study, recreation, work, contact with others, retreat, desert days, parish involvement, finances, horarium, meals, hospitality, home visits or visits with friends, vacation, spiritual direction, meetings with one's delegate, ongoing education or formation, etc. These should be related to the content of the vows one proposes  eventually to make and the central elements of canon 603 so they reflect the hermit's appreciation of the values and charism (gift quality) of the life.

Over time the hermit will try a variety of forms and combinations of these elements and, with the help of her director and delegate, discover what works best for her. Each experimental version or "configuration" of these elements should be balanced and include prayer, work, study, recreation, etc. Each one should show a real understanding and living out of the elements of the canon and thus, the values and charism of solitary eremitical life. (cf. Notes From Stillsong Hermitage: Appreciating the Charism of Diocesan Eremitical Life) Only when she has done this and discovered which configuration best allows for her own growth in wholeness and holiness in the silence of solitude is she actually ready to write a workable Rule of Life which can be submitted to the diocese.

2) At the end of a period of 2-3 years or so  of supervised experimentation (it could take longer; is is very unlikely to take less time unless the person has already lived vowed life for some period of time) and prior to admission to temporary vows, the diocese can ask the hermit (or the hermit may decide it is time) to write a provisional Rule which will bind her legally during her period of temporary vows. It should probably be understood that with the help of the hermit's director and delegate some elements may be changed in response to changes in her life or greater discernment or clarity, but these changes must be approved or otherwise made under diocesan supervision.

Part of the process of  both discernment and formation however involves learning whether one can as well as how to really live a Rule of Life which is considered and restrictive as well as life-giving and freeing. A Rule cannot include merely what one finds amenable at this point in time; it must be capable of challenging one to grow in the discipline and spirit of the eremitical life. Though it must not do so slavishly or apart from significant dialogue with the contemporary situation, it must reflect the eremitical tradition with real integrity or it is unworthy of the name. Patience and perseverance are part of the eremitical life and one must know one is able to live these elements on a day to day basis over a period of years in a way which leads to genuine wholeness BEFORE one is admitted to vows.

3) Six-eight months before perpetual or solemn vows are anticipated, the hermit should begin writing a definitive Rule which becomes canonically binding on the day of solemn/perpetual profession and will be approved first by canonists and then with a Bishop's Decree of Approval. (This period of time is chosen to allow sufficient time for writing and also to allow the diocese time for consultation with canonists, etc, which may lead to a need for re-writing and re-consultation. The fact that one has already written a Rule prior to temporary vows should be a big help here.) Despite the definitive nature of this Rule, a diocese (or the hermit!) should not be surprised to find that in several years she wishes to revise it in some significant way -- whether that is because she has embraced new prayer forms, must accommodate illness (or health!)  in new ways, has grown in her understanding of some element of canon 603 or the charism of her life, etc.

A Rule is a working document, a text for reflection and inspiration as well as being a legislative document. Like the Sabbath it is there for the sake of the hermit's life, not the other way around. Even so, at this point, my personal experience is that the changes that are needed will tend to be less substantive than earlier and ordinarily these will reflect significant growth in one's understanding of the vocation or significantly changed circumstances like illness, etc. One is no longer finding her way with the vocation in the same way she was before temporary vows or even just before perpetual profession. In other words, the changes needed at this point are usually the result of greater maturity in the life rather than immaturity and experimentation.


Regarding your specific question, if your diocese asks you to write a Rule before you feel you are ready, discuss this with them. If you like, discuss this article or others you have read on writing a Rule. Most of the time a diocese merely wants to be sure you are living an ordered life given over to the elements of canon 603. Often the people making the request have never written a Rule themselves and do not know what is required --- again, this is the single element of the canon they can point to for a concrete result. Even so, they are usually more than willing to give you the time this project truly requires. (I have never heard of a diocese hurrying a person in this. Though prematurity in requesting a Rule is a problem, any perceived  urgency is more often of the candidate's own making.) Writing up a set of guidelines or even a provisional Rule which you do not mean to be vetted by canonists or yet shown to your Bishop for approval should be acceptable to whomever is assisting you at the diocesan level. Let them know you are growing in this and that you anticipate writing another Rule in a couple of years when you are more experienced. Personally I think they will see this as a sign that you know what you are doing (and also as an admission of awareness of your own limitations!) --- both positive signs for a diocese.