Jumping Through Needless Hoops? More on Writing a Rule of Life

[[Hi Sister, maybe you have already answered this, but isn't it unreasonable to expect a person to write several different Rules over a period of 6-9 years? It does seem like a lot of needless hoops to make someone jump through. I can't believe that a first Rule would differ from a third or fourth Rule so much as all that. I mean it covers the basics or fundamentals of one's life. These don't change so dramatically in the life of a hermit do they? Isn't this really just busy work to give the diocese something to look at? So what do they look at if nothing really changes from one Rule to another? And what do they do if the hermit is not a writer? I am certainly not one so the whole prospect of my diocese asking me to do this would completely turn me off from pursuing profession under c 603!]]

Thanks for your questions. For those who are relatively new to this blog, and because I have not written about this recently, let me say that they refer to a suggestion I have made which allows a diocese and a hermit to engage in a process of formation and mutual discernment which 1) protects the freedom and solitude of the hermit, 2) provides a meaningful way the diocese can gauge the growth of the individual vocation before them and discern the suitability for and timing of eremitical profession and consecration, and 3) allows the hermit to take the initiative in working at both discernment and formation but in a significantly accountable way. Specifcally, over a period of about 6-9 years a candidate for consecration under c 603 will move through various natural stages in her formation and discernment as a hermit; as she does this she will mark --- as well as signal to those discerning with her --- her readiness to enter the next stage of the process by writing a Rule which, depending on the stage involved, will serve either relatively casually or more strictly and even canonically to structure and govern her life. The posts introducing this idea can mainly be found at Why Several Rules over a Period of Time? and under the labels, "Formation Programs?" and "Discernment" as well as, "Writing a Rule of Life".

Do Rules Change Much in the Life of a Hermit? 

Yes and no. The central elements of the Rule are unlikely to change significantly but the person's understanding of and relation to these elements will change significantly over time. The Rule this person writes at different points in her formation will reflect these changes especially as the person's life comes to embody them in more and more integral ways. Similarly then the elements of the Rule will cease to be merely external constraints as the person comes to explore and understand the depths of the realities to which they point. So, for instance, a Rule might speak of the silence of solitude in the beginning of a person's formative process and reflect a sense of external silence and solitude. While this sense will always remain, always be presupposed in any maturation in the silence of solitude, it will become less important than the deeper reality it expresses. Later on in her formation then, her Rule will reflect a sense that this element (the silence of solitude) is the goal of her life; for the hermit it will involve an essential quies which results from union with God and reflect a sense of being comfortable in her own skin --- possessing a wholeness without noisy striving or self-centeredness. In other words, the Rule's central elements begin more and more to define not only what the hermit does but who she is!

Similarly one might begin their approach to 'stricter separation from the world' by focusing on the things and people she cannot do or see but in time this element of the canon will reflect more the remaking of the hermit's heart into one that loves with a singleness and purity of focus. The physical separation remains and is presupposed in all else that happens in this solitary life, but it is the vision of the Kingdom and the claim the God of Jesus Christ has on her heart that will come to drive her understanding of this element or aspect of her eremitical life. The same kinds of changes tend to occur with the other non-negotiable elements of canon 603: poverty, chastity, obedience; there will be a deepening and broadening of experience and understanding which will be reflected in the subsequent Rule one writes.

As this process of internalization and integration occurs, the way the hermit comes to envision these elements changes and the emphasis in the Rule itself will also change to reflect this. In some cases an emphasis that was entirely absent will emerge as will a vision of eremitical life that was not present in one's first and/or second Rule. In this process the Rule's central or defining elements cease to be disparate requirements governing different parts of the hermit's life and instead come to express related emphases in a life reflecting the Gospel of God lived in solitude with God. A Rule written just prior to perpetual profession, for instance, is more likely to represent a vision of eremitical life lived in the 21st century with specific essential emphases than it is to be simply a list of things one contracts to do. Again, the Rule will often shift to define who the hermit is and her sense of mission and charism than it is merely a list of things she covenants to observe.

If one were to look at the various Rules a hermit writes over time this is the pattern one is likely to find. Even when the Rule itself does not explicitly reflect such changes through various versions, conversations with the hermit or hermit candidate is apt to elicit a clear sense of such change and growth. (If these conversations do not reflect such changes one has good reason to suspect either, 1) there is no eremitical vocation here, 2) the candidate is not living her Rule well (faithfully or wholeheartedly), or 3) something else is going on that is stunting or short-circuiting the formation process --- whether that centers on the failure of her (relationship with her) director, medical problems of one sort or another, or other difficulties. In such instances there need to be conversations with the candidate, her delegate, et al, to ascertain and resolve the problem.)

Jumping Through Needless Hoops?

As you can tell, I believe this process is not mere "busy work". It is important for discernment (both the hermit's AND the diocese's) and for formation. Likewise, it assures accountability on both the hermit's part and on the diocese's while it provides an objective focus for evaluating a life lived in solitary hiddenness. I have already discussed the major aspects of these things so I won't repeat them here. It is important that dioceses give hermits sufficient time to discern suitability and, when determined, achieve readiness for profession. It is similarly important that candidates allow themselves sufficient time while negotiating a process that is not marked by somewhat arbitrary time frames like those associated in canon law with postulancy and novitiate. The writing of appropriate Rules to focus and mark the hermit's personal stages of formation can substitute in a vocation that does not lend itself so well to such arbitrary time frames --- 9 mos for candidacy and 1-2 years novitiate, etc; while these work well for communal or coenobitical vocations, they work less well for the solitary eremitical call. At the same time, the process I have outlined does not allow the process to go on forever and especially not without accountability on both sides, diocese and candidate.

Further, while it is true that the use of this process does give the diocese something to "look at" this is not objectionable; it is part of what they require as part of their own call to discern, encourage, assist in the formation of, and protect ecclesial vocations. The process I have outlined eliminates some of the guesswork and complete subjectivity from the entire discernment and formation process, and I believe it does so while protecting the hermit's freedom to respond to God as she hears God in solitude.

What if the Hermit/Candidate is not a Writer?

I don't think this is really an insurmountable problem. After all, I am not speaking of writing a dissertation or book or something similar on eremitical life. I am talking about writing a Rule of life which is actually required by the Canon itself. It is a document which reflect the hermit's experience and codifies her own wisdom about how God calls her to live her life. On the whole it is less about writing per se than it is about attending to and reflecting on the vocation one is called to live. The Rule codifies what is necessary for a person to do that. In my own experience, in writing the Rule I submitted to my diocese prior to perpetual profession, I spent about one full month writing (at least a few hours a day) but months and even years were given to reflecting on canon 603 itself and how its elements related to the way God was working in my own life.  It seems to me that one needs far less to be a writer than one needs to truly be a contemplative who has come to know herself in light of God through an experiential knowledge of the constitutive elements of canon 603. I think that is by far the harder task, and probably the real obstacle to being able to write a Rule.

At the same time writing is an important way of becoming clear about who one is and why one is doing something. It is one of the ways we come to be articulate about what is most life giving for us and what is indispensable and normative in our lives. We shouldn't really expect to be able to write a liveable Rule unless and until we have spent time writing really unlivable and inadequate Rules or at least practice Rules we are comfortable using to "walk around in" for a time in order to learn more about ourselves and the way God is working in our lives. In the beginning hermit candidates ordinarily write Rules which are really little more than lists of "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots".  In time they come to see these are wholly insufficient to describe or govern lives marked by the power of the Holy Spirit,  much less to challenge and even to inspire them adequately. That is why I say over time one will come to write a Rule which is more a vision of eremitical life as God inspires one to see and live it than it is a list of do's and don'ts --- even when it includes these, as it inevitably must. In any case, one comes to learn what being a hermit is by living the life; likewise one comes to learn to write a Rule which serves as c. 603 requires and envisions by writing several of them over time.

In a genuine eremitical life, none of this time and effort will be wasted. One is, after all, growing in, exploring, and learning to articulate who one is in light of one's solitary relationship with God. If one is never professed as a canon 603 hermit one has still benefited by the canon's requirement that one write a Rule because it has been a formative experience, not merely a sterile requirement to "get professed". Meanwhile, if one's diocese admits one to profession and then consecration as a diocesan hermit one will only be grateful for all the work it took to get there and will benefit from it in a more direct way every day for the rest of her life. In either case it is something like last Friday's Gospel passage: when the labor is accomplished and the child born, one forgets the pain it all took and feels only joy at the new life which has been brought forth.

On the Deadly Sin of Individualism in the Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, are you aware of a "Catholic Hermit" who has recently written the following: [[No one else [besides the hermit, the SD, and God] really knows the whys or wherefores of how a consecrated Catholic hermit is or should be or has to be living his or her life. In fact, no one should be declaring a Catholic hermit consecrated or not consecrated in the Catholic Church, based upon his or her own interpretations of what is specified in Church documents, or presuming someone has an impediment to being in the Consecrated Life of the Church. A Catholic hermit's bishop and/or spiritual director or other Church authority can make that determination when it comes down to validity, if that designation even matters ultimately, eternally (and not the least) to His Real Presence!]]

And also, [[But it is not to judge them, or decide they are not living their lives "according to Hoyle" (according to some other Catholic hermit or non-hermit, or through the eyes of various individual priests or bishops or lay persons who have their own notions but not necessarily God's omniscience for each consecrated Catholic hermit living or dead.]] How can a Catholic hermit argue that an individual Bishop cannot be considered authoritative because he doesn't have God's omniscience? How can she argue that a Bishop's determination that someone's consecration is invalid (or valid I guess) might not even matter ultimately or eternally? It all sounds like a very Protestant approach to vocations and authority, but not very Catholic.]]

Thanks for the questions. Yes I am very aware of the post this all came from. I read it two or three days ago. It is a followup to a post this lay hermit already put up which asked the question, "Who do they think they are?" It seems that a "young canonist" (and member of another consecrated vocation) wrote something upsetting about hermits working full time and opined that vows would be invalid in certain circumstances. If I am correct in this, the offending posts (these were the only pertinent ones I could find that were at all recent) were on the blog, "Do I Have a Vocation?" which is written by Therese Ivers, JCL, a canonist and Consecrated Virgin I consider a friend. Beyond this she specializes in the law of consecrated life and is working on a doctorate in canon law focusing on Canon 603 so she certainly knows what she is talking about. (By the way, though written the 1st of February I only saw this article for the first time about a week ago; I was very gratified by Therese's referral to my blog.)

Now Therese and I don't always agree on everything (who does?), and sometimes we even disagree on relatively small details in regard to canon 603, but her posts on whether or not a hermit should work full time and on private vows were spot on. cf: Can Diocesan Hermits Have Full Time Jobs?, etc. Most importantly she dealt with abuses of canon 603 which have happened because dioceses have used the canon as a stopgap solution to profess non hermits who worked full time in highly social jobs. While you did not quote this portion of the post,  you can hear I hope, the incredible irony of a blogger who is herself a privately dedicated hermit dismissing Therese's expertise in Canon 603 on the grounds that she, though a canonist and consecrated virgin, is not a consecrated hermit.

The Church is very clear on who is considered a member of the consecrated state of life and who is not. There is one sentence in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which has caused some confusion because of its location in paragraphs on eremitical life under the heading "The Consecrated Life", but this is really a minor problem since the catechism's own glossary and other paragraphs make it very clear that (except for consecrated virgins living in the world) entrance into the consecrated state always comes to be through profession made in the hands of a legitimate superior with both the authority and the intention of doing this. The sentence refers to hermits who do not make vows publicly but canon 603 allows for sacred bonds other than vows so the sentence could be an awkward reference to this or an attempt to speak to lay hermits without duplicating the paragraphs in another section of the CCC. The c 603 profession itself, however, (whatever form it takes) is always public. In any case, when confusion exists it is up to canonists to make clear the requirements and Therese Ivers is certainly capable of authoritatively doing this --- and does do so for dioceses seeking clarification.

Also, the Church is very clear what constitutes an eremitical life lived in her name. Canon 603 says it is a life of the silence of solitude (not just silence and solitude), stricter separation from the world (that is, from all that is resistant to Christ or promises fulfillment in the way the God of Jesus Christ does), assiduous prayer and penance,  profession of the evangelical counsels, all lived according to a Rule or Plan of Life the hermit writes herself and lives under the supervision of the local Bishop. For this reason, the Church has every right through canonists, Bishops, theologians, and others to say what the terms of this canon and all it requires actually means, both explicitly and implicitly. This is especially true when the Church seeks to understand this canon in conjunction with the history of the eremitical life generally and this canon's history specifically.

Beyond this, the actual living out of this vocation in the contemporary world means that Catholic Hermits who deal daily with the tension that exists between the canon's pure or ideal expression (if there even is such a thing!) and the hermit's necessary existence in time and space means the Church will also pay attention to the input of those who are publicly professed and canonically obligated to live the canons governing their life. To state that only the hermit, the SD, and God [[really know the whys or wherefores of how a consecrated Catholic hermit is or should be or has to be living his or her life]] flies in the face of canon 603's explicit and implicit requirements. The Diocesan Bishop and/or Vicars for Religious as well (especially I would argue) as the hermit's delegate (and to a lesser degree or in a different way, the hermit's Pastor) are required to know "the whys and wherefores" of the hermit's life if they are to meet their own ecclesial obligations in her regard.

I can't overstate the importance of understanding vocations to the consecrated state as ecclesial vocations. They are gifts of the Holy Spirit TO the Church, yes, but they are also entrusted to the Church to discern, protect, nurture and govern. That means that they are given to the WHOLE Church and are up to the WHOLE Church to receive and protect -- even when this mainly occurs through legitimate superiors acting in the name of the Church. They are vocations belonging to the Church and she legislates then way they are to be understood and lived. While this does not mean that everyone has an equal voice in the matter, it does mean that folks knowledgeable in the history of the life 'called "consecrated", or those who have lived such lives, do have the right, and often the obligation, to make their opinions known. At the end of the day it is the institutional  Church herself who will clarify what is acceptable or not but until that happens, folks with knowledgeable  or authoritative opinions will discuss matters and give their opinions when asked. What having an ecclesial vocation does NOT mean is that one can do whatever one wants and then conclude "it's up to me and my director and the omniscience of God" just because they belong to the Church that is entrusted with the vocation. This is simply untrue.

No competent director I know would declare a person "consecrated", that is, a member of the consecrated state because he witnessed their private vows. Neither would any competent director suggest one need not listen to what canonists, theologians, or Bishops say about such vocations. None would suggest that a person could assert she knows God's will better than the entire Church and then approve of her living her vocation "in the name of the Church" with out ever being legitimately commissioned to do so. There is a loose usage common regarding the verb "to consecrate" and I hope it ceases sooner rather than later, but even if a spiritual director did mistakenly encourage a directee to declare herself a consecrated hermit or professed religious because she had dedicated herself to God as a hermit, this does not change what the Church herself authoritatively says about initiation into the consecrated state of life.

Let me close this with a quote or two from Pope Francis speaking about vocations to the conse-crated state. It can be found in Keep Watch! A Letter to Consecrated Men and Women Journeying in the Footsteps of God. Francis says, [[ When the Lord wants to give us a mission, he wants to give us a task, he prepares us to do it well, just like he prepared Elijah. The important thing is not that you've encountered the Lord but the whole journey to accomplish the mission that the Lord entrusted to you. And this is precisely the difference between the apostolic mission that the Lord gives us and a good, honest, human task. Thus, when the Lord bestows a mission, he always employs a process of purification, a process of perception, a process of obedience, a process of prayer.]]

And then there is the following one, which, while written with cenobites in mind applies equally well to hermits with ecclesial vocations. That is especially true bearing in mind  St Peter Damian's characterization of solitary hermits as "ecclesiola" or "little churches": [[Thanks be to God you do not live or work as isolated individuals but in community: and thank God for this! The community [local Church] supports the whole of the apostolate. At times religious communities are fraught with tensions, and risk becoming individualistic and scattered, whereas the need is deep communication and authentic relationships. The humanizing power of the Gospel is witnessed to in fraternity lived in community [the local parish and diocese, etc] and is created through welcome, respect, mutual help, understanding, kindness, forgiveness and joy.]]

I have written many times here that the really deadly sin of the solitary hermit is  individualism. This is the real route of destruction for an ecclesial vocation and  a  destructive caricature of eremitical solitude. No one who prays regularly much less assiduously can separate themselves from the community of the Church. No one living a vocation in the name of the Church can eschew the opinions of those who knowledgeably comment on the requirements of the canons governing their own vocations. They certainly cannot suggest that no matter what the Church says, they don't need to listen to anyone's opinion but those of their spiritual director and God and (if they have even been given this right) still legitimately call themselves a Catholic Hermit. For those who are lay hermits but not living their eremitical lives in the name of the Church I think they must still be concerned with what the Church says about the eremitical vocation; they can make their own opinions heard in this matter and are relatively free to live as they feel called, but they should take care not to exchange individualism for eremitical freedom.

Followup on Hermit Formation

[[Dear Sister, Thank you so very much for your thoughtful and detailed response to my question.(cf., Questions on Formation) I suppose the one thing I fret about the most is my prayer life. I believe I have found a rich but simple way to pray that incorporates lectio and the psalter. It's modelled on the Liturgy of the Hours but is very simple. I find it very life giving. Part of what I like about it is its simplicity, ease of use and flexibility: For example here is what Morning Prayer looks like.... O God, come to my assistance etc. , Psalm 95 (Invitatory) Hymn (Usually the Eastern Orthodox "O Heavenly King" prayer to the Holy Spirit). Three Psalms (I pray 3 psalms, in order, at each office). 1 chapter from the OT and one from the NT. Contemplative/Intercessory Prayer, Our Father, Hail Mary, Benedictus, Closing collect (usually collect of the day from the Missal).  Evening prayer is similar except it has the Examination of conscience, Magnificat etc. I do keep track of feast days and the liturgical seasons as well.  [A reference to Compline was excerpted here]

On "hermit days" (days I can live in total solitude, like Saturdays and Sundays, because I still work in the world) I also pray the Angelus, Rosary and do other spiritual reading and journaling (in addition to exercise and some physical labour). Morning, Evening and night prayer are my foundations no matter what. I also spend long periods of the holidays and summers in solitude (I'm a teacher). As you can see, slowly but surely a rhythm of life is emerging as I experiment with this life and grow in it. I'm sorry if this email is long winded but I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me...

1) Do you think what I've described is an effective way to pray as a hermit (at least formally as your really praying all day)? This has become a very small point of disagreement between me and my director. He keeps saying I should pray the official LOTH. I tell him that I respect it but the mechanics of it drives me nuts. I like praying the full Psalms uninterrupted, I like that my prayer isn't constantly interrupted by flipping and rubrics etc. I like that when I pray I come before The Lord with just my Bible and before an icon of Him and Our Lady I pray in simplicity. I wonder that if God calls me to this life that I'll have to abandon this form of prayer for the LOTH. I know obedience is essential, but do you think that hermits are allowed to pray more freely than diocesan priests and religious? I know many monastic communities have crafted their own version of the office. Thoughts, advice and insights on this are greatly appreciated. ]]

First, I am glad my last post (cf., Questions on Formation) was of assistance to you. Many thanks as well for permission to post your response with its set of questions and especially some of the description of how you are proceeding in embracing the eremitical life more and more. I think they can be helpful to others who are looking for ways to do something similar.

On the Phrase "Still work in the world":

Before I move on to your questions though, allow me one quibble with your use of the term "the world" as in "I still work in the world." There are some "hermitages" (or putative hermitages!) that are every bit as much or more "the world" than the region you are describing. Remember that "the world" in the pejorative sense, the sense that canon law primarily refers to with c 603's,"stricter separation from the world" or the sense monastic mainly mean when they refer to fuga mundi (flight from the world), as well as the meaning of the term in the early Greek and/or Desert Fathers, was not the world as a whole (which they saw as God's good creation), nor even the populated world (which was ambiguous though essentially good), but rather, "that which is resistant to Christ."

I have written about this before, but let me quote from a commentary on John Climacus' Ladder. Climacus is quite strict in his approach to solitude but he can also be misunderstood when read literally and unhistorically. Thus, Vassilios Papavassiliou writes: "In this sense, 'the world' means all those things that are opposed to Christ and to our salvation. The world in the sense of God's creation is good, and we are all (even those living monastic life) a part of it. However remote monasteries or hermitages may be, all monastics lie beneath the same sun and moon, breathe the same air, and share the soil and the fruits of the earth with all humanity . . . There can be no ascetic life, no true spirituality of we are not willing to break with the world in terms of what we hold dear and what constitutes the focus of our lives. .  ." (Thirty Steps to Heaven, The Ladder of Divine Ascent for all Walks of Life, Ancient Faith Publishing, 2013) Canonists reflecting on the canons on religious life say something very similar in the Handbook on Canons 573-746: "'The world' is that which is unredeemed and resistant to Christ."

If you get in the habit of referring to everything outside your own home as "the world" you will be buying into a false dichotomy which idealizes your own physical space and demonizes that which is other while you also neglect the fact that "the world" in the pejorative sense is more primarily a matter of the heart and who has a claim on that than it is a reference to a geographical region. Moreover you will be setting yourself up for a spiritual elitism which is incapable of perceiving the inbreaking of the Kingdom in the unexpected or unacceptable place --- the very thing that happened to the Pharisees and led to Jesus' crucifixion --- or of standing in solidarity with others outside your home.

Similarly you will be viewing a world which is essentially and always potentially sacramental through a lens which prevents us from seeing that clearly. Finally, you will be at least subtly encouraging yourself to refrain from or avoid the conversion necessary to allow God's love to overcome the resistances within your own heart --- the most persistent and dangerous instances of "the world" any of us ever know. While I don't think you are guilty of this (I really can't know this) to shut the door of one's cell and to believe that one has thus effectively shut out "the world" is often merely a pernicious and arrogant deceit --- something that is one of the surest signs of a dangerously destructive worldliness. What is ordinarily much truer is that at best, we shut the door on the world out there so that, through the grace of God, we can do battle with the demons and world within us! Moreover, we do so in order to love our world and all that is precious to God into the wholeness for which it is made.

On the Way you are Praying, Strengths and Weaknesses:

Now, regarding the way you are praying, I think it has significant strengths and some weaknesses as well. At this point I think the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses, but you should be aware that could change in time, especially as your life in solitude matures, and you will need to be open to that. One primary rule in prayer is always to pray as you can, not as you can't and you are doing that. You are creating and living a rhythm which will structure your entire life in time, and you are integrating lectio (or at least you have allowed for the opportunity to integrate lectio) into your prayer. Within your praxis of LOH you are combining psalmody, intercession and contemplative prayer in what will become an effective invitation to transition from one to another in the whole of your life. Finally, you are finding practical ways to center your prayer life on Scripture. My evaluation of all of this is very favorable. You show you have spent time thinking about this and the fact that you are attending to your feelings as well is significant and positive.

The weaknesses I mentioned are the result of the lack of variation in your office. You see, the official LOH re-enacts the rhythm from creation to death to resurrection and recreation. It does this again and again every day, every week, and over the space of the liturgical year. The hymns change, the antiphons do the same so that they can serve to highlight the main themes of the hours and tie them together with the readings and the season as well. The psalms are chosen for their themes and their relation to the time of day, season, etc. Ordinarily the entire psalm is not used at a given hour because the entire psalm tends to reflect different moods, tones, and themes. (There is similar point to the way readings are chosen, not only to highlight a particular theme but to choose a pericope which is conducive to lectio --- something whole chapters may not do or be.)

The purpose of the LOH is not simply to get us through all 150 psalms each day or week as early approaches to the Work of God did in their effort to pray without ceasing and sanctify the day, but to sanctify and celebrate (make prayer of) all of the moments and moods of human life in light of the rhythm of God's history among us as we mark that each day and over longer periods via the liturgical calendar. The emphasis differs. If you continue to pray the stripped down Office you have described without eventually participating more and more in the official LOH (or in a version of that adopted by the Camaldolese, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc which also use several week cycles, varying hymns and antiphons, and include Night prayer which can be sung and memorized easily) you miss many opportunities for making the whole of your life a prayer which resonates with the Church's official prayer. While this is not apt to be a matter of obedience in the narrow sense of someone in authority telling you to do this or refusing to profess you, it is likely to be a matter of obedience in the broader and more profound sense of hearkening to God's voice as it comes to us in the Church's liturgical life.

It is true the LOH is not easy to learn, especially on one's own. A large part of learning to pray it has to do with aural memory and an inculcation of its various rhythms (sound, gesture, etc) all of which are best experienced in choir and in community. Though I regularly sing Office I miss praying it in community and am still reminded of that every time I pray it. Even so its complexities are indicative of its richness and its ability to speak to, console, challenge, and convert us in every moment and mood of our life. I suspect your director knows this and may be coming from this POV rather than another more superficial one.

At this point in time you do not necessarily need to change the way you are praying, but I would seriously suggest you find a 1 volume copy of the Office (a book called Christian Prayer which has very little flipping back and forth) to supplement your current praxis. (If and when you decide to do this your director can assist you in doing so in a way which respects both your preferences and the important diversity and richness of the LOH. In learning the use of the LOH you may find it challenges temperamental tendencies or strengths within you so be aware that your preferences may be rooted both in your response to God as well as in your personal insecurities and resistance to the movement of the Holy Spirit.) Remember that the diocesan hermit's prayer is not only personal but ecclesial and a participation in the Church's own prayer. The LOH is a formative reality, that is, it is one of the major ways the Church forms herself as a People at prayer by forming individuals in the rhythms and themes of her liturgical and Christocentric life.

That said though, let me point out that only priests are canonically required to pray the LOH. Religious (who are not clerics) are canonically obliged to pray the LOH according to proper law, that is according to the constitutions of their congregation (or in the hermit's case, the Rule approved by her Bishop). Some hermits I know (I know one presently) do not pray the Office at all (though I admit I do not personally understand how this can be the case). Others, myself included, use the Office book of a specific congregation. I use the Camaldolese office book (consisting mainly of Lauds and Vespers, though it also has Compline); I do so because it is entirely geared to singing the hours and the psalm tones used are both simple and musically interesting (unlike something like the Mundelein office book which I tried a few years ago and found musically tedious). For Vigils, however, I use the four volume LOH, as I do for Scripture readings. Others use Franciscan office books or those of some other tradition. They may supplement their Office book with collections of readings for Vigils like those books (Augustinian Press I think) used by the Camaldolese, etc.

Becoming a Hermit, some Nuts and Bolts:

[[(2) Is this how a rule is crafted and the embrace of this life takes place? I think that it would be very hard to go cold turkey and become a hermit overnight. I'm finding that my immersion into this life and the crafting of a rule is gradual process. Slowly I'm spending more days alone in prayer. I'm not being weird about it. I still have life giving friendships and I'm involved with my family and my parish but the putting on of this life is happening slowly. I'm 38 years old and I imagine as I discern more and more and live this life that there will come a time where I naturally embrace this life full time. I already see it happening by ensuring my weekends and holidays are "hermit days".

From this I see a rhythm emerging. I like to keep my prayer life/devotional life very simple (hence my simple prayer office). I think it was St. Benedict who lauded short and simple prayer. Is this how a rule is developed? And is this how the call to eremitic life discerned? More insights, thoughts and advice are greatly appreciated. Thank you so very much for your help. Your insights are gold as I try to figure out this thing the Lord may be calling me to. ]]

Yes, I think generally this is how a Rule comes to be crafted. Over time we pay attention to the things which are lifegiving for us, the ways in which God comes to us, the ways in which we truly give ourselves and allow our hearts to be opened and formed in the love of Christ, etc as well as to those things which are traditionally part of the eremitical life; we build those into our life or otherwise make provision for them in ways which are most advantageous for our growth and an integral obedience to God. As you probably already know, a Rule is not merely a list of do's and don'ts, nor a system of abstract principles or values. It is, in the language of canon 603, a Plan of Life, a plan for the way we can best live our God-given, God-willed lives in the fullest and most integral way possible. You seem to me to be approaching this in just the right way no matter what form of life it leads you to or eventually best expresses (the more definitive Rule or plan of life you eventually write --- for you will probably write several in the next years --- may or may not be an eremitical one).

At this point I would not say you are discerning an eremitical vocation so much as you are discerning the place of prayer and some (perhaps a significant amount of) solitude and silence in your life. Your "hermit" days are what are usually called "desert days" or "days of recollection" and active religious will also take such days. However, at  some point you may well make a relatively complete break with the life you live now and embrace one of the silence of solitude. But whether this is as a hermit or a contemplative religious or monastic, a dedicated lay person who enjoys the kind of non-eremitical solitude so many older and retired adults live today, etc, is still unclear, undecided, and untried. While it may be hard to go "cold turkey" and while one can and will certainly grow into this vocation, until one is living fulltime silence and solitude and has undertaken the renunciations and, to some extent, the obligations associated with an eremitical life, until, that is, one has spent time testing the true extent to which solitude has opened the door to one as a way to be one's truest and best self, I don't think one can speak of discerning an eremitical vocation per se.

You may have noticed the post on the new Lifetime series, "The Sisterhood". It has been billed as being about women discerning religious life. In actual fact they are discerning WHETHER to enter a congregation and mutually discern such a vocation with them. While one can see to what extent one feels immediately drawn to or repulsed by such a life by such experiences, until one actually enters the life, one is discerning something other than the life itself.  Until one risks losing oneself in a radical way on this solitary (or any other vocational) path neither will one be able to discover if it is what God is calling one to and thus, to 'find oneself' there. As you well know yourself, one can take education courses, work as a classroom aide and even substitute teach from time to time but unless and until one takes a fulltime job teaching for both discernment and critical formation, one does not know if one is truly called to it. Eventually one has to put it all on the line and take that job to see. Still,  I do think you are preparing and preparing well for eventually embracing the more radical break and risk required to enter into that particular discernment process at some point in time.

Overall then, I believe you are proceeding in just the right way and in the way you need to do for now. I am impressed with the way you are working on your prayer and penitential life and coming to know yourself (prayer, journaling, creation of a simple version of the LOH, commitment to spiritual direction, etc). More, I am very grateful that you would share this part of your journey here and allow me to comment on it. Thank you again.

Questions on Formation of the Hermit

[[Apart from having a good spiritual director, study and of course prayer; how else can one learn the eremitic way? Do you suggest that someone discerning such a vocation put themselves under the tutelage of a professed hermit (this seemed to be the norm in the early Church and  Middle Ages. There are many stories of young anchorites being guided by holy women in their vocation) or perhaps spend time with a solid hermit community, like the Monastic Family of Bethlehem or the Carmelite Hermits in Texas, to learn this vocation?

As you've noted, Vatican 2 and the new Code of Canon Law revived this  vocation. While the hermit life is ancient, those reviving it are also pioneers in that they are at the forefront of reviving this call. My concern is that without being properly formed one could run into m[an]y (sic?) mental and spiritual difficulties. How do I learn to live this life? I'm trying to discern this and apart from reading, study and most of all prayer, frequenting the sacraments and solitude I have no idea if I'm doing any of this right. Are there support groups or something for those in discernment? What do you advise?]]

Hi there and thanks for writing again. First, the idea of being guided in this vocation by a perpetually professed hermit (largely today's equivalent of the elders and mentors of old) is a good one. It is traditionally the way most folks came to eremitical life and is ideal. However, opportunities for going to live with an eremitical community apart from seriously discerning a vocation with such a group do not really exist today. What I mean is that today a person cannot generally determine they are called to life under canon 603 (life as a solitary hermit) and also go off to live with a community like those you have mentioned. One can ordinarily do one or the other but not both (though one might, with one's diocese's help, arrange to stay occasionally for a number of weeks at a monastery or hermitage to experience certain values and realities which are a daily reality there -- not least the rhythm and balance of the life and the pervasive silence and attitudes of attentiveness that accompany everything one does; this differs from what you have described I think).


To ease this difficulty a little at least, members of the Network of Diocesan Hermits (perpetually professed diocesan hermits) will consider working with an individual if their diocese requests it. (While we may work informally with others, the fact is there are relatively few of us and none of us has the time to mentor every person who writes or contacts us about becoming a hermit; some initial discerning needs to be done by dioceses!) Ordinarily this means that someone who has lived solitude for a time, who is considered by a diocese to be, potentially at least, a candidate for canon 603 profession, and who is working with a spiritual director and meeting with diocesan personnel regularly, can also talk regularly with someone from the Network to be sure they understand what it means to be living an eremitical life (as opposed to an individualistic life of physical isolation), are able to discern whether or not they are well suited to it, and are growing in this without getting stuck on relative trivialities or superficialities, etc. The Network also has a group/website set up for aspirants which gives them a chance to share with one another -- though at the present time no one is part of that group.

Remain in your Cell and Your Cell Will teach you Everything:

Even so,  these possible pieces of assistance aside, it is important to remember that the main teacher of any hermit is going to be God in and through the silence of solitude itself. The desert Fathers' and Mothers' wisdom about dwelling or remaining in your cell and your cell teaching you everything remains essentially as true today as it was in the 4-6th centuries. Add to this the main elements of canon 603, which define a life of assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels all lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world, and you will find set before you a way of living a profoundly Christian life in solitude which you and God together will live out in your own way. As you move more and more deeply into this life with the help of your director (who, it seems to me, functions as the desert mentors of old once did), you will find either it truly resonates with you or does not; you will also find that it is a means to abundant and mature life in Christ for you or is not. If this way of living leads you to abundant life in Christ, if in fact it makes you more loving, patient, longsuffering, compassionate, honest (humble), etc, then it itself is right for you and your response to God is, at least generally, also as it should be.

The question about "doing it right" for the hermit is at its heart, always really a question about what God is calling us to in solitude and how integral and generous our response to this call has been or is coming more and more to be. For instance, as part of praying my life I pray in several different ways each day; these forms of prayer allow me to respond to God with all parts of myself (heart, mind, body, etc). Over the years I have dropped certain ways of praying or adopted others, always in response to God's own call to be fully alive and fully myself in and as a response to God's summons and love. No one says I must pray in this way or that. Assiduous prayer and penance is the goal and means to living this life but no one spells out what this means in detail. Over a period of several years you will try all the forms of prayer which are central to a life of prayer and determine which of these are best for you at this time. Over a period of more years you will discern which ones are important for you during times of illness, which ones are especially helpful in getting you through periods of stress or tedium, which ones almost invariably speak to your heart or kindle the fires of your mind, or are most difficult for you or console you in loss and grief. Even more importantly you will come to know the ways God calls you to wholeness and in responding you will become God's own prayer in the world.


The same is true of penance and the other central elements of the canon. There are certain building blocks for a life of assiduous prayer and penance. One explores these and, in response to God's call to, life, truth, beauty, integrity, wholeness, holiness, justice, love, compassion, etc, discerns which of these building blocks lead one more and more to become an expression of these dimensions of God's own life. Of course, it is not merely a matter of learning to be a hermit but rather of discerning whether or not one is CALLED to be one. If one is, then the central elements of canon 603 will lead to greater and greater personal wholeness and holiness with all these entail. If not, then no amount of teaching can help a person embrace this life or move from external silence and physical solitude to the silence of solitude which is a matter of the heart. As I have written before while citing Thomas Merton, Solitude herself must open the door to the hermit. If she does not, then no degree of teaching, tutoring, direction, or supervision, etc, will help.

On the other hand, if one is truly called to this life (whether as a lay hermit or a consecrated hermit), then provided one has a good spiritual director with whom one meets regularly and is assiduous in keeping her vows and other commitments (including to the personal work which stems from direction), the chance of making serious mistakes is truly minimal. There WILL be difficulties to negotiate; that is part and parcel of any vocation leading to true growth in authenticity. Formation is an ongoing reality and for the hermit, unless she enters a community of hermits, even "initial" formation takes a period of many years (and certainly more than canon law calls for for those in formation with a community). The point is, however, the heart of this vocation is a solitary relationship with God in which one responds to God's love and mercy in all that one is and does. There is no cookie cutter pattern of what this looks like nor of what formation entails but to the extent it is authentic it all goes by the name "the silence of solitude" and one knows it when one sees it. (What I mean here is that the fruits of such growth in authenticity will be plain for all to see.) Neither does one reach a point at which one can say "I'm done with formation!" Instead the fundamental Rule, again, is to remain in one's cell and one's cell will teach one everything. (By the way, among other things, this can mean for one called to solitude that the cell will become a place in which new life is fostered and incredible growth nurtured; for one not called to solitude, life in cell will torment the unfortunate aspirant and leave them in misery, personal disintegration, and pain. God is not absent in such circumstances but he calls the aspirant to fullness of life elsewhere.)

Committing to a Spirituality of Discernment:

Because this is true all one can really do is commit to a spirituality of discernment which requires spiritual direction and regular frank discussion with others who accompany one in one way and another. (One's pastor, confessor, Vicar or Bishop --- if one is working with a diocese --- good friends who are honest with us, etc.) At every point one attends to the way life in solitude affects one and acts accordingly. Is one growing? Is one profoundly happy in Christ? Is suffering --- to whatever degree it is real, a subtext of one's life, not the main theme? Is one able to use the gifts God gives them and does one love better and more deeply in real concrete situations with real persons? Is the call of solitude herself something one experiences or does it seem that one has embraced an ascetical discipline which is merely external to oneself? I should note here, one's goal must not be to become a diocesan hermit but rather to be a hermit (a desert dweller) living the silence of solitude day in and day out. I cannot stress this enough. Over time one MAY find that one is called to be a diocesan hermit professed and consecrated under canon 603, but even if one does not find this to be the case, one has lived each day well as God called one to do. That is and always will be the measure of "success" for any hermit, whether lay or consecrated; for that matter it is similarly the measure of success of any Christian and any human being. In approaching questions of success and failure, or fears regarding serious mistakes, this is far and away the most important thing.

It occurs to me that perhaps you have questions about specific mistakes which I might address more particularly. If that is the case, please let me know what kinds of things you are thinking of; that would be helpful to me as well. In the meantime, all good wishes.

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.

On Professing Someone who does not Desire it

[[Hi Sister Laurel. Did your Bishop desire you to become a diocesan hermit? Is it possible that a Bishop would ASK someone to petition to be accepted as a diocesan hermit? I have read that a Bishop might desire this for the diocese and could do so even if the individual is not interested in becoming a diocesan hermit. Does this happen? A lot?]]

I think that I have been asked something similar before. If so this answer may repeat some of my earlier answer. Please check through the labels (below and to the right) so see if other posts also speak to these questions. (Actually I am now fairly certain I have done so some time last year or so; I would suggest looking under the labels authentic and inauthentic eremitism and/or abuses of canon 603 to find related posts.)

The idea of someone becoming a diocesan hermit simply because a bishop personally desires it is VERY unlikely! Moreover, the notion that a bishop would desire someone to do this even if they do NOT feel called to it themselves is even more completely unlikely --- not least because it is a silly and at least potentially, a seriously destructive way to proceed with regard to this specific vocation. (Actually, it's not a particularly desirable or edifying way to proceed with any vocation (consider marriage undertaken in this way for a great sense of SOME of the problems involved), but I would argue it is especially undesirable and disedifying with eremitical life!) Bishops, while they might say to someone, "Have you ever considered becoming a priest or religious (including a diocesan hermit), etc?" do not tend to ask someone out of the blue to consider becoming a diocesan hermit; it is altogether too rare, too significant, and too different from the way most folks are brought to wholeness and holiness --- which really means too different from the way human beings ordinarily learn to love and achieve genuine integration and individuation.

A candidate for profession and consecration really MUST have the sense that God is calling them to this and they must be able to make a convincing case of that for the diocese and bishop before being admitted to profession. More, I think the individual MUST take the initiative in this. It cannot be the decision of a director, et al to discern or seek this on behalf of another, nor can a person legitimately or validly approach profession while saying, "I am doing this because my Bishop desires it!" Thus I would have to say the most a Bishop can do (if he even has the opportunity, which is hard to imagine) is to say, "Your life strikes me as implicitly eremitical; why don't you pray and do some studying about the matter of vocation as a diocesan hermit? I will do the same."

I am not sure I understand the part of the question about desiring this for the diocese, or at least, it seems a little "off" to me. I suppose it reminds me of the practice once common in old English gardens; on large estates, no estate garden was complete without its ornamental "hermit". Of course I believe that a diocesan hermit is a gift to her parish and diocese and that that indicates that God has graced the life of these with an eremitical vocation, but it is not as though one can say, "Hmmm, I want some of THESE graces for the diocese so I will ask so-and-so to become a diocesan hermit!" Graces are shared manifestations of God's very self, not bits of "stuff" that can be separated off from the living God and stored up or parceled out or anything similar. The Holy Spirit works in individual lives in all kinds of ways and it is this active presence we call grace; when a diocese recognizes and affirms an eremitical vocation of course I think that is wonderful, but one cannot simply make someone a hermit (or ask them to become one!) because one would like "the graces associated with this" or something. That smacks more of the shopping network than (attention to) the work of the Holy Spirit.

Having said that though, let me also say I wish dioceses were more knowledgeable about and more open to the eremitical vocations in their midst. For instance, where I live there are any number of elderly people who live physically solitary and intensely prayerful lives who might well have eremitical vocations that could serve both the parish and the diocese as a whole as lives of real marginality, chronic illness, poverty, etc are radically transformed, consecrated in a public way, and set before the faith community as paradigms of the truth that God alone suffices. While such lives are (and would remain) marginal in the ways the world measures things they would assume a public place and role right in the very heart of the Church and be a resource even these individuals themselves never imagined. Their illnesses don't need to be healed, their poverty relieved, or their marginality eased as part of this radical transformation. Instead these things would be redeemed by God's consecration of them and made infinitely meaningful pointers to (sacramentals of) a joy and significance which goes beyond anything our world ordinarily imagines them to be or mediate. But, let me be clear, I do not mean that every elderly or chronically ill person should do this as a hermit much less as a diocesan hermit; still, I believe that dioceses have greater numbers of potential hermits living within them than they might realize --- genuine eremitical vocations which are already an unrecognized grace to parishes and dioceses but whose potential meaningfulness and fruitfulness is yet unknown to the local (or the universal) Church.

You ask if a Bishop can profess (and eventually consecrate) someone who does not wish this. The answer is simply NO --- at least not if he is acting responsibly and in a truly pastoral way (I am assuming he is!). As noted above, I wonder if such a profession is even canonically valid in such a case. As I have written many times here, ecclesial vocations are mutually discerned. One cannot proclaim oneself a religious or a consecrated person via a private dedication (that way lies self-delusion and pretense) nor can the Church profess and consecrate someone either against their will nor unless that person is also genuinely convinced this is the will and call of God for them. To attempt to do so is to sin against conscience and possibly involves one in a kind of sacrilege as one demeans not only a particular vocation but the entire rite of profession/consecration.

There is a strain in hagiographical writing which focuses on the unwillingness of individuals to embrace vocations to religious life and/or priesthood. It has sometimes tended to validate discernment of vocations --- a kind of psychologically and spiritually naive, "Well I know I didn't want this so it must be God's will" kind of thing. (It can sometimes be used to underscore a skewed notion of obedience and quasi-humility in a kind of martyred, "Well, the idea really is unpleasant for me but if my Bishop desires it, then I'll do it!" But in point of fact, we know that this is really not the way vocations generally work; radical conversion, perhaps to an extent --- at least in the beginning --- but vocations? Not really. The deeper and more compelling dynamic in vocations is always a deep attraction or yearning.  (By the way, I understand it is a bit false and impossible to tease vocation and conversion apart from one another in this way, but it is necessary in this context.) With the eremitical vocation, if one does not truly have the sense it is the way to human wholeness and holiness for them, if, that is, one does not really believe God is calling one to this as an amazing grace which redeems their lives and is a way of being there for others, and especially if one says, "No! This is NOT for me; I don't want this, it is even a bit repugnant to me!" then it is NOT their vocation!

Vocations are not a way we simply come to terms with God's will, especially with a grudging, foot-dragging, half-hearted,"Oh-all-right-I'll-go-along-with-this" acquiescence. Vocations are the deeply joy-filled ways we cooperate with God's life within us and our world. They make us profoundly happy and fulfilled in a way which sustains us in even the most painful situations which still befall us. This profound happiness or joy shines through even in the darkness; more it (and the call it stems from) is the ground which sustains one at these times. There is a great difference between someone who bitches and moans about how awful their life is, how difficult or arduous their vocation, how much pain they are in, how routinely rejected they are, or how endlessly God tests them --- who then ends this grim disquisition with the postscript, "God is love; how I love to do God's will!" and the person whose main life-theme is a deep joy while very real pain, difficulty, or rejection experienced are merely subtexts! Vocations are demanding realities, but they are not difficult in themselves. What I mean is that they present us with difficulties and may trouble us at times in heart and mind, but of themselves, they are a joy and gift which makes all the rest shine with the radiance of God.

The notion that a vocation (meaning here a vocational path like religious life) can be used to hide profound human unhappiness and dysfunction is something we are all the more sensitive to today. We know more clearly than we have ever known that this must NEVER be the case. After all, every vocation is a call to authentic, exhaustively loving and generous humanity. A vocational path must surely be a means to this. In referring to hiding profound unhappiness or dysfunction then, I am not speaking about dealing appropriately (and privately) with the more normal times of depression, mental illness, etc which can afflict every human life. I am speaking about covering profound unhappiness and personal dysfunction with the trappings of a vocation. That strain of hagiographical writing I spoke of earlier has provided some with the grounds for this misguided approach. So has the notion of higher vocations and a tendency to absolutely separate the supernatural from the natural, the eternal from the temporal, or the divine from the human. In eremitical life this tendency becomes even more acutely dangerous because for most people living in solitude is itself dysfunctional and can be used to escape or run from the demons which inhabit every human heart. It can be used to make of the hermitage an escape from the whole of God's good creation and the requirements of a heart which is only purified in loving and being loved by God and others. To profess and consecrate someone who is really profoundly unhappy and may be even MORE profoundly unhappy (and increasingly dysfunctional) in solitude is a serious failure in charity.


Postscript: (I forgot to answer this part of your question)

About whether or not my Bishop desired me to become a diocesan hermit I have to say I don't really know. Certainly I believe he had discerned this was what God was calling me to. Similarly I believe he discerned it was a gift to my parish, the diocese, and even to the wider Church. Finally I don't think he did something he did not desire to do in this, but at the same time, I don't usually think in terms of what Archbishop Vigneron desired or did not desire. This is important because if my eremitical life is a matter of discernment then many niggling questions and problems melt away with profession and consecration. If it had merely been something my Bishop (and I!) desired, then it actually raises questions, creates difficulties, and certainly it would heighten the niggling questions that would have remained on the day of profession. Let me know if you want me to say more about this.

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).