What Happens to a Canon 603 Hermit if a New Bishop is Installed?

 [[If, for example, a (diocesan) hermit had a new bishop come to the diocese, and that bishop did not want (diocesan) hermits, the (diocesan) hermit would need to find a diocese in which the bishop was accepting hermits under his direction, and relocate.]] 

Dear Sister, is this quote true? I read it on a hermit's blog. . . . I checked with someone at the chancery and they said they would need to check with someone else, but they also thought not. Just wanted to check with you as well. I am not up to moving to a new diocese, particularly if it means uprooting every part of my life as this would!! Especially, I am not up to starting this process all over again in another diocese.]]

Thanks for writing. I am glad you decided to check this out. Your chancery contact was correct in his/her impression. The quote is mistaken.

If a diocesan Ordinary is replaced by another, and that new bishop doesn't want to profess hermits under c 603, he doesn't generally have to do so --- except in one case. Even then it would be a matter of acting in good faith and charity to complete something begun under his predecessor, not a matter of having no choice. Suppose a hermit has been temporary professed under c 603 in the hands of his predecessor and has continued to live her vocation in a faithful way. In that case, she should be able to count on being admitted to perpetual profession in a timely manner by the new bishop so long as she and those responsible for her vocation continue to discern that diocesan eremitical life is her vocation. If that hermit is already perpetually professed, however, the new bishop needs to accept that it is his role to supervise this vocation in some substantive way. This specific vocation comes to him with his assumption of responsibility for the diocese, and he needs to accept that, no matter how personally challenging he finds this. The hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated does not have to uproot, search for a willing bishop, find another SD, locate housing, parish, etc., and incur the expense of such a move simply because one bishop does not want to use a Canon that is already in effect in universal law.

I have not run into a case where someone who is either preparing for profession or who has already made a temporary profession is simply left high and dry when a new bishop is installed. I am aware of one situation where the Archbishop will be retiring in another year or so; even so, in this specific case there has been an auxiliary bishop overseeing the individual's progress; the general sense is that the candidate can confidently continue on with the process of discernment and formation she has been working through for more than a year and a half now and do so under the auxiliary. Hermits seeking profession under canon 603 do not move through the process all at the same speed, and they are not ready for profession at the same time. One of the things we are trying to get dioceses to recognize is that writing a liveable Rule -- as required by the canon --- takes significant experience and time. The process of discernment and formation is more individualized for this vocation than any other I know. The process of writing a Rule helps with both of these, both for the candidate and for the discernment team. Chanceries do tend to know some of this and act in good faith regarding admission to profession.

Further Considerations and Possibilities:

Your own situation raises the difficulties of moving to another diocese very clearly. The demands they would place on you to continue following this vocation would be inordinate and unacceptable, especially given both CC 603 and 605 that are universally binding within the Church. You have not said whether you are temporary professed or not, but I do agree that even if you are in temporary vows now, moving to another diocese would essentially mean starting over again. I think that would be true even if your current bishop and those others who have worked with you over the years wrote glowing recommendations. I think it is really important that you find a way to ease your concerns in this matter as much as possible. If the new bishop is not here already, get an appointment with the current Ordinary as well as with the chancery personnel who have been working with you during the past years, and apprise them of your concerns. 

If they can assure you your own discernment/formation process will continue without the prospect of it being derailed because of a new bishop, then excellent! If this assurance cannot be given, another option might be for the diocese to anticipate perpetual profession and celebrate this before your current bishop leaves office. If this is not possible, however, try to get a sense of what you still need to do so that you are ready for that step as soon as possible. If you are working on your Rule, then try to get an assessment of where that is still weak or incomplete. There are posts on writing a Rule on this blog, including a new post on "the basics". Much of writing a Rule has to do with sufficient experience and reflection. What you include in your Rule will be used by your diocese to help determine your own readiness for perpetual or definitive commitment. Do get some specific answers from vocation personnel in regard to their own work with you. At least this will help ensure both they and you are clear about your progress and any concerns regarding your vocation.

And, of course, if you are already definitively professed and consecrated, you have nothing to worry about in any case. Still, if the incoming bishop does not want C 603 hermits, one thing you may want to consider is that he may also not plan on supervising your vocation as C 603 calls for. Neither may he be able to do so. In that case, if you have not already done so, I recommend you ask your current bishop to approve a delegate with whom you will meet in place of or in addition to the local ordinary. Hermits ordinarily choose their delegate, but some bishops will assign them. In either case, a delegate serves as a quasi-superior and can ease the burden on the bishop by meeting with the hermit more frequently than bishops can ordinarily do. I work very closely with my delegate(s) and that has seen me through various bishops and degrees of availability. Moreover, since my co-delegate(s) are both women Religious with backgrounds in formation and leadership, our level of sharing is greater than it might be with a bishop I see but once or twice a year. Just something to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

What if my Diocese Won't Profess Me? What Should I do?

[[Sister Laurel, what do I do if my diocese just won't profess me as a diocesan hermit? Do I have any recourse?? It just doesn't seem fair that they can prevent me from being professed and consecrated when I am sure about my call!! I have lived as a hermit for two years; I've worked with my director and we have discerned this vocation carefully. Now I have been reading about a priest (Fr David Nix) in Colorado who has been professed and he doesn't even seem to have discerned this vocation! It looks to me like his bishop allowed him to be professed just to get him out of his hair. Is there anything I can do? I don't want to move to another diocese, but it really doesn't seem right that some bishops accept this vocation and others don't do that at all. Can you intervene in some way to recommend me maybe?]]

Thanks for your questions. First, let me affirm that I understand your frustration. It took my own diocese more than 25 years to accept diocesan hermits at all; it was 23 years from the time I first knocked on the chancery door with my petition until I was perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit under c 603. During some of this (@5 years) I worked regularly with the Vicar for Religious at the time until it became clear the bishop was not open to professing anyone under c 603. (Unfortunately, he did not let his Vicar know this decision.) While painful in some ways, much of that time was very valuable to me and I am grateful for it, but some of it was excessive and I regret it took my diocese so long to decide to profess anyone as a diocesan hermit!

Because this vocation is discerned and implemented (that is, the hermit is professed and consecrated) at the diocesan level, it has always been the case that some dioceses have been open to the directive of canon 605 (bishops are to be open to new vocations to the consecrated state of life) while others have not. This has been the case since canon 603 was promulgated in October 1983 --- almost 4 decades ago. Sometimes dioceses have been appropriately cautious (or careful), sometimes not nearly cautious (or careful) enough --- and in these latter cases, these dioceses often ended up paying the price with vocations that were problematical, sometimes required dispensation of their vows, etc. I have written about all this and related issues before but it has been some years so perhaps it is a good idea to revisit some of the issues your email raises.

One of the most difficult dimensions of the Roman Catholic theology of public ecclesial vocations for folks to grasp is the mutuality of discernment required. As I have sometimes said, this specific eremitical vocation belongs first of all to the Church herself and only secondarily to the hermit (though it is entirely hers when she embraces it on behalf of the Church). For this reason, when an individual comes to a diocesan chancery claiming to have discerned such a vocation, the diocese has both the right and the obligation to mutually discern the nature and quality of the vocation that may exist. Unless and until a diocese agrees with the individual's discernment and then agrees to profess and (with perpetual profession) to consecrate the individual, one cannot say one has discerned such a vocation. Let me be clear here. With the requisite time, prayer, and supervision, one may have discerned an eremitical vocation which can be lived out in any state of life (except the married state), but one has not yet discerned an ecclesial eremitical vocation like that of c 603.

Think of it this way. I may believe I have a vocation to be a nun, and when I approach this Order or that congregation or house, I can certainly tell them the steps I have taken, and the conclusions I have reached based on the experiences I have had in prayer, direction, and so forth, but I can't simply announce to them that I have discerned this vocation and therefore they should accept me and admit me to profession just like that. A community has both a unique character and charism and I am asking to test my vocation to see not only whether I am called to be a religious, but also whether I am meant to live out my life in this specific communal context with its own unique character and charism or not. Once upon a time we didn't think of there being much difference between communities, but we know well now that they are not simply interchangeable. While candidates for profession under c 603 are not looking at communities, they are looking at a vocation with a specific charism and ecclesial quality. It is a vocation with specific public rights, obligations, and appropriate correlative expectations on the part of the entire church and society.

As I say, this idea of mutual discernment is difficult for people to get sometimes. We live in a culture very much taken with individual rights and freedom which does not always understand that while we speak of "my vocation" we are speaking first of all of a share in the church's own patrimony and mission; thus, the church as institution is responsible for discerning and mediating this call to individuals who feel called in this way. When one has considered their heart affirms this vocation it is hard to hear diocesan officials and others do not agree, but when one proposes and petitions to be professed to live an ecclesial vocation this is always a possibility. Consider that you are seeking to live eremitical life in the name of the Church, and thus you were petitioning the Church to allow you to do that. While our entire lives will be marked with our own names, I think you can appreciate what a weighty thing it is to live a specific vocational path in the name of the Church.

Time Frames and Other General Considerations:

Of course, I don't know why your diocese rejected your petition, whether they suggested you live in eremitical solitude for some time and then re-approach them after several years, whether your diocese has ever professed anyone under c 603 before considering your petition or what their experiences with cc 603-605 have been over the past 38 years, and so forth. Sometimes bad experiences will make dioceses wary of professing subsequent candidates without more discernment than they formerly assured; sometimes good experiences can cut towards more liberal use of c 603, but these can also help a diocese to firm up their expectations of what is involved in such a vocation and make them more demanding. I would certainly encourage you to get a complete assessment from the Vicar for Religious or whomever you met with regularly regarding the decision. Be honest, ask the questions you need answered about your own situation and diocese. They cannot answer questions regarding other professions carried out, nor can they usually explain the policies of other dioceses. However, they owe you frank and honest summaries of their findings in your own case and what options are open to you in the future.

Ordinarily, in my experience dioceses will not profess anyone after only two years of personal discernment. They might not even accept such a person for serious mutual discernment. Even those moving from religious life in community to profession under c 603 will ordinarily require more than two years to transition sufficiently and test this new vocation unless they specifically left life in community because of a sense of a call to greater solitude. Even then one needs to discern what form of eremitical life to which one feels called: semi-eremitical, life in a laura, solitary eremitical, and consecrated or non-canonical. Some bishops will not consider professing anyone under c 603 with fewer than five years living in solitude under regular spiritual direction and discernment. I generally tend to agree with them, though individual cases differ. If the person has a strong contemplative background in vowed life they may be admitted to perpetual profession at that point. If not --- and if the diocese believes the person is called to consecrated eremitical life, they are likely to be admitted to temporary profession for 2-3 years before admission to perpetual profession and consecration.

Your diocese may well desire you to secure more formation and experience in eremitical solitude before they are open to admitting you to profession of any sort. They may have other concerns which can be resolved with the assistance of spiritual direction, counseling, or greater levels of lived experience. (Eremitical life is ordinarily seen as a second half of life vocation and candidates are expected to have lived well and in some fullness before seeking to pursue this vocation.) They might wish you to get some more education which includes some sound theology, Scripture studies. The only way you can know this, however, is to talk about it fully with whomever you met with regularly at the chancery.

Recommendations, etc.

While you are not the first person to ask this, and while it is gratifying that you would do so, I really cannot recommend you (nor would anyone listen to such a "recommendation" from me in your regard); after all,  I don't know you, nor your diocese, nor what their decision actually was or was based upon. You are likely already to have discovered that your diocese will  require recommendations from your director, pastor(s), and, sometimes, others who have worked with you re: discernment and formation. (Mine asked for recommendations from past Vicars for Religious, for instance because they knew me and had known me for some time under other bishops.) Dioceses are also apt to seek additional information from doctors, psychologists, etc. 

You asked me what you should do. I have given you some suggestions throughout but let me list them in a more summary fashion: 1) find out if your diocese is open to using canon 603 at all. If they are then 2) ask for a frank and constructive summary of their decision in your regard and their reasons for that decision, 3) Clarify whether they are open to reviewing this decision in several years time. If they are, and you decide to pursue this further, then continue to live as a lay hermit and work to get further formation, etc., in the meantime. If they are not, work with your director and discern what next steps you need to make, if any. If you  are called to be a hermit (whether canonical or non-canonical and whatever form) no time you spend in any of this will be wasted. If you are not called to eremitical life (of whatever form), you will discover that with time and again, you will come to know yourself better, will have developed a stronger spirituality, and will likely find the time to have been well-spent.

Can a Bishop???

[[Dear Sister, if someone is professed as a diocesan hermit when they are in their mid to late twenties and their bishop changes down the line, can the new bishop ask the person to leave their vows and "come back when they are fifty"? Also, does canon Law say one has to be at least 30 to become a diocesan hermit? I heard this on a video called Joyful Hermit Speaks and it all sounded a bit off to me.]] 

The answer to both questions is no. Once someone is perpetually professed an incoming bishop will become the hermit's legitimate superior and will certainly have a voice in her life --- which will become truly meaningful only when he has gotten to know the hermit, understands her Rule, has met with her delegate(s), and perhaps had conversations with her pastor. However, he has no right or power to simply ask the person to leave her vows, nor would any canonical hermit or diocese allow this. In serious matters public vows may be dispensed, but this is a really serious situation requiring similarly serious grounds. It also requires attempts to resolve things otherwise and allows for appeals should the diocese move toward dispensation. 

The bottom line here is that under canon 603 one does not make vows to a specific bishop. One makes vows to God in a bishop's hands so that eremitical life may be a gift to the universal church but especially to the local diocesan church. Bishops may (and do) come and go, but one's vows do not. As I have written before, this is true whether an incoming bishop believes in c 603 vocations or not. To have canonical standing is to have certain protections in law; a new bishop (or an old one) cannot abrogate these rights on a whim.

The answer to the second question is also no. Canon Law requires one have completed their 18th year (or, that is, be 18 yo) in order to enter religious life but apart from this there is no additional or differing requirement re c 603. It is true that eremitical life is ordinarily seen as a second half of life vocation and I personally argue that younger persons (younger than 30 or so) consider entering a community where eremitical life can be lived; in this way they can be mentored and supported in the way a younger candidate for profession will need. Still, canon law says nothing about this specifically beyond the age for entering religious life. I'm afraid the videos you have mentioned are an unreliable resource regarding c 603, consecrated life, and even private vows.