Another look at Pope Leo's Address to Hermits

[[Hi Sister! I heard an online hermit [name omitted] complaining that Pope Leo "left out" the "traditional historic" hermit from his recent address to hermits in Italy. She felt it was divisive and argued that c 603 hermits wearing habits and styling themselves as Sister or Brother was about mimicking genuine religious and was basically false. She also wondered if the traditional, historic hermits were no longer welcome in the Church, especially since there is such an emphasis on diocesan hermit (sic) being social when the others were not. She thought not still being in the Church was a good thing for these reasons.  On another note, I was happy to see she spoke of everyone being called to union with God, but I was disappointed to hear her suggesting there was no difference in their vocations really. I don't think she picked up on Pope Leo's reference to diocesan hermits as exemplars of what is a universal calling. Oh, she also made a point of the fact that traditional historic hermits were not limited to a single diocese, but were hermits in or of the universal Church. I think you have written about this before, haven't you? (I couldn't locate the post myself.)]]

Thanks for your email! All of these topics, except the complaint against Pope Leo, "leaving out" the "traditional historic" hermit, are things I have heard or read over the years from the person you mentioned. It is the questions that I want to deal with here, however, not their source. The complaint against Pope Leo fails to appreciate the brevity and context of his address, namely, he was making his comments to diocesan hermits who had travelled to Rome for the Jubilee. I know this because I was invited to attend with (perhaps) some small (read tiny!!) chance to speak with Pope Leo while I was there. Unfortunately, I could not attend. If one is speaking to diocesan hermits about the significance of their vocation, and the address is to be a brief one, one's comments will necessarily be limited and focused as Pope Leo's were, to diocesan hermits!! (Still, as I note below, Leo did recognize the diocesan hermit's necessary engagement with the stream of history, so that must not be missed or dismissed.)

I thought Pope Leo's comments were amazing in the way they touched on the really central aspects of the c 603 vocation. Beginning with Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman, Leo outlined the fundamental vocation everyone has to worship God in Spirit and truth. That is incredibly important and absolutely foundational for understanding the nature of eremitical life and the way it is an exemplar for every person's fundamental vocation. It was a wonderful beginning that set the stage for hearing everything else Leo spoke of and understanding the paradoxical nature of a vocation to the silence of solitude. Leo also touched on the ecclesial nature of the vocation, especially its solidarity with others (per the great quote from Evagrius Ponticus) and its open relationship with the ecclesial body and body of history. Leo captured the dialogical nature of this vocation 1) with God and one's deepest Self in the secret sanctuary of the heart, 2) with others and all of creation, and 3) with the Church itself and the eremitical tradition, which the c 603 hermit embodies.  

It is interesting (though saddening) to me that the hermit you mentioned felt it was a good thing to leave the Church in light of the Pope's comments on solidarity (the deeply social nature of hermits). This solidarity is an expression of the vocation's ecclesiality and is an essential element of the eremitical vocation as the Catholic Church understands it. To reject it and the paradoxical way the elements of c 603 must be understood is perhaps to admit one is not really a hermit, but rather, remains simply a pious loner. The essential nature of eremitical life, as Pope Leo outlined it, may surprise some, but it is exactly the profoundly and canonically ecclesial vocation c 603 outlines and codifies. In any case, c 603 does not do away with non-canonical or lay hermits, nor does it push them out of the Church. This is a kind of destructive all-or-nothing way of thinking that lacks nuance and is invalid. Much of what Pope Leo said applies to non-canonical hermits as well. But again, in his brief address, he was speaking to an assembly of c 603 hermits called and commissioned to be exemplars of the solitary eremitical vocation and the universal call to union with God. He was not excluding anyone.

As I have written before (you were correct), the diocesan hermit is a hermit in and for the universal Church, though she especially serves her local diocesan Church. S/he lives eremitic life in the name of the Universal Church and has been granted and accepted the rights and obligations associated with that place in the Church's life. However, her immediate legitimate superior is the Bishop of the diocese where she resides and in whose hands she is professed. (Delegates serve as quasi-superiors on the Bishop's and the diocese's behalf.) This is an issue of subsidiarity and an example of the effective exercise of the ministry of authority. The Church always administers or exercises such things at the most local level possible. This respects the genuinely dialogical and loving character of such ministry; after all, superiors need to know and genuinely love those with and for whom authority is exercised. They need to know the local Church in which such persons are embedded and serve. I will try to locate the post you were thinking of and link it below.

Thanks again for your outline of the online comments. They were especially helpful in providing an opportunity to look again at Pope Leo's address and consider how truly complete and well-ordered his comments therein were. It is wonderful to hear the way these resonate with my own lived and reflected experience of c 603 life, and that of others I am in contact with. I especially loved the way he begins with Scripture, draws a picture of the very core of the vocation in speaking about the human heart where worship occurs, and then draws from significant representatives of the desert tradition, in this case, from Evagrius Ponticus. What Pope Leo did in this brief address was to also capture the dialogical nature of the eremitic life in regard to its contemporary manifestation and its historical origins and foundation. He essentially affirmed that this relatively new c 603 life is authentically eremitic and reflects the desert tradition with integrity, even when that surprises people and calls for reflection and explanation. 

Moreover, Leo made very clear the way this vocation is lived for others, and serves the Church it reflects. This service is not about an occasional or limited foray into active ministry, though hermits may engage this way. Neither is it about an occasional act of charity one may do for someone who comes to one's door seeking a word, though hermits will surely do this as well. Instead, it is the service flowing from the worship occurring in the inviolable tabernacle of the hermit's heart at every moment of the hermit's life as she grows more and more transparent to God and the love and truth God is. In this way, the hermit mediates God/love/truth in and to a world badly in need. Pope Leo also addressed this point beautifully. Yes. This was truly a very fine address and a gift of God to the Church and world for the sake of this vocation and those called to live it! Or, maybe better, I should have said this was a gift of God to this vocation and those who live it for the sake of God, the Church, and God's entire creation!

_______________________________________________________

I just realized I did not address your comment regarding c 603 hermits "mimicking religious". I have addressed this before, especially on the basis of comments made in the Handbook on Canons 573-746. For the dedicated post I put up on this topic 5 years ago, please see: Are C 603 Hermits Religious?

Diocesan Hermits and Subsidiarity (This linked post was written about six years ago and can also be found under the tag, "subsidiarity".)

Pope Leo's Jubilee Year Address to Hermits (For the post with the entire address)

On Hermits, Parish Participation, Mass Attendance, and Ecclesial Vocations

[[ Also, what I really wanted to ask you, if a hermit didn't want to be part of a parish or diocese, could they still be a consecrated Catholic hermit? How about if they never attended Mass? I know the Church teaches that there is something called the mystical Body of Christ and that the New Testment (sic) says we are to become spiritual beings. Can a hermit become a spiritual being and not be able to attend Mass? I thought that Catholics were obligated to attend Mass every Sunday so I wondered how someone could be a Catholic hermit and not go to Mass except once in a while? Too, when you speak about an "ecclesial vocation" doesn't everyone have this kind of vocation? we all live our calling from inside the Church, don't we?]]

These are questions I never got to in an earlier post. Sorry it has taken me time to return to them, though I am hoping some of the footnotes I added to that post may help with these. To answer you more directly, though, I would argue that it depends on what one means by being part of a parish as to whether I answer your first question yes or no. There is the rare situation where a diocesan hermit lives on the premises of a monastery and attends liturgy, and sometimes liturgy of the hours, etc., with the monastic community. Those rare instances aside, most diocesan hermits depend upon the parish for their sacramental life and are a part of the parish in at least that sense. When you ask about not participating in a diocese, the answer is definitely no, because, by definition, a c 603 hermit is consecrated as part of a local (diocesan) Church. She is part of the life of that local Church as well as of the universal Church. This will ordinarily imply being an active member of a parish within that diocese, at least as the source of her sacramental life.

However, some diocesan hermits are involved in the life of the parish in other ways. For instance, I used to do a liturgy of the Word with Communion for the daily Mass group on my pastor's days off. Later, I did that only once or twice a month, and another Sister and lay person took the 2 alternate days, during the month. Once a week, during the school year, I also teach a Scripture class by ZOOM. This is for the parish, but we also have a few people joining us from outside the parish as well. Finally, I do spiritual direction, and while that is open to parishioners, I mainly have clients from outside the parish. So long as a hermit depends on the parish for her sacramental life and contributes even in very limited ways to the life of the parish, especially by being a resource for prayer and for the occasional conversation with parishioners who might want to talk, s/he is an active participant in the parish. I can't see any consecrated Catholic Hermit not participating in parish life at least to the extent of her sacramental life and being a resource for prayer and occasional conversations with those in need. For my comments on Hermits and Eucharistic attendance, please see, Eucharistic Spirituality.

Remember that to call oneself a Catholic Hermit is something only the Church herself may permit one to do. After all, to say one is a Catholic Hermit is to say far more than that one is a Catholic and a hermit. It means to live eremitical life as the Church understands it, and to do so in her Name. To be a Catholic means to be baptized and thus commissioned to live the Christian faith in the name of the Catholic Church and in the way she understands and strives to understand and express that faith. Thus, the Catholic laity is given permission at baptism to call themselves Catholic and to strive to live this vocation ever more fully. With other vocations within the Church, priesthood, religious life, consecrated virginity, eremitical life, etc., the Church herself admits candidates to candidacy and a process of mutual discernment. If, through the mediation of the Church, the person is ordained, professed, and/or consecrated by God, they begin to live this specific vocation in the name of the Church and become a Catholic priest, Catholic Sister or Brother, Catholic hermit, and so forth.

The Mystical Body of Christ (or of the Church) refers to the entire Church, on earth and beyond it. What is mystical about it is the way it is composed and held together by God, especially in the Risen Christ and the Holy Spirit. Mystical ordinarily refers to the absolute Mystery of God and to whatever is empowered by that Mystery. It does not refer to one part of the Church, say a "mystical" or "spiritual" part, to the exclusion of the rest of the Church (say, the embodied and very human part). As I noted in my earlier post to you, just as Paul speaks of spiritual people and fleshly people, meaning, respectively, the whole person either under the power of the Spirit or the whole person under the power of Sin, the Mystical Body refers to the whole Church, both on earth and beyond it, under the power of God in the Holy Spirit. The phrase is meant to indicate that what holds the Church together and is the source of its ongoing life is God; it is not simply a large earthly or human organization or institution, nor simply a good idea put forward by human beings who needed a way to worship once a week. It is a privileged way we participate in, experience, and are empowered to help others to experience God's life and sovereignty (God's reign or Kingdom) in our world today. (It is not the Kingdom, but it participates in that Reign of God and helps mediate it to our world.)

An ecclesial vocation is similarly distinct from merely being a member of the Church (if one can ever be said to be merely a member of the Church), though it presupposes one is an active member of the Church, yes. Most Catholics live their lives for the sake of the Gospel and do so outside the visible boundaries of the Church. They support the Church with their time, talent, and treasure, as the saying goes; however, their vocations are lived for the sake of their families, and society (school systems, businesses, country, state, county, etc.), and not for the sake of the Church itself. Some vocations, however, don't simply support the Church, and are not merely lived for the sake of the Gospel, as critically important as these things are. These vocations are lived for the sake of the Church in a way that directly helps the Church be the Church of Christ, and thus, Catholic. In everything the person with such a vocation does, they directly represent the Church. (Sometimes they will do so publicly and even officially, other times more privately, but in everything the person is and does, they directly represent the Church.) Moreover, they do so for the sake of the Church; they call directly to other persons within the Church with ecclesial vocations to live their vocations as well and as fully as they can. This is their identity in Christ (another reason we tend to use titles like Sister, Brother, Father, etc., for such persons), and they cannot be this person only some of the time.

This responsibility is about not merely being a Catholic Christian for others, though it includes this, but about representing the Church to herself in ways that allow her to grow to be the Church God calls her to be. Religious are called to witness to and challenge both the laity and clerics in a way that caused John Paul II to comment in Vita Consecrata, that he could not conceive of a Church with only priests and laity (cf Ecclesial Vocations) but without religious. The Church herself recognizes that while religious are not part of the hierarchical nature of the Church (they are not a hierarchical position between clerics and laity), vocationally speaking, they are part of her very holiness. All hermits represent eremitical life in some way, shape, or form. Some of us do this better than others, and some of us do it less well. But canonical hermits are specifically called, and respond in their profession, to both live and explore the vocation in a normative way, aware at every moment that they do so for the sake of God, God's Church, this vocation, and all of those whom this vocation might touch. They are not free to live the life of a hermit in whatever way they want or even in whatever way is comfortable. Canon 603 (for solitary consecrated hermits) and canon and proper law (for those in orders or congregations like the Camaldolese, Carthusians, Carmelites, et al) will dictate and shape the way they live eremitical life. Especially, such hermits will live this life for others' sake -- a phrase that includes all those just noted above.

I sincerely hope this answers your questions. You can always get back to me with more questions and comments. Thanks for your patience in awaiting this reply!

Any Further Take Aways on the Hermit Situation in the Diocese of Lexington KY?

[[Dear Sister, I wondered if you see any lasting lessons in the situation with Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington? It's been almost a year since you wrote about this, and I wonder if there is any important takeaway for you? Thanks.]] 

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately, I don't have much more to say about this situation than I did a year ago around Pentecost. My takeaway a year ago was that c 603 can be implemented wisely if the local ordinary recognizes it as a legitimate vocation that is a gift of God to the Church and the larger world. This presupposes that the people discerning the vocation with the candidate and the local ordinary 1) follow the candidate for sufficient time to be sure of their motives, their experience of assiduous prayer in the silence of solitude, and the way God is working in their lives, and 2) that they are not trying to use the canon for some other irrelevant agenda, no matter how important that is to either the bishop or the candidate. 

At the same time, I came away last year with a sense of the way some bishops fail to understand this vocation, or apparently, care much about it in any case. By extension, I came away with the sense that Bishop Stowe did not believe Cole Matson had any real vocation if he could allow him to make profession in a vocation he admitted he knew he didn't have. In his statement to the media Bp Stowe said that Cole was a sincere person who wanted to serve the Church, and it was for that reason that he was admitting Cole to profession under c 603. Bp Stowe also noted that the eremitical vocation is essentially a quiet and secluded vocation, not priesthood or a call involved with Sacramental ministry, so he didn't see where this would do much harm: [[. . . hermits are a rarely used form of religious life. . .but can be either male or female. Because there's no pursuit of priesthood or engagement in sacramental ministry, and because the hermit is a relatively quiet and secluded type of vocation, I didn't see any harm in letting him live this vocation.]]

At this point, I have to say what strikes me about Bp Stowe's points here remains what struck me last year. What is missing from this response is any sense of serious discernment or even struggle with the decision Bp Stowe made. Similarly lacking is any sense that Stowe actually values this vocation or sees himself as responsible for it in the way c 605 calls for him to be. One does not admit to public profession someone who feels called to something else merely because they want to serve the Church, no matter how sincere they are. Moreover, one does not imply one is doing so in order to keep the person out of public view, or in order to limit the degree of ecclesial influence or significance they have. I wonder what Bp Stowe's response would have been had Cole Matson actually asked him to ordain him as a matter "of justice"! It seems clear that Bp Stowe's response would have been "No, we can't do that," which begs the logical follow-up question, "Why not? Is something more than sincerity needed for admission to ordination, but not for being a canonical hermit? 

There are correlative questions as well and Bishop Stowe is not the only one responsible for answering these, both doctrinally and pastorally: if one must be male, then is Matson still disallowed? He asked to be professed as "Brother Christian", after all. Mustn't one be male to be identified in that way? If Matson can be Brother Christian, why could he not be ordained as Father Christian? As Matson moves toward perpetual profession and consecration, are sex or gender still issues in this situation? Why or why not? (A vow of chastity in any consecrated vocation necessarily involves an affirmation of one's sex because it calls for a commitment to an exhaustive manliness or womanliness in all one is and does within this state of life. This is one of the reasons we use titles like Brother or Sister for consecrated religious.) Since Bishop Stowe is a Franciscan, I would have expected him to be sensitive to this issue, and not just in regard to ordination.

The questions continue: Must Cole Matson honestly claim to be called by God to this specific vocation? That seems not to be required for c 603 profession in the Diocese of Lexington, and neither does meaningful mutual discernment, though these apply in every other diocese and the whole of the Universal Church in considering professing a c 603 candidate or admitting them to consecration. And finally, if Cole Matson truly wants to serve the Church, then why should he be allowed to seek or be professed (publicly vowed and commissioned by the Church) in an ecclesial vocation whose fullness and integrity God entrusted to the Church and codified in universal law, when Matson claims not to be called to this vocation yet made first vows anyway? How does that serve anyone, much less God, other candidates for c 603 consecration, or the Church to whom this vocation has been entrusted as a gift by God?

None of those questions have been answered by Bishop Stowe over the last year that I have heard, nor, apparently, has the USCCB or DICLSAL come to a public conclusion about all of this. And yet, we may be approaching the time when Cole Matson would ordinarily be admitted to definitive (perpetual or solemn) profession and consecration under c 603.  (Usually, this is three to five years from the date of first vows, so perhaps this is still a year or more off.) I would say it is important for people to understand that Cole's current vows are temporary and were renewed at least once. Cole has not, however, been consecrated. That is reserved for the rite of perpetual profession. My own sense is that consecrating someone as Brother x, if you were not open to ordaining them as Father x because of 1) their sex or 2) an insufficient sense of them having such a vocation, would raise a lot of questions in that person's regard!

Personally, as a c 603 hermit, I was and still am offended by Bishop Stowe's characterizations of the c 603 vocation. He makes it sound like a superficial form of religious life that can serve as a catch-all for those without any religious vocation at all. He also explicitly states that it (assuming he means c 603 itself) is "rarely used" -- an unfortunately utilitarian term (N.B., he does NOT say this is a rare vocation per se)! These are exactly the senses c 603 hermits have been contending with for more than 40 years! And yet, here comes a bishop who is apparently either ignorant of the nature of the vocation, or perhaps more wed to an agenda shared with Cole Matson, using c 603 as a stopgap when the Church has not provided some other way to be professed outside a community. ( Please note, the Episcopal Church allows this kind of arrangement, but not the Roman Catholic Church, which requires that one not simply be a solitary religious (a religious without a congregation or institute), but instead, insists that one truly be a hermit.) 

My own recent experiences of existential solitude and the deep and treacherous journey this can entail make me even clearer that our Church's bishops must listen to the experience of hermits today (as well as through the centuries!) and take real care before professing or consecrating anyone at all as a solitary hermit under c 603. Genuine eremitical life is not for the faint of heart, and I think that is even more true for solitary hermits! If one enters hermitage truly seeking God and (at least putatively) seeking to give one's entire self to God in this vocation, one should be aware of the fact that God will take one up on all of that! Woe to the person committing to such a vocation without truly feeling called to it in the depths of their being! If they are lucky, the least they will suffer from for the rest of their lives is an ongoing sense that they are a hypocrite and a coward, or, perhaps, just a fool! Both the candidate and her bishop should be aware of these things. 

And I think that here is the final thing I came away with last year and have to double down on today, namely, the service the hermit gives the Church, the reason this is an ecclesial vocation, is not found in any external or part-time ministry the hermit may also do. The service the hermit does the Church is to confirm that what she teaches about the gospel is true, namely, that even in the depths of human darkness and sin, God is present, knowable, and at work to bring life, light (meaning), and hope out of it. The hermit will find God in the really extraordinary "ordinary" things of life, AND she will find God in the depths of loneliness, suffering, death, and despair or near-despair as well. 

This journey of assiduous prayer and penance, including both external and existential solitude, is something every authentic hermit commits to make for God's sake, for her own sake, and for the sake of the Church and the veracity and power of her gospel. She does so because God has called her to do so. This profound sense of call is the only thing that could sustain such a life in integrity. Christ's peace is real, but it is not as the world knows or gives it. Instead, it is truly discovered only when one sees the face of God in one's deepest hungers and yearnings. To do this means one will journey to the place within us where those hungers and yearnings and all they promise and call us to become, have their origin and fulfillment in God. One cannot begin such a journey with a lie, much less sustain (or be sustained in) it to its depths. When one builds on sand, eventual tragedy is inevitable.

Thanks for the questions. I guess I had more to say about them than I realized at first!

More on Ecclesiality and My Rule of Life

[[Hi Sister, were you aware of the ecclesial nature of your vocation when you were professed and consecrated? Would this be something a diocesan hermit would include in his/her Rule of Life? Is it possible for hermits to grow in awareness of this "foundational dimension" (your term)? If I were to want to put this in the Rule I am working on where would I put this?]]

Wow! New question! Thank you. I was well aware of the ecclesial dimension of my consecration and I still had growing to do in that awareness!! Still do, of course, because my theology of Church is evolving and that will change the way I see the ecclesial dimension of my consecration. My own growth in this vocation will also change the way I perceive and approach this dimension of my calling. I remember in my first conversation with Abp Vigneron, talking about how surprised I was that the ecclesiality of the vocation was not discussed much -- though it was a central element protecting the vocation from individualism and charges of selfishness and self-centeredness. Yes, I wrote this dimension into my Rule in several places, not with specific references to the ecclesiality of the consecrated vocation or state, but with references to serving the Church itself, that is, serving the People of God, in various ways so that they might truly be the People God calls them to be. The most focused sense of the ecclesiality of my own vocation, I think, was my vow of obedience. It reads as follows:

[[I acknowledge and accept that God is the author of my life and that through his Word, spoken in Jesus Christ, I have been called by name to be. I affirm that in this Word, a singular identity has been conferred upon me, a specifically ecclesial identity which I accept and for which I am forever accountable. Under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, I vow to be obedient: to be attentive and responsible to Him who is the foundation of my being, to his solitary Word of whom I am called to be an expression, and to the whole of His People to whom it is my privilege to belong and serve.]]

I hope you can see a vow of obedience to God, which is about attentive and responsive listening that involves the whole self, given in service to God and God's entire People. It is this specific commitment to attentiveness and service of the whole Church that is the clearest statement of my sense of the ecclesial nature of the c 603 call. Insofar as where you might locate this in your own Rule, I'm afraid I can't help you with that. What I would encourage you to do is reflect on what it means to have an ecclesial vocation in the strict sense consecrated life represents and then spend some time seeing how this awareness colors the commitment you plan to make. How and where do you live ecclesially, meaning not just in the Church, but in specific service to the Church as Christ's own Church? Once you have done some of that, you could come back with other questions, or you might find someone knowledgeable on the diocesan formation team with whom you could talk about what you have learned from your own lived experience.  

However, were I to rewrite portions of my Rule today (and I do rewrite parts of it every five to eight years or so when needed due to growth or significant changes in my life), I believe one of the things I might do is add a specific section on the ecclesial nature of the consecrated vocation and cite a portion of Vita Consecrata as a key to the section. What I would also describe therein would be the various ways I recognize the ecclesiality of consecrated solitary eremitical life. For instance, I would note its importance in my vow of obedience, and in other significant sections of the life and Rule. You see, more than a list of do's and don'ts, my Rule is primarily a vision of this life that helps inspire me to live it faithfully. To have a vision of the life along with its personal, historical, and ecclesial significance, allows me to look at everything I am and do (or consider doing!) from this perspective and then evaluate it for the way it fits or fails to fit this vision. The do's and don'ts follow directly on this vision built on the terms of the canon and the way God is (and has long been) at work in my life for the sake of my true self and the lives of others.

Ecclesial Vocations and the Characterization, "Objectively Superior"

[[Hi Sister O'Neal, I have never heard this explanation of ecclesial vocations before. For that matter I have never heard any explanation of ecclesial vocations before!! I didn't even know it was a thing!! One of the things about Vita Consecrata is that it speaks of the objective superiority of vocations to the consecrated state and I was just never comfortable with that idea. You claim that ecclesial vocations don't mean something higher or more Catholic, but then what do you do with the "objectively superior" piece of things??!! I hear you saying that ecclesial vocations belong to the Church first of all and serve the Church uniquely, which is why they are called ecclesial. Do you see the c 603 hermit vocation in that light? I think that might make more sense of this vocation than I have heard before. (Sorry, no offense meant, I am a new reader!!) Anytime you can get back to me is fine! Thanks.]] 

Thanks very much for writing/questioning on this topic! I wrote several months ago about the term "objectively superior" here On the Objective Superiority of Some Vocations so you might look at that. What I tried to make clear there is that 1) to refer to a vocation in this way (not to a person with this vocation!!) refers to it having everything necessary to lead to holiness (and I will add now that that is both for the individual and for the Church itself), and 2) the use of this term does not allow the piling up of other comparisons like inferior, lower, less, etc. A vocation that is objectively superior has everything necessary for those called to it to achieve what they are called to if they live it well, in this case holiness of self and Church. But those called to it are NOT superior (or more Catholic, more loving in regard to the Church, etc). This is emphatically NOT the case! Still, such vocations are paradigmatic of what is needed to achieve real holiness; they serve as examples of this particularly through their profession of the evangelical counsels and ministry to others (both of which put communion with Jesus right smack in the middle of their lives!).

Yes, I do see the c 603 hermit vocation in this light. The values of the canon, the non-negotiable elements that comprise it (silence of solitude, persevering prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, evangelical counsels, and even a consciously worked out program of life) are all things that are necessary for any Christian seeking union with God in Christ. And I think there is no doubt that the Church itself needs to be a source and model of all of these things in our world!! When I wrote about ecclesial vocations a couple of days ago I likened these to leaven in dough, but the way they work is by inspiring others, allowing them to contact and/or imagine a life of genuine hope and holiness, reminding us all of the universal call to holiness, the universal vocation to be Church in and for the world and Kingdom of God! 

One of the reasons I regularly speak about ecclesial vocations in terms of commissioning and commitments, rights and obligations, is to indicate that these are responsible vocations. Yes, they are uniquely graced, but they are graced so that they can serve the Church and others in similarly unique ways. Graces are not given because God loves a person more than God loves others; they are given so that one may serve others (and in the case of ecclesial vocations, the Church itself) in ways others are not similarly called to serve. We all have different gifts and callings. We each have different missions as well. Speaking about our own gifts and calling should not disparage anyone else! Ordinarily, in the Catholic Church, we recognize the many members, gifts, vocations, given and empowered by the Holy Spirit and we rejoice in them and in the creativity of the Spirit that makes them possible!!

I am regularly awed by what God has done for and with me and my life. I could never have imagined any of it, and often cannot imagine it now. Still, recognizing all of that and writing about it, or otherwise responding to the gift of vocation (which includes God having brought me into the Church when I was 17), is an act of both humility and gratitude --- and it is a joy to me. To hide all of this under a bushel basket would be a betrayal of God's gift to me and to the Church that promised me so much! To use it to denigrate others and other vocations would be a similar betrayal. Hence, I am clear that there are a number of ways to live eremitical life, all esteemed by God and (at least potentially) by the Church. Some of these are specifically ecclesial vocations, some are not, but they are all valuable in their own way. It is my sincerest hope that whether consecrated or not, every member of these vocations discover why God has called them to this specific form of eremitical life and experience the same awe that I regularly experience. 

Like you, I have also struggled with and mainly resisted the language of "objective superiority" present in Vita Consecrata and older documents as well. It seemed elitist and thus, profoundly unchristian. At the same time, I believe I now better know what is NOT being said with that term and I appreciate how such vocations both belong to the essence of the Church and serve her by helping her be the truly humble servant Church Jesus commissioned his disciples to be. Ecclesial vocations 1)  remind priests that they are called to be persons of prayer and penance so they may to minister as servants in all things, and 2) they remind the laity (of which I remain a part) that they are called to union with God in Christ so that they may be Church in all of the unexpected and even the unacceptable places and situations that some believe are necessarily godless and from which the Church too should be excluded. To be called in this way, is to be called to a vocation with a valuable, even unique mission. It is essential to the existence of the Church and belongs to her before it is entrusted to me. I can and do try to honor that humbly as do others I know who have been called to such vocations.                                                   

Why isn't a Sense that God Consecrated One Enough for the Church?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, so why isn't it good enough for God to consecrate one? Why does there need to be a canon law with the Bishop consecrating the person? If someone has the sense that God consecrated them, why isn't that enough?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this several times quite recently and am not sure what else to say about the matter. I would ask you to check out the following posts and others under the labels ecclesial vocations or ecclesiality as well as canonical vs non-canonical vocations, etc: Follow-up, Who Can Live c 603? and Once Again on "Illegal" Hermits. In these posts and many others, I have focused on the distinction between ecclesial vocations and those that are not, why it is important for the Church herself to extend God's consecration to the hermit with an ecclesial vocation, what it means to belong to a stable state of life, and several other things including ministry of authority, sound spirituality, competent discernment and formation, etc. The only other dimensions I have not dealt with are that of potential self- deception and the problem of being unprepared for an authentic hermit life and perhaps incapable of living it well.

To claim one is consecrated by God in a private act may or may not be true or accurate. One may or may not have gotten it right and there is no way for the Church to verify it. (One can certainly examine the rite used and the intentions of the minister if there is paperwork to try and determine the reason for the rite. If it involved private vows, then there would be no consecration.) In any case, in the Roman Catholic Church, admission to Divine consecration requires initiation into a stable state of life where this gift of God can be verified, protected, nurtured, and governed. Because such a gift is NEVER for the individual alone, and because the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the individual, the Church establishes such vocations in law and provides for the structural elements I spoke of recently that will allow them to be lived as the Church understands they need to be lived out. The discernment of such vocations is mutual, involving both the individual and the church because they are ecclesial vocations. The Church is responsible for selecting and professing those with such vocations and God works through the Church via a second consecration beyond baptismal consecration. No one can validly claim God consecrated them in the RCC unless this Divine consecration is mediated to the individual through and in the hands of the diocesan bishop or, in communal religious vocations, in the hands of other legitimate superiors!

If someone insists otherwise, they are at least mistaken and perhaps even deluded in this matter. There is simply no such thing as private consecration in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, one may make private vows. Many people do! But this is not the same as consecration. Neither are private vows an act of profession. Profession is an act that includes one's dedication of oneself in avowal and the taking on of the canonical rights and obligations of a new state of life. In other words, it is a broader act than just the making of vows. Meanwhile, consecration is part of the entire rite of perpetual profession where the individual dedicates herself to God with a perpetual avowal, and God consecrates that individual as they take on the rights and obligations of this new state for the whole of their lives. 

 As I noted above, Divine consecration that is part of initiating one into the consecrated state of life is a gift of God entrusted to the Church and only then to the individual. Also, please note that this is not a matter of putting Divine consecration up against Episcopal consecration. These two belong together or there is no consecration. It is not that bishops consecrate if by that we mean they do this for some while God consecrates others! No!! God consecrates hermits, and God does so in the hands of his bishops (or other legitimate superiors when we are speaking of hermits in congregations). The Bishop is not a "stand-in" for God, as I heard it put recently. Rather, God works in and through the Church specifically in the person of the bishop by empowering him to mediate God's consecration of the individual.

Self-deception aside (somewhat), the greatest difficulty of asserting God has consecrated one privately, is that one may be completely unprepared for living out an eremitical vocation. They may not understand it and critically, they may not be able to negotiate the tension between the modern world and eremitical life that allows the hermit to be a gift to the contemporary Church and world. As I have said here many times, it takes time for both the individual and the Church to discern and form the vocations of solitary hermits. It takes probationary living out of the calling under the supervision of the Church while working with a competent spiritual director and continuing to discern. It takes study, collaboration, and deliberation; above all, it takes humility and docility. 

One must be able to be taught and consider that ultimately one really might have gotten things wrong. When someone continues to insist, "God consecrated me," apart from canon law, apart from a bishop's permission and entrusting of the vocation to one, or according to established Church structures and rites, and particularly when they do so while denigrating the need for these ecclesial elements and context or while banging on and on about how they are the ones to show dioceses and other hermits the true way hermit life is to be lived, they are unlikely to be showing either humility or docility. 

This is not the same as saying "I am convinced God is calling me to this vocation; I know it" and persisting in that even when a diocese is unwilling to profess one under this canon for the time being. One may be called to persevere in good conscience in such a situation and do this with an openness to be taught about why dioceses make the decisions they do.  In the meantime, perhaps one will also learn about ecclesial vocations and what one is proposing to take on and for whose sake!! Until and unless one does this, one is more an isolated person than a hermit. And that argues against one's having been consecrated by God (or called to this), not for it!

Evaluating a Little of What I have Learned from the Past Couple of Months

The past couple of months have been particularly challenging both here at Stillsong and in this Notes From Stillsong blog. I have written at least once every day or two and responded to some difficult questions I would rather not have had to deal with. At the heart of it all is a subject who contends she would like to be made a c 603 hermit despite having reviled the vocation for at least fifteen years on various blogs and in a series of YouTube vlogs. As you might imagine, the situation has generated a lot of questions (only a few of which I have posted) which, personalities aside, can serve to help sharpen the process of discernment and formation for c 603 hermits presently being developed for dioceses that might make use of it. So, these couple of months (and a lot of the past 17 years) have provided lots to think about, surprises with problems I never could have foreseen or perhaps even imagined, and opportunities to explore the ins and outs of c 603 for the sake of the Church --- which makes this all a joy.

The most important things that have been underscored for me during these weeks have been the foundational aspects of c 603 vocations: these solitary hermit vocations are public and ecclesial. I have said this again and again through the past almost two decades, and the importance of these two elements in forming the candidate's sensibilities concerning eremitical life generally and consecrated c 603 life particularly cannot be overstated. Related to this is the candidate's understanding that public or canonical means public rights and obligations the Church extends to the candidate which s/he embraces. S/he must approach profession, consecration, and life after these performatory "moments" and within the reality they create in a way that is both uniquely responsive to the Church's mission in the contemporary world and sensitive to and reflective of the ancient eremitical tradition s/he now represents. There are some questions and concerns that have been raised particularly during this time, and my sense is dioceses must definitely raise these with every candidate they consider for profession and/or consecration during the first couple of sessions they hold with the candidate.

For instance, it is important to ask directly what the person knows about Canon 603. How has its existence and its essential elements shaped his/her eremitical journey? (We need to ask about each of these elements individually in this regard.) What is its history (both remote and immediate) and why was it established? Does s/he understand, for instance, that it was not primarily established to deal with abuses in eremitical life, but rather because the Universal Church had finally come to esteem this vocational gift of God? Does s/he understand why and how this vocation is prophetic and a gift to the Church, and to every person making up this body --- particularly to the marginalized, the chronically ill and disabled, the poor and elderly?  Is s/he ready to take on that role and to grow in it even if s/he must (perhaps) change some ingrained ideas about the eremitical life itself?  Does s/he understand that ironically, the canon's constraints provide a realm of freedom the Church extends to him/her so that s/he may grow in communion with God for the sake of others, or does s/he see the canon as some kind of straightjacket used to hem in the hermit or a penal code mainly meant to correct errors? If the hermit sees the canon in the first light it can be a joy to him/her and his/her eremitical life; if it is seen in the second light, s/he may never be empowered to discover its depths and beauty with his/her own eremitical life. These questions are important for those discerning such vocations as well.

Similarly, does the candidate have at least a glimpse of the canon's charism? Does s/he perceive and appreciate the way the vocation-as-canonical is a gift to the Church and serves in the proclamation of the Gospel? How does s/he relate to this gift quality? Does s/he understand the defining elements of the canon as doorways to worlds s/he is called to explore with and in God, or are they instead perceived as narrow gates to a single rigid meaning with little relevance to most people's lives? Does s/he approach the life under c 603 with the heart and mind of a beginner or as someone who believes it has nothing to teach him/her, nothing to surprise him/her with, and nothing to delight him/her day by day? These questions themselves lead to questions regarding the candidate's theological sophistication or lack thereof. It is important that there be real competence, not that the hermit needs to be a theologian, but that s/he is able to negotiate traditional sources of spirituality and eremitical life in light of contemporary voices and scholarship and the light of his/her own prayer as well.

A penultimate question (at least for tonight!) that must be asked as well is about the hermit candidate's use of media, social and otherwise. For instance, if the hermit candidate has a public-facing presence (blogs or vlogs), then these need to be checked out and discussed with the candidate. It is especially important to do this when there are several blogs that correspond to different periods of the candidate's life and relationship with the Church. Patterns of behavior and personal difficulty that might not be entirely evident otherwise can be perceived when these avenues are explored. A particularly crucial question that may sometimes go unasked is, "Why are you seeking to be professed under c 603?" In recent weeks, that particular question became particularly urgent and problematical for some who wrote me in light of so much blog and vlog material denouncing and reviling c 603, the motives, character, and fidelity to c 603 itself of c 603 hermits, or of the bishops who approve such vocations. After at least 15 years of this kind of material, as well as an obstinate insistence that one is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, it becomes a compelling question those discerning the vocation standing before them, must know to ask!! In fact, it is this question that calls for all of the other ones I have mentioned here.

My thanks to those who have written this month and last with questions and concerns. You have helped me in my own vocation (especially my vocation within a vocation) and contributed to the ongoing project I am working on regarding the discernment and formation of c 603 vocations. Individual situations with c 603 candidates come and go, but the ability to help the Church learn from them is important and you have been especially helpful in that. It truly has been a fruitful if challenging number of weeks! Again, thank you.

On Catechisms, Lay (non-canonical) hermit Life and the Reasons for Canon 603 (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, I get the impression that you are "allergic" to people who live eremitical life for selfish reasons. As I continue to read your blog I am beginning to get a sense of why you emphasize the character of ecclesial vocations. I know you insist the consecrated and lay hermit vocations are different from one another but not that one is better than the other. Isn't it the case though, that as soon as one of these is defined as an ecclesial vocation, it becomes a calling that avoids selfishness and some of the other stereotypes associated with eremitical life? Is it really possible to live as a lay hermit and avoid these things? Could it be impossible and if so, maybe this is the reason the Church really doesn't do a lot to speak of hermits in the lay state. Maybe that's part of the reason the CCC  doesn't actually refer to lay hermits but chooses instead to speak of consecrated hermits.]]

What an intriguing analysis!!! Thank you for the thought you have given this. I think you have sharpened or underscored the importance of ecclesial standing in regard to eremitical life. Ecclesial vocations, as I have said many times, "belong" to the Church and are lived on her behalf for the sake of her Gospel and those to whom she would proclaim that Gospel. Such vocations truly are allergic to selfishness --- except in the sense that any vocation genuinely serves the wholeness and holiness of the one called and then everyone else. Even so, and despite the fact that this helps protect the eremitical vocation from the stereotypes of individualism, misanthropy, isolationism, and so forth, I don't think it means either that consecrated hermits don't fall into these traps or that lay eremitical lives cannot be lived in a similarly exemplary way. Or, to put things more positively, I believe both consecrated and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical vocations can be the result of a Divine call and stand in opposition to the stereotypes and perversions of authentic hermit life we have seen through the centuries. Consecrated and Lay eremitical vocations are different in their rights and obligations but at the core of each is a call to the silence of solitude which itself is the eremitical vocation's great gift (charism) to the Church.

Remember the Desert Fathers and Mothers were lay hermits and their vocations were profoundly prophetic; they challenged the worldliness of the Church and called her back to a life of authentic holiness. They typified a true desert spirituality that could serve any person in days of deprivation, suffering, want, fragility, and threat with its foundational message that God alone is sufficient for us and has promised to be there for us eternally in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Now, in a sense, these Desert Abbas and Ammas were Church for one another as well as for those to whom they witnessed from beyond the desert borders. Also in a sense, these hermits saw their vocations as serving the whole Church. These were not ecclesial vocations in the sense we use that term today, but they were profoundly linked to and meant for the health and holiness of the Church.

In the history of the Church lay (non-canonical) hermits have, for instance, served as anchorites connected intimately to the life of the local church. Not only did they attend liturgy via a window looking out on the altar, but they had windows on the life of the community via the village square which allowed folks to come to them, talk, ask for prayers, receive spiritual direction, and just generally find a listening ear and heart. These were, in the main, lay hermits -- though quite often they were under the supervision of the local bishop and may have made vows in his hands as part of some kind of  "diocesan" standing. Other hermits served as ferry captains, toll collectors, gamekeepers, foresters, etc; in these cases, their lives were lives of service even as they were lives of profound solitude. For all of these reasons, I have to disagree that lay hermits are somehow essentially selfish or incapable of a generous service to the Church and/or others. The Church herself is aware of this history; I don't expect her lack of mention of hermits in the lay state (as opposed to those in the consecrated state) is motivated by any sense that such hermits are selfish, individualistic, misanthropic, or anything similar.

While it is true that stereotypes developed out of the world's long experience with lay hermits and while some of these hermits were undoubtedly guilty of selfishness, individualism, and so forth it is the essential truth lay hermits have borne witness to that lives on and has now been codified in canon 603. Bishop Remi de Roo recognized this and asked for eremitical life to be made a state of perfection (in our contemporary language, an instance of the consecrated state oriented to perfection). This request was eventually codified in canon 603 in 1983 when it then became possible for a lay hermit to be admitted to the consecrated state by one's local bishop. The mechanism for this admission involves 1) mutual discernment of the vocation by the hermit and her diocese, 2) public profession of the evangelical counsels (603.2), and 3) ongoing supervision of such vocations by one's local bishop.

Canon 603 does two things then: 1) it allows solitary eremitical life to be lived as a form of consecrated life, and thus too, as a form of prophetic existence within a stable state of life governed by the Church, and 2) it allows the life to be protected from abuse, disedifying stereotypes, individualism, selfishness, and so forth. Lay hermits today may not fall prey to the dangers and distortions associated with hermits throughout the centuries, but I think it is important that they realize the significance of an ecclesial/canonical vocation that publicly proclaims the significance of eremitism and helps protect it from so much that detracts from its dignity and witness potential. Most importantly to my mind, canon 603 indicates that this vocation "belongs" to the Church, that, as solitary as it is, eremitical life is a form of life in community, and that it is a similarly responsible vocation. Individual lay hermits may actually live their vocations with the same spirit and motivations (I know some who certainly do; their lives are inspiring), but as I experience it, it is the canonical nature of consecrated solitary eremitism, its existence as a stable state of consecrated life, that really ensures the hermit never forgets what eremitical life is essentially and who she is in light of her profession, consecration, and commissioning.

Regarding the reason the CCC did not really speak to eremitical life, I am not so cynical as you. The Catechism refers to consecrated life and describes eremitical life in that state. I believe the authors of the Catechism were well aware that their descriptions of this new form of consecrated life was one which could well inspire those whom the circumstances of life has left isolated for one reason and another and who seek the redemption rather than the validation (!) of their isolation). Some would do this in the lay state. Lay persons are entirely free to live as hermits; they are also free (generally speaking) to seek admission to profession and consecration as a member of a congregation of hermits or as a solitary hermit under c 603.

The CCC does not list every way of life a lay person may live as a lay person; it lists different (and normative) vocations in terms of specific states of life. Because the lay hermit, despite the prayer and solitude of her life, is still living this in the lay state; everything s/he does (including living as a hermit) is an expression of his/her lay state, until and unless s/he is admitted to public vows and consecration. There is really no necessary reason for the CCC to specify lay persons in its treatment of consecrated eremitical life. Canon 603 is both new and normative of solitary eremitical life in the consecrated state the Catechism references and from which it derives its more general description of eremitical life. While referring to consecrated life per se I think the authors of the CCC believed lay persons should be able (as they clearly are) to be inspired by this description. I suspect there was nothing more than this involved in the way the CCC handled eremitical life as a vocation to consecrated life without specific reference to lay hermits. We can wish the CCC gave some space to lay eremitical life, especially in light of exemplary eremitical lives like those of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, but the work's limitations (both of space and intent) made this apparently unnecessary or impossible.

Ecclesiality, a Mutually Conditioning Dynamic Between Church and Solitary Hermit

[[ hi Sister! Are you saying that the Desert Fathers and Mothers had ecclesial vocations the institutional Church didn't recognize? I am not sure I see how the vocation of the Desert Fathers' calling belonged to the Church before the Church knew it herself.]] 

Hi there yourself! Yes, I am saying that in one way the vocations lived by the Desert Abbas and Ammas were deeply and essentially ecclesial because they were lived for the sake of the Church and called her to all the things eremitical life holds for the Church. In particular, the desert Abbas and Ammas did what c 603 (and other) hermits do today in showing the Church her own heart, a heart rooted in prayer, the Lordship of Christ, the Evangelical Counsels, humility, and stricter separation from the world. In living countercultural lives dedicated to encounter and dialogue with God. Additionally, I am suggesting that the formula, "ecclesia semper reformanda est" was a dimension of what hermits called the Church to and reminded her she would always need to be. These lives (vocations) belonged to the Church even when the Church did not recognize this and their witness was profoundly ecclesial even as they lived apart from the larger Church.

However, in a second way, the way I ordinarily speak of ecclesial vocations, the Desert Abbas and Ammas did NOT have an ecclesial vocation because they were not explicitly commissioned by the Church to live as hermits. Today we have canonical hermits in congregations and orders (institutes of consecrated life) as well as c 603 hermits who are actually and explicitly commissioned by the Church to remind her of all the things the Desert Fathers and Mothers did, but by explicitly living these things in the heart of the Church as the Church itself commissions us to do. My argument was that the Church herself took a long time to recognize and make canonical these specific vocations, but doing that was part of a journey towards greater authenticity both for the Church and for hermits more generally. C 603 specifically created the option for public and ecclesial solitary hermit vocations that represent the Church's own internalization of the values of the desert Abbas and Ammas in universal law. By creating statutes on the diocesan level, bishops had done this for anchorites and hermits through some centuries, but never in universal law. With c 603 the Church finally made the solitary hermit life an intrinsic part of the public and essential life of the Church and in this way also bound herself to the values the hermit lives, including the prophetic witness some hermits (like the Desert Abbas and Ammas) have been known for. In other words, she realized (made explicitly real) what had only been implicitly real to this point.

The ecclesiality of c 603 vocations is something every c 603 hermit must come to understand and value deeply, and at the same time, it is something the Church herself must come to see and profoundly esteem. As I reflect on the dioceses that have failed to implement c 603 I recognize that some fear they cannot do justice to this vocation because they lack the chancery staff, for instance. Others recall the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life I referred to in my last post and want no part of such egregious distortions of eremitical life. Some, simply think the vocation is about keeping folks out of the limelight by shunting them into a hermitage --- a way of taming problem children of all sorts. But some are afraid of the witness of hermits in the heart of the Church, afraid they will introduce a bit of inspired instability in a Church insufficiently in touch with its need to reform itself. I don't believe these fears achieve consciousness in these bishops and chanceries, but I do think the nervousness these chanceries experience over contemplative and eremitical vocations points to this.

When I write about the ecclesiality of c 603 vocations I almost always say the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit. What I must also say, I think, is that hermits and anchorites through the centuries have called the Church to claim, nurture, and protect this birthright as they held onto the fact that they lived this vocation on behalf of the Church. They were not individualists, nor pseudo hermits separated from the Church, but instead, were men and women deeply imbued with the Gospel and in love with Christ's Church living life for her sake. With canon 603 the Church has claimed this vocation explicitly and is on the way to doing so fully. The relationship of the c 603 hermit to the Church is critical for the hermit being all that God calls her to be and also for the Church being all that God calls it to be as well. Just as the Church entrusts the hermit vocation to individuals under c 603, these hermits reveal to the Church her own generous and humble heart, not in the power and might associated with this world, but in a weakness where God's grace is sufficient and God's power is made perfect.

Canon 603: A New Way of Being a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, Because of the videos you have linked readers to, I have checked out Joyful Hermit Speaks. She talks about the traditional way of becoming a hermit, that is, one just goes off and does it. So I was wondering if your own vocation is a new vocation, a new way of becoming and being a hermit? Would this solve some of the arguments you have with Joyful if it were seen this way?]]

Thanks for your questions! I suppose one could say this is a different way of becoming a hermit, but only so long as we don't also affirm it is an entirely different way of BEING a hermit. What I mean is that in insisting that this vocation is public and ecclesial we begin to identify what was truest in the very best and most authentic forms of eremitical life associated with the faith. (There are other forms, of course, but I am not referring to those here.) Those associated in some way with the faith belong first of all to and/or are lived for the sake of the Church; secondly, they witness to the content and power of the Gospel in substantive ways and are therefore associated with specific rights and obligations that allow others to have meaningful expectations of the hermit.

In the very best examples of hermit life we see eremitism as an expression of faith and of the Faith. The Desert Abbas and Ammas lived what they did for the sake of Christ, his Gospel, and the well-being of a Church whose newly granted civil status led to mediocrity rather than to martyrdom. That was true of many hermits and anchorites through the centuries in the Western Church and is the reason eremitical life is associated with the label "white martyrdom". It represented a bloodless form of radical witness to the faith that challenged all Christians to live something more substantive than the mediocre Christianity acceptable to Constantine and his Edict of Milan**. At the same time, many "hermits" were the rugged and radical individualists of their day and their way of life conflicted with vocations that were at least implicitly ecclesial. Largely, this is where the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life come from throughout history. Faith was not at the heart of these "hermits'" lives, nor were concerns with the Church or the Gospel she had been entrusted with.

Over the centuries the Church, especially via the local or diocesan Church began to take more of a hand in assisting hermits and anchorites to live authentically Gospel-centered lives. These lives anticipated and became more representative of ecclesial vocations, but without being validated by the universal Church. In other words, these vocations were, to some extent, seen as ecclesial vocations, but not with the fullness of eremitical life lived in certain Orders and congregations, or under c 603 for solitary hermits. Thus, when I think of c 603, I see the Church finally accepting God's gift of eremitical life, taking responsibility for and becoming responsive to authentic solitary eremitical vocations in a way that allows these vocations to be considered true and full expressions of ecclesiality. Implicitly, I think we can say the lives and vocations of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, for instance, "belonged to the Church" and these hermits lived their lives on her behalf --- but without the institutional Church ever truly recognizing or embracing this fact or the vocation represented. With c 603, I think we see a vocation now fully claimed by the Church in a way that allows hermits to truly be the heart of the Church and who call her to be something more than the world around us allows her to be. At the same time, c 603 leaves behind individualistic and stereotypical eccentricity and selfishness that was never truly edifying.

In this sense, c 603 vocations are ecclesial in a way that is new despite earlier anticipation of a full ecclesiality by other forms of eremitism,. For that reason, yes, they are a new way of becoming and being a hermit; at the same time, they find their roots in Elijah, JnBap, Jesus and the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and so, are quite an ancient vocation. The elements of the canon are the elements present in any authentic eremitical vocation including non-canonical expressions of the life: stricter separation from that which is resistant to Christ, persevering prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the Evangelical Counsels, a Rule of life the hermit writes herself based on her own relationship and life with God, and a life lived for the praise of God and the salvation of others; what is added for canonical hermits is the fact that all of this occurs in the hands and under the supervision of Church representatives (i.e., the bishop and/or the one he delegates to do this service to the diocesan and universal Church). Canonical vocations are those in which the public and ecclesial dimensions of the vocation are fully realized. In this realization, the Church also embraces the fact that she is always in need of reform and conversion ("ecclesia semper reformanda est") as Vatican II clearly affirmed, and the Desert Abbas and Ammas knew!***

My sense of Joyful's take on eremitical life is that it is highly individualistic and that she believes the Church has messed with something it should not have messed with in creating c 603. I am not sure the idea of solitary eremitic life as a public and ecclesial vocation figures at all in Joyful's thought. She likes to call herself a consecrated Catholic Hermit, but until last month had relatively nothing good to say about c 603 nor, as far as I can find, has she spoken at all about the reality of public and ecclesial vocations (which means vocations lived in the name of the Church). While I understand she is now petitioning to become a canonical hermit under c 603, I am waiting for her and her theology of eremitical life to embrace these two foundational characteristics of this vocation and shift from the more typically individualistic perspective she holds. That will be necessary if she is to become a responsible canonical hermit. At the same time, unless and until that all shifts, I don't think our arguments on eremitism will begin to be resolved.

** The edict of Milan ended persecutions of Christians by declaring that it was now "permissible for Christians to be". This meant it took less courage to become a Christian, but also that faith that was demanding in its living was replaced by something that made mediocrity and merely nominal Christianity both more common. and acceptable In fact, Christianity became the state religion and with this mediocrity was almost institutionalized. This led in turn to an increase in emphasis on unhealthy ascetical practices.

*** It is thus understandable that at the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Remi de Roo made his intervention for the recognition of the solitary eremitical vocation as a state of perfection, and thus too, as an ecclesial vocation. I am unaware of anyone drawing attention to this correlation between the potential establishment of the eremitical vocation in universal law and the Council's affirmation of the Church as always in need of reform (granted, this correlation may have only been nascent or yet subconscious at the time of De Roo's intervention); still, it seems to me a significant one.

Followup Questions: On Public Ecclesial Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my earlier questions. I had the feeling as I read it that I had stumbled on a much bigger and more important thing than I had realized when I first wrote you. It occurs to me that identifying a vocation as public and ecclesial almost leads to a different vocation than when one identifies it as private or non-canonical.  Is being a hermit different when one is a c 603 hermit instead of a non-canonical or private hermit? I mean I know they are both about being a hermit, but it seems that the public and ecclesial dimensions add a lot and maybe make the whole way of life more difficult. I'm sorry I can't say this better, it is a completely new thought to me. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.]]

Hi there and thanks for writing again. I believe what you have begun to glimpse is really foundational of c 603 vocations (or of consecrated vocations more generally), and therefore, as you say, more important than [most realize] when the question of being called to such a vocation is raised. While neither the words public nor ecclesial exist within canon 603, they provide the most foundational dimensions of the vocation described therein. As you also are beginning to see, I think, these two realities contextualize the solitary hermit vocation in a way which helps protect it from lapsing into selfishness, navel-gazing, and the kind of individualism that is rampant in our world at this time. When we consider that most fundamentally the vocation is one lived not for oneself but for God's own sake and the whole of God's creation -- as the canon makes clear -- we can begin to appreciate why such a protective context is important.

As I think about this further myself, I think about the centuries of hermits that preceded me, and all the stereotypes history generated of the hermit and eremitical life. I wonder now (more than I have in the past) if we must look at the history of eremitical life as being filled with examples that we must truly distance ourselves from because of their selfishness, individualism, and unhealthy isolation. I am not saying anything goes instead, of course. When I look at the Desert Abbas and Ammas, for instance, I am struck by how they chose to live desert life for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, for the sake of the Church that was in danger of losing herself to mediocrity. They did not abandon Christianity or the Gospel, and they especially did not despise the larger world around them (they mentored one another, were open to others at every moment and offered hospitality, traded with them, taught them methods of agriculture, and shared what wisdom they had gleaned in their years of solitude). But in later years, other solitaries often validated their own misanthropy, mental illness, and eccentricity with the name "hermit". Too often we believe we understand the elements of canon 603 in light of these essentially unhealthy or disedifying solitaries and that can be really disastrous.

When eremitical life is contextualized in terms of church and world (God's good creation!), when, that is, we understand a vocation as public and ecclesial, then yes, it introduces greater tension into the hermit's life. One must negotiate the demands of elements like "the silence of solitude", "stricter separation from the world," and "assiduous prayer and penance," and live them with integrity without absolutizing them or losing sight of the demands imposed by the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.  One must be living this life for others, first God and then all that is precious to God. Yes, one must be moving towards union with God in one's aloneness with God; at the very same time, however, this does not mean a life of isolation, without friendships and significant dialogue with others. As I say this I am reminded of a passage from a book several of us diocesan hermits are beginning to read together. It is from Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam's, The Eremitic Life and says,

Everybody  belongs to himself and nobody can take possession of him without destroying the essential element of his personality, which is his freedom. The most distinctive feature of human nature consists in the natural desire to overcome oneself and to enter into a spiritual relationship with another person. Human freedom is founded on two indispensable pillars: the ability to possess oneself and the ability to overcome oneself. That is why every person is, by his very nature, a person of dialogue and relationships. Both dialogue and relationshhip express the great potential for love of the human heart, a heart that is free.

The seclusion and solitude that constitute eremitic life do not aim at negating the fundamental dynamism of human existence, with its entering into dialogue and relationships. On the contrary, eremitic isolation and solitude form the basis of that dynamism. As was said, one of the most important motives for undertaking the life of the desert is the burning desire to find one's own identity. In the course of time, however, we discover that we are unable to realize that task unaided. The only way of learning anything important about oneself is to look at another person's face with love and attention.

As mentioned before, the hermit's solitude can never be a sign of withdrawal and isolation from the world and its affairs. The hermit, since he wants to serve other people, must arrive at a profound understanding of his own nature and his relation to God and the world. That is why solitude is not at all a barrier, but it is rather an element that encourages openness towards others. The hermit, changed by the gift of meeting God, knows how to address the lonely hearts of those who come to seek his help and support. His solitude is not therefore a lifeless emptiness, but it is related to the most vital aspects of the human spirit. It is related to those spheres of the human personality that can only exist if they are open to meet God and the world. (pp200-201)

Given the variegated picture of eremitical life through the centuries, it is not surprising it took the Church such a long time to truly recognize the importance of this vocation as a gift of God. Today, however, we have c 603 as well as semi-eremitical institutes of consecrated life, and that means we have the possibility for solitary hermits living authentic and edifying eremitical life that are both public and ecclesial vocations embraced for the sake of God and all God holds as precious. What we cannot forget then are these two foundational elements; they are what prevent the hermit from absolutizing the various elements of the canon and living a perversion of eremitic life marked by isolation, misanthropy, and an exaggerated individualism capable of destroying any capacity for love and authentic self-gift.

It is true then, that the public, ecclesial nature of c 603 vocations can create some difficulties in penetrating the meaning of the other canonical elements. For instance, we think we understand what solitude means, but in light of the public and ecclesial dimensions of the vocation, perhaps eremitical solitude in the phrase "the silence of solitude" is radically different from an absolutized isolation and aloneness -- even when one recognizes God is also present in some way. At the same time then, I would agree with you that a c 603 vocation is meant to be different from someone just going off and becoming a hermit as happened during some centuries and is sometimes touted as the "tried and true" way of becoming a hermit. It underscores the hermit's profound relatedness to both the Church and the world, and the fact that the hermit is called by God to this vocation on their behalf. One who is consecrated under this canon can't ever forget this because it relativizes and focuses one's solitude (or one's stricter separation, for instance,) as a means to a greater end!! Of course, it needn't be the case that today's non-canonical hermits differ much from canonical hermits in motivation, openness, and generosity; that is especially true if c 603 is understood as normative for all solitary hermits today, even when c 603.2 does not apply to the individual hermit's life.