Exploring Some Implications of the Ecclesiality of the Eremitic Vocation

 [[Sister Laurel, I was pondering something you have been writing about. What does it mean to speak of an ecclesial vocation? I understand that every vocation reflects on the Church in some important way, and I bet some do that more clearly than others. But I get the sense you are saying more than that when you use the term "ecclesial". Can you explain it to me? I remember that with your own vocation, you once said that the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit, and that is part of the answer, but why would it be important for a hermit to understand they are committing their lives to an ecclesial vocation? . . .Thank you for persevering in this blog. Do you get a lot of readers? I don't get here very often, and this is the first time I have asked a question, but I always go away thinking about what you write and how little I knew about being a hermit before reading your blog]]

Well, thanks for asking your first series of questions, then!! They are really very good ones and mainly about a dimension of this vocation (as you note), I am exploring currently. What I am mainly discovering, and have been looking at over the past couple of years, is what it means to say this vocation is an ecclesial one, so I may not have a complete answer for you at this point, but I will give it a shot! As you note (see the second half of your questions below), it might be very helpful to look at the way that contrasts with a vocation that is not an ecclesial one. I find that question very intriguing, but also a little tricky to answer without appearing to demean the non-ecclesial vocations -- something I definitely don't want to do. The first part of this answer explains ecclesiality itself. The second part (beginning below with the remainder of your questions) begins to look at the way the ecclesiality of the vocation shapes my life.

A Brief Summary of the Ecclesiality of the Hermit Vocation

 So, what do I mean by calling a vocation ecclesial? Most fundamentally, I mean that such a vocation belongs intimately and integrally to the Church because it reflects something critical and essential about her life in this world. In other words, this vocation reveals something central about the Church without which she would not be Christ's own Church. Ecclesial vocations may share these dimensions with one another, and at the same time, some may reveal one or more of these dimensions with greater clarity or vividness than do other ecclesial vocations. I believe that what congregations identify as their own charisms are these various ecclesial dimensions possessed of a significant vividness, personality, or unique application.** For the hermit, I believe the unique charism of his/her vocation is what c 603 identifies as "the silence of solitude", and which I recognize as context, goal, and gift of the eremitical life.

The canonical hermit, whether a solitary (diocesan) hermit, or a member of a congregation of hermits (some Carmelites, some Camaldolese, and Carthusians, for instance), lives certain elements of a consecrated life with particular vividness. So, for instance, every consecrated person prays, is committed to conversion of life, lives degrees of silence and solitude as well as some separation from that which is resistant to Christ so that encounter with Christ may have priority in their lives, but the hermit, and especially the solitary hermit, will live these elements with a radicality and vividness that is revelatory in calling attention to the hidden core or heart of their lives, namely, the redemptive journey to union with God in and with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. None of the constitutive elements of the eremitical life makes real sense apart from this hidden core or heart. At the heart of eremitical life, then, is a pilgrimage to and with Love-in-Act that is essentially freeing. This hidden journey, driven by and towards encounter with God in Christ, allows the hermit's call to authentic humanity to be realized in space and time. At the same time, it allows God to be Emmanuel, the One God wills to be with us, and has willed to be from before creation. 

The Journey of the Canonical Hermit

The journey the canonical hermit makes is one that the Church commissions her to make in its name. It is meant to allow her to know firsthand and to witness how faithful God is and how unconditional God's love. It goes right to the deepest, darkest depths of her own humanity. On the way, and especially as she moves to and through the apparent limits of her own life into the arms of God in Christ, she will also encounter her own brokenness and fragility, her own hungers, her most profound needs, the desire for being and meaning that colors everything else in her life, and especially, she will journey to the depths of her ultimate need to love and be loved. This most radical cry of her heart (cri-de-coeur) is the ground and reflection of all of these hungers, needs, etc., and drives her pilgrimage to encounter God, who is both its source and answer or fulfillment. 

In other words, as far as possible, the hermit sets aside everything except the ongoing dialogue with God she is called to become and is most essentially and profoundly. In the process of an existential journey, even into the darkest depths of her own humanity, the hermit meets God and a self rooted in and made to image God that, in Him, lives beyond death, beyond despair, beyond all the brokenness, limits, and even the various forms of godlessness that have been part of her life. In short, she meets God as Love-in-Act who has desired her from before creation, welcomes her into his own life, and thus assures her of the truth of the Gospel and the offer of fullness of life that is hers in God. She lives from and for this truth and the God that is its source, ground, and guarantor.

Becoming a Microcosm of the Church and its Gospel

Where this occurs, where one becomes fully oneself in Christ, and where God becomes fully Emmanuel, there is revealed (both made known and made real in space and time) the Self as "intercessory place" where the reconciliation of heaven and earth is achieved. While this happens in a hermit's own life, indeed, in her own heart, what is revealed here is the very nature and goal of the Church itself. The Church points to and participates proleptically in the Kingdom of God. It is NOT the Kingdom of God, but it participates in God's reign, and can reveal it to the World. The hermit's life mirrors this Kingdom and the truth of the Gospel that God will allow nothing whatsoever to separate us from him. (This is, of course, the Good News of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as Paul reflected it in Romans 8, and the Church is called to proclaim in season and out.) In this way, the hermit's life serves the Church and calls it to be the Church it is made to be.

Every Christian's life is meant to reflect this message and become an embodiment of its truth. Each Christian is part of the Body of Christ and called to carry on the Church's mission to proclaim Christ's liberating message of God's sovereignty. Each of us is called to be a microcosm of such a life-giving dynamic realized in space and time in our work, our families, the Church, and so forth.  Hermits and other members of the consecrated state, however, embrace (and are entrusted with) this vocation for the sake of God, God's Church (God's People), and the well-being of the entire cosmos. They will give up families, renounce marriage and children, give up certain kinds of careers, relinquish the use of many discrete talents and gifts, and undertake studies and training that serve this calling, for the sake of the Church's being Christ's own body, or again, his Bride. This, then, is not merely a vocation lived in the Church, but a vocation that is essential to the Church being God's very own community of precious "called ones". 

[[Does it [the ecclesiality of your vocation] change the way you approach your daily life? I think I also want to know what it would look like if you were living a vocation that was NOT an ecclesial one. What would that mean? Would it mean you approach living as a hermit differently than you do now?]]

Yes, absolutely. I think it doesn't so much change what I do as why I do it! When I think about the eremitic vocation, I wonder about its importance and why it exists. What is such a life supposed to embody? What message does it give to others and call for from them? What does it matter if I don't live this life with integrity? After all, it doesn't do or produce much! In answering these questions and a number of others, I recognize that the answers can cut in very different, even antithetical ways. One set of answers leads in the direction of personal failure, isolation, and emptiness; the other leads in the direction of Christian responsibility, abundant life, mission, and meaningfulness. Without a sense that this is an ecclesial vocation***, the answers one gives to the questions noted above can tend to cohere with answers that reflect on a human being's failure to truly be human. But, as an ecclesial vocation, each question is a challenge to both the hermit and those she encounters, to uncover (and even explore) the positive, God-centered, communal, redemptive, and lifegiving answers, rather than the ones that point to brokenness, meaninglessness, lostness, emptiness, and likely signal human failure.

One of the things that changes without the sense that my vocation is an ecclesial one, then, is my ability to pursue eremitical life with the same dedication. Does even God really need me to be a hermit? Why in the world would God need or will that? Can I ever put these questions to rest and journey as deeply into this vocation as I am really called? Unless the Church answers these questions positively, these questions perdure. Unless she recognizes the eremitic life and calls some to ecclesial eremitic vocations, what we meet head-on is not only the possible validation of personal failure, but the increased tendency of a would-be hermit to slide into individualism and selfishness. While hermits do pursue personal holiness in the power of the Holy Spirit, eremitical life in the Church is not primarily about this. This is because personal holiness serves as a witness to something more fundamental. Instead, eremitical life is about God's will to be Emmanuel, growth in compassion, and the desire to be the place where heaven and earth come together for the sake of others --- for the Church, the world, and all that is precious to God. As noted above, eremitical life, above all, models the foundation of what it means to be truly human, namely, to be not just in dialogue with God, but to be a dialogue with God that allows God's will to be sovereign. Without this larger perspective, it becomes very easy to justify whatever one thinks and does in the name of "eremitical" (read individualistic) weirdness. (This is especially evident with regard to solitude in the next point.) Unless one appreciates this larger perspective, one will especially "miss the mark" of achieving genuine holiness, because holiness is about these things.

A third and related thing that changes without the sense of eremitism as an ecclesial vocation is the tendency to struggle with culpability for the disregard and wastefulness of gifts and talents. I am dedicated to this life because it makes sense of all dimensions of my own existence. Not only my talents, but also my limitations and brokenness actually contribute to this vocation and make sense within it. Chronic illness does not take away from my ability to live a life of prayer, nor do the diverse forms of isolation it causes. Instead, this physical isolation becomes a means to explore eremitical solitude and to learn just how radically different it is from personal isolation and unhealthy withdrawal. It allows me to find a deeper relatedness to others in my life, a relatedness that illness cannot affect, except, perhaps, to make me keener in my commitment to it. When a person begins to discover this dimension of their physical solitude, they have begun to truly be a hermit. They have begun to savor the communal nature of eremitical solitude.

At the same time, in this vocation, I let go of certain discrete gifts and talents and discover that in doing so, what that makes clearer is the gift God makes of me for others (or, potentially, any other person). This is a profoundly counterintuitive way of approaching one's own giftedness, and would ordinarily seem wasteful and disparaging of oneself and of God, who is the giver of such gifts. Again, the perspective here is deeper, broader, and, to be truly appreciated in the way I believe God wants, requires one to believe in the significance of eremitic vocations in the life of the Church and world. Especially, it uncovers the truth that the person, per se, is the creation and invaluable gift of God to whom God wishes to entrust Godself, even when the person is marginalized and without apparent outstanding talents and gifts. 

I both reflect on and write about the ecclesial nature of the eremitic vocation, not because it is simply another element of the life I have discovered over time, but because it is a foundational dimension of the vocation that allows me to live it faithfully, fruitfully, and generously, even when it means letting go of every gift but the gift God alone makes of me. In turn, this will mean assisting the Church to be the Church God calls it to be, and especially, I believe, it will help individuals marginalized by chronic illness and innumerable other things to see themselves as the precious gifts of God they are made to be in our Church and world.

____________________________________________________

** For instance, the Sisters of the Holy Family in Fremont have an emphasis on ministering to and for the lost and least. They do and have done parish ministry, catechetics,  social justice, accompanying children and families who search for ways of living more fully, etc, etc., but who they are in every form of ministry are "gleaners" and specifically, gleaners for the Kingdom of God. Other congregations do the same ministries, but the charism of SHF is their focus on the lost and least, the forgotten, and undervalued. This congregational "gift quality" or "charism" reveals something intrinsic to Jesus' life and ministry, and so too, to the life of the Church itself. Not only is the Church revealed to itself and to others in the lives of SHF, but it is challenged to be ever truer to this call. The SHF, no matter the kind of ministry each Sister undertakes, has embraced (and been entrusted with) ecclesial vocations that make the Church what it is called to be.

*** While I am mainly writing about canonical eremitical life in this piece, it is important to remember that the significance of eremitic vocations of all forms is established and witnessed to by the ecclesiality of consecrated vocations to the eremitic life. While non-canonical eremitic vocations are not ecclesial vocations per se, the fact that the Church recognizes eremitical life in law and consecrates ecclesial vocations to eremitic life underscores the value of ALL eremitical vocations, whether canonical or non-canonical. This is another example of the ecclesiality of the vocation. It indicates another way the existence of c 603 vocations serves the Church, especially since the majority of hermits throughout history and even today are non-canonical.

Canon 603, Ecclesiality, and Witnessing to the Value of Eremitical Life in ALL of its Forms and States

[[Dear Laurel, I was wondering why isn't it good enough for you or other diocesan hermits to be hermits the way God called hermits before 1982? Isn't that way good enough for you? I like hermits that really stay incognito and hide themselves like the cathechism says they are to do. Wasn't it good enough for you and other CL hermits to be the same as the historical and traditional hermits so you had to get some kind of special status and prestige?]]

Thank you for your questions. I would ask you to read the posts I have put up about the history of c 603 life. Check the labels to the right to find appropriate articles, and let me know if you need help finding the most helpful articles. I have written a lot about this in the past couple of years, especially, but also throughout the past 18-19 years. I think one of the things you have missed in your understanding of why Canon 603 was established is the way it reflects on the lives of past hermits and the way the Church either once regarded, or now newly regards, their vocations. Perhaps I have not spoken about this aspect of the reason for c 603's existence. Canon 603 is meant to rectify a significant lack or defect in the way the Church has regarded the eremitical vocation throughout the centuries. Far from saying hermits throughout the centuries could be disregarded, c 603 came into being not only to assist contemporary hermits who had left their monasteries to be secularized, but to point to the importance of the vocation in whatever way it had been lived within the Church up until 1983 and will be lived in the future.

The eremitic vocation has not always been appropriately esteemed in the Church. The fault for this is multifaceted, and both the Church and hermits bear blame. On the whole, hermits were treated with suspicion by the Church, something that may have stemmed 1) from the critical stance towards the institutional Church and its relation to the state taken by the Desert Fathers and Mothers, but also 2) from the genuine independence of the authentic Hermit living his/her life in the power of the Holy Spirit. Throughout the centuries, Bishops and dioceses took the responsibility for anchorites and hermits living in their dioceses. There were diocesan statutes created (ordine), and anchorites were more strictly regulated, but hermits were vested with the hermit's tunic, and if they felt called to preach, bishops provided a license to do so. In this way, the Church limited and tried to guide (sometimes this was about controlling) hermits in the region. At the same time, hermits (for good and for ill) multiplied at times of social unrest and struggle, which tended to increase the Church's distrust of the vocation.

It took time for the Western Church to truly recognize the value of eremitical vocations, and then, more time for the Church in the West to be presented with an experimental example of the life being lived in a way that could be examined by the Magisterium/hierarchy and reevaluated as a prophetic vocation. This model colony was also 180 degrees opposed to the individualism of the age. It was gradually coming together in a colony of hermits in British Columbia, particularly since these hermits were committed to "living singly in total solitude". (Here you can see the difference between a laura and a community of hermits. In the laura, which constitutes a supportive structure, the hermits live a more rigorous solitude.) It took time to find a monk who would serve as abbot, and time for the bishop protector to come to know these men and their lives and see the value of the eremitic life for the Church. Vatican Council II provided the perfect opportunity for Bishop de Roo to try to get this form of life recognized in the Western Church (it had never died out in the Eastern Church).

But here is the critical piece of the picture you appear to have missed: the eremitical life in the Western Church had died out, though it was a life God clearly called well-formed, experienced monastics to. It was also, therefore, a life of significant value, and needed to be recovered by the Church herself if it was to thrive in the way it did in the East, and seemed to want to do in the West as well. In creating c 603, the Church was not saying the hermit life is only now of value, and especially not only in a few canonical hermits!! She says it has always been of inestimable value in every century, and it is time to put suspicion and distrust behind us and recognize this vocation in universal law!! It is not only possible to be a hermit, but it is possible, if one feels called to do this, to live the life in the name of the Church! Canon 603 hermits, in recognizing they stand within a living stream of the Church's spiritual tradition, say to everyone, the hermit vocation -- every hermit vocation -- is valuable; the vocation is to be esteemed as a gift of God to our Church and world!!! Some witness to this publicly, normatively. Most do not. But the witness c 603 hermits give to the Church and world serves every eremitic vocation in this way.

This is part of the ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation, by the way, one of the specific ways the c 603 vocation serves the Church directly in helping her be the Church God calls her to be. This particular dimension of ecclesiality also fosters humility in those called to it. It is a literally awesome thing to think that God might call people to be part of a vocation almost completely lost to the Western Church, and to stand awed by one's call is to be both reduced and raised to humility. This is the paradoxical or countercultural prestige of the Kingdom of God, the call to stand with and for others so that God might be glorified and they might have life and have it abundantly! In this instance, c 603 hermits stand specifically to witness publicly to the eremitical vocation in all of its forms and to their important place within the Church. (Please note: the hiddenness of the c 603 hermit is found most radically in the inner journey the hermit makes with and in Christ to union with God. This focus of the hermit's entire life is almost entirely hidden from the eyes of humankind. I can say more about this in another post if this is not enough.)

Summarizing Dimensions of Ecclesiality in c 603 Vocations

[[Hi Sister Laurel, you have written a ton of articles mentioning the ecclesiality of the c 603 vocation. Could you do me a favor and repeat the most important conclusions you have drawn about this? I don't guess this idea of "ecclesiality" will matter to most people, but I am becoming a c 603 hermit in a few years (my bishop is thinking 3-5 years), and understand I really need to think about this dimension of the vocation. I don't mean for you to do the work for me, but I want a place to start from and a place I can go back to so I was hoping you could provide this. I really have read some of what you have written and will read more!! Promise!! One thing that concerns me is if having an ecclesial vocation means I am saying I am more important in the Church than my family members. I don't think you are saying that, but it is not clear in my own mind. So, can you help me with this? Thanks very much, whatever you decide!]]

Thank you very much for the questions, comments, and request. I am happy to repeat what may be my most important conclusions (or maybe they are just paragraphs where my writing was clearer than in other places)!! I've chosen two paragraphs taken from Peter Damian's Letter #28, a fairly recent article. 

In recent years, I have stressed that the canonical eremitic vocation is ecclesial. This does not mean that other hermits, especially non-canonical hermits, do not belong in an integral way to the Church, nor that they do not give their lives to the Church. Instead, it means that canonical hermits have accepted a public role in the very life of the Church that reminds every person, at least implicitly, of the two dimensions Peter Damian and Ponam in Deserto Viam put at the center of understanding eremitical solitude (in our oneness we are always part of a multiplicity, and in our multiplicity, we are one in the Spirit). Part of this witness by hermits embracing ecclesial vocations requires a canonical commitment to the life of the Church as consecrated hermits to consciously witness to and build up the very nature of the Church and the consecrated life within it. Solitude in such vocations is marked by a serious and radical aloneness, and at the same time, it participates in and reflects community in an equally radical way. One source says it this way, [[the solitude of the hermit is a solitudo pluralis, a corporate solitude, and (her) cell is a miniature Church.]]

The canonical hermit participates fully in the Sacramental life of the Church. She prays the Church's official prayer (Liturgy of the Hours); she may join with other hermits in lauras --- including virtual lauras that are non-geographic and allow for the strengthening of ecclesial bonds and witness. She lives her life according to an approved Rule of Life and under the supervision of Bishops (and often, accepted delegates) and spiritual directors. She does not live an individualistic life where canon law is dismissed as something only legalists or the "less spiritual" or "more temporal" choose. Instead, she allows herself to become subject to additional canons beyond those associated with baptism alone, because she understands that hermit life is a radically ecclesial and incarnational life, that, in a unique way, sees the multiplicity in one, and the one in and as the many. She wants to witness to this double reality in her own life and to do so officially for the sake of the Church and world.** Of course, it goes without saying that no hermit is alone because she lives with and from God, but what is also true is that no hermit is ever alone because we each carry the entire Church with us in our solitude. In fact, we are that Church.]]

Your concerns about misunderstandings of the term ecclesial in "ecclesial vocation" are important. I am glad you are trying to define this for yourself. When you write your Rule, some sense of the ecclesiality of your vocation should probably be visible to the chancery team working with you. My own take on this dimension of the vocation is that it reflects the heart of the hermit's humility in embracing a vocation God has "designed" to call the Church to be true to her own vocation as Pilgrim People of God. She cannot live this adequately except as an act of genuine humility. Canon 603 hermits witness to an abject dependence on God alone, and at the same time, they witness to the fact that Christ has established a Church in which those who travel "the Way" might journey together in lonely dependence and inspired solidarity in Christ. 

Empowered by the Holy Spirit, the hermit holds these two pieces of truth together in her own life, and the resulting reality and witness are consecrated by God and embraced by the Church at a public act of profession and consecration. (The Camaldolese celebrate this way of being as "Living Alone Together") I don't know a more vivid example of this journey to union with God in communion with the whole People of God in the silence of solitude, than that of the solitary consecrated hermit --- a journey at once radically solitary, deeply communal, and undertaken in a hiddenness that witnesses to ineffable Mystery. To do this, not only for the marginalized who find themselves both radically alone and, mistakenly, without value in our world, but for the entire Church, which can and has sometimes forgotten her pilgrim nature, is a great privilege! Paradoxically, it is a privilege we can only accept and live in the deep humility this very same privilege actually inspires! Doing so in any other way would make us incapable of serving the Church as we are called to do, and as this People of God needs. 

What the c 603 hermit says with her life is that every member of the Church, in whatever smallness or greatness they find themselves in terms of the world, are called to be the heart of the Church and to call the Church to be true to herself and her head. Every person is called to be him/herself, as fully as possible in, with, and through God. When looked at from this perspective, no vocation is more important than another, no person is more exalted or humble than another. And, of course, no vocation is to go uncelebrated or unrecognized -- just another facet of the ecclesial nature and witness of the consecrated hermit vocation. I hope that can reassure you with regard to the question you have about your vocation and your family. 

My prayers for your preparation for consecration under c 603!! Every day of this will be important. Nothing will be lost or a waste of time. That is true even if you should discern that this is not your call at this time. Live it and live into it well!! Meanwhile, all good wishes for a profound and fruitful Holy Week! 

More on Terminology, Individualism, and the Grace of an Ecclesial Vocation

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, . . .I am glad you wrote about terminology again at the same time you have been writing about individualism. Wouldn't someone's refusal to use the term Catholic Hermit in the way the Catholic Church uses it be an example of individualism? I think the same is true of the other terms you discussed as well as the idea that the bishop consecrates as a kind of "stand in" for God rather than God consecrating the hermit. I admit, I have never understood how someone could insist God consecrated them when the only thing they have to show for this is their insistence it is true! How important to you is it to live your hermit life "in the name of the Church"?]]

Really good point about terminology. Thanks!! I don't know how common this kind of thing actually is. It does not surprise me when someone who is Catholic and a hermit calls themselves a Catholic Hermit. It is an easy mistake to make, and the line between what one does "in the name of the Church" and what one does not is not always an easy one to draw. It is easier, of course, when the Church itself sets up norms for certain things, and one meets these norms (including accepting standing in law according to a particular canon or set of canons). Once the norms are set and the Church implements these canons, there is a way to determine what it means to be a hermit, 1) as the Church understands the vocation, and 2) as she calls people forth to live this in her name. Before such norms (canons) anyone who was an isolated pious person AND a faithful Catholic could say "I am a Catholic hermit", but, after Vatican II the Church made the decision to establish this vocation as a state of perfection with a central (though hidden) place in the Church's own call to glorify God; it established this vocation in law, and so, certain norms must now be met.

All of that changes the Church's language, and our own as well.  Because the Church specifically calls people forth to live this vocation in her name, it means that she sometimes does NOT call others. One knows whether one has been called by God via the Church to live a public (canonical) vocation or not. If someone were to mistakenly call themselves a Catholic Hermit, it would be potentially embarrassing, but easily corrected. They merely have to say, "Correction, I mispoke. I am a Catholic AND a hermit, but not a Catholic Hermit." I think the problems really occur when a person's usage is corrected and they refuse to make the adjustment, either in usage or personally, and in their own mind. Then we could be dealing not only with individualism, but, at least potentially, other things, including a lack of flexibility and humility, or even arrogance and self-righteousness. This is tragic because the eremitic life is a significant one, no matter what state of life the person is called to live it in. Each state of life allows the hermit to witness in somewhat different ways to both the Church and the world.

Yes, it is important to me to live my hermit life "in the name of the Church", and so, to live it well. At the same time, this importance has shifted over the years. It is awesome still, and what has deepened is my sense of the nature of the Church and my place in allowing it to be that. Because I studied and still read and do theology, I have had a good sense of the nature of the Church, that is, what constitutes sound ecclesiology, and what does not. It is a different (and maybe always awesome) matter to see God calling me to be a living stone in this edifice Jesus builds day by day and person by person. Recent shifts in my own understanding of eremitic life all have to do with the ecclesial nature of the vocation, and the inklings of all this were present when I approached my diocese @ 1985 or more strongly when I met with Bp Vigneron for the first time in 2005. To see some of the ways my understanding has clarified and deepened is so gratifying!

It is not necessarily easy to understand, especially initially, why God calls one to eremitical life rather than to other vocations, especially given the great need the world has for apostolic ministry. It is difficult (many times!) to understand why God might allow various traumata and associated chronic illnesses to be defining realities in our lives. And yet, whatever the circumstances of one's life, what remains true for each of us is that one is called to authentic humanity in dialogue and communion with God. Another way of describing this foundational vocation is that one is called to allow God to be God, and most especially, to allow God to be Emmanuel, God with us! It seems to me that this gift of God's Self is not only the answer to all prayer, but the call to let this gift be real in space and time is the very essence of the Church's own vocation in our world as well. In the Church's case,  it is not a call to be truly human, of course, but to be the place where God is allowed to fully reveal Godself as Emmanuel, the One who will truly be with us in every moment and mood of creation's history. (Here, by the way, is both the beauty and truth of a sacramental Church that reveals the whole of creation is shot through with the presence of God in the risen Christ and will one day be transformed completely when God is All in All.)

In my own life, the depths and darknesses that have colored so much of it have given me the opportunity to witness to the truth of this ecclesial vocation. With the assistance of and within the context created by the Church, I have been able to plumb those same depths along with all the questions and doubts they raised for me over the years, and find both God and my truest self together there. As I have said before, Frederick Buechner once remarked that "Vocation is the place where our deep gladness meets the world's deep need". For me, the hermitage is the place where all this happens. It is the place God called me to so that I might have the time and space to truly explore not only the complex question(s) I have lived (and been!) for so many years, but also so that I might allow myself to hear the answer God is as Emmanuel. Even more profoundly (and very much a continuing source of awe!!),  it is the place I have been called to become myself, the place of intercession where the love and mercy of God meet the anguish and yearning of his creation and the Good News of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension proclaimed as lived experience. I think this is true of all c 603 hermits.

I believe that having been called to a specifically ecclesial vocation has challenged me to explore what that really means, and more, what it means to live it for God, for the Church, and really, for all of God's creation. This dimension of the vocation not only deals with individualism, but it replaces fear of (or concern about) individualism with a sense of mission and charism that mirrors the Church's own, even within the silence of solitude. Because I am a convert to Catholicism, I am even more blown away by what it means to be called to live as a hermit "in the name of the Church". I have told the story of the experience I had when I attended my first Mass with a high school friend. I recognized (or "heard") while kneeling and watching others receiving Communion, that "in this place every need (you) have, whether intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, spiritual, or psychological, (can) be met".  I began instruction that week.

About 18 years later, after I had spent some years in community, worked in clinical lab (hematology), developed an adult-onset seizure disorder (epilepsy), finished academic studies, had some experimental neurosurgery, worked as a hospital chaplain, and begun working with my current spiritual director (not necessarily all in that order), I read the newly published Canon 603, and had a similar experience. On the third or fourth reading, I reflected, "My entire life could make sense in terms of this way of life -- wholeness, brokenness, limitations, talents, giftedness, deficiencies, etc. -- everything could be meaningful." It took years to discover the experience at that first Mass was actually a promise God was making me, and many more to understand the paradoxical, counterintuitive, and truly perfect (though still painful) way God was shaping the answer He and I together within the ecclesial context established by the Christ Event and Canon 603, would become!

On Peter Damian's Letter #28 and the Ecclesial Nature of c 603 Vocations

[[Hi Sister, you referred to Saint Peter Damian's Letter #28 (Dominus Vobiscum) and cited Ponam in Deserto Viam too. I am not clear why the ability to say, "The Lord be with you" is such a question. Also, Ponam in Deserto Viam speaks of two phrases in par 16. One is solitudo pluralis and the other is moltitudo singularis. I dont understand these or their importance, and I didn't hear Ponam make that clear. (I honestly read par 16 several times and just felt more confused.) Can you help me with this? Why begin with such a meaningless question and take it into the kind of difficult terms Damian does?]]

Important questions. Thanks!! One key to understanding the phrases in Par 16 of Ponam is Par 15. In these references, Ponam is exploring the nature of eremitical solitude and the way it represents and even defines the ecclesial role of the hermit life.  It says, [[In the Latin tradition, as Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote. . .radical solitude most carefully defines the ecclesial role of the hermits' way of life. Hermits are like a microcosm of the world and the Church in miniature. Therefore, they cannot forget the Church and the world which they represent in their totality. The more one is alone before God, the more one discovers within oneself the deeper dimension of the world. With an expressive phrase, Peter Damian underlined this openness: 

. . .by virtue of the Holy Spirit, who is in each one and fills all, on the one hand one perceives a singularity [or perhaps singleness or solitariness] that has plurality in itself [solitudo pluralis], on the other hand a multiplicity that has singularity [or perhaps, singleness] in itself [moltitudo singularis].

Then, as you know, Ponam (par 16) explains something of these two phrases, solitudo pluralis and multitudo singularis, and concludes, "The hermit's life is not one in which its subjective distinctiveness becomes the criterion of all. Rather, it is a life in which plurality (personal and social) finds meaning in the only One who is necessary. Thus, the complexity of the individual part is integrated as in a microcosm of the whole. True identity is rooted in a vital tradition that neither excludes nor rejects, but includes, integrates, and reconstructs." I think that it might be important to look at some of what Peter Damian says in his 28th letter. In some ways, I think he is clearer than Ponam manages in its brevity. Damian says, 

"Truly the Church of Christ is so joined together by the bond of love that in many it is one, and in each it is mystically complete. Thus we at once observe that the whole Church is rightly called the one and only bride of Christ, and we believe each individual soul, by the mystery of baptism, to be the Whole Church. . . . If you search diligently through the open fields of Holy Scripture, you will find the Church is often represented by one man or one woman. And although, because  of the great number of people, the Church seems to be many parts, it is still one and simple in the mystical federation of one faith and one divine regeneration.. . .  And so we conclude . . . since the whole Church is symbolized in the person of one individual, . . .holy Church is both one in all and complete in each of them; that is to say, simple in many by reason of their unity of faith, and multiple in each through the bond of love and the various charismatic gifts [gifts of the Holy Spirit], since all are from one, and all are one." (The Fathers of the Church, CUA Press, pp 262-263) emphasis added

Peter Damian's letter goes further and speaks about hermits who might misunderstand the nature of their vocation: 

"It is possible that in their simplicity some of the brothers might be tempted while living alone to think that they are somehow separated from the community of the faithful, and that they would also be loathe to use the common language of the Church in their prayers." . . . For we are not here concerned with the number of persons but rather with the mystery of the Church's unity. Here indeed, unity does not exclude multiplicity, nor does multiplicity violate unity, for one body is at once divided among many members, and from the various members one body is made complete. Nor are many members lost in the unity of the body, nor is the wholeness of the body minimized in the multitude of its members." (Ibid. pp 271, 274)

In recent years, I have stressed that the canonical eremitic vocation is ecclesial. This does not mean that other hermits, especially non-canonical hermits, do not belong in an integral way to the Church, nor that they do not give their lives to the Church. Instead, it means that canonical hermits have accepted a public role in the very life of the Church that reminds every person, at least implicitly, of the two dimensions Peter Damian and Ponam in Deserto Viam put at the center of understanding eremitical solitude (in our oneness we are always part of a multiplicity, and in our multiplicity, we are one in the Spirit). Part of this witness by hermits embracing ecclesial vocations requires a canonical commitment to the life of the Church as consecrated hermits to consciously witness to and build up the very nature of the Church and the consecrated life within it. Solitude in such vocations is marked by a serious and radical aloneness, and at the same time, it participates in and reflects community in an equally radical way. One source says it this way, [[the solitude of the hermit is a solitudo pluralis, a corporate solitude, and (her) cell is a miniature Church.]]

The canonical hermit participates fully in the Sacramental life of the Church. She prays the Church's official prayer (Liturgy of the Hours); she may join with other hermits in lauras --- including virtual lauras that are non-geographic and allow for the strengthening of ecclesial bonds and witness. She lives her life according to an approved Rule of Life and under the supervision of Bishops (and often, accepted delegates) and spiritual directors. She does not live an individualistic life where canon law is dismissed as something only legalists or the "less spiritual" or "more temporal" choose. Instead, she allows herself to become subject to additional canons beyond those associated with baptism alone, because she understands that hermit life is a radically ecclesial and incarnational life, that, in a unique way, sees the multiplicity in one, and the one in and as the many. She wants to witness to this double reality in her own life and to do so officially for the sake of the Church and world.** Of course, it goes without saying that no hermit is alone because she lives with and from God, but what is also true is that no hermit is ever alone because we each carry the entire Church with us in our solitude. In fact, we are that Church.

While the question that begins Peter Damian's essay in this letter seems almost meaningless to contemporary readers, I personally love it. What I see Damian doing is taking a tremendously small act in the daily schedule of eremitic life, and demonstrating how it and, in fact, every single act done in the cell is shot through with both the solitude and the multiplicity of the Church. This solitude and solidarity were what Pope Leo XIV spoke to in his address to hermits during recent Vatican festivities. Canonical standing, again, helps witness to these values and distinguishes the eremitical life from the individualism noted above. When I speak of the structure of canonical eremitic life protecting from the dynamics of "the world," the temptation to individualism is one of these.

___________________________________________

** When one does something officially, it really does have greater effectiveness than doing something unofficially. The very fact that the Church chose to create c 603 in response to interventions at the Second Vatican Council indicates the Church's openness to freshly evaluating or re-evaluating the importance of solitary hermits in the life of the Church, as well as looking at the reality of religious life not associated with membership in an institute of consecrated life. The cogency of Peter Damian's ecclesiology in Letter #28 is strengthened by the contemporary establishment of c 603 and solitary hermits. These are very good reasons for the "official" or canonical establishment of the solitary eremitical life.

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.