Followup Questions on the DICLSAL Resources Text: Questions re One's Relationship with Bishop, Church, and World

[[Hi Sister, thanks for your last answer to my questions. When the DICLSAL resources text asks about one's relationship with the Bishop, Church and world, what are they talking about?]]

Thanks for your followup. I can only guess here based on my own experience and what I look for in myself and other c 603 hermits or candidates. Since the vocation is one lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world, one's motivations must be those of love, both for God and for the world God created. Yes, one is seeking union with God in one's own life, but one does this so that God might be glorified (revealed) and the world might meet, embrace, and be embraced by a God whose love is truly unconditional. This element of c 603 introduces some tension into the life of the c 603 hermit, as does the public nature of the c 603 vocation. That tension exists between one's attention on the self and one's attention to the needs of others because both apparently contradictory focuses are present in the canon. 

The tension is resolved over time, however, precisely as one's motivations shift from a selfish quest for union with God to a concern with seeking this for God's own sake and for the sake of the world to whom one's life in solitude will actually witness. In other words, the resolution of this tension of eremitical life occurs within one's own heart as one grows in compassion. This growth involves a dying to self (including a blind or selfish focus on union with God!) so that one's entire life is lived for the sake of the other, first God, and then all that God holds precious. What I would guess formators look for is the presence of this tension --- and therefore, a certain amount of suffering by the candidate as, to some extent, they are pulled in one way and another until their hearts are enlarged sufficiently to experience the resolution of the tension causing the struggle; this resolution occurs in an encompassing compassion rooted in one's trust of God and the effectiveness of God's will in all of this.

There are certain attitudes, however, which will militate against the growth needed. For instance, a sense that the world is not precious to God, that it is not essentially sacramental, that it is "merely temporal" and is to be absolutely contrasted with a spiritual realm and spiritual approach to reality as well as that it will one day be entirely left behind for heaven, will not allow the hermit to progress toward the resolution already mentioned. Dualism will not work and is not called for by c 603. Instead, the hermit must trust that one day God will be all in all, and that the world, even in its distortion from truth, is to be loved into fullness or wholeness, not despised as simply antithetical to God. 

In approaching the requirements of c 603, the term "world" is used in two senses: 1) the world God has created, loves dearly, and wills to be an intimate and pervasive part of, and 2) the world as that which is resistant to Christ or that some choose to trust in for fulfillment apart from God. The hermit must be able to "balance" stricter separation from the world (sense #2) with love for the world as God's good creation (sense #1). Beginning hermits will experience and demonstrate greater tension and even some struggle in their lives in this regard while those who are more experienced will have come to a more or less paradoxical resolution of this tension embracing both senses of the term in what hermits know to be a solitude of deep relatedness and relationship. I believe DICLSAL is recognizing this fact as well as calling attention to the attitudes toward "the world" which will never lead to an appropriate resolution --or to what c 603 calls the silence of solitude. 

Regarding one's attitude toward the local bishop, again I can only guess. Certainly, one must be ready and able to make a vow of obedience to the bishop as one's legitimate superior. At the same time, one needs to be able to accept the delegated authority of those who assist the bishop to truly supervise the hermit's life and growth. These may be other bishops, priests, or religious women and men, including mentors drawn from c 603, with expertise in formation and contemplative or monastic and eremitical life. If, after profession/consecration one finds one has a (new) bishop who does not honor the c 603 vocation in the diocese, one must be able to patiently and humbly engage in living the life in ways that educate the new bishop. One may or may not succeed in this, but that is of less moment than simply and faithfully living solitary eremitical life with the grace of God and the help of Directors one has accompanying one. On the other hand, one may find that a (new or old) bishop understands contemplative life better than one does oneself. When this happens, it is a complete joy because at these times the degree of sharing is correlatively deeper and more enriching, and because the contact may spill over in a more direct benefit to the local church itself.

I suppose, then, that I am thinking the question about one's view of one's relationship with one's bishop, is meant to uncover attitudes of the heart once again. Does one accept authority well, can one balance that with the personal initiative and dependence on God alone necessary to live solitary eremitical life healthily? Is one open to contributing to the life of the Church through this relationship? If so, does one demonstrate openness to growing in one's understanding of and commitment to religious obedience in all the ways the diocese may need this to be embraced? Is one open to learning about ecclesial vocations and becoming more and more representative of such a calling or is one relatively closed to this learning? Does one have the humility necessary to embrace religious obedience healthily while rejecting a servile or obsequious devotion and dependence, or not? Can one teach effectively and humbly as well as learn from the bishop? Is one open to true discernment throughout one's ongoing formation as a hermit, particularly as one's legitimate superior (and his delegates) calls for and empowers this, and even when he does not?

Finally, regarding the Church, does the hermit or hermit candidate understand herself as embracing a vocation not just at the heart of the church, but a commitment to become a living incarnation of that heart? Is she deeply committed to the Church and her life in this world, and does she understand c 603 eremitical life as the way the Church normatively recognizes the hermit life truly lived in the heart of the Church? (By this I mean all three forms of eremitical life, non-canonical, consecrated solitary, and consecrated semi-eremitical forms of the life.) Is she deeply engaged in the Church's sacramental life and is she committed to representing the Church's perception of the eremitical life, not her own conceptions? Does she recognize the place of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the Church here and now and does she recognize her own role in this? Does she accept the paradoxical public and hidden nature of the consecrated (canonical) eremitical vocation she is called to live in the Name of the Church while trusting in the Spirit that enlarges the heart sufficiently to comfortably embrace both sides of the paradox? In other words, does the hermit understand herself as Peter Damian did, that is, as an ecclesiola, who, in Christ, lives deeply and intimately in the very heart of the Church and as the very heart of the Church, or does she see eremitical life differently than this?

Second Consecration, Ecclesial Vocations, and C 603 Hermits Making a Return to the Church

 [[ Sister Laurel, you referred recently to a second consecration besides the consecration of baptism. When another hermit [name withheld] calls herself a consecrated Catholic hermit but has not received this second consecration, is that the source of her misunderstanding in identifying herself in the way she does? In a similar vein, if someone claims that God consecrates but men do not  --- wondering why she is not [considered to be] consecrated, is she misunderstanding the mediation needed to enter the consecrated state of life in the Catholic Church? I have not been reading your blog for long -- only since the Cole Matson case in Lexington exploded at Pentecost, so you may already have talked about this, but what principle do you think is most important for understanding the significance of c 603 and the whole notion of 2nd consecration or admittance to a second consecration?]]

Thanks for writing, and especially for your questions.  At this point, I am open to suggestions on making matters clear. Still, I have written many times on this blog about the distinction between dedication and consecration and the way that distinction was carefully maintained at Vatican II and in works on monastic commitments. I have also referred to the consecration associated with baptism and its distinction from the "second consecration" that initiates one into the consecrated state of life. This distinction holds despite the confusing translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in Par 920-921 which has sometimes been misread as allowing private vows to be used for a hermit's initiation into the consecrated state because of course, Par 920-921 must be read in light of other paragraphs of the CCC, the revised Code of Canon Law, and the Church's theology of consecrated life, not otherwise. 

Finally, I am pretty sure I have spoken many times about the importance of mediation in the church's life, particularly concerning sacraments and ecclesial vocations. I have explained that God is always the one doing the consecrating, but that this occurs through the diocesan bishop's authority because it is a gift of God to the Church which the Church must take serious responsibility for and extend on God's behalf to individual hermits. Partly I have tried to clarify these issues because of misunderstandings and questions, but even more I have tried to do it as I explored the meaning of the term "ecclesial vocations" like that of c 603. It is probably the notion of ecclesial vocations that is the most important one for understanding the distinction between non-canonical and canonical vocations, including all of the discussions just mentioned -- particularly in considering the significance of c 603 and the meaning of 2nd consecration. Because they are part of understanding the difference between an ecclesial vocation and one that is not, some of these issues will continue to need to be emphasized for those beginning their journey as hermits --- some of whom will eventually do this as canonical hermits under c 603 or as part of a canonical community of hermits.

Catholic and Hermit vs Catholic Hermit

It should go without saying that one represents the church when one is a c 603 hermit and, moreover, that the church herself has chosen this person to represent the church, not simply as a Catholic (one is commissioned to be and do that through baptism), but as someone whom God has called through the church's mediation to represent her consecrated eremitical tradition. Contrary to what some argue, not every person through history who decided to call themselves a hermit led an edifying desert life witnessing to the God or Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Just going off alone" is not enough to be a hermit in the way the church uses the term. Contemporary life calls some forms of self-chosen solitude "cocooning". This conveys the isolation and individualism of this way of life. But the Church's eremitical life, and especially her consecrated solitary eremitical life, is not this; instead, a Catholic hermit lives the church's eremitical life according to the norms this same church has established. More, the Church herself entrusts the Catholic hermit with this Divine vocation and calls her to live it in the Church's name.

Ecclesial Vocations:

One of the most difficult things I had to get through my own head and heart during novitiate (and later!) was the whole idea of mutual discernment. It was very difficult to understand how one's own sense that one was called to a vocation might be mistaken or insufficient. I don't think I learned the term "ecclesial vocation" until much later --- something that was crucial for my understanding! Once I had that term and appreciated that the vocations described this way first of all belonged to the Church herself and only then were entrusted to the person who also discerned such a vocation, I began to understand not just the reason for mutual discernment, but also why the church celebrates such vocations establishing and indicating them with liturgical rites, unique titles, and so forth. None of this was or is about the individual, much less some supposed desire for power, prestige, status, authority, etc. It is about God and the way God has gifted his church with this vocation. It is about the church in turn entrusting persons with this gift in ways that ensure they are empowered to live it and glorify God as fully as possible.

When we think of c 603 consecrated life as countercultural, one of the most significant ways this is true is in the vocation's rejection of individualism. Yes, within clear limits, c 603 is incredibly flexible and diocesan hermits live eremitism in individual (not individualistic!) ways. So, for instance, I live a 24-hour day very differently than Sister Rachel Denton in the Diocese of Hallam (UK), or Sister Anunziata Grace in the Diocese of Knoxville, or any number of others throughout the world. Yes, there are commonalities in terms of the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer, etc., but at the same time, each day is marked by the dynamic constituting the hermit's life in, with, and through Christ and the Holy Spirit. In our faithfulness to the Holy Spirit, unity is not uniformity, particularly in solitary eremitical life. 

At the same time, when we get together to catch up or talk about living the vocation using books like The Eremitic Life by Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam, or Solitude and Communion, ed Allchin, to guide our sharing, what we recognize are all the elements of this vocation we share -- the struggles, the joys, our own constant surprise at finding again and again that, despite our own weaknesses and incapacity, God has called and continues to call us to this vocation. We share the same Spirit, often the same hearts (generally speaking), even, sometimes, similar forms of woundedness and certainly the same essential wholeness in Christ, and we have been entrusted with this Divine calling by the Church who was herself entrusted with it by God. We recognize this because we know our lives are called to glorify God in this specific way and are not ashamed to have answered this call and represent it publicly -- even within our hiddenness! We are part of a long and sacred stream of eremitic tradition in the church; her recognition of this vocation, now raised to the consecrated state with a "second consecration," is a source of personal and ecclesial life and holiness.

C603 Vocations Assisting one Another and Making a Return to the Church:

One of the things this means is that we c 603 hermits each recognize we are called to assist the Church in understanding this gift more deeply and implementing it prudently and effectively --- as only someone living it faithfully from within the vocation may truly do. Thus, it was really gratifying to hear CICLSAL (now DICLSAL) write about the importance of mentorship of c 603 vocations by other c 603 hermits (cf. Ponam in Deserto Viam). Additionally, we are slowly beginning to come together regularly to read and discuss with one another so our own eremitical vocations may be deepened and more fully realized. At the same time, we are working with our own and other dioceses to assist in the discernment and formation of c 603 vocations. A part of this means educating those who really don't understand the vocation all that well, including some canonists, vocation personnel, and bishops!!  Additionally, within the limits of c 603, but also because of the profoundly ecclesial nature of our vocations, we contribute to the growth of community in our regions. Again, central to all of this is the recognition that we are solitary Catholic hermits called to live this vocation in the Church's name because the Church herself has entrusted us with this ecclesial vocation and commission.

In light of all of this and other things that gradually are growing or being realized with regard to c 603 life, this takes more of my time and interest than trying to clarify terms for those who seem intransigent. Also, canon 603 is better known today and so is the history of eremitical life in the church. Thus, I was reassured to see that one of the persons who commented on your referent's videos correctly affirmed the flexibility of the eremitical vocation and the very real possibility of living non-canonical eremitism today right alongside c 603 hermits. At the same time, she insisted on the importance of maintaining the distinction between being a Catholic and a hermit (i.e., being a non-canonical hermit) and being a Catholic Hermit (i.e., a solitary canonical or consecrated hermit living the life in the Church's name). Surprisingly, the comment was allowed to stand. Some misunderstandings and outright fraud will continue to occur, but some (like the recent case in Lexington) will be much more important to address directly. Meanwhile, I believe c 603 will function to encourage others to live as hermits even if they choose or otherwise must do so in the lay or clerical states of life without the benefit of second consecration. 

It cannot be said often enough (for the present) that Canon 603 is normative of solitary eremitical life and that is also true for non-canonical hermits even though they are not bound juridically by the canon. (I continue to believe these non-canonical hermits will remain the most numerous in the church despite the growing use of c 603 and the profession of consecrated solitary hermits.) The bottom line here is that the Western Church has finally embraced solitary eremitical life as a Divine gift particularly when lived according to this norm. While there have been less universal norms and statutes throughout the centuries, and while local bishops have tried to provide for edifying hermit life throughout the Church's history, c 603 symbolizes this embrace by the universal church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published a dozen years later than c 603, provides a vision of eremitical life which is helpful for teaching and intriguing in its descriptions, but without being normative in the same way as c 603. 

Is there a learning curve involved concerning all of this? As I have noted before, yes, absolutely! Will mistakes and indiscretions occur like those associated with the Archdiocese of Boston, the dioceses of Denver and Lexington, and others? Sadly, yes. But the bottom line remains the same and is inspiring!! Canon 603 provides the means to a God-given, Church-mediated ecclesial vocation for those publicly professed and consecrated accordingly. The same canon is normative for all solitary eremitical life in the church, including the non-canonical hermit. For this, I give thanks to God.

Once Again, Canon 603 is NOT the Only way to Be a Hermit in the Church!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  My diocese has never [yet consecrated a c 603 hermit] and I don't think my current Bishop will say yes to my request . . . But he is retiring, . . . I told [the Vicar General] after Mass today, . . . that I cannot be a hermit if I am not canonically approved as a hermit. Yet I have every reason and indication and have for six years and more intensely again in the past year, that this is what God desires and wills of me. I thought I could simply live the life without consecration, but after reading people like Dom Leclerq, Pere Louis Bouyer, and some of the Camaldolese writings . . ., I see that one must be consecrated for some good reasons . . .. The Vicar General today told me that in his opinion I could just live the life of a hermit anyway. Is this sound? 

 I mentioned the necessary graces through the Church, and he said God would give the graces anyway. While I do plan to make the request of . . . the new bishop, whenever, I also realize perhaps I should be open to moving to a diocese in which hermits are not unheard of. But, I have not had an indication that I should do this; I have just finished having my hermitage built, and am in the concluding phases of a massive. . . Garden[ing project] which is very helpful. . . for [me]. . .. But, I will go and do whatever necessary. I would appreciate your "take" on this situation, as just living the life as a hermit is fine if it is truly in keeping with the Church, but from my reading it seems not.]]

I'm sorry not to have gotten to this email in a more timely way. I am unclear whether you have felt that what God wills for you is non-canonical eremitism as you have been living it during the past years or canonical eremitism as you have petitioned your Bishop. Your sentence regarding that is ambiguous for me -- though I believe you mean the latter. Whichever is the case, remember that whether you are reading what I am writing about the hermit vocation or writings by Camaldolese monks and hermits, Dom LeClercq, Pere Louis Bouyer, et al, we are all writing from the vantage point of those esteeming the consecrated forms of monastic and eremitical life. We are writing about what we know, sometimes have been entrusted with, and are responsible for; that includes the specific graces associated with consecrated eremitical life. No hermit I know writes that this is the only way to live a solitary eremitical life, but because it is our vocation, we do see it (whether in community or as a solitary hermit under c 603) as having significant benefits to ourselves, the Church, and to others as well.

I think your representation to your Vicar General that you cannot be a hermit unless you are admitted to (a second) consecration beyond baptism is inaccurate; he is correct that you can certainly live as a hermit by virtue of your baptismal (lay) state in the Church. You are free to do that as is anyone initiated into the faith community of the Church --- though that would not mean you live the vocation in the name of the Church or with the Church's specific commissioning. If you continue to believe you have discerned God is calling you to live consecrated eremitical life under c 603 however, then by all means, as you have approached your current bishop, approach the new bishop as well. (Your diocese will have a file on you with your petition and other information, so ask that your petition be renewed if need be.) 

If the diocese were to accept you as a suitable candidate, you would then participate in a mutual discernment process with no promise that you will be admitted to the profession. Even so --- even if you are not admitted to profession or eventual consecration under c 603, this mutual process of discernment could still strengthen your sense of eremitical vocation as a non-canonical hermit. Given your new hermitage and your apparent relationship with your diocesan Vicar, et al, I think it would be especially mistaken to go diocese shopping for one that would profess you canonically. I tend to recommend that option only when a diocese declines to use c 603 at all, and then, only when the person seeking consecration understands the very real risk that they may not be accepted by any diocese for profession under c 603.

Remember that the Church knows several (4) different forms of eremitical life and values them all. Yes, c 603 has raised solitary eremitical life to a canonical (consecrated) state, but in doing this she raises eremitical life as such to an esteemed place in the life of the church when it had often failed to be recognized as a true vocation of God and increasingly was associated with nutcases and eccentrics who had failed at life in society. What the Church has done is signaled to the faithful that hermits of whatever form are no longer to be seen in stereotypical ways and instead represent unique vocations with a significant mission in the contemporary Church. 

For hermits living and witnessing during a period marked and marred by exaggerated individualism, raising solitary eremitism to a form of consecrated life underscores the ecclesial nature of the vocation and reminds her that it is first of all the church's own vocation which the hermit is then entrusted with on the Church's behalf and in her name. While individual it is emphatically not individualist --- nor is any form of authentic eremitical life individualistic. I think from the Church's perspective, this is one of the most important witnesses of contemporary eremitical life and one of the significantly normative emphases of c 603. If you should determine you are called to non-canonical eremitical life, then of course God will grace you in whatever way is needed, including in terms of this non-individualistic emphasis. Again, in this too I believe your Vicar General is entirely correct.

On the Church's Distinction Between Gender Dysphoria and Gender Ideology and other Questions

[[Sister, in the article published today in OSV News Diocesan Hermit-Theologian Warned Bishop ‘Transgender Hermit’ Proposal Would ‘Misuse’ Church Law, Cole Matson seemed to believe that the church does not distinguish between gender ideology and gender dysphoria. I don't think the church lumps it all together in this way, does she? And about Cole now saying he is feeling more and more called to solitary eremitical life. How does that work? Will Cole be able to claim he has truly discerned this vocation?]]

Personally, I don't think the church does lump things together in the way Cole Matson seems to believe she does, no. Several weeks ago now I was referred by my director to a moral theologian she values very highly by the name of Rev Gerald Coleman, PSS. This was before the Cole Matson stuff blew up on Pentecost when I was trying to decide my own next steps regarding the situation in Lexington. I never made the connection with Father Coleman because of the rapidly changing situation, but both Sister Marietta and I read Coleman's The Many Faces of Transgender to be sure we could continue our conversations on the same page as well as to provide a knowledgeable intro to Coleman when I did reach out (Marietta  knew him well but I had never read nor met him). 

In that book I would say that Father Coleman captured some moral theologians' careful and orthodox positions on the matter, namely, he was very careful to delineate or distinguish between the reality of gender dysphoria that can, in certain given circumstances be so anquishing as to make gender affirmation interventions of various types a moral option, and the whole gender ideology complex itself. The latter involves the sense that gender is a chosen quality, that individuals may do what they like in this matter,  and may even be considered "gender fluid" --- something which is anathema to the church and her anthropology. It becomes especially abhorent when applied to or encouraged to be adopted by minors and those with either significant psycho-sexual immaturity or an agenda in this area. 

My own opinion is that Cole may have done an injustice to the church's own theological conversations in this matter as well. I don't believe moral theologians fail to draw appropriate distinctions. What I believe the Church desires is for the LGBTQ+ community to do the same so that appropriate compassion may be nurtured and expressed. Cole says he disagrees with gender ideology. Good!! Moreover, in some ways, the church continues to learn, as do we all and that takes time and painful honesty. What she recognizes then is that for some, gender dysphoria is a real and oftentimes acutely painful struggle one needs help to negotiate. This can take therapy --- sometimes long and arduous therapy along, in some instances, with gender affirming medical and surgical procedures. In some instances these interventions can be considered moral according to theologians like Coleman. And of course, such gender dysphoria merits compassion from all of us. What the church does not recognize or condone, however, and what Francis considers "ugly", it seems to me is gender ideology, including the notion of gender fluidity, and the like --- particularly in minors.

Meanwhile, I continue to focus on the fact that Cole Matson and the Diocese of Lexington have committed fraud in attempting the professions they have done, not only because there was deception in claiming at least implicitly that Cole was a biological male and vesting him as a Brother given the right to style himself as "Brother," but more, from my perspective at least, because they are calling him a diocesan hermit when he never truly claimed to feel called to this, did not discern such a vocation in necessary years prior to attempted admission to vows, and has been clear they were using canon 603 as a stopgap because nothing else was available. I have to ask Cole if he really believes his vocation is more real than the hundreds of those whose dioceses turned them away when they wanted to use c 603 as the "only available canon" to become publicly professed despite not feeling called to be a solitary hermit? That is simply the height of arrogance.

Regarding your second question, I don't see how Cole can be believed in this. Consider that Cole has made fraudulent vows pretending to a vocation he does not have. He is being allowed to live it any way he actually wants and define it similarly. And he is being given the public standing (for the moment anyway) he so desperately wanted. Maybe this is too cynical of me, but I want to say, of course he is going to say he feels called to it more and more!!! What else would or could he say?? But, you see, most of us live into a vocation for some years before being admitted to profession and we are not admitted to vows simply so we can experiment with the calling to see if perhaps we might have it! Further, for those of us professed under c 603, we live the solitary eremitical vocation through our doubts or uncertainties, learning over time the hard lessons of assiduous prayer and penance, as well as the tedium that can be associated with letting these shape our lives in God's own way until we are clear not only that this is a Divine calling, but that we also bring something authentic and unique to the church herself as we petition her to admit us to canonical standing in an ecclesial vocation! (Some may never reach this step and either decide or are asked to remain non-canonical solitary hermits.)

The point is one lives the life before one is ever professed and before living eremitical life itself, one comes to live contemplative life --- usually for some years! For instance, I have one c 603 candidate I am currently working with and have been working with for at least three years now. She left her congregation prior to perpetual profession to explore eremitical life, both solitary and semi-eremitical. She is diligent, patient, shows great initiative and faithfulness to God, has sacrificed to set up a beautiful (and beautifully functional) hermitage after living in other less satisfactory places due to need, found appropriate ways to support herself, etc.; she struggles with balance between the elements of her life as every authentic hermit will struggle, and gradually, she has come to prefer the silence of solitude of the true eremite. 

I believe she is truly called to be a diocesan hermit and is prepared to live eremitical vows. Yet, her Archdiocese, despite the ongoing support of one bishop skilled in formation work, will require a still-longer discernment/formation period for several good reasons (mainly having nothing to do with the candidate herself, but with transitions within the diocese). She understands this and continues working toward a deeper and deeper personal embodiment of c 603 in the meantime and she does this for the sake of the church and the vocation itself. Unless her discernment shifts, this seems to be who she is; it is the way one lives such a calling! 

My concern is that cases like these may be dismissed now, or waiting periods extended exorbitantly without admission to profession because of the notoriety, flippancy, and even the deceitful quality of the Lexington Diocese's usage of c 603. I am genuinely hopeful this will not happen in this instance, but in other cases where we have candidates whom a specific diocese does not yet know well, true vocations could be jeopardized. You see, one dimension of a genuine canon 603 vocation is the sense that one is responsible for living and furthering the life of this specific vocational thread in the church. It continues to live on throughout the centuries not only because God calls individuals to it but also because the church entrusts one with living out this specific ecclesial vocation in her name. This simply doesn't happen when selfish motives are allowed to drive professions, and in a calling that is so rare and vulnerable (especially in a world rampant with individualism!) the vocation itself is hurt.

Bishops and Delegates as Contrary to the "Supreme Independence" of a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, in your last post [09.September. 2022, On Needing People] the questions asked something about the supervision of the bishop being contrary to the vocation of a hermit. I don't think you answered that so let me ask it again even if it is not what the original questioner had in mind. I have always thought of hermits as supremely independent --- being able to walk away from everything and everyone to live alone, but c 603 requires one live one's life under the supervision of a diocesan bishop. You have written about having a delegate who serves you and the bishop in meeting with you regularly. Isn't all of this contrary to the supreme independence of the hermit? Thanks!!]]

Thanks for continuing the conversation and for taking it further than the original poster did. As you will no doubt guess, I am going to disagree with your position, not only because I differ somewhat (mainly in emphasis) on your understanding of hermit life but more, because I think you and I have different notions of independence.

In the first place, I don't think of a hermit as one who leaves everything and everyone "in order to be alone". I think of a hermit as having done these things to seek and live in communion with God and, therefore, to be the truest and fullest Self s/he can be. The purpose of the life is not about being alone, nor about being hidden, or poor, or any number of other things; the purpose of the life is to put God first, to allow God's will to love us fully and unconditionally to be realized in our one very singular and infinitely precious life. Yes, this will mean being alone, poor, hidden, chaste, celibate, and any number of other things, but all of those serve this foundational purpose; they must not be mistaken for it. There is a second half to this foundational purpose, namely, in real ways the hermit leaves everything and everyone and seeks to live in Communion with God and to become and be the truest, fullest, self she can be for the sake of others. 

Hermits are, first and foremost witnesses (martyrs) to the Love of God that is the deepest need of and sufficient for every person. We "leave everything and everyone" to the extent and in the way we do so in order to live in the silence of solitude (life with God alone) so that others may also know that God alone is enough (i.e., only God can create, sustain, and complete us as persons). I want to be clear that hermits are not the only ones who witness to this truth; for instance, men and women religious also do so, but they image the way that occurs in community and hermits image this truth in the vividness of the silence of solitude. (Both hermits and cenobites live community, silence, and solitude, but they do so differently with different emphases in their lives.) Again, who the hermit is and what the hermit does, is meant to be a gift and ministry to and for the sake of others; she lives her life for the sake of others -- beginning with God's own sake.

So, with that important piece in place let's think about the term independence and especially its sense in Christian theology. To be truly free is to be empowered to be the person God wills us to be. It is to be able to live authentically and fully, the potential which is ours by virtue of our creation by God. There is a "free from" dimension to this empowerment as well as a "free for" dimension. For the person who exists in and through God in Christ, and to the extent this is true, there is freedom from sin (that is, from estrangement from God, self, and others), from ego, from much of the woundedness our lives in space and time cause us. This means too then, that there is the freedom to be Oneself for God, for the sake of God's good creation, and certainly for the sake of all who are precious to God. The hermit's freedom is very much this kind of freedom in both senses and dimensions.

If what one calls independence is ruled by ego, it is not genuine freedom. If we are not free to receive our lives as gift or others in a similar way, we do not know genuine freedom. If we are not free to give ourselves generously, to love and trust others in ways that empower them similarly, we are not truly free at all. Because we are only human as part of a community, because our humanity is a gift of God which is realized in and through our love of God and others and theirs of/for us, we need these same others if we are to be free. God is a community of love and God wills to draw us into that same reality; indeed, he has made us for this. By definition, humanity itself, and human freedom therefore is defined in terms of such community.

All of this makes the solitude of the authentic hermit incredibly paradoxical. To the degree it is genuine, it will be an expression of our seeking and being in intimate community with God, with our deepest selves, and, in other ways, with others. No matter what else we walk away from, we cannot walk away from God or our deepest selves without betraying the very nature of our existence as human, and too then, our vocation and its solitude in the process. By extension, we cannot walk away from others --- though most of the time we relate to them differently than most people do.

The vocation I have begun describing here is both difficult, rare, and, as noted, incredibly paradoxical. It is easy to mistake it for the isolation and misanthropy that marks the loner in today's society because externally these two can look a lot alike. When one doesn't know that (seeking and receiving) communion with God is the primary motivation and goal of the hermit, it is easy to imagine that the vaunted "eremitical freedom" means the freedom to walk away from every relationship and responsibility and do whatever one wants whenever one wants to do it. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the word "hermit" has been used in these two antithetical ways, again based on some externals alone. But authentic eremitical life is demanding, and because communion with God (being loved and loving in return in the way God loves and empowers one to love) is a difficult goal which requires the whole of one's life, it really does require supervision and work with a skilled spiritual director, etc., to keep one moving forward in receiving and embodying one's deepest truth.

Sin is, in the way I have defined it above, easy; refusing Life, which is always a gift of God, allowing it to slip away, choosing counterfeits and substitutes is easy. Holiness (being true to God and to one's deepest self in order to love as God loves), requires discipline, patience, commitment, and love --- including the love of those who know us and God, and who can help empower us to choose and continue to receive Life at every turn. In my own life those persons are a rare and precious gift. They include those who have agreed to serve me as spiritual director, as well as Director or delegate on behalf of my bishop and diocese to be sure that this vocation is lived well and in a way which is edifying to the life of the church and the understanding of all the faithful. 

The irony is that I could never be a hermit as c 603 defines one and as Christian tradition understands us without the assistance of others. I could never live the aloneness of a hermit with an ecclesial vocation by myself. To say with my life that God alone is sufficient for us, requires not just being embedded in the People of God and in God's own life, it requires those others who mediate God's love to me and remind me of those for whom I live as well. Even as a recluse (were I to find myself called to this even rarer form of eremitical life) I would require others, and that means others to and for whom I would feel grateful, those I would pray for, come to know in one way and another, and whose lives would therefore enrich the tapestry of my life as integral threads composing dimensions of my solitude. 

I'll stop this here, because I think I could keep writing for quite a while on this critical paradox. If you haven't read the following post, you should give it a look. It approaches some dimensions of this response -- becoming human, becoming holy, etc. -- with different imagery. That might be helpful to you. Inner Work and transparency to God As always, please get back to me if you have additional questions! 

Reflections on the Eremitical Vocation from the perspective of Allegri's "Miserere Mei, Deus"

Recently, in part because of the question I was asked about whether or not a hermit could or should sing office, I have been thinking more about the various tensions that exist in the eremitical vocation, especially the tension that exists between ecclesiality and solitude and also that between physical silence and what canon 603 calls "the silence of solitude". While I was listening to a favorite piece of music -- Allegri's Miserere Mei, Deus done by the Tenebrae Choir  under the direction of Nigel Short -- I thought I could see a perfect representation of these elements and the tensions that exist between them at work in what is one of the most beautiful pieces I know. In some ways they reflect in a more vivid way the dynamics I know personally not only from living as a hermit with an ecclesial vocation, but also from playing violin both alone and in chamber groups and orchestras. I'll say a little about what I heard and saw in this production that was helpful to me in thinking about these central vocational elements and tensions below, but for now you might listen to this piece once or twice before reading on.

 

What struck me first is the dialogical nature of the work --- dialogical in a broad yet still profoundly personal sense of the term. Each and every person is dedicated to listening and responding on a number of levels, first of all to the composer and his music, notations, and text, but also to the director who interprets these realities and communicates this to the singers in gestures and expressions.  Every person is listening not only to themselves and the quality of sound they are producing, but to every other person in the ensemble. Each person is listening to a pulse within themselves which moves through the music and silences (rests) as well as to a mental sense of the music-as-heard over many different and differing performances. These will all guide the music each singer makes in response as they perform or live this work with personal and musical integrity.

What also struck me about this particular performance is the way one can hear the massed sound of all the voices but also clearly distinguish the individual voices (sometimes with the aid of one's eyes as different singers enunciate different syllables and/or notes in time --- we listen with all of our senses). The singers blend perfectly but they only do so insofar as they sing their own part in careful response to the the dynamic context which lets them be themselves alone in relationship. I was reminded most of the ecclesial nature of the eremitical vocation as I thought about this --- the way a beautiful performance is enhanced and completed only as it is sung/lived as an integral part of the whole. I thought this was especially true of the young male soloist whose silence was as critical to the balance and completion of the music as were his solos.

The way the schola in the main stands apart from the larger choir and at times is entirely silent but still very much part of the music as they listen so as to respond appropriately also made me think of the distinction between physical silence and the silence of solitude. And again, that was even more clear to me with the single voice of the young man standing up and "apart" in the arches above the nave and schola. His voice was often "heard" only in its silence and always in relation to others' welcoming  or receptive silence. How very much more than simple physical silence is this listening and participative silence!! It is foundational to the whole piece. When I think as well of the hidden but still-startlingly pervasive presence of the composer, his music, notations (not always easy to imagine what is meant here or there!), and depth of meaning of the text he is communicating, I think of the presence and place of God in the hermit's life --- and again, of the meaning of being bound to obedience in all of the myriad ways we must each allow and achieve if the music we are called to be is to be realized in all of its potential.

And finally, I was struck (and moved with a kind of poignant joy) at the way the now-silent soloist remained apart but very much present in the performance as the schola moved closer to the choir during the last portion of the piece and joined them in singing it. Again, a striking symbol or image for me of the profound difference between eremitical solitude or eremitical anachoresis (withdrawal) and being a lone person or individualist. It is the distinction between belonging integrally to the choir while making music in one's silence and merely standing apart mutely. It is this kind of silence the hermit brings to the Church as a whole, the charism or gift quality of eremitical life c 603 calls "the silence of solitude". As I have written here before, my very first experience of solitude (as opposed to isolation) and also of genuine community was of playing violin, both alone and in orchestra. That was in grade school when I was nine or ten. Now, all these years later music is still the most vivid symbol for my own understanding the nature of eremitical life and what canon 603 could well refer to instead as "the deep music of personal wholeness and holiness in God".

N.B., I am aware there were things which struck me about the Allegri which I haven't mentioned here --- not least the incredible control, power, and brilliance of the diminutive soprano doing the very high solo line. I thought how incredibly suited the human voice is for this and what an incredible instrument God has made in us as I watched and listened to her sing. In this way too we are language events. I was also struck afresh at how it is the way tensions are created and resolved in music that makes the most wonderful harmonies and create moments of real transcendence. Perhaps some of you will have other observations or reflections on the way the piece resonates with your own understanding of eremitical life or prayer, etc.

The text in both Latin and English can be found online (or cf. Psalm 51). Gregorio Allegri: Miserere Mei, Deus

On the Correspondence Between Paul Giustiniani's Vision of Eremitical Life and The Central Elements of c 603

Dear Sister, I saw an exchange between you and another hermit on a list for hermits. (I am not one but I aspire to be.) He is non-canonical and you are canonical. Near the end of the discussion he said that you and he have completely different conceptions of hermit. I wondered what the differences are between his notion of a hermit and your own.]]

Thanks for the question. I can't say very much about his idea of eremitical life because I haven't seen him post much about it. He has cited the work of Merton's friend, Dom Jean LeClercq and his fine work,  Alone With God. I believe all of his ideas of hermit life come from there since he made a comment which contrasted other forms of eremitical life with that found in Alone With God.  The conception of the hermit in this book is Paul Giustiniani's, a Monte Corona Camaldolese founder and hermit who broke away from the original Camaldolese when he was driven to reform them. His eremitism as described by LeClercq, was constituted as a 1) pure contemplative, 2) living in solitude and pure poverty or simplicity, 3) living in and with God in Christ and aiming for total union with God. One other thing which might be said to contextualize or provide a framework for all of these, and constitute a fourth element is what Paul Giustiniani  describes as 4) the "role of the hermit in the church." This is really critical because how ever we approach those first three elements above, insofar as we are Christian hermits, we must do so within the Church and on behalf of the Church. It is also here in relation to this last element, that, in reflecting on the eremitical vocation and other vocations in the church, Giustiniani perceives the importance of diversity within unity.

In other words, Giustiniani's vision opens up a strong notion of the hermit whose solitude is marked and framed by community with and within the whole church in Christ, including what we would call today, "A preferential option for the poor" and all the necessary conditions of a life of the silence of solitude in order to grow in communion with Christ to the point of union. The ecclesial framework of eremitical life was very important to Giustiniani. So are states of life which allow for differing expressions of the eremitic life. Giustiniani accepts that the religious (we would also say consecrated) state is far safer for living a good eremitical life. This is so because it allows for  Rule and legitimate superior who can exercise the ministry of authority. Generally speaking, that is my understanding of Giustiniani's view of eremitical life.

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

Now, I don't know this for certain but it seems to me the authors and consultants on c 603 drew in major ways from Alone with God and the concerns and observations of Paul Giustiniani when they created this first-ever universal (canonical) way for solitary hermits to become the kind of hermits Giustiniani always desired. Canon 603, the canon by which my own eremitic life is lived sounds to me very like what Giustiniani considered essential for good hermits on their way to union with God in Christ; it includes: 1) stricter separation from the world, 2 assiduous prayer and penance, 3) the silence of solitude, 4) the evangelical councils embraced by vow or other sacred bond, all 5) lived according to the Rule the hermit writes for herself and all lived 6) under the supervision of the diocesan bishop (who exercises the ministry of authority for the hermit).  The two approaches to eremitic life seem very similar to me, so I can't understand how the person you referred to might have affirmed he and I each hold completely different conceptions of what a hermit is. If he doesn't hold Giustiniani's view of ecclesial import and the place of obedience and legitimate superiors, then he has not said that. At the same time, he does seem to hold some antipathy towards institutionalization and considers it antithetical to eremitical life -- so in that he may differ from both Giustiniani and myself depending on what is meant by "institutionalization."

This is very general and was merely meant to describe Giustiniani's view of eremitical  life and the way it largely corresponds to canon 603. Please ask for clarifications if there are things you want me to go into in more detail. I am actually pretty excited to reread Alone With God and to consider where I am in my life in comparison to what Paul Giustiniani describes and even requires, so I will post more on this comparison I think. It's a great subject and if you have more questions, it could be helpful because they would fit right in. Again, thanks for the question!

Is This Correct? What Happens When. . .?

[[ Sister Laurel, is this correct? "If, for example, a diocese hermit had a new bishop come to the diocese, and that bishop did not want diocese hermits, the diocese hermit would need to find a diocese in which the bishop was accepting hermits under his direction, and relocate. Or, such as a diocese hermit in the UK, when a serious illness occurred, that hermit had to relocate to be close to medical facilities and practitioners, so has had to ask the diocese bishop of the diocese in which she had to relocate, to accept this hermit's diocese hermit designation. If the bishop of the new diocese would decline, then the diocese hermit would need to accept being a hermit of the traditional, historical type and not be that of CL603. These are just hypothetical situations and examples"]]

Thanks for the question. The first statement is entirely incorrect. Remember, a diocesan hermit does not make her vows to a particular bishop. She makes them to God in the bishop's hands. In so doing she becomes a hermit of the Diocese of x --- rather like diocesan priests are priests not just in a particular diocese but priests of a specific diocese. When a new bishop comes to a diocese a diocesan hermit in perpetual vows does not need to worry about relocating at all. The new bishop assumes pastoral/episcopal responsibility for the whole diocese and that includes any and all diocesan hermits. My own profession, for instance, is perpetual and canonical. I have been given a particular "standing in law" and my vocation is governed on the diocesan level (though recognized by the universal Church), no matter who is or becomes the bishop. When I speak of the rights and obligations of canonical standing, freedom from arbitrary situations like the one described in your quotation are part of the "rights" involved.

Nothing undoes this canonical standing except a formal (i,e., canonical) act of dispensation. There is nothing  hypothetical about this situation (nor that of Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio). There have been four bishops since I have been professed and consecrated (one was interim). This means I have had three different bishops as legitimate superiors (the Vicar for Religious served during the interim). There was never the least question about my ceasing to be a diocesan hermit due to these shifts. Now, it may be true that a bishop sympathetic to the vocation does a better job in relation to his pastoral role with a diocesan hermit than one who is not open to using c 603, but the hermit is perpetually professed and a new bishop becomes the new superior whether he agrees with the implementation of c 603 or not.

New Bishops in Cases of Temporary Profession:

If, on the other hand, a diocesan hermit is only temporary professed under c 603 (and therefore, also not yet solemnly consecrated),  and a new bishop is installed who does not want to implement c 603, there is a chance he could simply allow those vows to lapse and refuse to admit the hermit to perpetual profession. I have never heard of such a case. My sense is that, instead, the bishop would recognize the time and significant process (and commitment!) that is already spent and underway; he would discern in good faith this particular vocation even if he had already decided not to admit anyone else to profession under c 603 in the foreseeable future. Since he can easily delegate someone to be the hermit's superior and act as such for him, such a situation would not be onerous. Moreover (at least this tends to be true in larger dioceses), since bishops rarely deal with hermits until the Vicars for Religious are ready to recommend profession, the c 603 vocations are, again, not a burdensome matter for bishops.

After all, when one is temporary professed there have to be really good reasons for not admitting her to perpetual profession and consecration. A bishop can honestly discern reasons not to admit to perpetual profession, of course, but these will be done in good faith and not merely because of personal bias. (When one makes temporary vows, personally speaking, one is still disposing of one's life entirely; one is giving oneself to God and his People without limits, despite the temporary nature of the vow itself. This capacity is necessary if one is to be admitted to vows at all, even when the vow itself is temporary.) Remember too, others are and have also been involved in the process of discernment over a period of years. We are dealing with Divine vocations to the consecrated state and, generally speaking, bishops will not act whimsically.

Moving in Cases of Medical Necessity:

In medical situations like of those like Sister Rachel Denton in the UK, one would need to know the whole situation to say how inevitable the outlined solution is.This is because what is also true is that when one needs to relocate because of medical needs, the situation can be temporary or permanent. If it is a temporary situation and the hermit is perpetually professed, my sense is the hermit's bishop would speak to the bishop in the new locale and assure the hermit's ability to continue to live her public profession with the assistance of the new bishop --- much as when a priest is moved temporarily and granted temporary faculties. A hermit's diocese will, among other things, assure the hermit is professed and in good standing.

It is only when the relocation is a permanent one that the new bishop must  accept the hermit's vows and assume full responsibility for such a vocation in his diocese. In the case of medical need I think it would be unusual for a bishop to refuse to accept the hermit's vows. His acceptance of this hermit in this situation would not need to mean a change in diocesan policy if the bishop was otherwise unwilling to implement c 603. However, if the bishop refuses and one moves permanently to this diocese anyway, then one's vows cease to be binding due to a material change in the circumstances under which they are valid. The original diocese may dispense the vows or otherwise declare the material change renders the vows invalid. (I don't know if they can or prudently need to do both.) What is clear is that in such a situation, the hermit leaves the consecrated state and returns to the lay state whether or not she continues to live as a hermit.

If, on the other hand, the vows are temporary, several different things can happen. Hopefully the medical treatment will allow the hermit to return to her diocese and truly live eremitical life in time to make perpetual profession. If not, both the hermit and the home diocese will need to decide what to do. So long as adequate supervision and regular spiritual direction can be maintained, renewing temporary vows while on "medical leave" of some sort is a possibility. Expediting perpetual vows is also possible (and most charitable) in some cases. Approaching the new diocese for admission to profession (whether temporary or perpetual) is another option so long as one can live one's Rule. Canon 603 is no longer an untried and entirely novel vocation. We now have examples of well-lived and edifying eremitical lives, rare though this vocation will always be. As a result, once a hermit has been professed under c 603 people will ordinarily work to discern the best thing for the hermit and for this canonical vocation itself.

Reminder to all readers, if there is a link for your source, please include it with your question.

On Canonical Standing and Responsible Freedom

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you write that one of the reasons some hermits choose canonical standing is because of the freedom it gives them from being concerned with peoples' opinions about them was this your own reason for seeking canonical standing? I am asking because it seems kind of petty to be concerned about what people think of you or your vocation.]]

Thanks for your question. Yes, it can be petty to be concerned re what people think about you or your vocation, I agree. But the situation I was responding to in my other post seemed to me to be about more than that. It involved what I heard to be an intensely critical attitude of others which, in my own experience, is an intensification of an entire constellation of beliefs and attitudes which we might call "the world". Namely, the person writing me found that much of his choices regarding prayer, silence and solitude, his likes, attempts to be faithful to his deepest self, and so forth, were being criticized and more, actually conflicted with much of what the world around him considers "normal" or perhaps, "healthy" (although that is not a word he used in his questions). When this sort of global "attitude" is what one meets at every turn in one's attempts to be faithful to one's call, it can be destructive as it eats away at one's confidence in the soundness of one's discernment. Thus it leads to temptation, mainly the temptation to conform oneself to the beliefs, attitudes, activities and general culture of those surrounding one but potentially at the expense of one's integrity and deepest self.

At such times, having one's discernment confirmed by those in leadership in the Church can result in a form of freedom. As a result of such confirmation one is able to trust in one's discernment even in times of difficulty and doubt and this is immensely empowering. In the solitude of the hermitage one continues to pray, work, and study in silence with and in the presence of God; over time one will find one's certainty of one's vocation deepens and pervades every moment and mood of one's life but there must be this essential freedom to disregard the culture that has, until this time, defined a whole constellation of what was considered normal and worthy of being aspired to. Canonical standing, which always comes only after a significant period of mutual discernment and which is accompanied by the assumption of public rights and obligations, is incredibly important in establishing a person in a vocation which is little-understood, less-esteemed, and often caricatured with the help of stereotypes and those who live the vocation badly or just eccentrically. So yes, I affirm canonical standing as an important context allowing hermits, especially those who must live in urban and other populated settings, to persevere and mature in their vocations.

However, while this is a valid and important reason for seeking canonical standing, I don't think it is a sufficient reason for doing so. Instead I think there are two other reasons which are more important: First,  the eremitical vocation I live is an ecclesial vocation. It "belongs to the Church" and was entrusted to her by Christ. This vocation recognizes "the silence of solitude" not only as the physical context of the life, but also as the goal of the life (we are to come to the stillness and peace of life in God, and thus to the fullness of human existence where God alone completes us), and the unique gift or "charism" hermits bring to the Church and world. Second, the ecclesial hermit is meant to witness to the Gospel of God in Christ; she is called to witness to the way in which the Gospel saves. Ecclesial hermits will have had a an experience in silence and solitude which is profoundly redemptive and will need to witness to this movement of the Holy Spirit. (cf., On the Redemptive Experience at the Heart of the Eremitical Vocation)

In my own life I embraced eremitical life and especially canonical eremitical life for these three reasons. The most important one, to my mind, is the need to witness to the redemptive way God has worked in my life in the silence of solitude. It is important to note that as I understand it, this cannot be separated from the ecclesial nature of my vocation, nor from its public nature; instead, it makes this public and ecclesial context essential. The Gospel is entrusted to the Church. It lives and works first of all in her midst and is the very reason for her existence. For me personally, seeking canonical standing was the only way to continue living such a vocation and meet the requirements of eremitical life in real and literally responsible freedom. I hope this is helpful.

Once Again on the Importance of Canonical Standing in Nurturing and Supporting the Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister, I wondered if one of the reasons you support canonical standing for hermits has to do with the difficulty and importance of people understanding that solitude is more about communion or community than it is about isolation? What I was thinking was that it takes people to discern whether one is living an isolated life or one of eremitical solitude and the individual might not even know the difference. I also wondered if countering stereotypes of hermits is part of this same need for canonical standing or Church approval. Is this the reason the Church requires the hermit to jump through so many "hoops" to be professed canonically? I think you have written about this some. Lastly, I wondered if your own distinction between isolation and solitude as a "unique form of community" is rooted in your own experience of isolation or of growing to maturity in eremitical solitude? I don't think you have said much about this.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are excellent and it is very cool to hear you were wondering about this! I think I have written about all of these things except perhaps my own experience with/of isolation; I know I did some writing about the importance of canonical standing in On Hermit Ministry and the Call to Become God's Own Prayer and there may be another recent article that did the same. You might check under the label "solitude vs isolation" to see some of the ways I have approached this topic, especially as the place of the Church's discernment is revealed; the same is true of the label "eremitism as ecclesial" (or variations of this). One clarification, I do think canonical standing is important for hermits who live their vocations in the name of the Church, and I believe that strictly speaking, eremitical life is a gift of God to the Church and World which needs to be governed and supervised --- not always easy with such a prophetic vocation, but necessary nonetheless. At the same time I believe that many more than these relative few (consecrated/canonical hermits) are called instead to be lay hermits and to live eremitical life with the aid of spiritual directors and the support of their parishes; I also believe that the Church and world can and should benefit significantly from these lay eremitical lives --- no less than they do from the lives of consecrated hermits.

Difficulties in Discerning the Difference between Isolated Persons and Hermits:

That said, I do agree that there can be a significant difficulty in discerning the difference between an isolated person and one who has been embraced by and herself embraced eremitical solitude. (Remember that Merton writes poignantly about the necessity of solitude herself opening the door to the one who would be a hermit!) It requires a real knowledge of the person's heart and her commitment to and relationship with Life, Truth, and Love,  not merely a sense of the external silence and physical solitude of the person's life. I also agree that the process of discernment associated with the relatively long journey toward eremitical profession and consecration (always public or canonical in nature!) is a central way the Church lays bare and resolves this difficult question on a case-by-case basis. But the general difficulty remains and is evident even in newsletters, etc., which are meant to support and nurture eremitical vocations per se. One of the reasons I am not particularly enthusiastic about the self-identification so prevalent in forums like that of Raven's Bread (a newsletter for hermits, solitaries, and others who love solitude), for instance. is because just about anyone can call themselves a hermit and never feel a need to draw important distinctions regarding motivation, personal woundedness vs relative wholeness, historical and ecclesial understandings of the vocation, or to attend much to the tradition of eremitical life.

In today's excessively individualistic society everything from  an intolerant or self-indulgent cocooning to agoraphobia and misanthropy can be subsumed under the rubric "eremitism" in order to attempt to validate expressions of selfishness and woundedness while escaping the need for responsibility to Church and world in regard to a vocation which is meant for the edification of others via a unique proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This tendency to re-brand any number of social deficiencies and "disorders" as "eremitism" because solitude is defined only in terms of physical aloneness goes hand in hand with the tendency to rebrand or redefine license as authentic freedom. But eremitical solitude is only partly about physical solitude; at its heart it is about communion -- communion with God, with oneself, and with all others, communion which vividly defines the nature of the human being as a covenantal reality and human freedom as the counterpart of divine sovereignty.

In any case, just because someone says, "I am a hermit" in today's world does not mean they are one --- at least not as the Church understands the term; you are exactly right in pointing to the need for discernment in this. Even more important than the distinction between solitude and isolation in the need for canonical standing is the way in which this distinction is achieved and the reality it witnesses to in the authentic hermit: namely through her experience of the love of God in Christ which heals and transforms isolation into solitude. Because the canonical hermit is very specifically called and commissioned to live a solitude which vividly and consciously proclaims the life and love of God, the mutual discernment of the canonical process is necessary and helpful for all eremitical vocations. This is so because such a vocation results in wholeness, holiness, and a freedom expressed in compassionate self-gift rather than an isolation associated with personal woundedness, lack of freedom, a lack of generosity, and the incapacity for compassion or sacrifice. Distinguishing between these dimensions (solitude vs isolation, healthy withdrawal vs unhealthy withdrawal) in oneself is difficult; they can co-exist, especially in the beginning of an eremitical life when so much is ambiguous and still needs to be sorted out, integrated, or formed.

Fooling Ourselves and Misleading Others: The Importance of Mutual Discernment

Moreover, apart from this, our ability to fool ourselves and justify isolation --- especially by applying a label like "hermit" to validate this, by uncritically comparing ourselves to "hermits" of different centuries with different (and sometimes less valid) or actually unhealthy sensibilities and spiritualities, or (when unhealthy withdrawal or selfish isolation are met with skepticism or concern) by concluding, for instance, that we are simply misunderstood by "the world" which we believe we are somehow superior to spiritually or otherwise --- is simply too easy to do. But in these situations the so-called "hermit" will never witness adequately to the power of the love of God which unites her with all God loves; she will never be able to proclaim the Gospel in the unique way a hermit called to human wholeness and holiness will.

It takes others to assess and assist the hermit in assessing the real nature of her physical solitude, her deep motivations, her understanding of the nature of the vocation itself, the place of her relationship with God in Christ and others, and her own wholeness and holiness, if they are to truly discern the presence of an eremitical vocation. This has always been true in the church but it is much more urgent since canon 603 and the possibility of dioceses accepting hermit candidates without long formation in religious and/or monastic life.  Further, because of the individualism of our society, eremitism looks like many other things today  but at its heart it is generously (sacrificially) countercultural. Thus, because it is lived for others it is not a facile rejection of the world outside the hermitage nor an expression of spiritualities which falsely hypostasize and demonize "the world". (See posts re Thomas Merton's treatment of the notion of "the world" for explanations of this.)  Countering this false and destructive approach to the world around us and other stereotypes and misconceptions is certainly a part of the importance of canonical standing and the sometimes-lengthy discernment those seeking profession require.

After all, how can a church be expected to profess individuals to a genuinely compassionate and generous eremitical life without making sure the distinction between isolation and eremitical solitude is something candidates for profession and consecration have come to understand on the basis of long-experience, prayer, and even struggle to love effectively while embracing the life of a hermit? I sincerely believe the "hoops" we often refer to having candidates jump through are not usually onerous and are completely reasonable as the Church attempts to adequately embrace and celebrate the gift which God has given her in the midst of a world so often marked and marred by individualism and license. This is especially true given the uniqueness of each vocation and the way each candidate serves to educate the Church on the way the Holy Spirit brings individuals to an authentic eremitical vocation.

My Own Experience of the Distinction Between Isolation and Eremitical Solitude:

Your question about my own experience of isolation and growing to maturity in solitude is very perceptive. I insist that solitude is a unique experience of community partly because I have experienced the unhealthiness or destructiveness of isolation (physical, emotional, etc.) and its antithesis in the healing character of solitude,  partly because psychology and theology stress the importance of human relatedness (theology stresses this is our very nature), and partly because my own growth in solitary eremitical life (including the inner work I have undertaken over the past couple of years with my director) have each underscored this in its own complementary way.

Taking all these things together I would say I have been exploring the distinction between isolation and solitude for the whole of my life; I began long before I began doing so in a conscious way by focusing on eremitical solitude as a result of the publication of canon 603 in 1983. A number of factors made this necessary, not least significant childhood experiences of isolation and the effect of medically and surgically intractable epilepsy from the age of @ 19.  Similarly, the really positive influences in my life have underscored the communal nature of solitude along with the solitary pole of all community; that has been especially true with violin and orchestral playing, but also with academic work in Theology, my experience of community in religious life, work with physicians and others, and the gift of friendships, parish relationships, etc.

Without the deep and extensively-rooted sense that solitude represents the redemption of isolation, or the profound experience of being communal at our core, I do not know how I could have made sense of eremitical life or embraced it as a divine vocation. Thomas Merton's Contemplation in a World of Action captured my imagination but it did so because it spoke to and built on my life-experience of isolation vs. solitude. Without the experience of having the whole of my life being called to this particular form of self-gift, or the sense of the significance such a life holds where even many discrete gifts and talents are relinquished in order to witness to the way God alone creates, calls, and completes us as covenant partners in a relationship foundational for authentic human being, I could only have rejected eremitical life as the epitome of an unhealthy and inhuman withdrawal. For a host of reasons through the whole of my life I have been uniquely sensitized to isolation and marked with a hunger for genuine solitude. The inner work I have undertaken as part of spiritual direction is a commitment to being made more and more whole and holy in this kind of deeply relational or communal solitude.

By the way, in my emphasis on the ecclesial nature of this vocation this same dynamic is a defining element. While it is true that I often speak of ecclesial vocations in terms of ecclesial rights, obligations, and stable and governing structures, the communal nature of every such vocation is at the heart of the term "ecclesial". Ecclesial vocations represent vocations summoned forth by God from the "called ones" constituting the ecclesia. We say canonical hermits live eremitical life in the name of the Church and by that we mean such hermits are specifically authorized to live these vocations in the power and as an instance of the presence of the ecclesia. In other words, all such vocations are commissioned by the Church; they are nourished by, embraced on behalf of that community and missioned by and for that same community as well as those outside it; finally they are lived in a way which edifies (builds up) the faith community/ecclesia. While it does happen, it is hard for me to conceive how someone claiming to be called by God to be a canonical hermit could  honestly accept consecration to this ecclesial vocation if she failed to appreciate the communal dimension of her solitude and was committed to an individualistic isolation instead of eremitical solitude.