Follow-up on C 603 as Paradigm: Support of Law Does Not Need to Imply Legalism

[[The canonical hermit who has done much to perpetuate various precedents created by said person, has written a lengthy and seemingly sound refutation of my comments and questions below. What this person writes in disagreeing what I have set forth, and now has added on years that have grown exponentially to what was this person's previous length of time as a hermit, is not scripturally based nor accurate other than is from the person's legalistic view of the Body of Christ and Christ as Head, of which Jesus decried such aspects that the high priests, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees of His time on earth had so created a contorted legalistic form of religion and spiritual life in the Jewish faith and lived out in the temples as well as were imposed on the Jewish people. ]]

The comments in italics were the responses offered to my last post (cf link below). I think this view of canonical forms of eremitical life is very unfortunate. Because canonical hermits live their lives in a way the church considers normative, because they submit their lives to certain canons (norms) to serve the church in answering their vocation, does not make them Pharisees, nor does it make their attitude towards religion, spirituality, or the eremitical vocation "legalistic". Whether living eremitical life in a canonical congregation like the Carthusians, Camaldolese, Carmelite, Monastic Family of Bethlehem, et al., or as solitary hermits under C 603 as I and others do, we have simply accepted a place in the church's own service to the whole world. As I have written before, law can and is meant to serve love. The religious I know, including canonical hermits (solitary and otherwise), recognize that law helps establish and nurture the contexts in which they can live their vocations ever more deeply and faithfully. Once they are perpetually professed and consecrated, law is not ordinarily a particular focus of their lives. Still, standing in law is part of what establishes their freedom to explore the heights and depths of the world the canon(s) governing their lives establish.

I think most of us understand this. None of us live without the constraints, freedom, and other benefits provided by law. Legally we rent homes and apartments, own, insure, and drive cars, attend schools and universities, and provide for families and ourselves via wills, durable powers of attorney, mortgages, bank accounts, contracts of all sorts (even library cards represent a contract with legal terms and conditions that bind us and the libraries we patronize). All of these and many more imply and require norms that protect and free us to live without unnecessary concern for safety or inordinate liabilities. (Think again of the "lowly" library card and the vast worlds this contract opens up to us!!) If we are professionals (medical, educational, pastoral counseling, etc.) we are certified or licensed and work under specific codes of conduct. Ordinarily, we internalize these norms and refer to them only when we face more complicated or unusual situations than is commonly the case. 

As members of the Church, we know there are canons and other norms under which we live our lives -- though I would bet few could name these. Baptism results in our falling under such norms as laos, members of the laity, the People. Consecration and Ordination result in further norms that are extended to us and that we freely embrace because they serve our vocations. Such norms tend to provide us a well-defined and countercultural realm of freedom in which our lives in Christ can thrive and grow. We hardly bump up against the limits created by such canons (norms) on a daily basis nor do they become Pharisaical or the occasion of scrupulosity.

[[This manner of humankind creating what they wish and adding on to what humankind creates in legalisms yet in our times or in recent times is what most hermits such as St. Bruno, gave pause and ponder, and thus left the temporal world including the temporal system and structure, and left for the farthest reaches of the Alps in which to draw nigh on to Christ and to worship and pray, to be Christian in the freedom of silence of solitude, praise of God, and intimacy with Christ that yet lifted up and strengthened the entire Body of Christ. Bruno had lived enough of the very aspects of this person who persists in making up what is not in many aspects in fact.]] 

In fact, laws, and legalisms are different things. In a time when people cannot usually go off into a physical desert to become a hermit and leave "the world" behind, it is the creation of norms like c 603 that help allow human beings to step away from "the world" into a hermitage whose character is defined by the Church based on her long history with hermits. But Canon 603 truly is a law that serves love; it combines both the structure necessary to define a desert space dedicated to Christ in the prayer-filled silence of solitude, and the flexibility needed to respond freely to Christ in the power of the Spirit. This is Law and it is associated with legalities serving the healthy spiritual and human growth of the hermit according to the terms of the Canon and the hermit's own Rule of Life, but it has nothing to do with legalism per se.

And in fact, Saint Bruno never "left the temporal world" (until his death, that is). He did, however, resist the predations of a destructive secularity on and within the Church. After spending some decades teaching and serving in other significant roles, in a Church riven with Papal division and struggles against corruption, he refused to be made a bishop and opted for a life of eremitical solitude. However, when he went with six of his friends off into the Southern Alps, he did so under the authority of Bishop Hugh of Grenoble who installed these seven men in the first location of what would become the Grand Chartreuse. This installation was a matter of ecclesiastical law. Thus, Bruno's group became a canonical foundation and the Carthusians enjoyed the protection of the Church as well as the natural isolation of the Alps. Because of both of these factors, Bruno and his Carthusians developed a normative and unique form of eremitical life that has stood the test of time. The Carthusians today (and new institutes founded in their spirit) are canonical in the same way all religious and diocesan hermits are canonical. Law helps protect the spiritual well-being, priorities, and decisions of those living under such canons, but it neither dominates nor motivates their lives.

[[I have provided the person with more platform than is warranted or healthy for the misinformation that comes forth, so will leave off the topic of which I do believe, however, that there will be increasing "hermits" of the canon law provision, simply due to the public promotion and position, prestige of sorts, and aspect of thinking "legal" and "approved" is preferred to following in the footsteps, heart, mind, and spirit of Christ's teachings and life as He exemplified on earth and as it is in His Real Presence here and in Heaven.]]

There is no need to place canonical standing in opposition to following in the footsteps of Jesus. They are not mutually exclusive. To treat them in this way is simplistic and very short-sighted. I sincerely hope there are more properly motivated and formed canonical hermits under c 603 whose relation to law is a healthy one that opens them more fully to the Spirit of God; I am trying to do my part to contribute to this whole dynamic making sure this is the case. It is a part of my vocation that surprises and gratifies me. While many people have contacted me evincing various levels and types of interest in Canon 603 vocations, I have yet to meet a serious candidate for C 603 profession and consecration who is successful in her petition to be admitted to these, while choosing this vocation as a means to prestige, public promotion, etc. 

Meanwhile, just as I pray for all eremitical vocations, I pray for increasing canonical vocations amongst the Camaldolese, Carthusians, Carmelites, and others as well. Each of these has existed as "canonical" (with Church-approved constitutions and statutes) for many centuries --- long before there was a universal Code of Canon Law (1917) --- and above all, like all religious in the Church, members have and do follow Jesus and allow God to shape them as Imago Christi in the power of the Holy Spirit. I doubt very much the author of these comments could sincerely take exception to this observation, at least not without disparaging all religious in the Church. (cf., Christian Catholic Mystic Hermit, Note added on 9/4 to a post from 19. August. 2023.)

On Eremitical Freedom and the Place of Limited Institutionalization

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I appreciate canon 603 and the vocation it defines and governs. However, I am a lay hermit who regards the freedom of eremitical life even more than that. It seems to me that when something like eremitical life is institutionalized we lose the freedom it is so famous for. So when you write about the rights, obligations, and expectations linked to canonical standing I hear the clinking of chains and the destruction of a vocation with the limits imposed by canon law. I know you don't agree with this and I am not really expecting you to respond to it but I hope you see how counterintuitive it is to say, "Yes, I have accepted the constraints of canon law and done so while respecting the traditional freedom of the eremitical vocation."]]

Thanks for your comments. I will respond to them only briefly with brand new material because, while I will also reprise a post I wrote fairly recently (January 2020), I need to comment specifically on your point about something being counterintuitive. Remember that in Christianity there is a good deal which is counterintuitive: it is in weakness that we find strength most fully revealed, earthen vessels that are the most worthy vessels of an inestimable divine treasure (true whether we are talking about the Incarnation or our own participation in that), wealth in poverty is counterintuitive, as is glorification in abject shame or overarching success in failure, etc, etc. Some would argue that these paradoxes which stand at the heart of Christianity reveal a truth that is often, perhaps always, counterintuitive.

Freedom in Christian theology is also counterintuitive which is why it is often rejected or mistaken for license. Freedom is the power to become/be the persons we are called to be by God and it will always involve constraints. Always. Similarly, eremitical solitude is a form, albeit a unique one, of community. That this is counterintuitive is one of the reasons individualism is often allowed to replace eremitical solitude and freedom. So yes, I disagree that the (careful and limited) institutionalization of eremitical life destroys it (ask any Carthusian or Camaldolese or Carmelite hermit if they believe (careful) institutionalization does so!). Freedom  to become and be the persons we are called to be, especially when that means communion and union with God, requires constraints; it requires structure, support, and the kinds of limitations that make sure there is integrity, focus, and perspective. (I apologize for the related comments on fraud in the post reprised below. When I have more time I will try to edit that out.)


[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive.

In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church has found to insure maximal responsiveness to God and be maximally fruitful for the Church, the world, and of course for one's own call to human wholeness and holiness. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God Who blows where she will; the second is not, it is worldly (or fleshly) as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make. . . .]]

Hermit Sisters of Mary and Marymount Hermitage

[[Dear Sister, do you know the hermit Sisters at Marymount Hermitage in Mesa, ID? I was wondering if they were "the real deal"? If they are, are they c 603 hermits? You see, I have been thinking about eremitical life but I think I would like to live in a laura of hermits. Since I live a couple of hundred miles from them and since my grown children live in Boise, I thought maybe they would suit me. Can you recommend them? Will they accept a divorced woman?]]

I do know the Sisters of Marymount Hermitage, yes, but not well. I first wrote them around 1984 or 1985 after canon 603 was first published. At the time there were two Sisters there, Sisters Rebecca and Beverly; they were very responsive and helpful to me in those early years of canon 603's new life. Occasionally, I check their website to see how they are doing (they have good newsletters there) but, until I checked the website this morning, it had been a while since I had done that. Yes, they are (or were originally) c 603 hermits but I believe they were considering establishing themselves canonically as an institute of consecrated life. I'm not sure I have that exactly right, where they stand with that now, or how far they ever got with the process. I believe one of them (Sister Rebecca) is now living in a convent in OR where she can receive skilled nursing care. I don't know if they ever grew beyond just Sisters Rebecca and Beverly. I  do believe there might have been a third Sister as well. I do know that personally, I resonate with their spirituality; it is 1) Benedictine, 2) rooted in the Desert Ammas and Abbas, and 3) an authentic expression of the high desert in which the Hermitage is located. (Personally I love the high desert; it may be one of my favorite settings in the entire world.)

Still, I'm sorry. I can't say I know enough about them currently to recommend them or not. Yes, they are definitely "the real deal". They have been living this life since around the first anniversary of canon 603 and maybe a year or so before I first contacted them. That means they have lived as hermits for about 37 years or so and, like many of us, came at it from religious life. My sense is they have a good relationship with their new bishop (Bp Peter Christiansen, Bishop of Boise) who has been their local ordinary for about 5 years. They also clearly receive support of parishes in the area. (That is, members of parishes come to help with maintenance and have done so with building needs in the past, etc. 

However, I also have reservations. One thing in particular gives me pause when I consider whether to recommend them or not because you specifically said you were drawn to a lavra; however, as far as I know, only Sister Beverly now lives at Marymount. Because I don't know either her age or the state of her health (or yours for that matter!) I ask you bear in mind that you are considering associating yourself with a lavra which apparently consists of only one Sister; that is both a difficult and a precarious situation at best, especially if (as your remark about grown children suggests) you don't have a background in religious life or much experience with significant silence and solitude.

Your mention of adult children raises several issues on your side of the equation as well. The first issue is that of canonical freedom. Like anyone desiring to be professed and consecrated under c 603, you will need to be canonically free to be admitted to the community and, after suitable discernment and formation, profession and consecration. This would mean a.) if your spouse is deceased the marriage bond no longer exists and you are canonically free; b.) if your spouse is still living you will need to get a declaration of nullity to establish the fact of your own canonical freedom. The second issue is age. While eremitical life is ordinarily a second half of life vocation, communities still tend to have limits re how old one can be and still enter. This is something you will need to research with the Sisters and/or the diocese.  

A third issue is that of health and physical stamina. Marymount is very secluded and the weather is typically rugged for the high desert in a state that gets snow anyway. The physical plant is relatively large and requires good health to negotiate. I suggest you bear all this in mind and maybe arrange to make a retreat with them at the very least. The fourth issue is whether they have experience with forming solitary hermits or whether it is preferred they have already-professed c 603 hermits join them post-profession along with some experience living the vocation in other than a group setting. (This is especially important when a lavra appears to be coming to the end of its natural life as core members die, move to care facilities or convents, or are too remote to allow for regular caregivers to do what the other hermits either can't or are not really called to do.)

My best advice is that if you are really serious about testing a vocation with the Hermit Sisters of Mary or even just want to discuss it seriously, I would advise you to contact them and have several conversations with Sister Beverly and/or personnel of the Diocese of Boise.