On Wearing the Cowl While in Discernment

[[Dear Sister, when a person is  going through the discernment process of becoming a diocesan hermit can the cowl be worn?]]

Presuming you mean initial discernment with a diocese prior to admission to any profession, the simple answer is no. The cowl is only given with perpetual profession and then only when the diocesan Bishop grants the cowl canonically. (Not every Bishop does so and some hermits decide to use a different prayer garment.) A simple personal prayer garment can be used in private during the discernment period but cannot be worn publicly since this would imply public standing, rights, and obligations. Similarly, such a garment is NOT given to one by the Church but instead is privately or self-assumed.

In monastic communities a modified cowl (short sleeves, for instance) is given with simple (temporary) vows (and sometimes a shortened tunic, cape, or otherwise modified cowl (sans sleeves) is given with entrance into candidacy and the novitiate). The full cowl is always reserved for solemn profession (in the picture to the right Sister Ann Marie, OCSO, will receive the full cowl after she signs her vows just as Sister Karen, OSCO is shown doing below). Generally. a person just discerning whether or not they are truly called to consecrated eremitical life under c 603 is not allowed to wear a habit of any sort. Doing so is also linked to a public state of life with public rights and obligations as well as with the Bishop's permission and ordinarily someone in initial discernment is not in such a position.

Remember that a candidate for possible profession under c 603 is usually a lay person with the rights and obligations of any lay person. Because they are not being incorporated into a community in stages (postulancy, novitiate, juniorate, perpetual profession) with commensurate legal (canonical) rights and obligations they are solitary individuals bound "only" by their baptismal commitments. (I do not disparage such commitments by using "only" here. Baptismal commitments are extremely significant but public profession and consecration imply added canonical rights and obligations.)

Moreover, discernment as to whether one is actually meant to be a hermit of any sort can take a number of years. It simply makes little sense for such a person to be given permission to wear representative eremitical garb when they are neither hermits yet (the transition from lone individual to hermit in an essential sense is something one usually negotiates during discernment and initial formation)  nor canonically responsible for the continuation and protection of a vital eremitical tradition. Traditionally, the cowl is associated with the assumption of responsibility for living and representing the fullness of monastic and eremitical life in a formal and canonical sense. When one sees the cowl this is what it indicates or symbolizes. To be faithful to and retain this meaning it is necessary to restrict the ecclesial granting of it to the occasion of perpetual or solemn profession.

I hope this is helpful.

What Specifically does the Church Hold you Responsible For?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, recently you wrote: [[Especially we do these persons no favors by encouraging them to embrace pretense in the name of the God of Truth. In the end to do that is to betray their deepest longings and treat them as though they are either too unimportant to God to be called to live a significant (meaningful) vocation, or simply too weak to bear the vocation God truly HAS extended to them. This is so because in the Church, standing in law ("status") is always associated with the gift and challenge of responsibility. We do not recognize a person's real dignity nor show genuine respect for them by extending  standing --- much less allowing them to pretend to standing --- which is without commensurate responsibility.]] I understand what you are saying here and I am beginning to understand why you are concerned about people who pretend to a status they don't actually have. What is hard to see clearly is what responsibility or responsibilities a hermit takes on. When you talk about [being a hermit] "in the Name of the Church" that refers to responsibility, I know that. But what specifically does the Church hold you responsible for? Is any of this based on the Bible or is it all about Canon Law?]]

Thank you for the questions.  Let me begin with the last one which I believe is critically important. I think there are very clear Scriptural precedents for the Church's insistence that standing is inevitably associated with commensurate responsibilities. One of the most vivid is the parable of the Prodigal Son/Merciful Father. Remember that when the younger Son demanded "the property that would be his at his Father's death" he very specifically does NOT ask to assume the responsibilities of inheritance. In fact he rejects these outright. Despite some English translations of the text, he asks for the "ousia", the very "substance" of the material or wealth portion of the patrimony that would come to him at his Father's death, but he does not use "kleronomia", the usual word for inheritance. This is significant because asking for the inheritance (kleronomia) necessarily includes acceptance of leadership for the family, their wealth, honor, and general well-being. In fact, it includes the pledge that one will give one's life for the family if need be.

Instead this son effectively wishes his Father was dead, separates himself from the family, sells off his portion of the property for cheap (he does not bargain as is typical in the Middle Eastern culture but liquidates things quickly for whatever he can get in the moment) thus leaving his family in reduced circumstances; he then squanders the proceeds of his impulsivity, greed, and lack of compassion in "riotous (exorbitant) living" among foreigners. He becomes rootless, a wanderer without value or responsible role, someone who has exchanged the lasting or eternal for the entirely ephemeral. (By the way, it should be noted that in Jesus' day calling someone rootless in this way was an unpardonable offense; making oneself rootless was incredibly degrading.) 

Meanwhile, skipping ahead in the story, when the younger son returns home in yet even greater disgrace he is restored to Sonship and will be honored by all the village as the Father's Son because of the robe, ring and shoes with which his Father has clothed him. In other words, he has been re-established as one with genuine standing  in the People of God and real responsibility within and for the family and the family's honor and wealth. With standing comes responsibility. To take what is due a Son and to do so while cutting all ties, betraying and sundering all relationships, and selfishly relinquishing all responsibility for one's family or the People of God is the very essence of sin in this NT parable. Despite some distorted approaches to spirituality, and the genuine limitations of life as a  hermit, I would argue one cannot do these things in the name of eremitical life either. That way lies the disedifying isolation of counterfeits and curmudgeons rather than the ecclesial solitude of the Christian hermit.

Canonical Standing and Responsibility:

 To accept canonical standing then (e.g., that which comes with public profession and//or consecration) is to accept the responsibility to act in whatever way one is commissioned by the Church to do in her name. The same is true with regard to Sacramental relationships and standing: Baptism (Sacraments of Initiation), Marriage, Ordination all come with specific responsibilities within the Church and for the very life OF the Church. In my own life the specific obligations include: 1) an ecclesial vocation lived as an integral part of the Church's own life and holiness governed by both universal and proper law, 2) an eremitical vocation whose nature is defined by canon 603 and other canons related to consecrated or religious life. It includes stricter separation from the world (those things contrary or even resistant to Christ as well as those things which promise what only God can promise), assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels and all those imply, life according to an approved Rule I write myself, and the supervision of the diocesan Bishop and those he delegates to act as legitimate superiors and/or delegates (quasi-superiors).

In all this I (and all diocesan hermits) are specifically responsible for living the eremitical life in the heart of the Church as a continuation of the prophetic life of the Desert Fathers, the pastorally significant lives of medieval anchor-ites, along with the hidden witness of so many other hermits, and for extending this rich tradition in ways which meet contemporary needs and speak to contemporary culture. 3) As a representative of these I am also part of a parish and diocese; I was called forth from their midst and professed and consecrated in their presence with them witnessing, supporting, and celebrating. As solitary as a hermit's vocation is it is ecclesial and so I live this life in my parish's midst and serve them and others as my eremitical life makes possible.

Bearing the parable of the Prodigal Son/Merciful Father in mind, as a Sister (that is, as a professed religious), I am responsible in various limited ways for dimensions of the life of this parish family. There is something similarly true with regard to the diocese as such though ordinarily this is expressed in my commitment to parish life, or, occasionally, in diocesan events and diocese-wide celebrations, funerals, etc. It always means the parish and diocese are kept in my heart and prayer, but it sometimes means speaking at other parishes in the diocese, doing an occasional presentation at Contemplative Outreach or similar groups in the area, regarding desert spirituality, eremitical life, contemplative prayer, etc. In any case I am responsible not merely to be a hermit, but to be a hermit in the heart of the Church and to appropriately allow the fruits of my own solitary contemplative life to nurture the life of the familiy I know as the local parish and diocesan Church.

In terms of the universal Church I really do feel the obligation to live a life which is truly an extension of the eremitical tradition which has been part of her life since the 4th Century and certainly was an element of Jesus' own life, that of John the Baptist, Elijah, etc. And even beyond the universal Church is the world-at-large --- also searching, hurting, and yearning. Every person comes to communion with God in an essential solitude and the hermit's life reminds them of this. At the same time some effectively marginalized persons especially need the example of the hermit's solitude to come to a sense that their own isolation, no matter the circumstances causing or exacerbating it, can be redeemed through such communion.

Canon 603 is very specific about the hermit living her life for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Her own prayer --- intercessory and otherwise --- is very important here, but so is the entire solitary life she lives as a public person in the Church. The very hiddenness of the hermit's life is, paradoxically, actually part of her public identity and witness. After all, most of the struggle, love, work, and prayer we all do in our lives is hidden "from the eyes of men" and sometimes that can tempt us to abandon this for notoriety, etc. A hermit reminds everyone that this is unnnecessary and perhaps even illegitimate depending on what God wills in our lives. At the very least, the hermit's own life of essential hiddenness encourages patience and suggests a new way of seeing things. Especially it encourages us to see the dignity of our lives and the significance of whatever we do in and with God, no matter how ordinary or how hidden.

So I have a strong sense of responsibility in all of these ways. Moreover, as you very perceptively put the matter, the Church herself rightly holds me morally and legally responsible for living my life in these ways. Public profession and consecration establish a covenant between the individual professed and the Church more generally --- usually through an institute of consecrated life, but now with canon 603, through the hermit's diocese and local Bishop. The Church spells out some of this in the canon, but she fully (and rightly) expects the hermit who is publicly professed to concretize or make these obligations more specific in terms of her own prayer, study, reflection and response to the grace of God as it comes to her through the relationships that constitute her life. This is another reason it is very important that there be sufficient formation and mutual discernment before admitting someone to profession and (then) consecration under canon 603. Through canon 603 diocesan hermits give their lives to Christ and to those who belong to him in what is intended to be an irrevocable gift. Thus the Church that receives this gift needs to have the sense that the candidate has the necessary tools, sensibilities, maturity, and constitutive relationship with God and his Church to truly "flesh out" (or even incarnate) all of the potential which is profoundly embodied in this brief but richly pregnant canon.

Canonical or non-Canonical Hermits: Standing Comes with Responsibility, Rights with Obligations:

My own understanding of the Parable of the Merciful Father (aka Parable of the Prodigal Son) colors the way I see people who seek (or pretend to!) the status or standing of consecrated solitary hermits without accepting the responsibilities the Church associates with such standing. One's life in the Church always comes with commensurate responsibility. Standing as a publicly professed and/or consecrated person in the Church codifies such responsibilities in law. The Prodigal Son was given a robe, a ring, and sandals signifying his new standing in the family. It is not hard for the diocesan hermit to see or hear echoes of this story as the Bishop presents (or clothes her in) the prayer garment, eremitical tunic or scapular, and profession ring, or as he presents her a copy of his formal approval of her Rule which establishes it as binding on the hermit in law as well as morally.

Resonances of the Son's renewed acceptance of his place in protecting the patrimony of his family and People are not far from the hermit's heart when she makes her vows in the hands of the Bishop while resting them on the book of Gospels, or signs those same vows on the altar, or is congratulated and welcomed in her new standing by friends, family, and especially the whole parish community at the Eucharistic Feast. I would think the lay hermit who lives her eremitical life by virtue of her baptismal consecration alone might well perceive similar resonances with 1) her baptism which initiates her into the family of followers of Christ, 2) her anointing with chrism, 3) her clothing with the white baptismal garment, and 4) the giving of the baptismal candle which is accompanied with the commission to keep it burning brightly as a witness to others. In either case, and in all other instances of ecclesial commissioning, standing in the Church comes with responsibilities and rights are accompanied by obligations. The matter is both canonical and profoundly Scriptural but as I understand it, it is Scriptural long before it is canonical.

Followup on Hermits and Sunday Obligation

[[Sister Laurel, it was interesting to hear that the additional rights and obligations embraced by the c 603 hermit included the right to skip one's Sunday obligation sometimes in the name of the silence of solitude or stricter separation. [cf.,On Hermits and Sunday Obligation] What was even more interesting to me was the dynamic way the competing values of the solitary eremitical life and a baptized ecclesial life are worked out. There is a great deal of discernment and collaboration involved, isn't there? I have read what you have written about canonical standing and the creation of stable relationships but I don't think I really understood how important these would be in a hermit's life. They seemed a kind of legal formality to me before but now I see that they are critically important in living your life intelligently and faithfully. Thank you for clarifying this for me. ]]

Bp Remi De Roo, Bishop
Protector of c 603 forerunners

Thanks for your comments. Throughout the history of eremitical life the tension between solitude and community has been very real and often acute. Similarly, the danger of the solitary eremitical life has been spoken of with some passion throughout this same history. Sometimes this was because people understood the Biblical injunction one person cited here recently, "It is not good for mankind to be alone" --- especially when isolation bred psychosis or contributed to other forms of mental illness. Sometimes it was because they understood that long-term physical solitude was a very uncommon way to wholeness and holiness and thus, unlikely to be the divine vocation of the misanthrope.

Sometimes it was because a somewhat false dichotomy was simplistically drawn between the world of God's good creation and the world of the monastery or hermitage. (The dichotomy between "the world" (which is not simply everything outside the hermitage door!) and the Kingdom of God is much more nuanced than this.) Occasionally it was because folks claiming to have heard the will of God had heard nothing more than their own ego and psychological projections --- a way which led to destruction. Often it was because they understood that to be part of Christ's body meant some interaction with other members of his body and always it tended to involve the recognition that to claim to love God in any substantial way ALSO meant to love real people in real circumstances or, at least potentially, to be unmasked as a hypocrite (hence the typical eremitical emphasis on hospitality and later, on evangelization). As I have noted before some Church Fathers rejected eremitical life altogether because there was no way, in living it as it was then understood, to truly "wash the feet" of one's brothers and sisters in Christ.

Camaldolese eremitical life for instance has, historically, been a significant way of meeting the challenge of those Fathers' evaluations and concerns by embodying the various competing values and obligations involved in ecclesial eremitical life. Built on the threefold good: solitude, community, and evangelization it provides a dynamic vision and polar "structure" for embracing and honoring these realities and the tensions between them. Both Peter Damian and Paul Giustiniani reformed eremitical life in light of the precepts of the Church and shifting theologies of the importance of ecclesial participation while maintaining the heart of the eremitical vocation to the silence of solitude.

The diocesan hermit today must do something similar in combining diocesan/parish life, eremitical solitude, and service or evangelization. Negotiating the tension between a call to union with God in solitude and stricter separation from the world and a healthy Sacramental and church life in a diocese and parish is a piece of this overall task. Because of these examples and others, because hermits take on the challenge of negotiating (prioritizing and living all) the "competing values" (or competing obligations) present in their lives, the eremitical life is alive and well in today's Church. But it will not stay that way or be particularly edifying to Christians if individuals choose to embrace and espouse isolation rather than true eremitical solitude lived in an ecclesial context, or otherwise shun the challenge of belonging integrally to a pilgrim people with an essential and vibrant sacramental life.

By the way, while for the diocesan hermit there is always the opportunity for collaboration in matters of discernment, and while many people in the hermit's life contribute to her discernment in one way and another, I think we need to understand that most often it is the degree of  ecclesial accountability which is built into the hermit's life through stable canonical relationships rather than actual collaboration which makes the difference and enables discernment. You are, however, completely correct that these relationships (and those of some friends) are critically important in being able to live my life intelligently and faithfully. While some naïvely demean the importance of canonical standing as mere legalism or as something that actually stands as an obstacle between God and the hermit, and while others have truly discerned they do not need canonical standing to live an eremitical life, every true hermit has to build elements like those involved in canonical standing into their lives if they are to have a chance of avoiding the pitfalls, dangers, and distortions that befall the credulous, ill, or willful specifically, or solitary eremitical life more generally.

Also, I don't feel entirely comfortable speaking of the 'right' to skip my Sunday obligation as though that was one of the rights granted me in profession. It was not. What is more comfortable to me is speaking in terms of competing obligations and even competing legitimate obligations. I (as is the case for any diocesan hermit) am (canonically) obligated by profession, consecration, and Rule to live a life of the evangelical counsels, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world under the supervision of my bishop (and delegate); at the same time I am obligated in the ways my baptismal commitment binds every Christian. The challenge is to meet all of these legitimate obligations, some of which are competing, in the best way I can. The rights that came with canonical standing include the right to call myself a Catholic and/or Diocesan Hermit, the right to wear a habit and cowl (both right and obligation attached to perpetual profession), and the right to style myself as Sister. In other words, I was given and assumed the right to live this life and serve my brothers and sisters in this way in the name of the Church.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Dimensions of the Ecclesial Nature of the C 603 Vocation

[[Dear Sister, I too am grateful for what you have written recently about the ecclesial and normative nature of the vocation of diocesan hermits. I was one of those who thought the emphasis on law was sort of pharisaical and I wondered why it was really necessary. Like the person who thought the Holy Spirit could just "raise up" such vocations and that canon law was unnecessary, I thought the same thing. After all you have said yourself that some dioceses tell those interested in pursuing profession under canon 603 to "just go live in solitude; it is all one needs." I guess even the institutional church can think this way! I wonder if some dioceses really believe canon 603 adds nothing at all to this vocation or is unnecessary? Aren't most of the people dealing with vocations canonists?? 

This leads me to two questions. First, do all dioceses recognize the importance of the ecclesial nature of this vocation? And second, when you speak of the ecclesial nature of the c. 603 vocation it seems to mean several different things. For sure it means more than just "of the church', right? I understand it means that the vocation is discerned by both the Church and the hermit. I also understand it means the vocation is normative. Can you describe all the things you mean by the term ecclesial?]]

Yes, sure. Let me start with the second question first. Over the course of the last few years I have described the ecclesial nature of the vocation to diocesan eremitical life in the following ways including those two primary ones you mentioned. All of them have to do, as you say, with the profound ways the vocation is "of (and for) the Church":

Dimensions of the Ecclesial Nature of the C 603 Vocation:

1) The vocation is formally and legitimately established and lived in the name of the Church. Hermits who are publicly professed and consecrated are Catholic hermits in the proper sense of that term. We also call them diocesan hermits, c 603 hermits, canonical hermits, etc. While the hermit does not "speak" on behalf of the Church she is commissioned to live her own eremitical life in the name of the Church.

2) The vocation is mutually discerned. A person does not assume it on her own nor the rights and obligations associated with it. It, along with these rights and obligations, is entrusted to her by the Church on behalf of the Church's very life as well as on behalf of the living eremitical tradition; she embraces this ecclesial trust as a part of what it means to respond to God's own call.

3) This call is mediated by the Church. Both the individual’s profession and their consecration by God are mediated by the Church through c 603 in the hands of the diocesan Bishop. Moreover through legitimate superiors this call continues to be mediated to the hermit by the Church just as the hermit's response to this call is a continuing reality mediated to and through canonical relationships and structures.

4) Canon 603 is normative for eremitical life in the Church. While not all hermits are canonical, c 603.1 describes the essence of the eremitical life as the Church herself understands and esteems it. What is generally true is that all hermits in the church measure and mature in their lives according to the central elements of this canon whether they are established in law or not. In other words the first part of the canon especially is the norm by which both canonical and non-canonical hermits shape their lives according to an ecclesial vision of eremitical life. The c 603 hermit, however, is bound publicly and legally to live a life which is consistent with this ecclesially normative vision of the solitary eremitical life "for the praise of God and the salvation of the world".

5) C 603 life constitutes a dimension of the Church’s own holiness.

6) The c 603 vocation is a public one with public rights and obligations. It implies necessary expectations on the part of the whole Church for the one professed accordingly.

7) The vocation is charismatic in the truest sense; it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world mediated as already noted.

8) The hermitage itself represents, as the hermit herself does, an “ecclesiola” in the language of St Peter Damian. It is an extension of the Church in prayer or worship and an expression of the same. Elements supporting this understanding include allowing the reserved Eucharist which is an ecclesial act commissioned by the Church. Communion services are extensions of the Church’s public worship as is the Liturgy of the Hours.

9) The canon 603 hermit and the Church in the person of the local Bishop are charged with protecting and nurturing not only the hermit’s individual vocation but the solitary eremitical vocation itself. Public commitment establishes and expresses this mutual responsibility. Both bishop and hermit are responsible for a living eremitical tradition whose roots began in the OT, was epitomized in Jesus' own life of kenosis (of which his 40 days in the desert is a paradigm), and continued with the Desert Fathers and Mothers, medieval anchorites, and others.

10) The lives of canon 603 hermits are themselves a ministry of the Church. While hermits pray, more importantly they ARE embodiments of prayer, and in this way represent a significant incarnation of the Church’s own faith. It is no overstatement to say that hermits exist at the heart of the Church; within the silent life of God where faith is the lifeblood and prayer the very heartbeat of the Church, hermits represent a significant instance of the Church at prayer.

11) This vocation represents a stable ecclesial and consecrated state of life. It participates in and depends upon those governing and supporting relationships established publicly in law through profession and consecration.

Do all dioceses recognize and appreciate the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial?

I think the answer, unfortunately, has to be no, they don't seem to. It seems to me that to say a vocation is both ecclesial and normative is to ascribe a very significant and particular kind of value to it. But some dioceses, or at least some personnel within these dioceses, seem not to esteem eremitical life at all. Partly this is a function of not understanding it or the gift it is; sometimes this stems, understandably,  from associating it with stereotypes based on kernels of truth found throughout the history of eremitical life. Here, conceiving of the vocation in terms of eccentricity, individualism, misanthropy or anti-social tendencies, a desire to go one's own way in the Church (whether as a progressive or as a traditionalist) prevent these folks from esteeming the vocation appropriately.  Partly too, I think, for some this has to do with esteeming active ministry over the contemplative life.

In all these cases, to  1) move beyond misconceptions, biases, or over-generalizations and 2) take the added step of esteeming the vocation as an ecclesial one which is a gift of the Holy Spirit mediated in and by the Church is just too big for these dioceses to accomplish. Still, it is necessary if canon 603 is to truly function as it is meant to within the Church. One of the most significant reasons for writing about the ecclesial nature of the vocation is because it is critical that dioceses (and those seeking admission to profession!) understand this vocation as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world. One of the reasons for treating c 603 as an essential piece of legislation and writing about its normative character from within the vocation itself is precisely so dioceses and the people that constitute them can come to recognize a vocation which is not only charismatic but contrasts sharply in every way with the common stereotypes and distortions of authentic eremitical life.

Thanks for Explaining the Pastoral reasons for Canonical Standing

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for explaining the PASTORAL reasons for canonical standing. Does keeping the seriousness of all this in mind help you to live your vocation? I would think it must. Is it your position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life? You mention lay hermits but since you emphasize the pastoral importance of canonical standing I wonder if you believe it is really possible to live as a lay hermit.]]

Yes, keeping the public and especially the ecclesial nature of this vocation in mind (two dimensions of its serious-ness) is a great help to me in persevering in this vocation. Don't get me wrong, I love this call and every day I thank God for gifting me with it but it is not always an easy thing to be faithful to. For instance, as I have written before it is not always easy to discern what expressions of ministry are appropriate. Sometimes I would like to withdraw in more selfish ways than might be healthy or called for by eremitical anachoresis itself but the ecclesial nature of my vocation and the canonical nature of my commitment help me to recognize and resist this temptation. Other times I might desire to minister in some active way which might not be what is best for the vocation more generally or I might be inclined to spend time outside the hermitage in ways which draw me out of the silence of solitude; again, the ecclesial and canonical nature of my commitment assists me to be true to both myself and my call. Because I am not in this alone, because I am responsible in a public way for this vocation, because I have legitimate superiors (or quasi superiors!) and others (parishioners, pastor, friends, Sisters) who are also responsible in varying ways and degrees and to whom I can turn for assistance and support, living this vocation is both richer and easier than it would be otherwise.

However, it is absolutely not my position that canonical standing is necessary to live a good eremitical life. Lay hermits do it all the time and they do it in a way which may minister and be more accessible to those who will never seek nor desire to seek canonical standing in their own lives.  I would suggest you read some of the posts I have put up on the lay eremitical vocation specifically to understand my thought here; I believe I have been pretty clear regarding how much I believe in this (the lay eremitical) vocation and in its possibility and importance today. When I say the public rights and obligations associated with canonical standing cause my own vocation to differ from the lay eremitical vocation but that the absence of these public dimensions does not constitute a deficiency in the lay hermit vocation I am both quite serious and entirely sincere.

In fact one of the things which makes me saddest is the fact that lay hermits seem generally not to take their own vocations as seriously in terms of its significance to the Church and world as they do the canonical version. Few that I can find write about it, reflect on its charismatic nature, or recommend it to others. Few offer to talk occasionally to their parishes or diocese about it, etc. While I know lay hermits who do not, many seem instead  to continue to subtly elevate the eremitical vocations connected with canonical standing (semi-eremitical and solitary eremitical life) when these are not accessible to them for a variety of reasons. Some do this by resisting  and never using the actual designation "lay hermit" while others make it their business to disparage canonical standing and those who seek and receive it, but the bottom line is that many lay hermits seem to treat lay eremitical life as a second class form of eremitism. Still, the specifically eremitical elements and dimensions of these two (or three!) vocations are identical --- especially if the lay hermit lives some form of the evangelical counsels, as all Christians really are meant to do.

Again, thanks for your comments. I am glad I was able to convey to you some of the pastoral reasons for canonical standing and canon 603. Others may be found in posts on the relationship of freedom and obedience, for instance, or the relational nature of standing in law (cf., labels below). As I said in the post you referred to, the critical question is really this one: if this vocation were NOT a gift of the Holy Spirit then why would we care about canonical standing? What the Church sees clearly is that  canonical standing and the activity of the Holy Spirit are not in conflict with one another nor  (as one person I spoke with recently commented) does the Holy Spirit's action makes the canon unnecessary. What is true is the canon exists precisely as one significant way the Holy Spirit nurtures, protects, and governs the contemporary solitary eremitical vocation in a world which militates against it in every way including especially: 1) its allergy to silence, 2) its isolationist and marginalizing tendencies, and 3) its heightened individualism --- all of which are antithetical to and cry out for genuine eremitical solitude.  All good wishes.

What does it mean to say a vocation is normative, canonical, or ecclesial? What does it matter?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you say that a hermit with public vows has embraced a "normative (canonical)" and ecclesial vocation do you mean that all other hermits measure their lives according to these people? What does it mean to call a vocation ecclesial? Why does it matter? Is this important to the person in the pew? Also, if you live your life "in the name of the Church" does this mean that when you speak out here you do so on behalf of the Church or as some sort of official spokesperson?]]

I have written about these topics a lot -- though not so much recently --- so I really encourage you to look them up in the topics or labels list at the bottom of this post as well as to the right. In any case this answer will reprise a lot of what those posts already contain. (The need to repeat this kind of thing as questions occur is one of the deficiencies of a blog format.) Still, your questions are also a little different than what I have answered in the past, especially in wondering about what it means to say a vocation is an ecclesial one or what it means to say "in the name of the Church" so I am glad to look at these things again. That is especially true when some question the need for canonical standing with regard to eremitical life --- as one person wrote to me yesterday morning.

Normative Vocations:

When I say that a hermit has embraced a normative (canonical) vocation through public profession I mean that her vocation is governed and measured by the canon defining her life. In my case and the case of other diocesan hermits it is mainly canon 603. While one hopes that anyone professed accordingly lives her life in an exemplary way it is first of all the life described by the canon, and so, the canon itself which is normative; that is, the canon tells us what the Church herself understands, establishes, and codifies as "eremitical life" for the benefit of her own life and the salvation of all. A person admitted to a public commitment to live under this canon has committed to living this specific understanding of the eremitical life and is publicly responsible for doing so in recognizable, fruitful, and faithful ways. She does so  in order that the life and holiness of the Church may be augmented and may serve to witness to others in terms of eremitism itself. You might say that a diocesan hermit is responsible for enfleshing or incarnating this canon and the form of life it describes for the healing and inspiration of her local Church, the universal Church, and the world at large. Only in this sense does the hermit herself become "normative" of the eremitical life. (The diocesan hermit is so-called because she is publicly professed and consecrated by God in the hands of the diocesan Bishop and is bound to this specific diocese unless another Bishop agrees to receive her and supervise her vowed life in his diocese).

Canon 603 has a number of non-negotiable elements to it. It describes a vowed life (603.2 specifies a publicly vowed life) of stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance according to a Rule the hermit writes herself and which is lived FOR the salvation of the world. All of this is undertaken in law and under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop who is the hermit's legitimate superior (superior in law). In other words this c. 603 hermit lives a solitary eremitical life of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the canonical specifications of the Catholic Church so that others might hear the Gospel of Christ in a particularly vivid way through her life of desert spirituality. She is not a misanthrope, a failure at life or relationships, nor is her solitary life a selfish or self-centered one. The requirement that this life be a loving one lived for the sake of others is no less significant than the requirements of assiduous prayer, stricter separation from the world, or the silence of solitude.

Because she does this in the heart of the Church and for others the canon stands between them and her as a kind of signpost and point of entry. It tells her fellow Catholics (and all others as well) what her life as a Catholic hermit is about (the term Catholic here implies one who is publicly and thus, normatively committed to this life; it specifically means a life lived in the name of the Church; in other words, it is a right (with commensurate responsibilities) granted BY THE CHURCH, not one which is self-adopted). The faithful can read the canon and question the hermit about what it means for her life; the canon gives the faithful in particular the right to specific expectations with regard to this hermit. This is not the case when one's commitment is private. Similarly it constantly summons the hermit to faithfulness to a specific and normative vision of eremitical life as the Catholic Church understands and codifies it. Both the hermit and the Church itself are mutually responsible for the faithful living out of this vocation. Both are publicly committed to this. If the hermit continues to allow her life to be shaped by God in the heart of the Church in this particular way and if her superiors work with her to ensure the same then this eremitical life will be truly edifying --- meaning it will build up the Church and the Kingdom of God.

Non-Canonical Hermits, authenticity vs counterfeits:

Many people live as hermits but not in a way which is normative and sometimes not even in a way the  Church would consider authentic. I have a friend whose brother lives in the Pacific Northwest in a small secluded cabin. He has lived there for at least thirty years that I know of. He is a hermit who lives a significant physical solitude, but he is not a hermit in the sense the Church uses the term. Further he is a Catholic but he is emphatically NOT a Catholic hermit and to think of him as one could be disedifying. If you look at other posts on this blog you will find the story of Tom Leppard an eccentric and curmudgeonly misanthrope who lived as a hermit on the Isle of Skye in significant physical solitude, deprivation, and psychological isolation for a number of years. Tom also fails to meet the criterion of those called "hermit" set forth by the Church. Recently a "hermit" in Maine was arrested for stealing. He was indeed a hermit in the common sense of the term, but he would have thought canon 603 the description of an entirely alien landscape and certainly could not have lived as a hermit in the name of the Church. These examples could easily be multiplied many times over. A quick search of the internet will uncover other equally eccentric and frankly alarming examples of counterfeit eremitical life.

Not all authentic hermits are canonical of course. Lay hermits who will always represent the lion's share of the eremitical population may well live most of the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 and do so in exemplary ways (I know several who are wonderful examples of eremitical life) but they live their commitments to this way of life privately, neither publicly called, publicly committed or commissioned, nor accepting the public rights, obligations, nor the expectations associated with canonical standing. This is not a deficiency but it is still a significant difference which those considering one form of eremitical life or another need to be aware of. The faithful in general also need to be aware of the differences here not least so their own expectations can be appropriate ones. While our private commitments should be serious and something we live with integrity, members of the Church have no real right to complain or question if they do not see signs that this is occurring in an exemplary way. In my own life, while members of the church will be concerned for me if I am having problems living my eremitical commitments with integrity, these concerns can actually be taken to my legitimate superiors with the justifiable expectation that the situation will be rectified in all necessary ways. Not so with private commitments.

Ecclesial vocations:

I think you may already see that a normative (canonical) vocation and an ecclesial vocation are closely related  even overlapping ideas. Still, we do mean one thing I have not yet explicitly mentioned here. An ecclesial vocation is one mediated to the person by the Church. One cannot claim such a vocation on one's own. Such vocations are mutually discerned. The person whose vocation is mutually discerned is then called forth from the midst of the assembly to respond publicly to this vocation and commit her life to it. Her vows are received in the name of the Church and the rights and obligations attached to this state are mediated to her as well (things like the right to be known as a diocesan or Catholic hermit, the right to wear a religious habit or prayer garment publicly, the right to use the title Sister (etc) along with all the obligations attached to these and the expectations associated with them, etc. are included here). The very state itself with all the graces attached are mediated by the Church. When I spoke above of the mutual responsibility of hermits and superiors for making sure the life is lived well I was also referring to the ecclesial nature of the vocation.

On the ground canonical standing also means that the Church has vetted these folks over some period of time and, as well as possible, found them sane, spiritually well-grounded, theologically sound, and committed to living this life for the sake of others. They are not seeking a sinecure nor a place to live a life of idleness. Again, they are not misanthropes, failures at life, eccentrics, or self-centered and self-pitying misfits. They understand the vocation, have significant positive reasons for pursuing it and are deemed to have been called by God through the ministry of God's Church to do so. They live disciplined lives of prayer and penance according to a Rule they have written.  The Rule by which they live their lives and the vows they have made have been approved by canonists and others to be sure they represent a healthy and sound version of vowed eremitical life which can truly serve as a witness to others. As a piece of this their lives and efforts are also supervised and supported as they meet regularly with a spiritual director and/or diocesan delegate as well as less frequently with their Bishop. In other words, an ecclesial vocation is one in which the person and the Church more generally --- especially through the agency of the local ordinary or other superiors --- are publicly and mutually committed in an effort to be faithful to this vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why Does this Matter? Is It Important to the Person in the Pew?


I hope you can see that all of this does matter to the person in the pew. In fact all of the requirements and vetting is done so that the Church as a whole is able to see and respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in her midst. The key word in all of this is CREDIBILITY. The Church understands the eremitical life as a great gift of the Holy Spirit but she also knows that it has become associated with all sorts of stereotypes and nutcases as well as authentic hermits. As I have noted, our world is fraught with individualism, narcissism, the aggrandizement of victim status, misanthropy and self-centeredness --- all of which have been confused with authentic eremitical life and the words "solitary" and (more problematically) "solitude". The silence of solitude has been confused with the silence of emptiness, lack, and personal deficiency whereas it is really the silence of communion and fullness. Canonical Hermits are specifically called to witness to the vast differences between a solitary life lived in communion with God and for the salvation of the world and these perversions , distortions, or counterfeit versions of authentic eremitical, and indeed, authentic human existence.

I believe that is terribly important to the rest of the assembly (ecclesia) and especially to anyone struggling to make sense of lives where they or others they love are now alone, feel their lives have ceased to have meaning because of loss (job, money, status), bereavement, or illness, etc. I believe it is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and world peopled with the marginalized, prisoners, the poor, sick, and suffering who are in search of a peace the world cannot give. And of course, it is because I believe this vocation IS a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and World that I am sensitive to its normative and public character. In other words, it is because this vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit and is lived for the sake of others that emphasis on such things as normativeness, canonical standing, or ecclesiality are important. If the vocation meant nothing and was not a gift of the Spirit to the Church and world, if it was really nothing more than an expression of  a selfish or misanthropic individualism whether a relatively pious form or not, then indeed, why should we care about such things?!?! Why indeed, should we codify it, invest it with rights and obligations, or encourage others to seek it?

Living Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church

No, when I write here I do not do so as an official, a spokesperson for the Church. However I do write as one commissioned and one who does live diocesan eremitical life in her name. In other words I am responsible for being a solitary Catholic Hermit in the sense the Church uses that term. I and others like me are, that is, charged with representing a living eremitical tradition in the Church and we are, as noted above, publicly and legally bound to do that with faithfulness in a way which adds to the tradition (especially in its dialogue with contemporary culture I think) and to the holiness of the Church herself. Anyone claiming the title "Catholic Hermit" should be able to say the same or they are actually breaking faith with the Church herself. Because by education I am a theologian I am also called in a charismatic way to reflect on the vocation itself more systematically than many others living the life. Still, every diocesan hermit I know reflects on the life c 603 outlines precisely as part of living it with integrity. Moreover, almost all those I know regard the importance of working with their Bishops to ensure the health and beauty of this gift of the Spirit. All of this is a normal part of living the life in the name of the Church as "Catholic hermits."

(By the way, the Church is very careful about folks calling institutions, forms of life, etc "Catholic" and actually forbids this in law unless the right is granted by the appropriate authority.) You see to call oneself a Catholic priest, a Catholic Sister, a Catholic hermit, a Catholic lay person, etc, is another way of saying, "I have been publicly commissioned (publicly ordained, professed, and/or consecrated --- including baptismal consecration) to live this life in the name of the Church." It is another dimension of a normativity whose purpose is really a profoundly pastoral one. Canonical standing nurtures and governs the vocational gifts of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church;  it also helps prevent faithlessness, hypocrisy, and even outright fraud. After all, in a vocation as rare, little known, and unusual as authentic eremitical solitude, especially given the stereotypes that exist and the individualistic tendencies in our culture, it would not be hard for some to misrepresent the vocation or call themselves "Catholic Hermits" when they are really no such thing.

Seeking Eremitical Consecration When one's Director Disagrees

[[Dear Sister, I am a lay person and would like to become canonically approved as a diocesan hermit but I am not sure my spiritual director thinks it is something I should go ahead with. I wouldn't want to go against his wishes in this. Do you have an opinion?]]

Thanks for your question and for waiting the past several days for an answer. First of all, petitioning for canonical standing (standing in law) means asking the Church to admit you to public profession and allow you to accept the public rights and obligations associated with the consecrated (and in this case, the eremitical) state of life. It means petitioning to be allowed to live eremitical life in the name of the Church and so, being publicly responsible not just for your own vocation, but for the living eremitical tradition as well.

If you are accepted and admitted finally to solemn (perpetual) profession and consecration as a diocesan (c 603) hermit, you become responsible for continuing this stream of the tradition in a normative way which allows an ancient vocation to be lived in inspired and fruitful dialogue with the contemporary situation;  again, you do so in the name of the Church. It is a significant public responsibility and while there is some degree of "approval" more fundamentally canonical standing is about being given a place of trust in the public (and the hidden) life of the Church. (By the way, this is also why only publicly professed hermits, whether those that live in community or those professed under c 603, are called Catholic hermits. The use of the term Catholic here points to the public, normative (canonical), and ecclesial nature of the vocation one has both been admitted to and assumed, not to the individual's membership in the RC Church.)

The language of "approval" as in "(a) canonical or bishop's (stamp of) approval" is therefore misleading and superficial in this regard and I would suggest you mainly avoid it. I have really only heard one other person use this language routinely and she did it mainly to trivialize the vocation and to criticize hermits who desire "status" and "approval" --- as though seeking canonical standing (standing in law) was merely (or mainly) a matter of personal aggrandizement or pride. A consistent theme in her posts and videos was a downplaying of the ecclesial nature and responsibility of the vocation in order to focus on more superficial notions of "status" (as prestige) and approval. Your own language reminds me of these posts in which the nature of canonical standing was so badly misrepresented so I want to address this issue as well as those you asked about specifically. In general this language represents a perspective which actually prevents one from understanding the nature and significance of this vocation as ecclesial or the real nature of standing in law.

Similarly, your post reminds me of this person's posts and videos in the way you speak of your spiritual director. In my experience competent contemporary directors do not assume the kind of responsibility you are describing. I know I do not, nor does my own director (as director) or any of those with whom I am familiar. I am not my clients' legitimate superior nor do I tell them what I think their vocation is. I may certainly have opinions about a person's readiness or lack of readiness to pursue a particular vocation but I do not tell them to either pursue or not pursue it. That is beyond my purview as a director and the directors I know feel the same way about this. More importantly, however, the fact that you are considering not exploring something you apparently feel called to because your SD may disagree with you about it may actually suggest that you are really not ready to pursue consecrated life generally or consecrated eremitical life specifically.

You see, this life is a mature and independent one where every day one is called on to listen to and follow the voice of God in one's heart of hearts. A director can accompany you in this and assist you in learning to hear and respond appropriately to this voice of God --- which is why you of course should listen carefully to what she has to say in this regard and pray seriously over her concerns --- but s/he cannot (and really should not) replace this entire dynamic by telling you what you should do. That way encourages a juvenile approach to life and discernment, not authentic or mature obedience. By the way, the relationship between a legitimate superior and one bound by a public vow of obedience is more complex than (on the subject's part) simply doing as one is told or (on the superior's part) simply telling someone to do things. Instead both parties are bound to listen closely to God's will in this person's life as well as in the life of the community, diocese, eremitical tradition, etc, and for that reason the vow means careful work together motivated by love in Christ. It is actually relatively rare today for a legitimate superior to simply tell a person bound by a public vow "what to do."

In any case bear in mind that simply petitioning to be admitted to canonical profession and eventual conse-cration does not mean this will happen. It means that you are seeking to enter into a process of mutual discernment with members of your local chancery, first Vicars and/or vocation personnel and then, if that goes well, the Bishop. (They will, of course, request a reference from your director and they might possibly seek her recommendation or at least listen to concerns she might have.) Because canon 603 life is an ecclesial vocation it is not one you can embrace all by yourself; neither does your own sense of call ensure a call exists nor therefore, that the diocese will agree in this matter. The discernment MUST be mutual and your diocese may decide to allow you to enter into such a process or they may determine that you are not ready to do this. They may even determine you are not suited to the vocation or they may actually be unwilling to profess anyone at this point in time. If you are admitted to a process of discernment which eventuates in profession and consecration, actual admission to even temporary vows is likely several years in the future -- so be prepared for that.

By the way, if your director is pretending to bind you in obedience or expects you to simply do as s/he says in the way you have described (since you are not a religious and since this person has no legitimate authority over you this can only be pretense) I would personally suggest you look for another director or, at the very least, see if the relationship cannot be significantly modified in this regard. I have never heard of competent contemporary directors relating to lay clients this way but I have sometimes heard directees speaking of their directors in these terms when those same directors really do not encourage it or relate to them in this way. While I am not saying you are doing this (I honestly don't know of course) it is important if you ever want to be a diocesan hermit that you have internalized a truly adult model of obedience and ways of relating to authority in your life --- legitimate and otherwise. Because diocesan hermits' legitimate superiors are their Bishops it is really unusual for them to meet with one another more than twice a year at most. Once a year is much more typical so one can hardly "wait for permission," or "wait to hear what he thinks" until one sees her Bishop. To assist in this situation diocesan hermits tend to have diocesan delegates with whom we meet more frequently (four to six times a year or so as possible); these persons serve as quasi-superiors but they also tend not to encourage the hermit to turn to them for permissions or approval, for instance, except in very occasional and significant matters.

Ecclesial Vocations and the importance of canonical standing --- a matter of stable relationships

Dear Sister O'Neal, what you have written about the relationship that obtains from public profession is helpful in under-standing more of what it means to have an ecclesial vocation [isn't] it? I have read what you have written on this before but I was not so clear about legal standing creating particular binding relationships which involve the Church herself. That seems to be an important distinction between public and private commitments. It also seems light years away from legalism --- and I know you have been accused of this in the past. Have some also criticized you regarding the idea of the "security" which is built into canonical standing in regard to the eremitical vocation? Thank you for saying more about this.]]

One of the really good things about blogging and answering questions is it helps clarify and expand my own understanding of various things. Sometimes it pushes my thought in directions I might not otherwise have gone. It also means that others can help me in evaluating the conclusions I reach. Had people not written me about what they perceived as legalism, I would not have explored matters in quite the same way I have. Of course, the heart of this particular exploration stems from my own lived experience of the differences between living an eremitical life apart from canon 603 and living such a life under canon 603; still, the criticisms you mention are actually very helpful to me in reflecting on and articulating what is an amazing and paradoxical reality. I should also mention that sometimes I hear far more friendly comments on all of this from Sisters and others who really can't imagine my binding myself to a code of canons in order to live what is a very free and flexible life. Of course, they know first hand and can reflect on the place of legally binding relationships in their own lives and see how these serve to free them for ministry, education, and vocation more generally as well as how they may be constraining in ways that chafe.

Yes, the accent on the stable, legal relationships which obtain from canonical standing help to understand what ecclesial vocations are all about. Diocesan eremitical vocations are ecclesial vocations, vocations which are discerned, mediated, nurtured, and governed by the church. The point I usually accent is that of mediation because such vocations are not a matter of the person alone determining they have such a call, nor can a person receive such a call ONLY in her own heart. Such vocations, as I have written before, are mutually discerned, and further, they are mediated to the individual by the Church in the person of a legitimate authority who intends to do this in a public act of the whole Church. 

The dimension which I had not focused on particularly or adequately was the dimension of the continuing stable relationships which obtain once the call (a continuing reality) is definitively mediated to the person. (Definitive mediation occurs in the rite of perpetual or solemn profession, for instance, and includes a definitive response to this call.) Not only do these relationships (with diocese, legitimate superior, monastery, community, congregation, etc) reflect the new state and relationship that exists between the individual and God, but they ensure that God's own call is a continuing reality in her life. Likewise they provide the structure necessary to allow the person to continue and grow in her response.

At the same time, a call is not heard once, answered once, and then treated as a past reality. One does not merely live from the memory of this past and already-answered call. Instead calls are continuing realities which evolve and in ecclesial vocations the call and the person's response are mediated in a continuing way through the stable relationships set up by the definitive act of perpetual or solemn public profession and/or consecration. The voice of God comes to us anew every minute of every day and the several relationships which obtain canonically in public commitments made in the hands of a legitimate superior are one of the significant ways this occurs. In a way, I have to say not that I have answered a call mediated by God's Church, but rather that I am answering a Divine call which God's Church continues to mediate to me -- though it is also true that I have answered in a definitive way at perpetual profession. The stable public relationships are meant to allow and assist me in this. This is true whether I am speaking of my relationship with canon law, with my legitimate superior, with my delegate, my parish community, or my diocese and the universal church as a whole. Like all relationships these are demanding and constraining. But they are also freeing.

In any case, what I have written about canonical standing is not driven by legalism. A focus on law for the law's own sake is legalism; a focus on law and standing in law in order to express and look carefully at the stable relationships which obtain and which allow for ecclesial vocations being lived with seriousness, integrity, and accountability is not. I would agree that these two things are light years apart, though they do have law in common. It is because of this that when people speak of the "mere formality" of canonical profession as though this is merely an "official" stamp of "approval" on a privately discerned vocation, or something with which a hermit seeks to have some kind of privileged social "status," I think it is a clear sign they have not yet understood either the purpose or the nature and significance of canonical standing.

The criticism about the security involved in the diocesan eremitical vocation (which is actually not one I hear very much) has to be answered in light of these realities. Stable, secure relationships like those I have mentioned are part of the necessary context for exploring a life which is responsible and witnesses publicly to everyone that God alone is capable of completing and redeeming one. For the hermit in particular, they help ensure her ability to proclaim the gospel message associated with the redemption of isolation into authentic solitude. They are a way to help ensure the continuing vitality of a vocation which is God's own gift entrusted to the Church for her own well-being. In my own experience, one enters into such relationships on behalf of God and the Gospel which one's vocation represents and reveals. In any case, as already noted, the insecurity of the diocesan eremitical life is substantial; the security which obtains is at the service of God and his own purposes and does not necessarily diminish the radical insecurities which are part and parcel of the vocation. This is part of the reason, I think, that dioceses do not support c 603 hermits throughout their lives, provide residences, etc.

Having said that it should be clear that the line between the two (radical insecurities and securities) is quite fine and at points becomes somewhat artificial. Further questions need to be raised about older diocesan hermits who are ill or frail and are publicly and perpetually professed. It may well be that the radical insecurity of their vocations can be assured and still allow greater assistance from their dioceses, etc, but this is a different topic. With regard to what you have asked about however, the security of an ecclesial vocation and the relationships which are part and parcel of that serve not so much the hermit's personal security, but rather the hermit's vocational security and that of the Church's own patrimony.

Saturday (or Part-time) Hermits Once Again: What's the Big Deal??

[[ I agree that full-time work is incompatible with the EXPRESSION of the eremetic life. The only caveat is that many folks are called to it but just can't swing it financially. As for them, their options are a monastic expression or simply a 'non-canonical' (if I'm saying that correctly) expression of their vocation without worrying about whether they are recognized by the Diocese/Bishop or not. I really don't understand the hang up about this. If you are able to be a hermit on Saturday only, want to wear a habit--go for it! I don't understand all the angst. Why do we look to some imprimatur from Mother Church for our vocations? The church has room for all of us. Just go out and live your life and stop worrying whether you are fitting under a particular canon or not. Mon Dieu! Are we Pharisees? Go out and preach the gospel in whatever way you must---whether or not there is an example for it---and, of course, if you dig down far enough, there are always champions of the church that have faced the same circumstances and made it work. ]]

Thanks for your comments. Let me be clear that when I write about eremitical vocations I almost always clarify them with terms like "diocesan", "Lay", or "religious", and sometimes as semi-eremitical as well. In the post you are commenting about I referred to diocesan hermits but I need not have. In this case I can't agree with you about "If they are able to be a hermit on Saturdays only, want to wear a habit, then go for it" (etc). What you have just described is not a hermit of any expression. It is a person taking a day off and playing dress-up in the process.


Someone who says it is possible to be a hermit only on Saturdays and that such a person should just wear a habit, call themselves a hermit, and just generally "go for it," does not understand the idea of an ecclesial vocation generally nor the idea of what a hermit truly is specifically. (Another alternative is persons who speak this way are really poking fun at my posts, and I certainly don't think that is the case here.) It is possible I am simply misunderstanding the point which is that everyone needs silence and solitude in their lives and taking off time on Saturdays to devote to this is a good thing. If this is what you are saying, then I agree but I would point out you are not really speaking about a person being a hermit.)

But let me be completely honest about how I hear your comments: what you have said seems to me to be analogous to saying to a woman, "If you want to be a mother and can only take care of children on Saturdays, then by all means do that! Change out of your business clothes, babysit a child (even your own!) on Saturdays, and feel free to call yourself a mother." Or perhaps the analogy to marriage would work here: "You want to be married but can only manage to do that on Saturdays? Well, put on the ring, grab the guy, make life vows (or not) and "go for it." Hermits are people who live eremitical LIVES for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Yes, there are different expressions of this, but they are expressions of something specifically meaningful and responsible in terms of a life commitment, not expressions of nothing (or just anything at all).

As for angst over whether the Church gives her approval or not, here the expression of eremitical life does matter. A person who wishes to live as a hermit without any of the specific rights or obligations of canonical standing can certainly do so in the lay or non-canonical senses. As I have written before, baptism itself gives such persons the right to do so and no further discernment or approval of the Church is required. This has certain limitations of course (including no right to publicly wear the habit, which is an ecclesial symbol), but it also has a different level of freedom with regard to others' legitimate expectations and so forth.

However, for diocesan, or religious eremitical life --- ecclesial vocations which the church herself is involved in nurturing, mediating, and governing --- then the Church's formal participation and approval is necessary at every point. This is because in these instances the hermit cannot discern such a vocation alone and lives her eremitical life in the name of the Church. She represents the eremitical vocation (and becomes responsible for personally continuing a long tradition) in a public and canonical (legal and normative) way. In none of these cases would a person just going off and "being a hermit on Saturdays ONLY" actually be a hermit. The only thing they would truly be doing as far as I can see is emptying the term of meaning and trivializing the lives of those who DO live full-time lives of assiduous prayer, penance, and stricter separation from the world in the the silence of solitude --- especially those who have been publicly entrusted with and assumed all the rights and obligations which are part of such an ecclesial vocation.

You see, it is not merely a matter of "fitting under" a canon or finding one I fit under. It is a matter of discovering a vocation to eremitical life and then allowing one's life to be molded into a complete response to that. Beyond this initial determination, one would then need to discern whether one is called to do so in the consecrated state or not. If not, then one lives as a lay hermit. If so, then one is speaking not of a merely individual vocation, but an ecclesial one, and one would prepare to embrace this fully. If one then discerns a vocation to diocesan eremitical life rather than religious eremitical life one seeks profession under Canon 603 and in doing so, is both invested with and assumes all the rights and obligations which attach to to such a life. No one is forced to do this, but if they do, if the Church decides they are genuinely called to this and if such persons are admitted to profession in this way, then yes indeed, the Canon does define and govern their lives (as do a number of other Canons as well). Living the life with integrity means respecting and exploring this every day in every way, as the saying goes.

Why All the Angst?? The Pastoral Import of Canonical Standing

But, as you ask, why all the angst? I've written about this before under the idea of necessary expec-tations and charism, but let me draw out a picture of "why the angst?!" Let's take the two examples of eremitical life outlined in your own email and mine: 1) a person takes off on Saturdays for some prayer time, dons a habit, and calls himself a hermit even adopting the title "Brother." (What he does the rest of the week, exemplary or apostolic as it may be, I have no clue, nor does anyone else.) He then goes forth to proclaim the Gospel as he can. 2) a person lives the silence of solitude (and the rest of the elements of Canon 603) on a full time basis. She publicly vows her entire life to God (and so, to all those he cherishes) and is consecrated in a way which signals the grace to live this life. She is invested with the habit and given the right to the title Sister by the Church who recognizes the meaningfulness and import of these things. She then goes out to proclaim the Gospel within this context. Both persons identify themselves as hermits, one is a lay person and one is consecrated. One does so according to his own understanding of the term, the other according to the Church's understanding and traditional meaning of the term.

Meanwhile, their parishes have a large number of chronically ill and frail elderly on fixed incomes, most of whom are isolated from the parish as a whole or the surrounding communities in significant ways: none of them can work, few of them can drive or get away from their situations on a weekend, and none of them can take a day (or even an hour) off from their state of chronic illness or frail elderliness. What they do know is that they might be called to lives of prayer and solitude, lives which represent a kind of counter-cultural witness even. They are looking for someone who can proclaim the Gospel to them in a way which is specifically helpful in their situations. They think (and their pastor agrees),  that surely a hermit will be able to witness in a way which helps us makes sense of lives of poverty and isolation, whose witness will assist in negotiating the transition from isolation to solitude, who can reminds them that a life of physical, financial, and personal poverty can still be rich in God alone and all God makes possible.

So which hermit should the pastor call on to assist these parishioners in this? Which hermit should he call on as a true representative of desert spirituality? Which hermit has accepted freely and fully all the dimensions of the eremitical life which allows him/her to witness truthfully and EFFECTIVELY to these poeple? Which hermit knows intimately the struggles of full-time solitude or silence? Which one has dealt with these and does so day in and day out along with all the other demons which attack the solitary person from within our own hearts or from the surrounding competitive, workaholic, productive and consumerist world? Which one will be able to effectively proclaim the Gospel to these people? (And NB, I could have contrasted the Saturday-only hermit with any full-time lay hermit and most of the points would have been the same here.)

You see, going out and preaching the Gospel is not merely a matter of proclaiming a canned text or message to people one does not know. It is not a matter of proclaiming the unconditional love of God without applying that in the way one knows it intimately oneself AND in the way people NEED to hear it. Instead proclaiming the Gospel means proclaiming with one's life the TRUTH of the way God has worked and is working in it so that others might find hope and meaning in that. As St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary." Proclaiming the Gospel, I would suggest, also does not allow for pretense and the "hermit" in the situation you described appears to be all about pretense --- at least with regard to calling himself a hermit, donning a habit, etc. He cannot relate particularly to the situation these people are in or the good news they really need to hear. He does not live full-time solitude nor has he assumed any of the rights or responsibilities of such a life (the habit in the scenario you described is little more than a costume he takes up to play a role on weekends.) And yet, the habit and titles (Brother as well as hermit) give these people the right to expect he WILL BE ABLE to speak to their situation in a helpful way from his own life experience. They have the right to expect these things to mean something --- not least a counter-cultural life of total dependence on God lived on the margins of society in the silence of solitude.

This is why all the angst over Canonical standing. Such standing generally indicates the acceptance of rights and obligations by those who are discerned to have such a call, etc. It is not because we are Pharisees, but because law often serves love. It does so in this case. By the way, I would personally disagree that many people are called to diocesan eremitical life but just can't swing it financially. I do agree that those who are able-bodied and need to work full time are not called to diocesan eremitical life at this point in time, but then, as you say, they can enter a religious eremitical community --- something which is NOT ordinarily open to those who are disabled or chronically ill. Regarding the other points you bring up, benefactors, etc, I will hold those for another time.

All my best.