Some Not-so-Preliminary Conclusions about Canon 603 and this Blog!

My recent focus on ecclesial vocations is something prompted by several different factors. Two are most important: 1) my work with c 603 candidates and on a guidebook for discernment and formation of such vocations, and 2) the clear way the Holy Spirit has been working not only in my own life and vocation but also in the lives and vocations of those I work or collaborate with in one way and another. 

 The thrust of eremitical vocations is often thought to be individualistic and selfish. (Even, or perhaps especially, the quest for personal holiness can lead us badly astray without a strong ecclesial context, sense, and commitment.) When c 603 hermits struggle against the stereotypes and biases that mark what most folks believe about solitary eremitical life, it is most often a struggle to provide an understanding of the vocation that clearly stands against those who view these vocations as irrelevant or as marked by selfishness, personal failure, and isolationist tendencies.*** Unfortunately, some hermits (both canonical and non-canonical), usually inadvertently, strengthen the case against understanding the vocation as meaningful in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or significant in the way it moves the Church towards a stronger focus on and representation of the Kingdom of God. Such vocations put a premium on privacy (which is not the same as stricter separation or withdrawal from the world), are focused on a too-individualistic notion of personal holiness, are unconcerned and sometimes entirely uninvolved with the Church's mission in this world, and are often isolated from the faith community we identify as "primordial Sacrament."

Canon 603 counters all of these tendencies by establishing vocations that are public and ecclesial. It is critical that dioceses and those they profess as c 603 hermits understand and appreciate these two dimensions of the vocation and come to terms with them in spite of the hidden nature of the vocation and its humbleness. These two dimensions introduce new tensions into the vocation and some critics treat these as though c 603 life is a betrayal of "traditional hermit life"; in truth, however, they are the source of a fresh sense of the vocation's humble generosity and other-centered meaningfulness. These two dimensions serve to allow eremitical life to truly exist as an expression of the Church's loving, sacrificial, Christ-centered, and Christ-shaped heart. Without faithfulness to all of the canon's foundational elements, but particularly these two dimensions of the vocation, eremitical life would fall inexorably into a selfish individualism, isolation, and disengagement with others making it instead, a vivid example of the worldliness true eremitical life seeks to disavow and stand against.

Over the past almost two decades I have contended off and on with one relatively isolated lay person; over the course of that time and partly because of the energy marking this contentious relationship, I have been able to explore more and more the importance of the Holy Spirit calling some hermits to public and ecclesial vocations, vocations that serve the Church and are normative of all authentic eremitical life while protecting the life from falling into all of those stereotypical distortions so prevalent in the stories of hermits throughout the centuries. Though I regret I have not always done so, I have mainly managed to keep my writing focused on issues rather than persons, and over the same period, the issues raised by this lay hermit's interpretation and praxis of eremitical life have helped me to see beyond some ways eremitical life misses the mark in serving the Gospel and the Church that is called to proclaim it. Moreover, with God's assistance, this relationship has pressed me to explore why c 603 was so important in the history of eremitical life, how this canon in its ecclesiality honors the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and how necessary it is in nurturing and protecting healthy solitary eremitical vocations. For that, I owe God who works to redeem such difficult situations, my profoundest thanks!

So, I am excited to continue to explore c 603 and its central elements, along with its foundational public and ecclesial dimensions. All of these make clear that these vocations and the canon that governs them are the will and gift of God for the sake of the whole of God's People and in a special way for hermits. I feel blessed to be able to appreciate and write about this. To that end, I will continue to eschew making my posts personal. I will not presume to speak about someone's supposed motivations or behavior, presumed gender preferences, putative personality disorders, or any other personal trait or condition one simply cannot truly know remotely. I have been the subject of all of these things over these years, indeed they are still occurring, and I will not perpetuate the same. (Because God can and does transfigure something deeply unworthy into a grace or blessing does not mean we choose what is unworthy to get all the more blessings!! As Paul concludes in Rom 6:2, God forbid!!) At the same time, I recognize that occasionally I will need to identify a specific hermit or wannabe hermit to prevent misunderstandings and the belief I am speaking about a whole group of persons. The bottom line here is that if I do not use a person's name, please do not presume I am speaking about any particular person!! The hermit world is far larger than that and one who proceeds in this way will only appear insecure and foolish!! My concern in this blog is the issues that face solitary eremitical life in the Catholic Church because of God's gift of c 603 and its vocations, not, in the main, with their representatives, adversaries, or exemplars. 

Camaldolese Symbol, Today: Monks and Oblates,
consecrated and laity as partakers
of the same cup and sharers in the same charism

With regard to lay or non-canonical hermits generally, as I have already noted several times, I believe they are and will always represent the lion's share of hermit vocations in the world and Catholic Church. They can and maybe meant to serve a significantly prophetic role therein. What the Archdiocese of Seattle is doing with these vocations is positive and (I believe) critically important in helping us all to understand the reason for vocations with a strong ecclesial sense, even when they are not specifically considered ecclesial vocations. These vocations may also be instructive in terms of developing effective discernment and formation processes for c 603 hermits. Thus, a third factor prompting my focus on ecclesiality beyond the two mentioned above, is my recent education on the way the Archdiocese of Seattle is handling the situation of non-canonical or lay hermits. That continues to work in me as a kind of leaven and to bear surprising fruit. My thanks to Paul, the Catholic lay hermit from the Archdiocese of Seattle, who wrote me just after last Pentecost for his assistance.

*** At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that canonical vocations are necessarily marked by pride, a desire for prestige and authority, and necessarily violate the hermit's call to humility. I will discuss this end of the spectrum in another article.

Caring About non-canonical Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister, do you want to cause the more traditional hermit vocation to die out? You mainly write about c 603 so I wondered if you care about non c 603 vocations to eremitical life.]]

Thanks for your questions. I answered some similar questions a number of years ago. As I recall they were posed in terms of canonical vs non-canonical or lay hermits and pretty much wondered if I preferred c 603 over non-canonical hermit life. What I said then still holds but with development as well, namely, I care about non-canonical eremitical vocations, and I write about my own vocation because it is what I know best and what I feel the need to explore. I believe the Church requires this exploration as well and it is my desire to contribute to the sound implementation of this vocation in a way only someone living the vocation can actually do. While I have lived as a lay hermit, it is not my vocation, nor one I can argue for most passionately and convincingly. 

 Writing about the vocation in this way really does require someone (or several someone's!!) living this vocation themselves. For instance, it might be the non-canonical hermits in the Archdiocese of Seattle who discover a vocation within their own eremitical vocation to do that. It might be a non-canonical hermit in the Diocese of Boise who does not want the "traditional" hermit vocation to go away now that c 603 is better known and more frequently used to profess diocesan hermits! It might be Regina Kreger, whose actual location I no longer know (she was in Europe the last I heard). She is a fine writer and hermit and might turn her talents to this at some point. It might be lay hermits from any number of dioceses in the US or elsewhere who have written me about being a lay hermit when c 603 is not being used in their dioceses, or those who contribute reflections to Raven's Bread, the hermit newsletter put out by the Fredette's!! The bottom line in this is that non-canonical or lay hermits really need to be writing about their vocation themselves, particularly if they see real benefits in not embracing or petitioning for admission to c 603!! Still, every eremitical call involves a charism, mission, and some form of ministry; those living these in the non-canonical state as lay hermits need to be writing about this for the sake of this specific eremitical vocation!

What especially doesn't make sense to me is for someone who believes in the importance and authenticity of non-canonical eremitical vocations, to opt for becoming c 603 when they believe this canon betrays the older just-go-off-and-do-it form of eremitical life! No, the answer is to live one's lay eremitical vocation and do it well!! While c 603 has been normative of the solitary eremitical life from the moment it was promulgated, it has grown in its implementation and more dioceses have used the canon successfully now. Even so, it still is experiencing significant growing pains and finds resistance in those who wonder how to implement it properly or don't believe it is a valid form of life. Canon 603 hermits can help in this by writing about the vocation or giving significant feedback to their dioceses on what they have learned about the vocation and their own preparation to live this calling, but non-canonical hermits have really significant things to add to the conversation for the sake of eremitism in the Church and for the sake of the Church's own life as well.

So again, yes, I definitely care about non c 603 eremitical vocations. I see them as important and also as being the lion's share of vocations to solitary eremitical life in the Church today. I don't believe many of these vocations will discover a vocation within this vocation to write about and explore the life in a more public way, but I believe there will be some few who will do this. Given the Archbishop of Seattle's stand on c 603 vocations and his decision to allow non-canonical (lay) hermits to make a commitment within the context of Mass (which I applaud!), I would hope Seattle is a source of the kind of reflection that is needed here. (Of course, I recognize that others could well be such a source!! What is important is that those who live this vocation reflect on it and make it better known and appreciated --- not as antithetical to c 603 vocations, but as a complementary expression of solitary eremitical life that remain as viable and cogent today as they were in the days of the desert Abbas and Ammas!!) Perhaps this will lead to the recovery of a strong sense of the prophetic character of such vocations for the sake of the Church! I think all of that is a real possibility, but such a project needs to be led by those living the life!!

Regrets? What Would You Say to Cole Matson if you Could Speak to Him?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, do you feel any regret over having shared Brother Christian's letter to you, or yours to Bishop Stowe, his Metropolitan, and the Nuncio? Brother Christian formally objected to your having done this. Should these missives not have remained confidential? I am wondering if you have spoken to Brother Christian recently and what you would say to him if you could speak to him.]]

Thanks for your questions. No, I don't regret sharing these, though let me be clear, apart from the quote regarding Cole's motives and the agenda of transgender justice included in my letter to Bishop Stowe, I did not share Cole's emails to me. What I shared were my own letters of concern to Bishop Stowe et al. Even then significant parts of these, mainly having to do with my concern for Cole's welfare, remained off the record and the journalist with whom I worked (Gina Christian) was very good about honoring that. My own letters were not confidential (they were directed to representatives of the larger Church with the understanding others would be consulted in their regard) and while Cole might have thought his own correspondence would be held in confidence he later made public statements (and participated in public acts!) which made it important to state the truth as he revealed it to me. One statement was particularly compelling in this way. Cole noted to one reporter who published it at the end of the article: [[“I don’t have a hidden agenda, I just want to serve the church,” he said. “People can believe that or not.”]] And again, in another article, [[My only agenda is the Gospel.]]

Of course, Cole's own remarks to me directly contradicted these well-publicized statements. As he told me, his aim was public profession; private vows were not enough. He knew he was using c 603 as a stopgap when no other avenue to religious profession was open to him, and he knew I would disapprove. He knew as well that he did not feel called to eremitical life, much less to solitary eremitical life. Still, he noted that C 603 "felt truer" than beginning a lay community. "Felt truer" might work in horseshoes, but not in vocations and certainly not in the petition that one be allowed to make vows to God! I could not allow this lie to stand uncontested or the truth to remain hidden, particularly as others touted Cole's "heroic faith," and apparent determination to hang onto his identity as a Catholic while he supposedly "followed his vocation even to the loneliness of eremitical life".

Add to that the fact that two public professions (even if these were held in a private setting with Bp Stowe and a single witness, they remain public professions) --- public acts of worship --- had occurred and the faithful of the Diocese of Lexington were being encouraged to see Cole as a religious Brother and diocesan hermit who had truly discerned a rare and exemplary vocation. Comments by Bishop Stowe on the nature of c 603 life also made it compelling that I share my letters to him with others because of Stowe's studied disingenuousness about his use of the canon --- his "whom could it hurt?" approach to the matter, particularly so long as Cole was not seeking ordination or marriage. These comments were made as though I had never written Bishop Stowe with detailed concerns from within the solitary eremitical vocation itself, or that he had not acknowledged both my vocation and knowledge of c 603 life.

I sincerely wish Bishop Stowe had entered into a dialogue with me regarding the way I saw things and the way he himself saw the matter two years ago. Both of us had spoken at length with Cole Matson. Both of us could have honestly noted we had Cole's well-being uppermost in mind. Bishop Stowe could have done that and postponed any profession until we both had a clearer sense of the real issues here and came to some degree of agreement and understanding regarding why he felt compelled to misuse a canon in the way Cole had proposed he do. I might not have needed to consult canonists or write either his Metropolitan or the Papal Nuncio, and I certainly might never have needed to do the kind of interview a situation riddled with dishonesty made necessary because of the 2024 Pentecost circus Cole's public announcement occasioned. 

As it is, I came away from Cole's announcement feeling that Bp Stowe simply chose to ignore significant input on the nature of c 603 as well as regarding my own concern for Cole's wellbeing, not only in 2022, but in 2024 when he stated why he had used the canon as a mere legal loophole. That also left me feeling compelled to state the truth of the matter. Meanwhile, you ask a really difficult final question, viz, what would I say to Cole if I could speak to him now? Gina Christian asked the same question when she interviewed me and I am not sure I have any more of an answer now than I did two weeks ago. This morning, however, I wrote Bishop Stowe and Cole both with a possible solution to the situation as it stands. In part this is what I said,

[[Cole, you have tried transgender interventions and still found something in your being that was not eased by any of that. You insist that the fact that people will not admit you to religious life is the cause of this existential yearning and emptiness. I don't think it is. Religious life is not the answer to that experience you described to me in 2019, nor is your yearning for religious life its cause. Right now, religious life represents a lie you are holding onto in place of the truth.

This is the truth I know from my own eremitical life, Cole. God is the answer here and can empower you to come to terms with who you are as you stand naked (so to speak) before your Lord in the Tabernacle. Can you risk making that journey deep into the depths of your own poverty? Can you find the courage to affirm a God who delights in you even when you might hate yourself? That is the God of the hermitage and that is the good news an authentic hermit (including the non-canonical or lay hermit!!) has to share with others. Can you find the courage to do that, because that vocation is open to you now. That is the opportunity I believe God has set before you in place of diocesan eremitical life. It is more radical than anything you have embraced thus far. And its capacity for good in the Church is greater than anything you have glimpsed thus far. I believe Bp Stowe would support you in this. I know I would.]]

If Cole and Bishop John Stowe embraced this solution, Cole would continue to be a hermit (though not a diocesan hermit) and supported by Bp Stowe and the Diocese of Lexington. He could continue to work as he does now because he does not have to represent the elements of c 603 in the same way a c 603 hermit does. He could continue living where and as he does since he already pays rent for his hermitage. Bp Stowe could permit him to reserve Eucharist and wear a habit on the premises but not in public. More important than all of the externals, such a situation would allow Cole the time and space to become a contemplative, then a hermit who has met and dwells with the God authentic hermits know --- a God in whom the deepest healing becomes possible. Cole's inner life and correlative ministry would be empowered by the Holy Spirit and the potential for fruit growing from this life would be richer than anyone could imagine. What I would say to Cole is what I said this morning, namely, please consider this proposed solution as an option in which everyone could win.

On Misunderstandings of my Position on the Non-Canonical Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister, I think your posts on lay (non-canonical) hermits and the c 603 vocation as norm or paradigm have caused a bit of a kerfluffle elsewhere on the internet! You may already be aware of it but it raises a question for me I hope you will answer. To wit, have you always believed lay hermits represent a valid form of eremitical life?]]

Well, as someone who lived eremitical life as a lay hermit for some years (It was early days in the life of c 603 then, and I had to leave my community to try what c 603 outlined), it would be a surprise to find I didn't believe the vocation was valid. What is true too, however, is that once c 603 was promulgated, I began to see that as the normative way to live solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church and I tended to believe that living as a lay hermit with private vows was valid, but also merely preparatory for assuming canonical standing under canon 603 --- now that there was such a canon which did justice to solitary eremitical life and understood it as a "state of perfection" and an ecclesial vocation. That was the view I held on the day I was professed. Within the year, however, it became clear to me that the Church was going to use c 603 sparingly for some time into the future, and also, that some were perfectly happy living eremitical lives outside canonical channels. 

Some simply wanted no part in assuming the legal and moral obligations that came with canonical standing; others simply could not do so for various reasons even if they wanted to. And most importantly, there were the exemplars of eremitical life we know as the Desert Abbas and Ammas who would never have sought canonical standing because of the prophetic nature of their eremitic vocations rooted in their disapproval of the post-martyrdom, post-Edict of Milan (or Constantinian) church. In short, though I felt called to live eremitical life under c 603, not everyone else did or could; also, the long history of the church indicated most hermits had always been (and likely always would be) non-canonical hermits. This was coupled in my mind with Vatican Council II and its emphasis on the importance and dignity of the laity. Thus, I began to write here about the importance of the lay/non-canonical eremitical vocation within months of perpetual profession.

Two of the early posts in this vein were from mid-November 2008: On the Importance of the Lay Hermit, and How Credible is My Writing on the Importance of Lay Hermits? This second article indicates I had already been writing about the importance of lay eremitical vocations for a while (and here I am using Lay in the vocational, not the hierarchical sense), so again, I was writing to support the lay (non-canonical) eremitical life within months of my consecration under c 603. Much of this writing was meant to address hermits who, it seemed, were unlikely to seek or to be admitted to c 603 for any number of reasons, and who therefore needed to be able to accept the dignity of the lay vocation if they were ever to live non-canonical eremitism well and whole-heartedly. Yes, I wrote about canon 603 as well and I did so from a very positive perspective --- after all, I was exploring this vocation from the perspective of perpetual profession and consecration; my bishop had told my parish during his homily at my consecration that that was precisely what I would be doing, so that's hardly surprising. Other Religious I respected recognized the need for this vocation to be better understood, particularly by someone living it, and with a strong theological background rather than by a canon lawyer. Even so, I tried to be evenhanded about both vocations. Whether I ultimately succeeded in that or not, by 2008 I was writing passages like the following on a regular basis:        

Still, the question is important, not only for me personally, but because it is really the question every hermit must answer in some form in discerning and embracing the call not only to eremitical life, but to lay or consecrated states as the critical context for their own charism, witness, and mission. At this point I wish to say merely that whichever choice one discerns and makes, the eremitical life they are discerning and choosing is a real and significant vocation and that we must learn to esteem not only the similarities they share with their counterpart (lay or consecrated), but especially their unique gift quality and capacity to speak variously to different segments of the church and world.

 So, I am sorry if my position in these matters has been misunderstood or if someone is upset because of what I have written about the paradigmatic notion of canonical eremitical life, whether solitary or semi-eremitical. However, I am clear about what I have been writing consistently for the past @16+ years in support of the non-canonical or lay eremitical life. That also includes what happens when it is lived badly by eccentrics, frauds, and posers. There are laughable and tragic stereotypes throughout the history of lay eremitical life that are often the first thing folks think of when the word "hermit" is heard. I believe c 603 helps to avoid those. Still, those living authentic eremitical lives, whether non-canonical or canonical should surely cringe at these proverbial "cuckoos" in the eremitical nest! I believe I have written consistently about this as well.

Questions on Types of Hermits and Use of the term Lay Hermits

[[ Hi Sister, you usually write about 3 types of hermits. I wondered if you could explain why CICLSAL says there are 4 kinds? Also, you speak of lay hermits and you wrote about the hierarchical meaning of "lay" recently. Could you cite some official church document that speaks of lay hermits? Thank you.]]

Hi there yourself! You must be asking about the DICLSAL document, The Hermit's Way of Life in the Local Church (Ponam in Deserto Viam, Is 43:19) Guidelines. The difference between the way DICLSAL divides hermits and I do points to a significant oversight on my part really. DICLSAL includes hermits who are members of fundamentally cenobitical communities whose proper law (the law proper to the congregation itself which governs as well as canon law) allows for this option. Generally, I have overlooked this type of hermit not because they are unimportant, but because they do live eremitical lives, but under the proper law of the congregation. Discernment, resources, ministry of authority, Rule, etc., all fall under the congregational Constitutions and Statutes. In my mind it's a self-enclosed world, where one is professed as a member of a community and not as a hermit; though I am sure I have mentioned this option existing, it was this that caused me to overlook it, so thanks for reminding me of what DICLSAL lists as the four forms of eremitical life. (For readers not familiar with the document noted, the four types of hermit are:

1.  Clerical/Lay members of non-eremitical (i.e., monastic or apostolic) institutes of consecrated life living as hermits because it is an option and is regulated under proper law; (please note in this and other categories, DICLSAL has lay persons as members of an institute of consecrated life when lay is used in this hierarchical sense). In this sense of the word, one can be in the consecrated state and lay at the same time because one is not a cleric. 
2. clerical/lay members belonging to eremitic or semi-eremitic institutes of consecrated life whose lives are regulated under universal and proper law, that is under both canon and proper law.
3. clerical/lay faithful who live eremitical lives without professing the evangelical counsels, (please note that Ponans specifically affirms that all the baptized are called to live the evangelical counsels according to their own state of life, ( cf. Par 33); because of this the emphasis of the italicized and emboldened phrase falls on the word professing used in its technical or proper meaning. In this sense profession/professing always refers to a public ecclesial act and not to an act of private avowal no matter who witnesses the act); this also speaks specifically then to secular clergy and lay persons living as hermits without benefit of profession since promises to one's bishop notwithstanding, secular clergy do not profess the evangelical counsels while clergy who are members of institutes of consecrated life always do. Thus, both secular priests and lay persons who do not make public profession can live as hermits. The church recognizes this as a valid form of eremitical life.
4. clerical/lay members of the faithful professing the evangelical counsels by vows or other sacred bonds, in the hands of the local bishop, (C 603 or diocesan hermits).  [The profession of other sacred bonds is what is meant when the Catechism says without always making vows publicly. By definition, profession is always a public act, and with C 603 one need not use vows but can use other sacred bonds.]

I think it is clear just from the document you yourself referred to that hermits can be either clerical or lay members of the faithful. In all cases, DICLSAL is using the hierarchical notion of lay (i.e., anyone not in orders is laity). In the types noted above, members of institutes of consecrated life (i.e.,  religious women and men), whether eremitical, semi-eremitical, monastic or apostolic are either clerical or lay despite profession and consecration. While one could therefore refer to a lay hermit or a priest hermit, as I have done in the past for specific situations or persons, the better general solution is to refer to hermits in terms of their canonical status/standing, either non-canonical or canonical (or, alternately, non-canonical or consecrated. This would include those hermits mentioned above living their eremitical lives under the proper law of a congregation; they would be canonical religious (Benedictines, Carmelites, etc.) living legitimately as non-canonical hermits). This also avoids the confusing ambiguities of the term lay when the hierarchical sense contrasts with a vocational sense. If you want further evidence of the use of lay hermits (or hermits who embrace the evangelical counsels and remain in the lay state), please let me know.

I haven't written here much about Ponans, though folks have asked me several times about whether I had plans to do so or not. I am grateful for your questions; perhaps they will get me started doing some reflections on these important guidelines.

Please note: CICLSAL is now a Dicastery rather than a Congregation, thus the initials DICLSAL rather than CICLSAL.

Normative vs non-Normative Vocations: Canonical vs Non-Canonical Hermits and the Misuse of Terms Like Illegal or Illicit

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, what is an "illegal" or "illicit" hermit? In your post on April 12, 2023 you wrote about non-canonical vocation to eremitical life as ancient and of continuing value. I wondered about someone who believes his own eremitical vocation was rendered illicit or illegal because it is not a c 603 vocation. You may not understand why he would say this but it seems like he feels what was the traditional form of hermit life was made illegal when c 603 came into existence. That seems to be what he is saying.]]

Thanks for the question, but I don't know what that is. Seems to me someone asked something similar several years ago. I will need to look through some older posts to see if I can find that. If I can't locate it I will need to get more information from you. The truth, however, regarding the language of canonicity is pretty simple in the Catholic Church. A canon is a norm and when something is made canonical it means that thing, whether a collection of Scriptures, a form of life, a particular office, a set of requirements, etc., is normative according to the church's understanding of something; on the other hand, non-canonical means not normative according to the church's understanding of the thing. By virtue of baptism alone one can live an eremitical life in any way they believe is appropriate for them and feel called to do. However, one is not a Catholic Hermit because what one lives is a private matter and one doesn't live this life, nor is one called to do so, according to all of the norms (standards) governing canonical eremitical life. One does it instead by virtue of one's lay state and the freedom one has in Christ. 

In this case, one dedicates him/herself to serve God in the eremitical life. S/he may make private vows of some sort, but they will not rise to the level of religious profession, nor will they be public or canonical. Because these kinds of commitments (public, canonical) are absent, and because the canonical rights and obligations (along with the expectations granted to the faithful generally in regard to this vocation) are similarly absent, we call this kind of eremitical life non-canonical. It does NOT mean illicit or illegal nor do I know anyone who considers this to be the case. Again, it is simply not normative of ecclesial eremitical life (i.e., it is not canonical) --- though it may well represent an excellent instance of eremitical life and one any hermit can learn from. 

There are two other forms of eremitical life in the church and both involve public (canonical) profession and consecration by God mediated by the Church and are lived in the name of the Church. These are normative forms of eremitical life in the Church. Thus too, both are marked by legal or normative (canonical) rights and obligations that do not obtain in the first form of this life. Another way of saying this is to note that they are both canonical because they are forms of life marked by canonical rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism. The first is solitary eremitical life (members of which could become a lavra on a temporary basis) and the other is semi-eremitical (a canonical community or institute of hermits), where one's profession is made within the context of the institute. In both of these one makes a profession which, by the way, means more than the making of vows (an act of dedication, by the way). Sandra Schneiders, IHM, makes it clear that profession is a broader act than the simple making of vows. First it is a public act in which the individual takes on the kinds of rights and obligations mentioned above and does so as an expression and realization of a gift of God which has been entrusted to the Church and can only be mediated to one by the Church.

Secondly, then, an act of profession is an ecclesial act where the church extends to the individual the right to make such a profession, affirms them as called to live this in the name of the church, and establishes with various structures and offices a context meant to assure the gift is well-lived and continues the tradition into which the individual has been professed as a living, fruitful stream of the Holy Spirit. This differs from a private avowal which ordinarily involves no one but the individual(s) making the vows. Someone may witness such vows, but no one receives them on behalf of the church, no additional public rights nor obligations are entrusted nor taken on, no change of state occurs (there is no additional consecration by God** so one remains in the baptized state alone), and so forth. With private or non-canonical eremitical vocations vows or other forms of dedication don't even need to be made (though foregoing these might be unwise). Still, the dedication may be informal or formal (though still entirely private) --- depending on what suits the individual hermit. 

For canonical hermits profession is made in two ways, first, for solitary hermits, under c 603. When this canon is used, the profession is made to God in the hands of the local ordinary. Because we are speaking about the public assumption and entrustment of the hermit with ecclesial rights and obligations, the rite of profession (involving both profession and commissioning) is mediated by the church. The second way is to admit an individual to membership in an institute of consecrated life living eremitical life. This is familiar to us as admission into religious life and all that constitutes that. Individuals make their professions to God in the hands of the Prior(ess), Abbot (Abbess), of the order, that is in the hands of the general superior. (In both of these forms or eremitical life, perpetual or solemn profession God's consecration of the hermit is also mediated with a solemn blessing of consecration given by the bishop. Similarly, visible symbols of the new state, rights, and obligations, dedication and commission) This mediation continues throughout the entirety of the hermit's life. Hence, it involves canonical structures, an approved Rule, legitimate superiors, ecclesial requirements, etc., to allow the church to ensure this gift of consecrated life contributes to the holiness of the church.

All of this is recognized by the church in her (still relatively) new Canon 603. Here she extends to the solitary hermit who petitions and is accepted by her diocese for profession and then consecration, the standing that had been extended to religious institutes throughout the centuries. Individual dioceses had done some similar things in the late middle ages, usually in order to introduce some structure, obligations,  and responsibilities (i.e., norms) into the ranks of hermits traveling throughout the countryside, when bishops established statutes hermits had to commit to be allowed to represent themselves as hermits/anchorites or to preach and beg. But canon 603 goes further than these statutes for what c 603 does is establish the hermit in what was once called a state of perfection (now, the consecrated state) and allows a solitary hermit to be regarded as a religious despite not belonging to an institute of consecrated life. the Church did this not only to recognize the significance of the eremitical vocation, but to protect it and authentic vocations to it. 

Despite what sometimes seemed like hoards of solitary hermits (for instance, in Italy at the time of Romuald) and the number of institutes of hermits established over the centuries, very few of such institutes lived into the 20th Century and individual hermits became a rarity. Most well-known are the Camaldolese and the Carthusians, but there were also Carmelites, and some hermits within other institutes like the Trappists and Trappistines. Still, eremitical life was a rare and poorly understood vocation. After all, in the Western church, the eremitical life had almost died out. And of course, it was not so easy in the contemporary world to go off into the boonies and establish oneself as a hermit in the ways that were once possible. Moreover, our contemporary world often mistakes various other forms of life for the genuinely eremitical, including individualism, cocooning, misanthropy, agoraphobia, etc. 

Within the church herself,  contemplative life became rarer, genuine silence and solitude much harder to find, shifts in spirituality that themselves were healthy and the necessary emphasis on ministerial life threw shade on eremitical life. But monks and nuns continued to discover calls to greater solitude and silence than their life in community really allowed for. Eventually, in response, the church carved out a space for solitary hermits with c 603. The canonical requirements helped replace the institutes necessary for the Camaldolese and Carthusians, for instance. At the same time, no pre-existing forms of eremitical life were replaced by c 603. Instead, it created a new form of consecrated life. Those baptized and in the lay state could live eremitism in their lay state before c 603 and they still can! The same is true of clerics with their bishop's permission. Thus, no eremitical form of life, especially that made known by the desert Abbas and Ammas who embraced desert spirituality as laity, has been rendered illegal!!! To speak so is misleading and I consider it disedifying given the significance of non-canonical hermit vocations through the centuries. 

** Baptism represents a consecration of the baptized. When one is perpetually professed as a religious or c 603 hermit, a second consecration in the form of a solemn prayer of consecration is extended to the person making their profession. (In temporary vows, the solemn prayer of consecration is not found; instead there is a prayer of blessing.) We call this being initiated into the consecrated state of life. In this act God consecrates the person, the person does not consecrate herself to God. Instead, no matter the commonality of this language of consecrating oneself, the one making profession dedicates herself to God. Only God can consecrate, for God alone is holy and makes holy. Vatican II was very careful always to maintain the distinction between these two verbs, dedicare and consecrare (as well as similar terms).