Private Vows do Not Constitute Profession

[[Sister, are you saying that the word profession is not rightly used for private commitments? It's commonly used any time someone makes vows so are you saying that is incorrect? That's going to shake some folks up!!]]

Yes, there are a couple of words that are used commonly when they actually have technical and more limited meanings and applications. Profession is one of these. (Consecration is another.) The making of private vows does not constitute profession. It is an avowal, a dedication. a significant personal commitment, but it is not a profession. A profession is made publicly and in the hands of a competent authority receiving one's vows; it is an ecclesial act to which one is carefully admitted after mutual discernment. It binds one in law, that is canonically, to new public rights and obligations and thus, establishes the person in a new state of life. Moreover, it gives the People of God the right to certain expectations rooted in this profession. Private commitments, whether using vows or not, do none of these things. Even so, we have begun to qualify profession with the term public (or private) because of how common the mistaken usage (speaking as though profession refers to any vows at all) has become.

But there is a problem in shifting the meaning from an exclusive usage to a qualified one. It happens when we read older texts that simply say "profession" without qualification. JPII, for instance doesn't say "public profession" in Vita Consecrata, but this is what he means when he says "profession". It is what he assumes when he speaks of "consecrated life" or the "consecrated state". He is using the term in the unqualified way it was always used until very recently; in so doing he compares and contrasts a "second consecration" which is an ecclesial act with the consecration of baptism, as well as contrasting profession with vows of poverty, chastity and obedience made by a couple within marriage. In the latter case he is clear these vows do not initiate into the consecrated state.  Some may simply not know this and may assume "profession" has the same meaning in recent documents as it did in the past. Bearing all this in mind the bottom line that must be made clear is that whichever usage we adopt (qualifying the term profession or using it exclusively for public commitments) there is a vast difference between private and public commitments.

If a person claims to have been initiated into the consecrated state with private vows I would ask them several questions: 1) in the hands of what competent authority did you make your commitment? 2) what new canonical rights and obligations are incumbent upon you now? 3) What expectations do the People of God have the right to hold in your regard precisely because of the new canonical rights and obligations you have been entrusted with and embraced? 4) Who, on behalf of the Church, (i.e., what competent authority) discerned this vocation with you, 5) Who admitted you canonically to vows? 6) To what do your vows legally bind you that your (baptized, lay) state in life does not already bind you? and finally, 7) What then do you make of Par 944 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: [[944 The life consecrated to God is characterized by the public profession of the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.]] This is not a matter of quibbling over terminology. It is a matter of making clear what profession (and here I mean the entire Act or Rite of Profession) effects or makes binding in law that private vows do not and cannot. In this usage "profession" is a synecdoche.*
_____________________________________
*Again, profession is more than the making of a commitment whether one uses vows or other sacred bonds. It includes the Church's calling forth, the person's request to be admitted to public vows, an examination of readiness to  make this  commitment, the prayer of the whole Church, both militant and triumphant to witness and participate in what is happening here (Litany of Saints) and celebrant's prayer, the making of vows (Profession), the Solemn blessing or Consecration of the Professed (in perpetual profession), the presentation of religious insigniae (ring, cowl, etc.). . . concluding rite with solemn blessing.

As you can see, the rite is an ecclesial act. It involves the entire Church participating in the granting and embracing of a new ecclesial identity with new public rights and obligations. This is where the term public comes from. The commitment is not a private one no matter how hidden the hermit's life. Throughout this rite the Church calls the candidate for profession and the candidate responds. This is repeated in an ongoing dialogue between Church (competent authority) and the one making profession/being professed. It is this entire dialogue of giving and receiving, calling and responding that is referred to as Profession though we refer to the making of vows themselves as profession; this is a synecdoche where one part gives the name to the whole.

 Similarly one can speak of one's consecration as a synecdoche where the solemn blessing or consecration names the entire event. When someone refers to this event they will say either "your profession" or "your consecration" but they mean the entire rite and what it occasions canonically, personally, ecclesially, etc. Note well, consecration is not something the professed does with herself; it is something God does to or with her through the mediation of the Church.

Question on Vita Consecrata

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

[[[St. John Paul II clearly differentiates in Vita Consecrata how it is that traditional privately professed hermits are definitely not part of the laity. This is by virtue of our allowed and legitimate profession of the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, by our vows, our rule of life, and our having lived in all aspects of solitary hermit life: fully surrendered in sacrifice and our bodies, minds, hearts, and souls fully consecrated to Christ and His Church.]]

Dear Sister, have you read John Paul II's Vita Consecrata? I don't have it and have not read it. I figured you surely would have! Because of your post on basic vocabulary. I am thinking that the phrase "legitimate profession" is a technical term which does not merely refer to the making of vows, especially private vows. Am I  right? I am guessing here, but does it mean a profession of vows made in law or under canon law and initiating one into a new state of life? That would mean that if John Paul II said "legitimate profession" he is not referring to private vows. Also, is the following quote accurate? [[(Pope JPII makes clear we are not part of the laity by reality of our professing the three evangelical counsels, our vows, rules of life, and way of living our vocations daily, some of us for years, and considering all the historical, traditional hermits of the past many centuries)]]

Yes, of course, I have read Vita Consecrata, but it was not recently. I have a copy of it on Kindle so I can review it. I don't recall what JPII said of historical hermits prior to canon 603 or apart from those professed in societies or institutes of consecrated life so I will need to check that out. I sincerely doubt that he says hermits who use private vows to make their dedication of the evangelical counsels  (sans religious poverty or religious obedience) have made a legitimate profession. Moreover, I am sure he never says anything about someone not being part of the laity because he is specifically writing positively about canonical consecrated life, nothing else. However, you are correct in what you surmise, the word profession always refers to a public and thus, an act of dedication  made by canonical vows or other sacred bonds; when perpetual profession is made along with ecclesial consecration this profession initiates one into a new state of life. If John Paul spoke of  legitimate profession he means a canonical (legal) and public act involving the one professing, a competent authority who receives the profession, and the entire church also witnessing to this exchange between God, the hermit, and the competent authority.

(After reviewing) The document speaks of hermits under forms of consecrated life and at some length only once that I could find: [Men and women hermits belonging to ancient Orders [e.g.,Benedictine, Camaldolese, Carthusian, etc] or new Institutes [new canonical Societies and Congregations of consecrated life], or being directly dependent on the Bishop [c 603] bear witness to the passing nature of the present age by their inward and outward separation from the world. By fasting and penance, they show that man does not live by bread alone but by the word of God (cf Mark 4:4)   There are then references to contemplative life, much of which will apply to hermits, however, there is no way that I can see that the document suggests much less affirms that hermits with private vows are not considered laity (and therefore, lay hermits). Private vows are never explicitly mentioned with regard to hermits. JPII does speak of those who are married and make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience but he says of these: [[However by reason of the above-mentioned principle of discernment, these forms of commitment cannot be included in the specific category of the consecrated life.]]

In another place he says of the difference between the consecration of baptism and that of the "second consecration": [[This further consecration, however, differs in a special way from baptismal consecration, of which it is not a necessary consequence. In fact, all those reborn in Christ are called to live out, with the strength which is the Spirit's gift, the chastity appropriate to their state of life, obedience to God and to the Church, and a reasonable detachment from material possessions.. . .]] I believe this is another way of saying, one does not profess what one is already bound to do. For instance, every person is bound to chastity and to poverty as well as to obedience as appropriate to their given state. Religious obedience and religious poverty are different matters and are only embraced by public profession (vows made publicly and received by a competent authority). Public profession initiates one into a new state with new canonical rights and obligations; the People of God have the right to new expectations of such a person and there are new structures (e.g., legitimate superiors and the ministry of authority) which bind in law. Private vows do none of these things.

Thus, as you surmised, JP II uses the term profession to indicate an ecclesial action by which the Church, in the hands of a competent authority, receives the vows and mediates the Divine consecration that initiates the person into a new state of life with new legal (canonical) rights and obligations. Private vows do not constitute profession. Avowal, yes, but profession, no. I read through the entire document and read a theology of consecrated life which is as I have posted many times. Perhaps you could ask (and please cite) your source what s/he read that made his/her alternate conclusion so clear. I didn't see it. Get back to me with the info and once I review it I'll correct this post as needed. Thanks.

On Catechisms, Lay hermit Life and the Reasons for Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, I get the impression that you are "allergic" to people who live eremitical life for selfish reasons. As I continue to read your blog I am beginning to get a sense of why you emphasize the character of ecclesial vocations. I know you insist the consecrated and lay hermit vocations are different from one another but not that one is better than the other. Isn't it the case though, that as soon as one of these is defined as an ecclesial vocation, it becomes a calling that avoids selfishness and some of the other stereotypes associated with eremitical life? Is it really possible to live as a lay hermit and avoid these things? Could it be impossible and if so, maybe this is the reason the Church really doesn't do a lot to speak of hermits in the lay state. Maybe that's part of the reason the CCC  doesn't actually refer to lay hermits but chooses instead to speak of consecrated hermits.]]

What an intriguing analysis!!! Thank you for the thought you have given this. I think you have sharpened or underscored the importance of ecclesial standing in regard to eremitical life. Ecclesial vocations, as I have said many times, "belong" to the Church and are lived on her behalf for the sake of her Gospel and those to whom she would proclaim that Gospel. Such vocations truly are allergic to selfishness --- except in the sense that any vocation genuinely serves the wholeness and holiness of the one called and then everyone else. Even so, and despite the fact that this helps protect the eremitical vocation from the stereotypes of individualism, misanthropy, isolationism, and so forth, I don't think it means either that consecrated hermits don't fall into these traps or that lay eremitical lives cannot be lived in a similarly exemplary way. Or, to put things more positively, I believe both consecrated and lay (or non-canonical) eremitical vocations can be the result of a Divine call and stand in opposition to the stereotypes and perversions of authentic hermit life we have seen through the centuries. Consecrated and Lay eremitical vocations are different in their rights and obligations but at the core of each is a call to the silence of solitude which itself is the eremitical vocation's great gift (charism) to the Church.

Remember the Desert Fathers and Mothers were lay hermits and their vocations were profoundly prophetic; they challenged the worldliness of the Church and called her back to a life of authentic holiness. They typified a true desert spirituality that could serve any person in days of deprivation, suffering, want, fragility, and threat with its foundational message that God alone is sufficient for us and has promised to be there for us eternally in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place. Now, in a sense, these Desert Abbas and Ammas were Church for one another as well as for those to whom they witnessed from beyond the desert borders. Also in a sense, these hermits saw their vocations as serving the whole Church. These were not ecclesial vocations in the sense we use that term today, but they were profoundly linked to and meant for the health and holiness of the Church.

In the history of the Church lay (non-canonical) hermits have, for instance, served as anchorites connected intimately to the life of the local church. Not only did they attend liturgy via a window looking out on the altar, but they had windows on the life of the community via the village square which allowed folks to come to them, talk, ask for prayers, receive spiritual direction, and just generally find a listening ear and heart. These were, in the main, lay hermits -- though quite often they were under the supervision of the local bishop and may have made vows in his hands as part of some kind of  "diocesan" standing. Other hermits served as ferry captains, toll collectors, gamekeepers, foresters, etc; in these cases, their lives were lives of service even as they were lives of profound solitude. For all of these reasons, I have to disagree that lay hermits are somehow essentially selfish or incapable of a generous service to the Church and/or others. The Church herself is aware of this history; I don't expect her lack of mention of hermits in the lay state (as opposed to those in the consecrated state) is motivated by any sense that such hermits are selfish, individualistic, misanthropic, or anything similar.

While it is true that stereotypes developed out of the world's long experience with lay hermits and while some of these hermits were undoubtedly guilty of selfishness, individualism, and so forth it is the essential truth lay hermits have borne witness to that lives on and has now been codified in canon 603. Bishop Remi de Roo recognized this and asked for eremitical life to be made a state of perfection (in our contemporary language, an instance of the consecrated state oriented to perfection). This request was eventually codified in canon 603 in 1983 when it then became possible for a lay hermit to be admitted to the consecrated state by one's local bishop. The mechanism for this admission involves 1) mutual discernment of the vocation by the hermit and her diocese, 2) public profession of the evangelical counsels (603.2), and 3) ongoing supervision of such vocations by one's local bishop.

Canon 603 does two things then: 1) it allows solitary eremitical life to be lived as a form of consecrated life, and thus too, as a form of prophetic existence within a stable state of life governed by the Church, and 2) it allows the life to be protected from abuse, disedifying stereotypes, individualism, selfishness, and so forth. Lay hermits today may not fall prey to the dangers and distortions associated with hermits throughout the centuries, but I think it is important that they realize the significance of an ecclesial/canonical vocation that publicly proclaims the significance of eremitism and helps protect it from so much that detracts from its dignity and witness potential. Most importantly to my mind, canon 603 indicates that this vocation "belongs" to the Church, that, as solitary as it is, eremitical life is a form of life in community, and that it is a similarly responsible vocation. Individual lay hermits may actually live their vocations with the same spirit and motivations (I know some who certainly do; their lives are inspiring), but as I experience it, it is the canonical nature of consecrated solitary eremitism, its existence as a stable state of consecrated life, that really ensures the hermit never forgets what eremitical life is essentially and who she is in light of her profession, consecration, and commissioning.

Regarding the reason the CCC did not really speak to eremitical life, I am not so cynical as you. The Catechism refers to consecrated life and describes eremitical life in that state. I believe the authors of the Catechism were well aware that their descriptions of this new form of consecrated life was one which could well inspire those whom the circumstances of life has left isolated for one reason and another and who seek the redemption rather than the validation (!) of their isolation). Some would do this in the lay state. Lay persons are entirely free to live as hermits; they are also free (generally speaking) to seek admission to profession and consecration as a member of a congregation of hermits or as a solitary hermit under c 603.

The CCC does not list every way of life a lay person may live as a lay person; it lists different (and normative) vocations in terms of specific states of life. Because the lay hermit, despite the prayer and solitude of her life, is still living this in the lay state; everything s/he does (including living as a hermit) is an expression of his/her lay state, until and unless s/he is admitted to public vows and consecration. There is really no necessary reason for the CCC to specify lay persons in its treatment of consecrated eremitical life. Canon 603 is both new and normative of solitary eremitical life in the consecrated state which the Catechism references and from which it derives its more general description of eremitical life. While referring to consecrated life per se I think the authors of the CCC believed lay persons should be able (as they clearly are) to be inspired by this description. I suspect there was nothing more than this involved in the way the CCC handled eremitical life as a vocation to consecrated life without specific reference to lay hermits. We can wish the CCC gave some space to lay eremitical life, especially in light of exemplary eremitical lives like those of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, but the work's limitations (both of space and intent) made this apparently unnecessary or impossible.

Followup Questions on Accountability and the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my question on diocesan v universal church representation by hermits. If someone argues that they are not subject to a local bishop in the way canon 603 hermits are because they are not diocesan but instead are hermits in the whole Church then how is it they are responsible to the Church for their vocation? Is their pastor the one they are answerable to? Is Joyful Hermit insinuating she is responsible in a less local way  to someone other than her local bishop? It just seems to me that if she explains that she can move from place to place without requiring acceptance by the local bishop  she must be "suggesting" she is answerable in a different way --- or maybe not at all. How would a bishop feel about having some hermits who were accountable to him and others who are not accountable at all? I can't imagine that sitting well with most bishops, not mine anyway! Lastly, I was wondering about your own statement about your vocation. You say you live your vocation with God in the silence of solitude for the sake of others. Do you mean merely that you pray for others? Are you accountable to others besides your bishop and delegate?]]

 You are most welcome. You have also put your finger on the really important issue of accountability. The Church does not ordain or profess and/or consecrate anyone in an ecclesial vocation (priesthood, religious or monastic life, canonical eremitical life, consecrated virginity) without assuring adequate structures or relationships for accountability. In a vocation with the history and heritage of stereotypes common to eremitical life as well as its rarity (it is not the usual way most people come to human wholeness!), the need to assure supervision and accountability becomes particularly important. In any case whether one belongs to a religious congregation, is a consecrated hermit or a consecrated virgin, one is responsible to people on the local level more immediately than to others on less local levels. Again, we use the principle of "subsidiarity" to be sure accountability is exercised at a level which is most helpful to the consecrated person and the congregation or local church in which the person ministers and lives her life.

Recently I wrote that legitimate superiors exercise what is known as the ministry of authority. I also wrote it is a ministry of love and service. For this to be true, authority must be exercised at a level closest to the one being ministered to. Accountability must be similarly exercised or the entire dynamic of loving service will be short-circuited or made empty. By the way, though a pastor is closest to a consecrated hermit in terms of church attendance, reception of sacraments, and pastoral care, etc, pastors of parishes are not legitimate superiors in the sense required by law. They may witness (but not receive) private vows; in so doing they do not become responsible for an eremitical vocation in the ways a bishop does. Neither would a hermit's Spiritual Director. The ministry of authority requires both persons in the relationship grant and accept the rights and obligations which are part of the exercise of legitimate authority. This means they must also be able to do so and this requires commissioning by a greater legitimate authority.  Bishops acquire their authority with regard to consecrated hermits from Canon 603 and from Rome which appoints them bishops in the first place. Parish pastors or parochial administrators have not been given the authority to act in this way with regard to a consecrated hermit --- though, of course, a bishop could delegate a hermit's pastor to take on such a responsibility and authority as he delegates this to any delegate/Director.

Regarding subsidiarity with regard to religious institutes, while these have General superiors (Presidents, etc) there are also a network of superiors exercising authority at more and more local levels (provincials, priors and prioresses, regional superiors,  novice or juniorate directors, etc., to the level of house superiors). Solitary consecrated hermits (c 603 hermits) don't have such a network of those in authority because they do not belong to institutes of consecrated life. Instead, they make their vows in the hands of the local bishop who is thus their legitimate superior and he assigns or accepts the hermit's choice for a delegate or Director who serves as a kind of superior for the hermit by exercising the ministry of authority on behalf of the bishop/diocese for the benefit of the hermit's life and vocation. However, no one who is professed and consecrated is without the relationships required for the exercise of their obligation to accountability, and this at the lowest (i.e., the most local)  possible level of responsibility according to the principle of subsidiarity.

To suggest one is not accountable in this way while claiming the title "consecrated hermit" or to affirm that one can move from place to place because they are responsible to the "universal church" is simply to indicate one does not know (or perhaps care) how such things actually work in the Roman Catholic Church; it is to express an actual untruth. This is of a piece with saying Canon 603 doesn't mention legitimate superiors when it clearly refers to making one's profession "in the hands of" the Local bishop; profession is always made in the hands of the one serving as legitimate superior. Doing so is derived from an act of fealty once made to Kings, princes, and other Lords. There are many words that Canon 603 doesn't use directly and are nonetheless presupposed by the canon. Because a word is missing does not mean the concept is not present nor part of the Church's larger theology of consecrated life.

How Would a Bishop Feel?

How would bishops feel if they have canonical hermits who are accountable to the bishop and other hermits who come and go without being accountable? I suspect the situation would be problematical (unworkable) and at least frustrating for such bishops. Imagine then that such a person blogged in ways that were disedifying about the eremitical vocation. Imagine they had their own take on private vows and consecration based upon a misinterpretation of  two ambiguously or even mistakenly translated paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imagine this same lay hermit insisted on remaining anonymous and without specific location in the putative name of "eremitical hiddenness" all while claiming to be a "consecrated religious" or a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while writing disedifying things about consecrated life or misrepresenting eremitical life and the Church's role in governing such vocations! But of course, the Church does not have a dual track in the way it governs consecrated life. It does not allow for accountability of those in one track and complete unaccountability of those in another. Instead, it recognizes and states clearly that the consecrated state of life is a "stable state of life" lived for the edification of the Church and the glory of God and it provides (and requires) what is necessary to establish and maintain that stability including structures and relationships ensuring responsibility and accountability.

I once thought Canon 603 referred to both lay and consecrated solitary hermits. Over time I came to change my mind on that. Similarly, I tried several ways to make sense of the ambiguity of pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it speaks of "without always making vows publicly". In time I checked the original Latin which clarified the canon could not be referring to the possibility of private vows or to lay hermit life as well as consecrated life. I concluded the badly-written English version was trying to point to the only alternative to public vows c 603 allows, namely the use of other sacred bonds. In either case, though, the person's profession is and must be a public one and other sections of the CCC (cf par 944) make that absolutely clear. One of my sincerest hopes is that when the CCC is revised they will clarify the matter and add a paragraph on the importance of the lay hermit, the non-canonical hermit who embraces eremitical life within the baptized state without the benefit of additional canons or institutional accountability. As it stands the CCC is particularly problematical because of those who would like to exploit its misleading ambiguities and portray themselves as consecrated hermits without being admitted by public profession to the graces, rights, or obligations of that vocation.

Questions about Joyful Hermit Specifically:

You ask several questions about Joyful Hermit specifically.  While I will answer these generally with regard to Joyful, I believe they fit anyone claiming/pretending --- for whatever reason --- to being a Consecrated Religious or hermit living eremitical life in the name of the Church. I think the bottom line is that beyond her baptism Joyful (and others) has not been initiated into any canonical (public, legal) relationships within the Church or with her leadership or hierarchy, no canonical standing that would allow her to claim to be obligated or accountable in the way someone with an ecclesial vocation as a "consecrated hermit" would necessarily be obligated and accountable. Another way of saying this is to note that Joyful and persons like her have not been initiated into the stable state of life associated with profession and/or consecration.

What you cited earlier did sound to me like an attempt by Joyful to avoid the entire issue of ecclesial accountability with vague references to the Universal Church and mistaken interpretations of what it means to be a diocesan hermit. That said, Joyful remains a laywoman who has embraced eremitical life without the benefit of canonical standing or consecration beyond her baptism. This does not detract from the fact that her own vocation is important. In fact, it accents its importance. Her private vows are of real value, both personally and in the Church. As a result of her baptism, she has the very significant freedom of a lay person to live eremitical life as she deems necessary in response to God's call. She is free to move about as a hermit without direct accountability to anyone except God and her own conscience precisely because she is a lay hermit and not one in the consecrated state of life. What is interesting to me is that she lives precisely this kind of freedom even as she insists she is a "consecrated Catholic Hermit".

It is important (and quite challenging) that people like Joyful accept their vocations, that they respond to God's call in the lay state and find ways to live eremitical life with authenticity. The history of eremitical life has been carried forward in the Western Church by such people -- not least the Desert Fathers and Mothers or the anchorites prevalent in the Middle Ages. As I have noted a number of times here the majority of hermits have been and will always be lay hermits --- those who embrace a call to eremitical life in their baptized state without benefit or need of canonical profession or consecration. But one does not do this by refusing to accept the simple fact that a private commitment by a lay person means one remains a person in the lay state. In this matter, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Joyful (or anyone in a similar situation) cannot seek the benefit of calling herself and being regarded as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while insisting on the unique freedom which is pertinent to lay (or non canonical) eremitical life. She (nor any other person acting similarly) cannot honestly claim an ecclesial vocation without concrete accountability to legitimate superiors or the other elements which constitute a stable consecrated state of life in the Roman Catholic Church.

Commissioned to Live Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church:

I am reminded that the Church has sent me and other canonical hermits into our hermitages to live the silence of solitude in communion with God for the sake of others; that sending obligates me to accountability not only to eremitical life generally, but to solitary eremitical life as the Church has codified this in c 603. Because Joyful is privately vowed, her own missioning is as a lay person and her correlative accountability thus takes a very different form than someone in the consecrated state; again, as a result she is entirely free to live her lay vocation in whatever way she chooses without direct accountability to the Church for the form of life she chooses for herself --- but also without the title appropriate to those living consecrated (canonical) vocations. Similarly one cannot speak and write about canon 603 as a kind of distortion of eremitical life, as Joyful has certainly done from time to time throughout the years, and at the same time ask folks to treat her as though she has the kind of standing in law canon 603 establishes.

This is not a matter of legalism as Joyful tends to claim; it is simply a recognition that the rights attending consecrated life are matched by obligations a person is called by God to embrace through the mediation of God's Church. The Church's own approach to consecrated eremitical life is entirely consistent. Those who live eremitical life in the name of the Church are commissioned to live an explicit accountability to God's People in the hands of legitimate superiors. They accept this accountability as a unique form of responsible eremitical freedom. Not everyone is called or even desires to be called in this way. For those who are not (or who do not desire to be)  called in this way, the route of lay eremitical life is available to them, a route which has been of inestimable value and significance to eremitical life in the Church. But again, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. To believe otherwise is childish and unthinking; moreover, it denigrates or at least disregards the kind of commitments and sacrifices made by those who have freely embraced the consecrated state of life and the direct accountability it involves.

To Whom Else am I Responsible?

Your last question is good. Thank you for asking this. While I do regularly pray for others I do not understand the heart of my accountability to others as that. Instead I understand that first of all I am called to witness to the Gospel that says God completes us, God alone is sufficient for us, God loves and delights in us in spite of our sinfulness or isolation. In today's world (and this is especially clear where I live) we see elderly people and others who are isolated from their churches, from families, through bereavement from their spouses, and so forth. We see people who are isolated by disability and the rhythm of whose lives are marked by illness and even impending death. I believe my life is meant to speak to these people in particular. Yes, of course I pray for them, but even more I hope to witness to them that the way to wholeness, holiness, and completeness is still open to them in God embraced in solitude. I hope that my life says that eremitical solitude is not the same as isolation and that while my life is marked by several things which isolate, this isolation can be redeemed by God and transfigured into a solitude which is filled with life, love, meaning, and hope.

I believe I am called by God through the mediation of God's Church to witness in this way to these and similar people. In a very real way I am responsible to them --- not in the sense I am accountable to the Church through legitimate superiors, but no less really nonetheless. I don't believe the Church professes and consecrates anyone to eremitical solitude simply to make of them some sort of "prayer warrior" (as important as prayer is!!), much less to institutionalize selfishness and individualism. Canonical Hermits are called, like any other Religious is called, to witness to the God who comes to us in the unexpected and unacceptable place, who makes of the deserts of our lives fields which flourish with new life and growth, who allows the dry and barren places to run with living water and the sweetness of milk and wild honey, who transforms  screams of suffering and the anguish of muteness into Magnificats of praise and articulate proclamations of the Good News.

The role of my bishop and delegate is to be sure I live, and have secured (or am able to secure) the necessary means to live the commission to this vocation which the Church has entrusted to me. (This is similarly true for any diocesan hermit with regard to their bishops and delegates.) The personal formation work I do with my Director is meant to be sure I live fully the truth of myself with God. I, as is true of any diocesan hermit, am morally, and legally accountable to the Church in a direct and concrete way for doing whatever it takes within the context of Canon 603 and the eremitical tradition, to become God's own prayer in our world and to witness to the completion that is possible for each one of us with and in God, no matter the circumstances of our lives. I, as again is true for any diocesan hermit, am directly and concretely accountable to the Church Universal to witness to the adequacy and beauty of Canon 603; this canon spells out in normative fashion (thus the term "canon") what a solitary hermit is all about. I, like any diocesan hermit am accountable to my parish and diocese (the local Church) to bring what gifts I can to them in order to witness to the life that God offers and invites us each to. I am accountable to them to be the hermit I am called to be --- not as an isolated individualist, but as someone who recognizes that eremitical solitude is a unique form of community which itself can help build community in powerful ways. In these and any number of complementary ways I am accountable to the Church on both universal and local levels. Again, this is true for anyone claiming a vocation to consecrated life in the Church. 

Reprising the Problem of Lay Hermits Who Falsely Claim to be Consecrated (Part 1)

It has been some time since I have written about the problem of lay hermits who misrepresent themselves as consecrated hermits but it is time to reprise the discussion. It is always an issue which serves as something of a flash point for those who believe consecrated hermits are demeaning those living eremitical life in the lay (baptized) state of life and it is not my preference to serve in this way. Moreover I found that in one particular case the lay hermit in question used the distinctions I was careful to articulate in order to make her own fraudulent misrepresentation more credible to those who were not knowledgeable of the critical questions her usage obscured. It's hard to write to educate only to find what one writes is used to make a fraud's misrepresentations more apparently cogent! But the simplicity and relative independence of the lives of canon 603 hermits make them relatively easy to simulate, and their consecration something far too easy to pretend to. Even so, it is important to review the issues involved.

This is so because the situation has come to the attention of CICLSAL (The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) in Rome because there are reports about hermits who are not consecrated whether or not they have private vows, but who, at best, believe and allow others to believe they are consecrated hermits, or at worst, actively work to mislead others and misrepresent themselves in a way which is frankly fraudulent. These latter, among other things, can be found to call themselves "religious" or "Catholic Hermits", or "consecrated Catholic hermits" and describe themselves as "part of the consecrated life of the Church"; they sometimes focus  others' attention on descriptions of the liturgy during which they were (somehow) allowed to make private vows to give the errant sense these vows were received by the Church, beg money, give the sense the Church leaves them in abject poverty and dire medical circumstances while expecting they live a rigorous life of assiduous prayer, penance, and manual labor, and raise any number of other problematical issues. And so, Rome is looking to find ways to deal with the concerns of consecrated hermits, pastors, and bishops --- as well as confused faithful more generally who have been snookered by such hermits and non-hermits --- and is beginning to try to deal with the problem of lay hermits (or non-hermits!) who misrepresent themselves as consecrated hermits whether because they are simply ignorant of the Church's theology of consecrated life or because their fraud is more actively pursued by taking advantage of the theological ignorance of others.

What is really at issue?

So what is really at issue in all of this? We can certainly agree with CICLSAL  that the theology of consecrated life is at stake; from my perspective this means it is our sensitivity to the specifically public and ecclesial nature of consecrated eremitical lives and our recognition of the charismatic and prophetic natures of these vocations which is most at risk. While every vocation is a gift of God to the Church and world, not every vocation is an ecclesial one; not every vocation is discerned by both Church and individual or supervised specifically by the Church because it represents a public instance of the Church's holiness and call to holiness. Not every vocation is a public vocation with public profession (e.g., public vows or propositum), public rights, obligations, and commensurate expectations by the whole People of God (and world, for that matter). But the vocation to c 603 eremitical life is all of these things and more. We, whether consecrated hermits, pastors, bishops, or canonists, treat it with the regard appropriate to it as the specific gift of God it is. At the same time neither can we obscure, misrepresent, or allow to be obscured and misrepresented any dimension of this ecclesial gift or the paradoxical way it proclaims the Kingdom of God and Gospel of Jesus Christ. To do so is to betray the gifts of God with which we have been entrusted and, to some extent, to dishonor their giver as well.

The Nuts and Bolts of the Misunderstandings Involved:

Willful fraud aside for the moment there are some significant misunderstandings driving the confusions regarding who and what are consecrated hermits. Here is where the theology of consecrated life is central as issue. It seems to me four things contribute most significantly to these misunderstandings. 1) The casual use of the term  "consecrate" for an individual and ecclesially unmediated act of dedication to God, something which occurs across the entire spectrum of the Church; 2) a misreading of pars 920-921 of the CCC (the Catechism of the Catholic Church)  in conjunction with the heading of the section containing these paragraphs, 3) the failure to distinguish between the consecration of baptism and that additional ecclesially mediated act by which one enters a different (i.e., consecrated) state of life (this is the failure to distinguish between the lay and consecrated states of life) and 4) a failure to distinguish between an act of profession which is always public and the making of private vows.

1) The casual use of the term "consecrate" for any act of personal dedication, especially for an ecclesially unmediated act of self-dedication is problematical.  Vatican II, for instance, though very clear about the importance of baptismal consecration and the lay vocation, was, at the same time, very careful to distinguish between the action of God (consecratio) and the human counterpart of this action (dedicatio). Consecration is the setting  of something apart as holy or for the sake of holiness and this is, properly speaking, the action of God alone. Unfortunately, we are used today to speaking of consecrating ourselves in one way and another but this is simply inappropriate and misleading. It is also inaccurate to say that Religious are consecrated by the making of vows. When individuals enter the consecrated state of life they will use vows, other forms of sacred bonds, or the propositum associated with the consecration of virgins (c. 604) to express their own dedication but this is part of the Church's mediation of God's own consecration. A corresponding solemn act of consecration (during final or solemn vows or the consecration of virgins) completes an individual's initiation into the consecrated state of life.

We refer to being consecrated in the making of vows because in this instance the dedication of vows is a synedoche where the part stands for the whole (like "head" might stand for the whole person). We use the term consecration in a similar way in relation to the part, i.e., "making vows" only in this case the whole stands for a part. At the same time, consecrated life per se is a state of life and therefore is marked by particular forms of structure and stability. For the hermit this stability is marked by a Rule of Life, profession of the Evangelical counsels, legitimate superiors and/or the supervision by Church authority (which can include the service role of delegates). All of these dimensions and more besides are part of what it means to speak of this as a state of life and beyond that, as a stable state of life which is a gift of God to the Church and world.

2) Misreading paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism: I don't know how often this misreading of the Catechism occurs (the English version is ambiguous at best), but I do know of one case in particular where a lay hermit builds her entire case of supposedly being in the consecrated state of life on paragraphs 920-921 of the CCC.  I have also received questions about this. The section is headed, "The Consecrated Life of the Church". The paragraphs noted refer to eremitical life and one crucial phrase says that one need not always make vows publicly. What is intended may be an obscure reference to the private vows some lay hermits make, but in such a case the general heading is misleading. Alternately, the CCC may have meant to refer to the "other sacred bonds" besides vows c 603 hermits are allowed to use for their public profession, but if so, the reference is, once again, awkward at best. The question of using private vows for entering the consecrated state of life can only be resolved by referring to the Church's larger theology of the consecrated state which is ALWAYS entered through public profession (c 604 uses a "propositum" rather than vows and c 603 can, as already noted, used sacred bonds other than vows but these are still acts of profession, and thus too, public ecclesial acts). While contextualizing the text in this way is critical, clarification of the meaning of the CCC text, however, would be very helpful in combating misunderstandings and outright fraudulent representations by some lay hermits.

[Addendum: I wrote a post on the Latin original of this section of the CCC on July 29, 2016. It is very clear that profession is ALWAYS public; the English version of the text has interjected the phrase "while not" before always in an awkward attempt to point to the fact that vows are not always necessarily used for this PUBLIC profession. This is what the Church must make clear to pastors, bishops and candidates for c 603 life. Sorry I was not clear myself in this regard in the post at hand.]

A variation here which gives priority to the CCC text, even in interpreting c 603, includes the notion that c 603 is an option or "proviso" which postdates this section of the Catechism and which may or may not be used by the solitary consecrated hermit. Of course this misrepresentation neglects the fact that c. 603 was promulgated long before the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Canon 603  is not merely a "proviso" or option added to that of CCC; it is the way the Church establishes the vocation of the consecrated solitary hermit "in law", that is, officially in the life of the Church. On the other hand, the text of the CCC is descriptive, not prescriptive and cannot be given the kind of priority or weight some lay hermits are giving it in order to diminish the importance of  the Code of Canon Law and c 603.

3) Failing to distinguish between baptismal consecration and the consecration by which one enters the consecrated state of life. It used to be common knowledge that those entering the consecrated state of life did so through a second and ecclesially mediated act of consecration which was akin to a second baptism. The notion of baptismal consecration was not widely applied; the terminology was not commonly used. Moreover, one was understood to definitively enter the "religious state" with perpetual or solemn profession. Other forms of consecrated life did not exist so there was no reason to confuse initiation into the religious state with Sacramental initiation into the Body of Christ. With Vatican II and the fresh esteem given to the lay state of life, the idea of baptismal consecration was revitalized and given wider currency in the Church as a whole. Similarly, besides the religious state the Church gave greater recognition to other forms of consecrated life (hermits, virgins, societies of apostolic life). The term "consecration" was applied to each of these and the distinction between baptismal consecration (initiation into the lay state of life) and initiation into the consecrated state was blurred and sometimes lost sight of altogether. However, the Church's theology of the consecrated state has not changed and it remains important to distinguish between this and the lay state of life (the vocational rather than the hierarchical sense of lay life) in order to honor either of these appropriately.

4) Profession versus private vows: While it is common for folks to use the verb profess or the noun profession for any act of making vows, whether public or private, this is a mistake. Profession refers to an act larger than simply the making of vows which initiates one into another state of life. Profession is therefore used to distinguish the making of public vows from the making of private vows. Private vows do not initiate a person into another state of life; public profession does. The noun profession thus never refers to the making of private vows.

A related misusage stems from the failure to understand what the Church means by the terms private and public in referring to vows.  Because making vows occurs in a way where people know about them, this does not make the vows public. For vows to be public means they are associated with the assumption of public rights and obligations; it means the Church mediates these vows in a way which allows the entire Church to have certain expectations of the one who is publicly professed.  Private vows mark an entirely private commitment which change nothing about a person's public rights and obligations within the Church. They are not insignificant but neither are they akin to public profession by which the Church entrusts one with public rights and obligations or signal to the church and world that the Holy Spirit is working within them in this specific way. If a lay person makes private vows they remain a lay person in the vocational sense as well as the hierarchical sense; they do not enter the consecrated state of life.

A final misusage is the application of the term "Catholic" as in "Catholic Hermit" by those who are not consecrated. This term does not merely mean one is Catholic AND a hermit. Instead it means that one lives the eremitical life in the name of the Church. Canon law is very clear that the term Catholic cannot be applied to a thing, person, or enterprise without appropriate authorization. This is true of religious institutes, TV stations, theologians, and many other things besides; one cannot append the name Catholic to the thing without the permission of the local ordinary. Catholic hermits are representatives of what the Church recognizes, governs, and supervises as eremitical life. (Catholic laity are given the right to call themselves Catholic by virtue of their baptism. To become a Catholic hermit  however, one must be consecrated and thus given permission to style themselves in this way.)

Summary and call for Comments:

At this point I am merely reprising major points of misunderstanding. There are still questions to look at but I would very much like to hear from folks who have questions and thoughts about the problem. I would also like to hear from people who have run across lay hermits who claim to be consecrated and who can describe their experience. Consecrated solitary Hermits form a miniscule part of the consecrated life of the Church but the presence of fraudulent hermits falsely claiming to be consecrated can lead to dioceses failing to deal adequately with genuine instances of the eremitical call. It can lead to a cynicism and suspicion which should not exist about this vocation --- from my perspective, that is. Please let me hear your own perspective on all of this.

Additional Questions on CCC paragraphs 920-921

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I was struck by something you said [a while back] about the CCC paragraphs on eremitical life. I had not realized the CCC was written for Bishops and not for the whole Church so that was striking too but what had the most impact was what you said about the paragraphs on eremitical life needing to be "adequately contextualize(d)" to be read properly. You are aware that some believe they are consecrated Catholic Hermits because the CCC put the paragraphs on eremitical life under the heading "consecrated life." Is this one of the places Bishops and Theologians would read things differently than a lay person without any background in consecrated life? What is especially confusing for me is that the CCC also says hermits don't always make vows publicly. Doesn't this mean they can make them privately? I couldn't quote you because I couldn't cut and paste the passage about reading CCC. I hope that's okay.]]

Thanks for your questions. They are similar, even identical to others I answered just recently here:.ccc-pars-914-915 and 920-921 clarifying their limits and meaning . I think you will find an answer to some of them in that post but let me answer for you personally as well. Here is the passage you referred to: [[I am commissioned and directly responsible for understanding and revealing its [canon 603's] meaning with my life. The catechism, on the other hand, was actually written for bishops, theologians, and those teaching the faith. It thus presumes a broader knowledge which can adequately contextualize and inform what the CCC says in summary fashion. It is not meant to be the final word on things --- much less on things eremitical! (In this case, for instance, par 920-921 are to be read in light of the Church's theology of consecrated life --- not the other way around.) ]]

Yes, what you described is exactly one of those places it is critical the CCC is read in terms of broader knowledge, especially the theology of consecrated life, and canon law. To do otherwise is to build a position and, potentially at least, a life on a  foundation of sand. One cannot use the CCC in a kind of proof-texting way. If one reads paragraphs 920-921 as though they mean one enters the consecrated eremitical state with private vows, what does one do with pars 914-915:  "The state of life which is constituted by the profession of the evangelical counsels, while not entering into the hierarchical structure of the Church, belongs undeniably to her life and holiness." 915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated  by and to God.

c.914 refers to profession which is not defined merely as making vows but as a broader ecclesial act of dedication and reception thereof in which one is initiated into a new state of life. It therefore refers to a PUBLIC act where one in admitted to and accepts rights and obligations commensurate with a new and public state of life. c 915 makes very clear that it is profession within a permanent state of life (perpetual profession in one's new state) recognized by the Church (meaning therefore both the state of life and the act of profession therein) that characterizes the life God consecrates to Himself through the ministry of the Church. All of this is known by every Bishop well-aware of the theology of the consecrated life; it presupposes this awareness and this theology. Even with the confusing phrase, "Without always making profession of the three evangelical counsels publicly, the hermit. . ." knowledgeable readers will know the general theology of consecrated life which is presupposed in this new state of life.

But that does bring us once again to this problematical phrase regarding "without always making profession of the three evangelical counsels publicly". Initially it sounds like it means some may make profession of the counsels privately. But as I argued in the recent post, this cannot be since profession is, by definition, a public act initiating into a new and stable state of life! If one makes private vows they have not made an act of profession; they have made an act of dedication which does not rise to the level of profession  instead --- not least because it has not been made or received in the name of the Church!! That is why, or part of the reason, I pointed out the  sentence must be referring to something else --- namely, that c 603 hermits may use sacred bonds other than vows for their profession

As noted in the earlier post, the original Latin also argues implicitly for this as does the specific context provided by the catechism itself (the heading and focus or content of the section is "Consecrated Life"). I am unclear how the English translation came to be made; it seems to be in direct contradiction to the Latin (please read the earlier post!)  but this cannot be; I have been unable to find a commentary on this passage specifically --- though there are numerous scholars who comment on the inadequacy of the CCC in other sections either in substance or because of translation problems. What I concluded was that the English translation must have been trying to accommodate an element which was different in canon 603 without opposing the original Latin text. I believe this is what explains the clumsiness of the construction. Again, the ONLY element I know of here which could explain that and maintain the original's insistence on public profession is the option to use sacred bonds other than vows. Again, as I noted in the earlier post, profession itself is still and always a public ecclesial act but c 603 hermits may not always use vows to make this profession.