Follow-up to Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?

[[Sister Laurel, if a lay hermit insists c 603.2 applies to them because they were consecrated by God, how would you respond? I can see where none of the elements of c 603.2 apply to her situation except the term consecrated, but how should one respond to such an assertion?]] 

Thanks for your follow-up question. I am assuming the text of (your) first question, Who Can Live c 603 and in What Sense?), so folks should check that post if necessary. First, let me point out that the term used is consecrated life, not merely "consecrated" or even "consecration by God", so we are not merely speaking about a single event whether or not God did indeed consecrate the person. We are speaking about a stable state of life in which one is initiated not only by God but by the Church, to which (state of life) one is publicly committed, and in which one perseveres and thrives.  Divine Consecration is critical, of course, but the canon speaks of consecrated life (that is, a life at every moment witnessing to God's consecration in an ecclesial vocation) and the structural elements that constitute that "in law" in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Secondly, these structural elements involve those elements binding on both the individual and the larger Church itself. So first of all, the hermit makes a public profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop of the three Evangelical Counsels and is thus bound in law. In other words, this life is not a private one, hidden though it may be essentially. It is not anonymous. It is a canonical vocation with public (legal) rights and obligations the hermit takes on in the immediate presence of the bishop and the local Church. Such vocations are celebrated (mediated and received) for the sake of the Church's own life and holiness, not only for the sake of the individual hermit's life and growth in holiness. All this means the Church (the People of God) have the right to hold certain expectations of such a consecrated person. (Again, this is not a private dedication nor, generally speaking, is it one that allows the hermit to say, "No one needs to know I'm a hermit" as though no one has a right to know this!! Actually, in usual circumstances, people have every right to know that one is a Catholic Hermit because one is recognized in law in this way.)

Canon 603.2 continues by declaring that such a dedication is [[confirmed by vow or other sacred bond and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his direction]]. Again, these are essential elements pointing not only to the individual's most profound commitment to God made explicit in sacred bonds, Canon law, and Rule (proper law) she writes herself, but to the Church's acceptance of responsibility for this vocation. It includes mutual commitments on the part of the one consecrated and the Church mediating this consecration to live (or assist the person to live) this commitment under the Church's ministry of authority, both legal and moral. 

I suppose I would conclude this response by saying that a person arguing as you describe has made a critical error in focusing on the idea of being consecrated by God while suggesting she does indeed live c 603.2. Yes, Divine consecration is presupposed here, but that is not the focus of this section of the canon. What c 603.2 does is define the necessary structural elements for someone to be admitted to the consecrated life in an ecclesial vocation, that is, one established in law --- which is the only form of consecrated life the Church recognizes or gives her name to. Further, these essential elements include the concrete way the Church itself nurtures, protects, and governs such a life and gift of God. One cannot cut them out of the picture and still have c 603.2. So again, while such a hermit can live c 603.1, c 603.2 is a different matter.

Who can Live Canon 603 and in what sense?

[[Sister Laurel, can someone who is not professed under c 603 live the canon?]]

Thanks for writing! Because I believe the vision embodied in c 603 is normative of eremitical life in the church, my answer is yes, they can. At least, that is, the first section of the canon can be lived by any hermit in the church, no matter their canonical state or form of eremitical life. However, a non-canonical hermit and a canonical hermit in an institute of consecrated life would not live the second section of the canon. I recently cited that second section, but let me put the text of the entire canon up for you to see what I mean.

Can. 603 §1. In addition to institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance. 

§2. A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living (Rule of Life) under his supervision.

Members of institutes of consecrated life including those properly termed semi-eremitic, are canonical, but they do not fall under the second section of the canon. This is because their professions, consecrations, legitimate superiors, and canonical standing are rooted in other canons and the proper law of their institutes. Non-canonical hermits can fulfill all of the terms of c 603.1 but do not have standing in law as a hermit, nor do they live a "proper program of living" in a strict sense because in c 603.2 this means an approved Rule that serves as their own proper law that is lived under the supervision or direction of the local ordinary.

I've written this before but please note that "proper" in 603.2 is not a Britishism meaning "well or appropriately done" like when someone can make a "proper cuppa" tea for their guests. Proper in the c 603.2 sense refers to proper law and is approved, as an institute of consecrated life has approved constitutions and statutes that form their own proper law in addition to the requirements of universal or Canon law.  (The hermit's Rule is given a Bishop's Decree of Approval and becomes legally binding on the day of profession.) On the other hand, any person could certainly write a Rule that serves as a vision of and means to live their own personal way of eremitical life. It would be considered proper to them alone even though it is not an officially approved Rule; it would just not meet the conditions of c 603.2, however.

So, Why is All of this Important to You?

[[Dear Sister, if it is not the case that the Church is increasing canons and making all kinds of complexities that cause competition between vocations, where do the various distinctions in things come from when you speak of C 603 vocations? I have read some of the posts from Joyful Hermit in the past (when she was still using that name) and she seemed to believe you are making these up, and thus, making C 603 more complicated than it needs to be --- though now she seems to believe any law at all is opposed to Jesus' law of love. So where do the distinctions you write about come from? Have you created any of them? Also, why are they important to you?]]

These are great questions, thank you for posing them!! The distinctions I have drawn over the years are not my own, nor have I created any terms. While I really believe Canon 603 is beautifully written and exciting in ways I don't ordinarily find Canon law to be (!!), there are also ways in which someone reading the canon without a background in religious life, or some at-least-casual understanding of the norms and vocabulary related to religious life, will fail to understand categories and language that are significant and presupposed --- but which also often go unexplained. Mainly then, these terms and distinctions come from the Church's long-standing theology of religious (or consecrated) life. Let me give you a couple of examples. 

 We speak of entering a "state of life" via profession or a Sacrament (i.e., Baptism, Orders). Sometimes we refer to the "religious state", the "lay state", and the "clerical state," as well as of "being recognized" as members of a "recognized state of life". There are three terms that are sometimes misunderstood and even commonly misused, namely, "state of life," "recognized," and "profession". In speaking of consecrated life, the catechism refers to Christ proposing the evangelical counsels to all disciples, but then distinguishes the way those in the consecrated state are called to live these counsels. It says, "it is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God."  Unfortunately, the catechism does not, so far as I can see, define "state of life", what constitutes "recognition"; nor, while italicizing the word profession, does it actually explain that it means not just making (public) vows, but also entering a new state of life. Thus, it really does not apply to someone dedicating themselves to eremitical life with private vows. 

One thing we should keep in mind, even as we benefit from our use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that it was not written for all Catholics. It was written for Bishops and thus presupposes knowledge about such things as the nature of "profession," what it takes for a religious congregation (or person in the consecrated state) to be established or "recognized," as being in that state. Because fundamental knowledge is presupposed by the catechism, this can cause the uninitiated person (which really is most laypeople) and many clergy as well to read various ambiguities through the wrong lens. That way lies almost certain misunderstandings and potentially serious stumbling blocks. So, in the section entitled The Consecrated Life, the word profession might be read as though it refers to any act of making vows. When that happens, someone making private vows might read this section of the catechism and believe that because they made private (non-canonical) vows as a lay person, they have been professed, "left" the lay state of life, and been initiated into the consecrated state of life via their avowal. In actual fact, however, the thrust of the section and the use of the term "profess" in the very first sentence, indicates immediately that this section of the CCC  involves entry into a new state of life established in law and that it therefore requires a public commitment mediated by the Church herself.  

It can also be problematical when someone being admitted to profession under c 603 has no real understanding of the meaning and implications of correlative concepts like, "state of life" and "recognition" by the Church --- both of which imply the assumption of canonical (legal) rights and obligations beyond those granted with baptism. So, for instance, in the quotation above, recognition does not mean seen or allowed (as in "non-canonical hermits are recognized by my bishop" because they exist in his diocese); it means established in universal law. Since a number of c 603 hermits (and those seeking to be professed in this way) have never been through initial formation as religious nor studied canon law or the theology of consecrated life, and are unaware of the distinctions most religious know implicitly, clarifying the meanings of the terms, "state of life", "recognition," "profession", and also the nature of consecration and the way it differs from dedication, clarifications of these things can help with such misunderstandings or inadequate understandings. 

My experience is that few dioceses seem to recognize how unlikely the average Catholic is to know these and other dimensions associated with profession under c 603. At least they don't seem to communicate these kinds of things to candidates or inquirers. There seems to be a tendency to assume that folks who seek admission to profession already know exactly what they are asking for and are able to take on. At the same time, some chancery personnel may not realize how completely they themselves have internalized some of those distinctions they know so well, and so, they simply do not think of needing to clarify their meaning. Others may not understand how important knowing about such dimensions can be in living eremitical life under this canon. 

When one understands that one is taking on responsibility for an ecclesial vocation with rights and obligations the entire church has a right to expect one to live well, it enhances one's sense of vocation. It also reminds us that one is definitely not merely doing "one's own thing" here and that the Church (the People of God) is called to support one in this vocation with its prayer, friendship, etc. In taking this vocation on, one is taking on an important, if rare, form of ecclesial life that has been lived and has contributed to the life of the Church throughout its long history. In a world and time where individualism is epidemic, it is critical that profession under c 603 be known by everyone as admission to an ecclesial vocation that belongs intrinsically to and benefits the Body of Christ. After all, c 603 life is focused on the God who wills to be God-With-Us! In this rare and incredibly vivid relationship with Love-in-Act, the hermit stands at and witnesses to the very heart of Christian life and hope --- Love completes each of us if only we open ourselves to this.

What is important to me? In all of this, it is important to me that everyone understands that dedicating oneself to eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit, whether or not one does so with the use of private vows, is to make a significant and valuable commitment. At the same time, it is important to me that people understand that those of us who seek and are admitted to profession under c 603 do not do so because we love canon law (I know of no canonical hermit who loves canon law!), or are somehow ignorant of God's law of love (much less being ignorant of or unconcerned by the reality of Divine love!!), nor because we are into prestige, power, or social status. We do so because we have felt called by God to contribute to the life of the Church and the living tradition of eremitical life in this particular and publicly responsible way. It is important to me that folks understand the integral relationship between this vocation and the Church so that it is not mistakenly perceived as selfish or individualistic. Instead, solitary canonical hermits live this life as a rare and vibrant expression of God's redemption, and we are grateful to the Church for finally recognizing and providing for this vocation with C. 603. 

Though much fewer and farther between than when I first began blogging, I continue to get comments and questions from folks who read Joyful's public blog(s) and are concerned, confused, or simply gobsmacked by what they read there. Personally, I sincerely wish they were no longer available.  Thus, it is also important to me to respond to those questions and comments (even those I cannot publish here) to clarify what I can. Most of the time these are common misunderstandings and general mischaracterizations that were once amplified in import by Joyful's blog and her inadequately supported claim to be a "consecrated Catholic Hermit". Today, my impression is that Joyful's posts on the Catholic Church generally, as well as on law of any kind, have made a lot of this moot and more obviously incredible. Still, past posts continue to raise questions and comments.

Meanwhile, whether I receive questions or not, I do reflect on all of this as part of realizing the nature, promise, and challenge of solitary eremitical life in and for the church. Canon 603 is still relatively new and reflecting on various difficulties in implementing it is important (helpful) work. The irony is I am doing that work in my own little way as I live and move ever more deeply into the life framed by the canon itself, and not as an advocate of increased Canon law. I continue to be surprised at how well the Church fathers wrote when they composed this canon; because of this, my own work directly counters the typical approach of canonists regarding resolving the perceived "deficiencies" of C 603. 

Once Again: "Perennial" Questions and Problematical Statements

[[Dear Sister, the Vicar for Religious in my chancery explained to me that the following passage was mistaken in some important ways. She explained why and also said I might want to read what you had written about this in the past. I just can't find what you said about this. Can you help me?]]

[[This is simple enough to comprehend. The three evangelical counsels are chastity in celibacy, obedience, and poverty. These professions may be made publicly but not always: they can be private professions. If public, there is the option to go the way of Canon 603 which more formalizes the profession. This option can be read more in depth in a guide that was compiled by a religious sister about ten years ago and which is being revised. In that guide are collected writings and suggestions for the hermit life, including some revised statutes for the eremitic life by the Bishops' of France, the citation of CL603, and other sundry aides such as possible rites and sample rules of life. 

This guidebook has been used as that--a guide--in some Dioceses. Or, if public profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession of promises or vows, Canon 603 does not need to be utilized or incorporated. If not, the hermit is publicly avowed and consecrated, but not bound by that Canon. Regardless of Canon 603 or not, a public profession is that: public. People know. If private profession is God's will and the hermit's accepted format for profession, the process is not known to others in general and sometimes not in specific. A priest or Bishop may receive the profession (vows and promises). Perhaps it is between the cleric and the hermit, or perhaps a witness or a few are present. A ceremony may be selected from the above mentioned guidebook of compilations, or the hermit may research and develop a ceremony for this private profession. A token may be used, a type of habit may be selected, a form may be signed and dated. But these would all fall in the realm of that which would be hidden from the eyes of others. It is private.]]

Ah, unfortunately, there are a number of different posts which speak to the issues in this passage; I have written about them all over the past decade, sometimes many times. The labels you should look under are included below in emboldened and italicized type. The guidebook being spoken of is one written by Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck (for the Diocese of La Crosse) so you might check the labels of this blog to see if I have referred to her in any posts. I don't remember doing so except that I am pretty sure I once mentioned my own diocese used parts of her guidebook in 2007 for my own profession. Sister Wiesenbeck's work in this had significant value when it was written and, while updating is necessary, still does today for those dioceses implementing canon 603, and for those seeking to be professed under canon 603. I should say that it is emphatically not the source of any of the problematical statements you have cited in the passage commented on by your Vicar for Religious.

One fundamental problem, as I have written about a number of times here, is with the mistaken use of the term public and the purported optional nature of canon 603. "Public" in regard to profession does not refer to the number of persons who do or don't attend; it refers to the fact that profession initiates one into a new (and public or canonical) state of life with additional public (canonical) rights and obligations. Strictly speaking private vows are not profession because they don't initiate one into a new (in this case, consecrated) state of life. Similarly, then, private means simply "A commitment which does not grant or embrace canonical (public) rights or obligations beyond those granted and embraced at baptism."

Such commitments are still quite serious personally but they do not allow much less call for others in the Church or elsewhere to have specific expectations of the person making the commitment as public commitments do. (A public vow of poverty, for instance, which is part of the larger act of profession, sets up public expectations on how the person lives in terms of consumerism, simplicity, dependence on God, etc. People have a legitimate right to expect someone who is publicly professed to honor their vow. This is not the case with a private commitment/vow.) A second fundamental problem is with the notion that one may become a solitary hermit who is professed (profession is always a public act) and consecrated but without using canon 603. Canon 603 doesn't just formalize a profession, nor is it optional for solitary consecrated eremitical life; canon 603 is the only way one can  make profession or be consecrated as a solitary hermit. There is simply no other option if one is talking about public commitments and/or consecration in the Roman Catholic Church.

While there is room for creative expression and personal choice in these matters, especially in terms of readings and music, there are also limitations; certain elements will be required by your bishop and canonists as part of the ceremony if you are admitted to profession. Please check with them on this. My own diocese used the Rite of Religious Profession which is normative for such things and allowed usage of a couple of the vow formulas from Wiesenbeck's Guidebook (one can write one's own; I chose not to use any of these because I already had a vow formula which I had lived for some time and loved; I made some minimal changes in it to reflect this new (eremitical) context).

Also, in reading your Rule, a canonist will very specifically read your vow formula to be sure you are actually making vows in the way which will be valid,  I remember our Vicar for Religious who was also the canonist that did this for me for perpetual profession explaining why I could not say "I will. . ." in addition to "I vow" at one point in my vow formula. It seemed nit picky, especially since it followed and modified but was entirely dependent on the phrase, "I vow", but once I understood the explanation it made a lot of sense. (To say "I vow"  is a performative act which makes the commitment immediately real and binding in the very saying of the words; to say, "I will" is temporally indefinite, even conditional, and raises the question of "When (and under what conditions) will you. . . Do you mean next week, or maybe when you feel like it?")  The passage you are citing is pretty dated, so I am not sure when I wrote about it as such, but please look for posts on public profession vs private vows, consecration vs dedication, canon 603, reception vs witness (a question you should have a sense of), and perhaps Guidebook on Eremitical Life and/or Sister Marlene Wiesenbeck. Labels are found in the right hand upper column of this blog.

If these aren't as helpful as you need, please get back to me with another question or set of questions and I will try to give you a more comprehensive response. Especially, I would suggest you compare your notes of what your Vicar for Religious told you and what I have written. I appreciate her comments seem to indicate general agreement, but if there are gaps, or if we seem to be saying something different from one another here or there, please do get back to me on these specific points. If they seem substantive and there is real disagreement, I would like to talk about them --- perhaps with your Vicar --- to be sure I understand her reasoning on them. That would be of real help to me and to this blog.

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 Formerly-Married and Consecrated Hermits

[[ hi Sister Laurel, I was just wondering about something. You have written it is not possible for married persons to become hermits. I looked that up this morning. But how about a person who has been married and gotten divorced? Can they become a consecrated Catholic hermit? If so is this usual? What happens with their children if there are any?]]

 Thanks for your questions. Yes, it is entirely possible for a person who was married and divorced to become a hermit. There are two provisos: 1) their children must be grown and no longer need them in any substantial way (they, of course, always will need (and should have) their parent's love!), and 2) if the spouse is still alive the Church must have granted a declaration of nullity.** (Please note: I have been told that a dispensation may also be granted as is sometimes done when one wants to enter cenobitical religious life after divorce. This is exceptional and I admit it makes little sense to me because it is an exception not granted for remarriage. If a dispensation is to be granted, there must be no chance that the person's spouse will exercise or demand marital rights.) In any case, to make public profession under canon 603 or as part of a canonical community of hermits, a person must be free of life bonds in order to make her profession (another life bond). Marriage is a life bond and in the eyes of the Church civil divorce by itself does not and cannot end this bond --- although the death of the spouse will do so.

The principle is simple, if we give ourselves entirely (and exclusively) to another in marriage and give ourselves to God through this marriage, we are not free to then give ourselves exclusively to God in religious/eremitical profession. The reverse is equally true: if someone is professed (meaning publicly vowed and given entirely and exclusively to God in this way) they cannot give themselves to another in marriage; they are simply not free to do so until and unless the vows are dispensed or expire, in the case of temporary professions. Until and unless a decree of nullity is granted (and the marriage bond declared void, null, or never to have truly occurred) or a dispensation is secured, the person is simply not free to make profession or be consecrated as either a diocesan (solitary) or religious (community) hermit. In religious life one must demonstrate one is free of other life commitments before one is even allowed to enter the community, much less to make even temporary vows/profession. Though c 603 has no equivalent formal or canonical stages of formation, the constraints on life commitments hold for one seeking admission to profession under this canon.

Again, as for children, a diocesan or canon 603 hermit can certainly have been married and had children but s/he cannot have minor children, nor can grown children require parental care. Such situations (minority or dependency) constitute another way in which the hermit is not truly free to give herself to profession in the way the vocation and profession require. A consecrated hermit may leave her inheritance to her children (or anyone else) just as is true for anyone. She will also arrange to remain in regular contact in whatever way works best for everyone. There will be limits, of course: young adults will not be able to come home to live with their hermit Mom or Dad, there will be no way to borrow money from the hermit (who is unlikely to have any!), and the hermit will not be able to babysit the grandchildren more than occasionally or spend much time away from the hermitage with her kids and grandkids. She will not be free for these things; her life is given over to God and structured in a new way which makes her unfree for what might have been usual otherwise.

Similarly, the family is unlikely to be able to visit the hermitage all that often -- though this is something I expect the hermit will work out with the assistance of her Director (delegate) and/or Bishop. (If it cannot be worked out to the satisfaction of the bishop, et  al, the person will not be admitted to eremitical profession. If, for instance, a hermit's family needs her in ways which make embracing eremitical solitude unloving or selfish, admission to profession is unlikely to be extended to her.) Otherwise, I think things will be pretty much as they are for any parent with grown children. I do believe the reality of the former marriage with children will add moments of poignancy and depth to the hermit's life and prayer. Separation from her family/children may well sharpen her solitude and add a dimension to her love of God and humankind that other hermits without such family may not have. Thus the person who becomes a hermit after divorce/annulment and raising her children will find her circumstances add both richness and suffering to her life as a hermit.

I don't think formerly married hermits with grown children are all that usual, but they are not unheard of. I know and/or know of several such hermits. In other faith traditions that also see eremitical life as a second-half-of-life vocation or which see solitude per se as a vocation for the elderly, it is quite common for folks to become hermits for the final stage of their lives. At this point they tend to have fewer responsibilities for their family, have often lost a spouse to death, have a mature faith life, and will really blossom themselves in solitude -- including beyond solitude as therapeutic or part of their grieving process. However, within the Roman Catholic eremitical tradition I would say it is relatively uncommon for there to be formerly-married hermits -- though with the provisos mentioned above it is perfectly fine.

I hope this is helpful.

Follow up Question: [[Sister, yes your answer was helpful so thank you. I thought you would deal with this question in your [original] answer so let me ask it directly. Would  someone in the same position be able to make private vows as a hermit? I mean, is there a difference with whether the hermit or wannabe hermit (no offense intended) wants to make private vows or public ones?]]

That's a great question and a good follow up since your earlier question referred only to consecrated hermits but not to those who are hermits with  private vows. Yes, there is a very great difference in this. When marriage is contracted the parties enter a new state of life, the married state -- though they remain laity. They become one flesh through the Sacrament of matrimony and, as noted in the earlier question, the bond effectuated in the Sacrament cannot be undone by civil divorce. Instead it must be found and declared to have never actually occurred in a declaration of nullity or a dispensation secured. Unless and until this occurs the Church would consider either member of this couple to be unfree to make another life commitment like religious life, consecrated eremitical life, priestly ordination, etc. In other words, profession is closed to such persons until and unless they receive an annulment/dispensation.

In part, this is because profession is a matter of public vows or other sacred bonds and consecration by the Church by which a person enters another state of life (a religious, or  consecrated state) involve now legal rights and obligations. Private vows however, are an entirely private matter which do not ever initiate a person into another state of life; they are an act of self-dedication with no corresponding ecclesial act of reception or consecration. (Private vows are witnessed, but not received.) Thus, neither do private vows ever convey the rights and obligations associated with religious life or consecrated eremitical life. For this reason, a person who has been divorced without benefit of annulment/dispensation can make private vows at any time. Nothing in her state of life changes, there is no canonical life commitment or assumption of new legal obligations or rights to which one's remaining marriage bond would be an impediment.

If, however, such a person were to decide they wanted instead to become a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church, they would need to pursue the annulment (the declaration of nullity which says the Church finds there to have never been a sacramental marriage bond at all beyond a civil contract). The Declaration of nullity (or, again, the prior death of one's spouse) would therefore establish there is no impediment to profession or consecration and would thus establish a person as free to begin a mutual discernment process with their Diocese, something every person seeking to be admitted to public profession and consecration would need to do.

Again, good follow up question! It really helps to underscore the difference in Catholic theology between private vows and public profession as well as the necessity of responsible freedom to make a life commitment which is truly binding in all the ways such a commitment should be within the Church.

Follow-up Question #2: On the Need for a Declaration of Nullity:

Dear Sister,  another blogger in Married Hermits and Other Considerations has written that what you have written is your opinion and someone can be married and a consecrated or Catholic hermit. She claims you are making up Rules and regulations! I don't know who to believe in this. Help!

In many things here I post my own opinions based on lived experience as a hermit and my theological expertise; I always attempt to give the very best and most accurate opinion I can and I will always try equally diligently to reflect the Church's own practice. However, in the matter you first asked about regarding the need for ecclesiastical annulment (or dispensation) if one has been divorced and is seeking to be admitted to public profession and the consecrated state as a hermit in community or a c 603 hermit, this is not an opinion; it is the way things work in the Church because matrimony effects the union of two people so they become "one flesh". I am merely stating the Church's theological and canonical position on the freedom necessary to make another life commitment.

Here is the way one religious congregation (Carmelite) states the need for canonical freedom for those seeking to enter them. The requirements are the same for profession under canon 603: [[Yes, we do accept women in our congregation who were formerly married. You would need to produce the necessary documents establishing that you are canonically free to enter religious life; death certificate of spouse, or civil divorce decree and [an ecclesiastical] decree of nullity.]] (Emphasis added.) The pertinent canons are 597 and 643 sec 1.2 and 2.

The author of the blog you referenced (also The Complete Hermit, Christ in the Present Moment, and several others) also once knew the truth of what I have written here, though perhaps she was unaware of the theological rationale for the Church's position. She and I once spoke about the necessity of establishing one's free status to become a canonical hermit when she reached out to me about becoming a diocesan hermit during the Summer of 2007, prior to my perpetual eremitical profession on 02. September. (Remember canon 603 hermits have to submit copies of their baptismal certificates -- which include records of other life commitments -- and prove free status in ways similar to the above if they are to undertake public profession.) After our email conversation, Ms. McClure eventually spoke to someone in her own diocese and subsequently blogged about that. Here is what she wrote (the link to the relevant excerpt of the blog article, which I copied this morning is included at the end):

[[Friday, August 31, 2007

nullity of marriage

Yes, as a hermit of a different diocese informed me, and now verified by a canon lawyer, in order to be "canonically" consecrated, one must have nullity of marriage. However, private consecration does not require the annulment.

The next step, then, is for me to activate my annulment file at the Tribunal. I have made the call, and they are checking the file to make sure all information is up-to-date regarding witnesses. Sadly, the only witness who knew me before my marriage and during the marriage, knowing my ex-husband, is a woman with severe pain in her wrists and who cannot write without great difficulty. (She has pain elsewhere from a virus that settled years ago and caused permanent damage.) Hopefully she can do this writing required on whatever forms.

It is, at minimum, an act of charity for my ex-husband who has been remarried for years, in case he would ever desire to convert to Catholicism. He hates Catholicism, but in God all things are possible such as changes of heart and mind. . .]]The Complete Hermit :Nullity of Marriage

** Since writing this piece a canonist informed me (27. January.2021) that a person who is divorced may also receive a dispensation to become a professed/consecrated hermit, just as they might if they were entering cenobitical religious life. I have a couple of questions outstanding still, so more about this when I get more information. I have redacted the piece to include the possibility of a dispensation from a decree of nullity.

On Being and Becoming a Religious

[[Dear Sister Laurel, when you speak of profession or being admitted to profession you also speak of undertaking and being entrusted with rights and obligations beyond those of baptism. In some ways this sounds sort of legalistic, but in other places you speak as though something changed in you at the moments of profession and consecration. Is there both internal and external change with profession and consecration? Because you have written about the difference between private and public commitments, between authentic and counterfeit Catholic hermits, and coming to act or live your vocation in the name of the Church as opposed to doing so in your own name I suppose, you seem again and again to be saying something changes within you as well as external to you in your relationship with the Church.

Is there such an internal change? Is this part of distinguishing as you do between hermits in the lay state and hermits in the consecrated state? I know that priests when they are ordained are somehow changed so that they can consecrate the Eucharist, and so forth. Is there something similar that actually happens to you and within you when you are perpetually professed and consecrated? Is this why you insist (or why the Church insisted at Vatican II) that the distinction between dedication and consecration be maintained?]]

Yes!!! Yes!! Yes!! You have understood me (and the church's theology of consecrated life) well I think. There are both external changes (the assumption of rights and obligations including the right to style oneself as a religious, the relationships necessary to live one's vows and be adequately guided and supervised in these via the ministry of authority, and the privilege, right, and obligation to live one's life in the name of the Church) along with internal changes (God sets one apart via consecration as a "sacred person" (I am not thrilled with this phrase, but I don't know a better one) and graces the person in ways (or constellations of ways) not necessarily found in the lay (vocational) state. It is traditionally referred to as a second consecration. This "second consecration" has sometimes been explained in terms of betrothal or espousal --- something that does not generally apply to baptism per se and which adds to one's baptismal consecration. While this is not the same as the "character" associated with priestly ordination, what is critical to understand here is that in the making of one's vows and the prayer of consecration associated with perpetual profession one becomes what one was not before, namely, one becomes a religious with a soul configured as that of a religious initiated into an external religious state to match.

When I write that we cannot consecrate but instead, can only dedicate ourselves I am saying the same thing: we cannot change ourselves, we cannot make ourselves into "sacred (divinely consecrated or set apart) persons", or give ourselves the rights and obligations which are intrinsic to the religious state. We cannot claim or assume on our own something only the Church has the right and ability to mediate to us on God's behalf. We can put ourselves in the position of those who desire to embrace these rights and obligations as well as the graces associated with this particular state of life, this identity within the Church (for this too is a reason we call religious or canonical eremitical life ecclesial vocations), but again, we cannot assume, much less claim to have such an identity unless and until the Church extends them to us and, through acts of mediation which are performative in nature, make us into that thing we so profoundly desired. The word performative is important here; it points to a kind of language in which the thing spoken comes to be in the very act of speaking. In religious life the vow formula is such a piece of performative language; so is the prayer of solemn consecration. In the praying of these forms of language the thing spoken is realized in space and time in the very speaking of the words.

A metaphorical way of saying this is that in the act of speech of profession we "say ourselves (an act of dedication) into" a state that stands ready for us; the Church receives this act of profession and extends God's own consecration to us in her own solemn consecration. According to Vatican II and traditionally, we dedicate ourselves but only God consecrates. Speech is the way truth is mediated, the powerful way in which reality is changed -- the significant or meaningful way in which we ourselves are changed and assume a NEW identity, a differently graced identity we did not have even an hour earlier. In religious profession and consecration, God is doing something new just as he was doing something brand new at our baptisms! Vocations are, it seems to me, not about us so much as they are about what God has done and continues to do within us through the mediation (of both call and response) of the Church. In any case, to be a religious, to have this identity means much more than to desire profoundly to be a religious; it means in ways which are both internal and external, to be made a new reality with public rights and responsibilities and the graces (both internal and external) that attend the state. These are not icing on the cake, so to speak, they are absolutely intrinsic to the reality of a religious or public vocation.

Yes, all of this is at issue when I speak of counterfeit hermits vs legitimately professed and consecrated hermits. Those, who, without benefit of public profession and consecration, claim the title Catholic Hermit, for instance, are, whether they realize it or not, claiming to be living eremitical life in the name of the Church. Whenever the word Catholic is appended to an enterprise, project, and so forth, someone is claiming that this reality is being lived, done, undertaken, or enacted in the name of the Church --- and that they have been extended and accepted all the rights and obligations thereto. A Catholic theologian is not a Catholic who is also a theologian but one given a Mandatum by the Church to do theology in her name. When someone claims to be a consecrated hermit they are claiming to have participated in a public rite of profession and consecration where God's own act of making sacred or uniquely blessed has been extended to the person through the formal and authoritative mediation of the Church. Not just any priest, for instance, can act in such a way, nor can just any person desiring this. One online hermit has said that in her belief "we are all religious" if we make (private) vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. But this is exactly wrong and fails to see especially that the making of a religious involves a divine/ecclesial act in which something that did not exist before comes to be!

Religious today rightly make a great deal of the fact that in a hierarchical sense they are lay persons and not clergy, that they do not stand in an intermediate state hierarchically between laity and clergy. This allows them to assume a rightful place with everyone else in the Church and serve, not from a position of superiority, but of equality. This is right and good and it is an important fruit of the second Vatican Council Sisters and Brothers are right to underscore. But at the same time Religious know that vocationally they are not lay persons and are no longer in the lay state. They have been changed exteriorly with the assumption of rights and obligations appropriate to this new state; but they have also been made new inside as well and become someone formed by new manifestations of the grace of God precisely so they are able to assume the rights and obligations associated with their new state of life.

These two changes, external and internal work together to shape, challenge, console, and shape the person some more, in an ever-ongoing interplay of grace  and nature which is distinct to this state of life. If one is consecrated but leaves the consecrated state of life in terms of the external rights and obligations, then one, despite one's consecration, is no longer a religious and cannot grow as a religious (though one can and likely will certainly grow as a person!). If one tries to take on the rights and obligations of the religious state as though grace and ecclesial admission granted and received through public profession and consecration were unnecessary, one will not and cannot be a religious. To be initiated by the Church into this distinct (not superior but distinct!) and formative stream of grace and challenge, this unique dialogue between nature and grace, and to respond in continued dedication to this ecclesial vocation is to become and be a religious. Personal potential and desire notwithstanding, before and apart from this initiation one simply is not and cannot be a religious.

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.