Another look at Religious Obedience and the Ministry of Authority

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am not a Catholic and I have no real knowledge of religious life except what I've heard here and there or that I just grew up believing. I read an article you wrote on obedience and on what you called "the ministry of authority" which you defined in terms of love. I have to say I was kind of floored by it. It is nothing like what I thought a vow of obedience or the way superiors worked in a nun's life. When you speak of your Delegate I get the sense you are very close but also that she can exercise authority any time she feels it is necessary. Have I got that right? Does she ever just tell you what to do? Does she ever tell you to do things you don't want to do or feel are wrong? Can you give me some specific examples of how obedience and the "ministry of authority" actually work? Do you ever worry that a vow of obedience might make you somehow less than an adult? I don't mean any offense! I am not sure why this is so interesting to me but you are dispelling some long-held misunderstandings and I don't know where else I could ask these questions. Thank you!]]

Thanks for your questions. My own family is not Catholic and I suspect they hold (or held) some of the same misunderstandings so I am grateful you have asked about the topic. First though, let me thank you once more. You have read the article you mention well and summarized it accurately. Obedience is linked to the ministry of authority and that authority is (in my experience) exercised as an expression of love. Neither do I mean it is exercised as an expression of an abstract love, but as an expression of a genuine love rooted in knowledge of and care for the person's truest self. (A superior in a congregation must cultivate a love not just for an individual Sister but for the house, the congregation and its charism and mission; working with a diocesan hermit is somewhat different. The delegate cultivates a love for the hermit, her place in the parish and diocese, and the eremitical tradition she represents in a canonical way; it is in this smaller context that she exercises the ministry of authority with a solitary Catholic hermit.)

As you can see exercising a ministry of authority is about much more than telling someone what to do. Encouraging another's growth in Christ requires its own attentiveness, faith, and fidelity to truth, both personal and institutional. Similarly then, obedience is a much richer and significant reality than simply "doing what one is told". Obedience is about listening attentively, to God, to one's deepest self, to the needs and potential one has within, to the nature and quality of one's commitments,  and to the way life summons one to greater and greater fullness in the service of others. We may use the short hand phrase "will of God" for all of this but cultivating this kind of attentive listening is at the heart of a vow of obedience and all contemplative life. One of the more privileged sources of discernment regarding the ways love and life call us to fullness in our transparency to God is one's delegate or Director. One's Director/delegate knows us (indeed, they have worked with us usually for years, listened well to us, prayed for and with us, and in part have been chosen for this role precisely because they know us well) and love us in the way every person needs most. They will also be chosen for their experience in religious life (including formation and leadership) as well as their wisdom and faithfulness as a consecrated person living an ecclesial vocation.

On the other hand, by the time one becomes a diocesan hermit (i.e., is professed and consecrated in a life commitment under c 603) one has lived eremitical life for some time, written a liveable Rule of Life (usually after several drafts and lots of notes made over time), and become accustomed to vows of the Evangelical Counsels. One may or may not have been a religious in another chapter of one's life, but in any case one has learned what is essential for one's relationship with God, and developed the skills and tools necessary to respond to God faithfully day in and day out. The Liturgy of the Hours, lectio divina, study of Scripture, a fair theology and spirituality will have become foci for one's life. One will have worked with a spiritual director regularly for some years, fostered a relationship with the Church (usually through one's parish) and accepted an adult  leadership role (not necessarily a formal one) in the faith community. In other words, one is an adult in one's faith and does not need someone telling them what to do day in and day out. But one will also be profoundly committed to grow 1) as a Christian, 2) as a contemplative, and 3) as a hermit representing a significant, prophetic, but rare tradition. It is the role of a hermit's Director (delegate) to make sure one's arc of growth in these ways occurs in a way which is edifying to the diocese and church universal.So, what does this look like "on the ground" so to speak?

As I have noted several times, my own Director rarely tells me what to do --- though she will do a fair amount of encouraging, especially in connection with inner work we also do or when I am considering doing something new ministerially! In the past three and a half years I think she has given me what I might consider a demand rooted in obedience perhaps three times. You asked for examples. A couple of times recently she has told me to do something I didn't much want to do, but the directive was a way of allowing my trust for M. (and, ultimately, for the God who is active in our work together) to triumph over my own fear, reluctance, or reticence. The one somewhat different example that stands out in my mind comes from a time when I was juggling a few different things and was also at a very difficult part of my own growth work. My pastor was travelling and that meant the daily schedule of services for the chapel community had to be worked out in his absence. We try to have priests fill in at these times, but it is not always possible. Although 6-7 days needed to be covered and I was willing to try to do what I could along with a couple of others, my delegate simply said, "Two services, no more." It was a limit I might eventually have set for myself at that time, and it was a directive I could perhaps have blown off had I chosen to, but this simple directive recognized not only my role in the parish but the importance of the other dimensions of my life and the difficulty and energy required for the inner work I was doing as well my parish's needs. My Director saw what I could not and set the limits for me; the limits were actually a relief and it never occurred to me to transgress these.

When I reflect on how this worked I think it illustrates well why ministry and authority are combined in the designation, "Ministry of authority". Sister was ministering to me in this instance and she was doing so on the basis of both knowledge and love. She was protecting me so my own ministries in the parish, diocese, and universal Church could continue in a fruitful way --- not only my ministry of prayer in the silence of solitude, but also what I do as pastoral assistant as well as my own inner work, blogging, and writing on eremitical life itself. Those four words, had a bit of steel in them but were gently spoken and came from a place of love. What I want you to hear here is that no one else (except my bishop) could have said those same words to me ("Two services, no more!"), not my best friend or a favorite professor, not a confessor nor a spiritual director, but only someone with the authority associated with my public vow of obedience. My pastor might well have asked I do or feel free to do only two of the services and he could have said "Let the other two work out the remainder", but he could not have said precisely what my Director did in the same way she did. He does not have that authority. What I also want you to hear, however, is that there is nothing infantilizing in setting such a requirement. That is precisely because it is rare and rooted in a love focused on my own well-being and growth.

Obedience binds in situations where there is no directive, of course, but not in quite the same way. If my Director (delegate) asks or encourages me about something with regard to my health, spirituality, relationships, ministry, work, etc. I will certainly give whatever it is serious consideration, explore what it will take to implement or follow up on it appropriately, as well as pray about and take what action is appropriate. But in these kinds of things I am also free to make what decisions I will. In other words, I listen attentively, discuss things with relevant people, work through them (prayer, journaling, research) and do what is clearly needed in light of my own integrity and vocation. I would say that this is the way obedience generally works for vowed religious (professed diocesan hermits) these days. It is the same pattern I described in another example when I asked my Director if she could see any problem with me doing something very much outside my usual routine (protesting governmental action at a major airport). In that instance she said, "So long as it comports with your Rule, respects your own physical needs, frailties, and health concerns, and is consistent with your own deep conscience, I don't see any problem with it." She also reminded me since this action was public I needed to decide about wearing my habit/cowl but that too was left up to me.

No Director (delegate or superior) can demand someone do something they consider wrong, or rather, no religious/professed hermit can obey such a demand, not without sinning seriously. We  (every Christian) is/are required to follow our certain conscience judgments. Conscience is the very voice of God within us and we cannot act counter to such a conscience judgment without acting against God. If a superior requires we do something contrary to conscience, conscience must always trump the superior's directive. As St Thomas once pointed out, if one is condemned unjustly for following one's conscience, even to the point of being excommunicated, one must follow one's conscience and bear the punishment humbly. Conscience judgments  always have primacy for they are they very voice of God within a person's heart of hearts. I hope this is helpful. The ministry of authority has been conceived variously over the centuries and many folks' only sense of what it means may come from movies or TV. There's lots of good literature on obedience generally and the vow specifically, but mostly only religious read such stuff!

Canon 603 Vocations: On the Differences between Delegates and Spiritual Directors

[[Dear Sister Laurel, what is the difference between a diocesan hermit's delegate and their spiritual director? Is there really much of a difference in these roles? Can anyone serve as delegate or does it need to be another religious?]]

Yes, there is a meaningful difference between the role of spiritual director and that of delegate. First of all, there's no doubt a spiritual director enters into a pretty intimate relationship with a directee, but there are distinct limits. For instance, a spiritual director works to assist a client to grow in her relationship with God, et al., but she does not assume a specific responsibility with regard to the person's vocation per se. The delegate, on the other hand,  assumes a responsibility for the hermit's vocation itself. Not only does s/he concern him/herself with the hermit's well-being but s/he is concerned that the eremitical vocation is being lived well and in a way which is consistent with the canon and with the eremitical tradition in the Church. The spiritual director as director does not assume this kind of responsibility.

For example, as a spiritual director I may work with a religious or a priest and in our work together we touch on many of the dimensions of these persons'  lives with God and by extension, on dimensions which impact their vocations. However, as spiritual director I am not responsible in any direct way for those vocations as such. In short, I do not oversee or supervise their vocation in any direct way. That does not mean we don't talk about their vocations to religious life and priesthood insofar as these are grounded in the person's relationship with God, but it does mean I am in no way charged with making sure they live their vocations with integrity. Neither am I responsible for serving their congregations, communities, or dioceses and bishops in a way which helps assure them this is the case. (In saying this, by the way, I do not mean that a diocesan hermit's delegate necessarily reports on the hermit to the bishop, for instance, although he may well ask for her input from time to time; likewise, while formal reports could be required, my own diocese has not done so.) Still, as delegate she serves both the hermit and the diocese in making sure this vocation is well lived and represented.

The delegate concerns herself with the nuts and bolts of the hermit's life AND vocation. She may be involved with making sure the hermit really does have sufficient silence and solitude, that her relationship with and commitments within her parish do not conflict with her essential vocation to stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude. She may be sure the hermit has ways of assuring her living conditions, eremitical environment,  and necessary forms of care as she ages. (A spiritual director may ask about these kinds of things insofar as they affect her client's prayer life or spirituality but she will not actually have a role in supervising these aspects of the client's life.) Similarly, the delegate may be sure that the hermit's life is not one of isolation rather than healthy anachoresis (eremitical withdrawal). Again, while the delegate is responsible for overseeing the well-being of the hermit and her spirituality in ways a spiritual director may share, the focus and concern of the delegate as delegate broadens some to embrace the vocation itself and all that is involved in living that well --- not in some abstract way, but as it is embodied in the concrete life of this particular hermit. (By the way, the bishop's concern is somewhat different because he is charged with overseeing the incidence and well-being of canon 603 vocations more generally. The delegate is not.)

Religious Obedience:

Also, because of this the hermit's delegate has the authority to direct the hermit to do x or y or "insist" on actions in ways a spiritual director simply does not have the authority to do. My own diocese recognized this by using the language of "superior or quasi-superior" in asking me to choose my delegate --- language which indicates that, because she serves both me and the diocese with a delegated authority, I owe her the same kind of obedience (i.e., religious obedience) I owe my bishop when he asks for or directs me to do something. To be clear, neither my bishop nor my delegate exercise their authority in this way very often; in fact it is extremely rare. Moreover, the Bishop seems to leave such matters to the delegate, probably because he knows she knows me far better. Still, the relationship between the bishop/delegate, and the publicly vowed hermit is marked by the bond of religious obedience  1) because the hermit is publicly vowed to this and 2) because the broader and mutual concern of all involved is not only the personal life, well-being, and spirituality of the hermit but the Church's canonical vocation of solitary eremitical life itself.

One other thing I should make very clear: none of this minimizes, much less removes the hermit's responsibility for discerning her own needs and living her own life with care and integrity; instead these relationships are helpful in maintaining the perspective necessary for assuring the hermit remains responsible for the whole of her life and vocation. Again,  these specific relationships are part and parcel of recognizing and appropriately honoring a vocation as ecclesial --- a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church which is entrusted with the task of mediating, nurturing,  and governing that vocation, and to the hermit who is called to live that life in a way which fulfills her own deepest call to humanity and to do so in the name of the Church.

Who Should Serve as a Delegate?

In my opinion it only makes sense to have another religious as one's delegate --- and one who has lived this life for some time. (S/he need NOT be a hermit but s/he does need to be essentially contemplative and appreciate the eremitical life.) This need that the delegate be an experienced religious holds because the person needs to have a background in living and directing others in the living of religious vows. My own delegate has been a novice director and serves on the leadership team of her community --- both during tumultuous or critical times in the life of the Church and the congregation. Moreover she does spiritual direction and is trained/licensed in PRH --- a form of personal growth work I have written about here before. In each of these ways she brings something to her role as my delegate which has been a definite gift to me. Because of her background and experience she has the ability to hold authority lightly and to exercise it with a personal integrity which is far more compelling than any merely external or more superficial exercise of authority can be. For the same reasons, and though this is a rare thing indeed, she is similarly able to require x or y from me when she is clear in her own mind and heart that this is the best and most loving thing.

It seems to me that a non-religious might be tempted to either neglect entirely the exercise of authority (as though anything goes) or exercise authority in a more heavy-handed and less loving or genuinely wise, patient, and prudent way. This latter way of exercising authority does not occur because the person is naturally more heavy-handed or less loving, but because s/he has not lived or internalized the values and vows of religious life (especially in regard to living and exercising authority) in a way which sensitizes him/her appropriately. When this is the case the one exercising authority may actually collude with the more inexperienced, immature, and even juvenile aspects of the hermit's own self and approach to authority. For instance, it is tempting for a neophyte to think of oneself as "bound in obedience to" a superior --- even when the person is not a legitimate superior and does not have this authority. This happens sometimes with regard to spiritual directors. It can make one feel different and special, especially in a culture where obedience in the sense of  "giving up one's own will" is esteemed. In such circumstances the exercise of religious obedience can make one feel like one "belongs" to a special culture or even that one is "cared about" in a unique way. To have a delegate whose notion of obedience involves a heavy-handed exercise of authority can be disastrous, especially when the hermit is new to all this or has personal healing which still needs to take place. The results of such collusion are unhealthy, and can be infantilizing, elitist, and contrary to the freedom of the Christian hermit!

On the other hand, a delegate who has lived under and exercised authority in ways which encouraged and helped her to hold authority lightly, lovingly, and in a way which fosters another's growth in maturity, integrity, and freedom is a very great gift. Religious obedience in particular can help us truly listen to God and challenge us to embrace the potentialities which live within us and which we might never have imagined holding. Again, however, I think it does take someone who is experienced both in living religious obedience and in introducing others to or enhancing their living of it --- as well as to religious poverty and chastity in celibacy --- to really serve effectively as a diocesan hermit's delegate.

What Happens When the Bishop's Discernment clashes with that of the Diocesan Hermit?

 Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my question about elderly and infirm hermits. I am the one who asked whether their vows would be dispensed. I am glad you also thought the blogger mentioned made some good points. She mentioned two other situations. One of them which dealt with full time work you have already responded to indirectly in a separate question. The blogger asked: [[ What if a hermit's financial circumstances are such that a change has occurred, and he or she needs to work part time or full time and the job available or to of which the hermit is capable is among many people or in highly interactive and noisy environment? Do they then need to be removed as hermits? Do they cease being part of the Consecrated Life of the Catholic Church? Would any charitable or wise spiritual director (bishop or not) demand the hermit's withdrawal, or negate the consecrated vocation? Would church law no longer recognize those who are CL603 hermits--with the bishop making a public statement to that effect?]]

The second one has to do with wearing a habit. She wrote the following: [[What if a hermit goes along wearing a habit for awhile, approved by spiritual director (or a bishop), and then realizes it prohibits the degree of passing unnoticed or being hidden from the eyes of men--that the hermit and his or her director have determined to be best for that particular hermit? What if the hermit decides to dress so as to blend in and not be noticed as different or be mistaken as a consecrated religious if not in the religious life? And is it wrong for a hermit to wear a habit if and when no longer a part of the consecrated life of the church as a religious? These aspects are determined by the hermit and his or her director, for there are always personal, individualized, and unique considerations to be made. Not up to others to judge.]]

So here are my questions. Can [a] person's spiritual director determine these kinds of things? Can  Bishops demand something other than the person's SD and the person discern are best for him. Should someone continue wearing a habit if they have left the consecrated state?

Thanks for writing again. Regarding the place and role of a spiritual director in such matters, the spiritual director will work with a person to help her discern what is best for herself and her vocation at any given point in time but cannot decide this unilaterally and sometimes may not agree with the decision at all. It is not her decision. Ever. She is not a legitimate superior but one who assists a client be attentive and responsive to the voice and movement of God in her life. Similarly if a directee working together with her SD discerns something seems to be the best decision or course of action, etc. this absolutely does not mean a Bishop must automatically agree with this discernment if he is the person's legitimate superior. (By this I mean if he is more than her Bishop but has assumed the place of legitimate superior in the rite of perpetual profession made in his hands.)

The Bishop will certainly consult with the  person in this  matter and she will share her discernment with him; he may also ask the SD to contact him with her opinion in the matter, but, so long as there is also a delegate in the picture, this is unnecessary and unlikely due to the confidential nature of the spiritual direction relationship. On the other hand he will speak with the hermit's delegate since she serves in precisely this role for both the hermit and the larger Church. Remember that the Bishop has other concerns and perhaps a wider vision of the matter at issue which must be accommodated as well as this specific discernment by the hermit. For instance, in the case of a consecrated solitary (diocesan) hermit let's suppose she determines (with her director's assistance) that it would be best for the hermit to work full time in a highly social job and that she believes the hermit can do this for a period of months without it adversely affecting her vocation. However, let's suppose the Bishop says no to this because as he understands things, 1) the canon does not allow this, 2) the witness it gives to the local and possibly the universal Church is disedifying, and 3) he is not entirely convinced the discernment is really cogent for someone with a genuine eremitical vocation.

In such a case the Bishop will make a decision which contradicts the hermit's own discernment and he is entirely within his rights and obligations as Bishop to do so. If a hermit cannot live with this, then she will have to decide what happens next. Will she obey or not? Will she seek dispensation from her eremitical profession or not? Again, the Bishop has concerns which overlap those of the hermit (both are concerned with her vocation specifically and the eremitical tradition generally) but he is responsible canonically to protect c 603 and the consecrated eremitical life it expresses. Sometimes what seems best for the individual hermit is not also what is best for the Church or for the vocation more generally.

The hermit has to try and get her mind and heart around this fact and either embrace the sacrifice it requires --- if this is possible without compromising her own conscience --- or she will need to find another good-conscience resolution which protects not only her own vocation but the solitary eremitical vocation more generally. However, in such a significant matter -- a matter which weighs directly on the integrity and meaning of the canon --- if she cannot do this and the Bishop is unable to assist her to achieve a workable resolution while standing by his own prudential decision on the matter, then yes, the hermit's vows will very likely need to be dispensed and the hermit will cease to be a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church. You see, the Bishop, as the hermit's legitimate superior can certainly demand something the hermit does not  feel is the best thing for her. This will usually not be done facilely and not without consultation, but it can happen. The judgment is NOT the individual hermit's alone precisely because her vocation is an ecclesial one; others (the church at large, other diocesan hermits or candidates, their own Bishops, etc.) have a stake in the decision being made and the local Bishop and to a lesser degree, the diocesan hermit's delegate, have responsibilities for making binding judgments in these cases.

On Wearing a Habit if One has left the Consecrated (religious) State?

Should someone continue wearing a habit if they leave the consecrated state? No. While I understand the allure of such a decision and the difficulty of letting the habit go, the fact is that habits are symbols of public vocations. They are ecclesial symbols and the individual does not have the right to adopt these without the Church's permission and supervision. (A spiritual director, by the way, would not of him or herself have the right to grant this permission.) I wrote recently that symbols are living things, that they are born and can die but they cannot simply be created by fiat (cf, On Symbols and Ongoing Mediation or, On the Significance of the Designation Er Dio). When we are clothed with the habit and/or prayer garment (something the Church does, usually through the mediation of an institute of consecrated life, but also in the profession of hermits) we accept this symbol as our own; we step into a stream of living tradition and witness to it with our lives.

One of the reasons diocesan hermits do not adopt the habits of specific congregations (Dominican, Franciscan, Carthusian, Camaldolese) for instance is because they are not professed as part of this tradition. Their lives are neither canonically committed to nor shaped by members of these congregations who teach and model for them what this habit means in the history of the Church and the life of a religious of this specific spiritual tradition. In any case, the bottom line is that the wearing of a habit is an ecclesial act, an act of witness which the Church commissions and supervises. It is part of the rights and obligations associated with consecrated life. If one leaves the state she leaves these rights and obligations as well. Again, with rights come obligations and both rights and obligations are mediated by the Church, not by the individual.

[[The blogger also wrote, [[Again, no consecrated Catholic hermit is like another anymore than there are two fingerprints the same in the whole world or that have ever repeated throughout the history of mankind.]] I think this blogger was trying to suggest that Canon law cannot place arbitrary constraints on an individual hermit and that each hermit is free to discern what is best for themselves. She seems to have a fundamental belief that canon law is harmful, especially in regard to hermits. Can you comment on this opinion?]]

I have written recently about the profound characteristics shared by diocesan hermits in spite of their uniqueness here: Significance of Er Dio as post-nomial initials. I don't want to repeat that since it is quite recent but I do suggest you take a look at it if you missed it or perhaps simply to refresh your memory. It is true that every consecrated hermit differs from every other hermit just as individual fingerprints differ. But all fingerprints have shared characteristics or overarching patterns of whorls, arches, loops and their subsets. Eremitical life also has such patterns and basic characteristics. Canon 603 lists these and the hermit uses them to define her life with her own necessary flexibility as she codifies these in her Rule or Plan of Life. Any individualism is at least muted and (one hopes) transformed by this process of configuration and the conversion it empowers. Hermits differ one to another, yes, but to the extent they are authentic hermits their differences represent a variation on a more important shared theme and charism, namely, the silence of solitude they are each and all called to live in the name of Christ and (for those who are ecclesially professed and consecrated) in the name of his Church. I believe that canon law is important for protecting a rare and fragile though vital ecclesial vocation; I have written about that here several times so please check out past posts on this. My opinion has not changed.

On shifting discernment regarding wearing a habit:

There was also a slightly different question posed in the passage you cited re the wearing of a habit, namely, what does one do if one is granted permission to wear a habit and then decides down the line that doing so conflicts with the hiddenness of the life, for instance? Ordinarily a bishop gives permission for the wearing of a habit and may also approve the habit itself. He does not typically mandate the wearing of a habit. If a hermit discerns that the positive reasons for wearing a habit conflict with something as essential as the hiddenness of the eremitical life, the hermit will take a couple of steps in moving towards relinquishing the habit: 1) she will discuss the matter (director, delegate, and perhaps, her bishop) to share her discernment; these persons are able to evaluate the degree and quality of discernment achieved, 2) she will rewrite the portions of her Rule that deal with wearing the habit and anything in her treatment of the vow of religious poverty which is affected, and 3) she will seek approval for these changes (if, in fact, her Rule addressed these things in the first place). A bishop may or may not approve such changes in the hermit's usual praxis and/or Rule, but if the discernment is good it is unlikely he would disapprove.

Postscript: there has been some confusion, I believe, because in Canon 603 the hermit is said to live her life "under the direction of the local Bishop". This has caused some to write "under their director's authority (whether bishop or not)" [paraphrase] and similar things. However, "direction" in canon 603 does not refer to a bishop doing or serving as spiritual director nor does it elevate the ordinary spiritual director to the same role as the Bishop; such levelling and confusion of roles is a serious misunderstanding of the language being employed here. Instead, the term "direction" (and thus, the director) refers to the general current usage in religious life where a director is a superior under whose legitimate supervision one lives one's life --- as in the case of a novice director or director of candidates, etc. Thus, to avoid confusion when speaking of canon 603, I tend to speak of "director" for spiritual director and  of "legitimate superior" under whose supervision  (rather than direction) one lives as a canonical hermit to refer to the local bishop. I will also use Director (capitalized) for the delegate and director (lowercase) or SD or spiritual director for that role/person.

Ongoing Formation of the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, What does ongoing formation for the diocesan hermit consist of? How would a diocese ensure that the hermit is achieving the level of ongoing formation she or he requires?]]

Wow, brand new question for me! Excellent as well! In some ways I think this is uncharted territory, at least in the formal sense. Let me suggest some of the things I do to continue my formation as a diocesan hermit and also some things which might be especially helpful to the diocese and hermit together in what is a mutual or collaborative responsibility. It is this latter area where I think we are mainly in uncharted territory and in a general sense could do better for diocesan hermits and their Bishops and delegates.

Things the Hermit does to Ensure Ongoing Formation:

The first thing necessary is anything coming under the rubric, "custody of the cell." What I mean by this is anything necessary to living the silence of solitude in the hermitage. For the most part this means living one's Rule of Life (including every spiritual and other regular practice), reflecting on this in light of one's prayer and journaling (inner work), spiritual direction, and further, in light of one's reading and reflection on the eremitical tradition and the contemporary world. Over some time one will reflect on one's life in the hermitage, one's life and role in the parish, the place of friendships and other relationships in one's life, one's physical, intellectual, and emotional needs, and the demands on one's gifts which all of these make. One then makes whatever changes are necessary to ensure continuing growth in the eremitical life and the essential elements of canon 603. At the same time one will make decisions about needed education (usually online but not always), reading trajectories (if this is applicable to personal work or one's professional competencies), writing projects (or whatever form of work one does), greater reclusion, periods of retreat beyond an annual retreat, and so forth.

Parts of all this will include then, regular spiritual direction and meetings with one's delegate, regular reflection on one's Rule and vows, regular desert days, at least occasional periods of reclusion, and annual retreat. It may require time away from the hermitage at a monastery beyond what is required for retreat itself. In general all of these things are parts of the hermit's own Rule because, after all, the life itself is formative and living it with integrity is the major piece of actual formation --- no matter whether that is initial or ongoing. Still, the evaluative part of things is usually not treated in one's Rule and it may well be that this should be worked out in the section on ongoing formation. For instance, one might well determine that once a year (or less frequently) a meeting with one's delegate which is dedicated simply to looking at one's needs for ongoing formation for the following year (or several years) will occur. While very little of the hermit's day-to-day life might change as a result and while one might simply continue on as one has, such a meeting could still be invaluable.

Others' Roles in Ensuring Ongoing Formation:

While responsibility for ongoing formation is mainly the hermit's own, her Spiritual Director and diocesan delegate play major roles in helping her grow in holiness and assisting her to articulate regularly how she has grown, where she sees God taking her in terms of eremitical life, how it is the parish and diocese assist (or could well assist) her in this and how that may be improved upon. The delegate might well discuss some of these things with the Bishop if they seem to be something the diocese should assist with. That is especially true if she and the hermit meet for a regular meeting dedicated to ongoing formation needs mentioned above.

This, of course, suggests that the Bishop also has a part to play in ensuring the hermit's ongoing formation in this life. While this role should not be surprising it is an underdeveloped and under-appreciated aspect of the situation set up by Canon 603. Canon 603 outlines a solitary eremitical life of the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the evangelical counsels, all lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes and is faithful to under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop. While the hermit does not receive any financial assistance or remuneration from the diocese, there is no reason to believe the Bishop cannot or should not assist her in locating or helping make available selected and occasional diocesan or other resources which contribute to ongoing formation in her vocation. Hermits tend to meet with their Bishops once a year. That meeting usually serves to fill the Bishop in on how things are going, how the hermit lives her life, what is most important to her in all of this, and what needs she has run into and how she has managed to meet these. Occasionally (every three to five years or so), an important part of such a meeting might  be a discussion of the ways in which the hermit has revised or proposes to revise her Rule before submitting it to the Bishop for formal approval.

With regard to ongoing formation what I would like to suggest is that if necessary and if the Bishop is willing (and I have to say my sense is most would be very willing given their concern with the issue of eremitical formation), an additional meeting with the hermit's delegate might also take place for the specific purpose of discussing specific needs and concerns. With the Bishop's permission, this could free the delegate up to line up (or help the hermit to line up) the resources necessary here or formulate a plan for meeting those needs and concerns. For instance, if the hermit truly needs additional time away in a monastery, or could benefit significantly from a workshop on Scripture or prayer or spiritual direction (etc), a Bishop (or the delegate acting in his stead) might be able to arrange for something which meets the limited resources the hermit has available and at little or no expense for the diocese.

The point is that the hermit vocation is fragile and vital; for this reason the diocese, especially in the persons of the Bishop (legitimate superior) and delegate (quasi-superior), should work with the hermit in helping ensure her needs for ongoing formation are met. At this point the hermit's relationship with her Bishop is a little-addressed and less-understood element of the canon. Hermits and Bishops work to find their way in this matter, sometimes with little sense of what is actually being accomplished (or is meant to be accomplished) by their meetings. A focus or partial focus on ongoing formation and a collaborative relationship with the hermit's delegate in meeting the hermit's needs here might be just what is needed periodically. (For the most part meetings with one's Bishop are not agenda-driven. They are a chance for both persons to get to know one another and to learn about eremitical life lived out in a contemporary context; they are typically fairly relaxed and informative and should be allowed to be this unless there is something specific either party needs to discuss).

The hermit's pastor may also fill a role in the hermit's ongoing formation. It is certainly true for me that my own pastor plays a very large if informal role here and I think that is both fortunate and a very great gift. For instance he affords me opportunities to use my own gifts in the parish --- always with an accepting eye towards my own fidelity to my contemplative and eremitical vocation. As a result, however, my own regular grappling with Scripture has become more central and fruitful. My pastor has given me opportunities to do Communion Services (Services of the Word with Communion) on days when the parish has no priest available, to write written reflections on the Scriptures or on theological themes, to give or assist with occasional workshops to the parish (Advent, Lenten, Anniversary of Vatican II), to speak to the school children or teen faith formation once in a while (once a semester or year) about prayer, living as a hermit, religious life, etc, and he has made it possible for me to attend a continuing education workshop several times in the area of Scripture.

One of the most helpful features of this relationship with my pastor and parish has been my own discernment of how to negotiate the demands of my vocation to the silence of solitude while sharing the fruits of that vocation and my own gifts. It isn't always easy nor is it always neat, but it is a dynamic which is an integral part of the eremitical (and especially the Camaldolese eremitical) tradition so it is a dynamic which, in all likelihood, is not going to go away. My pastor's respect and concern for my eremitical vocation (not to mention his patience with my own sometimes-awkward efforts to negotiate things) are as helpful as the opportunities he affords me. While this situation may not be typical, I think most diocesan hermits could work out at least a similar situation with their pastors and parishes.


I should also mention the role of friends and other religious in the hermit's ongoing formation. Though more casual there is no doubt that friends, especially when they are Religious, play a significant part here in my own ongoing formation. In the latter case we discuss prayer, reading, Scripture, the Church, spiritual direction, daily struggles and joys, the requirements of  personal ongoing formation, and just generally do what friends do for one another in encouraging faithfulness to God's call. I have coffee with one Sister every Sunday I can and we go out very occasionally at other times as well (e.g., once a movie and dinner, once a museum exhibit, etc). Beyond that I have spent a week the last two Spring breaks with her at her congregation's vacation house in what is a fairly relaxed period of shared solitude. Because of this relationship and others I have grown as a human bring and as a hermit. I am also more tuned into the Church, to trends in religious life, and have met other contemplatives I would never have had the chance to meet otherwise. I have been challenged, empowered, and consoled by this and other friendships (especially those I enjoy with a handful of parishioners), for instance, and have to consider these an asset to ongoing formation.

Assessing Ongoing Formation:

If the silence of solitude is the charism of the diocesan hermit's life and the single element which can be used to mea-sure the quality of all other parts of the hermit's life (and I argue strongly that it is), then the degree to which the hermit is growing in living this reality is the key to assessing the quality of her ongoing formation, or her needs for the same. If it seems that she is distracted or unhappy in solitude, if the opportunities that come her way through the parish detract from her ability to easily step back into the hermitage, or if they are not natural spillovers of her life there, then they are probably not helpful to ongoing formation as a hermit. If her life begins to be disorderly or unfaithful in small and bigger things, then something needs to be addressed. If solitude begins to devolve into mere isolation, then problems requiring a solution exist. The "silence of solitude" is the key here just as it is in initial discernment and formation. Only the hermit, her director, her delegate, and to a lesser degree her Bishop can really discern or determine how well she is progressing in her ongoing response to God's call, but they definitely need to collaborate to ensure this is as God wills and the Church needs.

Bishop Cordileone to take over as Archbishop of San Francisco

It has just been reported in Whispers in the Loggia and via diocesan emails that Bishop Cordileone has been assigned Archbishop of San Francisco. His installation will be held in San Francisco at St Mary's Cathedral, October 4th on the Feast of St Francis. Of course congratulations are in order for Bp Cordileone while the Diocese of Oakland waits and prays for his replacement. The Archdiocese of San Francisco is a major assignment and there is no doubt it will be challenging for Bishop Cordileone in a number of ways. (Commentators note that his assignment to the Archbishopric will be the seismic equivalent to the 1906 earthquake for the church in San Francisco.) The assumption seems to be that he will be there for the next two decades when he is eligible for retirement.

As to how this affects me, something folks have asked about already, I have to say I am not quite sure. It is the second time in the space of five years that I have had a change of Bishops and my third annual appointment with Bp Cordileone was to be Sept 5th. Whether I will be keeping that appointment is a yet-unanswered question. It takes time to establish a relationship with one's Bishop so this means there will be a period of letting the new Bishop (who ever that is) find his feet in the diocese and only then setting an appointment. In the meantime I continue on as my Rule calls for. Diocesan hermits don't follow a Bishop to a new appointment (as one person asked me earlier today); they are professed within a specific Diocese and if the Bishop changes, so does their legitimate superior. In such a process the hermit's delegate (quasi-superior) continues on as they have right along as do contacts in the Vicar for Religious' Office and (at least for the time being) with the Bishop's Office as well.