How Does Having a Delegate Work for You? Could it Work for Me?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I am a diocesan hermit, but because of the nature of my question, I don't want to identify myself or my diocese. I hope that is okay. What I am really hoping is that you have some suggestions for me in dealing with this situation. My diocese has a new bishop since I was professed and consecrated. I understand that my position as a c 603 hermit is not in jeopardy, even if my new bishop does not agree with the idea of hermits, but you know, I have been unable to meet with my new bishop, and it looks like such a meeting, much less regular meetings with him, are not going to take place anytime soon. You have a delegate. How does that work, and could I work out such a situation in my diocese? I realize that not all bishops are ready to take on the role of supervising a diocesan hermit. Is this a very common situation, if you know? I'm just hoping you have a little bit of wisdom to share with me! Thanks!!]]

Thanks very much for your questions. They are really important, and apply to many dioceses in one way or another -- at least from what I know anecdotally. First of all, it might be helpful to consider what role a delegate serves. Bishops are called to supervise c 603 vocations in their diocese; they are to be sure the hermit is living her vocation, growing in it, and representing the Church and Gospel in the ways hermits do. A person's bishop should be knowledgeable of the hermit's Rule and have a sense of the way God has worked in her life over the years, and have at least a sense of where she is currently in her life with God and in the church. However, the Canon does not define how the Bishop is to carry this responsibility out. 

Thus, some bishops have determined that they will use a delegate who serves the diocese (the local Church) and both the hermit and the bishop by accompanying the hermit and then by being available to the bishop to fill him in, et al., should the diocese wish to discuss how things are going. (I should note here that this arrangement is ordinarily undertaken in addition to regular meetings between the hermit and her bishop.) This works well, both because the hermit really does need to be able to check in with someone regularly, and because they definitely may need to meet with someone more frequently than Bishops might be able to do, a delegate serves everyone involved, along with facilitating the requirements of c 603.

Now, here's the rub insofar as you are concerned. I was asked prior to being admitted to perpetual profession and consecration to get a delegate. You have not been asked to do this. The Vicars for Religious at the time (we had two), had met with Bp Vigneron prior to my meeting with them at this one point, and, as a result of that meeting, asked me to get a delegate. Thus, the request came directly from the bishop; it was not my idea. However, the use of a delegate is now pretty well-known and common. While it was not done in your case prior to your profession and consecration, it seems to me that you could make a proposal to your diocese/bishop about adopting the use of a delegate who could 1) meet with you regularly (as necessary), 2) be available to your bishop in your regard, 3) be responsible for keeping his/her finger on the pulse of your vocation, your growth in it, and in the life of the Church -- both universal and local. Even if the arrangement remained completely informal, it could assist you to live your vocation with integrity, and a record of your letter would be kept in your file for future reference.

As you know, Canon 603 is very clearly meant to foster the presence of deeply ecclesial eremitical vocations, and given the individuality of this vocation, and the lack of religious community, c 603 hermits experience, the connection to the local Church must be maintained to prevent the hermit from falling into individualism or feeling like there is no real relationship with the local or universal Church. After all, the canonical hermit makes commitments beyond those of baptism, which are binding in law, and these are commitments she lives for the sake of the Church. In this way, too, she glorifies God and serves the salvation of the world. This is the reason the supervision of the local bishop is required. As you likely also know well, the eremitical life is both vital and fragile, especially in a world where selfish individualism routinely replaces healthy individuality lived for the sake of others.

It does happen that bishops are unready to meet regularly with hermits, though I don't know the frequency with which this happens. I was fortunate in my diocese and was able to meet with my bishop twice a year, as well as meeting more frequently with my delegate. Bp Vigneron, who followed Bp John Cummins, communicated through my delegate; he was followed by Bp Cordileone, and he kept a twice-a-year schedule unless I needed to meet for some unexpected reason, in which case I simply needed to contact his office for an appointment. When Bp Cordileone left for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, he arranged for me to meet with the Vicar for Religious in case of need. We had an interim Bishop in there for a time, and he also kept in contact through the Vicar for Religious (Rev Robert Herbst, OFM Conv), who left for the Diocese of Las Vegas after Bishop Barber took over. My first meeting with Bp Barber came when he did a visitation at my parish, when we met in the sacristy after Mass. It was then that he learned he had a diocesan hermit in the diocese whose legitimate superior he was. He was a bit surprised!!! So, a lot happened in the first ten years after consecration, but Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, served as my delegate during all of that time, and still does, now with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. 

I don't think there is much in this post that is new, but perhaps it gives a better sense of why the delegate can be helpful and is often necessary. Bishops who "inherit" diocesan hermits may well feel ill-equipped to follow or assist such a vocation, particularly alone. (They might feel inadequate to supervise any contemplative vocation, but that of a solitary hermit might accentuate this sense, and that is understandable. Having a religious who understands contemplative life, and the importance of solitude, can be of immense assistance to the bishop.)  My suggestion to you is to find someone who could serve in this role (a religious or religious priest with a background in formation, spiritual direction, contemplative life and prayer, leadership in community, theology, spirituality, and the willingness to read about eremitical life) is especially helpful. If you can get a monastic who can do this, that would be great! Make sure they have a copy of your Rule, and have a conversation (or several!) with them on the ways you live it now and once lived it, the ways you have grown in your understanding of the elements of Canon 603, and why you are taking this step now. Also, be clear how you understand your vow of obedience and make sure they are on the same page with a ministry of authority; after all, this person will be a kind of "quasi-superior" for you, and you both need to see religious obedience in the same way. (This will be the way it is articulated in your Rule of Life.)

Once you have someone who can and will serve in this way, write your bishop with your proposal (be sure to cite the canon, the person you have spoken to about serving the diocese in this way, and also give the reasons you have found such an arrangement important); request an appointment to discuss the matter. See if he would like to meet with the proposed delegate at the same time. If you cannot get an appointment with your Bishop, see about an appointment with the Vicar for Religious or Vicar of Consecrated Life. Finally, as an additional aid, especially if your diocese does not have a Vicar for religious, you might also consider joining other diocesan hermits with whom you might meet once a month or so in a virtual laura. These kinds of non-geographical arrangements can be really supportive for solitary hermits living c. 603. In this way, you can share with folks living the same lifestyle you are, and doing so in the same world; they will have probably dealt with the same questions and challenges you are. This does not take the place of a delegate or meetings with your bishop, for instance, but for some of us, this arrangement is incredibly life-giving!!

Do get back to me to let me know how you do with all of this. I'm sorry I don't have more suggestions than this one solution, but it has worked really well for me and for the C. 603 vocation in the Diocese of Oakland, both with Bishops who are more involved with my vocation and with those who are less so.  

Uncomfortable Questions and Answers!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel, why is it you don't want a bishop or priest supervising or directing you? If canon 603 says that you are to live under your bishop's direction then why don't you let him to do that? Why do you use a woman from a dissident [religious] community as a spiritual director? You write a lot about c 603 but how can you do that if you don't live the canon yourself? I want to support Joyful Hermit because she suffers so much and all for the love of God. She hasn't even been approved by the church like you have and lives a heroic hermit life. You should be ashamed for harassing her!!]]

Thanks for writing. I've decided to post your questions and answers because I keep getting similar ones. They require more than a private email response if others are going to stop writing me with the same kinds of questions. However, let me say that if you are a friend of Joyful's, or if you want to support her, I would encourage you not only to learn the truth yourself but that you help her to face (and tell) the truth as well. Because asking me directly is the first step toward this goal, I want to answer your questions but let me ask you some questions as well. For instance, what besides what you have heard from Joyful makes you think I do not want my bishop to supervise me? Have I ever said or written such a thing? The answer to that is of course not! I am a c 603 hermit and I have committed to live the canon as fully as I can. That includes accepting diocesan bishops' supervision of my life. That said, let me point out that neither I nor any other c 603 hermit can control our bishops and the way they supervise or fail to supervise this vocation!! If Joyful ever truly becomes a c 603 hermit, she will not be able to do that either.

Remember, when one's bishop retires or is moved to be made an Archbishop, for instance, they are replaced by someone who may not be prepared to supervise a hermit, and some bishops are simply unwilling or unable. My own diocese was very wise in requiring me to choose a delegate who would work with me on behalf of my bishop. (And no, the chancery did not require that this person be a priest!) As already noted, Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, serves both the diocese and me in this way and so does my co-delegate, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. Both are qualified to do this for me and for the sake of this vocation in ways most bishops cannot even imagine doing themselves. I have written about the competence and quality of both of these Sisters recently, so feel free to look those posts up if you are interested in the truth about them. It is not as Joyful has imagined it. But to be blunt, very little of what Joyful has imagined (i.e., fantasized!) about me or others she has maligned in her videos, is anything even remotely near the truth. 

As I have written now several times, a bishop is not asked to be a c 603 hermit's spiritual director but to supervise her living out of her vocation. If the word director is used in a translation of c 603, it does not mean spiritual director. Since a c 603's bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior, he, in fact, cannot be her spiritual director. That would lead to conflicts between internal and external fora. Instead, he is asked to supervise this ecclesial vocation, and there are no rules specifying how that supervision must be carried out. In the arrangement my own diocese specified, I think I am better served than if I had only been supervised by the bishop.

As I have written several times now, the use of a delegate with a closer relationship to the hermit works very well for both the diocese and the hermit; it also maintains the distinction between internal and external fora. Joyful has a single narrow idea of what the canon means by supervision or direction, and if a diocese uses a different understanding of supervision, she declares this to be evidence that the hermit is not following the canon. But let me again be frank. Joyful also does not demonstrate any real understanding c 603 --- not the reasons for its existence, not its nature, not the language it uses, or the life it defines and governs.  She has never met me, nor corresponded with me regarding the supposed issues she has with me, and she claims she does not even read this blog. She doesn't know me nor understand my life, nor how I live it; all of that and more means she is in no position to say I don't live the canon (nor most of the other things she claims about me --- particularly when she transgresses into the area of motivations).

You are correct that Joyful has not been approved for admission to c 603 profession. She is not a consecrated or Catholic Hermit, despite what she claims. That takes the church's admission to profession and consecration and its public commissioning to live the vocation in the Church's name. While Joyful has petitioned for this standing to be granted to her, it has not been granted yet and may never be. (Here I have to ask you, if Joyful is already a consecrated Catholic hermit, why would she seek admission to profession and consecration under a canon she reviles as inadequate ("full of loopholes") and a destructive influence on traditional eremitical life?) 

And if she is never admitted to c 603 standing, then where's the harm?  She does not truly feel called to this specific vocation nor even believe in its value; it should not be a great disappointment or source of suffering if she is not admitted to profession. Perhaps more importantly, she can continue living as a non-canonical hermit and write about it in a more compelling way than she could ever do with c 603, the canon and vocation she so reviles. Granted, to do this effectively and credibly, she would need to adopt the Church's own distinction between consecrated (canonical) and non-canonical eremitical life, and she would need to espouse her own call as a significant lay vocation. (For priests, it could be a significant clerical vocation.) As Joyful's friend or supporter, you could assist her with that. 

Beyond that, though, the best way any friend or supporter could help Joyful, I think, is to get her to stop drawing gratuitous conclusions about people's motivations, presumed behavior, faithfulness to their vocation, state of their soul, etc. She does not and cannot know these things without the person sharing them with her or confirming them for her. If she has questions about how someone understands or lives eremitical life, or why they do what they do, then please encourage her to write that person directly and ask them as you have done to me!! You see, while I find your questions somewhat rude and entirely spurious (they are rooted in untrue assumptions), I absolutely respect that you posed them directly. Thank you for that.

On Baseline Values: Fundamentals and Diversity in Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, you recently wrote, "What is absolutely critical is that in some way the hermit writing the Rule combines the requirements of Canon 603 with her own life story, not because she cannot let go of her life before the hermitage, but because in every way, the Rule she is proposing to live indicates the continuation and fulfillment of a long journey towards redemption by God's love. It spells out a coherent way of living out the victory of that redemption as it has unfolded to bring her here and still continues to unfold in this new commitment." I was struck by a couple of things. First, your vision of solitary eremitical life as a continuation of a redemptive journey that began long before one reached the hermitage (or the hermitage stage), and secondly, that your Rule could not be used by anyone else; you were not writing for a group. 

In approaching the canon in this way, I really like the flexibility and personal integrity this allows for, but I was wondering how great is the danger of hermits who really aren't living the silence of solitude at all? If your Rule looks very different than that of another hermit, then who judges what hermit life really looks like? What happens if one person discerns a call to limited ministry as you have, and another says no to that? Won't people be confused by this? It seems a particular problem if no one spells out the baseline values for silence, solitude, prayer, penance, etc., so who does that? I don't mean hermits need to meet the kinds of rigorist qualities some have written about in the last several years --- you know, absolute silence, total hiddenness, and all of that -- but what does it mean to live a life of the silence of solitude (and the other elements of C 603) no matter who you are? Do you see what I mean? I also have some questions on time frames, temporary vs perpetual professions, and things like that, but I'll hold those for now. . .]]

Thanks for writing again. Your questions are very well-taken and I appreciate them. I will need to come back to parts of these in further posts. With Canon 603, as I have noted many times, we find a uniquely written canon that combines elements that are non-negotiable (that is, they must be defining terms of the hermit's life or s/he is not a Canon 603 hermit) and great flexibility, because these elements or terms are less legal terms with entirely fixed meanings, than they are gates or doorways to Mystery, specifically, the Mystery of Love-in-Communion. In other words, Canon 603 itself represents a vision of eremitic life that allows for room to grow, explore, make mistakes, make corrections, discern, submit to ongoing formation, consult, and so forth. The terms identified as non-negotiable are themselves mysteries more than terms with single, limited or common meanings --- especially when these meanings are set from the outside by those who know nothing of the life. Yes, there are foundational, "beginning," or common senses to these terms, and these foundational senses set a high bar for the hermit, but what is also true is that once one has truly entered the world of eremitism, once solitude has opened herself to the hermit and the hermit has accepted the invitation, these beginning senses open to even greater richness marked by paradox and surprise.  

One of the surprises is that each foundational term must be defined in terms of relationality (including that between oneself and 1) one's true or deep self, 2) one's God, 3) others, and 4) the whole of creation). Each term describes a living reality, dynamic in the way it opens us to it and itself to us. I have always loved Star Trek's various series and the opening of each series refers to the last frontier, identifying this with space, outer space. But hermits know the truth is different than this. The last frontier is inner space and from there, the inner life of God (him)self. What Canon 603 spells out, it seems to me, are the basic requirements for a person to make such a journey as a hermit: stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, commitment to the evangelical counsels, an approved Rule of Life, lived in a desert context with supervision! (One piece of this single picture which will witness to all of the other elements is the hermit's stability and perseverance in cell -- more about this later). 

Remembering the importance of relationality, especially as one begins the inward journey in earnest and is tempted to mistake isolation for solitude or individualism for individuality; we need to stress that the reason one makes the journey is for the salvation of others. Alternately stated, the hermit makes the journey she makes in the way she does so that God might truly be the God he wishes to be, God-With-Us, (not simply God-With-her). Because the hermit's journey, that is, the way she uniquely poses the question of existence with her own life involves a particular desert quality, the way God is Emmanuel will correspond and be revealed in her life in a different way than occurs in the life of a ministerial religious, for instance. This difference must be evident. And yet, this life is lived for the sake of God and God's entire creation; relationality stands at the center of the hermit's life just as it does for any Christian.

As you well note, all of this requires certain baseline values for the terms of the canon. There must be external silence and physical solitude and there must be "enough" of these in the right configurations to provide a context for and support such an incredible inner journey. At this level of these terms, there must be silence and solitude sufficient to define the hermit's world in visible or identifiable ways and allow other elements to do the same, but which, at the same time, are not confused with the end or purpose of the life itself. Silence and solitude need not be absolute, for the measure of the hermit is not the degree of external silence or (physical) solitude she embraces, important as these are, but the journey they help facilitate into (and of) her deep self and the very Life of God. The same is true of the other elements; they must be sufficiently definitive of the life the hermit is living to allow for the specific journey the hermit is proposing to make with her life. At the same time, these defining elements are not to be absolutized but rather are meant to serve the goal of allowing God to be God-With-Us and Us to be completed in God for the sake of others. 

You asked if the diversity of vocations will be confusing to folks. I think that is doubtful so long as the dioceses who have hermits show real care in their discernment and each vocation shows clear signs of being defined by the constitutive elements of the canon. (No more professing "hermits" who live contemplative lives on the weekends alone while working highly social jobs during the week, or those for whom the term "hermit" is merely a metaphor describing personal eccentricity and a failure to "fit in"!!) Perhaps more importantly, I don't believe folks will be confused so long as the vocations they are exposed to are healthy, vital vocations centered in Christ and clear embodiments of Canon 603. I don't think any hermit I know believes they live eremitical life the only way it can be lived. There has always been diversity in such vocations. We each recognize that while we must and do live the defining elements of the vocation as faithfully and paradigmatically as God calls us to do, variations in the appearance of the vocation are possible depending upon how God works in a particular life. 

So who decides about all of this? The hermit does this with the assistance of her delegate and spiritual director. The bishop and diocesan staff who help discern such vocations also discern whether the vocation in front of them rises to the level of an ecclesial eremitical vocation or not --- is this person really living a life defined by the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, and so forth and are they called to live this in the name of the Church? What needs to be strengthened if this is so, for instance? In what ways does the person still need to grow into the vocation in order to make an initial or even a definitive profession and what will assist in that? How have things changed for this hermit in the past several years in her continuing faithful response to God's eremitical call? Finally, if the diocese is being assisted by a mentor who is already c 603, then s/he will be helping in this same discernment. 

After perpetual profession the hermit is assisted by her delegate, spiritual director, bishop (this will be true less frequently in most cases), and others with the expertise needed. She will speak with other hermits, and of course, first, last, and in between, she will pray regarding the way she perceives God calling her. Folks will need to be able to trust that there is a framework in place for all of this precisely because she is living an ecclesial vocation; if there are concerns, these will need to be brought to the hermit and (usually through her) to those involved in assisting her to live her vocation with integrity. Sometimes clearing up such concerns is merely a matter of educating folks about what a hermit is and what eremitical life looks like apart from entrenched stereotypes and imposed rigidities by those truly unfamiliar with the life. And sometimes, the diocese itself will learn from such conversations and find ways to take more care in their discernment of such important vocations! Hopefully, however, the hermit's place in the faith community will be strengthened and she will be supported to grow in her vocation as she, in the silence of solitude, witnesses to the sufficiency of God alone to complete us as human beings!!

I hope this is helpful! Definitely get back to me with your questions on time frames, etc.

Bishops and Delegates as Contrary to the "Supreme Independence" of a Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, in your last post [09.September. 2022, On Needing People] the questions asked something about the supervision of the bishop being contrary to the vocation of a hermit. I don't think you answered that so let me ask it again even if it is not what the original questioner had in mind. I have always thought of hermits as supremely independent --- being able to walk away from everything and everyone to live alone, but c 603 requires one live one's life under the supervision of a diocesan bishop. You have written about having a delegate who serves you and the bishop in meeting with you regularly. Isn't all of this contrary to the supreme independence of the hermit? Thanks!!]]

Thanks for continuing the conversation and for taking it further than the original poster did. As you will no doubt guess, I am going to disagree with your position, not only because I differ somewhat (mainly in emphasis) on your understanding of hermit life but more, because I think you and I have different notions of independence.

In the first place, I don't think of a hermit as one who leaves everything and everyone "in order to be alone". I think of a hermit as having done these things to seek and live in communion with God and, therefore, to be the truest and fullest Self s/he can be. The purpose of the life is not about being alone, nor about being hidden, or poor, or any number of other things; the purpose of the life is to put God first, to allow God's will to love us fully and unconditionally to be realized in our one very singular and infinitely precious life. Yes, this will mean being alone, poor, hidden, chaste, celibate, and any number of other things, but all of those serve this foundational purpose; they must not be mistaken for it. There is a second half to this foundational purpose, namely, in real ways the hermit leaves everything and everyone and seeks to live in Communion with God and to become and be the truest, fullest, self she can be for the sake of others. 

Hermits are, first and foremost witnesses (martyrs) to the Love of God that is the deepest need of and sufficient for every person. We "leave everything and everyone" to the extent and in the way we do so in order to live in the silence of solitude (life with God alone) so that others may also know that God alone is enough (i.e., only God can create, sustain, and complete us as persons). I want to be clear that hermits are not the only ones who witness to this truth; for instance, men and women religious also do so, but they image the way that occurs in community and hermits image this truth in the vividness of the silence of solitude. (Both hermits and cenobites live community, silence, and solitude, but they do so differently with different emphases in their lives.) Again, who the hermit is and what the hermit does, is meant to be a gift and ministry to and for the sake of others; she lives her life for the sake of others -- beginning with God's own sake.

So, with that important piece in place let's think about the term independence and especially its sense in Christian theology. To be truly free is to be empowered to be the person God wills us to be. It is to be able to live authentically and fully, the potential which is ours by virtue of our creation by God. There is a "free from" dimension to this empowerment as well as a "free for" dimension. For the person who exists in and through God in Christ, and to the extent this is true, there is freedom from sin (that is, from estrangement from God, self, and others), from ego, from much of the woundedness our lives in space and time cause us. This means too then, that there is the freedom to be Oneself for God, for the sake of God's good creation, and certainly for the sake of all who are precious to God. The hermit's freedom is very much this kind of freedom in both senses and dimensions.

If what one calls independence is ruled by ego, it is not genuine freedom. If we are not free to receive our lives as gift or others in a similar way, we do not know genuine freedom. If we are not free to give ourselves generously, to love and trust others in ways that empower them similarly, we are not truly free at all. Because we are only human as part of a community, because our humanity is a gift of God which is realized in and through our love of God and others and theirs of/for us, we need these same others if we are to be free. God is a community of love and God wills to draw us into that same reality; indeed, he has made us for this. By definition, humanity itself, and human freedom therefore is defined in terms of such community.

All of this makes the solitude of the authentic hermit incredibly paradoxical. To the degree it is genuine, it will be an expression of our seeking and being in intimate community with God, with our deepest selves, and, in other ways, with others. No matter what else we walk away from, we cannot walk away from God or our deepest selves without betraying the very nature of our existence as human, and too then, our vocation and its solitude in the process. By extension, we cannot walk away from others --- though most of the time we relate to them differently than most people do.

The vocation I have begun describing here is both difficult, rare, and, as noted, incredibly paradoxical. It is easy to mistake it for the isolation and misanthropy that marks the loner in today's society because externally these two can look a lot alike. When one doesn't know that (seeking and receiving) communion with God is the primary motivation and goal of the hermit, it is easy to imagine that the vaunted "eremitical freedom" means the freedom to walk away from every relationship and responsibility and do whatever one wants whenever one wants to do it. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the word "hermit" has been used in these two antithetical ways, again based on some externals alone. But authentic eremitical life is demanding, and because communion with God (being loved and loving in return in the way God loves and empowers one to love) is a difficult goal which requires the whole of one's life, it really does require supervision and work with a skilled spiritual director, etc., to keep one moving forward in receiving and embodying one's deepest truth.

Sin is, in the way I have defined it above, easy; refusing Life, which is always a gift of God, allowing it to slip away, choosing counterfeits and substitutes is easy. Holiness (being true to God and to one's deepest self in order to love as God loves), requires discipline, patience, commitment, and love --- including the love of those who know us and God, and who can help empower us to choose and continue to receive Life at every turn. In my own life those persons are a rare and precious gift. They include those who have agreed to serve me as spiritual director, as well as Director or delegate on behalf of my bishop and diocese to be sure that this vocation is lived well and in a way which is edifying to the life of the church and the understanding of all the faithful. 

The irony is that I could never be a hermit as c 603 defines one and as Christian tradition understands us without the assistance of others. I could never live the aloneness of a hermit with an ecclesial vocation by myself. To say with my life that God alone is sufficient for us, requires not just being embedded in the People of God and in God's own life, it requires those others who mediate God's love to me and remind me of those for whom I live as well. Even as a recluse (were I to find myself called to this even rarer form of eremitical life) I would require others, and that means others to and for whom I would feel grateful, those I would pray for, come to know in one way and another, and whose lives would therefore enrich the tapestry of my life as integral threads composing dimensions of my solitude. 

I'll stop this here, because I think I could keep writing for quite a while on this critical paradox. If you haven't read the following post, you should give it a look. It approaches some dimensions of this response -- becoming human, becoming holy, etc. -- with different imagery. That might be helpful to you. Inner Work and transparency to God As always, please get back to me if you have additional questions! 

Eremitical Solitude as a Form of Community: On the Place of the "Elder" in Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister, isn't it true that the traditional form of eremitical life is of living completely alone. How is what you live in agreement with traditional hermit life? You have Sisters who maybe don't live with you, but who you depend on. How can you claim to be living the truth that God alone is enough for you/us?]]

Thanks for your questions. I would disagree with you that the traditional form of eremitical life is to live entirely alone --- though I agree that large periods of time are and must be spent that way in any eremitical life.  In this I mean that physical solitude must be lived in a way sufficient to define the life and allow it to be characterized as one of real solitude. Your real disagreement seems to be with the fact that I have Sisters who serve me and my vocation in their work as my spiritual director and/or as delegates for myself and my diocese. In fact, I believe this is one variation on the traditional eremitical life or desert tradition involving elders; this was made famous (and perhaps normative) in the lives of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, as well as on Mount Athos, for instance, and in the Eastern Church more generally. The same is true of Carthusian eremitical life which depends on access to elders who assist with formation, both initial and ongoing. Meanwhile, Franciscanism uses a  uniquely communal model of eremitism and the hermitage which depends upon another friar or sister who serves as "mother" to those (two or three) living in solitude. They later reverse the roles so everyone may live in solitude and serve one another as "mother" in the process. Wherever eremitical life has been authentic and edifying, hermits (or ascetics) have depended on and often lived with Elders. In time the situation is perpetuated as the disciple (one who is open to being taught) becomes recognized as an elder her/himself and disciples (those open to learning/being taught the way of Christ in the desert) come to them in turn.

The relationship between elder and disciple has always been a complex and sacred one. It begins simply, perhaps. One approaches someone whom one wishes will help one become a hermit (or a Sister, monk, etc). In some instances this relationship may be strengthened or intensified with what I have referred to as the ministry of authority. In such instances there is a bond of authority and obedience as one learns to listen and respond deeply to God both in terms of the elder's own experience and wisdom, and in terms of one's own life in solitude. It seems to me, however, that where this particular relationship with an elder (a director, delegate, legitimate superior) is strongest and best is where is begins to blossom in a relationship of deep and mutual friendship rooted in love of Christ. I don't think one ever outgrows the relationship with an elder as elder because there is a holiness, an intimacy, and corresponding respect (sometimes taking the form of deference) to such a relationship that colors everything else, but I do believe that one can grow in ways that allow one to feel and be more an equal or peer with that elder. When that happens it is an awesome thing and, like all real friendships, a gift of God.

It is this last point I want to emphasize. Such relationships are forged in necessity (i.e.,  because of the need for direction and the ministry of authority), which itself is a gift of God, and they flower in  grace which is sometimes the grace of true friendship. Such rare friendships are both a gift of God and mediate the very presence and life of God. In my own life, the relationships I have spoken of here tend to be possible only because and to the extent I am faithful to a life of Christ in the silence of solitude. Similarly, those serving me and my vocation in the ways I have described are only able to do so by virtue of their own lives of faithfulness to the love and presence of God in Christ. Speaking for myself and my own experience here, I have to say that it is my vocation to the silence of solitude that causes me to seek the assistance of genuine elders, and the assistance of these elders sends me back into the silence of solitude in ever deepening ways. This goes far beyond the canonical requirement of supervision --- though I suspect canon 603's requirement here foresaw this deeper reality and the need for it in any genuine hermit's life. Still, one cannot legislate friendship; one can only pray that such a relationship grows out of what can and, in fact, must be legislated for the sake of the ministry of authority and the vocation itself.

In any case, I don't find any conflict with the eremitical notion that "God Alone is Enough" because for each of us (my delegates and myself), whether singly, in community (both Sister M and Sister S live in and on behalf of a community of Sisters and their charism and mission) or when we come together to talk, work, and share, that is always the ultimate truth we bear witness to, with, and for, one another. No matter the topic, nor the activity, this is a pervasive and evident truth that grounds our lives. None of us is completed by anyone but God because none of us is completed except by the Love which IS God. This foundational truth grounds our lives and commitments -- whether lived in community or eremitical solitude. This is the truth we live for one another, and the reason my Directors can serve me or their own Sisters as they do.

One of the ways this is clearest is the way these Sisters are affected by the increasing diminishment of their congregations or provinces. I cannot even imagine the pain involved in watching one's Sisters die in increasing numbers as the median age of the community rises. I cannot imagine the courage and love it takes to entrust this process entirely to God, to see that God will bring good from it, to work with God in ways which assure good will come of it and in ways which assure the charism of a community continues on once one --- and even the community itself --- are gone. And yet, I see this courage and love, this faithfulness to the truth that God Alone is Enough in the lives and witness of these two "elders" in my own life.  And now, with shelter in place and this pandemic, we each live this truth in new and demanding ways and as we do in other times. we do so for the sake of our Sisters/Brothers in religion and our sisters and brothers in Christ. I mention all of this to underscore the nature, breadth, and depth, of the wisdom these women bring to my life.

I live as a hermit. My co-delegates assist me in that. I cannot travel to find desert Fathers and Mothers who can speak a Word to me. I cannot travel the lengths and breadths even of Lafayette or the state of California, for instance, to find another monk or nun who can serve me in this way as one might have done (or still do) on Mt Athos. Neither can I get an appointment with my bishop as easily as that -- though yes, of course, if I need one, he is accessible to me. Even so, he is a supervisor and not, in my own life, a spiritual Father (or Mother!) in the sense I am using the terms here;  instead, my delegates serve him and the diocese for this specific purpose. The bottom line is that throughout the history of eremitical life, hermits have been dependent on elders. Even more fundamentally, we are each members of the body of Christ, and none of us can live as though we are unimportant or can exist in isolation from one another. Being members of Christ's Body in this way always witnesses to the fact that only God is sufficient for us because we could not come together as we do unless drawn by the grace of God.

Hermits will always walk the line where community and solitude are inseparably linked. Cenobites find they cannot live community without significant measures of solitude, hermits find that they cannot live eremitical solitude, much less reach the silence of solitude which is the goal and charism of their lives, without significant assistance of elders who also witness in their own way to the fact that God alone is enough for us. I think of the Trappistines who understand that their own lives are not a balance of solitude and community but entirely one of either/both at the same time --- entirely one of solitude in community and entirely one of community in solitude --- though not eremitical solitude. There is a wisdom in this perspective that one only gains in living the life. Similarly, I think of the Camaldolese who speak of "Living alone together" and capture the same fundamental dynamic but expressed differently in terms of a laura of hermit-monks or semi-eremitical community.

We hermits have to find our way in our life with God. We have to witness to the fact that God alone is sufficient, but so long as we exist in Christ, and so long as the eremitical vocation belongs first of all to the Church, we cannot do this simply by cutting ourselves off completely from others any more than the anchorites (urbani) did who lived their solitude under the bishop's supervision in the midst of the local community with windows opening onto the altar and onto the village/town square. As I have written many times here, eremitical solitude is a unique form of community; this is true because it is a unique way of belonging integrally to the Body of Christ, the Church. The role of the elder in the hermit's life is a concrete embodiment of this complex and profound relatedness-in-solitude.