How Can Bishops Profess Hermits They do not Know?

[[Hi Sister, I read that you waited for a long time to become a diocesan hermit, In my diocese we got a new bishop and within a few months he professed a hermit. Our former bishop never professed anyone. How can one bishop take a long time and another one profess someone in a short time? Isn't there some sort of standard about knowing a candidate before one professes them? How can it take one person many years and another person only a few years or even only a few months? Too, how can a Bishop profess someone they hardly know? I heard about one bishop who did this with a young hermit and she failed. I guess that is the same question about standards. Can I ask you one personal question? Were you ever directed or supervised by a Sister from an unrecognized community? I don't mean any offense, someone suggested your delegate was from a community that might not even be real religious maybe. I believe the point was c 603 talks about bishops supervising the hermit and maybe that yours wasn't acting as the canon required.]]

Thanks for your questions. I think your first one is another new one, never asked here before, so thanks! (It really is cool getting new questions!!) First of all, it is important to understand that in most dioceses, at least if they have Vicars for Religious or Vicars for Consecrated Life and Vocations offices (not all dioceses are large enough or have large enough staffs for these), the bishop is rarely the first one to work with a candidate. In fact, he may only meet the candidate when others are ready to recommend her for profession. At this point the person may have been meeting with chancery personnel for anywhere from 5-10 years.  (Some will have met for even longer.) This ordinarily means that a formation team including Religious, priests, canonists, and sometimes now, another c 603 hermit, will mentor the candidate hermit (and the rest of the formation team). 

So, when someone is working this way, it may happen that the bishop retires and is replaced by another bishop before the person is ready to be professed. Sometimes bishops in this situation, will leave the final decision for admission to profession of the candidate up to the next bishop. When these kinds of things happen it may appear to those looking on from the outside, that the candidate is not really known to the diocese or to the new bishop when they are professed --- at least if one only looks at the known dates involved: e.g., New bishop on 9/24, first profession of hermit on 11/24). What is true in this is that the diocese has known the candidate for much longer than just 2-3 months, but we may be unaware of this.

It is true that the newer bishop will not know the person well (and certainly not as well as the formation team does), but this is simply another reason bishops often ask the hermit to choose a delegate who will serve as representative to the diocese and to the hermit both. Remember that the first bishop also would not know the hermit well, or at least not as well as the Vicar for Religious who has been working with her all those years. Canon 603 requires that one live this vocation under the supervision (or some translations may say direction) of the bishop, but what this supervision consists of is not spelled out. So, for instance, if a person serves as delegate and knows the hermit well, if she has the appropriate expertise to guide her hermit life, and is available to the bishop whenever he wants to check on things or to meet for a conversation, that can be  a very satisfactory way of working out the canonical requirement of supervision. One thing I have not mentioned is the fact that the hermit is entrusted with this vocation. She has shown the diocesan personnel how she lives eremitical life and why, and they have come to trust her and what is usually a relatively long history of this.

The bishop does interview the candidate, sometimes several times in the year or so before profession, and he has her Rule of Life and other pertinent documentation and references. In my experience, a bishop trusts those who know the hermit better than he does, especially current and past Vicars, pastors, and spiritual directors, and he also takes the time he can to get to know her better one-on-one as well as through her writing (if she is published). Remember that c 603 is recognized as calling for temporary profession of vows, meaning these vows will ordinarily last for from 3-5 years and can be renewed before admitting the hermit to perpetual profession and consecration. There is ordinarily a great deal of time available to catch errors or problems that need to be worked out. Moreover, during the years, a bishop will come to understand eremitical life better as the hermit herself grows in the vocation and shows him the hows and whys of this; this mutual influence and education is the best way, I think, for a diocese to grow in its understanding of c 603 vocations.

In my own situation, there have been five different bishops here, including one interim, since I first petitioned to be admitted to c 603 consecration. There is no doubt that some have been more involved in supervision than others. From things I have heard from other diocesan hermits in other dioceses, this unevenness is not uncommon. At the same time, as I have written recently, the Diocese (Vicars for Religious) and then Bp Vigneron asked me to choose a delegate who would work more closely and more frequently with me than any bishop might be able to. When Bp Vigneron wanted to speak to me about something he contacted Sister Marietta, and he contacted her for her opinion on matters. Supervision need not look like some non-canonical hermits imagine it. Again, canon 603 is flexible and it is up to the diocesan bishop to decide what this term of the canon will mean. So long as he takes his role seriously and cares for the hermit's vocation, he is fulfilling the canon's prescriptions.

Regarding your last question, while this is repetitive, let me say that my main delegate (Director) has been Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF (Sisters of the Holy Family is a Papal Congregation). She has been my delegate from @ 2005 to the present,; more recently, serving as co-Director (Advocate) is Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF. I have mentioned them both before, but here is a bit more about them. Sister Marietta has served in parish CCD work, as Novice director in her congregation, and has been in leadership of her congregation for 10 years as well; she began and ran Holy Family Center, a small retreat center focusing on Adult personal and spiritual growth, has been a licensed educator in PRH and is highly skilled in personal growth work and spiritual direction. I have known Marietta since @1982 when she agreed to be my spiritual director. Sister Susan, formerly a teacher, was Vicar for Religious and Assistant Director of Vocations for the Diocese of Oakland when I began to become a hermit. She then went into retreat work in Malibu (Serra Retreat) and directed this at the Old Mission Santa Barbara. Susan now serves (yet again!) on her province's leadership team (the Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity) and as the local minister for their retired Sisters in Santa Maria, CA. The congregation's Generalate is in Rome. 

As I have pointed out a number of times now, my Bishop is allowed to supervise me in any way that works for him and for me. My diocese asked me to choose a delegate who would serve both me and the diocese and bishop when the bishop was not available, but also just generally to take on this role of supervising more directly than most bishops can do. Both of these Sisters know me well, are available whenever I need them, and are trusted by the diocese. The arrangement works very well and is something I encourage other dioceses and diocesan hermits to consider implementing.

Followup on the Use of Delegates in Supervising Solitary Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was trying to find what you wrote about your delegates and the way supervision by your bishop works. I couldn't locate it. My question has to do with what happens when a person's bishop retires or dies or is made an Archbishop or something as happened to you a couple of times? If you make your vows in the hands of one bishop then you are approved by him, right? What then if another bishop doesn't believe in your vocation, or even in any c 603 vocation? He wouldn't approve you, so then what? Does the Diocese just cut you loose? Can you go on being a diocesan hermit anyway? I know you didn't really answer these questions in what you wrote recently but I thought what you wrote spoke to these questions in some way and wanted to see if that was so. My questions come from suggestions that an approved diocesan hermit could cease to be approved and then would be operating as kind of a rogue once their original bishop left the diocese. This seems to be one of the major flaws of canon 603 in the eyes of some who criticize it. And lastly, when a new bishop comes into office, are you responsible for making contact with them?]]

Thanks for your questions. I will reprise what I wrote most recently below (or cf, Clarifying Misconceptions and Wholecloth Untruths) and also, I am providing a link to what I wrote last year when I became aware through others' questions, that these objections to canon 603 were being raised. Here is that link: Supervision of a Stable State of Life. The discussion of what happens to hermits who are perpetually professed and consecrated when bishops move on is found in the second half of the piece.

Succeeding Bishops Must Accept a Previously Professed Hermit's Canonical Standing:

Archbishop Allen H Vigneron

What I don't say in that article is that what seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding on all of this is the phrase "canonical approval". Yes, I was approved by my diocese for admission to perpetual profession and consecration, but once that occurred and I was consecrated I had what is called, canonical standing. This means I (or any other canonical hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated) have standing in law and unless that standing is rescinded, further bishops' approvals or disapprovals of me (or other hermits) personally, or of the c 603 vocation itself, do not affect our standing as diocesan hermits. Approval is a word used in a limited way in all of this, namely in terms of admission to profession and or consecration. After one is canonically professed and consecrated, however, "approval" even by one's bishop or members of his curia is much less pivotal and the term tends not to be used any longer. The idea of "approval" shifts to the fact of "standing" as in, "canonical standing," and that standing is significant.

 Of course, should a bishop decide one is not living the life, and should he believe he has significant grounds to do so, he can take steps to deprive the hermit of her canonical standing and dispense her vows. However, this is a process requiring warnings, chances to repent or be rehabilitated and always, opportunities for appealing any judgments made against one. Especially it cannot be done facilely or unilaterally. Remember that canonical standing is meant both to establish and to protect a stable state of life so that one's vocation can thrive even when elements in the contexts in which the vocation is lived militate against it. Though one hopes this is not the case, that can include the disapproval of succeeding bishops for the vocation itself or even the dislike of critics and others making unfounded and even malicious accusations against the hermit. In more ordinary circumstances, canonical standing assures everyone meeting the hermit (or any other vocation to the consecrated state), seeking to work with her, being ministered to by her, etc, that she has the Church's support and is faithfully living her vocation in the Church's name.

Yes, of course I contact new bishops when they are made bishops of my diocese. I usually wait for a few weeks so they have some time to settle into their office before seeking an appointment. Usually doing that is not problematic, but occasionally a new bishop will not be particularly responsive or accessible. For instance, on one occasion, I met the new bishop in my parish church sacristy during a visitation, and let him know he was my legitimate superior. He was pretty surprised at hearing that and made sure the chancery had all my contact information. In this instance getting an appointment was difficult. For example, in October or November I called the bishop's secretary to set something up. She was a new secretary so did not know me already, and told me there was nothing open. Then she suggested I call again in January when perhaps they could set an appointment for sometime in the Spring.  Note that that was an 8 month wait for an initial appointment. So yes, while I contact new bishops when they come to the diocese, the bishop's accessibility can be an uneven proposition. Fortunately, as noted earlier, my diocese (Vicars for Religious speaking for the Bishop) had had me select a delegate prior to perpetual profession and consecration, so supervision of my vocation was not interrupted or otherwise negatively impacted. As I understand it, most dioceses, unless they are very small, do something similar.

Misunderstandings in Vocabulary:

This brings up what you asked about regarding what I wrote recently regarding the supervision of a hermit's life by her bishop. Before I cite that, let me provide some vocabulary notes regarding language in the Canon. In the different versions of c 603 I have read two different words are used in speaking of the Bishop's role in the hermit's life. The first is "supervision" and the second is "direction." There has been some tendency to see supervision as meaning direct supervision without the assistance of delegates or others. I have never yet met a diocesan hermit whose bishop works in this way, even when he and the hermit are very close and the diocese is a very small one. Delegates are still a typical accommodation allowing c 603's requirements to be met prudently, creatively, and with appropriate expertise. Thus, supervision (or direction) in c 603 implies delegated supervision using others who will be more accessible to the hermit and capable of informing the bishop and curia of concerns and needs that might turn up for or with the hermit.

Regarding the term direction, this emphatically does NOT mean spiritual direction, but instead uses the terms direction and director as one might for a vocation director, novice director, or the like. As noted below, the bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior and for that reason, he cannot be the hermit's spiritual director. To conflate the two roles is also to draw matters of internal and external forums into potential conflict. By this I mean that the things one deals with confidentially with a spiritual director (matters of conscience and the internal forum) are not automatically open to a legitimate superior, nor may one desire to reveal these. While religious superiors were once able to ask about such matters,  the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) rejected this practice categorically: C 630.5 [[Members are to approach superiors with trust, to whom they can freely and on their own initiative open their minds. Superiors, however, are forbidden to induce the members in any way to make a manifestation of conscience to them.]] The simplest way to prevent transgressions in this area is to keep the two roles (Director and spiritual director) distinct and separate. Thus, c 603 cannot possibly be referring to the hermit's bishop undertaking their spiritual direction.

Prior Piece reprised:

Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF

Supervision by a Bishop: It should go without saying that not every bishop desires to supervise a hermit, nor are some gifted with either the time or the expertise. (And, since he is her legitimate superior, it especially goes without saying that c 603 does not expect a bishop to be a hermit's spiritual director!!) Some do not believe in or understand the vocation or c 603 itself and yet, they "inherit" hermits professed before their own tenure began. To assist with all of that, my diocese asked me to select a delegate (their term, along with "quasi superior") to serve me when bishops were unavailable or could not do so. Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, who has a strong background in personal and religious formation and spiritual direction, has served as my delegate (I prefer the term Director with a capital D) since perhaps a year before I was finally professed. In the last few years, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF has agreed to serve as co-delegate (she prefers the term Advocate) and is mainly available to me and my diocese should Marietta not be. Both Sisters belong to canonical congregations and both have served in leadership. Susan is doing so currently, not for the first time! Sister Marietta's congregation is of Pontifical right. I think the same is true of Sister Susan's since it is an international institute (Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity). 

This arrangement has been very effective for continuity in supervision considering we have had 5 bishops since I began living as a hermit. The first three (Bps Cummins, Vigneron, and Cordileone) were more accessible to me, Archbishop Burnett was an interim whom I met and joked with a bit, but whom I never met with (instead I met with the Vicar for Religious per the former bishop's instructions), and Michael Barber,SJ, whom I first met in the sacristy of St Perpetua parish during his first visitation, has been less accessible, but I have been (and remain) a diocesan hermit in good standing in my diocese under competent Direction all these years. 

Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF

To repeat, throughout these years and any changes in diocesan leadership, Sister Marietta has consistently served both me and the diocese as my delegate. Sister Susan was Vicar for Religious or Vocations Director for the Diocese of Oakland when I first started becoming a diocesan hermit; she worked with me for five years; then, though the diocese and I had begun trying to regularize my situation before Bp Cummins actually retired, and though Susan was now in Santa Barbara, she wrote a letter of recommendation for perpetual profession in @2006 to Bp Vigneron. She continues to assist me in this vocation but now mainly from the position of a good (dare I use the word?) friend. Please recognize that Ms McClure casts aspersions on these Sisters, their competence and fidelity to their commitments when she trash-talks me. That is particularly upsetting to me because I know how they have poured out their lives for Christ and so too, for me. Meanwhile, the comment that Sister Marietta is my "girlfriend" is unworthy of even a response.

On Waivers of Liability:

A lot of the discussions of these matters seem to me to have hung on one person's biased and specious accusations against me. When @5 years ago she apparently called my diocese to accuse me of having committed crimes (I really have no evidence this call ever happened, and am assuming it did for the purpose of your questions), not surprisingly, she is said to have spoken to someone who didn't know me and who had to find out whether I was professed as a diocesan hermit. (Apparently, they did discover I was and told the caller that.) Even then she seems to have spun the story in the most damaging way possible and was essentially told if she truly had a case against me, to take me to court. What she may have also been told is that I, like other diocesan hermits, had signed a "waiver of liability" upon the day of perpetual profession. In the main, this is meant to relieve the diocese of responsibility for any potential claims regarding past wages or other remuneration should, for instance, the hermit leave her consecrated state or fall into financial hard times even while in the consecrated eremitical state. 

Should I ever truly commit a crime, I suppose this would also mean my diocese is not responsible for any legal fees, etc. Those would fall to me personally. Should a diocese inform a caller of this situation, it does not mean the diocese wants nothing to do with their hermit or rejects them as a diocesan hermit. Here is where the unsuitability of continuing to use the term canonical approval is especially misguided. So long as one has canonical standing, a diocese cannot simply reject her. It does, however, mean that if someone calls threatening to take legal action against a diocese or their bishop and Vicar General because of something a diocesan hermit is said to have done, the diocese has a quick and easy way to shut that down. 

In any case, my diocese never took steps to act on such a call or even to notify me (or my Director) about it or the purported charges. This indicates to me they believed the accusations to have been empty, as was indeed the case. (Please note that had credible charges been made, and particularly if they were sustained by a court, a diocese might begin proceedings to dispense this hermit's vows.) In any case, be assured that any diocese would initiate a conversation with the hermit and her delegate to explore the situation and take appropriate steps --- whatever those might be. Canon 603, however, cannot be seen to be faulty here and complaints that it should be "tabled" until its inadequacies can be remedied are as empty as the personal charges against me.

Operating as a Rogue?

The question of someone continuing to act or represent themselves as a diocesan hermit after being dispensed of their vows or otherwise leaving the consecrated state of life is an "interesting" one. I have never heard of such a thing happening and accusations that I personally am acting in this way (implying my diocese and Director are allowing this) are both untrue and irresponsible. What is far more common is someone representing themselves as a "Consecrated Catholic Hermit" when they have never been one and may have been determined to be unsuited for such a calling. Still, it would be very difficult, I think, for the situation you have described to go unchallenged. The diocese would contact the hermit's Director and also might well contact the hermit's pastor to inform him that the hermit's canonical standing or juridical status has changed --- though they would expect the hermit to make their new standing clear to others. If the hermit changes parishes, her standing would be checked out by the new pastor who would contact the diocese (or speak to his confrere who is the hermit's former pastor). I don't think any diocese would make a public announcement regarding such a situation (though journalists might write about the situation if a crime had been committed), but at the same time, the critical personnel would be told. 

Remember that while one is always free to contact a diocese with concerns about anyone claiming to be a c 603 hermit for that diocese, the diocese will not give any information beyond a brief statement about the person being a diocesan hermit in good standing (or not). Before one takes such a step, however, it is always best to bring one's concerns directly to the hermit herself (a diocese is apt to suggest this as well)! It is important, particularly with hermits, to not assume they see blog posts, videos, or other media on the issue. As I am sure you are aware, that is not the way sincere and charitable persons deal with such matters. If someone has more specific concerns, however, I encourage them to always bring them first to the person they involve more directly. Otherwise, the person's concerns may grow while the person they are concerned about may have no idea in the matter. 

On the Bishop's Role in Supervising Canon 603 Vocations

[[Hi Sister, you said something recently about bishops supervising hermits. I looked but couldn't find it. It sounded like sometimes bishops don't really do a good job in their supervision. Is this a problem? I wouldn't think it would require much effort or time to supervise a diocesan hermit.]]

Great question. Yes, I referred to the growth of the hermit's vision of eremitical life and relationship with Scripture; I said, essentially, that her director, delegate, and her bishop --- when he knows her well enough, which some, unfortunately, do not --- will recognize this growth long before it becomes explicit enough to show up in revisions of her Rule. It is the case that the bishop's role in supervising a hermit's vocation (living of her Rule, ongoing formation, life needs, and so forth) are not defined in c.603 beyond the general term "supervise", and this can sometimes mean that solitary canonical hermits slip through the canonical cracks with regard to their bishops. You see, bishops are required to visit religious communities to check on their general health, etc., and there are other canonical requirements and mechanisms in proper law that help ensure Religious in community continue to mature in their vocations, that they are otherwise doing well and that they have what they need to live their vocations responsibly.  Even so, the bishop does not supervise such congregations or their members, however. Instead, their legitimate superiors are members of their own communities and congregations ---  groups which constitute kinds of extended families of faith and love who are committed to one another, to their community charism and mission and so, to those they serve in ministry. One of the canonically established mechanisms which ensures this is the leadership team of each congregation and/or province. Sisters take on leadership roles for a period of four years (or more) in order to ensure the health of the congregation and those who comprise it.

But hermits professed under canon 603, have none of this specific support --- at least not exactly.  Canon 603 requires the bishop's supervision, nothing more. Fortunately, at my bishop's request, my diocese asked me to select someone who would act as a delegate for myself and for the bishop. This person would be a "quasi superior", that is, as one who would serve me in the ministry of authority; she would undertake this in service to the diocese and eremitical life itself, and she would do so on the bishop's behalf. We would meet regularly and more frequently than I could meet with the bishop.

Over the years, some bishops worked through my delegate or asked for her input in making decisions in my regard (because she knew me much better than they), others did not (usually because there was no need during their time in office). At all times, my delegate(s) serve(s) me and help(s) ensure my well-being in all of the ways my vocation requires; in this way she (they) serve(s) the diocese and canon 603 vocations as well. This is true no matter the kind of relationship I have with the current bishop. Thus, though there have been four bishops (one, an interim administrator) since my perpetual profession, my delegate (and, now, my co-delegate as well) provide a continuity and knowledge of me which is important for someone living a solitary eremitical vocation --- and also important, therefore, for the diocese and bishop.

Not every c 603 hermit's diocese requires or requests that a hermit select a delegate. Some hermits, especially in smaller dioceses may be able to meet with their bishop far more frequently than those in larger dioceses. The average, as far as I can tell, in larger dioceses is 1 or 2 meetings annually with an option to call for an appointment should something arise requiring a conversation. It is also the case that some bishops coming into a diocese may not have the time to meet with hermits, not only at first when he is getting his feet on the ground in his new office, but even later when things have settled down and he has the lay of the land, so to speak; in some cases a new bishop may never really accept the responsibility of supervising this vocation. I don't know how often this occurs but I have spoken to several diocesan hermits who have described similar situations --- usually occurring when a new bishop replaces an older one.  Personally I am very grateful my own diocese had the insight and wisdom to require a delegate prior to perpetual profession; this has meant no matter the nature of my relationship to a bishop, I always have access to Religious who are working with me for the benefit of the diocese, and more primarily for my well-being and that of my vocation.

No, I don't think supervising a c 603 hermit is onerous, but sometimes it just does not happen. Some bishops with several hermits in the diocese have refused to meet individually with them; this hardly makes sense and effectively means none of the hermits are apt to even try to make appointments with their bishop. Other bishops don't understand religious life generally, and they don't have any sense of what it means to be a hermit. Some do not value contemplative life and this means they find it even more difficult to value solitary eremitical life. Hermits in their dioceses without delegates or regular access to the Vicar for Religious, for instance, will still have a spiritual director, but that role is different than that of delegate or Vicar. So, while the supervision required by c 603 is not onerous, it is important and required by the canon; some of those who authored the canon had significant sense of history and experience with hermits which allowed them to demonstrate real wisdom in requiring this. A hermit lacking adequate supervision or the assistance of a delegate should probably be encouraged by their diocese to find someone who can serve in this role. It really does serve everyone involved in the hermit's profession commitment.

To summarize then. I think this is one of the definite weak points of canon 603. Bishops are not used to supervising religious in their dioceses and are even less used to doing so for eremitical vocations they are unlikely even to understand. When failures occur in this area of the canon, the ecclesiality of the hermit's vocation will suffer and she can feel "cut loose" by the very church that professed and consecrated her to live this call in her name. In a vocation which is very specifically ecclesial and involves a call to eremitical solitude rather than to isolation and individualism, this can be fatal to the vocation itself.  However, this weakness can be easily dealt with, not only by making it clear that bishops are truly responsible in a unique and meaningful way for c 603 hermits in their diocese --- even when they are not the professing bishop --- but by requiring/asking the hermit to select a religious or other competent person to serve as delegate on behalf of the bishop, the diocese, and the hermit and solitary eremitism itself.

Such a person takes on a role which is somewhat similar to a leadership role in a congregation. Her ministry in this matter  ensures the hermit is allowed to exercise her own responsibility fully by being specifically accountable to someone for her vocation and her own ongoing formation and personal life needs. One of my delegates sees her role as one of advocacy; the other sees it in terms of ensuring the health of my vocation and all that implies. In any case, having someone fill such a role gives the hermit someone she can talk to in ways she may never be able to do with her bishop or even her spiritual director, and this is no small matter! (This, by the way, is not about honesty, but about experience and degrees of commonality and personal intimacy.) For this reason alone I suggest c 603 hermits have a delegate even when they are able to meet sufficiently regularly with their bishop. Along with this and the other reasons mentioned above, a delegate also provides consistency  when bishops and other personnel in the diocese change, while at the same time giving the incoming bishop someone he can turn to in case of need without necessarily interrupting the hermit herself. In these ways, such an arrangement can allow the requirements of canon 603 to be met fully and flexibly by both bishop and hermit.

On Limited Active Ministry and its Expansion to Fulltime Ministry

[[Hi Sister, you do limited ministry at your parish and out of your hermitage. Is there a chance that your ministry could expand and be more full time? I was wondering what happens to a hermit when something like that occurs. Can they remain hermits and work full time in ministry?]]

Great questions. Yes, I do limited ministry at my parish and I work as a spiritual director out of my hermitage. I cannot see any of that growing or expanding much -- though perhaps a bit -- but especially not to full time. Because of my commitment as a hermit I could not allow, much less pursue the expansion of my ministry to such a degree; this means I can't let things creep up in the way some might imagine. I am responsible for living my Rule of life and that Rule is very clear re what the primary values of my life are. Ministry is possible but it must be limited because the life is contemplative, and even more, it is eremitical.

I think part of what you are wondering about is what happens if a person decides they are really called to full time ministry despite being a hermit. In such a case the hermit (if they are publicly professed)  would have to consider petitioning her bishop for a dispensation from her vows as a hermit. If a hermit allowed ministry to grow to a level which impairs her commitment to prayer, contemplative, and eremitical life -- no matter how important that ministry is -- her diocese (bishop, delegate, et al) would need to act to, 1) bring things back in line with her canon 603 commitment, or (if attempts to do this fail) to,  2) dispense the hermit's vows.

It would be dishonest for a consecrated (that is, a publicly professed and consecrated) hermit to live under public vows thus committing to eremitical life publicly, and then to betray that commitment by allowing active ministry to take over her life. It would also indicate the need to work with her director and/or delegate to discern her actual vocation. I think it is obvious that such work would begin to take place before active ministry became full time. For instance, in my own life I have ordinarily brought up possibilities that arise for ministry to my Director. She listens to what I have discerned , encourages my work, discusses any areas where  I am unclear, and then I continue the process of discernment or act on my judgment.  The decision is mine but it will not be made without consideration of who I am committed to be and questions re how this works in terms of my Rule, vows, contemplative commitments, truest self, etc.

If I made some major changes in my ministry or Rule which led me along the road toward full time active ministry,  I suppose both my director/delegate and the bishop/diocese would allow some time for me to explore any decision I made in case of mistake and to further discernment. I also trust my own call and ability to discern well enough to believe I would discover a mistake sooner rather than later. Even so, were I to persist in a course of action which was inconsistent with my eremitical life, both my delegate and the diocese would need to take some action which would get me back on track or allow me to move on from my eremitical life. Dispensation of vows is a very big step whether or not I request it myself; it would not happen without some serious interviews and discussions between myself, my director/delegates, the bishop and/or Vicar for Religious and probably my pastor as well. Because we all want two things, 1) what is best for me, and 2) what is best for the solitary eremitical vocation, along with 3) what is best for the parish and Church more generally, we would work to achieve the best decisions possible. I think, generally speaking, this is the way it would work for any canonical solitary hermit. For those in community a similar process would occur within the congregation in conjunction with the hermit's bishop.

By the time someone makes perpetual profession as a canonical hermit everyone involved has a right to expect the hermit has rightly determined and lived a contemplative vocation for some time with limited active ministry. A diocese will have determined the person is happy and personally thriving (i.e., is abundantly alive and growing in that all the time) in this way of life, has made a series of mature decisions supporting this lifestyle, and is comfortable with the sacrifices it and eremitical life more specifically require. The hermit's Rule will express: 1) her understanding of eremitism as essentially ministerial of itself, 2) the hermit's own 'justification' of the life and 3) the sense she makes of the central elements of canon 603 (stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, the evangelical counsels --- all lived for the sake of God's glory (revelation and honor) and the salvation of others). It should be clear from the hermit's Rule (or at least from related conversations with "formation" personnel" **) that she both believes profoundly in the importance of the eremitical life as a rare but vital proclamation of the Gospel, and also that she has experienced God's saving presence/love in this specific lifestyle.

 All of this makes it very unlikely a hermit will find herself in a situation like the one you outline where active ministry could expand to the degree you describe. The tension between life in solitude and the desire and even the very real and legitimate need for active ministry is something I have found to be a constant presence --- as I think I mentioned in an earlier post. As I grow in my own capacity for love, in my communion with God in solitary prayer, and in my own sense of belonging more integrally to my parish faith community, the tension between these two is sharpened -- though so too is my deep comfort with my eremitical call. It is a strange paradox. What is true for me at least is that I can only do active ministry to the extent it flows from my eremitical life and leads me back to my hermitage cell. Should that change for some reason it will be time for consultation with others.

** Here I am thinking of ongoing formation and those people who assist me in this, namely my Director/delegate, spiritual director, bishop, and perhaps too, my pastor. Prayer, journaling, and other work goes without saying, I think.

What Happens When Diocesan Hermits are Accused of Crimes?

[[Dear Sister, what happens to a diocesan hermit who commits a crime? Let's suppose it is a serious crime against another person. What does a diocese do in such a case? Can they just cut the hermit/ess loose or say they want nothing to do with him/her? Are more canon laws needed to deal with such a case?]]

Unusual questions! Well, nonetheless, were such a thing to happen there is a canonical process that can serve in such instances. Presuming the action is truly criminal and established in fact (for instance, the hermit openly admits to having done this or is taken to court and found guilty of this crime), and that not acting otherwise would result in scandal to the diocese, the diocese would probably ultimately take steps to dispense the hermit's vows. Such dispensation would release the hermit from the consecrated state of life and from the public rights and obligations associated with her profession and initiation into this state (her consecration). (This, by the way, does not change the fact that God has consecrated her, but it does dispense her from the stable state of life associated with consecration and thus too from being a religious and from the ways a religious may style him/herself.)

Remember, however, that a diocese cannot do this without established grounds. Additionally, the hermit has canonical rights to respond to accusations, to confront the accuser and supposed facts of the case, and to appeal decisions and processes, etc. "Canonical status" means "standing in law" and means a mutually binding relationship in law results when public vows are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the church. The hermit is commissioned to live an eremitical life in the name of the universal church while legitimate superiors/the local church are more immediately responsible both to the hermit, to the universal church, and to the vocation itself to support the hermit in this. They cannot simply say they want nothing to do with the hermit when there are public vows binding the hermit in a mutual and public relationship (hermit with Diocesan Bishop). To do this would be both illegitimate and immoral --- a kind of betrayal and malfeasance on the part of the local church/ordinary toward both hermit and c 603 vocation per se. My own sense is that long before canonical disciplinary actions are initiated, the diocese (Vicar for religious or bishop) would contact the hermit to discuss the matter --- particularly if the accuser and accusations are at all credible.

If accusations are made that are not particularly credible, however, I am not sure a diocese would even bother the hermit unless they are concerned for her wellbeing or believe she has already been troubled in some way by such accusations. In such an instance, while bypassing contacting the hermit, a diocese might well encourage an accuser to take civil action as part of establishing both their own credibility as well as that of the accusations.  In such a case it is likely the hermit or his/her delegate would be the one contacting the diocese (bishop/bishop's office, Vicar for Religious) to inform them that s/he has been served with some kind of legal warrant, suit, order of protection, etc.. At the same time, the hermit's delegate would serve as the hermit's advocate with and for the diocese because s/he knows the hermit best and would be in the best position to ensure both the truth, the hermit's solitude, and her well-being.

In any case, all of this is part of establishing the credibility of accusations and assuring the hermit is able to continue living his/her vocation with a minimum of disruption or existential angst. It is also a way the diocese itself, but especially the hermit's bishop and vicar (for Religious), can get additional detailed information on the hermit's life from folks who serve the diocese in this specific capacity and know the hermit intimately --- and who can thus support the hermit without unnecessarily calling him/her into the chancery for conversations beyond, perhaps, an initial pastoral conversation to inform him/her of the situation. (Please note that in some dioceses hermits have relatively close relationships with their bishops; the dynamics in such instances might well differ than in the case of larger (Arch)dioceses or those where new bishops have taken over for those who have previously known and worked with the diocesan hermit but who have died or moved on to a new office/diocese.)

Your questions have to do with actual crimes should those ever occur, but the more important and always-relevant dimension of my response underscores the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation and the mutual legal-pastoral covenantal relationship that obtains from public profession and consecration which are received or mediated by a legitimate superior acting in the Church's name. This exists in any case. The process referred to re the dispensation of vows which is initiated by the superior rather than at the request of the hermit exists apart from actual crimes and may be used if the hermit is not living her vocation well or is in some way causing scandal.

In such cases, as I understand them, the hermit is given a chance to moderate or otherwise modify her behavior; if the behavior stems from external circumstances that are not entirely under her control a diocese will work with her to assist her to find a solution. Only when this proves impossible and the situation seems to be a continuing one rather than clearly temporary, or when the hermit refuses to work with the diocese or modify problematical behavior will a diocese act in a way that may (need to) lead to dispensation. Again, as I have said here any number of times, the diocesan eremitical vocation is understood to be a gift of God to the Church and world; both the diocese and the hermit are charged with honoring it appropriately and stand in mutual ecclesial relationship to allow God to empower this.

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.