Followup Questions on Chronic Illness and Discerning a Vocation to c 603 Eremitical Life

[[Sister Laurel, I think one of the things that struck me [and raised the question about chronic illness and discerning an eremitical vocation] was somewhere you had mentioned being able to offer chronic illness as a gift in this call, and my knee jerk reaction was, "yes, we bring ourselves and our gifts, talents, sorrows, etc., but at the same time it is not what we bring that ultimately determines the truth of our call even if it shapes how we may live it." 

At the same time, as in any call, we are to bring forth our uniqueness as part of our self-gift, and disability is part of it. In other words, the truth of one's call is not determined by a unique gift one can give to God. I feared that the blog readers might use that idea of "unique" and feel inadequate in discernment. Put differently, if it takes the monumental ability to offer God disability to figure out that the eremitic life is for you, how is an able person to discern that it is for them as well because they don't have a unique gift?]]

Thanks for following up on your earlier questions. I am not sure what I actually said or what you read, so this will just have to look at the ways in which I might have been speaking about chronic illness and disability as gift. The first is the way you have taken it in your second paragraph. That's entirely valid, of course, and an important way of approaching the whole notion. We bring our whole selves as a gift, and chronic illness and disability might be part of that. However, another way of approaching it, and one I am more likely to have written about is from the perspective of allowing God to redeem chronic illness or disability, to make it a significant grace, to transfigure what was really simply a burden and personal weakness so that instead it becomes the ground for proclaiming the Gospel of God in Christ with a unique vividness and paradoxical power. 

I have no real sense of how I might be able to give God my illness as a gift, except to the extent I can allow it to become the basis of a divine victory of meaning over meaninglessness, and fullness of life over a diminished sense of living. In other words, I cannot see chronic illness being a gift unless it participates in God's promise of redemption in some way. This is the only way something so negative and life-denying could become a life-affirming gift. In part, this will depend on one's vocation and whether or not it serves to allow God to achieve the victory he does over absurdity (meaninglessness) and death (the diminishment or curtailment of life) in all the ways illness or disability cry out for. There are a number of vocations that would not have done this in my own life; instead, they would have accentuated my illness as a serious deficiency, possibly exacerbated it by judging it, but certainly have had no room for it --- or for me as one who suffers in this way. Eremitical life not only has room for chronic illness as an instance of desert experience, but it provides the space, time, and focus that brings one's entire life into a profound engagement with God so that it ALL might be redeemed and transfigured.

The motto I adopted at my consecration is from Paul's 2nd Letter to the Corinthians: [[My grace is sufficient for you, my power is perfected in weakness.]] (The second half of this is engraved on my profession ring.) While I can say I am inspired by that in several ways and aspire to letting it be true in those same ways, I can also say that it is the truth of my life in terms of chronic illness and disability. The fact and fruitfulness of God's loving mercy is something I know most fully in my weakness. God's mercy is an expression of a powerful love that can redeem any negative reality by bringing good from it. When I think of chronic illness as gift, it is that set of dynamics I am thinking about. Fr James Empereur, sj, once wrote a book on the Anointing of the Sick called Prophetic Anointing, in which he wrote compellingly about a vocation to being sick in the Church. I see the Sacrament of the Sick in the same way, and I also see chronic illness and disability themselves as potential vocations, not because God wills these things (he does not), but because he wills to be God With Us in every moment and mood of our lives.

I think you can hear how eremitical life provides the context and means to allow God to redeem my illness and transform it into a grace. In this weakness, God's love and mercy are perfected. I turn to God more and more fully in part because of my illness/disability. At the same time, I do so because my eremitical vocation calls for this as well. I turn to God in this way for God's own sake, so that his will to be God-with-us can be fulfilled. In the midst of this process, God's will for me is also realized, not only despite my illness, but even in and through it. My life comes, over time, to proclaim the Good News of God's sovereignty, God's Kingdom, not only in strength, but in weakness. In other words, Chronic illness becomes a gift, not only to me, but also to the Church and even to God.

At the same time, I am not saying that chronic illness is a prerequisite for discerning an eremitical vocation. Still, eremitic life is always about allowing God to redeem our weaknesses and frailties, our incapacities along with the realization of our potentialities. We embrace the silence of solitude, stricter separation, etc., so this redemption may be sought and received with a particular focus and intensity. Moreover, again, we do so for God's sake and the sake of all that is precious to God. We do it so that God's will and gospel may be fulfilled in our world. One traditional way of perceiving eremitical life is to accent its difficulty and the need for candidates to be able-bodied, strong enough to manage the rigors of the life. I see it somewhat differently. 

While the vocation still takes strength, perseverance, and courage, chronic illness and other frailties can provide the good ground out of which hermit life and God's redemption may grow. They are part of the penitential life of a hermit when the hermit is chronically ill or disabled. At the same time, no, I am not saying chronic illness is a necessary part of an eremitical call for everyone. I am thinking of a quote by Sister Kathy Littrell, SHF, who once said, [[One does not need to be a Sister to do what I am doing, but I need to be a Sister to do what I am doing.]] A variation of this, then, is [[While most folks do not need to be hermits to live chronic illness as God wills them to, I needed to be a hermit to do so.]]

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify some of this! I want to respond to your "kneejerk reaction" in another post and think about it a bit more before I do that. 

On Existential Solitude and Discerning my own Eremitical Vocation

[[I do have a question for you. I am trying to be respectful in how I word this. Chronic illness is an integral part of how you live your vocation. I got the impression not too long ago that you had struggled at one point about your vocation from one of our conversations. . . . What I am interested in knowing if you feel like sharing, is what helped you understand the difference between a call to the eremitic life as a vocation geared to you specifically, and a way of making lemonade out of lemons? The reason I ask is because I just have an overall impression from many of your posts... that there is a real emphasis on how this vocation really fits chronic illness and I wonder if people see it as a secondary thing, or the primary reason for seeking profession. . . . and yet there seems to be a liminality about it. . . that is, it is true that these factors are compatible with vocations and radically shape how it is lived, and yet [these factors] do not explain how a person identifies the vocation psychologically without a particular apostolate or chronic illness as being theirs. And perhaps this question makes no sense. . .]]

Thanks for your questions. They are important and point to a significant constellation of issues any hermit candidate and diocesan personnel along with mentors, spiritual directors, et al, will need to deal with in discerning a vocation to eremitical life when the candidate has a disability or chronic illness. Chronic illness certainly impacts the way I live my vocation; more importantly, though, I think it is a foundational part of my vocation per se. I say this because it has been chronic illness along with personal woundedness that confront me with existential solitude most sharply and have done so all through the years, even when I was much younger. Existential solitude is something every genuine hermit comes to know, but chronic illness, for instance, introduces us to this much earlier and, perhaps, in a more thoroughgoing way than is ordinarily the case. Karl Jung once wrote about this (if I am remembering correctly). He noted that some younger people have certain lived experiences that suit them to a solitary life, even though we ordinarily think of eremitical life as a second half of life vocation. I believe chronic illness, some disabilities, and some other difficult situations experienced in early life represent such experiences.

While I believe the eremitical vocation is primary and the chronic illness must be secondary in one's discernment of the vocation and admission to profession and consecration, I also believe that one's illness can serve one's vocation to eremitical life precisely because it puts the person in touch with the deepest solitude we human beings know and that eremitical life is lived in terms of, namely, existential solitude. This is the solitude that recognizes our fundamental aloneness and separation from others no matter how close we also become to them or how well we love them and they love us. Existential solitude recognizes a gap that cannot be bridged as well as the fact that this aloneness is overcome in and by God alone who is "closer to us than we are to ourselves." As I wrote recently, in our hunger for being and meaning (that is, for the fullness or abundance of meaningful life,) we hunger for God and often know God's powerful presence best only in the sharpening and deepening of that hunger. I associate existential solitude with this hunger and with the sharpening of this solitude with both chronic illness and the call to eremitism.

The chronically ill already know the kind of solitude a hermit is called to get in touch with over time, though it may not be something they reflect on or come to appreciate. Those who are able-bodied are (or at least are more likely to be) less in touch with this deep solitude. They will come to know it in the various natural ways any hermit comes to know it in time, but perhaps not as profoundly; moreover, they will not be as likely to structure their life in terms of vows, prayer, and spiritual direction, that allow them to get into greater and greater touch with it. Discerning a true eremitical vocation takes real time, whether one has a chronic illness or not, but my sense is that some persons with chronic illness (not all) are meant to live their existential solitude even more radically than most persons with chronic illness. I believe this is necessary for them to be whole and holy persons. It is also essential if they are to witness to others that this foundational solitude is constituted especially by one's relationship with God lived in space and time. These persons will have discovered an eremitical vocation. Does this also make lemonade out of lemons? Yes, but it is not primarily about that, and it must be distinguished from that.

You see, for those without this vocation (and even with it), there is the question of whether one is JUST trying to make lemonade out of lemons. First of all, God can use the eremitical vocation to make lemonade, but this must still be God's project, not one's own! Was I trying to justify living as a hermit by convincing myself this was actually God's call? For me, this was a nagging question, though, through the years, it was countered more often and more profoundly than not. It took time to reach the depths of my own woundedness and discover there a Divine call to eremitical solitude, not just a neat way of justifying things that isolated me from others, prevented the use of personal gifts, or gave me a relatively restful life. The vocation to eremitical solitude is a vocation to engage with God at the point of one's existential solitude.** Physical solitude, silence, and prayer are essential helps and means to this but so are privileged relationships, for example. Still, it is a commitment to existential solitude and all that implies that defines the vocation, not merely physical solitude.

The question of how I discovered this is somewhat different. It began with an insight into c 603 and its possible place in my own life. I looked at that canon (even reading the canon at all, I believe, was providential) and began to see that it was a way of answering every question and yearning I experienced for a way to live my religious vocation that not only made space for but made sense of chronic illness at the same time. This was very like the deep insight I had had upon first attending Mass before I became a Catholic. On that occasion, as I knelt watching others go to Communion, I had the sense about the Church that "here every need I have, whether emotional, psychological, spiritual, intellectual, aesthetic, social, theological, etc., can be met." I was about fifteen years old then. But of course, the insight is not enough. It must be tested and proven in one's living.

So (the short version of things!), I began living eremitic life. As part of this, especially after perpetual profession and consecration, I also worked hard with my director to heal personal woundedness. Each major piece of work we undertook, each root of woundedness we dealt with, led to healing that was associated with the felt risk that I would discover I had been mistaken and was not really called to eremitical life as a Divine vocation. And yet, through the years (now 40 of them), each piece of healing came with a reaffirmation that I was indeed called to this by God. (I can go into details about this ongoing discernment another time, but for now, it is enough to say the Church affirmed this, my director affirmed it, and the fruits of my life and this work affirmed it.) Generally, the truth was that authentic eremitical life 1) was the very thing that called for the work we were doing, 2) it gave me the courage, will, and strength to undertake this work and sustained me in it, and 3) it was what I felt called to live upon "completion" of the work. (I say "completion" here because while we came to a significant point of healing, the work would also continue in a new key.) In any case, eremitical life proved again and again that it was the very reality that allowed for any significant healing to be accomplished. While the call to eremitical life made dealing with personal woundedness imperative, it also made it possible and fruitful for others.

The need to wrestle with existential solitude and the deepest truth of my identity throughout all of that was similar in both eremitical life, chronic illness, and personal woundedness. Each of these posed the crucial and sometimes excruciating questions of being (existence) and meaning (meaningful life) --- though in different ways; each touched on or tapped into what Tillich calls being grasped by an ultimate (or unconditional) concern and the gift of faith. The trick was teasing these apart from one another because similarity is not identity. Eventually, with eremitical life as the context, goal, and gift that made all of this possible, we reached the depths of personal woundedness, and part of the healing there (once again, but now without any nagging questions whatsoever) included the affirmation and bone-deep sense that I am a hermit because God, through the mediation of God's Church, calls me to be one. It is, in other words, the call that allows me to achieve wholeness and holiness and be the person I was created to be.

You can clarify what you are asking if I have largely missed your point, and I am happy to clarify my initial response as well. This is not easy stuff to explain so I am grateful for the opportunity.

___________________________________

** Wherever I speak of eremitical life God is implicit in this term. Again, eremitical life is a life of personal engagement with God at the point of existential solitude.

On the Importance and Relative Flexibility of Norms

[[Dear Sister Laurel, You wrote that without a norm that defines the nature of hermit life there is no way to determine what are abuses. You also wrote something about healthy eremitical life. Doesn't everyone just using common sense know what hermit life is like and about?  If you want to argue a life is not healthy for someone, then wouldn't that indicate the person does not have a true vocation? Does a diocese define how the various elements of the canon are to be defined or does Rome define those?]]

Thanks for your questions! I am afraid I am not very positive about what often goes by the name of "common sense"! I think that more often than not, I would call it common nonsense! I remember when I was inviting people to my consecration, I met one of the residents in the complex (a Catholic) in the hallway and told her what would be happening at the parish church. She looked a little puzzled so I thought I would start at the beginning and asked her if she knew what a hermit was. She responded, "Sure, it's someone who wants to escape. . ." and at that point her voice trailed off. Another time I was introduced to someone as a hermit. Her immediate response was, "Why aren't you home in your cave?" and then she realized what she had said when the usual social filters fell away, and she flushed with embarrassment.

In more serious examples, I have often written over the years that eremitical life, contrary to popular opinion, not individualistic or isolationist, and that solitude, precisely because it is a matter of being alone with God through Christ in the power of the Spirit, is very much a communal reality that includes all grounded in God. There is nothing "common sense" about that. Most people I have spoken to are surprised when they hear this, or when they hear that the life is not a selfish one given over to self-centered pursuits and concerns, or when they learn that one is withdrawing from things in order to be more closely and truly related to them. You can hear the paradoxical nature of so much of this, and that is definitely not what most folks call "common sense"!

I agree that generally speaking if a life seems to be unhealthy for someone, that means this is not their vocation. However, it is possible for someone to try to live something they have understood in an ill-defined way or are living in unhealthy ways which, if changed might make the life far more lifegiving and healthful for the person. In such an instance, the person might discover a true vocation. Consider what happens if hermit wannabes lived penance in the ways some have conceived it in past centuries with tons of fasting and corporal mortification. Let's say the person has diabetes or some sort of GI problem; what would happen to their health under such a penitential regimen? Some of us recognize that a regular medication regimen and a careful eating plan could well constitute a piece of sound penitential practice, but you can imagine what some who are truly unschooled or literalistic in their approach to this might replace the healthy praxis with!

Moreover, some approaches to penance treat it as synonymous with punishment and link it to shame and guilt as well. This is a serious misunderstanding or constellation of misunderstandings and with such an approach to penances (or ascesis), one's understanding of God can be completed skewed and with that, any possibility of getting eremitical life right or having it be lifegiving. But penance is not about punishment, and it is not to be connected necessarily with guilt or shame, much less foster these!! When an element of the spiritual life, whether eremitic or non-eremitical, is built into the life, that life will become unhealthy, whether the person really has this vocation or not. This is because such skewed notions of penance or other central elements of c 603, for instance, do distort our senses of our self and the God who calls us to wholeness -- if we can even recognize what wholeness is!

Each of the central elements of c 603 and so, of solitary eremitical life as the Church understands it, can be distorted because of ignorance or skewed theologies. When this occurs, they will lead to further skewing and other elements will become distorted as will the witness value of the life. This means that it will not serve others in the way it is meant to serve, namely, as a model of a life centered on Christ in relation to a God whose love is unconditional and whose mercy is gratuitous. Whether we are looking at an overly literalistic and individualistic notion of solitude, a distorted notion of prayer rooted in tendencies to measure things in terms of human achievement, a notion of hiddenness that is mainly defined by externals, we may end up with a distorted understanding of contemporary eremitical life, and that is apt to be singularly unhealthy. 

There is an interplay between local Church and hermit or hermit candidate in the way the central elements of c 603 are to be defined. The hermit or hermit candidate lives the elements as she feels called to do and the local Church (through the formation team and mentor) evaluates this in relation to other hermits, the eremitical tradition, the needs and insights of the Local Church, etc. There are essential senses that all hermits tend to agree on and there are variations of these individuals may feel called to live instead. The local Church evaluates all of this and discerns whether the entire life may honestly be called eremitical and healthily eremitical. The idea is to get a unified and healthy vision and praxis of how this person will live this vocation if it is agreed this is what she is called to live in the Name of the Church. The normative elements of c 603 are important and one must live them with integrity; at the same time that does not require slavish fidelity to a dictionary definition of a particular word or value, Instead, genuine faithfulness may require relative flexibility within an ecclesially accepted field of meaning.

Motivations in Petitioning for Canonical Standing under c 603

[[ Hi Sister, In your post on second consecration you listed some of the things that are necessary if one wants to become a diocesan hermit. I was surprised that you did not mention anything about motivation. In particular, you didn't say the first thing necessary was a heartfelt sense that God was calling one to this! Neither did you refer to love of God. I am assuming you really believe these are essential, so I wondered if you could speak about your own motivations in petitioning your diocese for admittance to profession and consecration under c 603. What happens if someone doesn't really feel called to this vocation but does feel called to eremitical life as such?? I am thinking of someone who seems to detest c 603 and believes it is a betrayal and distortion of eremitical life. Should they petition for admittance?]]

Important questions. Thank you very much!  Yes, you are completely correct that both of these are essential elements in someone desiring to petition a diocese for admission to profession, and eventual consecration. They are present and support every other thing we might say about such a vocation.  At the same time, there is more involved than loving God or believing God is calling one to this vocation. Discerning such a vocation requires care and time because it requires mutual discernment. For instance, generally speaking, one must already be living as a hermit before contacting one's diocese for admission to profession and consecration under c 603. There are several reasons for this: 1) in this way one gains a better sense of being called to eremitical life at all, 2) one's diocese is unlikely to be able or willing to spend the years necessary in forming a hermit right from the get-go, 3) one should be bringing something more to one's petition beside a desire to be initiated into the consecrated state -- including an understanding of canon 603, its history and value as a canon marking a public ecclesial vocation.

Granted, one not only can, but will inevitably move more deeply into these realities, but one already needs to be convinced one is called to live eremitical life in the name of the Church or as an ecclesial vocation (even if one does not use these words in explaining the matter!) if they want a diocese to take them seriously enough to agree to a mutual discernment process with a small team of diocesan personnel and a c 603 mentor. Of course, one needs to be able to claim clearly and without reservation that they believe God is calling them to this vocation, and the candidate needs to be able to say why that is so.  As I wrote recently, one may have both worthy and unworthy motives for seeking to enter this vocation; determining one's truest motives, among other things that argue for one's suitability, requires the time and energy of others who represent the Church discerning this vocation with the candidate. If the worthy motives predominate, then one's petition may well go forward, but if one's motives are predominantly unworthy of such a vocation, then the diocese is likely to politely refuse to discern with one, much less admit one even to temporary profession.

My Own Story in Brief:

I began living as a non-canonical hermit after having read c 603 in about 1984, and long before my diocese agreed to profess me under c 603. I petitioned for admittance to c 603 profession and consecration because I had a clear insight that this way of living would "make sense" of my entire life, particularly as it was marked and marred by chronic illness and disability. In fact, one of the articles I published at this time was on chronic illness or disability as vocation, and specifically, as a potential vocation to eremitical life. Over time, that sense deepened and I discovered that I truly was called by God to live my life as a hermit. During these early years, my experience of chastity in celibacy changed and deepened, my relationship with God in Christ matured into a nuptial relationship, and I came to understand more and more deeply the nature of the call that c 603 described as well. Above all, in these years, though still a non-canonical hermit looking toward life under c 603 (Bp Cummins had decided not to profess anyone under this canon for the foreseeable future), I came to see the value and something of the beauty of c 603, and also that I had something to offer the Church in terms of solitary eremitic life lived under this canon. Thus, I came to renew my petition before Bishop John Cummins retired. Some years later (2007), and several years after Bishop Vigneron had replaced Bp Cummins, I was admitted to perpetual vows and consecration as a diocesan hermit.

From the time of perpetual profession and consecration, the sense that I was called by God to this vocation deepened and came to involve not simply the idea of chronic illness as vocation and potential eremitic vocation, but also an intrigue with canon 603 itself, and the sense that the church fathers who wrote this canon and the intervening drafts, may have written better than they knew. I watched myself and my relationship with God and others change as I came to live the elements of the canon more and more profoundly. Canon 603 was literally beautiful to me in the way it combined non-negotiable elements and incredible flexibility, as well as a focus on traditional elements of eremitical life and the contemporary situation; it honored these by requiring the hermit to write her own liveable Rule rooted in her experience of the way God worked in her life and called her to the silence of solitude in both silence, solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world --- all within a clearly ecclesial vocation.

A Bit More Focus on C 603:

Given the history of eremitical life and the variability in the meaning of various elements, c 603 did not define its central characteristics in a univocal way. Yes, there was a core meaning to each one that had to be observed, but at the same time, each could represent a spectrum of meaning that might be incarnated or embodied in varying ways depending on the hermit's relationship with God. Perhaps more importantly, I began to see that each element represents a doorway to Mystery (God) and a means to encounter Mystery -- just as desert vocations were always known to do. This variability did not mean anything goes, of course, but it recognized that the defining elements of the canon served a larger purpose and were not ends in themselves. Thus, silence was not absolute nor was being alone. Instead, the two together (the canon's "silence of solitude") referred to being alone with God and indicated the quies or stillness that occurs when one rests in God. The silence of solitude thus refers not merely to the quiet of living by oneself -- though that can be a beginning and necessary sense of the term, but to the wholeness and peace that occurs when God is allowed to love one as God alone can do. During these years I came to see that the whole is very much greater than the sum of the parts!!

This meant that the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the Evangelical counsels, and one's Rule serve to facilitate one's encounter with God, which in turn serves a life given over to the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Through the years since perpetual profession and consecration, my love for the canon and what it makes possible has grown. In the inner work I have undertaken with the accompaniment and assistance of my Director (and also in light of the grace of this calling!), this vocation has been reaffirmed many times and grown as my relationship with God has grown. That means too that I recognize the redemptive experience that is mine in God as I live life according to this canon; similarly, I trust that every person truly called to this vocation will experience a similar redemptive dynamism in time. If they suffer from disability and chronic illness, I hope they find that this vocation allows them to suffer effectively with and in Christ and the Holy Spirit as we work towards a new heaven and a new earth where God is all in all. Suffering in this way does away with bitterness, resentment, and self-pity and allows one to see even suffering as a significant source of grace for themselves, others, and the whole of God's creation. If they are not chronically ill or disabled, then the redemption offered in c 603 life will take a different shape. It will still be there in ways other life paths may not have provided.

What if One Believes c 603 is a betrayal and distortion of traditional eremitical life?

By way of preparing to answer this question, let me point out that one of the most important aspects of c 603 is its ecclesial dimension. A person lives this vocation in the heart of the Church because, as I have said many times now, the vocation belongs first of all to the Church. She extends this vocation to the individual hermit, admitting them to profession and consecration. This mediation does not get in the way of experiencing God directly. Instead, it empowers this, just as the Eucharist makes possible a direct experience of Jesus taken, broken, and given to us, present in bread and wine. It is a mistake to think mediated reality is somehow less accessible to us; paradoxically, just the opposite is true. Living this canon in the heart of the Church gives every sacrifice and difficulty meaning. Living this canon as the heart of the Church does transfigures one's entire life. 

At the same time, the ecclesial dimension of the vocation requires acceptance of certain things, not least that the Church has every right to define the terms of this vocation and to accept varying expressions of fidelity to it depending on one's experience of God and Rule of Life. Moreover, accepting that the solitary eremitical vocation lived under c 603 means embracing and being entrusted with an ecclesial vocation that helps prevent individualism --- the great temptation and betrayal of eremitical life throughout the centuries. In other words, one is entrusted with and embraces a vocation within and on behalf of the People of God and the life of the Church. 

It is not surprising then, that throughout the history of eremitical life, whenever individualism predominated, one's place in the Church and participation in the sacramental life of the Church weakened or disappeared. (N.B., this is absolutely not what happened to the Desert Fathers and Mothers!) I think it is possible to point to hermits today who do tend to despise c 603 as some sort of betrayal of the so-called "tried and true" historical way of living eremitical life (there never was a single way of living this life that was "tried and true"), and who also have little to do with the historical Church or write about it as though it needs to be left behind for some idealized "spiritual realm". If one of these persons were to try and petition for admission to c 603 standing in law, I believe it would be a tremendous act of hypocrisy. How could one live well what one believes is a distortion of traditional eremitical life? How could one seek to be bound by a canon that makes normative the very life one perceives as a betrayal and distortion of eremitical life? 

Right now, there is one non-canonical hermit I personally know of writing and videoing in the vein you have spoken of; while I don't much agree with a lot of what she writes or the three videos of hers I have seen, at least she has been honest about her motivations re c 603. She claims the Church has "temporalized eremitical life with c 603." Thus, the very existence of such a canon makes her angry and (for her) represents a distortion of eremitical life. Recently she opined that some c 603 hermits who have been finally professed and consecrated are not really consecrated, apparently because of the state of the bishop's soul at the time of the (attempted?) consecration. 

Of course, this is heresy --- not a word I throw around lightly; it is a position that was rejected in the fourth-century contest with the Donatists in terms of the consecration of a bishop; what the church concluded was that even were a priest or other minister in the state of mortal sin, that minister's actions would be valid because Jesus Christ is the real minister. (This is the origin of Church teaching on the Sacraments working  ex opere operato.) Since this issue was originally raised in a dispute over the valid consecration of a bishop, I believe the Church's position on the consecration of a diocesan hermit (or anyone in the consecrated state) would also be ensured similarly. 

In approaching your last questions, then, I think of this hermit and need to ask what would accepting profession and consecration under a canon that (she explicitly claims) "God has saved her from" at least three times, and distorts eremitical life by "temporalizing it," mean for such a person? If she truly believes even a fraction of what she has said about canon 603 and related vocations, then it seems to me that pursuing profession under this canon would be an act of bad faith; it would be a transgression of her own conscience and integrity. Of course, it is unnecessary for her (or anyone!) to seek public profession and consecration under c 603. She can continue living an eremitical life non-canonically as she does now and (in my opinion) probably should do so.

If she (or someone like her) believes she has something important to share with her bishop regarding c 603 or eremitical life more generally, she is in a perfect place to do that. The fact that she claims not to have sought public profession in the past and has written consistently and publicly about c 603 in a negative vein should be of interest to her Bishop --- especially since he has experience of eremitical life with a c 603 hermit and well-respected hermitage in his diocese. I am sure he would listen to her concerns. (Remember, we know that the Archdiocese of Seattle, a neighboring diocese, truly appreciates hermits in the non-canonical state so there is real precedence here for other dioceses listening to non-canonical hermits regarding their vocation.) I don't think, however, this particular lay hermit would have the same credibility if she were to capitulate ("If you can't beat them, join them!") and seek profession under c 603 when she so vehemently believes the canon itself is a perversion of authentic eremitical life. 

On Bishop Stowe's Comments to his Diocese and Media: Looking at the Potential Damage done to c 603 Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  Bishop Stowe wrote about "Bro Christian's" request to make her a hermit: “My willingness to be open to him is because it’s a sincere person seeking a way to serve the church,” and then too, “Hermits are a rarely used form of religious life … but they can be either male or female. Because there’s no pursuit of priesthood or engagement in sacramental ministry, and because the hermit is a relatively quiet and secluded type of vocation, I didn’t see any harm in letting him live this vocation.” What hit me about this was the way Bishop Stowe focuses on all the things the hermit is not, not what a hermit is. He seems to be saying since "Bro Christian" won't be running into many people and because they won't be depending on her for valid sacraments and such, no one needs to worry. I find this incredibly insulting to hermits like you who write so passionately and inspirationally about eremitical life. May I ask you how you felt or what you thought when you read this comment from the bishop? Surely this can't be typical of the level of understanding you get from bishops!

Sister, I don't know if you have time for this question as well, but seems to me that another problem in all of this are the unacceptable motives held by both "Brother Christian" and her Bishop. Is it common for people to approach their dioceses for admission to vows with such dishonest motives? How does a diocese uncover these if you know?]]

LOL! Well, if you have paid attention to the amount of writing I have done this last week on this and related topics you may have an inkling of how the comment made me feel. I was angry. I still am. I also agree with you that it is insulting to the vocation at hand to give such an obviously feeble reason for professing someone. If Bishop Stowe's own community were to profess someone on the strength of those words, Franciscans around the world would be offended, even outraged. I suppose I am not entirely surprised by Bp Stowe's decision re Cole, but I am disappointed with his deliberate shortsightedness and studiously adopted ignorance regarding the c 603 vocation. 

You see, As I think I noted earlier this week, I wrote him at some length in June, 2022 and spoke not only of the nature of canon 603 and solitary eremitical life (especially its redemptive capacity and potential for healing a person's deep woundedness and emptiness when approached honestly), but also the problems with Cole's motivations (being called to public vows per se, not to a calling that required public vows), his true sense of vocation (community, particularly a community of artists, not eremitical life), and the drawbacks of proceeding with vows and the people who would be harmed by such a "profession." I wrote about who would be harmed by this profession (including Cole!!) and the c 603 vocation more generally. Thus, when I read what he told reporters (and apparently the people of the Diocese of Lexington), I felt affronted not only by the "well he's not asking to become a priest" dimension of the comments, but by what seemed to me to be careful and deliberate disingenuousness.

It is very disappointing to have this done at the expense of the solitary eremitical vocation, the appropriate implementation of c 603 itself, as well as at the expense of all genuine diocesan hermits who seek to have the Catholic world understand our hidden vocation and benefit from its witness -- especially when that costly act occurs at the hands of a bishop and an apparently unschooled (in c 603) canonist he apparently depends on. I was personally struck as well by Bp Stowe's comment that Cole had lived in ways that were "consistent with" this vocation. Here I would merely note that the education, spiritual formation, etc., of many of those I know or direct has "been consistent with" this vocation; of these, I am the only one who would honestly claim to be called by God to be a solitary hermit. Stowe's misleading comment on this is a very careful (not to say weaselly) form of speech and a far cry from an observation that Cole is or clearly seems to be called to such a vocation. Bishop Stowe knows that neither of those statements are true ones and so he equivocates.

When I wrote various versions or applications of Whom Could it Hurt? over the past several years, I didn't really imagine an appropriate degree of potential betrayal or damage a single Bishop could do. After a mere 41 years of careful, patient, persistent, and quiet establishment of this vocation within the church so that the Church might truly see and be edified by its silent but potent witness especially to those who have nothing and no one but God, the diocese of Lexington has come shouting and careening through the scene with a badly conceived agenda of "trans justice"; in so doing they have destroyed the fragile foundation created in a few decades by 100's of solitary hermits glorifying God in their aloneness with Him despite the more common skepticism and lack of understanding of the larger church regarding the hermit vocation. This vocation has a significant and powerful, if also subtle, witness value, and what is so sad is that in many many people's minds (including many bishops), Bishop Stowe and Cole Matson have likely managed to undercut that as well.

What I know now is that because the term "Diocesan Hermit" has become inextricably linked not only to Cole Matson and the hypocritical motives Bishop Stowe accepted, I am afraid every diocese in the country and even the world will now be dealing with folks who would like to be professed on the same vacuous basis Bishop Stowe used to profess (or attempt to profess) Cole Matson. Much more importantly, however, I fear that even those of us whose vocations are genuine and whose discernment and formation has been substantial and appropriate will be looked at skeptically --- as though our motives are as self-centered and deceptive as Cole Matson's. And again, I believe that dioceses that don't want to deal with the challenge of implementing c 603 prudently and honestly who have not yet had the privilege of dealing with a genuine c 603 hermit and their unique charism, or those who once deemed c 603 to be about "fallback" vocations alone, will simply stop professing anyone at all under this canon. "Diocesan hermit" is now a term to which Cole Matson and Bishop Stowe himself may have done almost irreparable damage, so I also feel incredibly sad! On the other hand, I am part of a living tradition in which c 603 is a fragile but hope-filled thread and we authentic diocesan hermits will persevere.

You also ask if this is typical of the knowledge of the c 603 vocation bishops demonstrate? Well, it was partly because I don't expect bishops to understand Canon 603 except in terms of canon law that I wrote him as I did. Even so, I expect bishops to allow themselves to be educated by someone with greater knowledge of something so rare, fragile, and vulnerable as c 603. For instance, I am writing a guidebook for dioceses on Canon 603 which provides a process of discernment and formation based on the c603 requirement that the hermit write her own Rule. It is to be used with a small team of chancery personnel, a c603 hermit consultant, and a candidate for profession under c 603. The candidate gains the experience and knowledge necessary to write a liveable Rule while the diocesan personnel discern and assist in the formation of a genuine eremitical vocation. Dioceses often are unsure how to proceed in discernment and formation of these specific vocations, so yes, generally speaking, there is a need for education here. But typical of bishops' knowledge of c 603? I certainly hope not!

I think at this point I have written about all I can write about this topic. It's been a heck of a week!! Thanks for your questions and comments; I do appreciate them and will return to your question regarding motives in another post! It ties in well with this one so give me another day or so!

Does the Church Fail to Regard Non-Canonical Eremitical Vocations Sufficiently?

[[ Hi Sister O'Neal, I hope you don't mind a follow-up question from a couple of your recent posts. It has to do with lay hermits. If a lay person makes private vows of the evangelical counsels, or the other elements of c 603 would they cease being a lay person? Does the Church not regard these vocations [sufficiently], particularly if they are the oldest eremitical vocations in the church, as you have said a number of times and just recently as well?]]

You are correct that I have written about this many times over the years. One of the objections I had to the writing of someone who, until about three years ago, used to write about c 603 was that she seemed to believe if a lay person made private vows of the evangelical counsels they ceased being a lay person. Were that so, there could be no lay hermits (and perhaps no lay persons at all -- depending on how many kept the evangelical counsels as the church asks us ALL to do)!! But this can be shown to be untrue for at least two basic reasons, (1) I myself, though consecrated and perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit am still a lay person in the hierarchical sense of that term; that makes me a lay hermit since I am not a cleric (in the alternate, or vocational sense of the term lay, I am a (publicly) consecrated person, and so am a consecrated not a lay hermit). The ambiguous and confusing dual meaning of lay is one reason non-canonical hermit vs canonical hermit is a simpler and more accurate way of distinguishing the two) and (2) as noted above, every baptized person in the church is called upon to live out the evangelical counsels according to her or his own state of life! The profession of the counsels does not, of itself, initiate us into the consecrated state; that requires an act of God which occurs during the Rite of Religious Profession culminating in the solemn prayer of consecration. (We may call the entire Rite either profession or consecration as an act of synecdoche, but the making of vows and the consecration of the one making vows are two distinct but profoundly related acts occurring during the single Rite.) In the hierarchical sense of the word lay, all non-clerics, including all men and women religious, are laity.

In creating c 603 the Church was attempting to rectify a long-overdue oversight, namely, the making of the eremitical vocation a state of perfection (that is, an instance of the consecrated state of life). Bishop Remi de Roo noted that hermits had long been overlooked and he listed the good they provided for the faith of the church. Much of Vatican Council II was a matter of going back to the sources, and in this particular intervention, De Roo was serving as bishop protector of a dozen or so hermits who had had to leave their monasteries and solemn professions to be secularized in order to pursue the eremitical solitude they felt called to. Since monastic life had its roots in the Desert Abbas and Ammas, and since the apex of monastic life was also often understood as solitary union with God and the eremitical state, it made sense that secular (that is, non-religious) hermits, who, despite some eccentrics and outright nutcases were also marked by holiness and a prophetic presence in the church, should have the dignity of their lifestyles recognized by initiating them canonically into the consecrated state of life. Thus, the Church listened to Bishop De Roo and eventually, with the revision of the Code of Canon Law, published a canon for solitary hermits and allowing their initiation into the consecrated state.

Of course, not everyone who is or calls themselves a hermit seeks or is suited to consecration as a canonical hermit. The Church does not automatically admit every person to profession and consecration. I will say, however, that some of us, in accord with The Hermit's Way of Life in the Local Church** guidelines, are working to develop better processes of discernment and formation for such hermit candidates, processes which will be more individualized or tailored to the needs of each candidate and the way the Holy Spirit works in his/her case. Over time it is hoped that all dioceses will be able to use a process more like the mentoring done by Elder Abbas and Ammas in the desert and less laden with arbitrary canonical time frames and other considerations that are more suitable to cenobitical life. Canon 603 itself contains all that is needed to discern and form such vocations in a way allowing diocesan personnel to work with an experienced hermit and to journey with a "candidate" until s/he is ready for profession and later, perpetual profession and consecration,  discerns a different call, or demonstrates unsuitability for those steps instead.

Again, no one is denigrating non-canonical hermits through the ages!!  In fact, canon 603 came to be precisely because the church recognized that eremitical life was an outstanding way to holiness and throughout its history, had produced many outstanding examples of this. With canon 603, the Church honors them and, again, is simply trying to rectify a longstanding failure to regard the importance of the hermit vocation by making it possible for hermits in the lay state of life to be initiated into the consecrated state if a genuine call is mutually discerned. For those who find canon law onerous, who have no desire to undergo a several-year process of discernment and formation with others (diocesan personnel and canonical hermit mentors), who believe that the Church's mediation of one's call and response to this vocation in c 603 and its necessary structures get in the way of a "direct" relationship with God, or who perhaps are simply way more individualistic than all that allows for, the fact is that one can always become a hermit in the way people have done since the third century and earlier, namely, do it on one's own as a hermit in the lay (non-canonical) rather than the consecrated state.

The Church has provided sufficient choices here for everyone. Is God calling you to the consecrated state? Then join an institute of consecrated life or petition for admission to profession and consecration through the diocesan offices of Vicar for Religious and Bishop. If you desire to go it the longstanding way of 20 centuries of church history, the way of the Desert Abbas and Ammas, then accept that you will do it in the lay state by virtue of the freedom granted you by baptism (or baptism and the clerical state if you are in Orders). I don't think any other categories of hermit life are necessary. Meanwhile, every hermit is called to live the following terms of canon 603 in some way, shape, or form: evangelical counsels (like all Christians), assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, all lived for the salvation of the world. None of these of themselves make a lay person other than a lay person. 

One final reminder, the Church recognizes that the eremitical vocation in the consecrated state belongs first of all to the church herself and only thereafter to individual hermits. She extends the gift of initiation into the consecrated state and this ecclesial vocation only after mutual discernment and sufficient formation to be sure the individual will live the life well. Though some might well want to do this, they will fail in what they aspire to. However, the non-canonical eremitical life is still open to these persons and if they should do well at the life in that way,  they would, after a number of years, be able to request the church take another look at the case with an eye toward discernment and eventual profession and consecration.

** Ponam in deserto Viam, Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, now Dicastery for Institutes. . .Life. 

What if my Diocese Won't Profess Me? What Should I do?

[[Sister Laurel, what do I do if my diocese just won't profess me as a diocesan hermit? Do I have any recourse?? It just doesn't seem fair that they can prevent me from being professed and consecrated when I am sure about my call!! I have lived as a hermit for two years; I've worked with my director and we have discerned this vocation carefully. Now I have been reading about a priest (Fr David Nix) in Colorado who has been professed and he doesn't even seem to have discerned this vocation! It looks to me like his bishop allowed him to be professed just to get him out of his hair. Is there anything I can do? I don't want to move to another diocese, but it really doesn't seem right that some bishops accept this vocation and others don't do that at all. Can you intervene in some way to recommend me maybe?]]

Thanks for your questions. First, let me affirm that I understand your frustration. It took my own diocese more than 25 years to accept diocesan hermits at all; it was 23 years from the time I first knocked on the chancery door with my petition until I was perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit under c 603. During some of this (@5 years) I worked regularly with the Vicar for Religious at the time until it became clear the bishop was not open to professing anyone under c 603. (Unfortunately, he did not let his Vicar know this decision.) While painful in some ways, much of that time was very valuable to me and I am grateful for it, but some of it was excessive and I regret it took my diocese so long to decide to profess anyone as a diocesan hermit!

Because this vocation is discerned and implemented (that is, the hermit is professed and consecrated) at the diocesan level, it has always been the case that some dioceses have been open to the directive of canon 605 (bishops are to be open to new vocations to the consecrated state of life) while others have not. This has been the case since canon 603 was promulgated in October 1983 --- almost 4 decades ago. Sometimes dioceses have been appropriately cautious (or careful), sometimes not nearly cautious (or careful) enough --- and in these latter cases, these dioceses often ended up paying the price with vocations that were problematical, sometimes required dispensation of their vows, etc. I have written about all this and related issues before but it has been some years so perhaps it is a good idea to revisit some of the issues your email raises.

One of the most difficult dimensions of the Roman Catholic theology of public ecclesial vocations for folks to grasp is the mutuality of discernment required. As I have sometimes said, this specific eremitical vocation belongs first of all to the Church herself and only secondarily to the hermit (though it is entirely hers when she embraces it on behalf of the Church). For this reason, when an individual comes to a diocesan chancery claiming to have discerned such a vocation, the diocese has both the right and the obligation to mutually discern the nature and quality of the vocation that may exist. Unless and until a diocese agrees with the individual's discernment and then agrees to profess and (with perpetual profession) to consecrate the individual, one cannot say one has discerned such a vocation. Let me be clear here. With the requisite time, prayer, and supervision, one may have discerned an eremitical vocation which can be lived out in any state of life (except the married state), but one has not yet discerned an ecclesial eremitical vocation like that of c 603.

Think of it this way. I may believe I have a vocation to be a nun, and when I approach this Order or that congregation or house, I can certainly tell them the steps I have taken, and the conclusions I have reached based on the experiences I have had in prayer, direction, and so forth, but I can't simply announce to them that I have discerned this vocation and therefore they should accept me and admit me to profession just like that. A community has both a unique character and charism and I am asking to test my vocation to see not only whether I am called to be a religious, but also whether I am meant to live out my life in this specific communal context with its own unique character and charism or not. Once upon a time we didn't think of there being much difference between communities, but we know well now that they are not simply interchangeable. While candidates for profession under c 603 are not looking at communities, they are looking at a vocation with a specific charism and ecclesial quality. It is a vocation with specific public rights, obligations, and appropriate correlative expectations on the part of the entire church and society.

As I say, this idea of mutual discernment is difficult for people to get sometimes. We live in a culture very much taken with individual rights and freedom which does not always understand that while we speak of "my vocation" we are speaking first of all of a share in the church's own patrimony and mission; thus, the church as institution is responsible for discerning and mediating this call to individuals who feel called in this way. When one has considered their heart affirms this vocation it is hard to hear diocesan officials and others do not agree, but when one proposes and petitions to be professed to live an ecclesial vocation this is always a possibility. Consider that you are seeking to live eremitical life in the name of the Church, and thus you were petitioning the Church to allow you to do that. While our entire lives will be marked with our own names, I think you can appreciate what a weighty thing it is to live a specific vocational path in the name of the Church.

Time Frames and Other General Considerations:

Of course, I don't know why your diocese rejected your petition, whether they suggested you live in eremitical solitude for some time and then re-approach them after several years, whether your diocese has ever professed anyone under c 603 before considering your petition or what their experiences with cc 603-605 have been over the past 38 years, and so forth. Sometimes bad experiences will make dioceses wary of professing subsequent candidates without more discernment than they formerly assured; sometimes good experiences can cut towards more liberal use of c 603, but these can also help a diocese to firm up their expectations of what is involved in such a vocation and make them more demanding. I would certainly encourage you to get a complete assessment from the Vicar for Religious or whomever you met with regularly regarding the decision. Be honest, ask the questions you need answered about your own situation and diocese. They cannot answer questions regarding other professions carried out, nor can they usually explain the policies of other dioceses. However, they owe you frank and honest summaries of their findings in your own case and what options are open to you in the future.

Ordinarily, in my experience dioceses will not profess anyone after only two years of personal discernment. They might not even accept such a person for serious mutual discernment. Even those moving from religious life in community to profession under c 603 will ordinarily require more than two years to transition sufficiently and test this new vocation unless they specifically left life in community because of a sense of a call to greater solitude. Even then one needs to discern what form of eremitical life to which one feels called: semi-eremitical, life in a laura, solitary eremitical, and consecrated or non-canonical. Some bishops will not consider professing anyone under c 603 with fewer than five years living in solitude under regular spiritual direction and discernment. I generally tend to agree with them, though individual cases differ. If the person has a strong contemplative background in vowed life they may be admitted to perpetual profession at that point. If not --- and if the diocese believes the person is called to consecrated eremitical life, they are likely to be admitted to temporary profession for 2-3 years before admission to perpetual profession and consecration.

Your diocese may well desire you to secure more formation and experience in eremitical solitude before they are open to admitting you to profession of any sort. They may have other concerns which can be resolved with the assistance of spiritual direction, counseling, or greater levels of lived experience. (Eremitical life is ordinarily seen as a second half of life vocation and candidates are expected to have lived well and in some fullness before seeking to pursue this vocation.) They might wish you to get some more education which includes some sound theology, Scripture studies. The only way you can know this, however, is to talk about it fully with whomever you met with regularly at the chancery.

Recommendations, etc.

While you are not the first person to ask this, and while it is gratifying that you would do so, I really cannot recommend you (nor would anyone listen to such a "recommendation" from me in your regard); after all,  I don't know you, nor your diocese, nor what their decision actually was or was based upon. You are likely already to have discovered that your diocese will  require recommendations from your director, pastor(s), and, sometimes, others who have worked with you re: discernment and formation. (Mine asked for recommendations from past Vicars for Religious, for instance because they knew me and had known me for some time under other bishops.) Dioceses are also apt to seek additional information from doctors, psychologists, etc. 

You asked me what you should do. I have given you some suggestions throughout but let me list them in a more summary fashion: 1) find out if your diocese is open to using canon 603 at all. If they are then 2) ask for a frank and constructive summary of their decision in your regard and their reasons for that decision, 3) Clarify whether they are open to reviewing this decision in several years time. If they are, and you decide to pursue this further, then continue to live as a lay hermit and work to get further formation, etc., in the meantime. If they are not, work with your director and discern what next steps you need to make, if any. If you  are called to be a hermit (whether canonical or non-canonical and whatever form) no time you spend in any of this will be wasted. If you are not called to eremitical life (of whatever form), you will discover that with time and again, you will come to know yourself better, will have developed a stronger spirituality, and will likely find the time to have been well-spent.

Another Look: What does it mean to be a Hermit in an Essential Sense?

[[ Dear Sister, I wondered if you could say what you mean by the term "being a hermit in an essential sense"? I am just not "getting" it. Thank you.]]

Thanks for your question. I am going to repost something I wrote several years ago which I hope will be helpful. It responds to a question very like your own. In particular it speaks of the redemptive experience which must be at the core of an experience of the silence of solitude in an eremitical context. It is this experience and the fruit of it which will allow a person to identify a hermit (or someone who could consider themselves a hermit because essentially they are one) vs a non-hermit or mere loner. If this experience and its fruit are missing from a person's life -- no matter how much silence or solitude they live daily --- I believe they are not a hermit in the way the Church understands the term and certainly not as I write about hermits. When Canon 603 uses the term "the silence of solitude" it is speaking of a reality beyond mere external silence and physical solitude; it is speaking of the fruit of a redemptive process which has occurred through the grace of God in silence and solitude. If this piece raises questions for you or is unclear in some way I hope you will write back with those specific questions! Thanks yourself.

[[Dear Sister when you have spoken of readiness for discernment with a diocese and even temporary profession as a solitary hermit you have said it is necessary for a person to be a hermit in some essential sense. Could you say more about what you mean by this phrase? I think maybe I know what you are talking about but I also find the phrase difficult to define. Thanks!]]

Introduction:

That's such a great and important question! For me personally, articulating the definition of this phrase or the description of what I mean by it has been a bit difficult. It is a positive phrase but in some ways I found my own senses of what I meant by this come to real clarity by paying attention to examples of inauthentic eremitical life, individuals who call themselves hermits, for instance, but who, while nominally Catholic, are isolated and/or subscribe to a spirituality which is essentially unhealthy while embracing a theology which has nothing really to do with the God of Jesus Christ.  To paraphrase Jesus, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" actually  has come to know the sovereignty of the Lord intimately. In other words it was by looking at what canonical hermits were not and could or should never be that gave me a way of articulating what I meant by "being a hermit in some essential sense." Since God is the one who makes a person a hermit, it should not surprise you to hear I will be describing the "essential hermit" first of all in terms of God's activity. 

Related to this then is the fact that the hermit's life is a gift to both Church and world at large. Moreover, it is a gift of a particular kind. Specifically it proclaims the Gospel of God in word and deed but does so in the silence of solitude. When speaking of being a hermit in some essential way it will be important to describe the qualities of mission and charism that are developing (or have developed) in the person's life. These are about more than having a purpose in life and reflect the simple fact that the eremitical vocation belongs to the Church. Additionally they are a reflection of the fact that the hermit precisely as hermit reflects the good news of salvation in Christ which comes to her in eremitical solitude. If it primarily came to her in another way (in community or family life for instance) it would not reflect the redemptive character of Christ in eremitical solitude and therefore her life could not witness to or reveal this to others in and through eremitical life. Such witness is the very essence of the eremitical life.

The Experience at the Heart of Authentic Eremitism:

Whenever I have written about becoming a hermit in some essential sense I have contrasted it with being a lone individual, even a lone pious person who prays each day. The point of that contrast was to indicate that each of us are called to be covenantal partners of God, dialogical realities who, to the extent we are truly human, are never really alone. The contrast was first of all meant to point to the fact that eremitical life involved something more, namely, a desert spirituality. It was also meant to indicate that something must occur in solitude which transforms the individual from simply being a lone individual. That transformation involves healing and sanctification. It changes the person from someone who may be individualistic to someone who belongs to and depends radically on God and the church which mediates God in word and sacrament. Such a person lives her life in the heart of the Church in very conscious and deliberate ways. Her solitude is a communal reality in this sense even though she is a solitary hermit. Moreover, the shift I am thinking of that occurs in the silence of solitude transforms the person into a compassionate person whose entire life is in tune with the pain and anguish of a world yearning for God and the fulfillment God brings to all creation; moreover it does so because paradoxically, it is in the silence of solitude that one comes to hear the cry of all in union with God. 

If the individual is dealing with chronic illness, for instance, then they are apt to have been marginalized by their illness. What tends to occur to such a person in the silence of solitude if they are called to this as a life vocation is the shift to a life that marginalizes by choice and simultaneously relates more profoundly or centrally. Because it is in this liminal space that one meets God and comes to union with God, a couple of things happen: 1) one comes to know one has infinite value because one is infinitely loved by God, not in terms of one's productivity, one's academic or other success, one's material wealth, and so forth, 2) one comes to understand that all people are loved and valued in the same way which allows one to see themselves as "the same" as others rather than as different and potentially inferior (or, narcissistically, superior), 3) thus one comes to know oneself as profoundly related to these others in God rather than as disconnected or unrelated and as a result, 4) chronic illness ceases to have the power it once had to isolate and alienate or to define one's entire identity in terms of separation, pain, suffering, and incapacity, and 5) one is freed to be the person God calls one to be in spite of chronic illness. The capacity to truly love others, to be compassionate, and to love oneself in God are central pieces of this.

The Critical Question in Discernment of Eremitical Vocations:

 What is critical for the question at hand is that the person finds her/himself in a  transformative relationship with God in solitude and thus, eremitical solitude becomes the context for a truly redemptive experience and a genuinely holy life. When I speak of someone being a hermit in some essential sense I am pointing to being a person who has experienced the salvific gift the hermit's life is meant to be for hermits and for those they witness to. It may be that they have begun a transformation which reshapes them from the heart of their being, a kind of transfiguration which heals and summons into being an authentic humanity which is convincing in its faith, hope, love, and essential joy. Only God can work in the person in this way and if God does so in eremitical solitude --- which means more than a transitional solitude, but an extended solitude of desert spirituality --- then one may well have thus become a hermit in an essential sense and may be on the way to becoming a hermit in the proper sense of the term as well.

If God saves in solitude (or in abject weakness and emptiness!), if authentic humanity implies being a covenant partner of God capable of mediating that same redemption to others in Christ, then a canonical hermit (or a person being seriously considered for admission to canonical standing and consecration MUST show signs of these as well as of having come to know them to a significant degree in eremitical solitude.  It is the redemptive capacity of solitude (meaning God in solitude) experienced by the hermit or candidate as  "the silence of solitude"  which is the real criterion of a vocation to eremitical solitude. (See other posts on this term but also Eremitism, the Epitome of Selfishness?) It is the redemptive capacity of God in the silence of solitude that the hermit must reflect and witness to if her eremitical life is to be credible.

Those Putative "Hermits" not Called to Eremitical Solitude:

For some who seek to live as hermits but are unsuccessful, eremitical solitude is not redemptive. As I have written before the destructive power of solitude overtakes and overwhelms the entire process of growth and sanctification which the authentic hermit comes to know in the silence of solitude. What is most striking to me as I have considered this question of being a hermit in some essential sense is the way some persons' solitude and the label "hermit" are euphemisms for alienation, estrangement, and isolation. Of course there is nothing new in this and historically stereotypes and counterfeits have often hijacked the title "hermit".  The spiritualities involved in such cases are sometimes nothing more than validations of the brokenness of sin or celebrations of self-centeredness and social failure; the God believed in is often a tyrant or a cruel judge who is delighted by our suffering -- which he is supposed to cause directly -- and who defines justice in terms of an arbitrary "reparation for the offences" done to him even by others, a strange kind of quid pro quo which might have given even St Anselm qualms. 

These "hermits" themselves seem unhappy, often bitter, depressed and sometimes despairing. They live in physical solitude but their relationship with God is apparently neither life giving nor redemptive -- whether of the so-called hermit or those they touch. Neither are their lives ecclesial in any evident sense and some are as estranged from the Church as they are from their local communities and (often) families. Because there is no clear sense that solitude is a redemptive reality for these persons, neither is there any sense that God is really calling them to eremitical life and the wholeness represented by union with God and characterized by the silence of solitude. Sometimes solitude itself seems entirely destructive, silence is a torturous muteness or fruitlessness; in such cases there is no question the person is not called to eremitical solitude. 

Others who are not so extreme as these "hermits" never actually embrace the silence of solitude or put God at the center of their lives in the way desert spirituality requires and witnesses to. They may even be admitted to profession and consecration but then live a relatively isolated and mediocre life filled with distractions, failed commitments (vows, Rule), and rejected grace. Some instead replace solitude with active ministry so that they really simply cannot witness to the transformative capacity of the God who comes in silence and solitude. Their lives thus do not show evidence of the incredibly creative and dynamic love of God who redeems in this way but it is harder to recognize these counterfeits. In such cases the silence of solitude is not only not the context of their lives but it is neither their goal nor the charism they bring to church and world. Whatever the picture, they have never been hermits in the essential sense.

Even so, all of these lives do help us to see what is necessary for the discernment of authentic eremitical vocations and too what it means to say that someone is a hermit in some essential sense. Especially they underscore the critical importance that one experiences God's redemptive intimacy in the silence of solitude and that one's life is made profoundly meaningful, compassionate, and hope-filled in this way.