Have I been About the Creation of Precedents and Protocols with this Blog?

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I wondered what you make of the charge that you have made up all kinds of precedents and protocols for solitary hermit life under c 603? Is that really what you have been about with this blog? Does the charge have any merit, after all, not everything is written in c 603? Thanks!]]

Thanks to you as well; I am grateful for the question and surprised I have never received it before. Someone asked recently about the age of c 603 given that I have only been consecrated as a hermit for 17 years, but that was not quite the same question. When I look back at this blog over the past 17 years, I see one in which I have explored the nature and implications of c 603 and the vocation it governs.  As far as I know, I am responsible for only two precedents: 1) the post-nominal initials Er Dio (and variations like Erem Dio and ED), which Bishop Vigneron approved in 2008 on the anniversary of my consecration, and 2) a process of discernment and formation for c 603 hermits and their dioceses, drawn from my own experience of the challenging and formative nature of writing a liveable Rule, and which I have outlined here in brief form over the past several years. The first of these is pretty well established as diocesan hermits from a number of countries are permitted by their bishops to use these initials to indicate they are diocesan hermits. Everything else has been a part of my exploring this vocation and looking carefully at the implications of the canon and the public and ecclesial nature of the calling.

I am particularly pleased that these two precedents either already have been or are now being more widely adopted. The second one is by far more important, but I am still working on writing up the process of discernment and formation I have used with several dioceses/candidates thus far, so that is not yet ready for publication. One problem (but not the only one) is that some dioceses, it seems, don't have the staff to create a small team to accompany the candidate. Accommodations can be made, though this (small team with competent c 603 mentor approach) is still an ideal way to proceed to assist a good candidate, 1) to write a liveable Rule, 2) to educate themselves and the diocesan staff on this vocation, and 3) to discern and cooperate in God's formation of a sound vocation. Everything else here, I think, has been a function of my learning about my own vocation, exploring its depths and all of the rights and obligations which I embraced at perpetual profession and consecration. Though perhaps too repetitive, the questions folks ask have been really helpful here. Sometimes they stem from what I have written, sometimes from misunderstandings they are passing on, sometimes from simple curiosity or a hostile spirit, and sometimes they have been the result of someone wanting to become c 603 and asking questions that apply to their aspirations. 

The answers are never simply made up, however. Of course, they don't simply restate c 603 or the Catechism's paragraphs 920 and 921, because these are not the only texts that apply to the c 603 hermit. Other canons apply, whether because of the vows, the use of the term Catholic, garb, not-for-profit status, etc. Hermits' individual Rules also apply here. Too, I know to some extent how my diocese handled things (including frequency of meetings with three bishops and the Vicar for Religious while we had an interim bishop), and I have anecdotal material on other dioceses as well that I can draw from, including from the years before I was consecrated. And of course, the Church's theology of consecrated life applies, as it does to any consecrated vocation in the Church. So, what do I make of the charges that I almost single-handedly created precedents and protocols for c 603 vocations and distorted the canon and the vocation in the process? Well, at best they are exaggerated or significantly overblown, and at worst they are simply made up out of whole cloth while disregarding not only the canon's prehistory beginning with Vatican II, but the 24 years of c 603 life that preceded my own consecration and writing. 

What I find particularly hard to wrap my head around is that anyone could actually believe I have been so wildly influential rather than seeing instead that the Bishops, canonists, other c 603 hermits, and I are both exploring canon 603 in light of the Church's theology of consecrated life and therefore are simply coming to some of the same conclusions!! Yes, I write about the vocation from within it. I explore the implications of this new and ancient form of life. I think I appreciate what is possible for and required by it better than someone looking at the canon from the outside (which would include a lot of chancery staff and canonists), but c 603 already had a history of people living and exploring it before I was consecrated or began to write!  Of course, Bishops can and do certainly imagine, study, speak to others with experience of the canon, and have done so since @1983. And yes, today this might even include a few of them reading this blog, but that is still a far cry from my having been as influential as the "charges" have sometimes made out!

To summarize, when I began this blog, I wanted to explore the vocation and perhaps share it with anyone interested. It was relatively new despite the years since it had been published in the Revised Code and was similarly unknown in parishes or among parish priests. I had not expected to find c 603 beautiful in the way it combines a vision of eremitical life embodying non-negotiable elements with the flexibility of a personal Rule inspired by the Holy Spirit in a way that captures the unique freedom of the consecrated hermit; I had not expected questions and answers would become the basic format of the blog, nor did I anticipate becoming something of an authority on this vocation. If that is what has occurred (and I believe that to some limited extent it has), then I am grateful to God for that. Still, that I have overturned the "traditional" solitary hermit vocation and distorted c 603 with my writing here, or that I have single-handedly established all kinds of precedents and protocols is simply inaccurate! 

Once again on "Illegal Hermits" as a Mistaken and Destructive Term

[[Hi Sister, I am a privately professed hermit but heard I am really illegal because I am not c 603. I also heard that I can't think of myself as Catholic though I am baptized and confirmed. I am really sure God has called me to be a hermit and to be a Catholic but I don't understand why I can't be a Catholic Hermit or have to consider myself illegal. I don't want to have to give up being a hermit in order to be a Catholic. I think all this vocabulary confuses me. Can you clarify it for me? What can I do to make myself a Catholic legal hermit? How do I get myself changed from being an illegal hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written extensively about all of these in the past so I encourage you to look at pertinent posts, especially those in the past month or two. One post you might want to check out is Why God allows Many Forms of Hermit Life. The following article  might also be helpful to you: Crash Course in Language. Let me summarize the situation as it applies to you.

You are a non-canonical hermit only in the sense that c 603 and the canons applying to religious (or consecrated life) do not apply to you. However, you are a lay hermit and all of the canons applying to laity apply to you until you are admitted to profession (a public act changing one's state of life) and then consecration as a c 603 hermit or member of an eremitical institute of consecrated life. Once that happens canons are added to those already applying to your lay life. Both states, lay and consecrated, are governed by canon law. To call one a non-canonical hermit is a shorthand way of saying the additional canons do NOT apply to them (yet). It does not mean that hermit is illegal since you are free to live as a lay hermit while honoring the canons that apply to all laity.

If you decide God has called you to live as a consecrated hermit, you must apply to be admitted to a process of MUTUAL discernment and formation with your diocese. Because this is an ecclesial vocation and belongs to the Church before it belongs to you, the Church herself must discern that you are indeed called to this. Our own discernment is important, but it is not sufficient when dealing with ecclesial vocations. This is a difficult point for most folks to "get". Meanwhile, if, in time, the Church agrees with your discernment and also that you are ready for public profession, then she will admit you to temporary profession and eventually to perpetual profession and consecration as a c 603 or diocesan hermit. At that point you accept the rights and obligations of a public and ecclesial vocation and MAY (i.e., are permitted by the Church whose vocation this is first of all to) call yourself a Catholic Hermit. This is because you would then have been called by God and the Church to live this vocation in the name of the Church.

Currently you are a Catholic AND a hermit. Another way of saying this is to say that you are a (Catholic) lay hermit (that is, you live hermit life in the lay or baptized state alone as you are entirely free to do), or you can say you are a non-canonical hermit because you haven't (yet) been admitted to eremitical life in the consecrated state; for this reason, the additional canons of consecrated eremitical life don't apply to you. You are entirely free to call yourself Catholic; you are entirely free to call yourself a hermit (if you are one); you are even free to say you are aspiring to becoming a Catholic hermit if that is also so, but you are NOT an illegal hermit or somehow not Catholic. To use the term illegal is demeaning of yourself and all Lay Hermits. Please let go of it!! You can read more on this or get back to me if it raises additional questions or confusions. I sincerely hope it is helpful.

N.B., a reminder that the term lay can be used in two different senses. In the hierarchical sense anyone who is not ordained is lay or part of the laity (from the Greek laos (λαος) for People as in People of God or laos tou theou). This sense includes religious and consecrated persons. In the vocational sense of the term lay, it is one of three basic states of life: lay, consecrated, and clerical. We have hermits in all three states of life and honor them all. In using lay above I am mainly speaking about the vocational lay state.  For the present, and until a diocese admits you (or anyone else living as a hermit) to profession and consecration, you (they) are a lay hermit in both hierarchical and vocational senses of the term lay/laity.

Eremitical Life and the Security of Man-Made Laws (reprise)

 [[Dear Sister O'Neal, [one hermit] who has chosen to remain non-canonical (not under canon law) and has sometimes written canon 603 is a distortion of eremitical life wrote recently: "It is the animal instinct for some to want to rise above others, to rule the roost, so to speak--to take the prey from the claws of other beasts.  So, too, is often the human instinct to find a sense of security in laws made by humans.  Somehow it brings--falsely, though--a feeling that there are boundaries and structure that will provide stability and formulaic assurance for survival and success."

Do you find that most hermits feel the same way about canon 603 as this hermit seems to feel? You have said that the majority of hermits are not canonical so I was wondering if that is because they don't think living eremitical life under canon law is a valid way of doing this? I can see that a basic insecurity except in God could be desirable for hermits and that law and structure could provide the illusion of security and stability apart from God. I can also see that hermits need a freedom to respond to God in whatever way he comes to them so that laws and structures could be a problem. Is this what you find?]]

I think it is really important to understand that canonical hermits have not sought canonical standing in order to "rise above others" or to "rule the roost". We do so because we recognize that eremitical life is a significant vocation which the Church has recently (1983) affirmed as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and through the Church to the world at large. We recognize this vocation as part of the patrimony of the Church and believe the Church has a right and obligation to nurture and govern it. The way I tend to speak of this is in terms of the rubric "ecclesial vocation". That is, the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to me. Similarly it belongs to me only insofar as the Church mediates it to me and insofar as I belong to the Church and live for her --- for her Lord, her life, her People and her proclamation. Canonical hermits honor the way God works to call us to consecrated life in the Church. We know that in a vocation which can be mistaken for (or tragically devolve into!) an instance of individualism, selfishness, and isolation, this ecclesial context is absolutely critical for avoiding these antitheses to authentic eremitical life.

The insecurity of Eremitical Life:

At the same time, while canonical standing supplies an essential context for eremitical life it does not do away with the insecurity the life also involves. Remember that canonical hermits are not supported by the Church in any financial or material way. Solitary canonical hermits (those under canon 603) are self-supporting and are responsible for taking care of everything the eremitical life requires: residence, insurance, education and specialized training, formation, spiritual direction, library, appropriate work, food, clothing, transportation, retreat, etc. A diocese will make sure the hermit has all of these things in place and is capable of both living the life and supplying for her material needs before professing her, but generally speaking they will not supply these things themselves. (There are anecdotal accounts of occasional instances where a diocese will include a hermit on the diocesan insurance or supply temporary housing in a vacant convent, retreat house, etc, but these accounts are clear exceptions and the hermit remains generally responsible for supporting herself.)

While this does not mean most hermits lack the essentials needed to live (food, clothing, housing) they do have the same basic insecurities as any other person in the Church or world and they do so without claims to fame, material success, family, significant profession, or any of the other ways our world marks adulthood and security. Many hermits live on government assistance due to disability or associated poverty and this mistakenly marks them as failures, layabouts, moochers, and so forth by the majority of the world. The message the hermit proclaims with her life, however, is the message of a God who considers us each infinitely and uniquely precious despite our personal fragility and poverty. This God abides with us when every prop is kicked out; (he) alone loves us without condition and is capable of completing us.

There is additional though more nuanced insecurity in the prophetic quality of the vocation. Both the Church and the hermit risk a great deal in enabling this vocation to exist with canonical standing in the heart of the Church. This is because the Church recognizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the hermit's life and calls her to consecration which may also lead to a life capable of criticizing the institution, the hierarchy, etc,`(consider the lives of the Desert Abbas and Ammas here) --- precisely as a way of being faithful to vocation, the Church, and the Church's own mission. 

When the Church builds eremitical lives of solitude and prayer into her very heart she opens herself to conversion as well. (cf Ecclesiality as mutually conditioning) Sometimes this leads to apparent clashes (as it did when the faithfulness of women religious to their vocations and to the documents of Vatican II led to an investigation questioning the Sisters' faithfulness). The life of the Spirit is unsettling as well as being the source of life and peace. Generally speaking, the Church will respond in ways that allow the Spirit to summon her to new life and to the remaking of her heart and mind, but any time one is called to proclaim the Gospel with one's life --- especially in the name of the Church --- one is also called to live a kind of insecurity in terms of the world of power and institutional standing.

The most basic insecurity however is that one pins the entire meaning of her life on God and life with God. It is clear that most people need and are called to lives of social connection and service. While most hermits are not called to live without relationships, while those with ecclesial vocations must build in adequate relationships to nurture, guide, and supervise her life with God, and while the eremitical life is a life of service even when this looks very different than that of apostolic religious, it remains true that hermits forego more normal society and service and risk everything, including her own growth in wholeness and holiness, on the existence and nature of the God revealed in Jesus Christ and his desert existence. 

It is one thing to live a Christian existence in the midst of society with all that entails. That is a risk and challenge, of course, with its own very real insecurity: What if I'm wrong? What if God's existence is a delusion, a fiction? What if there was no resurrection and Jesus simply "stayed good and dead"? But to pin everything including normal relationships, one's own home and family, more usual profession and avenues for service, etc., on a God whose love sustains, nurtures, completes and makes us truly human in eremitical solitude seems to me to be a very great (though justified) risk attended by significant insecurity. (My experience is that canonical standing attenuates but does not obviate this insecurity because the Church as such discerns and validates this vocation and proclaims all it witnesses to. Any well-grounded eremitical tradition works in this way in the hermit's life.)

An Ordered and Disciplined Vocation:

While there is a necessary and desirable insecurity at the heart of every eremitical vocation which tends to "prove" the vocation and its dependence on God, there is also the undeniable fact that this remains an ordered and disciplined form of life. Remember that one of the essential elements defining the life is "stricter separation from the world" and this means boundaries are required. For that matter "the silence of solitude" requires very real limitations and boundaries which MUST be articulated clearly and written into the hermit's Rule if they are to be lived meaningfully and with integrity. The lay hermit you cited may believe man-made laws and structures have no place, create illusions of stability and so forth, but the simple fact is that without these kinds of things sinful human beings create chaos, slide into slackness and laxness and ease into a state of general deafness to the work and call of the Holy Spirit. The person who honors the presence of the Holy Spirit, for instance, and who wishes to remain open and responsive to her presence will do so through an ordered and disciplined life. I wrote about this before once when I said:

[[ I think that suggesting commitments and structure will get in the Holy Spirit's way (which, right or wrong, is what I do hear you saying) is analogous to someone saying, "Oh I don't need to practice the violin to play it, I'll just let the Holy Spirit teach me where my fingers should go (or any of the billion other things involved in playing this instrument)." "Maybe I'll play scales if the HS calls me to; maybe I'll tune the violin if the HS calls me to. You mean I can't do vibrato without practicing it slowly? Well, maybe I will just conclude it doesn't need to be part of MY playing and the HS is not calling me to it." What I am trying to say is that if someone wants to play the violin they must commit to certain fundamental praxis and the development of foundational skills; only in so far as they are accomplished at the instrument technically will they come to know how integral this discipline and these skills are to making music freely and passionately as the Holy Spirit impels. Otherwise the music will not soar. In fact there may be no music at all --- just a few notes strung together to the best of one's ability; the capacity for making music will be crippled by the lack of skill and technique. In other words, the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with and through  the discipline I am speaking of, not apart from it.]]

Why Most Hermits are Non-canonical:

I am not entirely sure why most hermits are not canonical hermits. However, it is my impression that only a very small minority percentage of non-Canonical hermits actually reject canonical standing because they believe they will not have the freedom to live authentic eremitical lives under canonical standing or because they would like to imitate the Desert Abbas and Ammas. . . .One credible example of the kind of rejection you ask about is that which turns up in the Episcopal Church and is well-represented by a canonical hermit like Maggie Ross is. While I don't personally agree precisely with Ms Ross in this matter, she cogently argues the importance of standing outside the institutional reality so that one can be a truly prophetic presence. (I agree completely with her insistence on being a prophetic presence and I emphatically agree on the marginality of the hermit, but I disagree that one can stand either essentially or completely outside the institution or be free of all legal and structural bonds.)

I will tell you what I have seen in a number of non-canonical hermits, however. First, most of these are self-described "hermits" and tend not to embody or otherwise meet the requirements of canon 603 in what they live. They may not live the silence of solitude nor lives of assiduous prayer and penance. They may not have embraced a desert spirituality but may merely be lone individuals --- sometimes misanthropic, sometimes not --- but generally still, they are not really hermits as the Church understands the term.  Some are married; some treat eremitical life as a part-time avocation; some live with their parents or others and have never known real solitude, much less "the silence of solitude". Many desire to be religious men or women but have not been able to be professed or consecrated in community. 

Today the term "hermit" is far more popular than the authentic lifestyle! This means that all kinds of things are being justified by the term hermit and many of them are actually antithetical to this vocation: individualism, narcissism, active or apostolic life lived by a solitary, etc. Some non-Canonical hermits have petitioned for canonical standing and been rejected; sometimes this is a personal matter, a determination they are not called to this life or are otherwise unsuitable while other times it is because the diocese they are petitioning is still hesitant to try or unclear on how to implement the canon in an effective and successful way. For instance, appropriate discernment, formation, etc are questions they take seriously and are still unclear about. (These are the kinds of questions some c 603 hermits can assist with.)

Summary:

The bottom line in all of this is that because the eremitical life centered on the relationship of the hermit and God alone is, paradoxically, not merely about the hermit and God alone, because, that is, it is a gift to the Church which can proclaim the Gospel and speak in a special way to the isolated, the alienated, and those from whom "all the props have been kicked out", because it is lived in the heart of the Church in a way which allows the Church to nurture, govern, and mediate it, because, that is, it is an ecclesial vocation which belongs to the Church before it belongs to any hermit, the vocation requires some church laws and structures including mediatory relationships (Bishop, delegate, Vicars) to assure it is what it is meant to be. 

If one believes one can support the idea of a vocation without law or structure by turning to Paul's writing on Law versus Gospel one has simply not understood Paul's theology or his esteem for both law and the Gospel. At the same time the person you cited seems not to have understood the importance of discerning, embracing, or representing ecclesial vocations if s/he truly believes the Church professes those who seek to " rise above others" or to "rule the roost." This is simply not the reason canonical hermits have chosen (or are admitted to) hidden lives lived in the heart of the Church or lives of marginality and essential insecurity in worldly terms.

In Him all Things Will Cohere!

[[Dear Sister, when you told the brief version of how you discovered a vocation to eremitical life and became a hermit, you said that you saw that perhaps this way of living would "make sense of" your entire life. I wondered if you could say more about the phrase "make sense of" because in part, it sounds like maybe you were looking for a way to validate a life you felt was meaningless. I wonder if that's a very good reason to try to live as a hermit. Is that really what a divine call looks like? Every other vocation story I have heard or read speaks about coming from a place of strength and knowing clearly that God was calling one to this. One hermit I know even talks about God saying to her directly that she was called to be a hermit. Yet, you are giving a very different picture of the way God called you to eremitical life. I just hoped you would say a little more about this, particularly if I am misunderstanding you. Thank you!]]

Thanks for your questions and observations. They are excellent and incredibly timely. Some people use the term "synchronicity" to describe this kind of timeliness. My Director and I often speak of the same thing and use the word "sacrednicity". I think that your questions are an example of that and maybe you'll see a little of why as I respond.

What I wrote in that recent piece with a brief version of the way I came to eremitical life and then to canonical eremitical life was true. And yet, in some ways, I have always felt a bit defensive about the very phrase you have asked about, "make sense of". But recently I was listening to Francis Kline OCSO speaking about Trappist life specifically and monastic life more generally. He was discussing the monastic value and vow of stability and how essential it is to living a monastic life. The reason he gave was that monastic life (and here you can substitute eremitical life) is about an inner journey and a stable structure was necessary to support this inner journey. Then, strikingly, he said, without that stable structure a person would either give up their attempt to make this inner journey, or their lives would become completely compartmentalized --- which, of course, would enervate, or vitiate and destroy the dynamism supporting the journey. In fact, compartmentalization would be antithetical to the inner journey itself, because it is one of healing, integration, and Communion growing to Union. I came to look at my own story in terms of compartmentalization and saw that my life had been fragmented, partly out of richness (a variety of talents and gifts including what I sensed as a call to religious life and a call to do theology) and partly because of chronic illness and disability; I needed a way to pull and hold all of these various dimensions together so that the inner journey that was compelling to me was truly possible.

Chronic illness and other factors already separated me, to some extent, from the world around me, and additionally, they threatened to dominate in such a way as to make living a coherent and intelligible life impossible. These parts or dimensions of my life called for a way to heal and achieve integration as much as the gifts and talents that were mine also called for this. In  Father Francis Kline's terminology I was looking for a stable structure, way, or vocational pathway that might heal the fragmentation I knew, and maybe even be beyond the power to fragment possessed by chronic illness, and the other factors present in my life. The way I ordinarily have said this to myself or to others has been that I was looking for a context within which I could be myself, and truly and wholly myself. I came upon canon 603 at a point of crisis, that is, an opportune point where decisions were necessary and urgent. I was vulnerable and open to hearing the will of God at this point. And when I read canon 603, I began to think that, indeed, this was possibly a way forward that allowed both strength and weakness to contribute to the inner and outer journeys I felt called to make with my life. There was never a reason to feel defensive because of my own needs. What c 603 seemed to promise was not the validation of isolation but its redemption!! And so it has done!

The Scripture behind all of this and that echoed in the background was Paul's statement in Colossians 1:17, [[[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together (cohere)!]] For me then, c 603 provided a glimpse of a way to follow Christ that was profoundly healing and empowering. It provided a potentially stable structure and vision focused on the grace of God, and where that grace and the support of those God sends into my life allow me to live my life fully and for the sake of others. To answer your question about this, yes, I believe that for most of us, this is exactly what a divine call or vocation looks and sounds like. Few people I know hear some direct voice of God saying, "become a hermit"! Most of us have to listen for the opportunity embedded in a situation -- whatever the nature of that situation. We have to trust that God's love will find a way and that way will be offered to us in recognizable tones and keys, even if they are also very subtle ways. But that is what real discernment is like and about!! It means learning to hear the opportunity embedded in the complicated and sometimes chaotic as, in time, we discover that that opportunity is proffered to us by the very hand and heart of God. 

The insight I had when first reading c 603 was profound; that is, it both came from and spoke to the very deepest places within me and yet, it still called for a significant discernment process. It required study and prayer and discussion with my director and then too, with the Church's own representatives, and only over time did it resolve into a clarity that allowed me (and the Church as well) to say, yes, this is the will of God for me and yes, what it seemed to promise is real!! Canon 603 called me to the silence of solitude and therefore, to the redemption of an isolation occasioned by chronic illness and disability, as part of an inner journey in which all things cohere in Christ. Thanks be to God!

Questions on Increasing Standardization of C 603 Vocations in the Future

[[Good morning Sr. Laurel, I have a couple of questions that I hope you can answer. First, how serious do you think local bishops actually take the eremitical vocation? In light of the recent temporary consecration of a transgender person, who by his own account doesn’t live the vocation, by a bishop I’ve begun to question just how knowledgeable some bishops are in regard to consecration as a hermit in the Church or how serious they take said consecration. It’s almost like the hermit vocation is seen as a dumping ground for people who desire a religious life but don’t “fit” in more typical expression.

Secondly, do you anticipate a time when diocesan/canonical hermits will become more standardized in regard to elements of the Rule of Life each individual writes? I understand each hermit is a solitary who lives their approved Rule in solitude but am curious as to the possibility of some aspects of the vocation be more standardized or at least perhaps clearer guidelines installed. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for all you do and for your blog. ]]

Thanks for these questions. Let me say at this point that they are important (as events during the Spring indicated emphatically); I completely agree that we sometimes see bishops implementing c 603 in ways that are both disedifying and irresponsible given the source and value of the vocation. Even so, I don't believe the answer lies in the direction of standardization precisely, but in the direction of educating bishops and their chanceries regarding the nature, charism, and significance of the vocation as a gift of God to the Church. Standardization, especially in terms of the hermit's Rule of Life, penalizes both solitary hermits living the vocation as the Holy Spirit calls them to, and those who take appropriate time and care for discernment and formation of such vocations. Where standardization will not work, however, appropriate guidelines and some critical expectations (which may be what you are envisioning) will. For instance, I recently wrote about the things a liveable Rule of Life should contain and the way that should be contextualized. You may have read this:

[[Each diocesan hermit's Rule of Life will capture 1) something of the hermit's experience of God as God has been at work in her life over the years, 2) her understanding of and commitment to the foundational elements of c 603, and 3) especially her experience of and faithfulness to redemption in Christ known and celebrated in the Gospel. These three are then contextualized within a public and ecclesial vocation lived for the sake of God, his Church, and all that is precious to God. [The hermit must show an understanding and commitment to these two foundational elements as well as to numbers 1-3!!] Together these constitute a personally integrated program of solitary eremitical living as a disciple, and too, as a spouse of Christ who truly is the hermit's Beloved. In other words, every facet of the c 603 hermit's Rule is transparent to and reflects the Gospel of God in Christ and is lived in the name of the Church.]]

People working to assist a hermit candidate for c 603 profession and consecration will expect a Rule of Life to meet these guidelines, and they will give the hermit candidate time to write such a Rule -- a very weighty project indeed! In the process I am currently working on and proposing to the Church, the writing of a truly liveable Rule combines these five elements and provides the framework for a substantial formation period and process. The diocesan team, along with a consulting c 603 hermit, learns as the hermit does what constitutes such a vocation and a liveable Rule under c 603, and they will discern whether this specific candidate is truly called to such a public and ecclesial vocation through the way they work on and complete this critical project. In other words, the writing of one's Rule, given the guidelines mentioned above, serves as the framework for both discernment and formation of a c 603 vocation. It will take time to do well,  and it will also provide for the basis of conversations between the candidate and diocesan team and consultants, as well as help assure that the candidate and the diocese understand and have embraced the c 603 vocation as a God-given gift before any profession of vows.

My main complaint about standardization is that one can get a person desiring to be professed to jump through any hoops provided in canon law (or in a diocese's particular approach), but this does not mean the person has a vocation. This is especially true when we are speaking of the addition of canonical stages and time frames. In community life, these kinds of requirements are helpful and appropriate, but in solitary eremitical life, there is no community to help assess the way the hermit is proceeding or maturing in their eremitical life. Moving through stages and time frames can be done so long as one is sufficiently motivated (or desperate enough) to do that. This does not ensure one has a vocation. As one of my Directors reminded me about her time as Vicar for Religious and Assistant Vocation Director of the Diocese of Oakland, "discernment is an art;" formation is very much the same. So, while standardization can assure good hoop jumpers, your suggestion of guidelines along with clear expectations allowing for flexibility are very much more workable for solitary hermits. These begin with the single concrete requirement of the canon, namely the writing of a (liveable) Rule of life because the Rule must include every element of the canon and demonstrate an experiential understanding of and commitment to these. 

I don't know that we will ever get every bishop to understand the nature of solitary eremitical vocations, much less to regard them as a gift of God to the Church we must adequately esteem and protect, but I am convinced that is the direction we must take to prevent more situations like the one you mentioned. While in general, I tend to believe most bishops take c 603 seriously, particularly when they are clued in regarding the importance of the vocation -- hence my surprise with Bp Stowe's actions in Cole Matson's regard -- I think we really must take the time to educate them and their staff regarding the charism of the vocation. We must especially do this in a way that helps them understand why the vocation is critical to the life of the Church, and why we expect the Church to admit to profession only those who are prepared for that, are truly called by God, and who believe whole-heartedly in the vocation they propose to become publicly and ecclesially responsible for.

Followup Questions: On Professing and/or Consecrating Transgendered Persons to Consecrated Life

[[Sister Laurel, you said you opposed the proposed profession of a transsexual. You also said you did it for reasons apart from the person's sexual identity. What you outlined was a pattern of fraud, duplicity, and dishonesty. That raises several questions for me: 1) was there a profession; if not, why is it an issue? 2) is it possible that the bishop does not (or did not) know the person seeking profession was and is a transsexual? What I was thinking was that if it were me I might keep it quiet and maybe play dumb. I know you don't like the question, "Who could it hurt?" but if the person lives as a hermit and doesn't publicize that they are transsexual, maybe they could remain a good hermit without bothering anyone. Maybe that was what the bishop involved was thinking.

3) In what way did you oppose the profession? I can't see you picketing outside the cathedral on the day of profession (just kidding) so what do you mean?! I was also uncertain why you said one does not make vows to gain more data. 4) Aren't temporary vows made while one is still discerning a vocation? Shouldn't they be made exactly to gain more data? I think my last question is a what if question. 5) If you discover there has been a profession, now, several years after you opposed this, what will you do? 6) Do you feel the same way you did when you first opposed the profession? 7) Isn't it possible the person you described has discerned a real eremitical vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions; I've added numbers and divided things into two paragraphs for readability. I have also opted to use feminine pronouns throughout (except for bishops) because that is the form I ordinarily use in my blog pieces; the alternatives open to me are way too clumsy and unreadable. Also, any initials used in this piece were chosen at random. (I picked a couple of scrabble tiles for this!) Finally, while the church's position on professing and consecrating transgendered persons is fundamental to the situation prompting your questions and at least implicit throughout this post, except concerning the idea of using profession under c 603 to achieve justice in the church (one must ask for whom?!), I mainly prescind from a direct discussion of the issue itself here.

The background: 

 Yes, I outlined a pattern of fraud, and dishonesty in the use/abuse of canon 603 and the vows/profession being planned or proposed. I should also have noted I found a kind of desperation and glibness that set this person up both to manipulate and to be used herself. You see, the person seeking profession and I had spoken of the options open to her during a serious correspondence in 2019, as well as about various peoples' opinions that the church's teaching on the profession of transsexuals was going to change. She had been given a great deal of false encouragement regarding potential changes in church teaching and I thought this did her a distinct disservice in its clear lack of candor or realism. 

When she and I began to correspond again in 2022, she had spent extended time as a guest in a couple of monasteries and/or congregations. In one case, when the bishop of the diocese in which the congregation was located became aware of the situation, they were required to make her leave. C____ described this as personally devastating. Though not an actual member of the Order she had been allowed to wear the habit and having to divest herself of this was something that hurt her very deeply. Once out of her guestship (she could never have truly experienced a novitiate) with the congregation, she continued to style herself as a religious and to introduce herself with the usual formal title along with a new religious name in public and correspondence.

As noted above, C___ suffered from several experiences involving the unreasonable raising and (unfortunately) necessary subsequent dashing of hopes and expectations during just these few years; this may have exacerbated an (increasing?) resistance to accepting the truth of what the church herself (not just this or that priest or religious) was saying to her regarding her ability to enter consecrated life. It was my impression that, at least partly because some within the church raised her expectations unreasonably, C___ continued in her efforts to find a way to make public vows. Eventually, she located and moved to a diocese with an amenable bishop and enlisted him to assist in accomplishing C___'s will. 

The Questions:

So, with this added background, let me give your questions a shot! 1) Has there been a profession? The answer to that is apparently yes, though I don't know the details of it and only learned of it this week (in part because of a directory listing C___, and in part because of a spate of visitors from the area of C___ chancery, residence, cathedral, etc). The diocese involved has not publicized it in any way except to list C___ in their directory as a diocesan hermit apparently living on a local monastery's grounds. Remember that even with temporary vows, diocesan hermits have been entrusted with a public ecclesial vocation with specific rights and obligations. Remember that this also means that people from this diocese and parish (and indeed, from the entire church) have a right to certain expectations regarding c 603 and this candidate, not least, that the profession was seriously, honestly, and conscientiously discerned as God's chosen way to wholeness and holiness for this person, as well as that the brother/sister professed exemplifies a commitment to chaste love in their foundational manliness or womanliness, (cf. Professing a Transsexual?) the capacity for profound obedience to God, to God's church, and faithfulness to and regard for her teaching --- particularly regarding consecrated life. In the situation at hand, I think there are doubts about each of these points.

Was the Bishop Knowledgeable?

The bishop knew of C___'s transgendered status. C___ said she had been entirely open with him in this and that the two of them were looking at profession under c 603 as a matter of justice in the church. I also mentioned it when I wrote the bishop as well as that I would prescind from the issue of sexuality and focus on the misuse and abuse of canon 603 itself except where C___ raised the issue herself. I was advised by a second canonist to write not only C___'s bishop, but the metropolitan and Nuncio to the Vatican as well with a summary of the issues this proposed profession would raise. I did that, so yes, C___'s FtM transsexual status was known. I also wrote C___ directly and reminded her of what she had written during our original correspondence or published in interviews around the same time. In that C___'s very real Spirit-breathed vocation was evident; she would have to give that up if she chose to pursue profession under c 603 and live solitary eremitical life faithfully in all of its depth and dimensions. She would also need to find that eremitical life itself involved a personal fulfillment that was deeper and richer than the more apparent vocation she would be required to give up if she continued to vows under c 603. And ordinarily, she would need to explore and gain a true sense of this before admission to vows.

You see, whether temporary or perpetual, vows imply the gift of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit to God. We make vows not to do initial experimentation and discernment, but rather, because in the process of discernment --- sometimes over long years, both the candidate or novice and those discerning with her have come to reasonable clarity that this is indeed the way God is calling the person to human wholeness and holiness. Yes, temporary vows allow for further discernment, particularly as one moves into a new situation with new expectations and responsibilities. But one makes temporary vows with the same sureness one makes perpetual vows, giving the whole of oneself without reservation or reserve. More importantly in this situation, one does not admit another person to vows without the sense that this is God's call they are answering, and more, that they are answering that call appropriately. To do otherwise is to indicate one does not regard this person's growth and sanctification (God's making them whole and true) as an authentic human being. Yes, post-profession, of course, there will be continuing exploration of the vocation for the candidate, but it will be an exploration of one's deepest self and the depths of the vocation in which one is professed and made transparent to God and God's love!!

Unfortunately, none of this comports with C___'s own account of her dicernment, nor were the reasons she gave for seeking profession under c 603 an adequate reason to make vows of any sort. After noting that "Frankly, I still feel called to community" and "I hope I will be given brothers" maybe even returning to the community I lived with. . . C___ explained it this way: [[The available position [i.e.,  the only canonical "slot"] that feels closest to the identity I have discovered within myself is that of hermit. . ..I don't know yet if that position will lead to the discovery of a new vocation [i.e., I don't know if profession under this canon will lead to the discovery that God is truly calling me to be a hermit], but I can't know until I have begun to explore from it. In the meantime we are going to experiment for a year and see how the exploration goes. If exploring from the position of a hermit does not work, then very well -- we have gained that data and can reorient. If it does ring true, then we will have gained that data. we're constantly checking in with each other, discerning, reassessing, and trying - together - to find the next right step.]] 

Again, all of this kind of experimentation and exploration needs to take place before profession, and a lot of it before a candidate even knocks on the chancery door to petition for admittance to a mutual discernment process and eventual vows and consecration. No one is ever admitted to profession until and unless everyone involved in the discernment and formation process agrees this is God's call. Why should C____ require what no one else is ever given to discern an eremitical vocation? Most candidates instinctively (or quickly come to) understand and accept that they must explore eremitical life as a non-canonical hermit long before seeking admission to public profession. Many bishops and chancery staff, especially those with a background in formation, are even more keenly aware of this! Most seekers also recognize they might be wrong in what they have discerned and may need to humbly discern anew. 

But not in this case! After all, what C___ sought was not the ecclesial recognition and commissioning of a long or even a newly-sensed eremitical vocation but public ecclesial standing itself with the freedom to continue her artistic activity (what I believe was and likely is her real vocation) outside the hermitage and lobby for "justice". C___ was honest that she was settling for public standing within the best canonical slot she could find (likely because no monastic communities, nor their necessary discernment processes are involved directly though this was what she truly desired and is still aspiring to). But settling in this way is not discerning, and making even a temporary profession in these terms is not a canon 603 profession. It uses c 603 as a stopgap to living a fiction and compounds that with an invalid and potentially sacrilegious act. Even more, C___'s bishop, though a religious whom I wrote prior to the profession with detailed summaries of these and additional concerns, was knowingly complicit in this. This is what disturbs me most about the situation. 

Could this Person Discern a True Vocation to Eremitical Life?

Yes, though I think it is unlikely, it is not entirely inconceivable that C___ will one day discover a true vocation to solitary eremitical life, but not before living it consciously, authentically, and faithfully for some years. There are recognizable and sometimes overlapping stages to this vocation; one moves through a process of becoming a person of prayer, to learning to pray contemplatively, to another stage of becoming a contemplative, and then to a stage involved in discerning the presence and meaning of deeper and more extensive desires and needs for silence and solitude; additionally one needs to discover that one is fulfilled by God as a man or woman precisely as a hermit in the silence of solitude. Even after all of this one will still need to discover which eremitical context is best for living this life authentically and well. Will it be non-canonical eremitical life or canonical? Part of a community or solitary? It is typical (and usually necessary) for those becoming diocesan hermits to have lived in the silence of solitude for some years before approaching their chanceries with their petition to be professed and allowed to live eremitical life as it is normatively understood. 

Because this vocation "belongs to the church" before it belongs to any individual, once one has approached her diocese, she will engage in a mutual discernment process with a small team from the chancery; this team may also include a c. 603 hermit consultant or other experts to assist with discernment and formation. Once admitted to this process, and as an integral part of the process, the candidate herself will take time to write a liveable Rule based in her own lived experience and reflecting the non-negotiable elements of c 603. This Rule, throughout the entire process of writing, can (and I sincerely hope will) become the basis for conversations with and contributing to an inspired discernment and other assessments by the formation team. C 603 requires significant experience in a solitary eremitical setting; it is this experience coupled with an understanding of the terms of Canon 603 that makes potential diocesan hermits capable of writing their own Rule or professing the Evangelical Counsels required by the canon. 

It was telling then, that C___, just a month and a half before the proposed profession, could not articulate for her own Rule of Life the way she understood and lived Evangelical poverty. Though honest about not having discerned an eremitical vocation, she actually asked me to help the Sister writing her Rule with an appropriate vow of poverty. (N.B., C____ noted that the Sister doing the work was not familiar with living poverty in an eremitical sense under c 603. Unfortunately, neither was C___ though she proposed to make a vow binding in conscience and law in just six weeks or so!) In such a case, precisely because the vocation belongs to the church before it belongs to any individual, the bishop and diocesan staff are responsible for understanding and regarding the vocation itself; they must do so sufficiently to at least try to prevent such inadequate discernment and formation.

As a bit of an excursus, let me note that besides the ability to write a liveable Rule, one of the things I personally look for when discerning with someone regarding their call to eremitical life is the experience and fruits of a redemptive experience integrally tied to this specific context. This may come slowly over time in a pattern of smaller "highs" and lows, or surprise one with a more abrupt and pronounced inbreaking of God's powerful love. In whichever way this occurs, if we are to conclude someone is truly called to solitary eremitical life, that person must have met Christ within the hermitage context and have been brought to a degree of wholeness and holiness they have truly found nowhere else, in no other life context. One's life itself must then proclaim the freedom and compassion of the Gospel lived in the silence of solitude. I admit I cannot see how this can happen when everything is built on a series of lies (including those one has either wittingly or unwittingly told oneself) and has been conditioned by a foundational agenda shrouded in secrecy. Eremitical hiddenness is not rooted in dishonesty, fraud, hypocrisy, bad faith, or secrecy. Instead, it is the result of having one's personal truth bound up in an ineffable intimacy with the deepest Mystery we can know and be known by. It is from this place of intimacy that the most profound truth of ourselves becomes both transparent to the God who dwells within us and entirely visible to those who know us.

Next Steps and the real and potential disservice done to others: 

Your fifth question is the most difficult one. What more can I do? What more am I called to do, if anything? There is no doubt the fact of the profession makes the situation more problematic than when I answered the questions in the last post on all of this. I became aware of the profession unexpectedly. As a result, my feelings in the matter have intensified and become more complex, particularly those concerning the bishop responsible here.  For that reason, I will continue to pray about everything and likely ask for assistance in considering what is necessary and possible. That can include conversations with canon lawyers, the USCCB (members and committees), and even representatives of DICLSAL. At the very least the situation requires clarification regarding the validity of vows already made. You see, from my perspective, this profession has done a serious disservice not only to the person admitted to profession dishonestly, but to the vocation itself, and to the People of God who should be able to trust the seriousness, faithfulness, and honesty with which bishops are called to approach implementing canons like ##603-605. 

I believe it could also become a significant disservice to other members of the diocese in question who may also be admitted to c 603 profession (or other forms of consecration like that of c 604) while trusting the church has done a really competent discernment. (The fact that the church discerns this vocation with us can be particularly reassuring in times of struggle and self-doubt. Usually, this allows one to persevere despite difficulties. But what happens when the diocese shows it is truly careless in dealing with questions of discernment and formation of vocations?) Similarly, it could do a disservice to others who find themselves turned away from admission to profession and/or consecration even though they have the same qualifications (or lack thereof) as C___. And consider if bishop-shopping for an amenable bishop is permitted in something like this for one person without the vocation, then what of others with similar "medical history", avocations, desire just to get professed, and ability to relocate at will? How far will the solitary hermit vocation be stretched and distorted to accommodate these persons in the name of some agenda-driven "justice" before it ceases to have any real meaning at all? The situation raises many questions; these are but a few of them.

Summary:

For the present, in this specific situation, here is where things stand. A Catholic Bishop and one who sought him out --- now identified as Bishop John Stowe and Cole Matson--- acted fraudulently and without regard for the 603 eremitic vocation itself, for its true nature and charism (gift quality), or for those who might be either directly or indirectly affected by this act to accomplish an agenda the church herself regards as illegitimate. Fraud was done to achieve "justice," though at the expense of diocesan credibility and more, at least possible damage to the vocation itself. Thus, again, I see it as a very serious matter with the potential for significant destructive fallout. Though I never thought I would find myself saying this, I would almost rather see bishops refusing to implement c 603 for anyone at all than indulging in this kind of travesty.

___________________________________________

Postscript 5/21/2024 In light of the events on Pentecost, I have added the appropriate names to the summary in this post. 

Retired with Questions on Living Eremitical Life

[[ Hi. I am recently retired, and, although I still have some obligations "in the world," I spend most of my time at home, where I live alone. For several weeks now I have been living an eremitic life while at home or similarly alone. I am wondering about eventually making private vows, initially for very short periods. But I have a concern. Currently, since I can "walk away" at any time, I can sincerely pray, for example, "Jesus, I am living this way because I want to be united more closely with you." But after making a vow, I'm worried that all I could pray is, "Jesus, I am living this way because I promised I would." Can you provide any advice on this? ]]

Thanks for your questions. First, I would say it is way too early for any kind of vows, private or otherwise. I appreciate you are living a period of solitude right now, but it is not eremitical, not yet anyway. Remember, you have retired and are in a transitional period of greater solitude. This is not eremitical solitude; eremitical solitude is not transitional solitude. You are beginning to negotiate how you will live retired life with all the questions that raises about how and why you are going to live moving forward in whatever way you choose to do that. Also, we are still dealing with the pandemic's enforced solitude in most places. Neither is this eremitical solitude --- though for some it might grow into this. Give yourself at least a year of living as you are. Also begin working regularly with a spiritual director who can assist you in this transitional time of discernment and bereavement (for there is serious loss upon retirement). 

If you mean your time to be eremitical, then after a transitional year, begin to make your life truly eremitical in all the ways a hermit would be living this time. (My concern here is that you deal with bereavement and loss before trying to become a hermit in a focused way. That ordinarily takes more than a year, but at the end of a year you might be in a position to focus on becoming a hermit as you continue transitioning in a new mode. The two things will overlap to some extent, but in the beginning, I think you must give attention to different things during this time, first to transitioning and bereavement, and then to eremitical life per se.)

Especially continue to ask yourself why you are doing this. Because there is only ONE reason to be living eremitical solitude, namely, God calls us to do so. So, does God seem to be calling you to this? If so, do you want to truly respond to that call in this way or not? At that point you might write yourself a Rule or set of guidelines regarding how God wants you to live this response of yours. Central to this Rule or set of guidelines will be an account of the ways God works in your life and how you respond to that working. There will be values you want to witness to, practices you want to model. There will be a vision of the life you are choosing to live. A Rule, Plan of Life or set of guidelines should reflect all of these. Live these for another year or two. With the assistance of your director, modify them as needed in the direction of how you feel called by God to live and continue living in this way for another couple of years; if at this point you are still clear that you are called by God to this, then, if you need to do this, write a liveable Rule you propose to live for at least five years. 

At this point you might be ready to make private vows for a period of a year or two which you can renew as needed until you are ready make a perpetual vow. (Please note: what changes and has been changing here is your understanding of and increasing ability to live the life, not your intention to love God in the way you are called. Remember that whenever one makes a vow, one intends to live it wholeheartedly for the rest of one's life. Even temporary vows are made with this deep intention. The idea is that while a vow may by temporally limited, one's gift of self to God is not. If you cannot do this, I would suggest you hold off making even a temporary commitment.)

If, at every point you can affirm not only that you want to be united more closely with Jesus, but can also say, "Jesus, I feel you calling me to unite myself to you in this specific way", a vow is not going to change that in the way you believe (or fear). It should express, codify, and strengthen your commitment of self. It is true that sometimes after making the vow, in the course of years you may feel at times that you are only living this because you committed to doing so. So? What if you were speaking of another relationship, one with a good friend where you committed to always "having their back" or something. Would that promise or commitment vitiate the friendship? Or is it a way of honoring and protecting the friendship in good times and bad? Are you friends merely because you promised you would have this person's back or did you promise what you did because of something deeper and very real? With vocations these same dynamics can be at play and your vow can hold you until you regain a better sense of things -- or as you negotiate seemingly chaotic periods of growth where you move "from faith to (deeper) faith".

After all, you discerned with the assistance of your spiritual director that were called to this and you responded with an eventual commitment.  (I am assuming this will be the case.) Your commitment was called for by what you discerned. Generally speaking you felt called and therefore made a commitment; you must always be able to say you live the commitment your were called to make. If your commitment keeps you responding to God's call when things are difficult, that is a good thing. It is a vow working as it is meant to work. If you cease to feel God is calling you to this life, then, again with the help of your director, discern whether you can continue keeping your commitment or not. Would this be false of you, insincere, merely willful, or is it the right thing to do until you regain a sense of what God is calling you to??

What I am saying throughout this is that only over time, with the help of a spiritual director, and lots of prayer, can you come to clarity on whether God is calling you to eremitical life. A commitment should not be made too early, but once it is made, it should help you to continue living a committed life. The commitment, if made rightly and based on good discernment, should strengthen the way you are living and intensify your love for Jesus. If it becomes empty in some way, it obliges you to get back in touch with your original motivations and sense of call. It obliges you to discern afresh and get in touch with what you initially discerned if that is possible. If, after some months of praying and working with your director on this, you cannot do that, then perhaps it is time to leave that commitment and this attempt at being a hermit behind.

I sincerely hope this is helpful. Please get back to me if it raises more questions.

In that light please see the addendum on this post above (It is the next post in the queue). I say a bit more about time frames (definitely not carved in stone) and the reason for them. I may decide to append them to this post, but they should do as the next (later) post. (https://2022/03/addendum-on-retired-and-seeking-to-live.html)

On the Screening and Discernment of c 603 Vocations

[[Sister, does a bishop leave the "vetting" of a candidate for c 603 up to a third party? I thought it was up to a bishop to discern such vocations. Why would a bishop not do the discernment himself and who would such a third party be? I also wonder what a "third party" would be looking for.]]

Good questions, thank you. I have written before that in some dioceses long before a "candidate" even speaks to the bishop, she will meet with Vicars for Religious or others the diocese entrusts with initial discernment; only if these persons reach a place where they can recommend profession will the hermit meet with the bishop. At this point he will do his own discernment. That is how it worked in my own diocese. An alternative process could be the use of a trusted person to do an initial screening before the bishop meets with someone seeking to be consecrated as a diocesan hermit. It sounds like this might be what you are asking about. For instance, it could happen that the diocese involved already has canon 603 hermits and that the bishop entrusts the initial screening of a potential c 603 hermit to one of these. There are a lot of people who comes to their dioceses seeking to be admitted to profession. Some are manifestly unsuitable, some may not be canonically free for consecration, some are badly or inadequately motivated, some have no real experience at eremitical solitude, some are simply "nutcases" who could never live this life in the name of the Church. A long-professed hermit would ordinarily be able to make determinations on suitability before a person is admitted to a more structured discernment process.

In any case, the bishop does not cease to do a discernment in the matter, nor does the diocese itself. Once the initial vetting is done a longer and more careful discernment process is undertaken. This is partly because not every lone person is a hermit and because not every hermit is called to live the vocation in the name of the Church; not every experience of solitude is eremitical and not every experience of solitude may be edifying to others. Not every form of piety is edifying in the way the Church requires of hermits living the vocation in her name. It is also partly because during the period of discernment, formation is being done as well, and the  Church needs to see how the person responds to the guidance of directors, delegates, diocesan staff, pastors, and so forth. This takes time because immature responses can mimic mature responses and only over time is it clear what a person actually does with the guidance they are given. Remember, the bishop needs to discern whether professing someone in this way is good for the diocese and for solitary eremitical life itself.

The only persons I would consider a "third party" would be a diocesan hermit (or a hermit living in a congregation, as well as other religious with expertise in contemplative life and formation in religious life) who might well advise a bishop on the intrinsic health of the eremitical life they see in front of them. Such hermits don't work for the diocese and are not chancery staff, but they may well be of assistance to a diocese. The kinds of things I would personally look for when I meet with potential "candidates" for c 603 profession, assuming they have the canonical freedom to pursue such a vocation, have to do with depth and health of the eremitical life they represent.

For instance, I would want to hear some sense of and even an excitement about the place of eremitical life in the Church, a clear sense of how a hermit embodies the gospel and lives this life for the sake of others. More, I would want to hear more than, "I pray for others" in listening for a sense of these things. I would listen for someone who loves others sincerely and deeply, who manifests a spirituality which esteems others and can lift them up. I would want to hear how a person came to eremitical life and whether it is a genuinely redemptive way of life for them, or whether it is instead perhaps, a way to excuse or validate personal failure and social isolation. I would look for a profound sense of happiness and wholeness rooted in eremitical life; so few people come to human wholeness in this way -- it is rare and characteristic of genuine eremitical vocations. In other words, I look less at the mere fact of silence and solitude and more at the quality of these things in the person's life;  similarly, I look for a sense of growing (or dawning) understanding re the purpose and nature of "the silence of solitude" as charism and goal of eremitical life. I look to see if there is a sense that this central element of canon 603 is something larger than the sum of its parts. It may well be that the person is only just coming to such a sense and that is fine, but I would look for it nonetheless. I also listen to whether professing a person as a hermit will be good for the Church, for the diocese, and also for solitary eremitical life itself, but in general, I expect the bishop to make such specific decisions.

I and other hermits (and any experienced religious) would look for a sound prayer life and one where a person persevered in it over a long time. We would look for a contemplative, not only one who prays contemplatively, but whose life is marked by the characteristics of contemplation. We would look at the way a person has related to the church in the past --- how they served in parishes, how they used their gifts even in discovering a call to solitude, how they benefited from spiritual direction, and how open to growth or committed to continuing conversion they are. Beyond this I would be sure the person is self-supporting, capable of looking after themselves, and has a significant capacity for truth, and that most particularly they have the capacity for self-reflection and personal truthfulness. Without these, whatever I am looking at, it is not eremitical life; no matter how alone, how silent, how "hidden" the life I am seeing, without the capacity for self-reflection and personal truthfulness (self-honesty), the person I am meeting with is not, and is unlikely to ever be, a hermit. (N.B., I am not speaking here of the impulse some people demonstrate to write, speak, or blog about every private thing; I am speaking here about the self-reflection and loving honesty we call humility. This is both the foundation and consequence of authentic eremitical life.) In any case, a person lacking these qualities will certainly not be suitable for public profession and consecration, nor would they be able to live this life in the name of the Church.

I sincerely hope this is helpful. Some seem to believe that c 603 profession is a merely pro forma rite which does nothing more than indicate some kind of legal "approval" by the Church. But this notion is very superficial and actually inaccurate. Instead it involves the mediation of God's own consecration, the extension and assumption of rights and obligations which are undertaken for the sake of the Church and those to whom she ministers, along with the grace which makes it possible not only to live as a hermit, but to support and inspire others in their own isolation and life struggles. Profession and consecration in this vocation indicates the Church's belief that eremitical life can contribute significantly to the holiness of the Church herself and to individuals both within and outside the Church. Discernment is a significant piece of determining how the Holy Spirit is working in this vocation and wills to work in the Church and world more widely. Profession and consecration together make something real that was only potential before this. We look for those things which speak of this potential in screening as well as in discerning and forming such vocations.

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.