More on Terminology, Individualism, and the Grace of an Ecclesial Vocation

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, . . .I am glad you wrote about terminology again at the same time you have been writing about individualism. Wouldn't someone's refusal to use the term Catholic Hermit in the way the Catholic Church uses it be an example of individualism? I think the same is true of the other terms you discussed as well as the idea that the bishop consecrates as a kind of "stand in" for God rather than God consecrating the hermit. I admit, I have never understood how someone could insist God consecrated them when the only thing they have to show for this is their insistence it is true! How important to you is it to live your hermit life "in the name of the Church"?]]

Really good point about terminology. Thanks!! I don't know how common this kind of thing actually is. It does not surprise me when someone who is Catholic and a hermit calls themselves a Catholic Hermit. It is an easy mistake to make, and the line between what one does "in the name of the Church" and what one does not is not always an easy one to draw. It is easier, of course, when the Church itself sets up norms for certain things, and one meets these norms (including accepting standing in law according to a particular canon or set of canons). Once the norms are set and the Church implements these canons, there is a way to determine what it means to be a hermit, 1) as the Church understands the vocation, and 2) as she calls people forth to live this in her name. Before such norms (canons) anyone who was an isolated pious person AND a faithful Catholic could say "I am a Catholic hermit", but, after Vatican II the Church made the decision to establish this vocation as a state of perfection with a central place the Church's own call to glorify God, established it in law, and so, certain norms must now be met.

All of that changes the Church's language, and our own as well.  Because the Church specifically calls people forth to live this vocation in her name, it means that she sometimes does NOT call others. One knows whether one has been called by God via the Church to live a public (canonical) vocation or not. If someone were to mistakenly call themselves a Catholic Hermit, it would be potentially embarrassing, but easily corrected. I think the problems really occur when a person's usage is corrected and they refuse to make the adjustment, either in usage or personally, and in their own mind. Then we could not only be dealing with individualism, but, at least potentially, other things as well, including arrogance, self-righteousness, lack of flexibility, and humility as well. This is tragic because the eremitic life is a significant one, no matter what state of life the person called to lives it as well. Each state of life allows the hermit to witness in somewhat different ways to both the Church and world.

Yes, it is important to me to live my hermit life "in the name of the Church", and so, to live it well. At the same time, this importance has shifted over the years. It is awesome still, and what has deepened is my sense of the nature of the Church and my place in allowing it to be that. Because I studied and still read and do theology, I have had a good sense of the nature of the Church, what constitutes sound ecclesiology, and what does not. It is a different (and maybe always awesome) matter to see God calling me to be a living stone in this edifice Jesus builds day by day and person by person. Recent shifts in my own understanding of eremitic life all have to do with the ecclesial nature of the vocation, and the inklings of all this were present when I approached my diocese @ 1985. To see some of the ways my understanding has clarified and deepened is so gratifying!

It is not necessarily easy to understand, especially initially, why God calls one to eremitical life rather than to other vocations, especially given the great need the world has for apostolic ministry. It is difficult (many times!) to understand why God might allow various traumata and associated chronic illness to be defining realities in our lives. And yet, whatever the circumstances of one's life, what remains true for each of us is that one is called to authentic humanity in dialogue and communion with God. Another way of describing this foundational vocation is that one is called to allow God to be God, and most especially, to allow God to be Emmanuel, God with us! It seems to me that this gift of God's Self is not only the answer to all prayer, but the call to let this gift be real in space and time is the very essence of the Church's own vocation in our world as well. In the Church's case,  it is not a call to be truly human, of course, but to be the place where God is allowed to fully reveal Godself as Emmanuel, the One who will truly be with us in every moment and mood of creation's history.

In my own life, the depths and darknesses that have colored so much of it have given me the opportunity to witness to the truth of this ecclesial vocation. With the assistance of the Church, I have been able to plumb those same depths along with all the questions and doubts they raised for me over the years, and find both God and my truest self together there. As I have also said before, Frederick Buechner once remarked that "Vocation is the place where our deep gladness meets the world's deep need". For me, the hermitage is the place where all this happens. It is the place God called me to so that I might have the time and space to truly explore not only the complex question(s) I have lived (and been!) for so many years, but also so that I might allow myself to hear the answer God is as Emmanuel. Even more profoundly (and very much a continuing source of awe!!),  it is the place I (and every c 603 hermit) have been called to become myself, the place of intercession where the love and mercy of God meet the anguish and yearning of his creation and the Good News of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension proclaimed as lived experience.

I believe that having been called to a specifically ecclesial vocation has challenged me to explore what that really means, and more, what it means to live it for God, for the Church, and really, for all of God's creation. This dimension of the vocation not only deals with individualism, but it replaces fear of (or concern about) individualism with a sense of mission and charism that mirrors the Church's own, even within the silence of solitude. Because I am a convert to Catholicism, I am even more blown away by what it means to be called to live as a hermit "in the name of the Church". I have told the story of the experience I had when I attended my first Mass with a high school friend. I recognized (or "heard") while kneeling and watching others receiving Communion, that "in this place every need (you) have, whether intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, spiritual, or psychological, could be met".  I began instruction that week.

About 18 years later, after I had spent some time in community, developed an adult-onset seizure disorder (epilepsy), finished academic studies, had some experimental neurosurgery, and begun working with my current spiritual director (not necessarily all in that order), I read the newly published Canon 603, and had a similar experience. On the third or fourth reading, I reflected, "My entire life could make sense in terms of this way of life -- wholeness, brokenness, limitations, talents, giftedness, deficiencies, etc. -- everything could be meaningful." It took years to discover the first experience was actually a promise God was making me, and many more to understand the paradoxical, counterintuitive, and truly perfect (though still painful) way God was shaping the answer He and I together within the ecclesial context established by the Christ Event, would become!

Followup Questions on Ecclesiality, Individuality, and Thanks from Another Hermit

[[Dear Laurel, I read your last piece a couple of times and was overwhelmed by what you wrote about the hermit becoming the place where God and world came together, a place of intercession. I have followed your writing on the ecclesial nature of the c 603 vocation with interest, especially as it intensified in the past couple of years. I have known that it means more than living as a hermit within the Church, and I understood, of course, that this vocation belongs to the Church that then entrusts it to me, but something was still missing for me. In my own eremitical life, I have worried about whether or not my life is too individualistic. I have also wondered if I should watch the news more, or be a bit more active in my parish, or cultivate a couple of the relationships I have with others that show promise of deepening, and I have been concerned that that would decrease my own solitude and even make me less of a hermit. I have also wondered from time to time what you mean when you say eremitical solitude is a unique form of community. And now, because of your last piece and what you wrote about becoming the place of intercession, it ALL makes sense to me!! 

I don't really have a question. Or rather, I probably have a lot of questions that are bubbling around inside of me and haven't yet come to articulation. But having said that, it seems to me that the guidebook from the Dicastery was important for you to come to understand yourself as the place of intercession,  is that true?  And while I am asking, do you think the pseudo spirituality you wrote about is common to hermits today? It seems really, really dangerous to me, though I think it helped you come to where you are as well. Is this distortion of eremitical life one of the reasons you say the Rule, with its three-stranded braid, needs to include ecclesiality? Oh, right, one more question. When you wrote about the canon honoring individuality and referred to the range of meaning in the elements of the canon, what did you mean, and how does that help prevent individualism? I didn't quite get that. I wasn't going to write except to thank you for hanging in with this blog for such a long time. It is interesting seeing it all come together in the way it has. It gives me a deeper sense of my own vocation and maybe a bit more patience with myself as well, so, really, thank you! By the way, if any of this is helpful for your blog, feel free to use it. ]]

Hey, hi! Thanks for reading and writing! When you have further questions, please be sure to ask! I am going to start by clarifying my meaning in the sentence you asked about. What I actually wrote was, [[Given this flexibility, individuality (which is deeply honored by c 603's requirement of a personal Rule of life the hermit writes herself, the range of meaning contained in each element, and the absence of time frames, stages of formation, etc.) mustn't devolve into individualism.]] What I had in mind was the fact that c 603 honors the individual hermit and the flexibility of the life, not only with the requirement that the hermit writes a Rule of Life that will not be like any other hermit's, but that the constitutive elements of the canon have a range of meanings the deeper one goes into the vocation and her relationship with God. So, for instance, the most obvious meaning of the silence of solitude refers to the quiet of life lived alone (assuming no television, etc!). 

Over time, however, if one continues in the various disciplines of eremitical life, one will also come to realize that silence also means the inner state that results from personal healing, maturation, and sanctification. The same is true of genuine solitude; it became a state of wholeness. This means they both depend upon profound and very real relatedness, which leads to their growth. Then, too, in time, one will also come to understand that "the silence of solitude" points to what it means to exist in deep relation to and learn to "hear" while being enwrapped in God's own silence, and so, to learn to love from that place. 

Solitude reflects a range of meanings just as silence does. Most superficially, it means aloneness, but as one's experience of eremitical solitude deepens, so too does it come to mean relatedness (to oneself, God, and the world whose cries the hermit hears with increasing clarity and compassion). Eventually, solitude will come to indicate the community that results from being oneself in and for the Love of God and all that God holds as precious. I believe each of the central elements of c 603 has a similar range of meanings, and this means that each hermit's journey with and to God can lead to growing understanding that will differ from the understanding of other hermits. This also means that someone asserting that solitude means "being alone" in an absolute and univocal way may be knowledgeable about the dictionary definition of solitude, but not about the range, depth, and even the paradoxical senses of eremitic solitude. It also means that these differences in understanding cannot be allowed to devolve into individualism, and the quickest way to that is by absolutizing any single meaning.

You also asked about the "three-stranded braid" and my emphasis on ecclesiality. [[Is this distortion [individualism] of eremitical life one of the reasons you say the Rule with its three-stranded braid needs to include ecclesiality?]] I have been interested in nature and importance of the ecclesiality of the vocation since around the time I petitioned for admittance to profession and consecration with (then) Bishop Allen Vigneron. We had a brief conversation on this during our first official appointment, and my interest in it has only grown over the years. What Abp Vigneron and I talked about was the fact of this vocation's ecclesiality and how very few people seem to "get that". (He gently reminded me that he knew what it meant, and I was appropriately chagrinned since I had not meant to imply he did not!! I remember nodding and shaking my head -- laughing some at myself, and wondering how else I might manage to insult the man at this first official meeting! Fortunately, the conversation proceeded easily.)** You see, I had been surprised at conversations I had had with other c 603 hermits or candidates who had no sense at all of the ecclesial nature of this vocation. Over time (after consecration), my own understanding of the linkage between ecclesiality and the prevention of individualism became clearer (more explicit) and deeper; when Ponam named the Church as one of two contextual poles preventing individualism, I felt really gratified. It did put things into a single sentence, which was important to see from the Church; in that way, it may have helped crystallize what had been a long-standing interest and conviction for me. When I began working recently on a project regarding the important implications of the hermit writing her own Rule, I had to look again at what was essential in such a Rule. It was not entirely surprising that ecclesiality was the third strand and that this included the fact that the Church herself must look for this (or at least a budding sense of this) in c 603 vocations and the Rules these persons write. 

In part, my sense of this importance has come from my experience of hermits or would-be hermits who were seeking to use c 603 or eremitical life as the validation of their own estrangement from others, their own personal failures at living life in the Church, their own desire to do their own thing and be a religious while doing so, etc. I had honestly not anticipated running across hermits who were exaggerated individualists, so finding this particular distortion in several hermits or would-be hermits was a bit of a surprise. Still, the ecclesiality of the eremitical life has more positive roots than the need to avoid individualism. This is what we see when we begin to explore what this vocation means for the Church itself. Here, as I have said several times recently, we see a life that reflects the hidden heart of the Church and what it means for the human being to be hidden in Christ and become the very place of intercession in him. These are far more important than the mere avoidance of individualism, and it was the sense of ecclesiality and its importance in consecrated hermits that led me to see this!!

Good luck with your own questions and discernment. I know you will do what you sense God calling you to. If what I have written on ecclesiality and individualism (and perhaps what I wrote in this post on the range of meanings in solitude, silence, and the silence of solitude, for instance) has helped, I am glad!

**In that meeting with Bishop Vigneron,  the conversation ended with the two of us standing facing each other, taking the other's hands in our own, and each praying aloud our own prayer for the process we were stepping into! It was a powerful moment for me.

Isn't Being a Hermit Individualistic in and of Itself?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, your references to individualism recently make me wonder if the hermit vocation isn't individualistic in and of itself. Yet, you say it is the antithesis of individualism. At the same time, you are critical of would-be "hermits" who are individualistic and "eremitically speaking, have lost their way" (quote from your recent post on "Individualism. . ."). I admit, I always thought hermits were people who wanted to do their own thing and went off to do that! What is it then that makes the difference between someone you would recognize as a hermit and someone you consider a lone individual and individualist?]]

This is a great question, and I am grateful for your frankness regarding the way you have seen hermits in the past. The post I put up last week deals with the essential characteristics of a hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical, so I don't want to repeat all that here. 

Even so, I can summarize most of it by saying the hermit is one who chooses to live a radical life of prayer and penance in the silence of solitude for God's sake (i.e., that God might be Emmanuel), the sake of the Church and her proclamation, and for the salvation of others (or "the world"), as well as for the sake of the hermit's own authentic humanity. The hermit is called by God to live at the heart of the Church in that place of intercession where God and God's creation come together in Christ. To occupy this place does not allow a life of self-centeredness or individualism. Neither does it allow one to distance oneself from the Church and her liturgical and sacramental life, nor to simply reject the suffering and sinful world that is still made for God. (This world might well reject the hermit, but the "stricter separation from the world" called for in the hermit by c 603, is, it seems to me, more about rejecting enmeshment in and definition by that world and its values precisely so one can love it more objectively and single-heartedly.)

All of that is incredibly demanding, but it is also the core of the eremitical vocation that prevents it from sliding (or galloping) into individualism. The central or constitutive elements of c 603 (see below**) are meant to assure that this core, which is really a commitment to love God, Church, self, and others through the mediation of Christ, is embraced and maintained. None of them is an absolute that one embraces for itself alone. What I mean is that silence and solitude, while high values, are embraced for the sake of one's commitment to be attentive and to give oneself over to love. So too with stricter separation from the world. One embraces eremitical marginality so that, once free of enmeshment, one can "see . . . more clearly and love more dearly" (as the lyrics from Godspell go). The same holds for all the elements of the canon. They are there to allow a life to be lived without affectation, impersonation, or illusion, a particular and particularly valuable life that mirrors the Church's own heart back to her. This serves, as Thomas Merton once remarked, to allow people to regain their faith in the latent possibilities of nature and grace.  In other words, hermits live their lives for others, an element that must be as strong as their marginalization because it is what makes real sense of the marginalization involved.

Though it is demanding, it is also very flexible from hermit to hermit. So, for instance, while there will be clear similarities between our lives (not least the essential elements of c 603), my own penitential life will not be identical to that of any other c 603 hermit. Neither will my prayer, some dimensions of my solitude, the way I structure my day (horarium), my work, nor my recreation. Given this flexibility, individuality (which is deeply honored by c 603's requirement of a personal Rule of life the hermit writes herself, the range of meaning contained in each element, and the absence of time frames, stages of formation, etc.) mustn't devolve into individualism. It is the hermit's relation to God, Church, and world, especially as a vision and way of life codified in a unique Rule of Life, that prevents such devolution. 

What I also need to say, though, is that not any relation to these realities will do. One can have a view of God that is profoundly individualistic, just as one can do the same with the Church. Some would-be "hermits" are the very definition of individualism. Consider what witness it gives when a Catholic decides they are "too spiritual" for the historical (spatio-temporal) Church, or who believes that they no longer ever need to go to Mass or receive the Eucharist because they are completely "one with the Mass" and don't need the "tangible host" because they are "fed mystically"**!  In such a case, it is especially problematic when one justifies this kind of individualism by calling oneself a hermit. I have heard someone do that while claiming that "God wanted her all for himself" in justifying her break with what she calls the "temporal" Church! This is a serious danger in reading c 603's constitutive elements superficially. (In any case, it certainly underscores the wisdom of c 603's strong ecclesial dimension.)

In such an instance, anyone with this kind of pseudo-spirituality is missing the very heart of what the Eucharist is about, and seems to be cultivating a notion of "the spiritual" that is dualistic and apparently allergic to the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation and its theology. It must always be remembered that the role of the Mass is not to take us out of the larger world of God's good creation, but rather, in the power of the risen Christ, to return us to it with a transformed heart and stronger bonds of love with God, with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and indeed, with the whole of God's creation! This is why every Mass reaches its climax with Communion with and in Christ with one another, and ends with a blessing and dismissal, which serve essentially as our commission to go out and love our world into wholeness! And so, we who have received the Crucified Christ and, in the process, have ourselves been broken open and poured out for one another in Mass, mark ourselves with the sign of the cross, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, we return to our larger community continuing the "broken open and poured out" dynamic of the Mass so that God might continue to transfigure this larger world as well. 

There are many less exaggerated and more common forms of individualism a hermit might fall into, of course. So, what helps prevent a c 603 hermit from sliding into individualism? There are external circumstances that help with this as well as more internal ones. They stem from our being related to the two poles (Church and World) mentioned in my earlier post and Ponam. First, there is the individual "vetting" that happens when the would-be candidate approaches a chancery to petition for admission to profession and (eventual) consecration. Secondly, one is assisted by a Rule of life one writes oneself, which is approved by the local ordinary and lived under his supervision. Thirdly, regular meetings with a delegate serving both the hermit and the diocese in this role, and/or spiritual director to discuss changes in her Rule and life, as well as ongoing growth and maturation in the vocation, are essential. Fourth, a good theology of the Church, Sacraments, Spirituality, anthropology, soteriology, etc., is essential in avoiding individualism. And fifth, and most fundamentally, the hermit's regular life lived in communion with God is a significant factor in avoiding individualism. 

In all of this, what the hermit must be growing in is her relationship with God, and her love of herself and others in Christ. I tend to measure this in terms of my own growth in compassion. While living on the margins of society, the c 603 hermit is called on to live at the very heart of the Church, in the place where God and world come together in Christ. This is the place of intercession, the place the hermit herself in Christ, actually IS, and while such a life is supremely free, it is not the kind of freedom (license) to do anything one believes or wants that the world values so much. This freedom is, instead, the power to be the one we arecalled to be by God through the agency of the Spirit and the mediation of the Church. In my own case, that means being the canonical hermit God calls me to be so that I can proclaim the truth of the Gospel with my life. 

What this means, in a language you may not be at all used to, is that I am called to "pose the question" and be the seeking and the yearning that I am, as deeply as God empowers me to do and be, so that, in Christ, I may also meet and incarnate the answer that God is. This, by the way, is what it means for a hermit to be a silent preaching of the Lord! It is also the heart of what we call an ecclesial vocation. This is so because one with an ecclesial vocation is responsible for experiencing, living, and thus, proclaiming the truth of the Church's own kerygma. Everything in c 603 eremitical life is ultimately about assuming and becoming an intercessory place where the answer God wills to be is allowed to meet and resolve with his presence, the profound question we each are. Together, in union with God in Christ, we become a Word Event that proclaims the Gospel of God. As noted, paradoxically, this hermit vocation means that where I am most alone, I am not alone at all, for God and the entire world God embraces is there with me. Moreover, where I am most myself with God, that is, where I am most the individual I am meant to be, I am the antithesis of an individualist.

_______________________________________________

The central or constitutive elements of c 603 are assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, the Evangelical Counsels, marking a life lived for the praise or glory of God and the salvation of the world, and undertaken according to a Rule that the hermit writes herself and lives out under the supervision of the diocesan bishop. Each element and the canon as a whole is strongly ecclesial and also strongly related in Christ to the spatio-temporal world.

** Of course, we can each be "fed mystically"; however, when one is entirely divorced from the Church or the Mass, which is the "source and summit of Christian life," because one is committed to "the spiritual church" and is opposed to "the temporal Church", what is claimed to be mystical is more likely the validation of individualism. That is much more likely when this lack of genuine participation in the Church's life is excused or justified with the term "hermit". As noted in an earlier post, when one cannot physically attend Mass, there are still effective ways to participate in the Church's liturgical and sacramental life. One only needs to call a nearby parish to arrange this.

Discerning an Eremitical Vocation: From Lone Pious Person to Solitary Hermit under Canon 603

 It has been several years since I have written about this topic in a dedicated way, and I think there is no doubt that I can improve on what I have written in the past. I would like to make a start on that here. Recently, a Vicar from another Diocese wrote me about consecrating a c 603 hermit there, and one of the questions he asked was what missteps I have seen dioceses make over the years. It was a very fine question, and I wrote about six major missteps with some subtopics as well. One of those missteps was "professing a lone pious individual rather than a hermit". While I don't think it is always easy to tell the difference, one of the best ways depends upon the person having negotiated a couple of stages in their spiritual lives before contacting a diocese with a petition to be professed as a diocesan hermit.

The first stage involves the cultivation of a strong prayer life within one's usual parish involvement. This prayer life will likely mainly be communal with strong sacramental participation, though it will also include a significant degree of solitude and private prayer. Most people will find this is challenging and plenty sufficient for their own journey with and to God within their own vocational state. Some persons, at some point, however, will desire greater solitude, as well as greater intimacy with God, and will move to become more clearly contemplative in their prayer and lives more generally. At this point, some will find their yearning for God, and for knowing themselves continues to deepen and their thirst for solitude intensifies. They will find ways to accommodate these needs and yearnings. Some (relatively few) of these last persons are likely to discover they are called to be hermits and, given time, will be most able to fulfill the constitutive elements of c 603, in the Roman Catholic Church, including writing a liveable Rule rooted in their own experience.

Once the person perceives a sense that perhaps they are called to live as a hermit in some way, they will need to take a close look at c 603 and what it claims as integral pieces or dimensions of the solitary eremitical vocation. Over time, the person will build her life around God in a more focused and primary way and embody these elements consistently. They will come to define not only c 603, but her own life. She will come to think of herself as a hermit and will need to make choices about how she is best able to live this vocation. Will it be as a solitary hermit? What about in a laura or lavra, and if so, where will this be? Will it be as part of a community of hermits -- that is, as part of a group of those living eremitical life in a juridical community? During all of this time, the hermit's discernment and formation continue. Does she need a stronger background in Scripture? How about theology? What about praying the Divine Office? Is there a local monastic community that she can join for liturgy who would teach this? Does she need to take some classes, even if online for this or other dimensions of monastic life? Does she have a way to support herself within a hermitage situation? If not, what training or education does she need to do this? A strong candidate for canon 603 life, for instance, will tend to discern and find ways to meet these needs on her own initiative -- which, of course, does not preclude getting assistance as needed!

After a period of some time, the hermit (or candidate) will be in a position to write a liveable Rule of Life. She will know herself well, will have a good sense of how God works in her life, and will have developed the skills necessary to embrace an eremitical life for the whole of her life. In all of this process of preparation and discernment, real growth is occurring, first as a Christian for whom Christ is central, then as a contemplative, and finally as an eremite. The preparatory journey begins with a lone pious person responding more deeply to God as a Catholic Christian, but then moves forward in a way that deepens the person's sense of ecclesiality, especially the ecclesiality of this eremitic vocation lived out in the silence of solitude. The Art of Seeking the Face of God, Guidelines for the Formation of Women Contemplatives, says it this way: 

Deepening one's proper charismatic tradition must be placed in context and interpreted in light of sentire cum ecclesia, in harmony with the sensus fidelium and through intelligent discernment of the signs of the times. . . . In this ecclesial perspective, every aspect of formation will be put in practice according to the original inspiration of one's institute [or, in this case, solitary eremitical life codified in c 603] . . .In this respect, in vocational accompaniment, starting with initial formation, a sincere feeling of heartfelt belonging to the Church should be cultivated: "the path of consecrated life is the path of inclusion in the Church [. . .]. Thus, we are talking about an ecclesial inclusion with ecclesial categories, with an ecclesial spiritual life [. . .]. There is no room for anything else.

 Sometimes today, we find dioceses professing persons under c 603 who do not feel called to be hermits. They are individualists seeking to use the canon as a stopgap means simply to get professed or to start a community, etc. Some of these individuals are lone, pious people who have not made the transition to an eremitic life, or even to a strong contemplative life, and have not subsequently discerned an eremitical vocation. Their dioceses, for whatever reason, have not taken seriously the charism of the solitary eremitical life. They have not regarded, much less required, the profound inner journey a hermit makes in seeking the face of God or their own truest self in the silence of solitude. Neither have they required the commensurate experience needed by the solitary hermit to engage in such a journey in a lifelong public ecclesial commitment. To fail in this way is a betrayal of the gift God has entrusted to the Church in calling people to become desert dwellers in the consecrated state. Nonetheless, the move from lone pious individual, to contemplative, to hermit discerning an ecclesial vocation are the main stages of development anyone seeking to become a c 603 hermit must negotiate in a sound process of discernment and formation. At the heart of each stage is an ever-deepening search for and response to God. This inner contemplative journey, made for God's sake as well as for the sake of the hermit's own wholeness, the holiness of the Church, and the salvation of others, is the raison d'être of the eremitical life and the only reason embracing the silence of solitude in the way the hermit's life requires, makes sense in a Christian context.

Why Should a Diocese Write the Guidelines?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, why couldn't you just write the guidelines for a diocese?]]

Important question, Thank you! To a certain extent, what I provided in the earlier post are the guidelines I might provide for any diocese. They focus on the essential or defining elements of c 603 and so too, on the elements any Rule lived in the universal Church under c 603 should address. They are, I think, the minimum guidelines anyone considering profession under c 603 should be able to speak to and write about based on their lived experience. I believe any diocese writing guidelines should include these and also fill in the subsections I merely alluded to in the article. But a diocese is a local church within a communion of churches, a living reality with its own history, needs, character, qualities, leadership, and so forth. These may call for guidelines I have never thought of and for that reason, the diocese itself needs to create at least some of the guidelines for a c 603 vocation lived in this local church.

This is one aspect of having someone petitioning to be professed and eventually consecrated in an ecclesial vocation. They are seeking to be professed within the universal Church, yes, and they are also seeking to live this vocation within and on behalf of the diocesan (and often a parish) faith community itself. The stability associated with monastic life (specifically Benedictine life) is duplicated in this particular way. (Hence, if a diocesan hermit wants to move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit, the new bishop must agree to accept her profession and consecration.) Though I can see the need for and say something to a candidate about dealing with this specific form of stability in her Rule, I simply don't have a sense of the history or character of a local church other than my own to do more than this.  So, while I might be able to suggest ways a candidate can think and pray about making the ecclesiality of her vocation clear in her Rule, the actual quality of that ecclesiality in the local church is not something I can speak to nearly so well as the diocesan personnel also working with the candidate, and, one hopes, as the candidate herself once she becomes fully sensitized to this.

The other reason I believe a diocese needs to formulate guidelines (and this includes working in consultation with someone living a c 603 life or, perhaps, with staff from another diocese that has professed and consecrated c 603 hermits successfully) is what I have mentioned before: the discernment and formation process is meant to be educative for everyone involved --- though in different ways. Often we write to learn. Paradoxically, often we write to truly listen as well.

Why isn't a Sense that God Consecrated One Enough for the Church?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, so why isn't it good enough for God to consecrate one? Why does there need to be a canon law with the Bishop consecrating the person? If someone has the sense that God consecrated them, why isn't that enough?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have written about this several times quite recently and am not sure what else to say about the matter. I would ask you to check out the following posts and others under the labels ecclesial vocations or ecclesiality as well as canonical vs non-canonical vocations, etc: Follow-up, Who Can Live c 603? and Once Again on "Illegal" Hermits. In these posts and many others, I have focused on the distinction between ecclesial vocations and those that are not, why it is important for the Church herself to extend God's consecration to the hermit with an ecclesial vocation, what it means to belong to a stable state of life, and several other things including ministry of authority, sound spirituality, competent discernment and formation, etc. The only other dimensions I have not dealt with are that of potential self- deception and the problem of being unprepared for an authentic hermit life and perhaps incapable of living it well.

To claim one is consecrated by God in a private act may or may not be true or accurate. One may or may not have gotten it right and there is no way for the Church to verify it. (One can certainly examine the rite used and the intentions of the minister if there is paperwork to try and determine the reason for the rite. If it involved private vows, then there would be no consecration.) In any case, in the Roman Catholic Church, admission to Divine consecration requires initiation into a stable state of life where this gift of God can be verified, protected, nurtured, and governed. Because such a gift is NEVER for the individual alone, and because the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the individual, the Church establishes such vocations in law and provides for the structural elements I spoke of recently that will allow them to be lived as the Church understands they need to be lived out. The discernment of such vocations is mutual, involving both the individual and the church because they are ecclesial vocations. The Church is responsible for selecting and professing those with such vocations and God works through the Church via a second consecration beyond baptismal consecration. No one can validly claim God consecrated them in the RCC unless this Divine consecration is mediated to the individual through and in the hands of the diocesan bishop or, in communal religious vocations, in the hands of other legitimate superiors!

If someone insists otherwise, they are at least mistaken and perhaps even deluded in this matter. There is simply no such thing as private consecration in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, one may make private vows. Many people do! But this is not the same as consecration. Neither are private vows an act of profession. Profession is an act that includes one's dedication of oneself in avowal and the taking on of the canonical rights and obligations of a new state of life. In other words, it is a broader act than just the making of vows. Meanwhile, consecration is part of the entire rite of perpetual profession where the individual dedicates herself to God with a perpetual avowal, and God consecrates that individual as they take on the rights and obligations of this new state for the whole of their lives. 

 As I noted above, Divine consecration that is part of initiating one into the consecrated state of life is a gift of God entrusted to the Church and only then to the individual. Also, please note that this is not a matter of putting Divine consecration up against Episcopal consecration. These two belong together or there is no consecration. It is not that bishops consecrate if by that we mean they do this for some while God consecrates others! No!! God consecrates hermits, and God does so in the hands of his bishops (or other legitimate superiors when we are speaking of hermits in congregations). The Bishop is not a "stand-in" for God, as I heard it put recently. Rather, God works in and through the Church specifically in the person of the bishop by empowering him to mediate God's consecration of the individual.

Self-deception aside (somewhat), the greatest difficulty of asserting God has consecrated one privately, is that one may be completely unprepared for living out an eremitical vocation. They may not understand it and critically, they may not be able to negotiate the tension between the modern world and eremitical life that allows the hermit to be a gift to the contemporary Church and world. As I have said here many times, it takes time for both the individual and the Church to discern and form the vocations of solitary hermits. It takes probationary living out of the calling under the supervision of the Church while working with a competent spiritual director and continuing to discern. It takes study, collaboration, and deliberation; above all, it takes humility and docility. 

One must be able to be taught and consider that ultimately one really might have gotten things wrong. When someone continues to insist, "God consecrated me," apart from canon law, apart from a bishop's permission and entrusting of the vocation to one, or according to established Church structures and rites, and particularly when they do so while denigrating the need for these ecclesial elements and context or while banging on and on about how they are the ones to show dioceses and other hermits the true way hermit life is to be lived, they are unlikely to be showing either humility or docility. 

This is not the same as saying "I am convinced God is calling me to this vocation; I know it" and persisting in that even when a diocese is unwilling to profess one under this canon for the time being. One may be called to persevere in good conscience in such a situation and do this with an openness to be taught about why dioceses make the decisions they do.  In the meantime, perhaps one will also learn about ecclesial vocations and what one is proposing to take on and for whose sake!! Until and unless one does this, one is more an isolated person than a hermit. And that argues against one's having been consecrated by God (or called to this), not for it!

Ecclesiality, a Mutually Conditioning Dynamic Between Church and Solitary Hermit

[[ hi Sister! Are you saying that the Desert Fathers and Mothers had ecclesial vocations the institutional Church didn't recognize? I am not sure I see how the vocation of the Desert Fathers' calling belonged to the Church before the Church knew it herself.]] 

Hi there yourself! Yes, I am saying that in one way the vocations lived by the Desert Abbas and Ammas were deeply and essentially ecclesial because they were lived for the sake of the Church and called her to all the things eremitical life holds for the Church. In particular, the desert Abbas and Ammas did what c 603 (and other) hermits do today in showing the Church her own heart, a heart rooted in prayer, the Lordship of Christ, the Evangelical Counsels, humility, and stricter separation from the world. In living countercultural lives dedicated to encounter and dialogue with God. Additionally, I am suggesting that the formula, "ecclesia semper reformanda est" was a dimension of what hermits called the Church to and reminded her she would always need to be. These lives (vocations) belonged to the Church even when the Church did not recognize this and their witness was profoundly ecclesial even as they lived apart from the larger Church.

However, in a second way, the way I ordinarily speak of ecclesial vocations, the Desert Abbas and Ammas did NOT have an ecclesial vocation because they were not explicitly commissioned by the Church to live as hermits. Today we have canonical hermits in congregations and orders (institutes of consecrated life) as well as c 603 hermits who are actually and explicitly commissioned by the Church to remind her of all the things the Desert Fathers and Mothers did, but by explicitly living these things in the heart of the Church as the Church itself commissions us to do. My argument was that the Church herself took a long time to recognize and make canonical these specific vocations, but doing that was part of a journey towards greater authenticity both for the Church and for hermits more generally. C 603 specifically created the option for public and ecclesial solitary hermit vocations that represent the Church's own internalization of the values of the desert Abbas and Ammas in universal law. By creating statutes on the diocesan level, bishops had done this for anchorites and hermits through some centuries, but never in universal law. With c 603 the Church finally made the solitary hermit life an intrinsic part of the public and essential life of the Church and in this way also bound herself to the values the hermit lives, including the prophetic witness some hermits (like the Desert Abbas and Ammas) have been known for. In other words, she realized (made explicitly real) what had only been implicitly real to this point.

The ecclesiality of c 603 vocations is something every c 603 hermit must come to understand and value deeply, and at the same time, it is something the Church herself must come to see and profoundly esteem. As I reflect on the dioceses that have failed to implement c 603 I recognize that some fear they cannot do justice to this vocation because they lack the chancery staff, for instance. Others recall the stereotypes and caricatures of authentic eremitical life I referred to in my last post and want no part of such egregious distortions of eremitical life. Some, simply think the vocation is about keeping folks out of the limelight by shunting them into a hermitage --- a way of taming problem children of all sorts. But some are afraid of the witness of hermits in the heart of the Church, afraid they will introduce a bit of inspired instability in a Church insufficiently in touch with its need to reform itself. I don't believe these fears achieve consciousness in these bishops and chanceries, but I do think the nervousness these chanceries experience over contemplative and eremitical vocations points to this.

When I write about the ecclesiality of c 603 vocations I almost always say the vocation belongs to the Church before it belongs to the hermit. What I must also say, I think, is that hermits and anchorites through the centuries have called the Church to claim, nurture, and protect this birthright as they held onto the fact that they lived this vocation on behalf of the Church. They were not individualists, nor pseudo hermits separated from the Church, but instead, were men and women deeply imbued with the Gospel and in love with Christ's Church living life for her sake. With canon 603 the Church has claimed this vocation explicitly and is on the way to doing so fully. The relationship of the c 603 hermit to the Church is critical for the hermit being all that God calls her to be and also for the Church being all that God calls it to be as well. Just as the Church entrusts the hermit vocation to individuals under c 603, these hermits reveal to the Church her own generous and humble heart, not in the power and might associated with this world, but in a weakness where God's grace is sufficient and God's power is made perfect.

On Public Ecclesial Vocations: Rights, Obligations and the Responsibility for Transparency in Consecrated Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was wondering what it means for you to have a "public vocation". You claim that having such a vocation implies that it comes with certain public rights and responsibilities so let me see if I understand some of what that means. Let's say that I disagreed with the theology you provided, or that I thought you were not representing eremitical life well and thought it important enough to speak to you directly about it. It would be important that I have a way of reaching you, true? If I was not satisfied with your response to me, then I would be able to contact your diocese, wouldn't I? It might even be morally necessary for me to do that, true? Are these examples of what you mean when you say you have a public vocation? And what if you claimed to be a diocesan hermit but refused to provide your name or diocese? That seems like it would be a problem if you are responsible to the People of God for what you do or say in public. And yet, how about the Carthusian monks who write books and sign them "anonymous"? They have public vocations but remain hidden in this specific way; why doesn't this work for c 603 hermits? Is my analysis on point? I have more, but I want to hear your response first if that's okay.]]

Wow, such great questions!! And yes, your analysis is pretty much on point -- with some nuances and expansions to be added. Also, of course, you can come back with more. I'll email you this first answer, and then you can reply with more. How does that sound?

So, ordinarily, the rights and obligations identified as part of an ecclesial public vocation have to do with representing the vocation one has been commissioned to live in the Church's name and to do so well. The obligations refer to living the vows well, understanding, valuing, and conveying the nature of c 603 similarly, living one's Rule and the values that comprise its central elements well, and I would say particularly, giving evidence that one lives the Gospel of God in Christ in a way that convinces people that God really is of primary importance to oneself and also to any really compelling spirituality one holds. 

One should be a person of prayer, live from the Scriptures, reflect a vibrant sacramental life, be faithful to spiritual direction, mentoring, and any other disciplines necessary to live this life attentively and obediently, and do all of this for the sake of God and all God holds as precious (essentially, the entirety of God's creation)! At my perpetual profession and consecration, I assumed all of these obligations (and likely a few I haven't called to mind here); in doing so I gave the whole Church the right to expect that I would do all I could to meet these obligations faithfully --- including asking for assistance of those who might help me --- particularly in regard to my responsibility to grow in this vocation over the years.  

What I was given in exchange was the right to identify myself as a diocesan hermit, a member of the consecrated state in an ecclesial vocation bound publicly by the Evangelical Councils and a Rule of Life I had written and that was vetted by canonists and approved by the Bishop professing me. I was also given the right to style myself as a religious Sister, to wear a habit with my bishop's approval and a monastic cowl (after perpetual profession only). In other words, I was given the right to call myself a consecrated Catholic hermit who lives this vocation in the name of the Church. A year after perpetual profession, I was also given permission to use the post-nominal initials Er Dio as part of my signature indicating my identity as a consecrated c 603 hermit. And, although I have not used this right (and likely can't do so the way some might be able to), I was given the right in civil law to set my hermitage up as a 501(c)3 religious house. So, with that out of the way, let's get to your questions.

The Questions:

Yes, I would agree that if you found me posting bad theology, you might eventually be required to contact my diocese, particularly if I had not been sufficiently responsive to your attempts to speak with me directly. Let me point out, however, that I should be culpable for something serious here and not a matter of a simple theological disagreement. And yes, you are right about the importance of my providing a way to reach me or my diocese so long as I claim to be a diocesan hermit. Part of the obligations I accept in claiming a public ecclesial vocation is a certain relinquishment of the right to absolute privacy. If I am going to express myself publicly and represent myself as a diocesan hermit, people should be able to verify my bona fides. That ordinarily means folks have a right to know my name, as well as the date and diocese of my consecration. If I should want or need to withhold my name for safety's sake, but still choose to express myself publicly, then I must identify the diocese to and through which I am responsibly professed. This would not be optional because my vocation is a public and ecclesial one. (Please also see, OnAnonymity and Accountability in c 603 Vocations )

As noted above, the right to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit comes with correlative obligations. This vocation, as ecclesial, is about more than just me and God alone. People in the Church and larger world have correlative rights and legitimate (valid) expectations re a consecrated person in the Church. This is one of the things new candidates for profession have to be helped to understand. It is not just that one can now be identified as a diocesan hermit. That right comes with correlative obligations to all whom one's life as a hermit touches! I am responsible not just for what I say or do; I have obligations to others to be who I say I am and that includes being transparent about my identity and canonical bonds within the Church. If I claimed to be a diocesan hermit and yet refused to provide my name or at least my diocese, then it would be a betrayal of the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation. The only way to remain anonymous would be to also refuse to claim an identity as a diocesan hermit; in such a case, however, one would be emptying a God-given public and ecclesial identity of any real meaning.

How About Carthusian Monks signing "A Carthusian?"

So what about the Carthusian monks whose books are signed "A Carthusian"? (I'm pretty sure they use this more than they use "anonymous.") Strictly speaking, they are neither remaining anonymous nor refusing to be transparent. They are providing the name of the Order they belong to and that Order is the responsible party here. That Order is publishing in a way that makes the entire congregation responsible to the Church and larger world for what is being published in their name. And that is the key to the situation, being responsible for what one says or does and who one is in the Church and larger world. But c 603 hermits do not belong to an Order. They are diocesan hermits, hermits admitted to public standing by a diocesan bishop and responsible to the People of that local Church as well as the larger Church for this public vocation. Can they remain anonymous? Yes, once professed, they could choose to make this part of their eremitical hiddenness (though it need not be). But let's be clear, they could not do that AND violate their chosen hiddenness by public expressions (blogs, videos, articles, publications) as a diocesan hermit! One simply cannot claim anonymity AND a public ecclesial identity at the same time. That is inconsistent, dishonest, and disrespectful of those to whom one is writing or speaking, as well as to the diocese that has entrusted one with this vocation.

On the internet, I sometimes find folks who insist on remaining anonymous and often tend to be dishonest, exploitative, and selfish. It is striking to me that they are free to publish almost anything they want, truth be damned, if that is what they desire, and they do it in the name of freedom. (It is really about license, not authentic freedom!) Were a c 603 hermit to claim anonymity while at the same time claiming to say or do what they say or do as a diocesan hermit, they would especially not be able to justify this claim in terms of eremitical hiddenness. Again, it would instead be an act of irresponsibility, perhaps even cowardice, and it would certainly fail to respect the persons who listen to or read their works. The only place this might be acceptable would be a situation where a journal (for instance) had taken responsibility for the quality of the hermit's published piece and the author's bona fides. But again, in this situation, as in the example from the Carthusians, someone is taking appropriate responsibility for readers, listeners, et al who have their own rights. 

Fortunately, diocesan hermits I know who had to deal with the question of not revealing their names or dioceses because of privacy and safety concerns chose to cease being active on the internet, while those who maintain a presence here do so openly and accept any reasonable risk. Both groups of individuals maintain an appropriate eremitical hiddenness (not an explicit element of canon 603 in any case), a sufficiently protective privacy, and also a clear sense of respect for the public and ecclesial character of their vocations. I think you can see the striking difference between a public ecclesial vocation and a private non-canonical vocation, and also why I have insisted for more than 18 years that "public" in these matters is not about notoriety, etc., but correlative public and ecclesial rights and obligations.

Can a Priest Be a Diocesan Hermit in One Diocese/Country and Live As a Hermit Under A Second Bishop in Another Diocese/Country?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am a priest intending to become a diocesan priest hermit. I will not be living in my own home diocese, however, but will go to a neighboring country. I know that I will have to make profession before the bishop in order to become a proper hermit. I do not intend to change diocese, or become incardinated anywhere else. I will simply be living in another country. The question is this: Can my own bishop give permission to the bishop in the place where I will be living to receive my vows? Is that permitted by Canon Law? It's wonderful to know that there is someone like you willing to help people in these situations. Thank you in anticipation for any help you can give.]]

 

Dear Father, Thanks for your question. It is gratifying that you would write. My understanding is that under c 603 one must live in the diocese in which one is professed. Remember the canon is explicit in this, the hermit makes profession "in the hands of the local bishop". I suspect this language is what prompted your question, but it is for this reason that c 603 hermits are called diocesan hermits. A person may move to another diocese and remain a diocesan hermit if and only if the new bishop agrees to receive his/her vows. When this occurs he becomes the hermit's legitimate superior and also has agreed --- at least in principle --- to be open to discerning and professing other canon 603 vocations in his diocese. (Remember, not all bishops/dioceses have opened themselves to implementing canon 603.)

 

The situation you outline is very different and is, though not intentionally perhaps, capable of being perceived as a way of sidestepping both the stability of the vocation, the sense that this vocation is a gift of God to the local Church, and the ability of either the remote or the local bishop to act effectively as legitimate superior. It could be remarked that the situation you are describing also tends to weaken the ecclesial nature of the vocation and would, at least potentially, set a destructive precedent or at least be unhelpful to those persons in the beginnings of considering or discerning vocations as diocesan hermits.

Let me point out that canonical profession is not needed to be a "proper" hermit. We have lay hermits and priests living as hermits --- both without public vows (and often without private vows either). Canonical vows (part of the larger act the Church recognizes as profession) are needed to live and represent eremitical life as a Catholic Hermit, that is, in the name of the Church. If you wish to live as a hermit your bishop can give you permission to do so; strictly speaking you do not need to be professed as a diocesan hermit under c 603. You could, if you desired, make private vows with your bishop as witness (though he would not be "receiving" these vows in the name of the church; that would require profession under c 603). One problem with this option or the next is that in my experience, bishops are generally very reluctant to give permission to diocesan priests to become hermits; not only does the priest shortage make this difficult but the long period of discernment and preparation in one being admitted to the Sacrament of Orders strongly suggests that, short of a life-changing event or circumstances, eremitical life is contrary to the person's true vocation. 

Difficulties aside, if you wish to be a diocesan hermit, that is, a solitary canonical or solitary Catholic hermit, you could do that by making profession in the hands of your local bishop if he were to give permission; if you wished the second bishop to subsequently receive these vows and change your residence he would need to agree. Were you simply to move out of the professing diocese without required approval of the receiving bishop, your vows would cease to be binding due to a material change in the terms of profession. If you were to continue living in a different country and make profession in the diocese of incardination, the requirements of c 603 ("in the hands of the local bishop") would be violated and your profession would likely be invalid.

Also, I believe as a matter of true governance (and your own responsibility), acceptance of responsibility for your vocation and vows by the second bishop would also require your incardination in the new diocese. What I cannot envision is incardination as priest in one diocese and profession (or reception of one's vows/vocation) and consequent standing as a diocesan hermit in another. In such a case you would be a single subject attempting to live under the canonical authority of two different bishops and that strikes me as incoherent with neither bishop really having true jurisdiction. I doubt a bishop can simply relinquish authority in the way you have described.

Since I am not a canonist, however, I will refer you to one whom I know and trust with particular expertise with canon 603 but also in matters having to do with ordained and consecrated life more generally. While I believe I have given you accurate information, a second opinion might be of assistance. Meanwhile, I hope my response is helpful both as a direct answer to your question and as a way of thinking further about canon 603 vocations. Whether private or public commitment, whichever option you choose, I wish you good luck in your journey to/in eremitical life!

N.B. The canonist mentioned above commented on the submitted question and essentially noted that it was a matter of jurisdiction and that a priest could not be bound in obedience to two different bishops in two different dioceses. Incardination binds a priest in obedience to the local ordinary; so does canon 603. The first bishop has no jurisdiction over affairs in the second diocese and so, cannot act to delegate authority or give permission in the way described in the question --- something I had not thought of at all myself!