On Canon 603 being "Entrenched" and "Being Approved" Under c 603

[[Sister Laurel, is it the case that c 603 has become "entrenched" and squeezed out the possibility of non-canonical hermits? If I have lived as a hermit for 15+ years, what kind of process will it take for me to become c 603 if I decide to do that? Will they just approve me and let me sign a paper or will I have to go through some sort of "discernment and formation" process? I mean I have been a hermit for more than 1.5 decades so wouldn't they just allow me to be approved as a c 603 hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. I have answered most of these in other articles so I ask that you read some of those for more comprehensive answers. The labels I add at the bottom of this article should lead you to further material pertinent to your questions. First of all, while the implementation of c 603 has become greater over the past 41 years, it has not become entrenched if that implies it is more valid now than it was when it was first promulgated in 1983 or if it intends to suggest it might well have been dislodged once made canonical if only no one chose the life. It is the norm for solitary eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, once a canon like this one is promulgated it must be implemented and that will occur gradually. As I am sure you will understand, having a canon law that allows for consecrated solitary hermits, does not mean that every person that applies will or should be automatically consecrated. Moreover, having such a law means dioceses need to learn more about the vocation, and what constitutes an appropriate candidate; they need to learn about the varied forms of solitude that exist apart from eremitical solitude, and a number of other things as well if they are to prudently implement c 603. As I have written for more than a decade and a half, c 603 involves both dioceses and candidates in a fairly steep learning curve. Even so, c 603 has been the norm for eremitical life, and especially solitary eremitical life, from the day it was promulgated.

However, this also means that it is an added form of eremitical life; it does not supplant earlier forms of life that are non-canonical or lived in the lay state (the baptized state). If you should desire to continue living an eremitical life in this way, you are certainly free and welcome to do that. As a baptized Catholic, you are free to do that. If you want, you can (and I believe you should) use c 603.1 as a guide and norm for the nature of that life, but c 603.2 will not apply to you. (If you write a Rule of Life, don't expect it to be approved by your Bishop and diocese, but doing this is extremely helpful in living a healthy and faithful eremitical life. You can certainly have your spiritual director read it and help you live it.) If this is your choice, you will not be a consecrated hermit nor someone living eremitical life in the name of the Church, but you will still be living a life according to your baptismal consecration that is an exemplar for others in the Church. 

If you decide to petition for profession and consecration under c 603, and assuming that you are canonically free to do so, then yes, you will need to go through a discernment and formation process. Remember that you are not merely seeking to be "approved" by a diocesan bishop, but instead, you are petitioning to be initiated into the consecrated state of life which requires public profession and a second consecration. Just as people petition (seek, postulare) admission to religious life and profession and consecration therein, you will be doing the same with solitary eremitical life. It takes time, and so it should!! You must understand the canon, have a vision of your life that is consonant with that, write a Rule that demonstrates how you will embody this canon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, etc. All of that takes time and formation, even if you have lived as a non-canonical or lay hermit for 15 years. If the diocesan staff discern that you are a good candidate for consecration under c 603, they will approve you for a mutual discernment and formation process. This does not mean you will be admitted to profession and consecration, but it is a good step toward that.

The diocese cannot simply "approve you" in a way that makes you a c 603 hermit any more than a religious can merely transfer to c 603 standing. You must be prepared (made ready) for profession and consecration because the consecrated state is different than the lay state. It is never about merely signing a piece of paper (though there are certainly a few of those you will have to sign before your perpetual profession!). Instead, one will need to be created a canon 603 hermit by making public profession(s) and accepting the canonical obligations associated with this life. Consecration is part of the rite of perpetual profession.

After some posts from the past couple of months, let me assure you that the non-canonical or lay hermit vocation still exists in the Church and is something I believe has a greater representation than c 603. I believe, as I have said many times, there will always be more hermits in the lay or non-canonical state than there will be in the consecrated state. Let me also assure you that being "non-canonical" does NOT mean being illegal. It simply means not bound by the canons that bind consecrated ("canonical") hermits. One does remain bound by the canons applying to the laity so in that sense one is bound by canon law. Some hermits live their lives under c 603 and other canons additional to those binding a lay person. We call those hermits "canonical". Others live their lives without additional canons; we call those non-canonical. Both are legal in differing ways. Oh, one final point on something I mentioned above, namely canonical freedom: if you have been married, and if you have been divorced but without getting a decree of nullity, then you are not free canonically to take on another canonical or "life vocation". (If, on the other hand, your spouse has died, then yes, you are likely canonically free to try for c 603 standing.) Your diocese will tell you this when they see your Sacramental record.

I'm sorry to reiterate all of this, but your questions are reminiscent of someone who has heard or espoused the opposite of a lot of this, so I wanted to be sure and spell it out again.  The information on living as a hermit in the non-canonical or lay state is particularly important because it is important to understand that eremitical life can be lived in lay, consecrated and clerical states. As lay persons, we are free to live very many vocational paths, but if we want to do so in the consecrated state or do whatever it is in the name of the Church, the Church must discern and form us (or make sure we are adequately formed) in the vocation and then admit us to profession and consecration. Please note that neither have I been making any of this up since beginning this blog in 2007. I am merely exploring what the Church established the moment she promulgated c 603 in 1983. Your questions help me do that as so many others have done since my own eremitical consecration under this canon in 2007. Whichever choice you make, you are in for an adventure!! May God bless your eremitical life!

On Living Lay Life in the Name of the Church

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote that you do not write in the name of the Church and that you live eremitical life in the name of the Church. But isn't writing part of your life and isn't this blog a part of your life and ministry? It seems to me that there's no big jump in saying you write in the name of the Church. No? Too, I wondered if because I am a Catholic and because I am a lay person, is that what people (you!) mean when they talk about canonical standing or standing in law? Does that mean the Church has commissioned me to live lay life in her name?? I think that's incredible, awesome even!! I hadn't realized!]]

Great question, thanks!! When I say I don't write in the name of the Church I am being pretty literal. The Church did not consecrate me as a writer, nor did (she) commission me specifically to write. She consecrated me as a hermit and commissioned me to live a life of prayer and penance in the silence of solitude. Writing is one of the ways this life spills over into ministry, yes. Because writing is a really important part of my life and because I tend to write these days mainly about my exploration of c 603 and eremitical life, I can see where I might slide into thinking of my writing as part of my consecration and commissioning. It's a fine line, though, especially since my Director encourages at least some of my writing. Perhaps if my Bishop were to say I needed to write more, or in some way directly encouraged me to write, my position on this might change, but for now, what this all means for me is that I don't say I write in the name of the Church; instead, I live eremitical life in the name of the Church and writing is a part of that. Think of it this way, recreation and sleeping are also important parts of a healthy eremitical life, but strictly speaking, I don't say I recreate or sleep in the name of the Church!

Yes, you have standing in law as a lay person (or a person in the lay state)! If you married in the Church you also have standing in law as a married person. The Church gives certificates for the various stages or ecclesially significant moments regarding these things. You might not know this but your Church of Baptism keeps track of the various sacraments you have received and other ecclesial events in their own records. If you entered religious life and made vows, a record of that also goes to your Church of Baptism or home parish. If you (just for example) were divorced and received a decree of nullity, that too is kept not only in the chancery where it was given but also sent to your home parish and added to your baptismal record. If you are ordained a deacon or priest, the same thing happens. Thus, when someone writes for your baptismal certificate, they will receive notice of all the Sacraments you have received and any other events (e.g., ordinations, professions, and consecrations) that impact and may modify your standing in law.

And yes! so long as you have not been ordained, the Church has commissioned you to live lay life in her name. That is why you are called and able to call yourself a Catholic!! You live your entire life as part of the People of God (laos Theou) in the name of the Church. Whatever you do as a layperson redounds to the honor or dishonor of the faith and the Church. Simply being a Catholic layperson is indeed an awesome calling. Consider all of the ways lay persons bring the sensibilities, ethics, and Gospel of the Church to the world!! Their lives are far more varied than the lives of priests and religious and they truly are commissioned to be the Church for others in every walk of life.  The depth and import of this vocation have been diminished today. Vatican II wrote significantly of the universal call to holiness to urge us to appropriately honor the call to be laity. Some of the Church's earliest stories help in this. 

Remember St Perpetua (the patron saint of my own parish). Perpetua had not yet been baptized but was training for that when she was arrested for not worshipping the emperor. Imprisoned with other Christians, it became clear that she and they were in danger of death. ("Simply" having been baptized put one in danger of death because Christ became one's Lord and King!) Perpetua's father came to visit and asked her to recant any commitment to Christ. As the story goes, she refused, pointed to a water pitcher that could be nothing but a water pitcher, and told her father that neither could she be anything but what she was, a Christian. In that prison, while waiting for death, Perpetua was baptized into full communion in the Church. Later, after much courageous suffering including watching her father be beaten with rods to convince her to betray her faith, she died in the arena as a baptized Christian and martyr for Christ. She lived and died as a member of the People of God, a member of the laos or laity just as she had been commissioned to do in the Name of God and God's Church. So, is it incredible, awesome even? Absolutely!!

How Does Canon 603 work in terms of Validating Solitary Eremitical Vocations?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, I wondered if a bishop or another priest who said that canon 603 does not validate eremitical vocations is/are correct? You value canonical vocations to hermit life, and you also seem to value non-canonical eremitical vocations as well. What you don't seem to suggest, though, is that c 603 itself does not validate a vocation. Could you say something about this?]]

Sure, happy to do so. Let me point out that the way I would answer the question of validation depends on the meaning or sense of the term "validation" used (there are several) and also the form of eremitical life one was addressing. (Throughout this answer I will NOT be addressing so-called semi-eremitical vocations but solitary eremitical vocations.) So, for instance, if a non-canonical hermit was approaching a bishop seeking to have her vocation "validated" by the church by being admitted to canonical profession and consecration, I would be the first to point out that c 603 is not necessary to do that in this case, and that, in fact, it could not be used either to validate or to truly invalidate such a vocation.**  It is likely her bishop would do the very same thing. The call to non-canonical (or privately dedicated) eremitical life is the oldest form of eremitical life in the church and it continues to be a VALID form of eremitical life in the present as well entirely apart from c 603. (That is, c 603 does not and is not meant to replace it!!) I have said this in one way and another in my writing on eremitism for the past 17 years!!

The term validate has several different meanings, including: 1) to check or prove the validity or accuracy of (x or y), 2)  to demonstrate or support the truth or value of (v or w), 3) to make or declare legally valid, and 4) to recognize or affirm the validity or worth of a person, their feelings, or their opinions, and to cause a person to feel valued or worthwhile. I think all of these forms of validation can apply to non-canonical vocations to eremitical life without benefit or need of c 603. In other words, c 603 does not do these things for any non-canonical eremitical life. Rather, c 603 is irrelevant to the validity, value, and legal standing of the non-canonical eremitical vocation. These are established in other ways, namely, by virtue of the rights and obligations conferred in baptism itself. In baptism one is (or may be) made free and empowered by the Holy Spirit to live non-canonical eremitical life. That life is validated in living it well as a representative of the people  (laity, λαοσ) of God in the baptismal state alone. ("By their fruits, you shall know them"!!)  

But what if the Bishop or priest were speaking of an ecclesial vocation, a public and canonical vocation to live eremitical life in the name of the church? Would the answer to the question as to whether c 603 validated these vocations be the same? Here we need to say no. If a bishop/priest were speaking of these specific vocations, and claimed c 603 did not validate them, that bishop or priest would be wrong. Of course it is true that "By their fruits. . ." applies here too, but, c 603 was created and made normative precisely to validate the ecclesial vocation to solitary eremitical life at least in senses 2, 3, and 4 -- although #4 applies not to the hermit herself, but to the vocation to which she is called. Canon 603 does not apply to the validity or worth of the individual person living the life or to her opinions, etc. The value of the person is presupposed, no matter the form of eremitical life being lived. (As I have also said a number of times, I live eremitical life in the name of the church; I do not write in the name of the church, nor do I suggest that my opinions or writing about this life necessarily have the same kind of validity as the vocation does. Writing as part of the eremitical life can be a valid expression of one's canonical vocation, of course. What one writes must be validated separately.)

I think I can also argue that c 603 also generally establishes validity of any eremitical life in the church today in the first sense of the term validate above since all hermits tend to look at the central elements of the canon to discern whether or not they are living a valid form of the life (assiduously prayerful and penitential, marked by stricter separation from that which is estranged from or antithetical to Christ, marked by the silence of solitude, and lived for the salvation of others). Still, some characteristics of the canon are not lived by all hermits (supervision of bishop, Rule written by the hermit, profession of the evangelical counsels, and consecration by God mediated by the Church, for instance) so the canon only serves in a very general and informal way to validate non-canonical eremitical lives in the church.

The bottom line in all of this is pretty much what I have been saying since I began this blog almost 17 years ago. No one needs Canon 603 to validate a call to non-canonical eremitical life. Their baptism gives any person the right and freedom to follow such a call at any time in any place. No bishop can require that non-canonical hermits in his diocese seek canonical standing under c 603!!! He has no right to do so, and no really good reason either. Were he to try this he would be suppressing a valid God-given eremitical vocation in the lay state. Non-canonical eremitical life is a valid, Spirit-breathed vocation in the church, and has been since the third Century and more. However, if a person wishes and feels called to live an eremitical vocation in the name of the Church and be considered a solitary Catholic Hermit (not a solitary Catholic AND a hermit, but a Catholic Hermit!!), then yes, c 603 is used to profess, consecrate, and thus also to validate the solitary eremitical vocation lived publicly with public rights, obligations and expectations.

I sincerely hope this is clear and helpful!!

** There is one exception to this, however. Is IS possible to use c 603 to invalidate non-canonical eremitical vocations but ONLY if it is misused!! If c 603 is used as a requirement for every eremitical vocation instead of just for solitary consecrated (i.e., canonical) eremitical vocations, then it will invalidate every non-canonical vocation. Fortunately, c 603 was never meant to do this, but instead to offer the church a means to honor a gift she had lost sight and esteem for over the centuries. Every person who feels called to solitary eremitical life is free to pursue it in a non-canonical form. 

Living this vocation in the name of the Church requires a public commitment, however, and God's consecration along with other conditions constituting a stable state of life. This does not indicate a lack of humility on the canonical hermit's part, nor on the Church's. Instead, it recognizes the truly great challenge and gift such a life is to every person touched by such a call. To commit to becoming truly human in a solitary relationship between a human being and her God in the silence of solitude is almost unimaginable to most people today.  To do this as an expression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ even more so. With canonical standing, the Church assures the conditions that nurture success in this.

Basic Vocabulary, One Final Time

[[Dear Sister Laurel, while reading several posts on terminology for hermits I realized I nor anyone else have ever asked you why it is you refer to yourself sometimes as a canonical hermit, sometimes as a consecrated hermit, sometimes as a diocesan hermit, and at other times a c 603 hermit. Can you please summarize why you use these terms and also lay hermit and priest hermit? Also why do you draw a distinction between the term profession and "vowed"? Isn't every making of vows a profession? If that's not the case then what word is used for making vows that are not a profession? Can you cite church authority for your position?]]

I suppose I haven't ever put up a post which is just vocabulary. Probably I should have done that. The various ways I describe my own vocation are rooted in the ways they are authorized, established, and governed. This vocation is canonical, that is, it is legally constituted in and by canon law. Specifically it is constituted primarily under a specific canon, namely, canon 603. (Other canons do apply, but c 603 is the definitive canon for this vocation.) This is the way I get canonical hermit or c 603 hermit. Also, my vocation is lived alone or (sometimes) in a laura of hermits (a laura of c 603 hermits which does not rise to the level of a community of hermits, or a semi-eremitical institute).

I also call myself  and this vocation "consecrated". That is because in addition to the consecration stemming from baptism (the consecration that makes each of us a lay person), the church has consecrated me (i.e., mediated God's consecration) in the Rite of Perpetual Profession with a prayer of solemn consecration. Thus I and some others are consecrated hermits. We did not consecrate ourselves, we dedicated ourselves to God and the service of God's Church; God consecrated us in a second consecration (God set us apart as sacred persons) through the mediation of the Church. The hermit's dedication under c 603 takes the form of a profession of the evangelical counsels or other sacred bonds which bind in religion (and so, under the pain of sin), but additionally the Rite includes consecration and commissioning. This also means that in professing vows (always a public act), and receiving God's consecration, we are initiated into a new state of life, namely, the consecrated state.

The entire event can be called "profession" or "consecration" (a form of synecdoche where the whole (event) is named by a single part) but in either case we are dealing with something more than just the making of vows; we are dealing with all that is necessary to initiate one into a new state of life with new legal rights and obligations. In answer to your question, not every making of vows is a profession; only those acts of dedication using vows or other sacred bonds which also initiate one into a new and public state of life are rightly called profession. This is why a vocation to consecrated eremitism uses the terms profession (not just avowal), consecration (not just blessing).

Also, I call myself a solitary hermit because although I am consecrated, I am not formed in the charism nor do I make my profession in the hands of the legitimate superior of a congregation or institute of consecrated life. I do not represent such a congregation as a vowed member. (So, I am Camaldolese by oblature, and a diocesan hermit by profession.) The church calls me and this eremitical vocation diocesan because it is a state of consecrated life 1) governed most immediately on the diocesan level and is 2) supervised by the diocesan bishop in whose hands we make our professions and 3) who (along with anyone he delegates) is our legitimate superior. And finally, the church calls this vocation public because it involves the public act of profession which initiates me into a state of life with public rights, obligations, and in some ways expectations on the part of the People of God -- people in my parish, diocese, and wider Church.

Lay hermits are baptized but have not been initiated into the consecrated state of life which requires a "second consecration" publicly mediated by the Church. Lay hermits may make private vows or none at all but if they make vows this is not a "profession" it is an avowal but does not initiate into a new state of life. They could use the evangelical counsels or other promises, but none of this is done canonically (publicly under law), nor do they acquire the public rights, obligations, or create public 'expectations for the whole People of God. No competent authority receives these vows though they may witness them without becoming responsible for the vocation as would a legitimate superior. Priest-hermits are like lay hermits, but in the ordained state. They may also be consecrated under canon 603 or as part of a canonical institute of consecrated life, or they may not be consecrated. 

Thus, hermits may exist in and are named in terms of the lay, consecrated, or ordained states. The first is a direct expression of one's baptism, the second and third are specifications of one's baptismal consecration with the addition of a second consecration that sets them apart as a "sacred person" or an ordination. (I don't much like this description, "sacred person", but neither do I know a better way to say this.) These three states of life are the most fundamental vocational divisions and descriptors of eremitic life and the ones the Church uses. The terms lay and clerical are also used in a hierarchical sense. When the term lay is used hierarchically rather than vocationally, then I (and all religious who are not ordained) are lay persons because I am not ordained.

Once Again: On Esteem for the Vocations in the Lay State

[[Sister, you wrote about Regina [Kreger] -- the new lay hermit --- on a way which makes it clear that you think a lot of the lay vocation. What makes her life different from yours? Is it the evangelical counsels? Is she called to a lesser degree of holiness? Lesser separation from the world? I am trying to hear what changes with consecration.]]

I've written about this a lot so let me give a brief answer and you can look up the specific topics. Every person is called to holiness, an exhaustive holiness, rooted in one's baptismal consecration. Every person who is baptized and a member of the laity is obligated to embrace the evangelical counsels though poverty and obedience will not be religious poverty nor religious obedience because 1) such persons (most anyway) are responsible for raising a family, and 2) they are free from having legitimate superiors. Still, while they have not received the second consecration associated with initiation into the consecrated state of life, and while they have not been graced in the way God graces those with the new and differing rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state, they have been consecrated in baptism and called to a life of genuine holiness.

There have always been lay hermits. Think Desert Abbas and Ammas. They live the evangelical counsels and the call to holiness rooted in the consecration of baptism. But they do not live this vocation in what the church calls "the consecrated state" because this state is entered through a second consecration and associated with rights and obligations beyond those associated with the baptized or lay state. Until 1983 there was no possibility of such a solitary hermit being admitted to the consecrated state of life (hermits in institutes of consecrated life are a different matter). That only came with canon 603. I would say the consecrated state differs from the baptized state in these terms. It is not better than the baptized state but it is different, both in the way it is constituted and in its rights, obligations, and expectations -- as well as the grace associated with these so that one might adequately live this state of life.

In terms of its call to holiness I would argue it is the same as the call to holiness in any other state of life, lay (single, married), or ordained. This is exhaustive. What is important to recognize is that  the life of the lay hermit may look exactly like mine, for instance; they may even live a more exemplary hermit life in greater solitude, poorer circumstances, etc. What differs is the presence or absence of the second consecration and the rights, obligations, expectations of the faithful, and the associated graces (which includes structures and relationships for the ministry of authority). Still, the call to holiness and the requirement of the evangelical counsels (as value or vow, but not profession) are very much part of the lay hermit's life. This is true by virtue of the sacrament of baptism; the second consecration is often called a "specification" of one's baptismal consecration.

Since Vatican II, a particular challenge and call the church has left the laity with is the refusal to see the lay state as a second class vocational state; they must esteem it appropriately. That means lay hermits need to clearly identify and claim the state in which they live eremitical life because it too is a way to live and come to an exhaustive holiness. To do so will be a significant witness to others and an affirmation of the potential of every life. Thus we have hermits in the lay, the consecrated, and the ordained states of life. In every case the well-lived vocation is a rare and admirable one which glorifies God and serves the Church.

Followup Questions on Accountability and the Diocesan Hermit

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, thank you for answering my question on diocesan v universal church representation by hermits. If someone argues that they are not subject to a local bishop in the way canon 603 hermits are because they are not diocesan but instead are hermits in the whole Church then how is it they are responsible to the Church for their vocation? Is their pastor the one they are answerable to? Is Joyful Hermit insinuating she is responsible in a less local way  to someone other than her local bishop? It just seems to me that if she explains that she can move from place to place without requiring acceptance by the local bishop  she must be "suggesting" she is answerable in a different way --- or maybe not at all. How would a bishop feel about having some hermits who were accountable to him and others who are not accountable at all? I can't imagine that sitting well with most bishops, not mine anyway! Lastly, I was wondering about your own statement about your vocation. You say you live your vocation with God in the silence of solitude for the sake of others. Do you mean merely that you pray for others? Are you accountable to others besides your bishop and delegate?]]

 You are most welcome. You have also put your finger on the really important issue of accountability. The Church does not ordain or profess and/or consecrate anyone in an ecclesial vocation (priesthood, religious or monastic life, canonical eremitical life, consecrated virginity) without assuring adequate structures or relationships for accountability. In a vocation with the history and heritage of stereotypes common to eremitical life as well as its rarity (it is not the usual way most people come to human wholeness!), the need to assure supervision and accountability becomes particularly important. In any case whether one belongs to a religious congregation, is a consecrated hermit or a consecrated virgin, one is responsible to people on the local level more immediately than to others on less local levels. Again, we use the principle of "subsidiarity" to be sure accountability is exercised at a level which is most helpful to the consecrated person and the congregation or local church in which the person ministers and lives her life.

Recently I wrote that legitimate superiors exercise what is known as the ministry of authority. I also wrote it is a ministry of love and service. For this to be true, authority must be exercised at a level closest to the one being ministered to. Accountability must be similarly exercised or the entire dynamic of loving service will be short-circuited or made empty. By the way, though a pastor is closest to a consecrated hermit in terms of church attendance, reception of sacraments, and pastoral care, etc, pastors of parishes are not legitimate superiors in the sense required by law. They may witness (but not receive) private vows; in so doing they do not become responsible for an eremitical vocation in the ways a bishop does. Neither would a hermit's Spiritual Director. The ministry of authority requires both persons in the relationship grant and accept the rights and obligations which are part of the exercise of legitimate authority. This means they must also be able to do so and this requires commissioning by a greater legitimate authority.  Bishops acquire their authority with regard to consecrated hermits from Canon 603 and from Rome which appoints them bishops in the first place. Parish pastors or parochial administrators have not been given the authority to act in this way with regard to a consecrated hermit --- though, of course, a bishop could delegate a hermit's pastor to take on such a responsibility and authority as he delegates this to any delegate/Director.

Regarding subsidiarity with regard to religious institutes, while these have General superiors (Presidents, etc) there are also a network of superiors exercising authority at more and more local levels (provincials, priors and prioresses, regional superiors,  novice or juniorate directors, etc., to the level of house superiors). Solitary consecrated hermits (c 603 hermits) don't have such a network of those in authority because they do not belong to institutes of consecrated life. Instead, they make their vows in the hands of the local bishop who is thus their legitimate superior and he assigns or accepts the hermit's choice for a delegate or Director who serves as a kind of superior for the hermit by exercising the ministry of authority on behalf of the bishop/diocese for the benefit of the hermit's life and vocation. However, no one who is professed and consecrated is without the relationships required for the exercise of their obligation to accountability, and this at the lowest (i.e., the most local)  possible level of responsibility according to the principle of subsidiarity.

To suggest one is not accountable in this way while claiming the title "consecrated hermit" or to affirm that one can move from place to place because they are responsible to the "universal church" is simply to indicate one does not know (or perhaps care) how such things actually work in the Roman Catholic Church; it is to express an actual untruth. This is of a piece with saying Canon 603 doesn't mention legitimate superiors when it clearly refers to making one's profession "in the hands of" the Local bishop; profession is always made in the hands of the one serving as legitimate superior. Doing so is derived from an act of fealty once made to Kings, princes, and other Lords. There are many words that Canon 603 doesn't use directly and are nonetheless presupposed by the canon. Because a word is missing does not mean the concept is not present nor part of the Church's larger theology of consecrated life.

How Would a Bishop Feel?

How would bishops feel if they have canonical hermits who are accountable to the bishop and other hermits who come and go without being accountable? I suspect the situation would be problematical (unworkable) and at least frustrating for such bishops. Imagine then that such a person blogged in ways that were disedifying about the eremitical vocation. Imagine they had their own take on private vows and consecration based upon a misinterpretation of  two ambiguously or even mistakenly translated paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imagine this same lay hermit insisted on remaining anonymous and without specific location in the putative name of "eremitical hiddenness" all while claiming to be a "consecrated religious" or a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while writing disedifying things about consecrated life or misrepresenting eremitical life and the Church's role in governing such vocations! But of course, the Church does not have a dual track in the way it governs consecrated life. It does not allow for accountability of those in one track and complete unaccountability of those in another. Instead, it recognizes and states clearly that the consecrated state of life is a "stable state of life" lived for the edification of the Church and the glory of God and it provides (and requires) what is necessary to establish and maintain that stability including structures and relationships ensuring responsibility and accountability.

I once thought Canon 603 referred to both lay and consecrated solitary hermits. Over time I came to change my mind on that. Similarly, I tried several ways to make sense of the ambiguity of pars 920-921 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it speaks of "without always making vows publicly". In time I checked the original Latin which clarified the canon could not be referring to the possibility of private vows or to lay hermit life as well as consecrated life. I concluded the badly-written English version was trying to point to the only alternative to public vows c 603 allows, namely the use of other sacred bonds. In either case, though, the person's profession is and must be a public one and other sections of the CCC (cf par 944) make that absolutely clear. One of my sincerest hopes is that when the CCC is revised they will clarify the matter and add a paragraph on the importance of the lay hermit, the non-canonical hermit who embraces eremitical life within the baptized state without the benefit of additional canons or institutional accountability. As it stands the CCC is particularly problematical because of those who would like to exploit its misleading ambiguities and portray themselves as consecrated hermits without being admitted by public profession to the graces, rights, or obligations of that vocation.

Questions about Joyful Hermit Specifically:

You ask several questions about Joyful Hermit specifically.  While I will answer these generally with regard to Joyful, I believe they fit anyone claiming/pretending --- for whatever reason --- to being a Consecrated Religious or hermit living eremitical life in the name of the Church. I think the bottom line is that beyond her baptism Joyful (and others) has not been initiated into any canonical (public, legal) relationships within the Church or with her leadership or hierarchy, no canonical standing that would allow her to claim to be obligated or accountable in the way someone with an ecclesial vocation as a "consecrated hermit" would necessarily be obligated and accountable. Another way of saying this is to note that Joyful and persons like her have not been initiated into the stable state of life associated with profession and/or consecration.

What you cited earlier did sound to me like an attempt by Joyful to avoid the entire issue of ecclesial accountability with vague references to the Universal Church and mistaken interpretations of what it means to be a diocesan hermit. That said, Joyful remains a laywoman who has embraced eremitical life without the benefit of canonical standing or consecration beyond her baptism. This does not detract from the fact that her own vocation is important. In fact, it accents its importance. Her private vows are of real value, both personally and in the Church. As a result of her baptism, she has the very significant freedom of a lay person to live eremitical life as she deems necessary in response to God's call. She is free to move about as a hermit without direct accountability to anyone except God and her own conscience precisely because she is a lay hermit and not one in the consecrated state of life. What is interesting to me is that she lives precisely this kind of freedom even as she insists she is a "consecrated Catholic Hermit".

It is important (and quite challenging) that people like Joyful accept their vocations, that they respond to God's call in the lay state and find ways to live eremitical life with authenticity. The history of eremitical life has been carried forward in the Western Church by such people -- not least the Desert Fathers and Mothers or the anchorites prevalent in the Middle Ages. As I have noted a number of times here the majority of hermits have been and will always be lay hermits --- those who embrace a call to eremitical life in their baptized state without benefit or need of canonical profession or consecration. But one does not do this by refusing to accept the simple fact that a private commitment by a lay person means one remains a person in the lay state. In this matter, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Joyful (or anyone in a similar situation) cannot seek the benefit of calling herself and being regarded as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while insisting on the unique freedom which is pertinent to lay (or non canonical) eremitical life. She (nor any other person acting similarly) cannot honestly claim an ecclesial vocation without concrete accountability to legitimate superiors or the other elements which constitute a stable consecrated state of life in the Roman Catholic Church.

Commissioned to Live Eremitical Life in the Name of the Church:

I am reminded that the Church has sent me and other canonical hermits into our hermitages to live the silence of solitude in communion with God for the sake of others; that sending obligates me to accountability not only to eremitical life generally, but to solitary eremitical life as the Church has codified this in c 603. Because Joyful is privately vowed, her own missioning is as a lay person and her correlative accountability thus takes a very different form than someone in the consecrated state; again, as a result she is entirely free to live her lay vocation in whatever way she chooses without direct accountability to the Church for the form of life she chooses for herself --- but also without the title appropriate to those living consecrated (canonical) vocations. Similarly one cannot speak and write about canon 603 as a kind of distortion of eremitical life, as Joyful has certainly done from time to time throughout the years, and at the same time ask folks to treat her as though she has the kind of standing in law canon 603 establishes.

This is not a matter of legalism as Joyful tends to claim; it is simply a recognition that the rights attending consecrated life are matched by obligations a person is called by God to embrace through the mediation of God's Church. The Church's own approach to consecrated eremitical life is entirely consistent. Those who live eremitical life in the name of the Church are commissioned to live an explicit accountability to God's People in the hands of legitimate superiors. They accept this accountability as a unique form of responsible eremitical freedom. Not everyone is called or even desires to be called in this way. For those who are not (or who do not desire to be)  called in this way, the route of lay eremitical life is available to them, a route which has been of inestimable value and significance to eremitical life in the Church. But again, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. To believe otherwise is childish and unthinking; moreover, it denigrates or at least disregards the kind of commitments and sacrifices made by those who have freely embraced the consecrated state of life and the direct accountability it involves.

To Whom Else am I Responsible?

Your last question is good. Thank you for asking this. While I do regularly pray for others I do not understand the heart of my accountability to others as that. Instead I understand that first of all I am called to witness to the Gospel that says God completes us, God alone is sufficient for us, God loves and delights in us in spite of our sinfulness or isolation. In today's world (and this is especially clear where I live) we see elderly people and others who are isolated from their churches, from families, through bereavement from their spouses, and so forth. We see people who are isolated by disability and the rhythm of whose lives are marked by illness and even impending death. I believe my life is meant to speak to these people in particular. Yes, of course I pray for them, but even more I hope to witness to them that the way to wholeness, holiness, and completeness is still open to them in God embraced in solitude. I hope that my life says that eremitical solitude is not the same as isolation and that while my life is marked by several things which isolate, this isolation can be redeemed by God and transfigured into a solitude which is filled with life, love, meaning, and hope.

I believe I am called by God through the mediation of God's Church to witness in this way to these and similar people. In a very real way I am responsible to them --- not in the sense I am accountable to the Church through legitimate superiors, but no less really nonetheless. I don't believe the Church professes and consecrates anyone to eremitical solitude simply to make of them some sort of "prayer warrior" (as important as prayer is!!), much less to institutionalize selfishness and individualism. Canonical Hermits are called, like any other Religious is called, to witness to the God who comes to us in the unexpected and unacceptable place, who makes of the deserts of our lives fields which flourish with new life and growth, who allows the dry and barren places to run with living water and the sweetness of milk and wild honey, who transforms  screams of suffering and the anguish of muteness into Magnificats of praise and articulate proclamations of the Good News.

The role of my bishop and delegate is to be sure I live, and have secured (or am able to secure) the necessary means to live the commission to this vocation which the Church has entrusted to me. (This is similarly true for any diocesan hermit with regard to their bishops and delegates.) The personal formation work I do with my Director is meant to be sure I live fully the truth of myself with God. I, as is true of any diocesan hermit, am morally, and legally accountable to the Church in a direct and concrete way for doing whatever it takes within the context of Canon 603 and the eremitical tradition, to become God's own prayer in our world and to witness to the completion that is possible for each one of us with and in God, no matter the circumstances of our lives. I, as again is true for any diocesan hermit, am directly and concretely accountable to the Church Universal to witness to the adequacy and beauty of Canon 603; this canon spells out in normative fashion (thus the term "canon") what a solitary hermit is all about. I, like any diocesan hermit am accountable to my parish and diocese (the local Church) to bring what gifts I can to them in order to witness to the life that God offers and invites us each to. I am accountable to them to be the hermit I am called to be --- not as an isolated individualist, but as someone who recognizes that eremitical solitude is a unique form of community which itself can help build community in powerful ways. In these and any number of complementary ways I am accountable to the Church on both universal and local levels. Again, this is true for anyone claiming a vocation to consecrated life in the Church. 

Reexamining an Earlier Suggestion: On Allowing Lay Hermits to Make Private Vows during Mass

[[Dear Sister Laurel, is it possible to celebrate private vows during Mass? I thought you wrote once it was and could be done as part of baptismal renewal, but in other places I see you don't accept such a practice. Did I misunderstand you or have you changed your mind?]]

On the Reasons I have Changed my Mind:

Yes, you are correct on both counts. I have been torn in the past by some lay hermits' sense of "not belonging" or having no real "place" or "context" for their private vows. I also wanted to stress that the lay hermit vocation is a significant one which needs better recognition. Because of that I argued for the possibility of making such private vows as a hermit within Mass at a general renewal of baptismal vows --- and ONLY there (that is, at no other place within the Mass). I tried to make clear why Mass was not ordinarily the place private vows were made and eventually hedged my suggestion all around with caveats. Unfortunately, since that post it has become clearer to me 1) that liturgically this was a bad idea, and even more perhaps, 2) it could not be done without significant confusion of the distinction between private vows and public profession or between the lay hermit living her life in her own name and the Catholic hermit living an eremitical and ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. This was especially true for the assembly in general.

You see, I have since heard of or been asked about several situations in the US and elsewhere where lay hermits who did not make vows in a public situation would use vows made during Mass (if this were allowed them) to encourage or underscore the mistaken idea that they are "consecrated" or Catholic hermits; while I can understand why this occurs and sometimes sympathize with the person, the bottom line is the Church's general practice of not celebrating or witnessing  private vows during Mass is wise and prudent. Besides lay hermits who don't always understand or (sometimes) even accept the difference between lifestyles undertaken as private commitments and vocations lived in the name of the Church the simple fact is that the laity in general (and sometimes clerics as well) don't understand the difference or its significance either. Still, there is a difference and that has not only to do with the commensurate rights and obligations which attach to public profession and consecration, but even more importantly in this context, with the corresponding expectations the Church as a whole are given the right and even obligation to hold in regard to these hermits.

The Differing Witnesses and Expectations of Public vs Private Vows:

It is important not to give the impression that a person with private vows (dedication) is bound in the same way a person who is professed and consecrated. The expectations others in the Church and society more generally have a right to hold between those with either private vows or public profession differ and it would be unfair to everyone involved to confuse the situation. That way leads to disappointment and even scandal. As I have noted before, this is so because the graces which attach to  profession and consecration and necessary for living them out differ.  (Note that "profession" is not the same as "making vows" though it ordinarily includes making vows. Profession, a broader reality than this, is always a public (i.e., a canonical) act which initiates into a new state of life. Thus, despite common usage (or misusage!) private vows do not constitute profession; they are instead an act of dedication sans consecration, sans added canonical rights and obligations, and sans initiation into a new state of life.)

Because of the differing public rights, obligations, and expectations, the Church has discerned the public or canonical vocation with the hermit herself and assured herself as best she can that this is a God-given and ecclesially mediated vocation which is a true gift of the Holy Spirit. She entrusts it and responsibility for eremitical life more generally to this person after mutual discernment and she expects this vocation to bear typical fruit not only for the hermit herself but for the whole of the Church. She expects and canonically binds the hermit to live the evangelical counsels in a way which is edifying to all who know her or otherwise hear of this vocation, and she expects all of this (and has a right to do so!) because the canonical hermit's vocation is public and lived in the name of the Church under her formal supervision.

But with individual private vows there is no actual discernment of vocation on the Church's part. The individual may certainly believe she is called by God to live this way (and she may be entirely correct in this!) but the Church as such has not discerned nor does she otherwise validate this belief. This is another reason why private vows are witnessed by someone but not "received." Reception is an ecclesial act (an act of the whole Church )which includes the public attestation that these vows are part of a truly Divine vocation the Church herself (whether through Bishops and Vicars or religious institutes and their legitimate superiors) has recognized through significant discernment and public ministry. The fact that reception binds the person professing vows as well as the one receiving these in an ecclesial relationship, while 'witnessing vows does not, is a dimension of the Church's discernment, attestation, and mediation of the presence of a Divine vocation.  Bearing this in mind it becomes even clearer that celebration within a public liturgy is not appropriate for private vows, no matter how carefully done.

Private Vows are Private Matters:

So, while I continue to believe the lay hermit calling is a significant one, and while I believe private vows are a meaningful way of structuring such a life and committing (dedicating) oneself to the freedom it entails, I do not believe it is appropriate to celebrate these at Mass. What always remains true is that private vows are a private matter. While generally trusting the maturity of a person to make such vows, the Church in no way verifies the vocational nature or soundness of such acts of dedication. Persons with such vows are neither professed nor consecrated, nor have they been extended nor accepted the rights and obligations attached to public and ecclesial vocations. To allow such (private) vows to be made in a public liturgy actually lays expectations on the person she may be neither able nor appropriately experienced, trained, or graced to meet.

Moreover, it necessarily leads members of the Church generally to see this as ecclesiastical approval of the act; it is simply too difficult, I think, to prevent people from thinking the Church has approved this "vocation"  (if vocation it actually is) or that she is professing this person and commissioning her to live the life in her name when such a celebration is done at Mass. This would be true even if it were done as part of a renewal of baptismal vows and promises and it was naïve of me to think otherwise.

Additionally there is the entire liturgical dimension which must be considered: is an entirely private act (even this act of dedication) appropriate at a public liturgy? We do not allow others making private vows to do so at Mass; why would we do so for a lay hermit? Private commit-ments do not typically belong to a public celebration. Again, doing so would invite confusion which could be harmful or even lead to offense. I don't think this could be avoided --- whether in the mind of the one making the commitment or in the minds of the rest of the assembly. Later on when the person identifies themselves as a hermit "who made her vows during Mass" there would be no way at all of recognizing the entirely private nature of the commitment and, once again misunderstanding and unreasonable expectations would be created. The bottom line here is the Church's praxis in this regard has been prudent and must be retained.

I have considered removing the earlier post. The caveats added are not sufficient, especially given the existence of lay hermits who continue to mistakenly claim they are "consecrated" and the widespread (even if understandable) ignorance of the Church's teaching on initiation into the consecrated state of life. At the same time the post reflects esteem for the lay hermit vocation and life. It also attempted to answer questions by at least two people so I think allowing those to stand is important. I am sorry though if my opinion at that point was premature or insufficiently considered, and I hope it did not mislead anyone.