On Lay, Clerical, and Consecrated Solitary Hermits

[[Dear Sister, given what you wrote about hermits as a valuable vocation whether consecrated or lay, canonical or non-canonical, am I correct in believing you accept Joyful Hermit's vocation as a hermit? Is your difficulty just that you contend she does not have the right to call herself a consecrated Catholic Hermit or do you believe her whole life as a hermit is "counterfeit" or fraudulent"? Do you consider c 603 as the only way to really be a hermit? If a hermit considers c 603 to be a form of "shackles and baggage," does the Church require they be professed anyway? Is there a difference between having a vocation blessed and the consecration that occurs in c 603 profession? "Joyful hermit" (aka "Catholic hermit") wrote about a lot of this in her blog recently. (cf., Refocus: New Spiritual Director) I wonder what people are to do when they are unsure of whether or not a person is a consecrated or Catholic Hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions. The issue I have written about directly and by name with regard to Joyful Hermit  and her various public blogs is the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the consecrated eremitical state of life is only entered with public profession. This can occur in a religious community or, for solitary hermits, by making profession in the hands of the diocesan bishop under canon 603, but it is never done with private vows. If one wishes to call oneself a consecrated Catholic hermit then we all expect them to be using the same language or terminology and theology of consecrated life the Church uses. I have never asserted that "Joyful hermit" is a counterfeit hermit. However, she asserts she is a consecrated Catholic hermit and thus implies she is living her life in the name of the Church;  she also claims she is not a lay person in the vocational sense but is a religious. In this specific regard she is counterfeit. She is claiming to be and presenting herself on her blog and other places as something she is not. Unfortunately, she instructs others to become "Catholic Hermits" in the same way.

Vatican II made and maintained a distinction between dedication (which is a human act and can use private vows), and consecration (which is properly an act of God only mediated through legitimate superiors in the Church). While we use "to consecrate" loosely as a form or dedication, the truth is the Church  maintains a distinction between consecration and dedication. The distinction becomes important whenever someone with private vows starts claiming to be a consecrated religious, a consecrated hermit, a Catholic hermit or religious, etc. Public profession comes with canonical rights and obligations and also the grace to live these; private vows remain private acts of dedication; they are significant but they do not rise to the level of consecration.

Since the author of the blog you cite. is privately vowed but not professed (profession is an ecclesial act that includes but is also larger than the making of vows; it is a mediated and juridical act of the whole Church) and since she claims to be able to tell folks how to become Catholic Hermits via private vows, I take serious exception to what she writes on her blog in this specific regard. My concerns stem from the fact that I have heard from folks who followed her advice and were hurt (or at least badly embarrassed) in the process. I completely accept that Joyful is trying to live an eremitical life. She is entirely free to do this just as any lay person is free to do. Likewise, she is free to grow in her own lay vocation and eremitical life as we all grow in our vocations. But to reiterate, what she (or any other hermit with private vows) is absolutely not free to do is to represent herself as a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" or a "consecrated religious". She is neither a Catholic hermit nor a person in the consecrated state of life; she is a lay person in both the vocational and hierarchical senses of the term; thus, I tend to limit my direct criticism of her blog to this single issue.

"Shackles and Baggage"

I have read the post JH put up re her conversation with her new spiritual director. I hear him saying the same things I have been writing about in one way and another for the past 10 years and more, namely, one does not need to be professed under c 603 to be a hermit in the Catholic Church. One needs this to be a solitary hermit of and for the Catholic Church. One can certainly be a hermit in the lay state and indeed, most hermits in the church have been lay hermits (the church did not admit solitary hermits to the consecrated state until 1983); most hermits always will be lay hermits (i.e., most hermits will never be consecrated). The Church recognizes this even as she continues to value such hermits. Contrary to some confusing material Joyful posts about this, nothing suggests that c 603 has been meant as the only way to become or live as a hermit. Nothing suggests the Church will ever assert lay persons cannot live as solitary hermits in the future unless they are professed and consecrated under c 603. This would actually infringe on the freedom lay persons have in the Church. In any case, that is not the point nor is there any indication it is a concern for the church. (On the other hand, the church is certainly concerned with hermits claiming to be professed and consecrated hermits when they are not, but the answer to that situation will never be requiring lay hermits to submit to consecration under c 603 against their will or personal discernment.) To do that destroys the nature of vocation as a personally truthful reality and gift of God.

JH's SD has apparently observed that for her c 603 is a matter of shackles and baggage. It would be a serious mistake to generalize from this limited truth to the idea that canonical eremitism shackles all hermits or places unnecessary burdens on them.  For some of us, c 603 is a means of freedom to live eremitical life. We take on the rights and obligations of the vocation with joy and seriousness; we live our lives as the means of living God's will and serving the Church and world. We also thus take on the title Catholic Hermit or consecrated hermit; we become religious. C 603 for us is neither a matter of shackles nor is it an unnecessary burden. For us, the yoke of canonical standing under c 603 is easy and light and makes eremitical life possible and meaningful. Jesus graced us with this yoke and we embraced and bear it with joy. For us, it is a source of genuine freedom.

JH is quite clear she is not called to this. Instead, she lives eremitical life in the lay (baptized) state alone and, given her extensive criticism of c 603, apparently will do so the rest of her life. That is wonderful; I sincerely wish her well in this!! But what is also true is that the Church will never oblige her to do otherwise; a competent SD will never do such a thing. Nor have I ever argued c 603 is the only way to be a hermit in the Catholic Church. It is, again, the only way to be a solitary hermit living this life in the name of the Church. Joyful is entirely free to live her lay Catholic vocation in whatever way she desires so long as she does so honestly in a way that honors her baptismal commitments.  (One must petition and enter into a process of mutual discernment which may take years before one can be admitted to profession and consecration. NO ONE is obliged to undergo something like this if they do not truly feel called to do so.) The priest hermit whom Joyful is now working with illustrates this point with his own life. He is ordained and lives eremitical life in that (clerical) state, but he is not a consecrated hermit despite his ordination or the fact that he received his bishop's blessing. Innumerable hermits and anchorites have done the same in the lay or clerical states and the Church has appropriately esteemed them. She will continue to do so!

Blessing vs. Consecration:

You asked about the difference between the blessing the bishop gave the priest in Joyful's narrative and consecration (or, for instance, between the blessing she received when she made private vows and consecration through the mediation of the Church). As I noted above, these are not the same thing. Consider that in the Rite of temporary profession, the making of vows concludes with a blessing by the celebrant. In the Rite of Perpetual Profession, however, this simple blessing is replaced by a solemn act/prayer of consecration. Consecration and solemn or perpetual profession represents the event with which a person is initiated into the consecrated state of life and assumes the full rights and obligations associated with this. Until this moment (and until this occurs for any religious) the fullness of rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state are withheld. Someone making temporary profession accompanied by a simple blessing has not yet been fully initiated into consecrated life; for those living in community certain rights are withheld even though the person is much further along than they were as novices or candidates.

The call and the prayer of solemn consecration in conjunction with the making of solemn or perpetual vows are the essential parts of the act of solemn or perpetual profession. In this profession a person is fully initiated into the consecrated state; they are made to be a consecrated person with the second consecration adding to baptismal consecration. The graces associated with this act are different than those associated with temporary profession (and certainly than those associated with private vows.) There is an ontological change in the person and she forever becomes a consecrated person with different rights and obligations, and different expectations by the Church and with all the graces necessary to live this new identity.

One other difference exists between a simple blessing even when this is done by a bishop, and the consecration associated with perpetual profession; namely, in blessing a person or enterprise with a simple blessing the priest (even as a bishop) does not intend nor (in the case of a priest who is not a Bishop or his delegate) does he have the authority unless specifically delegated by the local ordinary to consecrate the hermit. For that matter, the hermit is not prepared to become a consecrated person in the Church. Bishops, meanwhile, bless people all the time; in doing so they do not usually initiate the person into the consecrated state --- nor, despite their authority to do so when certain qualifications are met, do they intend to do so. Further, in a simple blessing, the one being blessed does not intend (and is relatively unprepared) to enter the consecrated state of life. So, yes there is a vast difference between a blessing and consecration itself.

What is One to Do?

I have written about what one is to do when they are uncertain whether or not a person is really a consecrated hermit before. If one desires to clarify this the first step is to ask them. If questions persist, ask them if their vows are public or private. If private they are not consecrated. If there is still a question ask them in whose hands they made their vows or ask them which Bishop perpetually professed them. A diocesan hermit can move to another diocese but she will remain a diocesan hermit only if the bishop in the new diocese agrees to accept her vows.(Cf., more below.) The bishop doing so will become the hermit's legitimate superior; there are canonical bonds established in the public profession. So, a hermit making a canonical vow of obedience will exist in terms of relationships capable of ministering to the hermit via the ministry of authority.

To expand on this, if a c 603 hermit moves to another diocese, then unless a bishop agrees to receive her formally, the hermit's vows cease to be valid or publicly binding due to a material change in the context of the vows themselves. The c 603 hermit who is not relieved of her vows in these ways remains consecrated (God's consecration cannot be undone) but she no longer exists in the consecrated state of life. N.B., the hermit needs to ascertain the bishop's agreement before making the move. To do otherwise is to cause the canonical vows to cease to be binding because of a material change in them (they are made in the hands of the local ordinary of her home diocese; she is a hermit OF the Diocese of _____ ). Similarly, before moving and being accepted by another bishop she will need her current bishop to affirm she is a consecrated hermit in good standing in her current diocese.

On the Questions of Freedom vs License and Fraudulent Hermits

[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive. In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church defines it. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God; the second is not, it is worldly or fleshly as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make.

By the way, thanks for your patience. I know it has been a while since you emailed about all of this. It has been sitting unfinished in the drafts collection and other questions on the same topics made it especially relevant again. I apologize for the delay.

On taking up our Cross: Accepting the Call to Kenosis and Authentic Humanity

The articles I put up recently on emptiness and the hiddenness of the eremitical vocation are profoundly linked, as I noted, to the theologies of the cross of Paul and Mark. Readers might remember that Mark's Gospel is often called a "passion narrative with a long introduction". But really, it is a passion narrative, a long story of self-emptying that climaxes on the cross. I was thinking about this recently because of one of our Friday gospel lections that had Jesus inviting and calling us to take up our crosses to follow him. Always before I have spoken of crosses as those difficult, challenging, and painful times we associate with suffering. We take up our crosses when we suffer well with the inspiration and empowerment of God in Christ. But I also understand more clearly that when we speak of Jesus taking up his cross it means his relinquishment of all of the ordinary ways to honor and success, power and prestige, relationships, family, even his own People, so that he may be completely transparent to the One he called Abba.

In Mark's Gospel the shadow of the cross marks the whole of Jesus' life. It stands as the summary and culmination, the most radical example of everything Jesus has been, done, said, and experienced until now. It is the symbol of the entire dynamic of self emptying which drove Jesus on as he ministered in compassion, prayed in the silence of solitude, felt the anguish of being rejected in so many ways or celebrated with his friends and disciples. Jesus is the one person in human history who did not only say yes to God, but who emptied himself (allowed himself to be emptied) so completely that in him God might be exhaustively revealed in the senses of both being made known and being made real with a human face in our world. Jesus allowed the will and purposes of God to so overshadow him, he opened himself so completely to God's love and power that he perfectly fulfilled the human vocation to image God. Our doctrine of two natures is one of the ways the Church has tried to speak adequately of this NT paradox that where Jesus was fully and exhaustively human there was God definitively revealed, and where God is definitively and exhaustively revealed there we see authentic humanity.

This is the dynamic Paul is speaking of when he talks of Jesus being obedient (open and responsive) to God even to the point of death, death on a cross. Jesus' entire life is one of taking up the call, task, and challenge to be fully human, and therefore to be imago dei --- not in the weak sense of mirroring God, but in the strong sense of allowing God's power and presence, his love and mercy, to flame up in Jesus without obstacle, obscurity, or distortion so that Jesus is incandescent with God, and so, when we see Jesus' humanity we see Divinity face to face. This is the heart of the Eastern notion of  "divinization and it is something we are each called to allow God to achieve in us in our own way. Humanity and divinity are not in conflict here. They are counterparts in genuine covenant existence.  This is why my most important (and beloved) theology professor (John C Dwyer) was fond of saying, "Human freedom is the counterpart of Divine sovereignty." What must lessen, what we must be emptied and stripped of is our false (or better, falsified) selves so that God may be entirely sovereign. And where God is sovereign we are most truly ourselves.

The emptying of self happens throughout Jesus' life and reaches its furthest points, its most radical form, in his crucifixion. Because Jesus embraces the godlessness of sin and death while trusting his Abba completely this kenosis is similar to that of the rest of his life. For this reason, although it is especially true that we can speak of taking up our crosses to refer to those times of significant suffering we might have in our lives, taking up our cross also means taking up the task, challenge, indeed the very vocation we have to be authentically human. We take up our cross every time we consent to being emptied and to allow God to be God, every time we allow the mercy of God to transform us or the love of God to empty and strip us of all falseness --- as well as to fill and make us whole and true with Divine meaning and purpose. To take up our cross daily is to take up the continuing call to become the persons God wills us to be whether this process is marked by the suffering of various forms of emptying and being made true, or the joy of completion and personal fulfillment we know in union with God. Taking up our cross is simply the task of embracing a life entirely committed to trusting and mediating the love of God as imago dei.

Not Better, but Better for Me

[[Dear Sister, you wrote in a post last week, [[ They do not build themselves into their worlds by having families, pursuing wealth, creating business empires, and the like. They live compassionate lives of prayer focused on their call to live a holiness where God's love does justice. These two dimensions of their lives allow them to address the world which God loves with an everlasting love with greater vision and generosity than THEY might otherwise be capable of --- NOT necessarily with greater generosity than others who are called to a different vocation are capable of. ]] I thought that it was church teaching that religious vows of poverty and chastity allowed a more generous life than most people could achieve. You seem to be disagreeing with that. Have I got that right?]]

Thanks for the question. I do believe that generally profession of the evangelical counsels is meant to create lives free from enmeshment in "the world" which makes both vision and generosity easier in some ways. However, I also believe that a universal call to holiness, which the church affirms, means a call to a similar vision and generosity no matter who we are. So how do I reconcile what seems to be a terrific and obvious conflict?

What I wrote was that profession of the evangelical counsels allows Religious to address the world with a vision and generosity which is greater than THEY might otherwise be capable of. I mean simply that this vocation is necessary for ME (or other religious) to achieve the levels of vision and generosity God needs from me (et al); I (we) could not do it in another vocational path. This does not necessarily mean that my own vision and generosity are greater than those of a non-Religious --- far from it!! It merely means that this vocation makes something possible for me and for other Sisters and Brothers I know. I honestly cannot measure these things in the life of another. After all, the very things I perceive as constraints which impede might be the very limits which are part of empowering and inspiring vision and generosity in another. I once heard another Sister put it this way: "most folks do not need to be a Sister to do what I do, but I need to be a Sister to do what I do."

A corollary of what I am saying here is that whatever vocation God truly calls one to is the optimal way to the vision and generosity the Kingdom requires of us. We have all known people who were not very well-suited to religious life or marriage or single life or whatever. Such lives are usually marked by a kind of cramped unhappiness which leads to self-absorption and limited sight. It would not matter that a Sister who was unsuited to religious life had vows and community and the external freedoms these issue in; she would still not be able to achieve the degree of vision or generosity to which God was truly calling her. A woman called to marriage and motherhood, and therefore happy in these, certainly has many limitations in her life but (in my experience of such women) she would be able to achieve a generosity and vision the aforementioned Sister could not.

My sense is this truth is related to the observation that authentic freedom is achieved in conjunction with the constraints of life. God must call us in a way which allows us to transcend these constraints even though such a call does not remove them. The key to authentic freedom and all the vision and generosity which flow from this is not the constraints themselves but the call of God which transfigures and allows us to transcend them. So, as counterintuitive as it seems at first or second glance, and though I will continue to ponder this, I think I am correct in what I said, namely, [[(religious) do not build themselves into their worlds by having families, pursuing wealth, creating business empires, and the like. They live compassionate lives of prayer focused on their call to live a holiness where God's love does justice. These two dimensions of their lives allow them to address the world which God loves with an everlasting love with greater vision and generosity than THEY might otherwise be capable of --- NOT necessarily with greater generosity than others who are called to a different vocation are capable of. ]]

On Visibility, Canonical Standing, and betrayal of the Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,
Do you feel the visibility of your vocation detracts from the "hiddenness" of the eremitical life? Does living according to Canon 603 limit and taint the purity of the contemplative life? Someone calling themselves "Catholic Hermit" writes the following: [[This journey is for anyone, and to be consecrated by a canon law label or an increasingly visible, institutionalized hermit vocation would not allow for writing and living out the Order of the Present Moment, a spiritual order without temporal limits that confine by labels, definitions, visibility and temptation to personal hubris. While the hermit vocation is viable and willed by God for some, it is to be lived then, as the Church defined in the Catechism and then in CL603, which very much requires being hidden in Christ. Since the trend being promoted by some is not that, there is resultant taint and limitation in the label.]]

I have written about this before so I ask you PLEASE to check out posts with labels like "essential hiddenness," "eremitism and hiddenness" or "institutionalization of the eremitical life" which deal with the paradox of a public vocation which is also one of being "essentially hidden in Christ", etc. The obvious answer to your questions is no, I don't think there is any necessary conflict or detraction or else the Church would be guilty of this herself in promoting a public vocation under Canon 603. Further, it makes very little sense to 1) suggest that the Church, precisely in nurturing and governing the solitary eremitical vocation with specific definitions, requirements, ritual, etc is buying into increased institutionalization which is destructive of the vocation, and then 2) affirm that one should live the life just as C 603 and the catechism outline. What diocesan hermits and their Bishops are doing is exploring the meaning and limits of Canon 603 with their lives and commitments. This is what it means to live a vocation in the name of the Church. They are seeking to honor and foster precisely this meaning in her rituals, etc. Despite the elements of the canon sounding simple or obvious, the life defined in the Canon is NOT so very self-evident as the author of this statement would like.

The fact that I have needed to write about the distinction between lives of some degree of silence AND solitude and lives of the silence OF solitude, or that the term hermit is widely associated with stereotypes which look nothing like the life fostered and governed by C 603 should underscore this. The idea of married hermits, communities of "hermits" including parents and children, "hermits" who work full time in active ministry during the week and spend Saturdays in silence and contemplative prayer, misanthropic, selfish, or merely deranged "hermits." etc, also suggest that the nature of the life defined in Canon 603 (which precedes the Catechism in normativity and in publication date) is not so clear and self-evident as some would like. The same is true regarding the nature of the hiddenness of the life. Note, by the way, that hiddenness as a defining term is not included in the Canon anywhere and anonymity is certainly not alluded to. What is spoken of is "stricter separation from the world," "the silence of solitude," and "assiduous prayer and penance". If we are to understand what hiddenness is necessary or essential to the vocation itself it will only be as diocesan hermits live the vocation and contribute what they learn about it to the Church as a whole. In these and so many other ways the need to spell out what Canon 603 does and does not allow or call for, especially in regard to the contemporary world, is simply necessary if the Canon is to do its job in nurturing, protecting, and governing the solitary eremitical vocation.

Freedom is not the Absence of Limitations or Constraints

As far as there being limitations in the label "diocesan hermit" or C 603 hermit, yes indeed there are limits involved. Again, one can hardly suggest that exploring these limitations and the eremitical realm they define is problematical or that there should be no such limits while in the same breath affirming that "the trend promoted by some" diocesan hermits is contrary to the Canon." That is a bit like saying, "I am going to use the word hermit any way I would like --- none of these silly limitations or canonical definitions for me -- but you others, YOU must use the term as I define and use it!" In any case, are limitations necessarily perversions? Do they define a life contrary to eremitical freedom? I would say not necessarily. This is so not only because the absence of limitations creates meaningless amorphous blobs of reality and little more (actually, one can argue there would be nothing at all without limits or "lines" of definition), but because the very nature of Christian Freedom is that it is a life lived fully and abundantly within the constraints of life. Words, for instance, are free to have and take on meaning only to the extent they are limited by context and usage. Without limits (definitions or defining parameters) they are meaningless and are not free to be used fruitfully. Human lives are truly free not when there are no constraints, but when they are empowered to fullness and transcendence in spite of and even within and through various constraints. That is why Catholic theology (and the NT) defines freedom as the power to be the persons we are called to be within the spatial temporal reality of historical, embodied, existence.

The Freedom of canonical eremitical Life and the Present Moment

By the way, this notion of freedom is actually necessary to understand what it means to live in the present moment. Despite the author of the comment you cited desiring it otherwise, "the present moment" is a temporal designation but it is a paradoxical one. It does not mean ceasing to be temporal but rather discovering in the temporal the presence and meaning of the eternal. Living in the present moment means dwelling in a way which allows that "eternal now" (to use Paul Tillich's terminology) to become clear and lifegiving. It means living within space and time, but as those not bound in slavery to the past or in useless anxiety about or fear of the future. It means living within the constraints of space and time, but in a way which allows the eternal to fill and redeem it. It is an exercise in attentiveness, obedience, and freedom, but only insofar as one does NOT attempt to escape the limitations of time into some imaginary atemporal and non-spatial existence. When contemplatives speak of living in the present moment they speak of being completely present to whatever is at hand, however ordinary, however limited, but doing so in a way where eternity (God's own life) is allowed to break in and pervade that reality, or where that reality mediates God's presence (eternity) --- just as Christ's incarnation of the logos did for God in our world.

I don't particularly understand how one could suggest that canonical (diocesan) eremitical life would not allow for writing or living out "the order of the present moment," because of institutionalization, etc, unless of course one simply does not have or understand a call to this life. I have the freedom in my life to freely explore the infinite and eternal realm of union with God precisely BECAUSE of canonical standing. It is a freedom I possess because in being professed publicly I am also publicly free from the common requirement that my life make sense in worldly productive, competitive, and consumerist terms. The Church supports me in this at every point. She asks me in fact to do this in her name and on her behalf. And of course I am responsible to do so --- to do, in fact, what my heart yearned for. If my relationship with God and my experience of the silence of solitude ALSO leads me to write (or compose, or minister to some limited degree, etc, etc) I am completely free to do that.

Do I need permission for these things? Yes and no. If by permission one means prior authorization for every little thing, then no. (Big changes in my Rule, etc are a different matter.) However, what "permission" actually means ordinarily is the responsibility to genuinely discern the place of these and other things in an authentic eremitical life and generally my delegate or my Bishop (who share in this discernment process in varying ways) will permit or encourage this. Thus, I explore the "limits" (parameters) of this vocation with care and fidelity, prayer and reflection, and I act on what I discern. Regularly I meet with my delegate or my Bishop to inform them of what this means. Occasionally it becomes clear I have not discerned wisely or accurately as they reflect back to me their own perceptions (or as I realize in explaining my discernment that it was really inadequate!) So, again, this requirement of my vow of obedience is hardly a limitation of my freedom, but rather an expression and extension of it.

Concretely this means I am free both to fail and to succeed in this life, free to try again as often as I need precisely because I AM consecrated (set apart and specifically graced by God through his Church) as a diocesan hermit, free to explore everything it does and doesn't include, free to explore the gift this life is to the church and world, free in fact to understand my own life AS a gift when once I saw it as meaningless and unproductive. I am free to love, and therefore to minister in the ways my vocation and limitations in life permit --- and to constantly find I can transcend some of these limits because of the "constraints" of Canon 603. I am free to withdraw (in the sense of anachoresis) in greater reclusion, or to move into more activity at my parish or diocese and some greater visibility otherwise.

Will I make mistakes? Yes, and with the help of God and my superiors (not to mention that of my friends!!) I will also correct them. I am free day in and day out to spend my life in prayer, study, writing, and to explore the source and "limits" of human fulfillment and joy without worrying that perhaps I am called to something else. I am free to attend to the requirements of my own true self, to work on healing and integration, to give myself over to the process of redemption and becoming whole and holy as a result of God's love without fear that I am really being selfish. (What selfishness there is will soon be revealed and dealt with!) It is canonical standing with perpetual vows which guarantees these freedoms and many more. How can one argue that such constraints limit or prevent one's ability to dwell in the present moment???

Temptation to Hubris

And as for the accusation of "temptation to hubris", well temptation is not sin, nor is it something we need be protected from so long as we can triumph over it in the power of Christ. Indeed in the real "order of the present moment" we continually transcend or triumph over temptation. It is part of the dynamic of not being enslaved by anxiety or past memories, etc, which do still pull at us and the way we exercise continuing choices for God and his Christ -- choices which strengthen, purify and mature us. Hubris can easily be projected onto another, so we ought be careful concluding that a diocesan hermit who accepts public profession, wears a habit and/or cowl, writes a blog, or carries on her rightful ministry (which may include doing some theology or reflecting on the nature of eremitical life) is doing these things because of hubris. At the same time, we also ought be very careful not to call hubris a person's joy at being called or their very humble (i.e., honest) awe and pride that the Holy Spirit deigns to use her as s/he does!

When Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit exults in God my savior because he has done great things for me" we hardly identify that as hubris! I would say instead that she is rightfully and humbly proud. When she ponders these things in her heart we see the essential hiddenness of such a life. When she speaks to her Son regarding the needs of the wedding party or tells the disciples to "do as he tells you" at the Cana feast, we hardly fault her for failing in this essential hiddenness! We see very little of Mary in the Gospels really, but when we do see her she has a tremendous impact. It is important not to mistake this for the kind of visibility our world cultivates today and which eremitical life especially opposes.

Visibility of "the World" and Hermit Bloggers

While my life is not anonymous, it is essentially hidden, and besides what the term means in eremitical life through the centuries, it is hidden in ways the world seems no longer to understand. We all know people whose every daily detail goes on their blog or facebook page, or is put up on twitter. Within limits some of this is fine. We are a global village and some of this contributes to growth and maturation in this. But most of it is simply the inability to respect others, ourselves, the nature of privacy, and the need to aggrandize and publicize every aspect of one's life as a result. I will think more about this issue of visibility, what is acceptable, what drives it, etc but for now I can honestly say that my own limited visibility is not driven by anything more than the need to share what the Holy Spirit is doing through this relatively unknown vocation and the way it is a gift to Church and world. I believe that is what drives other diocesan hermits with blogs, for instance. It seems that our Bishops agree, by the way, or, of course, there would be no blogs!

However, even within this blog there are limitations in what I make known or "visible." I have been asked in the past to share more about my everyday life, and I have once considered allowing comments on this blog. Both possibilities I rejected as serious intrusions into my solitude, privacy, and essential hiddenness (of which this blog is actually an extension). In fact this blog serves as a kind of grill or turn --- or better, an anchorite's window on her world --- where I pass things out to the world outside the hermitage and the world has a chance to address or at least read what I share as well. But most of the time the world outside my hermitage has no sense of me whatsoever, and certainly no sense of what is happening on a daily basis in my life. I have the sense it is this way for other diocesan hermits with blogs as well. So, yes, my life has a certain visibility but as I have explained before, the fact that I am a diocesan hermit is a public matter; what goes on in my daily life is mainly something that remains between me and God (which includes my director and/or delegate).