Followup on the Use of Delegates in Supervising Solitary Eremitical Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I was trying to find what you wrote about your delegates and the way supervision by your bishop works. I couldn't locate it. My question has to do with what happens when a person's bishop retires or dies or is made an Archbishop or something as happened to you a couple of times? If you make your vows in the hands of one bishop then you are approved by him, right? What then if another bishop doesn't believe in your vocation, or even in any c 603 vocation? He wouldn't approve you, so then what? Does the Diocese just cut you loose? Can you go on being a diocesan hermit anyway? I know you didn't really answer these questions in what you wrote recently but I thought what you wrote spoke to these questions in some way and wanted to see if that was so. My questions come from suggestions that an approved diocesan hermit could cease to be approved and then would be operating as kind of a rogue once their original bishop left the diocese. This seems to be one of the major flaws of canon 603 in the eyes of some who criticize it. And lastly, when a new bishop comes into office, are you responsible for making contact with them?]]

Thanks for your questions. I will reprise what I wrote most recently below (or cf, Clarifying Misconceptions and Wholecloth Untruths) and also, I am providing a link to what I wrote last year when I became aware through others' questions, that these objections to canon 603 were being raised. Here is that link: Supervision of a Stable State of Life. The discussion of what happens to hermits who are perpetually professed and consecrated when bishops move on is found in the second half of the piece.

Succeeding Bishops Must Accept a Previously Professed Hermit's Canonical Standing:

Archbishop Allen H Vigneron

What I don't say in that article is that what seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding on all of this is the phrase "canonical approval". Yes, I was approved by my diocese for admission to perpetual profession and consecration, but once that occurred and I was consecrated I had what is called, canonical standing. This means I (or any other canonical hermit who is perpetually professed and consecrated) have standing in law and unless that standing is rescinded, further bishops' approvals or disapprovals of me (or other hermits) personally, or of the c 603 vocation itself, do not affect our standing as diocesan hermits. Approval is a word used in a limited way in all of this, namely in terms of admission to profession and or consecration. After one is canonically professed and consecrated, however, "approval" even by one's bishop or members of his curia is much less pivotal and the term tends not to be used any longer. The idea of "approval" shifts to the fact of "standing" as in, "canonical standing," and that standing is significant.

 Of course, should a bishop decide one is not living the life, and should he believe he has significant grounds to do so, he can take steps to deprive the hermit of her canonical standing and dispense her vows. However, this is a process requiring warnings, chances to repent or be rehabilitated and always, opportunities for appealing any judgments made against one. Especially it cannot be done facilely or unilaterally. Remember that canonical standing is meant both to establish and to protect a stable state of life so that one's vocation can thrive even when elements in the contexts in which the vocation is lived militate against it. Though one hopes this is not the case, that can include the disapproval of succeeding bishops for the vocation itself or even the dislike of critics and others making unfounded and even malicious accusations against the hermit. In more ordinary circumstances, canonical standing assures everyone meeting the hermit (or any other vocation to the consecrated state), seeking to work with her, being ministered to by her, etc, that she has the Church's support and is faithfully living her vocation in the Church's name.

Yes, of course I contact new bishops when they are made bishops of my diocese. I usually wait for a few weeks so they have some time to settle into their office before seeking an appointment. Usually doing that is not problematic, but occasionally a new bishop will not be particularly responsive or accessible. For instance, on one occasion, I met the new bishop in my parish church sacristy during a visitation, and let him know he was my legitimate superior. He was pretty surprised at hearing that and made sure the chancery had all my contact information. In this instance getting an appointment was difficult. For example, in October or November I called the bishop's secretary to set something up. She was a new secretary so did not know me already, and told me there was nothing open. Then she suggested I call again in January when perhaps they could set an appointment for sometime in the Spring.  Note that that was an 8 month wait for an initial appointment. So yes, while I contact new bishops when they come to the diocese, the bishop's accessibility can be an uneven proposition. Fortunately, as noted earlier, my diocese (Vicars for Religious speaking for the Bishop) had had me select a delegate prior to perpetual profession and consecration, so supervision of my vocation was not interrupted or otherwise negatively impacted. As I understand it, most dioceses, unless they are very small, do something similar.

Misunderstandings in Vocabulary:

This brings up what you asked about regarding what I wrote recently regarding the supervision of a hermit's life by her bishop. Before I cite that, let me provide some vocabulary notes regarding language in the Canon. In the different versions of c 603 I have read two different words are used in speaking of the Bishop's role in the hermit's life. The first is "supervision" and the second is "direction." There has been some tendency to see supervision as meaning direct supervision without the assistance of delegates or others. I have never yet met a diocesan hermit whose bishop works in this way, even when he and the hermit are very close and the diocese is a very small one. Delegates are still a typical accommodation allowing c 603's requirements to be met prudently, creatively, and with appropriate expertise. Thus, supervision (or direction) in c 603 implies delegated supervision using others who will be more accessible to the hermit and capable of informing the bishop and curia of concerns and needs that might turn up for or with the hermit.

Regarding the term direction, this emphatically does NOT mean spiritual direction, but instead uses the terms direction and director as one might for a vocation director, novice director, or the like. As noted below, the bishop is the hermit's legitimate superior and for that reason, he cannot be the hermit's spiritual director. To conflate the two roles is also to draw matters of internal and external forums into potential conflict. By this I mean that the things one deals with confidentially with a spiritual director (matters of conscience and the internal forum) are not automatically open to a legitimate superior, nor may one desire to reveal these. While religious superiors were once able to ask about such matters,  the Revised Code of Canon Law (1983) rejected this practice categorically: C 630.5 [[Members are to approach superiors with trust, to whom they can freely and on their own initiative open their minds. Superiors, however, are forbidden to induce the members in any way to make a manifestation of conscience to them.]] The simplest way to prevent transgressions in this area is to keep the two roles (Director and spiritual director) distinct and separate. Thus, c 603 cannot possibly be referring to the hermit's bishop undertaking their spiritual direction.

Prior Piece reprised:

Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF

Supervision by a Bishop: It should go without saying that not every bishop desires to supervise a hermit, nor are some gifted with either the time or the expertise. (And, since he is her legitimate superior, it especially goes without saying that c 603 does not expect a bishop to be a hermit's spiritual director!!) Some do not believe in or understand the vocation or c 603 itself and yet, they "inherit" hermits professed before their own tenure began. To assist with all of that, my diocese asked me to select a delegate (their term, along with "quasi superior") to serve me when bishops were unavailable or could not do so. Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF, who has a strong background in personal and religious formation and spiritual direction, has served as my delegate (I prefer the term Director with a capital D) since perhaps a year before I was finally professed. In the last few years, Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF has agreed to serve as co-delegate (she prefers the term Advocate) and is mainly available to me and my diocese should Marietta not be. Both Sisters belong to canonical congregations and both have served in leadership. Susan is doing so currently, not for the first time! Sister Marietta's congregation is of Pontifical right. I think the same is true of Sister Susan's since it is an international institute (Franciscan Sisters of Penance and Christian Charity). 

This arrangement has been very effective for continuity in supervision considering we have had 5 bishops since I began living as a hermit. The first three (Bps Cummins, Vigneron, and Cordileone) were more accessible to me, Archbishop Burnett was an interim whom I met and joked with a bit, but whom I never met with (instead I met with the Vicar for Religious per the former bishop's instructions), and Michael Barber,SJ, whom I first met in the sacristy of St Perpetua parish during his first visitation, has been less accessible, but I have been (and remain) a diocesan hermit in good standing in my diocese under competent Direction all these years. 

Sister Marietta Fahey, SHF

To repeat, throughout these years and any changes in diocesan leadership, Sister Marietta has consistently served both me and the diocese as my delegate. Sister Susan was Vicar for Religious or Vocations Director for the Diocese of Oakland when I first started becoming a diocesan hermit; she worked with me for five years; then, though the diocese and I had begun trying to regularize my situation before Bp Cummins actually retired, and though Susan was now in Santa Barbara, she wrote a letter of recommendation for perpetual profession in @2006 to Bp Vigneron. She continues to assist me in this vocation but now mainly from the position of a good (dare I use the word?) friend. Please recognize that Ms McClure casts aspersions on these Sisters, their competence and fidelity to their commitments when she trash-talks me. That is particularly upsetting to me because I know how they have poured out their lives for Christ and so too, for me. Meanwhile, the comment that Sister Marietta is my "girlfriend" is unworthy of even a response.

On Waivers of Liability:

A lot of the discussions of these matters seem to me to have hung on one person's biased and specious accusations against me. When @5 years ago she apparently called my diocese to accuse me of having committed crimes (I really have no evidence this call ever happened, and am assuming it did for the purpose of your questions), not surprisingly, she is said to have spoken to someone who didn't know me and who had to find out whether I was professed as a diocesan hermit. (Apparently, they did discover I was and told the caller that.) Even then she seems to have spun the story in the most damaging way possible and was essentially told if she truly had a case against me, to take me to court. What she may have also been told is that I, like other diocesan hermits, had signed a "waiver of liability" upon the day of perpetual profession. In the main, this is meant to relieve the diocese of responsibility for any potential claims regarding past wages or other remuneration should, for instance, the hermit leave her consecrated state or fall into financial hard times even while in the consecrated eremitical state. 

Should I ever truly commit a crime, I suppose this would also mean my diocese is not responsible for any legal fees, etc. Those would fall to me personally. Should a diocese inform a caller of this situation, it does not mean the diocese wants nothing to do with their hermit or rejects them as a diocesan hermit. Here is where the unsuitability of continuing to use the term canonical approval is especially misguided. So long as one has canonical standing, a diocese cannot simply reject her. It does, however, mean that if someone calls threatening to take legal action against a diocese or their bishop and Vicar General because of something a diocesan hermit is said to have done, the diocese has a quick and easy way to shut that down. 

In any case, my diocese never took steps to act on such a call or even to notify me (or my Director) about it or the purported charges. This indicates to me they believed the accusations to have been empty, as was indeed the case. (Please note that had credible charges been made, and particularly if they were sustained by a court, a diocese might begin proceedings to dispense this hermit's vows.) In any case, be assured that any diocese would initiate a conversation with the hermit and her delegate to explore the situation and take appropriate steps --- whatever those might be. Canon 603, however, cannot be seen to be faulty here and complaints that it should be "tabled" until its inadequacies can be remedied are as empty as the personal charges against me.

Operating as a Rogue?

The question of someone continuing to act or represent themselves as a diocesan hermit after being dispensed of their vows or otherwise leaving the consecrated state of life is an "interesting" one. I have never heard of such a thing happening and accusations that I personally am acting in this way (implying my diocese and Director are allowing this) are both untrue and irresponsible. What is far more common is someone representing themselves as a "Consecrated Catholic Hermit" when they have never been one and may have been determined to be unsuited for such a calling. Still, it would be very difficult, I think, for the situation you have described to go unchallenged. The diocese would contact the hermit's Director and also might well contact the hermit's pastor to inform him that the hermit's canonical standing or juridical status has changed --- though they would expect the hermit to make their new standing clear to others. If the hermit changes parishes, her standing would be checked out by the new pastor who would contact the diocese (or speak to his confrere who is the hermit's former pastor). I don't think any diocese would make a public announcement regarding such a situation (though journalists might write about the situation if a crime had been committed), but at the same time, the critical personnel would be told. 

Remember that while one is always free to contact a diocese with concerns about anyone claiming to be a c 603 hermit for that diocese, the diocese will not give any information beyond a brief statement about the person being a diocesan hermit in good standing (or not). Before one takes such a step, however, it is always best to bring one's concerns directly to the hermit herself (a diocese is apt to suggest this as well)! It is important, particularly with hermits, to not assume they see blog posts, videos, or other media on the issue. As I am sure you are aware, that is not the way sincere and charitable persons deal with such matters. If someone has more specific concerns, however, I encourage them to always bring them first to the person they involve more directly. Otherwise, the person's concerns may grow while the person they are concerned about may have no idea in the matter. 

What Happens When Diocesan Hermits are Accused of Crimes?

[[Dear Sister, what happens to a diocesan hermit who commits a crime? Let's suppose it is a serious crime against another person. What does a diocese do in such a case? Can they just cut the hermit/ess loose or say they want nothing to do with him/her? Are more canon laws needed to deal with such a case?]]

Unusual questions! Well, nonetheless, were such a thing to happen there is a canonical process that can serve in such instances. Presuming the action is truly criminal and established in fact (for instance, the hermit openly admits to having done this or is taken to court and found guilty of this crime), and that not acting otherwise would result in scandal to the diocese, the diocese would probably ultimately take steps to dispense the hermit's vows. Such dispensation would release the hermit from the consecrated state of life and from the public rights and obligations associated with her profession and initiation into this state (her consecration). (This, by the way, does not change the fact that God has consecrated her, but it does dispense her from the stable state of life associated with consecration and thus too from being a religious and from the ways a religious may style him/herself.)

Remember, however, that a diocese cannot do this without established grounds. Additionally, the hermit has canonical rights to respond to accusations, to confront the accuser and supposed facts of the case, and to appeal decisions and processes, etc. "Canonical status" means "standing in law" and means a mutually binding relationship in law results when public vows are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the church. The hermit is commissioned to live an eremitical life in the name of the universal church while legitimate superiors/the local church are more immediately responsible both to the hermit, to the universal church, and to the vocation itself to support the hermit in this. They cannot simply say they want nothing to do with the hermit when there are public vows binding the hermit in a mutual and public relationship (hermit with Diocesan Bishop). To do this would be both illegitimate and immoral --- a kind of betrayal and malfeasance on the part of the local church/ordinary toward both hermit and c 603 vocation per se. My own sense is that long before canonical disciplinary actions are initiated, the diocese (Vicar for religious or bishop) would contact the hermit to discuss the matter --- particularly if the accuser and accusations are at all credible.

If accusations are made that are not particularly credible, however, I am not sure a diocese would even bother the hermit unless they are concerned for her wellbeing or believe she has already been troubled in some way by such accusations. In such an instance, while bypassing contacting the hermit, a diocese might well encourage an accuser to take civil action as part of establishing both their own credibility as well as that of the accusations.  In such a case it is likely the hermit or his/her delegate would be the one contacting the diocese (bishop/bishop's office, Vicar for Religious) to inform them that s/he has been served with some kind of legal warrant, suit, order of protection, etc.. At the same time, the hermit's delegate would serve as the hermit's advocate with and for the diocese because s/he knows the hermit best and would be in the best position to ensure both the truth, the hermit's solitude, and her well-being.

In any case, all of this is part of establishing the credibility of accusations and assuring the hermit is able to continue living his/her vocation with a minimum of disruption or existential angst. It is also a way the diocese itself, but especially the hermit's bishop and vicar (for Religious), can get additional detailed information on the hermit's life from folks who serve the diocese in this specific capacity and know the hermit intimately --- and who can thus support the hermit without unnecessarily calling him/her into the chancery for conversations beyond, perhaps, an initial pastoral conversation to inform him/her of the situation. (Please note that in some dioceses hermits have relatively close relationships with their bishops; the dynamics in such instances might well differ than in the case of larger (Arch)dioceses or those where new bishops have taken over for those who have previously known and worked with the diocesan hermit but who have died or moved on to a new office/diocese.)

Your questions have to do with actual crimes should those ever occur, but the more important and always-relevant dimension of my response underscores the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation and the mutual legal-pastoral covenantal relationship that obtains from public profession and consecration which are received or mediated by a legitimate superior acting in the Church's name. This exists in any case. The process referred to re the dispensation of vows which is initiated by the superior rather than at the request of the hermit exists apart from actual crimes and may be used if the hermit is not living her vocation well or is in some way causing scandal.

In such cases, as I understand them, the hermit is given a chance to moderate or otherwise modify her behavior; if the behavior stems from external circumstances that are not entirely under her control a diocese will work with her to assist her to find a solution. Only when this proves impossible and the situation seems to be a continuing one rather than clearly temporary, or when the hermit refuses to work with the diocese or modify problematical behavior will a diocese act in a way that may (need to) lead to dispensation. Again, as I have said here any number of times, the diocesan eremitical vocation is understood to be a gift of God to the Church and world; both the diocese and the hermit are charged with honoring it appropriately and stand in mutual ecclesial relationship to allow God to empower this.