Questions Pointing to a Hermit's Fundamental Experience and Vision of c 603 Life

Dear Sister Laurel, [[How many spiritual direction clients in a day are prudent or wise? Is a diocesan hermit bound to all of the Offices [Liturgy of Hours or Divine Office] or how does one know what is prudent for the amount of Offices in a day. Are hermits allowed to have a pet (a diocesan hermit), because how does this relate to the vow of poverty? Is it best to have Certain times to check email and messages? Family visits? Yes? No? If so how long? Outings with close friends from time to time? Yes or no? Friends or benefactors to do grocery pickup? Should hermits go to stores?]]

In the main, these sound to me like the kinds of questions those just beginning to consider eremitical life might ask. They are good questions because, for the most part, they point to deeper and more fundamental issues an aspiring diocesan hermit is likely to need to implement and even struggle with. These questions might be an important part of that process, but they are less important than the underlying eremitical foundation that needs to be established. They are not questions to which I can give an answer that is carved in stone because each one must be worked out by the hermit over time with the assistance of a spiritual director or mentor as the hermit candidate begins to think about their Rule of Life. (And actually, these look like exactly the questions one might ask if one was creating a Rule of Life that was composed of "do's and don'ts" or "how often and how much" kinds of points rather than a Rule rooted in a lived experience of some years reflecting a vision of eremitical life under c 603.) Because these questions remind me of the questions asked by those who are new to eremitical life, especially if they have never been aided in writing a liveable Rule of Life (or who also may never have lived one before), I am going to approach them this way. I think that will be most helpful, particularly since the questioner agreed to my posting them here in the hope they could help others.

So, as I begin to respond to these questions, let me suggest that other posts I have put up here on writing a liveable Rule or writing a Rule of Life are important as background and should be referred to. The most important caveat I can reiterate is that if one is writing a Rule of Life that is truly liveable, it must be rooted in the candidate's lived experience. Expect that the process of preparing to write and writing such a Rule with the help of a mentor will, on average, take approximately two to four years depending on the degree of preparation one has in this. This process is important for candidates and their dioceses in discerning and providing the appropriate formation needed to live c 603 eremitical life well. A liveable Rule can never be just a list of things I do and things I avoid doing (though it will likely include some of these). Each of the questions above needs to fit organically and integrally into a sound vision of eremitical life that is edifying to the Church and world! They must demonstrate a sense of c 603 and what living the terms of that canon means and requires of the individual hermit!! All of my responses to these questions presuppose this fundamental truth.

How many spiritual direction clients in a day are prudent or wise? First of all, it must always be remembered that hermits who do spiritual direction are primarily hermits. We are called to live the silence of solitude and stricter separation from the world (i.e., that which is resistant to Christ), and only thereafter or within this foundational context are we involved in limited ministry.  So, for instance, I don't see clients every day (or even every week) and I rarely see more than two or three on the days I do see clients. The same is true of mentoring other hermits or hermit candidates. To do more than this demands more time and energy than I have to give to this, and it begins to be destructive of my eremitical life itself. Others will have different circumstances than I do and may be able to see more clients.  Even so, every c 603 hermit must remember that active ministry is always a part-time and significantly limited part of our lives. If we do this kind of work, it must spill over from our lives in the silence of solitude and draw us back into this context as well. Especially, it must not be a relief from our silence of solitude or something we do to give our lives meaning. Instead, it must be a limited activity we offer to others because our lives already have a fullness of meaning, the meaning that comes from being called to be a solitary hermit who witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our ministry to others is an expression of this meaning spilling over beyond the hermitage walls.

Unless the hermit is also a priest, or writes this requirement into his/her Rule, the c 603 hermit is not required (in Law) to say any hours of the Liturgy of the Hours. That said, it is really difficult for me to understand how a hermit living in and as part of the beating the heart of the Church could live a day without praying the official Prayer of the Church in some significant way. Some hermits pray 2 or 3 of the hours (Lauds, Vespers, Compline, and Vigils or the Office of Readings are the major ones included here) while others pray at least some of the minor hours as well.  We each need to find out the number of Hours necessary as an aid to praying our day, in fact, in praying our very lives day in and day out. For some, the LOH is really helpful in this and especially, it allows us to be true to an ecclesial vocation reflecting belonging to and representing the long Judeo-Christian tradition of prayer. For many of us praying the Hours also reminds us of our standing as religious under c 603. Personally, I understand the LOH to be a striking symbol of this (c 603) vocation's ecclesial nature and a significant way to ensure our lives are steeped in Scripture.

Diocesan hermits are allowed to have pets, of course. (Anchorites are often known for having a cat, for instance!) Your question is really about evangelical or religious poverty though. Some hermits would see the cost of caring adequately for a pet (food, medical care, time for adequate exercise and play, and training (not for cats, of course!)) as making such a pet an extravagance or a distraction. Others of us find the pets necessary as part of our vocation both to be fully human and to care for God's creation as we can. Poverty has never been defined in only one way in the history of religious life or the Gospel Counsels. So, for instance, Franciscan poverty is different from Benedictine poverty is different from Carmelite poverty, and so on. 

Myself with Merton the Tom (RIP)

Similarly, the poverty enjoined on laypersons by the Gospel differs significantly from religious poverty because laypersons tend to have to care for their families, provide for the education of children, and sometimes care for elderly parents or other relatives as well, yet every Christian is called to this Evangelical Counsel in some sense. In my own approach to the religious poverty of the consecrated vocation, I stress complete dependence on God. Finances are a secondary part of that, but they are a real part of it nonetheless. My own income is very limited (about $1200 a month). I do have a cat and that expense is offset by sacrifices I make so that I may care for him. "Sneezy", however, is a literal gift of God to me (he showed up one Winter with a bad cold and took up residence) and provides me with things money cannot buy; I have determined it is important to my own health and wholeness to make these accommodations, at least at the present time.

I do think it is important to have times (morning, afternoon, and evening for example) to check and respond to email, yes. This is especially important when one has clients, one might need to get back to quickly. Still, it is not something one usually schedules unless one has difficulty staying away from the computer!!). Instead, it is something one's schedule allows for when one is free from other activities/periods. For instance, I may check email and messages before breakfast or supper and again before Compline and bed. If I am writing for several hours, I may break from that and check email then because I am already working at my computer. (If I am journaling, that is a different matter and while I may break for a cup of tea or a snack, I will not check email or messages then.) In this small matter too it is up to the individual to reflect on what their lived experience has taught them and work out a solution that allows them to live the terms of c 603 and their own Rule with integrity.

Home visits or visits with relatives and friends should be worked out in the same way as appointments with clients, and access to email and messaging. What is truly healthy for the individual hermit and her way of life? What is truly loving? What can she manage financially or in terms of her schedule? When does contact with others begin to detract from the silence of solitude and stricter separation, for instance? For some people time with family will be brief because we really do need to get back to our ordinary schedule and activities (families can be demanding in many ways!); frequency and duration are something a hermit must determine for themselves. I will make one caveat though; namely, a hermit should be able to lay aside a lot of (the details of) her hermit life for the relatively brief time she is with her family. She should be present to these others as the person they (each) know and love. She must not "play hermit" or (within reason, of course) refuse to participate in the activities they enjoy and want to share with her. I once read a hermit write about "only talking about spiritual things" when with her loved ones. One can always ask what, when looked at in the way God does, is NOT a spiritual thing, but the way to approach this matter, I sincerely believe, is for the hermit to simply be entirely present in all she is and does with family and, in this way, bring God's love to bear (but also discover and contemplate this same love as it is present) within the family.

Generally speaking, there is no reason a hermit should not go to stores to pick up what is needed. It has all kinds of benefits both for the hermit and for those she might meet and talk with during such trips! Hermits are not recluses, at least the vast majority are not. I have my groceries delivered and began that because of the pandemic. I continue it because it is very helpful and convenient for getting everything I need (I don't drive so carrying things home is difficult). And sometimes I simply need to get out of my hermitage and, if needed, to run errands. At those times, I meet people, converse, maybe stop to have a brief coffee with someone who would like to talk, etc. Again, generally speaking, all of that is fine. The thing we need to be aware of is who we are in these times and what we truly need. If our eremitical life is sound, we will want to get back home as soon as is practicable and we should be able to settle into our usual routine when we return. 

Again, it is up to each hermit, her vision of the life, and her Rule of Life to determine how she answers these and other questions. Circumstances change and things that would be permissible at one time might be something one needs to skip at another. In all situations, our lives are lived in dialogue with God in the silence of solitude, and whatever choices we make need to continue that dialogue.

On Hermits, Home Visits, and "Appropriate Topics" for Conversation

[[Hi Sister Laurel! Happy Easter!!!  I wondered if you go home for Easter or what you do? If you are with your family or friends I wondered how that works. Do you just talk God-talk or do you talk about other things? Do you have to pretend not to be a hermit or need to "live a double life"? I'm asking because I heard someone saying they had to do that with her family --- I guess she is not Catholic. Is your family Catholic? Does being a hermit mean you only talk about "spiritual things"? You can tell I don't have any idea about this kind of thing so could you tell me a little bit about how you spend holidays and visits with friends and family?]]

Hi there and Happy Easter to you as well!  Good to hear from you again. Christ is risen, Alleluia!!

I know I have answered similar questions before so while I will write a new answer for you I hope you will look at On Family Visits and Visits With Friends and perhaps Visiting Family and friends: Followup Question. There are a couple of other posts under the label "Family Visits" which might be edifying, especially as they distinguish being an authentic hermit (that is, being oneself) versus being a stereotype or some sort of imagined "hermit" type. But to answer your questions directly,  I don't ordinarily go home for Easter. My liturgical life is centered on my parish and I need to be able to participate there for the sake of my prayer life more generally. Moreover the parish is my faith family so sharing with them to the extent I feel called to do that during any given year is important for the quality of my eremitical life. I might choose to go on retreat during Holy Week and the Triduum, but a home visit is not usually something I would do during this specific time.

But during home visits the one thing I do not do is pretend not to be a hermit. While my family is not Catholic, I do not live a double life at such times --- or at any other time for that matter. I am myself and while I don't expect my family (or my friends) to accommodate me in terms of prayer, liturgy, silence, solitude, meals, etc., I am myself and do not pretend otherwise. To do so is contrary to my vocation and to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is contrary to God's reconciling love and will to being and doing the truth within and through me. But consider that neither does this mean I play at some sort of role or adopt the pretense of this or that eremitical character. I am a hermit; I do not play at being one. This means I bring the silence of solitude and eremitical prayer to whatever situation I find myself in. Sometimes (rarely with family) that may mean explicit God-talk (good term, by the way; one I also use) --- as when I am with certain high school friends or Sister friends. But most times it will mean talking about the profoundly human in thoroughly human and everyday terms. After all, that is the way the Spirit works to sanctify any reality, no?

 So, during infrequent home visits or time away with friends, conversations revolve around our lives, our dreams, those we love, and those we struggle to love, the work and relationships which gives our lives meaning, failures, successes, memories, and (sometimes explicitly) the grace of God in all of this. There are walks and shared meals (including grace), remembered past times together, sightseeing, window shopping, and exclamations over shared experiences of beauty and the talent of artisans, lots of laughter, and often serious conversations as well. Is any of this "profane" (outside the precincts of the sacred)? Does any of it fall outside the realm or movement of the Holy Spirit? I don't think so. The compartmentalization of reality (and conversations about reality) into spiritual things and non-spiritual or profane things, especially in light of the Incarnate Christ who tore asunder any veil distinguishing the sacred from the profane, shows a profound misunderstanding of what an authentic spirituality looks like.

If someone you read claims to be a hermit and said they would only talk about spiritual things with relatives or friends I would suggest the following are true: 1) they are not truly a hermit -- though they may well be an isolated individual playing at being a hermit, 2) they are not possessed of a genuine or at least a mature spirituality, and 3) they are not particularly loving or open in the way they relate to others! Imagine demanding relatives and friends only talk about football, or politics because those dominate your life, or, more specifically, that they never mention the things which really move or excite or concern them because it does not fall within your own narrowly defined "spiritual" bailiwick? This demand limiting what folks can talk about with one is a false attempt to control reality while pointing to one's own supposed "spiritual status" or expertise; it is an implicit and illicit judgment on those whose spirituality may actually be more wholesome and integral than one's own. It certainly seems less pharisaical than a supposed "hermit" who can tolerate nothing but specifically "spiritual" conversation. Hermits live in and towards the silence of solitude but they are not hot house plants that cannot tolerate a more ordinary environment. To the extent they are authentic hermits I think just the opposite is true; they see and hear God everywhere and locate the Divine presence in almost every conversation or relationship even when that presence is not made explicit. After all, the Incarnation reveals how profoundly the ordinary belongs to and mediates the extraordinary reality we call God. Hermits should be capable of perceiving this Presence even in obscurity and profound brokenness.

One of the things we grow in as we grow spiritually is in our sense of how profoundly like as well as unlike others we are. Though our lifestyles, life experiences, and vocations may differ one from another, we come to see that we have the same yearnings, dreams, desires, needs, failings, limitations,  potentials, etc., as the persons all around us. We also come to be able to hear the deep questions, concerns, and doubts, and perceive the transcendent potential living deep within each person. In all of this are the roots of authentic spirituality and a compassion and love which marks such a spirituality. None of these need be dressed up in pious language --- though sometimes specifically theological language can be helpful in expressing these deep realities. Still, the authentically spiritual is profoundly human just as it is profoundly divine.

Thus, it seems to me that a hermit should certainly be able to negotiate the real world without the compartmentalization described in your question  or a similar fragmentation which seems to me to be more typical of sinfulness (alienation) than human wholeness and relatedness! After all, eremitical life humanizes us; it strips us of pretense and allows us to stand secure as our truest selves in the love of God. If a "hermit" cannot relate to others without the pious role-playing described in your question, then better she have nothing to do with family and friends! If she cannot relate to them in genuine love, sincere interest, empathy, and compassion without playing a role or donning some sort of silly stereotype as the "character" friends and family are supposed to indulge, then she had best stay in her "hermitage" without contact with others --- and I say this not only for the sake of these same others, but for the sake of the eremitical vocation this "hermit" claims to represent!

Sister Rachel Denton, Er Dio

Let me clarify one thing; I don't expect hermits (whether canonical or non canonical) to be perfect (teleioi) in living their lives though I do expect them to be on the way towards the telos/goal of their lives. Still, at the same time neither do I have sympathy for those who are really little more than walking stereotypes! There is little throughout the history of eremitical life that has been more harmful to the hermit vocation than creation-hating, misanthropic eccentrics styling themselves as hermits and expecting others to somehow kowtow to their supposed "superior spirituality". I am reminded that Jesus was criticized by religious leaders of his day as a drunkard and glutton (i.e., a party animal!) who ate with and hosted the poor and sinners. Jesus who was a paradigm of contemplative prayer, was, precisely for that reason, one who was entirely comfortable not only with God but also with others whether he was in the fields, apart with his disciples on the sea of Galilee, teaching in the Temple, resting and eating in the homes of tax collectors, walking amongst, healing, and exorcising the marginalized anawim, or praying in the wilderness. The folks he really did not get on with, however, were those he called hypocrites --- those whose behavior did not match their inner states, those who Lorded it over others as "spiritual leaders", or placed needless religious burdens on the shoulders of those who could not bear them.

I hope this is helpful. It's clearly something I feel passionately about!