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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________

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

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

On Individualism and the Solitary Hermit

[[Thank you for your recent post about non-canonical hermits, which clarified some questions I had. I have some additional questions, if you wouldn't mind addressing them: 1) It was a relief to read that it is perfectly acceptable to live as a hermit as a layperson (not as an official hermit, of course, but as a Catholic layperson feeling personally called to a more contemplative life). However, you mentioned in some other blog posts that there may be some less-reputable online sources. Do you have any thoughts on good sources to follow to get more information about what this may look like in this day and age? 2) This may apply less to non-canonical hermits, but you have mentioned elsewhere about the importance of avoiding individualism and eccentricity. Any further thoughts on this for non-canonical hermits? ]]

Hi there, and thanks for your questions! I have sent you the title of the Cornelius Wencel book I would recommend for anyone interested in any form of eremitical life. For readers here, that is one I have mentioned before, namely, The Eremitic Life. It is becoming harder and harder to get a print copy of this for a reasonable price, but thanks for sending the information about it being available on Barnes and Noble for their ereader application! (In the past, it has been available on Amazon for Kindle as well, but it seems not to be so now.)** I don't know any good online sources for folks living as Catholic Lay (or non-canonical) hermits, though I will keep my eye out for that now that I know your interest.

The problem of individualism is a big one, and not just for hermits! It is an epidemic in our culture. The ironic thing about hermits is that in their solitude, to the extent that solitude is authentic and truly eremitical, they are anti-individualistic! Living alone is not the problem. The problem here is a lack of relationships and significant relatedness to both the Church and the world. It is not surprising at all that in Ponam in Deserto Viam we find the following affirmation:

  

A hermit's life, therefore, moves between two poles of reference: the Church and the world. The Church is the maternal womb which generates the specific vocation. She is also the vital context in which this vocation flourishes and is realized in authenticity and fullness. The second pole is the world. Hermits separate themselves from the world by choosing to live on the margins of society. The Church and world are the contexts that preserve the hermit from individualism. This establishes them as sentinels of hope advancing "down the paths of time with eyes fixed on the future restoration of all things in Christ." (Ponam, p. 20, quote by John Paul II, Vita Consecrata, 1996, p. 59.) emphasis added. And further,

In the Latin Tradition, as Peter Damian wrote in his letter, Dominus Vobiscum, radical solitude most carefully defines the ecclesial role of the hermits' way of life. Hermits are like a microcosm of the world and the Church in miniature. Therefore, they cannot forget the Church and the world which they represent in their totality. The more one is alone before God, the more one discovers within oneself the deeper dimension of the world. (Ponam p 21) 

When we consider what the hermit's role is with regard to the world, we find in c 603 that she lives her life for the sake of the salvation of that reality. "The world" in all of these statements does not mean "anything outside the hermit's door" but rather, anything contrary or resistant to Christ -- including dimensions of the hermit's own heart! In her solitude, the hermit stands in the place of intercession where God and the world meet. In Christ, she is that place, and what she shows the world is a life given over to God in love for the sake of others. As the hermit's life in union with God grows, so does her acceptance of her uniquely loving place with regard to the world.

So, the hermit is profoundly related to the Church, the maternal womb of this specific vocation, and she is profoundly related to the world, whose pain and yearning she knows well, and holds before God. Taking care that these two poles are always a significant dimension of her life is the single most important preservative from individualism we know. It is possible, by the way, to find examples of "hermits" who have turned their backs on the world completely, and even some who have, for all intents and purposes, left the Church. In the cases of which I am aware, the gradual (or not so gradual) pulling away from the Church leads to an individualism marked by significant theological and spiritual eccentricity. 

When one turns one's back on the world whose resistance is really a misguided part of its own desperate struggle to find meaning and fullness of existence (that is, to seek God), it leads to a focus on "me", my holiness, my spirituality and relationship with God, my health, my struggles, and very little sense (or very little convincing sense) of a deep and abiding compassion with or for the pain of others. Occasionally, it is possible to find "hermits" whose individualism is so pronounced that they manifest both estrangement from the Church and little compassion with the world for whom (in part) this vocation exists. What ensues is a vicious cycle where individualism leads to estrangement, leads to greater individualism, and so on. These persons are not hermits. They are lone individuals who, eremitically speaking, have lost their way.

These two dimensions or poles (Church and world) will be present in any eremitical vocation, whether canonical or non-canonical. In what you have written to me, you are very clear that you are finding your way here --- as everyone of us must do! Growth in your own relationship with the Church, especially in and through your local faith community, will and should grow. Yes, you will embrace greater solitude as well, and no, in encouraging attention to your relationship with your local church, I don't mean you have to attend every parish function or Oktoberfest!! Still, maintain strong relationships and your liturgical and sacramental life. Do whatever it takes to grow in compassion. A good spiritual director can be of immense assistance here! Maintain and allow your prayer life to mature and deepen. These three foci (God, Church, world), embraced within and toward the silence of solitude, will protect you against individualism and inappropriate eccentricity. (N.B., I say inappropriate because hermits live literally eccentric lives insofar as they (very apparently) live "out of the center" and more profoundly hidden lives centered in God and the heart of the Church).

I hope this is helpful. You know where to reach me, so let me know if this raises more questions.

** The Cornelius Wencel book The Eremitic Life, is available from the Monte Corona Camaldolese Hermits in Ohio for $14. Contact them at HolyFamilyErCamEditions.

Question on Non-Canonical Hermits and the Danger of Individualism

[[Sister Laurel, do you think non-canonical hermit lives are individualistic?]]

This is a great question, and an important one called for, not only by contemporary circumstances, but by the entire history of hermit life. So let me say that every hermit's life is tempted to individualism. What I have written about my own vocation is that being subject to canon law and the various elements of life in the consecrated state (supervision, rule or proper law, public role and visibility, public vows, etc.) helps avoid that temptation and assures a stronger bond to the whole Church. Because in this way of living eremitic life, the silence of solitude is not merely about being alone but is an availability to God that includes solidarity with others, the hermit is called to ever-deeper understanding and representation of the ecclesial dimension of the eremitic life. 

Non-canonical hermits are called to realize and represent the same truth of any hermit's role within the Church and world. What you may or may not remember is that years ago, I was asked if it was easier or harder to live either canonical or non-canonical eremitic life. My answer was that I thought it was harder to live as a non-canonical hermit. I wrote: [[While there are greater explicit rights and obligations associated with canonical standing, the discernment and profession/consecration with and by the Church ensures that one also experiences a greater correlative permission to stand in the face of the values of the world around us and to be the person one is called to be by God in his Church. That permission is part of what leads to greater freedom to be oneself.]]

In the rest of the piece, I argued that I thought the constraints of canon law and the other elements of canonical life led to a freedom that was greater than that of non-canonical life because I defined freedom in terms of the power to be the persons God calls us to be. What I discerned with my Diocese and the persons involved in that process was that this was the way I could grow into the person God called me to be. I accepted the constraints of canon law, an approved Rule of Life, a Delegate who worked both on my behalf and that of the Diocese and Church more generally, and the profession of vows in a commitment that made me responsible for witnessing to the nature of eremitic life in the Catholic Church and the Church herself in this contemporary world. I also did so because I had the sense that I had something (both in terms of giftedness and limitations) that I was called to bring to the Church in this vocation.

If a non-canonical hermit makes a conscious choice to remain non-canonical, to embrace eremitic life on the basis of their baptismal consecration alone, because this is the way they perceive God calls them to realize their vocation to authentic humanity, then that is their way to the kind of freedom I experience within the canonical and consecrated state. If, as was the case in my own diocese for the first number of years I lived as a hermit, a person's diocese will not implement c 603, and will not consecrate c 603 hermits, then the person has, in the main, two alternatives and must determine which of these will lead to greater freedom and the power to become the persons God calls them to be. They may either live as a non-canonical hermit and revisit the possibility of consecration with their diocese from time to time over the years, or they may need to move to a diocese where c 603  is already implemented or will be implemented upon the appearance of a truly suitable candidate. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees here; the process of discernment is not necessarily easy. (As one Vicar I know put the matter, "It's not easy. I always thought the process of discernment was more art [than science]!")

There is nothing automatically or inherently individualistic about non-canonical hermit lives, no. Neither is the canonical hermit life automatically free from individualism. Both are capable of being lived in the way c 603 and groups like the Camaldolese, Carthusians, Carmelites, et al. live them. I continue to believe it is harder because I am aware of the obligations and responsibilities that mark my own life precisely as a member of the consecrated state of life. Every day, and especially when I meet with other c 603 hermits in our "virtual laura", post here, or reflect on the beauty and nature of c 603 life, I am aware of not allowing my own life to become individualistic. Similarly, when I see the examples of "private" hermits who are present online, it seems to me that some are not aware at all of the danger of individualism, much less of the fact that they may well have fallen into this disedifying trap.

It is important to remember that eventually hermits died out in the Western Church, whereas in the Eastern Church, where hermits were always integrally tied to monastic communities, hermits never died out. Whether one is canonical or non-canonical, hermits are called to be actively involved in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. To sever ties with the Church and become a lone pious individual is to betray the very heart of the vocation within the Church and subject it to a quick death in its individualism. Non-canonical hermits who maintain their ties (say, through membership and activity as part of a parish) and who believe they are called by God to witness to the same realities canonical hermits are responsible for in law can, even if this is difficult, certainly avoid the temptation of individualism. Once again, I hope that such hermits will begin to reflect on and write about their lives as lay (or clerical) non-canonical hermits. Their witness is important and needs to be heard!

Followup Questions: On Public Ecclesial Vocations

[[Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my earlier questions. I had the feeling as I read it that I had stumbled on a much bigger and more important thing than I had realized when I first wrote you. It occurs to me that identifying a vocation as public and ecclesial almost leads to a different vocation than when one identifies it as private or non-canonical.  Is being a hermit different when one is a c 603 hermit instead of a non-canonical or private hermit? I mean I know they are both about being a hermit, but it seems that the public and ecclesial dimensions add a lot and maybe make the whole way of life more difficult. I'm sorry I can't say this better, it is a completely new thought to me. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.]]

Hi there, and thanks for writing again. I believe what you have begun to glimpse is really foundational of c 603 vocations (or of consecrated vocations more generally), and therefore, as you say, more important than [most realize] when the question of being called to such a vocation is raised. While neither the words public nor ecclesial exist within canon 603, they provide the most foundational dimensions of the vocation described therein. As you also are beginning to see, I think, these two realities contextualize the solitary hermit vocation in a way that helps protect it from lapsing into selfishness, navel-gazing, and the kind of individualism that is rampant in our world at this time. When we consider that most fundamentally the vocation is one lived not for oneself but for God's own sake and the whole of God's creation -- as the canon makes clear -- we can begin to appreciate why such a protective context is important.

As I think about this further myself, I think about the centuries of hermits that preceded me, and all the stereotypes history generated of the hermit and eremitical life. I wonder now (more than I have in the past) if we must look at the history of eremitical life as being filled with examples from which we must truly distance ourselves because of their selfishness, individualism, and unhealthy isolation. I am not saying anything goes instead, of course. When I look at the Desert Abbas and Ammas, for instance, I am struck by how they chose to live desert life for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, for the sake of the Church that was in danger of losing herself to mediocrity. They did not abandon Christianity or the Gospel, and they especially did not despise the larger world around them (they mentored one another, were open to others at every moment and offered hospitality, traded with them, taught them methods of agriculture, and shared what wisdom they had gleaned in their years of solitude). But in later years, other solitaries often validated their own misanthropy, mental illness, and eccentricity with the name "hermit". Too often, we believe we understand the elements of canon 603 in light of these essentially unhealthy or disedifying solitaries, and that can be really disastrous.

When eremitical life is contextualized in terms of church and world (God's good creation!), when that is, we understand a vocation as public and ecclesial, then yes, it introduces greater tension into the hermit's life. One must negotiate the demands of elements like "the silence of solitude", "stricter separation from the world," and "assiduous prayer and penance," and live them with integrity without absolutizing them or losing sight of the demands imposed by the public and ecclesial nature of the vocation.  One must be living this life for others, first God and then all that is precious to God. Yes, one must be moving towards union with God in one's aloneness with God; at the very same time, however, this does not mean a life of isolation, without friendships and significant dialogue with others. As I say this I am reminded of a passage from a book several of us diocesan hermits are beginning to read together. It is from Cornelius Wencel, Er Cam's, The Eremitic Life, and says,

Everybody  belongs to himself and nobody can take possession of him without destroying the essential element of his personality, which is his freedom. The most distinctive feature of human nature consists in the natural desire to overcome oneself and to enter into a spiritual relationship with another person. Human freedom is founded on two indispensable pillars: the ability to possess oneself and the ability to overcome oneself. That is why every person is, by his very nature, a person of dialogue and relationships. Both dialogue and relationshhip express the great potential for love of the human heart, a heart that is free.

The seclusion and solitude that constitute eremitic life do not aim at negating the fundamental dynamism of human existence, with its entering into dialogue and relationships. On the contrary, eremitic isolation and solitude form the basis of that dynamism. As was said, one of the most important motives for undertaking the life of the desert is the burning desire to find one's own identity. In the course of time, however, we discover that we are unable to realize that task unaided. The only way of learning anything important about oneself is to look at another person's face with love and attention.

As mentioned before, the hermit's solitude can never be a sign of withdrawal and isolation from the world and its affairs. The hermit, since he wants to serve other people, must arrive at a profound understanding of his own nature and his relation to God and the world. That is why solitude is not at all a barrier, but it is rather an element that encourages openness towards others. The hermit, changed by the gift of meeting God, knows how to address the lonely hearts of those who come to seek his help and support. His solitude is not therefore a lifeless emptiness, but it is related to the most vital aspects of the human spirit. It is related to those spheres of the human personality that can only exist if they are open to meet God and the world. (pp200-201)

Given the variegated picture of eremitical life through the centuries, it is not surprising that it took the Church such a long time to truly recognize the importance of this vocation as a gift of God. Today, however, we have c 603 as well as semi-eremitical institutes of consecrated life, and that means we have the possibility for solitary hermits living authentic and edifying eremitical life that are both public and ecclesial vocations embraced for the sake of God and all God holds as precious. What we cannot forget then are these two foundational elements; they are what prevent the hermit from absolutizing the various elements of the canon and living a perversion of eremitic life marked by isolation, misanthropy, and an exaggerated individualism capable of destroying any capacity for love and authentic self-gift.

It is true then, that the public, ecclesial nature of c 603 vocations can create some difficulties in penetrating the meaning of the other canonical elements. For instance, we think we understand what solitude means, but in light of the public and ecclesial dimensions of the vocation, perhaps eremitical solitude in the phrase "the silence of solitude" is radically different from an absolutized isolation and aloneness -- even when one recognizes God is also present in some way. At the same time, then, I would agree with you that a c 603 vocation is meant to be different from someone just going off and becoming a hermit, as happened during some centuries, and is sometimes touted as the "tried and true" way of becoming a hermit. It underscores the hermit's profound relatedness to both the Church and the world, and the fact that the hermit is called by God to this vocation on their behalf. One who is consecrated under this canon can't ever forget this because it relativizes and focuses one's solitude (or one's stricter separation, for instance) as a means to a greater end!! Of course, it needn't be the case that today's non-canonical hermits differ much from canonical hermits in motivation, openness, and generosity; that is especially true if c 603 is understood as normative for all solitary hermits today, even when c 603.2 does not apply to the individual hermit's life.

Motivations in Petitioning for Canonical Standing under c 603

[[ Hi Sister, In your post on second consecration you listed some of the things that are necessary if one wants to become a diocesan hermit. I was surprised that you did not mention anything about motivation. In particular, you didn't say the first thing necessary was a heartfelt sense that God was calling one to this! Neither did you refer to love of God. I am assuming you really believe these are essential, so I wondered if you could speak about your own motivations in petitioning your diocese for admittance to profession and consecration under c 603. What happens if someone doesn't really feel called to this vocation but does feel called to eremitical life as such?? I am thinking of someone who seems to detest c 603 and believes it is a betrayal and distortion of eremitical life. Should they petition for admittance?]]

Important questions. Thank you very much!  Yes, you are completely correct that both of these are essential elements in someone desiring to petition a diocese for admission to profession, and eventual consecration. They are present and support every other thing we might say about such a vocation.  At the same time, there is more involved than loving God or believing God is calling one to this vocation. Discerning such a vocation requires care and time because it requires mutual discernment. For instance, generally speaking, one must already be living as a hermit before contacting one's diocese for admission to profession and consecration under c 603. There are several reasons for this: 1) in this way one gains a better sense of being called to eremitical life at all, 2) one's diocese is unlikely to be able or willing to spend the years necessary in forming a hermit right from the get-go, 3) one should be bringing something more to one's petition beside a desire to be initiated into the consecrated state -- including an understanding of canon 603, its history and value as a canon marking a public ecclesial vocation.

Granted, one not only can, but will inevitably move more deeply into these realities, but one already needs to be convinced one is called to live eremitical life in the name of the Church or as an ecclesial vocation (even if one does not use these words in explaining the matter!) if they want a diocese to take them seriously enough to agree to a mutual discernment process with a small team of diocesan personnel and a c 603 mentor. Of course, one needs to be able to claim clearly and without reservation that they believe God is calling them to this vocation, and the candidate needs to be able to say why that is so.  As I wrote recently, one may have both worthy and unworthy motives for seeking to enter this vocation; determining one's truest motives, among other things that argue for one's suitability, requires the time and energy of others who represent the Church discerning this vocation with the candidate. If the worthy motives predominate, then one's petition may well go forward, but if one's motives are predominantly unworthy of such a vocation, then the diocese is likely to politely refuse to discern with one, much less admit one even to temporary profession.

My Own Story in Brief:

I began living as a non-canonical hermit after having read c 603 in about 1984, and long before my diocese agreed to profess me under c 603. I petitioned for admittance to c 603 profession and consecration because I had a clear insight that this way of living would "make sense" of my entire life, particularly as it was marked and marred by chronic illness and disability. In fact, one of the articles I published at this time was on chronic illness or disability as vocation, and specifically, as a potential vocation to eremitical life. Over time, that sense deepened and I discovered that I truly was called by God to live my life as a hermit. During these early years, my experience of chastity in celibacy changed and deepened, my relationship with God in Christ matured into a nuptial relationship, and I came to understand more and more deeply the nature of the call that c 603 described as well. Above all, in these years, though still a non-canonical hermit looking toward life under c 603 (Bp Cummins had decided not to profess anyone under this canon for the foreseeable future), I came to see the value and something of the beauty of c 603, and also that I had something to offer the Church in terms of solitary eremitic life lived under this canon. Thus, I came to renew my petition before Bishop John Cummins retired. Some years later (2007), and several years after Bishop Vigneron had replaced Bp Cummins, I was admitted to perpetual vows and consecration as a diocesan hermit.

From the time of perpetual profession and consecration, the sense that I was called by God to this vocation deepened and came to involve not simply the idea of chronic illness as vocation and potential eremitic vocation, but also an intrigue with canon 603 itself, and the sense that the church fathers who wrote this canon and the intervening drafts, may have written better than they knew. I watched myself and my relationship with God and others change as I came to live the elements of the canon more and more profoundly. Canon 603 was literally beautiful to me in the way it combined non-negotiable elements and incredible flexibility, as well as a focus on traditional elements of eremitical life and the contemporary situation; it honored these by requiring the hermit to write her own liveable Rule rooted in her experience of the way God worked in her life and called her to the silence of solitude in both silence, solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, and stricter separation from the world --- all within a clearly ecclesial vocation.

A Bit More Focus on C 603:

Given the history of eremitical life and the variability in the meaning of various elements, c 603 did not define its central characteristics in a univocal way. Yes, there was a core meaning to each one that had to be observed, but at the same time, each could represent a spectrum of meaning that might be incarnated or embodied in varying ways depending on the hermit's relationship with God. Perhaps more importantly, I began to see that each element represents a doorway to Mystery (God) and a means to encounter Mystery -- just as desert vocations were always known to do. This variability did not mean anything goes, of course, but it recognized that the defining elements of the canon served a larger purpose and were not ends in themselves. Thus, silence was not absolute nor was being alone. Instead, the two together (the canon's "silence of solitude") referred to being alone with God and indicated the quies or stillness that occurs when one rests in God. The silence of solitude thus refers not merely to the quiet of living by oneself -- though that can be a beginning and necessary sense of the term, but to the wholeness and peace that occurs when God is allowed to love one as God alone can do. During these years I came to see that the whole is very much greater than the sum of the parts!!

This meant that the silence of solitude, stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the Evangelical counsels, and one's Rule serve to facilitate one's encounter with God, which in turn serves a life given over to the praise of God and the salvation of the world. Through the years since perpetual profession and consecration, my love for the canon and what it makes possible has grown. In the inner work I have undertaken with the accompaniment and assistance of my Director (and also in light of the grace of this calling!), this vocation has been reaffirmed many times and grown as my relationship with God has grown. That means too that I recognize the redemptive experience that is mine in God as I live life according to this canon; similarly, I trust that every person truly called to this vocation will experience a similar redemptive dynamism in time. If they suffer from disability and chronic illness, I hope they find that this vocation allows them to suffer effectively with and in Christ and the Holy Spirit as we work towards a new heaven and a new earth where God is all in all. Suffering in this way does away with bitterness, resentment, and self-pity and allows one to see even suffering as a significant source of grace for themselves, others, and the whole of God's creation. If they are not chronically ill or disabled, then the redemption offered in c 603 life will take a different shape. It will still be there in ways other life paths may not have provided.

What if One Believes c 603 is a betrayal and distortion of traditional eremitical life?

By way of preparing to answer this question, let me point out that one of the most important aspects of c 603 is its ecclesial dimension. A person lives this vocation in the heart of the Church because, as I have said many times now, the vocation belongs first of all to the Church. She extends this vocation to the individual hermit, admitting them to profession and consecration. This mediation does not get in the way of experiencing God directly. Instead, it empowers this, just as the Eucharist makes possible a direct experience of Jesus taken, broken, and given to us, present in bread and wine. It is a mistake to think mediated reality is somehow less accessible to us; paradoxically, just the opposite is true. Living this canon in the heart of the Church gives every sacrifice and difficulty meaning. Living this canon as the heart of the Church transfigures one's entire life. 

At the same time, the ecclesial dimension of the vocation requires acceptance of certain things, not least that the Church has every right to define the terms of this vocation and to accept varying expressions of fidelity to it depending on one's experience of God and Rule of Life. Moreover, accepting that the solitary eremitical vocation lived under c 603 means embracing and being entrusted with an ecclesial vocation that helps prevent individualism --- the great temptation and betrayal of eremitical life throughout the centuries. In other words, one is entrusted with and embraces a vocation within and on behalf of the People of God and the life of the Church. 

It is not surprising then, that throughout the history of eremitical life, whenever individualism predominated, one's place in the Church and participation in the sacramental life of the Church weakened or disappeared. (N.B., this is absolutely not what happened to the Desert Fathers and Mothers!) I think it is possible to point to hermits today who do tend to despise c 603 as some sort of betrayal of the so-called "tried and true" historical way of living eremitical life (there never was a single way of living this life that was "tried and true"), and who also have little to do with the historical Church or write about it as though it needs to be left behind for some idealized "spiritual realm". If one of these persons were to try and petition for admission to c 603 standing in law, I believe it would be a tremendous act of hypocrisy. How could one live well what one believes is a distortion of traditional eremitical life? How could one seek to be bound by a canon that makes normative the very life one perceives as a betrayal and distortion of eremitical life? 

Right now, there is one non-canonical hermit I personally know of writing and videoing in the vein you have spoken of; while I don't much agree with a lot of what she writes or the three videos of hers I have seen, at least she has been honest about her motivations re c 603. She claims the Church has "temporalized eremitical life with c 603." Thus, the very existence of such a canon makes her angry and (for her) represents a distortion of eremitical life. Recently she opined that some c 603 hermits who have been finally professed and consecrated are not really consecrated, apparently because of the state of the bishop's soul at the time of the (attempted?) consecration. 

Of course, this is heresy --- not a word I throw around lightly; it is a position that was rejected in the fourth-century contest with the Donatists in terms of the consecration of a bishop; what the church concluded was that even were a priest or other minister in the state of mortal sin, that minister's actions would be valid because Jesus Christ is the real minister. (This is the origin of Church teaching on the Sacraments working  ex opere operato.) Since this issue was originally raised in a dispute over the valid consecration of a bishop, I believe the Church's position on the consecration of a diocesan hermit (or anyone in the consecrated state) would also be ensured similarly. 

In approaching your last questions, then, I think of this hermit and need to ask what would accepting profession and consecration under a canon that (she explicitly claims) "God has saved her from" at least three times, and distorts eremitical life by "temporalizing it," mean for such a person? If she truly believes even a fraction of what she has said about canon 603 and related vocations, then it seems to me that pursuing profession under this canon would be an act of bad faith; it would be a transgression of her own conscience and integrity. Of course, it is unnecessary for her (or anyone!) to seek public profession and consecration under c 603. She can continue living an eremitical life non-canonically as she does now and (in my opinion) probably should do so.

If she (or someone like her) believes she has something important to share with her bishop regarding c 603 or eremitical life more generally, she is in a perfect place to do that. The fact that she claims not to have sought public profession in the past and has written consistently and publicly about c 603 in a negative vein should be of interest to her Bishop --- especially since he has experience of eremitical life with a c 603 hermit and well-respected hermitage in his diocese. I am sure he would listen to her concerns. (Remember, we know that the Archdiocese of Seattle, a neighboring diocese, truly appreciates hermits in the non-canonical state so there is real precedence here for other dioceses listening to non-canonical hermits regarding their vocation.) I don't think, however, this particular lay hermit would have the same credibility if she were to capitulate ("If you can't beat them, join them!") and seek profession under c 603 when she so vehemently believes the canon itself is a perversion of authentic eremitical life. 

To Be What One is Called to Be --- and to Become That Ever More Deeply

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, you wrote, [[It is this core identity that makes one a hermit, not the canonical designation per se. In other words, Canon 603 alone does not make one a hermit; it makes the hermit that one already is a canonical (consecrated solitary) hermit.]] You were writing about a situation in which someone described themselves as "sort of a monk/missionary" but not as a hermit. Is it possible to be professed under canon 603 and never genuinely become the hermit one is supposed to be? Does this happen very often? Do dioceses take care to be sure the persons they profess are hermits before profession? Is it important that they not make this mistake?]]

Good questions, but not ones I can mainly answer! It is possible to be professed under c 603 without ever truly becoming a hermit, yes (though of course this ought not be possible). Sometimes individuals seek to be professed under c 603 and known in this way but they have not, and may never, grow into the hermit they are called to become, yes. In the piece you are referring to I was writing about a priest who had had problems with his bishop (and vice versa) who sought to be established under c 603 and thus, freed from some of the constraints of his priesthood and for greater ability to follow his own values and vision of the way things ought to be. He recognized himself as "sort of a monk/missionary" but (rightly I think) could not call himself a hermit. And yet, he had sought to be professed under c 603. 

Canon 603 has sometimes been used by individuals to become religious without the constraints, challenges, or responsibilities of life in community. I think this motivation is usually kept fairly well-hidden, or at least not expressed to diocesan personnel. Dioceses have allowed this (that is, they have failed to uncover this motive in discernment) because 1) they themselves didn't know what a hermit is or, especially, what a solitary hermit is or how they are formed, and 2) they failed to see how it would matter if they professed a non-hermit. Mistakes are made for other reasons as well, even when the individual petitioning for admission to profession is sincere and well-motivated -- which happens when the person has a religious vocation but not an eremitical one. (The Episcopal Church allows for solitary religious who need not be or become hermits; the Roman Catholic Church does not.)

It is important that the church as well as candidates for profession under c 603 not make this mistake even as it becomes easier to make it, I think. Today's culture is highly individualistic, whereas paradoxically, eremitical life is not. Moreover, there is a strong current of what has come to be called "cocooning" which does not rise to the level of eremitical life, or the silence of solitude demanded by canon 603. It is more than possible for a person (and for diocesan personnel) to mistake these phenomena for the external characteristics of an eremitical vocation when they are actually contrary to such a life. There are external similarities between individualism and cocooning with stricter separation from the world and the silence of solitude, of course, but at their heart they are vastly different realities. Significantly, the characteristics of c 603 mentioned are at once solitary while being essentially communal and are meant to be rooted in and to support life in communion with God, with/in God's Church, and too, with God's good creation.

It is especially important that dioceses profess actual hermits who have embraced the values of c. 603 and show evidence of being committed to living into these ever more deeply so that c 603 does not become a cuckoo's nest where a different form of life is slipped into the heart of the Church's vocation to consecrated eremitical life. As with the life of a cuckoo's egg raised in another bird's nest amongst other hatchlings, this will be destructive of the solitary eremitical vocation itself and will render it incredible to the faithful seeking to understand and honor such vocations. Canon 603 is almost 40 years old at this time and we have only begun living down the destructive stereotypes associated with eremitical life; we must not, insofar as we are truly able, use it for anything but genuine hermits. 

It becomes particularly critical that c 603 life always be genuinely eremitical for those whose aloneness requires hope that their isolation can be transformed into deep communion lest they fall into despair. As I've said before, for those who must live alone for various reasons, but who are not called to be canonical hermits (or hermits of any sort for that matter), eremitical life can witness to the completion and joy that can come with a uniquely solitary expression of community; this is made less and less possible when dioceses profess non-hermits who may never actually become hermits at all --- and, despite having been professed and consecrated, may never discover (much less witness to) the deep consolation of such a vocation because they are not truly called to it.

In the "Bishop's Decree of Approval" for my Rule of life, the decree reads [[I pray that this Rule of Life proves advantageous in living the eremitical life.]] I appreciate my own diocese's humility in recognizing they had done the best that they could in discerning my vocation with me, and that my Rule might not truly prove advantageous to living eremitical life. Mistakes are possible, but it is important that these be minimized and if possible, that they not be made at all, especially given the importance of eremitical witness to God as the One who completes us in a culture that mistakes individualism for individuality and cocooning for eremitical life in the community the hermit experiences as eremitical solitude.

On Monastic and Eremitical Life in the Future

[[Dear Sister, Sorry for the back to back questions. Recently I was on retreat at a Trappist monastery. During vespers on the last day of my retreat I took a good look at the monks in choir and realized that due to the age of the monks and the lack of vocations that this monastery (barring a miracle) will be gone in 10 or 15 years. It made me incredibly sad. I also realize that this will be the case for most monastic communities throughout North America (and probably Europe too).  While there are a few happy exceptions to this trend (many of which are very traditional) I fear monastic life is dying and with it many beautiful traditions and more importantly much wisdom that will not be passed on to a future generation of monastics. This realization raised many questions for me. I would love your opinion on them:

 

1) Do you think the growth in the hermit vocation is a response to the general collapse of religious life after the Council?]]
 

Thanks for your questions. I am still working on the one prior to this one so no problems that you wrote again. In fact, it's a help to me and I am grateful. First though, let me say that I definitely don't see what is happening to religious life as a "collapse". What people became used to was actually not the norm but an exaggerated instance of numbers. We know that the average life cycle of a congregation is ordinarily around 150 years. This is typical for Apostolic or Ministerial congregations which are founded for specific ministries and needs. For monastic congregations the shift in numbers does not mean the monastic life is dying out, much less "collapsing". Monastic life has evolved over time, throughout time and will continue to do so. Today, for instance, the popularity of oblates represents a shift in the form in which monastic values are embodied but they depend on vowed monastics so a shift in numbers here may point to a new form of monasticism with greater presence among the covenanted laity but not without vowed representation and (perhaps) leadership. Most of the religious I know recognize that even when communities die (or, better said perhaps, achieve the completion of their historical lives and missions) their charism continues if the congregation has worked to provide for this, and they trust that God will ensure the continuance of religious life itself in whatever form that will take. I agree with that view of religious life as providential --- which certainly includes monastic life itself.

 

Regarding the upsurge in eremitical life, no I absolutely do not see it as a result of some sort of "collapse" of monastic life  While the Trappist community you saw was ageing and perhaps dying out, that is not the case generally. Even so, the upsurge in eremitical life, to the degree these vocations are authentic, is more representative in the Western Church at least, with the Church's new-found esteem and provision for this vocation in canon law. The vocation never died out in the Eastern Church and I believe the Western Church would not have experienced the dearth of vocations it did had it recognized the vocation universally in law or truly esteemed it as the Eastern Church has done right along. Another source of authentic eremitical vocations is the countercultural, paradoxical, and prophetic reaction to individualism (and several other "isms") so prevalent today. Canon 603 defines an ecclesial vocation which is individual but not individualistic. I sincerely believe that  the hermits I know who live their lives as consecrated Catholic hermits, and thus as those publicly professed (whether  in community or under c 603) have, out of the love of God, embraced an essentially ecclesial vocation in profound reaction to the dis-ease of individualism (and those other "isms") which so afflict our culture.

 

[[2) It seems most hermits look to communal monastic life for their inspiration by adopting the charism of these communities as the inspiration/grounding of their lives as hermits (i.e. Camaldolese, Carthusian, Cistercian).]]

 

Remember that monastic life grew out of (and sometimes was an attempt to protect the very best impulses of) eremitical life and a radical discipleship, not the other way around. However, that said, it is also true that in monastic life we see preserved and developed the values and spirituality of eremitical life, particularly the communal or ecclesial seedbed leading, for instance, to authentic solitude and "separation" from the world. We look to monastic life because it ordinarily provides the necessary formative context for human growth and spiritual maturity which allows one to hear an authentic call to the silence of solitude in eremitical life. The larger Church, per se, does not ordinarily do this where once it did. So, for instance, if we want to understand values and praxis central to eremitical life, values like silence, solitude, assiduous prayer, penance, the evangelical counsels, the value of manual labor, the importance of community for solitude (and vice versa!), etc., we mainly have to turn to monastic houses and communities. Generally speaking, silence and an understanding of, much less an esteem for solitude-in-community simply cannot be found in parish churches. Contemplative life (which eremitical life always is) itself tends to be found and supported effectively in community, (and again generally speaking) not in contemporary parishes. Regular prayer (Divine Office, contemplative prayer, the cultivation of the Evangelical counsels, and life rooted in Scripture or the Rules of Benedict, Albert, et al., also cannot generally be found in parishes.)

 

[[3) What effect do you think the collapse of monastic life will have on the hermit vocation? It seems to me that without a connection to a living monastic tradition the hermit life will become unanchored.]]

 

While I don't believe eremitical life will disappear, I believe it will become even rarer if monastic houses disappear. Canon 603 allows for hermits who are formed mainly within parishes or dioceses, but these vocations are truly very rare. What is crucial to them is not merely the silence of solitude but the fact that the values of eremitical life are embedded in and supported at every point by the life of the Church itself. Camaldolese hermits "live alone together". Diocesan hermits live the silence of solitude only with the support of a parish and diocesan structures but also may find these insufficient and require the more intense and explicit contemplative life of the monastery for support and inspiration. Eremitical life must be anchored or rooted in specific practices and values; these are most fundamentally ecclesial, spiritual, and human values not merely monastic; but at the same time they have been lived and embodied most faithfully and consistently in monastic life. To the degree people can really find these values in their local churches (or in accounts of monastic life, etc) eremitical life will continue as the rare vocation it is. Paradoxically, at the same time, to the degree people find these values to be important but threatened to disappear from the local Church, eremitical life will continue to arise as a prophetic reality, just as it did in the days Constantine published the Edict of Milan and inadvertently triggered the rise of the Desert Fathers and Mothers.  

 

Unfortunately, I believe the existence of authentic eremitical vocations will be more threatened by ignorance and individualism than by the growing loss of numbers among those living monastic life itself. Today, dioceses sometimes (maybe often) fail to distinguish between lone individuals and authentic hermits; this leads to the undiscerning and unwise profession of "vocations" which cannot persist except as aberrations of eremitical life. Eremitical life is marked by great freedom and no hermit is identical to any other, but license and freedom are not the same things. To the degree diocesan staff don't understand eremitical life and mistake it for merely being someone who lives a relatively pious life alone, candidates discerning eremitical life may substitute individualism for eremitism without noticing what is actually happening.

Importantly, we cannot treat hermits as though they are something other than rare. Eremitical life is simply not the way most people come to human wholeness or genuine Christian discipleship. Especially, we cannot see them as the replacement troops for diminishing numbers of cenobitical religious. The two forms of religious life are related but not interchangeable and dioceses will need to resist the impulse to treat them identically or to look for numbers in either form of religious life. Similarly, we cannot allow c 603 vocations to be replaced by individuals who actually reject Vatican II and the wisdom it codified and is now found embodied to some extent in the post-Vatican II Church. (I say to some extent because I believe Vatican has not been adequately received by the Church yet.) Vatican II is part of the Church's authentic Tradition and we cannot allow individuals who reject that part of the Tradition to isolate themselves from the contemporary Church while taking refuge in a canon which was actually made possible by the Vatican II Council and it's call for the revision of Canon Law itself. I think this specific use of canon 603 represents a particularly disreputable form of individualism which cannot be validated as diocesan eremitical life.

[[4) Finally, it seems to me that growth and vocations in the monastic life is mostly among communities that are quite traditional (i.e. using pre-Vatican 2 liturgies). I don’t think dismissing them, as some do, is the answer. The monks and nuns of these communities are well educated, hard working and living their monastic life with integrity. In short, they are “doing and living it.” And they have been for decades. They aren’t a flash in the pan. It seems that if monastic life is going to survive then the future belongs to these communities as they will be the only ones in existence. What are your thoughts regarding this phenomenon and what implications, if any, will it have for canon 603 hermits?]] 

 

I don't believe the pre-Vatican II monastic communities will be the only ones in existence in the future. I think in this matter you have overstated your case. At the same time, I recognize that Canon 603 itself with its clear effect upon eremitical vocations is, again, a direct result of Vatican II and its return to earliest Christian sources and impulses. If the pre-Vatican II monastic communities you mention are to continue and be something the post Vatican II church can learn from, they will have to do so in dialogue with the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and with contemporary monastic life. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence of a desire to embrace such dialogue by the communities you are referring to.

Canon 603 hermits may draw from some of the values found in monastic life lived in these congregations and houses, but c 603 eremitical life remains the fruit of Vatican II and is shaped charismatically by the same Holy Spirit that occasioned Vatican II and inspires all authentic monastic and consecrated life. (By the way, as something of a postscript I should note that monastic houses don't necessarily lose members because they are inauthentic in their living of monastic life, and neither is it automatically true that the traditionalist communities you are speaking of gain members or demonstrate continuing numbers because they are living authentic and healthy monastic life. The situation is very much  more complicated than that and once again numbers are not the guiding criterion here any more than they are with eremitical life.)  

These are my initial thoughts on the things you have written about. I think of it, therefore, as the first step in a continuing dialogue. I hope you find it helpful.

On My Own Decision to Pursue Consecration Under Canon 603

[[Dear Sister Laurel, you discerned whether to live your eremitical vocation as a lay hermit or as a canon 603 hermit didn't you? What made you decide to go for canon 603 or to not settle for lay eremitical life when that was looking like what you would need to do because of your diocese's hesitance to profess anyone under c 603? I know you say both vocations are valuable so I wondered why you chose to jump through the hoops it took to get canonical standing, especially given the long wait this entailed.]]

This is a great question (thanks for reading up on this blog; it shows in your question!). Although I haven't discussed this for some time, I have posted about it in indirect ways, so I hope you'll look for those posts. It was natural for me to look to canon 603 profession and canonical standing as the way to establish one in an ecclesial vocation, not only because of my background in religious life, but also because of my background in theology. I also had some experience of non-canonical religious life, which ostensibly used regional service roles as the means to governance but lacked any authoritative structures to deal with problems with community-wide implications. I saw several times where people without leadership (service) roles, but who were very much "power people" in their local communities and thus, in the community as a whole, took advantage of situations to exploit or otherwise act unjustly toward those they disagreed with or perhaps didn't like.

These exploited or badly-treated persons had no canonical protections in such situations, nor did they have any meaningful recourse to leadership or governance structures. There was an attractive but naïve idealism in this community, but idealism alone can't always deal with concrete situations; as a result, there were some significant failures in justice. This was one of the first times I clearly saw that law could serve love -- particularly when idealism was inadequate to deal with human sinfulness and will-to-power. When the community shifted from a relatively neutral non-canonical to an anti-canonical stance, things were exacerbated, and my insight into the positive and complementary role of law made me consider the role and importance of canon law more than I had up until this point. Thus, when I began reading in canon law (1983), the New Code had just come out. I discovered both canons 603 and 604 on eremites/anchorites and consecrated virgins, as well as canon 605, which is addressed to bishops encouraging openness to new forms of consecrated life. Already a contemplative and still in community, I began thinking and reading about eremitical life then, and it captured my imagination. A year or so later contacted my diocese for the first time about professing me as a hermit. Then began a long process of meeting with a Vicar in the Archdiocese of San Francisco who understood c 603 and then regular meetings for 5 years with Sister Susan Blomstad, OSF, who became the Vicar for Religious and Vocations director for the Diocese of Oakland.

Eventually (during these five years) the diocese decided it would profess no one under c 603 for the foreseeable future --- a shock to Sister Susan and to me --- because neither of us was informed of the decision in a timely way. By the time we were both informed, I was established as a hermit, and it suited me well. Whether in community, as a c 603 hermit, or as a lay hermit, I knew I would continue living eremitical life. I remember telling my director that I wished the Church would recognize how the Holy Spirit was working in my life (structured according to c 603), but if she would or could not, I would continue living as I was. And so I did. Lay eremitical life would have been fine, had it seemed God was calling me to that --- but I eventually decided I needed to approach Bp John Cummins again before he retired and try to get my situation "regularized". I had learned I personally needed the structure of canonical standing and profession to live eremitical life in the heart of the church, and continued to be struck by what it meant to be part of an ecclesial vocation and all that meant. That whole process took some time (lost letters, lost files, misfiled missives) and John Cummins had left office before the Chancellor contacted me to apologize and put in a word with the new Vicars for Religious. It took 23 years from the time I first knocked on the chancery door (so to speak) to the day I was perpetually professed as a diocesan hermit in 2007.

So why go through all the hassle? Why not live as a lay hermit? I was very clear about how God was working in my life with a call to eremitical life, and that clarity deepened over the years. It was especially clear given my celibate experience, flourishing in silence and solitude, and what I experienced as a nuptial relationship with Christ. Moreover, I knew that if this vocation could function as a context for growth and real freedom for me, it might well do that for others --- but only if dioceses were not afraid to use the canon and if they could see that eremitical life was a true vocation. You see, the world in which we live is tremendously individualistic, consumerist, and marked by isolation. Eremitical life is a paradoxical expression of life in prophetic witness against these things --- but the demands on dioceses for determining the distinction between these is significant. Yet, without its specifically ecclesial context, this prophetic quality of authentic eremitical life cannot, it seems to me, be made as clear as the hermit needs to do.

The freedom of the hermit requires a framework that establishes this both in the church and vis-à-vis society and the larger world. Canon 603 provides such a context. It represents a protective and challenging structure which defines eremitical life and the freedom thereof in contrast to a dehumanizing individualism, and contra the isolation and consumerism of so much contemporary life. Consecration under c 603 gives one permission to explore the freedom of the Gospel lived in and towards the silence of solitude in the very heart of the church. This is a very great gift to the hermit and to the world. I felt called to live this gift of God and its paradoxical witness not only so others could see what the Holy Spirit was doing in the church generally with this vocation, but in my own life as well.

Eremitical life is salvific for some of us. It has been salvific for me --- especially in its power to transform various forms and degrees of isolation into eremitical solitude. I believe others could benefit from this, both from the example of what canonical hermits live and from my own story. Some very few might find vocations to eremitical life, while others might see a prophetic witness to the power of the Gospel in their own state of life. I don't live eremitic life because I wanted to do this or because it validates isolation or some misguided individualism. I did not choose canonical standing because I like canon law (though I think canon 603 is a thing of real beauty). I do it because via eremitical life God has been at work redeeming and transfiguring my life and I must honor and witness to that --- and I must do that in a way which says law serves love, reasonable (organic) structure protects real freedom, and living all of this in the heart of the Church through her People and institutions (including canon law, legitimate superiors, etc) can give witness and serve as challenging to the Church as well. Not everyone has my background or needs canon law to do all of this. I did and do; for this reason, I chose to jump through all the hoops associated with becoming a consecrated Catholic Hermit, that is, a canon 603 hermit who lives an ecclesial eremitical life in the heart, name, and on behalf of the Church.