Once Again, Canon 603 is NOT the Only way to Be a Hermit in the Church!!

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  My diocese has never [yet consecrated a c 603 hermit] and I don't think my current Bishop will say yes to my request . . . But he is retiring, . . . I told [the Vicar General] after Mass today, . . . that I cannot be a hermit if I am not canonically approved as a hermit. Yet I have every reason and indication and have for six years and more intensely again in the past year, that this is what God desires and wills of me. I thought I could simply live the life without consecration, but after reading people like Dom Leclerq, Pere Louis Bouyer, and some of the Camaldolese writings . . ., I see that one must be consecrated for some good reasons . . .. The Vicar General today told me that in his opinion I could just live the life of a hermit anyway. Is this sound? 

 I mentioned the necessary graces through the Church, and he said God would give the graces anyway. While I do plan to make the request of . . . the new bishop, whenever, I also realize perhaps I should be open to moving to a diocese in which hermits are not unheard of. But, I have not had an indication that I should do this; I have just finished having my hermitage built, and am in the concluding phases of a massive. . . Garden[ing project] which is very helpful. . . for [me]. . .. But, I will go and do whatever necessary. I would appreciate your "take" on this situation, as just living the life as a hermit is fine if it is truly in keeping with the Church, but from my reading it seems not.]]

I'm sorry not to have gotten to this email in a more timely way. I am unclear whether you have felt that what God wills for you is non-canonical eremitism as you have been living it during the past years or canonical eremitism as you have petitioned your Bishop. Your sentence regarding that is ambiguous for me -- though I believe you mean the latter. Whichever is the case, remember that whether you are reading what I am writing about the hermit vocation or writings by Camaldolese monks and hermits, Dom LeClercq, Pere Louis Bouyer, et al, we are all writing from the vantage point of those esteeming the consecrated forms of monastic and eremitical life. We are writing about what we know, sometimes have been entrusted with, and are responsible for; that includes the specific graces associated with consecrated eremitical life. No hermit I know writes that this is the only way to live a solitary eremitical life, but because it is our vocation, we do see it (whether in community or as a solitary hermit under c 603) as having significant benefits to ourselves, the Church, and to others as well.

I think your representation to your Vicar General that you cannot be a hermit unless you are admitted to (a second) consecration beyond baptism is inaccurate; he is correct that you can certainly live as a hermit by virtue of your baptismal (lay) state in the Church. You are free to do that as is anyone initiated into the faith community of the Church --- though that would not mean you live the vocation in the name of the Church or with the Church's specific commissioning. If you continue to believe you have discerned God is calling you to live consecrated eremitical life under c 603 however, then by all means, as you have approached your current bishop, approach the new bishop as well. (Your diocese will have a file on you with your petition and other information, so ask that your petition be renewed if need be.) 

If the diocese were to accept you as a suitable candidate, you would then participate in a mutual discernment process with no promise that you will be admitted to the profession. Even so --- even if you are not admitted to profession or eventual consecration under c 603, this mutual process of discernment could still strengthen your sense of eremitical vocation as a non-canonical hermit. Given your new hermitage and your apparent relationship with your diocesan Vicar, et al, I think it would be especially mistaken to go diocese shopping for one that would profess you canonically. I tend to recommend that option only when a diocese declines to use c 603 at all, and then, only when the person seeking consecration understands the very real risk that they may not be accepted by any diocese for profession under c 603.

Remember that the Church knows several (4) different forms of eremitical life and values them all. Yes, c 603 has raised solitary eremitical life to a canonical (consecrated) state, but in doing this she raises eremitical life as such to an esteemed place in the life of the church when it had often failed to be recognized as a true vocation of God and increasingly was associated with nutcases and eccentrics who had failed at life in society. What the Church has done is signaled to the faithful that hermits of whatever form are no longer to be seen in stereotypical ways and instead represent unique vocations with a significant mission in the contemporary Church. 

For hermits living and witnessing during a period marked and marred by exaggerated individualism, raising solitary eremitism to a form of consecrated life underscores the ecclesial nature of the vocation and reminds her that it is first of all the church's own vocation which the hermit is then entrusted with on the Church's behalf and in her name. While individual it is emphatically not individualist --- nor is any form of authentic eremitical life individualistic. I think from the Church's perspective, this is one of the most important witnesses of contemporary eremitical life and one of the significantly normative emphases of c 603. If you should determine you are called to non-canonical eremitical life, then of course God will grace you in whatever way is needed, including in terms of this non-individualistic emphasis. Again, in this too I believe your Vicar General is entirely correct.

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 Discerning a Call to Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sr. Laurel,  Would you be so kind as to write a bit about your experiences as a lay hermit? What does the process of discernment look like when a  lay hermit discerns canonical eremitism? As a layperson, how does one live a privately eremitical life while still presenting an open, engaged public life in society, parish and workplace? I'm thinking about the need for a lay-hermit to avoid falling into merely antisocial behavior and justifying such behavior as an expression of eremitic life.  

A few years ago, I changed some things in my daily structure to create space for more prayer and solitude--hardly enough to claim to be living as a hermit! Yet, my acquaintances/coworkers questioned me quite critically on my lifestyle (what exactly do you do on the weekends? Don't you have a social life? Why are you always busy but never say what you're doing? Don't you want to get married?--Time's running out! So what do you do for fun?--that doesn't sound like fun!). 

I guess what I want to know is: Am I being a wannabe/imposter/poser by even testing this mode of living as a lay hermit? Why does it arouse such opposition in others, but feel just right to me? Did you experience anything like this in your discernment?]]

Hi there, I think what you are experiencing is part of the reason some hermits have discovered the importance of canonical standing with regard to their eremitical lives. Ecclesial vocations rooted in admission to canonical profession and consecration along with the rights and obligations of an established state of life provide a realm of freedom in which one can live an eremitical life as fully and authentically as possible without having to be ultimately (i.e., beyond the period of initial and mutual discernment) concerned with one's motivations or the opinions of others. The Church's approval of one's vocation is especially helpful during those times when one is led to work again through the reasons one has discerned this vocation and whether it is truly God's call or a response to ill-fitting motivations one was previously unaware or inadequately aware of. At these times one has the Church's discernment to trust in. It helps a lot with questions of authenticity (is this doubt due to my imperfection or am I just a poser, am I kidding myself in trying this, am I the real deal, how much of this is due to failure or selfishness?); it also provides a context which challenges and demands one live one's vocation in a whole-hearted, exhaustive way which witnesses to the Gospel.

 What I am saying is that your own experience, the things you are struggling with or worrying about may be indicators that you are dealing with exactly the kinds of dynamics one must negotiate in discerning such a call. None of us come to this vocation without a mix of existential successes and failures as well as a mix of motivations that make our discernment more complicated. When we add the impressions and opinions of others to the mix, or when we measure our lives against the normative or ideal ways of living our society touts initial discernment can be difficult. Despite some vision-and-locution-riddled accounts of calls to eremitical life one can find online, God does not ordinarily simply say to a person, "I want you to be a hermit." Instead, God summons us to the silence of solitude in ways both clear and subtle, vivid and obscure, with movements of our hearts;  it is up to us to discern this call in the midst of our own human complexity and then determine the very best context for living it out.

Also, please understand that few folks in our culture or society will understand a call to eremitical life. Even devout Catholics are unlikely to immediately understand it because its witness value differs so profoundly from that of apostolic Religious life or ministerial life --- both lay and ordained. (Given time and conversation with actual hermits, however, understanding will -- or at least can --- come!) At this point in time, despite the existence of canon 603, even many bishops still don't understand or accept eremitical life as something authentic. Even so, I sincerely believe that those who truly love you will be able to see how fulfilling contemplative and/or eremitical life is for you. (More about this in the excursus below.) Others will never get it. You need to learn to understand and trust your own motives. If you are looking to get other folks to understand an eremitical vocation please know most never will. Eremitical life is counter-cultural even within the contemporary Church and while our contemporary world knows and accepts things such as cocooning (an anti-social form of isolation) it generally does not accept lives lived for God and especially those that say "God alone is sufficient for us".

My Own Life as a Hermit:

I don't know if I can be of much help here regarding being a lay hermit. Remember I had a background in religious life, lived as part of a community when I began the process of becoming a diocesan hermit and was generally known as a Religious Sister in my neighborhood even after my diocese decided they were not going to profess anyone under c 603 due to some earlier situation which "left a bad taste in the bishop's mouth". At this point I had to decide whether I would continue living as a hermit whether in community or as a lay hermit. Eventually I decided I would continue living as a hermit no matter which state in which I did that --- that I could do nothing else because I clearly was thriving in this way.

However, because I was not a canonical hermit without the Church herself professing or consecrating me as a hermit, I can say I understand the difficulties of having people understand or support what I was doing and why. What I experienced, however, is that to the degree I was comfortable with my own vocation people gave me the benefit of any doubt. They might not understand about hermits and what motivates them, but they trusted me and remained open to the idea of my being a hermit. I did lose a couple of friends but not with the degree of antipathy you seem to be describing. When friends needed something to hold onto that would make sense of my life and that also made sense to them, they hung onto my identity as a woman Religious. For myself, it was clear to me that the Holy Spirit was working in my life in this specific way and while I hoped some day the Church would recognize this, I could not do anything but continue on as a hermit while still being professed in community. God was calling me to do this -- of that I was certain. However, it also became very important to find connections which/who supported me in my journey, e.g., the Camaldolese, a good spiritual director, other Sisters, etc. I don't know if this helps but if you have other specific questions re my own life as a hermit, please get back to me with those.

Discernment and Your Questions about Balancing a Healthy Relationship With Parish and Eremitical Life:

You describe maintaining a healthy presence and an open, engaged public life in society, parish, and workplace while living a privately [vowed] eremitical life. I wonder most about your comment about workplace. If you must work outside your hermitage and it cannot be 1) in a solitary way or 2) part-time (fewer than 20 hours a week), I don't think you can think of yourself as a hermit. (By the way, this is true about canonical hermits as well; dioceses have occasionally made the mistake of professing those working in social jobs on a full-time basis -- the Archdiocese of Boston is, unfortunately, best known for this serious error -- but most bishops will not even consider professing a hermit who works outside the hermitage much less in a full-time job.)  If you are transitioning to an eremitical life, and especially if you plan on seeking standing in law as a diocesan hermit, the ability to work only part time in a way which is consonant with eremitical life is one of the first things you will need to negotiate.

Before you are ready to do this you will need to work to 1) move to a genuinely contemplative life. This means growing in contemplative prayer but also in your approach to the whole of your life. I assume you are working regularly with a spiritual director who will aid you in your developing life as a contemplative. This is a sine qua non without which you cannot progress in your own growth in this way. Once this prayer and life is well-established you may find you have no real need to live as a hermit. On the other hand, you may find you feel called to even greater solitude and feel an even more intense sense that eremitical life is the only context and content that makes sense of your entire life. This whole process until this point takes years. You will not be a hermit at this point, and may not ever feel called to being a hermit.

Once you have reached this point, however, if you do feel a call to even greater solitude you will need to limit your participation in your parish and other external activities or venues. I would suggest you write a draft or working Rule of life describing what elements of prayer, lectio, study, and penance are essential for you right now. Similarly, describe the relationships you have that are genuinely life-giving and need to be honored no matter whether you are a hermit or not. Similarly, list the ways you engage in ministry that are life-giving to you and that you determine are important for your own prayer/spiritual life. For the present then (once you have reached this point), limit yourself to this degree of active participation in the parish and make clear to those who know you why you are doing this in a matter-of-fact way: "I need more time for prayer, lectio, or study" or, "My relationship with God is growing in this direction". Don't make a big deal of it. You are merely stating what your own life holds as priorities. Most likely ou will continue to support your parish in prayer, attend liturgy there, do limited ministry, and maintain friendships (though this last might not be in quite the same way you have done until now).

Excursus: The rule of thumb I think you should hold onto is "when in the parish or other social situation be available to others in a normal way; do not hold yourself aloof but let yourself be truly present! Especially, do not insist on only speaking about "Holy things" or only talking about God!! In other words, do NOT "play" hermit!! Be yourself!! If you need greater solitude, build it into your life but in all things, be yourself and when you are at your parish, etc., be there with and for others! You may (or may not) lose a few friends but it will not be due to some kind of pretense on your part. Meanwhile, you may also gain some new ones with whom you can share yourself truly. While your life may not seem like fun to others the more relevant question, I think, is whether or not you are happy. Folks know that I am supremely happy and even excited when I am reading Scripture or studying theology. This is not their idea of a good time maybe, but neither do I insist it should be. When I am happy that comes across in my ability to be present to/with others and it is here that the importance of what I do for recreation or with my time alone becomes a witness for others. End excursus.

Back to Writing a Rule:

As I think you can see from the above description, writing a Rule is first of all an exercise in discernment. Meet regularly with your spiritual director during this process. Don't be surprised if it takes some time before you have a Rule that meets your own needs and challenges you to grow even as it reflects the nature of your life now. When you are satisfied this Rule can assist you for the next couple of years, commit to living it. During this time your director can assist you in keeping what works and editing those which do not. Revise your Rule in ways that allows it to work better for you in terms of relationships and ministry (including hospitality to God and others) while respecting your sense of being called to greater silence and solitude.

If this particular Rule should work out for a space of time after revisions (say 1 to 2 years), and you see yourself called to eremitical life rather than merely to contemplative life with significant silence and solitude, it will be time to begin considering what context best allows you to live this. Will it be as a non-canonical or lay hermit or will it be as a canonical hermit under canon 603? Throughout all of this time, you will also pay attention to the evangelical counsels -- the values of poverty, chastity, and obedience (the values that define the way you relate to wealth, relationships, and matters of power or autonomy).

Private vows here are not essential, but they can make sense and help you prepare for canonical profession if that is a direction you believe you might go. For instance, while you will not have a legitimate superior (your spiritual director should not expect or be expected to act as one!), a private vow of obedience can make sense in terms of committing to allowing God to be sovereign in your life and in being attentive and open to God's presence and will. Similarly, you will live simply and take care of any wealth you might have just as you will love well and maintain the relationships which lead to wholeness and holiness. As you do this you may or may not find that God is calling you to the freedom (and responsibility) of the consecrated state of life where you will live eremitical life in the Church's name (i.e., as a Catholic hermit). If so, you will likely petition your diocese for admission to profession and eventual consecration under Canon 603). I would suggest you will have needed to live as a hermit per se for at least two or three years in order to be clear you feel called in this way.

Throughout all of this you will be discerning. There will be questions like the following running all through everything you are and do --- something which will be true whether or not you are discerning a canonical or non-canonical vocation: What does God call me to? How am I truly happiest, truly free? What makes me most whole and generous as a human being? Am I merely indulging my own tendencies to selfishness or being individualistic (which is not the same as truly being an individual)? Am I being false or engaging in pretense in this? How and how not? Is my need to be by myself  (or live in solitude) motivated by woundedness or by wholeness? (It is likely to be both and with your director's help you will need to learn to work through/heal the woundedness and enhance your own wholeness so your discernment can continue.)  How do I love best? How will my life witness most fully to the Gospel of God in Christ? Who am I really and who does God call me to be? That these questions arise does not necessarily indicate pretense on your part; they do say you need to grow in clarity about who you are and how God is working in your life, and that you continue to grow precisely in honestly posing such questions and attending seriously to the answers they reveal throughout your life.

I hope this is helpful. Again, if I have missed the mark for you or raised more questions, please feel free to get back to me with further comments and questions. In the meantime, all my best.

Hermits, The Antithesis of the Rugged Individualist or the One Who is a Law unto Herself!

[[Dear Sister, I have two different questions. 1) You once wrote a piece about hermits, canon law, and herding cats. I remember you both agreed and disagreed with the person who said legislating for hermits was impossible and like herding cats. Recently you said in another piece that hermits were like fingerprints, each unique but with recognizable patterns, whorls, loops, etc. I know you think highly of canon 603 but I wondered if you thought it was sufficient to legislate the life of solitary hermits. Does there need to be canon  law on the formation of hermits, on time frames prior to profession and final profession?  2) Also, why do you see individualism as so completely antithetical to eremitical life?  Aren't hermits the consummate individualists? If each is an 'ecclesiola' as Peter Damian (and you too) say, then doesn't this make each hermit a kind of law to him or herself?]]

Is Canon 603 Sufficient to Govern and Nurture Solitary Eremitical Life?

First of all I do believe canon 603 is sufficient, generally speaking. I think there need to be some guidelines about formation, time frames, minimum ages and experience required for admission to discernment and profession, as well as regarding the distinction between being a lone individual and being a hermit in some essential sense, and also some significant cautions on what canon 603 is NOT meant for. However, at this point in time I don't see any reason these things would need to be codified in canon law or through an actual papal motu proprio for instance.

Bishops  and Vicars for Religious need to be able to discern with each candidate while doing justice to the flexibility of canon 603 and the diversity which is part of the history of eremitical life itself, but they also need additional help understanding the Church's desert tradition and the very challenging history of this canon so that not just anything is called eremitism. Especially they must recognize that not just any form of aloneness is called "eremitical solitude" nor can just any form of living and working alone be called eremitical life. The misuse of canon 603 as a stopgap to profess individuals who wish to be religious while merely desiring or needing to live alone is a significant problem that must be avoided. The vocation must be a truly eremitical one. At this point it seems sufficient that in addition to the canon and the expertise of canonists and theologians (especially ecclesiologists), hermits contribute their own experience in these matters and dioceses do the same. One of the reasons for this blog as well as for something like the Network of Diocesan Hermits is to allow for this kind of reflection in a way which is available to anyone looking for assistance in implementing canon 603.

Solitary Hermits and Individualism:

Some critics of this blog have been very critical of diocesan hermits providing insights from their own living and reflecting on canon 603, the life it governs and nurtures, and therefore, their reflection on the kinds of life it absolutely should not be mistaken for. Whenever I have fielded questions or objections or even quotations from these folks I have the sense that they are most upset by my position that not just anything goes, not just anything can be called eremitical life in line with the Church's own understanding and eremitical tradition. Canon 603 is not meant to profess those who simply could not be professed any other way (though there will be a handful who could not be professed in community and who discover a genuine call to eremitical life). It is not meant to govern a nominally pious life without meaningful theological education and formation in spirituality --- especially in desert spirituality. Neither is it meant for those who want to live some silence and some solitude (even significant amounts of these) or desire mainly to separate themselves from others or from the post-conciliar Church, but who do not really hunger to live a LIFE of the silence of solitude.

It is the notion that "the silence of solitude" is the charism of the diocesan hermit, the gift the Holy Spirit creates in her life and the gift she herself brings to the Church and world that might help me answer your questions about individualism. A lot of people think of a hermit's work as praying for people and while I agree that is an important piece of our lives, I don't think it is the main work we do. Rather, our main work is to allow God to work in us, that is to become God's own prayer --- a prayer that witnesses to the fact that the grace of God is truly sufficient for us and God's power is made all-embracing (i.e., is perfected) in weakness. There is nothing individualistic in this. Instead there is a real dying to self so that one might be fully transparent to God, fully human in God, and witness to all of this so that others might also allow themselves to become who and what they were made to be in God. The hermit is a person in communion; they live in communion with God, with themselves, and in the heart of the Church for the sake of others. There is no room for individualism nor selfishness here.

Like a local Church the hermit is an ecclesiola, a little Church. But this means she represents the whole and is intimately related to the larger Church, first every other ecclesiola (Christian person), then the parish, then the diocesan Church, and then finally the universal Church. Each person, but especially the hermit is a microcosm of what it means to be called, to live the response in a way which is always transparent to the God who calls, and to do so for the sake of others. The hermit lives a life in which she is free to plumb the depths of communion with God. She is free to be herself in the fullest way possible in an intense and all-encompassing relatedness. She is not, however free to do just anything she wants. That is not freedom after all; it is license and it is similarly the hallmark of individualism. Thus I say the eremitical vocation is actually antithetical to individualism. To represent the Church (as any Christian is ecclesiola) and to live this vocation in the name of the Church is to be a person-in-relationship more than it is to be an individual in some senses of that term.

Hermits, A Law Unto Themselves?

The canon 603 hermit is never a law unto him or herself. Her life is given over to the will of God and to the law which that God writes on her heart. She lives a life whose parameters are defined by Canon and proper law (Rule or Plan of Life) as well as by the living eremitical tradition of the Church. It is a life nurtured by the Sacraments, fed by the Word of God and lived under the various forms of supervision of Bishop, delegate, spiritual director, and pastor as well as by an oblate chaplain or other similar figure in cases of oblature or associateship with an institute of consecrated life. She is vowed to God through profession of the evangelical counsels and thus she is bound to obedience to God in the hands of a legitimate superior; she is bound, in other words, both morally and in law. The "hermit" who is not so bound (and who thus mistakes license for genuine freedom) has been a perennial thorn in the side of eremitical leaders and reformers throughout the history of the Church. St Benedict castigated these, St Peter Damian did likewise as did Paul Giustiniani and many many others.

Certainly the notion of hermit as rugged individualist and law to him or herself is common as a stereotype. A few years ago I blogged about a journalist's t stupid identification (sorry but it's true!) of Tom Leppard and one other person as living classic and somehow edifying lives of eremitical solitude. I would suggest you check out those posts with labels like "stereotypes," "Tom Leppard," etc. In contemporary theology (Paul Tillich, 20 C.) we would recognize the autonomous person as antithetical to the theonomous person; that is, we would find the person who was a law unto herself as antithetical to the one who has God as her law (that is, the Lord and driving dynamic of her heart). The hermit is almost a pure paradigm of theonomous life. Certainly this alone is what s/he aspires to and represents when s/he says that by her life s/he witnesses to the fact that God alone is sufficient or that in God we are called and fulfilled as human beings who live for one another. And isn't this also the definition of Church, namely the community of the called who find their fulfillment and missionary purpose in the God of Love who is both their nomos (law) and telos (goal)?

I sincerely hope this is helpful. Your questions are important ones and ones I am keenly interested in so thanks for those!

On the Deadly Sin of Individualism in the Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, are you aware of a "Catholic Hermit" who has recently written the following: [[No one else [besides the hermit, the SD, and God] really knows the whys or wherefores of how a consecrated Catholic hermit is or should be or has to be living his or her life. In fact, no one should be declaring a Catholic hermit consecrated or not consecrated in the Catholic Church, based upon his or her own interpretations of what is specified in Church documents, or presuming someone has an impediment to being in the Consecrated Life of the Church. A Catholic hermit's bishop and/or spiritual director or other Church authority can make that determination when it comes down to validity, if that designation even matters ultimately, eternally (and not the least) to His Real Presence!]]

And also, [[But it is not to judge them, or decide they are not living their lives "according to Hoyle" (according to some other Catholic hermit or non-hermit, or through the eyes of various individual priests or bishops or lay persons who have their own notions but not necessarily God's omniscience for each consecrated Catholic hermit living or dead.]] How can a Catholic hermit argue that an individual Bishop cannot be considered authoritative because he doesn't have God's omniscience? How can she argue that a Bishop's determination that someone's consecration is invalid (or valid I guess) might not even matter ultimately or eternally? It all sounds like a very Protestant approach to vocations and authority, but not very Catholic.]]

Thanks for the questions. Yes I am very aware of the post this all came from. I read it two or three days ago. It is a followup to a post this lay hermit already put up which asked the question, "Who do they think they are?" It seems that a "young canonist" (and member of another consecrated vocation) wrote something upsetting about hermits working full time and opined that vows would be invalid in certain circumstances. If I am correct in this, the offending posts (these were the only pertinent ones I could find that were at all recent) were on the blog, "Do I Have a Vocation?" which is written by Therese Ivers, JCL, a canonist and Consecrated Virgin I consider a friend. Beyond this she specializes in the law of consecrated life and is working on a doctorate in canon law focusing on Canon 603 so she certainly knows what she is talking about. (By the way, though written the 1st of February I only saw this article for the first time about a week ago; I was very gratified by Therese's referral to my blog.)

Now Therese and I don't always agree on everything (who does?), and sometimes we even disagree on relatively small details in regard to canon 603, but her posts on whether or not a hermit should work full time and on private vows were spot on. cf: Can Diocesan Hermits Have Full Time Jobs?, etc. Most importantly she dealt with abuses of canon 603 which have happened because dioceses have used the canon as a stopgap solution to profess non hermits who worked full time in highly social jobs. While you did not quote this portion of the post,  you can hear I hope, the incredible irony of a blogger who is herself a privately dedicated hermit dismissing Therese's expertise in Canon 603 on the grounds that she, though a canonist and consecrated virgin, is not a consecrated hermit.

The Church is very clear on who is considered a member of the consecrated state of life and who is not. There is one sentence in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which has caused some confusion because of its location in paragraphs on eremitical life under the heading "The Consecrated Life", but this is really a minor problem since the catechism's own glossary and other paragraphs make it very clear that (except for consecrated virgins living in the world) entrance into the consecrated state always comes to be through profession made in the hands of a legitimate superior with both the authority and the intention of doing this. The sentence refers to hermits who do not make vows publicly but canon 603 allows for sacred bonds other than vows so the sentence could be an awkward reference to this or an attempt to speak to lay hermits without duplicating the paragraphs in another section of the CCC. The c 603 profession itself, however, (whatever form it takes) is always public. In any case, when confusion exists it is up to canonists to make clear the requirements and Therese Ivers is certainly capable of authoritatively doing this --- and does do so for dioceses seeking clarification.

Also, the Church is very clear what constitutes an eremitical life lived in her name. Canon 603 says it is a life of the silence of solitude (not just silence and solitude), stricter separation from the world (that is, from all that is resistant to Christ or promises fulfillment in the way the God of Jesus Christ does), assiduous prayer and penance,  profession of the evangelical counsels, all lived according to a Rule or Plan of Life the hermit writes herself and lives under the supervision of the local Bishop. For this reason, the Church has every right through canonists, Bishops, theologians, and others to say what the terms of this canon and all it requires actually means, both explicitly and implicitly. This is especially true when the Church seeks to understand this canon in conjunction with the history of the eremitical life generally and this canon's history specifically.

Beyond this, the actual living out of this vocation in the contemporary world means that Catholic Hermits who deal daily with the tension that exists between the canon's pure or ideal expression (if there even is such a thing!) and the hermit's necessary existence in time and space means the Church will also pay attention to the input of those who are publicly professed and canonically obligated to live the canons governing their life. To state that only the hermit, the SD, and God [[really know the whys or wherefores of how a consecrated Catholic hermit is or should be or has to be living his or her life]] flies in the face of canon 603's explicit and implicit requirements. The Diocesan Bishop and/or Vicars for Religious as well (especially I would argue) as the hermit's delegate (and to a lesser degree or in a different way, the hermit's Pastor) are required to know "the whys and wherefores" of the hermit's life if they are to meet their own ecclesial obligations in her regard.

I can't overstate the importance of understanding vocations to the consecrated state as ecclesial vocations. They are gifts of the Holy Spirit TO the Church, yes, but they are also entrusted to the Church to discern, protect, nurture and govern. That means that they are given to the WHOLE Church and are up to the WHOLE Church to receive and protect -- even when this mainly occurs through legitimate superiors acting in the name of the Church. They are vocations belonging to the Church and she legislates then way they are to be understood and lived. While this does not mean that everyone has an equal voice in the matter, it does mean that folks knowledgeable in the history of the life 'called "consecrated", or those who have lived such lives, do have the right, and often the obligation, to make their opinions known. At the end of the day it is the institutional  Church herself who will clarify what is acceptable or not but until that happens, folks with knowledgeable  or authoritative opinions will discuss matters and give their opinions when asked. What having an ecclesial vocation does NOT mean is that one can do whatever one wants and then conclude "it's up to me and my director and the omniscience of God" just because they belong to the Church that is entrusted with the vocation. This is simply untrue.

No competent director I know would declare a person "consecrated", that is, a member of the consecrated state because he witnessed their private vows. Neither would any competent director suggest one need not listen to what canonists, theologians, or Bishops say about such vocations. None would suggest that a person could assert she knows God's will better than the entire Church and then approve of her living her vocation "in the name of the Church" with out ever being legitimately commissioned to do so. There is a loose usage common regarding the verb "to consecrate" and I hope it ceases sooner rather than later, but even if a spiritual director did mistakenly encourage a directee to declare herself a consecrated hermit or professed religious because she had dedicated herself to God as a hermit, this does not change what the Church herself authoritatively says about initiation into the consecrated state of life.

Let me close this with a quote or two from Pope Francis speaking about vocations to the conse-crated state. It can be found in Keep Watch! A Letter to Consecrated Men and Women Journeying in the Footsteps of God. Francis says, [[ When the Lord wants to give us a mission, he wants to give us a task, he prepares us to do it well, just like he prepared Elijah. The important thing is not that you've encountered the Lord but the whole journey to accomplish the mission that the Lord entrusted to you. And this is precisely the difference between the apostolic mission that the Lord gives us and a good, honest, human task. Thus, when the Lord bestows a mission, he always employs a process of purification, a process of perception, a process of obedience, a process of prayer.]]

And then there is the following one, which, while written with cenobites in mind applies equally well to hermits with ecclesial vocations. That is especially true bearing in mind  St Peter Damian's characterization of solitary hermits as "ecclesiola" or "little churches": [[Thanks be to God you do not live or work as isolated individuals but in community: and thank God for this! The community [local Church] supports the whole of the apostolate. At times religious communities are fraught with tensions, and risk becoming individualistic and scattered, whereas the need is deep communication and authentic relationships. The humanizing power of the Gospel is witnessed to in fraternity lived in community [the local parish and diocese, etc] and is created through welcome, respect, mutual help, understanding, kindness, forgiveness and joy.]]

I have written many times here that the really deadly sin of the solitary hermit is  individualism. This is the real route of destruction for an ecclesial vocation and  a  destructive caricature of eremitical solitude. No one who prays regularly much less assiduously can separate themselves from the community of the Church. No one living a vocation in the name of the Church can eschew the opinions of those who knowledgeably comment on the requirements of the canons governing their own vocations. They certainly cannot suggest that no matter what the Church says, they don't need to listen to anyone's opinion but those of their spiritual director and God and (if they have even been given this right) still legitimately call themselves a Catholic Hermit. For those who are lay hermits but not living their eremitical lives in the name of the Church I think they must still be concerned with what the Church says about the eremitical vocation; they can make their own opinions heard in this matter and are relatively free to live as they feel called, but they should take care not to exchange individualism for eremitical freedom.

Followup: On the Significance of the Designation Er Dio (Eremita Dioecesanus)

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I am grateful you answered my question on the issue of humility and titles. I realize you rewrote your response. I am sorry if my questions were upsetting. I do have a followup one though. In the blog article On Humility and Hermit Titles, the author seems to reluctantly accept that the use of titles and post-nomial initials by Religious Congregations is relatively meaningful because their members are all under a single Rule but that diocesan hermits are individuals with each one being unique and governed by his or her own individual Rule. I think she is saying that hermits shouldn't use a single set of post-nomial initials or titles because they have less in common with one another than they have differences. Does the use of Er Dio or Erem Dio serve to mask an eremitical individualism? I know you argue that eremitical life is not about individualism so it would be pretty serious if the use of the designation "diocesan hermit" were a way of masking that --- something I think maybe On Humility and Hermit Titles is suggesting. I hope this is a more substantive question than my others!!]]

Yes, thank you. This is indeed a substantive question and an interesting one (at least I find it interesting, not least because it was my own Bishop who first approved the use of the initials Er Dio or Erem Dio in 2008!). The poster "joyful hermit", a privately vowed (i.e., a lay or non-canonical) hermit rather than a publicly professed diocesan hermit with the right to use either title or such post-nomial initials, wrote the following: [[ One has come to accept that those in religious orders thought it best to clarify they are of this or that order (Benedictine, Franciscan,  on and on). Perhaps it was necessary to self-identify based upon different rules of life, different foci of spiritual and corporal works of mercy. But they are groups of consecrated religious, living in monasteries under one rule. Hermits are individuals living under individual rules, other than the handful of hermit monastic orders. Even then, their lived daily rules of life are uniquely individual, and in solitude and silence. If there is any point to our identifying ourselves by name and especially by letters or symbols following our names, the reason eludes this nothing. It is rather odd to even add "Catholic hermit" to the "nothing", but this nothing Catholic hermit has a point--attempts to make a point by including "Catholic" with "hermit" to "nothing". ]]

What the poster whom you and I have both cited has missed, I believe, is that while Religious living in community do indeed live under a single Rule and set of Constitutions, diocesan hermits, no matter their individual differences or location (country, diocese, spiritual tradition or family, etc), are each bound by the same canon, both morally and legally. They especially live their lives according to and under the aegis of Canon 603, both sections 1 and 2. They each live their own Rule, yes, but each Rule is a tailored expression of the way their lives are an instance of assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and the content of their public profession in the hands of the local  Ordinary. Each Rule will reflect the life of a consecrated religious with legitimate superiors and a commission to serve the People of God. The life, unlike that of the privately-vowed hermit, is thus a specifically and formally ecclesial one which is marked by certain public relationships (Bishop, Diocese, delegate) and responsibilities. Other canons which apply to all religious may also legally bind diocesan hermits but it is canon 603 that primarily defines every one of our lives.

As I have written here a number of times all of these requirements and governing norms serve to assist the Diocesan Hermit to fulfill her public commitment and obligation to live eremitical life in the Name of the Church. Each Diocesan Hermit has assumed responsibility for responding to, protecting, and extending the scope of the movement of the Holy Spirit in regard to the Christian eremitical tradition. Each diocesan hermit's life is meant to be an expression of the norm Canon 603 represents --- a paradigmatic example of solitary eremitical life with the commonalities and individual flexibilities every authentic hermit shares but lived in a publicly accountable way as the Church has commissioned him/her to do. The designation Er Dio (or Erem Dio) points to all of this; it establishes a very substantial shared content with a similarly significant degree of authentic freedom to be embraced by public vow and approved Rule. It is, when lived well and with integrity, about as far from individualism as I can imagine.

Er Dio (Eremita Dioecesanus): A Measure and Marker of Commonality

You see, when I see, read about, or hear of a hermit using the initials Er Dio (or others which signal their identity as professed and consecrated under Canon 603), I know that we share a host of similar values, relationships, daily commitments, joys and struggles. I know that different as we each are (and indeed we are each amazingly unique) we have been called and given our lives in Christ to the same charism, the same tradition, the same ecclesial vocation. We share the same vows, explore the same solitary, silent depths of union with God in service to the Church and World --- and we know that we are each publicly responsible to do so for the whole of our lives --- not least so our brother and sister hermits may also be sustained in their own commitments.

While our Rules and horaria differ one from the other we maintain this commitment as solitary hermits, usually, though not always, within a parish community with its joys, friendships, opportunities and sorrows; moreover we do so as consecrated persons responsible for our own upkeep, cognizant that others are similarly responsible, and often times, may be struggling just as we may sometimes do in living without the usual securities, challenges and consolations provided by Religious communities. Er Dio, a designation some canon 603 hermits in several countries have adopted with their Bishops' permission witnesses to all of this and more. It stresses commonality, a shared and numerically very rare contemporary vocation, and omits distinguishing dimensions (like the hermits' own preference in spiritual traditions, for instance); it is emphatically NOT meaningless nor is it a mask for individualism pretending to eremitism.  For related discussions please check out: Ecclesial and Normative Vocations, or Eremitical Life: Ecclesiality vs Individualistic Devotional Acts, New Post-Nomial Initials for Diocesan Hermits and similar posts.

I sincerely hope this has been helpful. While much is repetitive I think some recently-broken new ground (cf, On Canon 603 and Herding Cats) was covered more explicitly in regard to the commonalities implied by the designation Er Dio. By the way, not to worry; your questions were not upsetting in the least. Occasionally a post (and its author!!!) will benefit from a different approach; this was definitely one of those. Thanks for your patience.

On canon 603 and Herding cats

[[Hi Sister Laurel, in a blog with a long article about Roman Catholic Hermits one writer notes that  "defining Canon Law for Hermits is as practical as herding cats". I think the comment was meant facetiously since the article is a positive one. The author said it was a topic he would return to but I'm not sure whether he has done that. What do you think about the comment? Is canon 603 impractical?]]

Hi and thanks for the question. I am familiar with the article you mentioned, partly because the author referenced something I wrote here on the issue of supposed drawbacks of canon 603. The article you cited is a fine blog introduction to the state of hermits in the Roman Catholic Church today and can be read here: The Hermit in Roman Catholic Canon Law. I have read other articles in the blog occasionally and I definitely recommend it. Unfortunately, I don't know either whether the author followed up on the "herding cats" comment. On one hand it certainly makes me laugh in recognition. Anyone trying to achieve consensus with even a handful of other hermits can assuredly relate. Even so I think the image is flawed. Keeping that in mind, my initial response is that the truth or falsity, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement really depends upon at least two things.

The first is the purpose of canonical legislation; if Canon Law is meant to create an exhaustive and detailed norm or set of norms to which every hermit must be conformed without exception or flexibility then the statement is entirely true. No such law or canon could be composed, much less enforced. Such a project would be futile. However, if canon law is meant to set up a general norm by which the movement of the Holy Spirit can be discerned and responded to in significant ecclesial ways then the statement is false. That is, in such a case the project would not be nearly so futile as the comment might suggest. The second thing upon which the truth or falsity of the statement depends is whether and in what sense we consider hermits "individualists".  I am not sure how most folks regard canon law generally, but I would be VERY surprised to hear any authentic hermit living the nuts and bolts of an eremitical life who would consider canon 603 to be an attempt to impose an unnatural uniformity on genuine hermits much less on individualists who merely want to do what they want when they want to do it. I honestly believe that any authentic hermit, whether canonical or non-canonical, reflecting seriously on the nature of canon 603 will recognize the gift it is to both the Church and world in defining the essential nature of Christian eremitical life and freedom.

I have reflected on the nature of Canon 603 in a relatively focused or persistent way for the last 10-11 years and again (in my introduction to this canon) more superficially from about 1983-1989. Today, of course, I look at it from from the inside, as someone professed accordingly, and as I have written before here (cf Supposed Drawbacks of Canon 603) I find it to be an amazing blend of certain non-negotiable elements and the flexibility (also a defining element in authentic eremitical life) which comes from the experienced hermit writing her own Rule. Together these serve the eremitical tradition and the individual hermit's authentic freedom to explore and embody this vocation in contemporary circumstances. More, because the canon understands that genuine Freedom is lived within historical constraints the Canon defines and codifies those elements necessary to allow the Holy Spirit to move and guide a hermit in her exploration of the undefinable depths of solitary life with God and to do so as part of a living tradition.

Canon 603 does not attempt to define every particular of the hermit's life. Neither do bishops nor delegates responsible for supervising the lives of diocesan hermits. To do so would "cripple" the Holy Spirit and curtail human freedom necessary for and a sign of spiritual growth rather than establishing a context which helps ensure these. It DOES seek to differentiate, I think, between individuality and any exaggerated individualism however. One of the really popular conceptions of the hermit is the consummate individualist. They are, stereotypically, the persons who eschew community,  reject peer pressure, and go their own way. They are seen as persons who march to their own drummers, who live off the grid, who are often self-centered, curmudgeonly, anti-institutional, antinomian or anarchical, and anti-social. This means that quite often we have called such persons hermits. It is a common and legitimate usage for the term "hermit" but it is not what the Church means by the term. Rather than a definition that centers on individualism, the Church recognizes eremitical life as a unique expression of the covenant life which issues in true individuality. Hermits, in ecclesial terms, are individuals who live a solitude which both fosters and witnesses to the foundational relationship with God every person IS.

Canonical Hermits MAY be (or at least begin as) individualists, but their vocation calls them to allow this to be tempered and channeled by their dependence on God and their openness to God's will and purposes within the context of the faith community we call church. In time the individualist is transformed into a contemplative individual whose heart, mind, and spirit are inspired and shaped by the Holy Spirit to reflect the silence of solitude in an ecclesial context. As I am sure I have written here many times, one of the reasons canon 603 stresses the eremitical life is lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world is to underscore the distinction between the covenantal life of the Christian hermit with its incredible individual integrity and authentic freedom and the self-centered license or the isolation of the individualist.

This conversion from autonomy to theonomy, that is from being a law unto oneself to being moved by and obedient to the sovereign will of God in a desert context, is an aspect of what I have identified here before as the necessary and essential transition from lone individual to hermit which must precede the possibility of admission to even temporary profession. The Holy Spirit has worked in this way within the Christian tradition for two millennia and given the epidemic of ego-centric individualism in today's culture I think it is important to understand eremitism as something fundamentally different than a call to individualism or even as a call which accommodates individualism. Perhaps it is one of the rare and paradoxical ways in which God combats an individualism which drives so much worldliness and its need for reconciliation. In the case of canon 603 the church has found an effective if imperfect way of codifying the elements essential to an inspired (charismatic) and consecrated eremitical life.

At bottom the truth is that while every hermit is different from every other hermit, what it means to be an eremite in terms of canon 603 is not defined by these differences but by the significant similarities recognized and forged by the constitutive elements of ecclesial eremitical life. In other words eremitical life as understood by the Church is something individuals are formed in by the love of God through stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the evangelical counsels, and the silence of solitude in an ecclesial context according to a Rule the Hermit writes herself. The Canon recognizes and affirms this in a normative way.

The dynamic involved in its creation is an example of the wisdom we hear in tomorrow's Gospel lection: The Sabbath (or the law) is made for man, not man for the Sabbath (or the law) . In approaching the Church's creation of canon law for hermits we must understand that the law (canon 603, etc) is made for the sake of the vocation, not the other way around. As a result we must understand that not every "hermit" in the common (individualist) sense of the term will either desire or be able to live in this way for the sake of God and others. But then, not every "hermit" in the common sense of the term will have been called by God to human wholeness and completion via this specific route. In fact, history tells us very few will. In creating canon 603 the Church is not attempting to herd cats; instead it is attempting to characterize, nurture, protect, and govern a vocation which some relative few in humanity's immense "clowder" will embrace obediently and wholeheartedly to best fulfill God's own purposes for their lives and his Kingdom.

Radical Individualism vs Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, what is the difference between a radical individualist and a hermit according to Catholic teaching?]]

This is a question I have touched on many times in various posts, but not a direct question I have ever received before this. There are several posts which deal with the question  but see especially Why isn't Your Vocation Selfishness Personified?  and Eremitism or Exaggerated Individualism?  The essential answer to your question is found in the canon governing this life. This would constitute "Church teaching" in the sense your question means it. It reads ". . .[this vocation is lived] for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." 

There are many reasons for embracing solitude and all of them may benefit the one doing the embracing. Some of them are mainly or primarily meant for this and others are ONLY embraced for this reason. The vocation of the diocesan hermit (and any hermit living his or her life in the Name of the Church) differs in that it is, by definition, lived for the sake of others, first of all God, then others, and only then oneself. The hermit witnesses to a life lived with God as THE covenant partner; she witnesses to the completion or redemption of a covenantal life lived in and with God and she does so so that God might one day be all in all and others, especially those who might have been isolated by the circumstances of life, may be given hope for the redemption and transformation of these same lives. 

As I have noted before there is a great difference in living in a way which suits one (for instance, because one is a writer, an artist, or even someone gifted in religious experience, as well as for more negative reasons --- failure in relationships, chronic illness, inability to live in a complex contemporary world, etc) and living in a way which suits one BECAUSE it is a way of loving and serving God and others. Hermits embrace a desert vocation for this latter reason; the former reason (it suits her) is never enough to shape one's life or justify calling oneself a hermit in the Church's sense of this term; for that reason the Church does not tend to profess and consecrate people for such inadequate reasons.

Why isn't your Vocation Selfishness Personified?

[[Dear Sr Laurel, I have long thought the hermit vocation is a selfish one. I have read blogs by so-called hermits and they seem to be completely self-centered --- I am not speaking of yours here, but if you google "hermit blogs" or "Catholic hermit" blogs you will find blogs by "hermits" whose entire focus is on how much they suffer and their own growth in holiness. It's all "me, me, me." You claim that the vocation is essentially one of love, but how do hermits really love others if they are living in solitude? You also claim that your vocation is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but isn't this just a way of excusing selfishness? Anyone can say they are doing something because of "love" but the proof of that is in the pudding, as the saying goes. How does the church figure out whether someone is saying they are called to this as a way of loving others instead of just being selfish? It seems like a really easy lie to tell yourself and your diocese.]] (Redacted to shorten email)

You know, these are terrific questions. They are really excellent because they go to the heart of the matter of discerning, choosing, and living this life well; they also reprise a position that even a few great Church Fathers have held. Sometimes it is monastics more generally that are accused of selfishness. It is all that "fuga mundi" (flee the world) stuff (which is entirely valid and laudable when understood properly) coupled with a theology of consecrated life that strongly disparaged lay and secular vocations. We, as the People of God, are still outgrowing a lot of that but have begun making serious inroads thanks to Vatican II's emphasis on the universal call to holiness. Progress here is also due to the fact that we are becoming more sensitized to the place of active ministry in our world as well as to the importance of secularity and mission. Even so, we also are coming to a greater awareness that being has priority over doing, that mission depends upon the impulse and assistance of the missionary God empowering us, and that loving others is not possible unless we have been loved ourselves. This means there will always be a place for contemplative and even eremitical vocations which witness to this foundational relationship and need.

I have seen at least some of the blogs you seem to be speaking of and there is no doubt that if one is looking for self-centeredness one can find it by googling the terms you have cited. I have written about such supposedly "eremitical" lives in the past along with posts on hermit stereotypes and misunderstandings, inadequate reasons for seeking to live an eremitical life, the counter cultural nature of the vocation --- especially in a world which is strongly individualistic and even narcissistic, as well as on the charism of the vocation which presents genuine solitude as a form of communion which represents the redemption of individualism, isolation, and alienation. Recently I read an article called " The Urban Hermit Abnormal Personality" which takes some of what you have noted and a lot of what I have written against and identified it with the "urban hermit personality" in today's society. (To be honest, it is not clear the author is actually referring to urban diocesan hermits at all in this piece. While he might well think of these as selfishness personified AND institutionalized, he may merely have been giving a colorful name to misanthropes, and walking wounded who choose to live as isolated loners.)

The problem is that some "hermits" provide grist for this author's mill and, because they are truly seeking to validate as well as excuse their own self-centeredness, they do the vocation no favors when they write about being or becoming a hermit. (N.B., validation goes beyond excusing self-centeredness and is therefore more problematical.) So how is my vocation (both my own vocation and the vocation more generally) one which is founded on love then? How can a vocation which is more about being than doing really be loving in the way we usually associate with the lives of Religious? These are the ways I would restate your question, "How do hermits really love others?" and the approaches I would like to use to begin to respond to it.

Rooted in a Necessary Selfishness:

First of all, my vocation is grounded in the love of God. God has called me to it, that call has been validated and in fact mediated to me by the Church and I trust it. This means that I trust it is not merely selfishness masquerading as something worthy, much less something Divine or sacred. For me this is a piece of things I had not really appreciated sufficiently until after perpetual eremitical profession when several concerns and sources of anxiety dropped away. It is part of the freedom I experienced and have spoken about when I described not having to worry any longer about whether I was really called to something else, or whether I should be conforming my life to the expectations and norms of the world around me --- including the world of apostolic or ministerial Religious and the church more generally. Further, God continues to call me in this way on a daily basis and my own engagement with God in prayer and everyday living attests to growth in this love.

It is this growth which points to a necessary and entirely graced "selfishness" in answering any call. I have responded to God and done so out of love for God and his People but there is no doubt that I have also found this the means to personal healing and growth in human wholeness and holiness. I continue responding to God day by day. You see, my own life was once dominated by chronic illness. I have done a lot in spite of it (education, work, ministry) but even so most of the time achievements were hard-won things and often the illness itself "won out." As a result I was once simply unable to serve in the way I felt called to serve, whether that was directly because of the illness or because of the human brokenness, limitations, and incapacity which accompanied it. More fundamentally, my illness prevented me from being the human being I felt called to be, from relating to others or loving in the ways I thought (knew) I should love; it was a dominating, sometimes all-consuming reality and it crippled me on every level. Not least it prevented me from truly loving myself, and therefore, from effectively loving anyone else in the radical way Christ calls us each to do. It is at this point that eremitical life enters the picture and becomes important.

The first time I read canon 603 I realized that if this really pointed to a vital form of Christian life it could well provide the context for a life in which illness was deprived of its power to disrupt, dominate, and even define me. In other words it could provide a context in which every aspect of my life could make sense and thus become fruitful in some yet-to-be-defined sense. There is a selfishness involved here, a fundamental concern with the sense of one's own life, yes; it is a necessary form of selfishness which requires we love ourselves (and I mean truly love ourselves!!) in order that we may love our neighbors AS ourselves. In other words, I had to find a way to live a responsive and covenantal life with God in which God's grace could actually triumph over powers of darkness and death as they manifested themselves in my own life and heart. I had to find a way to deprive illness of its power to dominate and define, its ability to foster self-hatred in me. Solitary eremitical life provides the God-given context and means for that for me. In answering any divine call this particular form of "selfishness" will be present, and I would argue it must if we are to love others as we are truly called to do. This "truly loving oneself" is the necessary and graced form of selfishness on which the Great Commandment is based.

The Primacy of Being over Doing:

I think this points to a certain primacy of being over doing. We really must be persons who love ourselves in the power of God's love if we are to love others as God calls us to do. Of course we cannot omit the whole "going out and doing" dimension, but what I have found is that if  we touch others FROM a place of essential solitude (which means from a place of  personal communion with God) our very lives will be ministerial --- whether or not we are otherwise engaged in apostolic or ministerial activity. In other words what we do must and can only truly be a reflection of who we are; activity must and can only flow from contemplation; being must have priority so that it may define and guide whatever it is we do. More, it must be our primary ministry. This may sound counter cultural or contrary to the emphasis of so much  which is prevalent in our church and world today --- and it is! But it is also valid and an important lesson or witness our world and our Church needs.

Both our Church and our world often seem to preference doing over being, so much so that folks are out doing (teaching, ministering, etc) in all kinds of ways long before they have achieved the degree of human wholeness and wisdom necessary for that. (The stereotype of the psychologically wounded or crippled psychiatrist is a good symbol of this. So, unfortunately, is the image of the predatory priest turned loose to minister again because of a dearth of priests. So, for instance, is the glut of self-help books on the market offering instant wisdom and expertise for the price of a paperback, the "advanced degrees" which can be purchased for a couple of hundred dollars, or the prevalence of cheating and plagiarism in today's world!) While to some extent we all learn by doing, and while we all need to be interns and novices at various stages in our lives, my point is we tend to preference doing over being in ways which can be destructive.

But if the priority of being over doing is a profound truth which is in danger of being lost sight of today it is the very thing hermits and other contemplatives remind our church and world of --- and doing so is a profound act of love which, potentially at least, may leave no one untouched. For solitary hermits in particular, I think we witness to the profound sense life makes in communion with God, even when that life cannot issue in active ministry to others. For this reason I have written a lot in this blog about the witness we give to the chronically ill, the isolated elderly, the bereaved, and even to prisoners. I have spoken of it as the unique charism or gift quality of the hermit's life. As I have also noted here, all of these persons are marginalized, not least by the fact that they cannot measure the value and fruitfulness of their lives in the terms so prevalent today. They cannot compete in terms of productivity or various kinds of achievement (academic, political, etc). They cannot be terrific consumers or measure their lives in economic terms; often they require the assistance of others and government subsidies and aid even to live. But the hermit, and indeed all contemplatives say that such lives are infinitely valuable nonetheless.

And yet it is the Gospel message that we are justified (made right and truly human as part of a covenant relationship with God) through the gratuitous grace of God, not through any works of our own. By extension that message is also the message that our lives are of infinite worth simply because we are who we are, not because of what we do. Hermits proclaim that message with their lives in a unity of being and doing. I don't mean to suggest that others do not  act out of such a unity; I know they do. However, for hermits, our only role in the church is to be ourselves in God alone --- no one else. (It is this reason failing as a hermit is so easy, and trying to live as one is so risky. It is this reason mediocrity is so easy. Hermits do not tend to have active ministries they can use to distract from who they are first of all. They cannot use the roles they fill to soften the fact that they are not really WHO God has called them to be.) Who they ARE in God IS their ministry, and the fact that this happens by the grace of God in the silence of solitude IS their message. They can fall back on nothing else. (This too is one reason hermits are not called to active ministry and must be careful in even the limited amount in which they might engage. Their vocation really is to BE themselves in God alone. Their primary (or only) ministry really is in being and in calling folks to the primacy of being, not in doing.)

How does the Church Discern authentic vocations?

There is one main way the Church discerns the difference between inauthentic and authentic vocations. She demands that authentic vocations are vocations of love which contribute to the salvation of the world and praise and glorify God (make God manifest). One way of doing this is to look at the place of God in the hermit's life and discourse. While some self-proclaimed hermits do write about "Me, me, me" so that even their writing about spirituality becomes only secondarily about God, the genuine article makes it clear that they are who they are and do what they do only because of God.

So, for instance, if chronic illness is a piece of the hermit's life it is no longer the dominant or overarching theme; instead, what God has done (or does day by day!) in their lives both in spite of and with the illness will be the dominant theme. As a person matures even the illness may be seen as a genuine grace --- not articulated in some pious pretense of medieval mystical misery, but in the sense that this has brought the person to God and allowed God both a unique entry into her life and the achievement of a unique voice which will be mediated to others through both strength and weakness. That life then becomes "a silent preaching of the Lord" --- just as the CCC refers to in par 921. In other words, what God's grace makes possible in terms of human wholeness and holiness is their main focus and the key in which all else is set. The person becomes something very much greater and more articulate than a cry of anguish; she becomes instead an expression of the Gospel and an embodied reflection of God's own Logos. None of this means that the person cannot occasionally talk about themselves or their illness, sinfulness, brokennesses, etc, but it does mean that doing so occurs mainly in order to illustrate the grace of God's love and in contrast to the wholeness that grace has achieved in the person's life.

Thus, I would suggest that it is really not all that easy to lie about this matter. It is true that one can cover misery and brokenness with all kinds of pious platitudes, but the real person always shines through. More, the real God shines through in a compelling way when the hermit is authentic. The blogs you refer to affirm this in a kind of via negativa. Even for hermits in the early stages of grappling with this vocation and their own growth in it what comes through is their hope, their hunger to respond generously and wholeheartedly, their desire to give God free reign to work in their lives as God will. There will be some sense that this is primarily and sincerely done for God and those precious to God. Dioceses that take time to really listen to the candidate and get to know them will see clearly who has priority in their lives, even when the healing is partial or the grip of illness is still quite strong. On the other hand, I would agree with you that it is much easier to lie to oneself and I would note that this is one (but only one) of the reasons dioceses turn away FAR more applicants than they accept or eventually admit to temporary much less perpetual profession.

In my own experience dioceses usually look carefully at who the person is in light of their life of the silence of solitude. If they see increased growth in human maturity, wholeness, and holiness, if they see a greater capacity to love themselves and others, then they have reason to believe that the person is truly called by God to this. If they do not see this, or if the person seems to become more miserable or eccentric while living in this way, more isolated and alienated, or if they become more and more strident and bitter about not being admitted to vows, more critical of the vocation itself, etc, then the diocese is probably justified in their decision not to profess or even to admit them to serious discernment --- at least for the time being.

The Bottom Line in Discerning Eremitical Vocations:

At bottom there will always be questions of love: Is the person motivated by love? Does she love God and seek to respond wholeheartedly to God's love? Does she show signs of truly loving herself because of what she has experienced of God's love (especially) in solitude? Does she understand that simply living her life alone with God with the graced (in-Spired) integrity she is called to is an act of profound love the world desperately needs? And, finally, does she undertake (or desire to undertake) and embrace the WHOLE of this life, its discipline, monotony or tedium, sacrifices and rewards, occasional desolations and enormous consolations,  because she recognizes the gift (charism) it is not only to herself, but to the church, and to the world? Does she do so, in other words, on their behalf as well as on her own, and maybe better said, does she do so for them because that truly fulfills her as well? Again then, contrary to your own opinion I would argue that it is pretty difficult to fake convincing answers to these questions, especially as a vocation matures. A diocese whose vocational personnel are careful and discerning will recognize a life in which God (love-in-act) is glorified (made manifest), just as they will recognize its opposite.

By the way, this is a piece of why such vocations must be mutually discerned and why the Church reserves the term Catholic hermit for someone living the life in her name.  Hermits and other contemplatives tend to speak of themselves as living at the heart of the Church. This saying has a number of levels or dimensions but above all it means that the hermit represents a vocation to love which both precedes and grounds all apostolic activity. The journeying in the wilderness and the battling with demons a hermit does is mainly the sojourn she undertakes deep into her own heart and the heart of God so that love may truly predominate in all things. When I speak of taking on the rights and obligations of the eremitical life as a diocesan hermit I am speaking in large part of assuming the burdens and joy of these "bottom line" questions and this pilgrim role in a conscious and public way in the name of the Church and her Gospel.