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 which 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 that we must truly distance ourselves from 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 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 does 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. 

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.

What "Kind of Hermit" Does Canon 603 Envision?

[[Hello Sister, This might be a tricky question. When canon 603 says that people can be professed as hermits it doesn't say what type of hermit. What I mean is that in the Church's Tradition there seems to be many different expressions of eremitical life. For example you have the strict solitude of the Desert Fathers and Mothers and medieval anchorites, the seclusion in the midst of community like the Carthusians or the Franciscan model of long periods in hermitages interspaced by periods of intense public preaching and ministry. My question then is what type of eremitical life does canon 603 envision? Is it up to the hermit and his or her bishop to decide what an individual's eremitical witness will look like?]]

Thanks for your questions. I don't think this is a tricky matter. I say that because in the main Canon 603 is, as I have written many times here, very flexible. First of all it is up to the individual (and her diocese) to discern 1) whether she has an eremitical vocation of any expression, and 2) what her eremitical life will look like --- though how she will live out the elements of canon 603 is an indispensable and central part of these questions. The key to canon 603 vocations consists in the fact that these will always be calls to be a solitary hermit life embodying the following elements: assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and the evangelical counsels under a Rule the hermit herself writes based on lived experience. While lauras of similarly professed individuals with their own Rules, etc. are allowed, these may not rise to the level of actual communities. (Jean Beyer, Commentary on Canon 603)

Since Lauras fail more than they succeed, the hermit must have her own Rule, income, job/profession, savings, delegate, etc. She must be able to live as a solitary hermit no matter what --- meaning no matter who else stays or leaves a laura -- or whether or not one ever even exists! (Most canon 603 hermits are the only ones in their dioceses and never even meet other hermits face to face.) Similarly, the elements of the canon have priority over the variations which might be linked to a particular spirituality. For instance, while St Francis wrote a Rule for hermits, some aspects of it might not be deemed compatible with the foundational elements of canon 603. For instance, while mendicancy is esteemed in Franciscanism, it is unlikely to be acceptable by a diocese looking at a potential c 603 vocation. I suspect the same would be true of extended periods of preaching and ministry; my own sense is canon 603 does not allow for this where Franciscan proper law does. In such a case one might be discerning a call to be a Secular Franciscan, for instance where one builds in significant degrees of solitude rather than a canon 603 vocation.

Still, so long as the central elements of the canon are embraced as the defining elements and charism of the life (the silence of solitude functions, I believe, as the charism of c 603 life) and lives these in a foundational way, canon 603 can accommodate a variety of emphases and variations or "spiritualities". When a person works out what expression of eremitical life is their very own then yes, the Bishop and the individual will mutually discern the appropriateness of canon 603 profession and consecration in this specific diocese. (N.B., while the discernment is mutual this does not necessarily mean the Bishop and/or Vicars for Religious will agree with the candidate petitioning for admission to profession.) In general, one does not simply ask what c 603 allows and then try to fit oneself under that in some cut and paste way. Instead one discerns the shape of one's own call under canon 603, explores the various spiritualities one feels drawn to embrace to support one in that, and, in time, thus discovers whether (and how) this spirituality can legitimately be embodied as an expression of canon 603 eremitical life. Thus, for instance, I am first of all a diocesan hermit and only secondarily Camaldolese Benedictine. While I think the Camaldolese charism best supports the diocesan eremitical vocation, I could fruitfully live my vocation according to several spiritualities including Cistercian, Camaldolese, and possibly Franciscan.

While it is not necessary to embrace a specific spiritual tradition or family, canon 603 has solitary hermits in the Benedictine, Carmelite, Cistercian, Camaldolese, Camaldolese Benedictine, Carthusian (St Bruno), Franciscan, Redemptoristine, Augustinian, and other traditions or spiritualities. (I say there are others because the ones I named specifically are the ones I personally know of; I am certain I don't know all there are.) Some diocesan hermits live as anchorites with a greater degree of stability of place and may not belong to any specific tradition beyond the medieval model of anchoritism.

In other words there is a significant degree of diversity in the way diocesan hermits live the non-negotiable elements of canon 603. So, thoroughly explore your own sense of call and, so long as you discover a call to solitary eremitical life as defined according to the canon, don't worry about whether you are the "kind of hermit" that will fit under canon 603. Once you have done that your Bishop and you will determine if you are called to public profession and consecration of the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 (for this is really another question). If the decision is that you are called to at least temporary profession there is reasonable assurance that your own embodiment of the eremitical vocation fits just fine (or essentially so!) and in any case you will be able to 'tweak' that as needed; discernment continues beyond this point.