On Eremitical Freedom and the Place of Limited Institutionalization

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I appreciate canon 603 and the vocation it defines and governs. However, I am a lay hermit who regards the freedom of eremitical life even more than that. It seems to me that when something like eremitical life is institutionalized we lose the freedom it is so famous for. So when you write about the rights, obligations, and expectations linked to canonical standing I hear the clinking of chains and the destruction of a vocation with the limits imposed by canon law. I know you don't agree with this and I am not really expecting you to respond to it but I hope you see how counterintuitive it is to say, "Yes, I have accepted the constraints of canon law and done so while respecting the traditional freedom of the eremitical vocation."]]

Thanks for your comments. I will respond to them only briefly with brand new material because, while I will also reprise a post I wrote fairly recently (January 2020), I need to comment specifically on your point about something being counterintuitive. Remember that in Christianity there is a good deal which is counterintuitive: it is in weakness that we find strength most fully revealed, earthen vessels that are the most worthy vessels of an inestimable divine treasure (true whether we are talking about the Incarnation or our own participation in that), wealth in poverty is counterintuitive, as is glorification in abject shame or overarching success in failure, etc, etc. Some would argue that these paradoxes which stand at the heart of Christianity reveal a truth that is often, perhaps always, counterintuitive.

Freedom in Christian theology is also counterintuitive which is why it is often rejected or mistaken for license. Freedom is the power to become/be the persons we are called to be by God and it will always involve constraints. Always. Similarly, eremitical solitude is a form, albeit a unique one, of community. That this is counterintuitive is one of the reasons individualism is often allowed to replace eremitical solitude and freedom. So yes, I disagree that the (careful and limited) institutionalization of eremitical life destroys it (ask any Carthusian or Camaldolese or Carmelite hermit if they believe (careful) institutionalization does so!). Freedom  to become and be the persons we are called to be, especially when that means communion and union with God, requires constraints; it requires structure, support, and the kinds of limitations that make sure there is integrity, focus, and perspective. (I apologize for the related comments on fraud in the post reprised below. When I have more time I will try to edit that out.)


[[Dear Sister, why would you be concerned with the incidence of so-called fraudulent hermits? It seems to be a big deal to you but how can one even tell what it means to be "fraudulent"? Isn't it true that the hermit vocation is known for its freedom? If that is so then a hermit should be able to do anything he wants to do or live any way he wants to live. I think people should be able to call themselves "hermit" if they want to or feel God is calling them to this. I think you are too hung up on legalisms. Hermits have always been  eccentric and rebellious so why not let them be that now? Don't take canon 603 so seriously and don't be so concerned with "fraudulent" hermits! It's fake news!]]

Well, it is very clear that you and I stand on opposite ends of a spectrum of opinions with regard to the term and reality "hermit". I have written about this a lot and won't repeat all of that but perhaps I can summarize why it is that fraudulent hermits are so neuralgic for me. Let me begin with a couple of facts which suggest why it is I take canon 603 and the ideas of authenticity and fraud so seriously:

• 1) c 603 has inspired some of us to imagine, explore, and embrace a way of life that has proven life-giving (graced) and a means to living our own integrity as a service to God and others. Though "hidden" our lives have been allowed to be lived "publicly" in the name of the Church according to this canon which means that our own frailties have been and are being transfigured into a gift of the Holy Spirit to, by, and through the Church's ministry, into a witness to the whole world, 
• 2) c 603 grew out of the integrity of a number of hermits who left their solemn vows as monks and risked everything on a perceived vocation to eremitical solitude. The canon was built upon these Brothers' commitment to authenticity and honors them when it is lived in the same way. Similarly then, it dishonors them and the God who called them, whenever it is lived less than authentically or when some pretend to an ecclesial eremitical vocation the Church has not entrusted them with.
• Authentic hermits are rare today. They typically battle not only the demons within their own hearts and the lack of understanding they meet in parishes and dioceses throughout the Church as well as their own sinful tendencies to inauthenticity, but also stereotypes of hermits which are powerful and pervasive. When we add the occurrence of fraudulent "hermits" misrepresenting themselves as "consecrated Catholic hermits" or "professed religious" with the capacity to take advantage of the fact this vocation is little-known and less-well-understood, the situation is made inordinately more difficult for the Church involved in discerning and consecrating authentic vocations, and for parishes trying to learn to recognize and value these.
•  I am concerned about it because it is becoming a significant pastoral issue about which Rome is rightly concerned, but also because I represent a legitimate (c 603) instance of this vocation and am concerned that my own life and the vocation more generally be truly edifying to the Church as a whole.

You see, lives have been built upon the authenticity of others' witness to the power of the Gospel throughout the history of the Church. This is the way we are moved by and from faith to faith. It is the way the Church grows and the Gospel is spread.  Canon 603 reflects a small but significant and normative (canonical) piece of the eremitical way of discipleship. Those called to embrace and embody this norm are called to embrace and embody Christian discipleship in a way which is recognized by the Church herself as a paradigm of solitary eremitic life lived in the name of the Church. She entrusts this call to very few, relatively speaking, by (publicly) professing, consecrating, and commissioning them to follow Jesus in the solitude of the desert. The Church does so so that others may be moved to faith and thus too, to authenticity and fullness of life in whatever deserts their life finds them. This journey in different existential wildernesses is similar to the very journey Jesus made to consolidate his own identity as God's beloved Son, the One in Whom God delighted. It mirrors Jesus' struggle to authenticity, to humility, to fullness of humanity when faced by his life's temptations to live his authority and identity otherwise.

With Canon 603 the Church charts the landmarks of a journey into the desert where those called by God may learn and embrace who they really are vis-a-vis God, just as Jesus did after his own baptism. In this journey, driven by the Spirit as Jesus was driven, one really becomes a desert dweller and to the extent this is true one lives from and for God and all that God holds precious. One lives this identity authentically or one lives a lie; there is no other choice. More, if one lives a lie it is an act of unfaith, an act that says we do not trust the God who calls us to this vocation --- or to whatever vocation he does call us. Beyond that such an act of unfaith is a refusal to love others as God calls us to do; it involves a rejection of our own journey to fullness of being and thus, to the maturation of our capacity to love as Christ loves. To refuse the call to live authentically is to refuse to live fully and to bear the good fruit of the lmago dei God has willed we bear and be.

Freedom vs License: Living Any Way we Want?

With those comments as a background let me try to respond to a couple of your questions or objections. First, why can't a hermit live any way at all? Why isn't this the vaunted freedom of the eremitical life? The canon 603 hermit finds her own freedom defined in terms of the Gospel and the Church's vision of consecrated eremitical life. She is free to live this definition and this vision in whatever ways her own gifts and weaknesses invite her to shape them --- but living them is still what she is called to. She is free to explore the depths of contemplative life with God alone for the sake of others, and to do this in the name of the Church. She is free to be and become the person God calls her to be. Canon 603 creates a context for this specific freedom; I can't emphasize this enough! But in all of this let's be clear. The consecrated hermit is not free to do or be just anything at all. Once a person buys into this libertine notion of "freedom" she has given herself over to many things and definitions of self which may conflict with that which is deepest and truest in herself. Authentic freedom is responsible freedom. After all, that which is deepest and truest is a gift of God she is responsible for living out.

One example comes to mind. It has to do with violin. To the extent one develops the technical ability and discipline involved, one is free to play the entire violin repertoire, both solo and orchestral, and to play it in ways which express the heights and depths of the music and the violinist's mind and heart as well. One does not have to be limited by technical imperfections or incapacities because one has developed the discipline and technical skills necessary to move beyond mere technique. One is free precisely because there are technical constraints one has met in one's training and respects in one's playing. The demands of technique and technical skills can, when met, set one free to transcend these in the act of making music.

If you hand a child a violin and bow and tell them, "Do whatever you like!" the only thing you are apt to insure is that this child will never be technically able to explore the instrument or the repertoire to the extent her inner talents may lead her to yearn to do. If you make sure the child knows there is/are a way(s) to hold the instrument and bow which allows her the freedom to move in all the ways violin music requires she be able to move or make sound, and if you provide lessons, pieces, and etudes which accustom her muscles to the limits and potentialities which are part and parcel of playing freely you will provide the raw material needed for the transcendence found in making music. In any case, consider what happens when someone is called a violinist and, when asked to play for others, shows only that she does whatever she likes with the instrument with no limitations, discipline, or actual knowledge of the instrument and its capacities or the repertoire with which she should be familiar.

Think of what happens with a football or basketball team of really talented players. These players are free to do what they can do as excellent players precisely because of their own training and discipline as well as because of the rules and parameters of the game. But were every player to do whatever he wants, people would be injured and their training made relatively worthless, team work would go by the wayside, scoring would decrease, and the game itself would devolve into chaos no one could enjoy or genuinely follow. Finally, think what would happen with language if we were all entirely free to use language (words, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc) any way we wanted. Our world would quickly fall even further into tribalism and isolation; it would cut down those conventions and compromises which allowed us to speak, worship, do business, govern, and otherwise understand and work with one another.

Similarly then, eremitical life is a disciplined life characterized in specific ways. In particular it is given over to prayer and one's relationship with God so that one might be made holy and God may be glorified. Thus, it will be made up of a balanced life of silence, solitude, prayer and penance, and stricter separation from those things which detract from this primary focus. It will involve personal inner work or spiritual direction which free one to know and be known by God, just as it will involve study, manual work and recreation which allow one to truly live an intense life of faith and prayer with God alone. Eremitism is not about escape but encounter -- first and foremost with God and one's deep self, and then in a limited way with those whom God holds as equally precious; it must be comprised of those things which make such an encounter possible and definitive.

In other words, it has constraints built into it because it is defined in the way the Church has found to insure maximal responsiveness to God and be maximally fruitful for the Church, the world, and of course for one's own call to human wholeness and holiness. Human freedom is always a freedom within constraints. License, the ability to do whatever one wishes whenever one wishes, is not authentic freedom and we oughtn't to confuse the two. The first is the fruit of the Spirit of God Who blows where she will; the second is not, it is worldly (or fleshly) as Paul would have put the matter.

On Fraud:

Tom Leppard, cf Labels for story

Fraud in the entirely common way I have used the term, simply means to be something other than what one claims to be. All kinds of forms of isolated and misanthropic life have been passed off as eremitical or "hermit life" through the centuries. In the late 20C. with c 603, the Church codified in law what she recognized as canonical solitary eremitical life and in this she said the life was sacrificial, generous, assiduously prayerful and loving. She said it was lived for others and was a witness to the Gospel. More, she recognized this as a form of consecrated life for those recognized in law (meaning canonically professed, consecrated, and supervised), and living their own Rule and the Evangelical Counsels under the canonical authority of one's Bishop.

The Church (and only the Church) has the right to do all of this, and also to determine therefore, who lives solitary eremitical life in her name and can thus call themselves a Catholic Hermit. If someone claims to do this apart from these canonical parameters and without the specific permission of the local ordinary mediated in public profession and consecration, then they are a fraud or counterfeit. Perhaps they are a fraud because of ignorance or mental illness and are not culpable, for instance, but a fraud or counterfeit they remain. When folks pretend to a standing in the Church they do not have people will be misled, some will be hurt as they follow the pretender or take her advice. Because eremitical life is little understood it becomes even easier for this to occur. One of the reasons I am especially concerned with fraudulent hermits is because I have heard from several people who were seriously hurt when they followed a pretender's advice on becoming a Catholic Hermit. At the same time it is the case that Rome is concerned with the problem as well.

On Legalism vs Honoring the Law:

Finally, to honor laws is not legalism. It is instead a form of humility and love, a way of participating in community and ensuring the wellbeing of all. License, on the other hand, is unloving, selfish, and uncaring of others. It leads to confusion and disorder; people are hurt by it. Please realize that canon 603 defines the essential landmarks of a vast and rich adventure with God. It draws limits because these point directly to the heights, depths, and breadth of this specific adventure and no other. In the Roman Catholic Church a hermit is defined in law not to diminish freedom but to establish a realm of freedom where, if one is called by God to this specific vocation, one may come to fullness of being, serve others, and glorify God in the silence of solitude. One doesn't  achieve any of this by eccentricity, or rebelliousness, but by a profound obedience to God, the Church, one's own heart, and the commitments one has been allowed and honored to make. . . .]]

Fraudulent Hermits a Problem Through History?

[[Dear Sister, I appreciate there are not a lot of fraudulent hermits out there. I also understand the reasons you claim that canon 603 was not made law because of abuses but have fraudulent hermits been a problem in the history of the Church? You wrote about a canonist being wrong if he said c 603 was developed because of abuses but I would bet there have been problems with this in the past.]]

Thanks for writing again. Yes, as I recall the canonist was reported to have said c 603 itself was a revision of something in the 1917 Code and also that it was developed in order to prevent abuses as well as to accommodate those who desired an "official stamp of approval". While the 1983 Code of Canon Law is a revision of the 1917 Code (which may have been what this canonist actually said) there was NO provision for hermits in the 1917 Code so c 603 per se is not a revision of anything in universal law. Neither was canon 603 itself developed to deal with abuses. Solitary eremitical life had pretty much died out in the Western Church --- at least in the contemporary Church. If there were lay hermits around they were neither a major problem nor instance of abuse of the eremitical life. Meanwhile the hermits that existed in semi-eremitical institutes like the Camaldolese or Carthusians were sufficiently governed by Canon Law and the institutes' own proper law (constitutions and statutes). A new canon would have been unnecessary for these reasons.

However in the history of eremitical life there have been various attempts to deal with both authentic and false or fraudulent hermits. Mark Miles documents some of this history in his Dissertation, Canon  603 Diocesan Hermits in the Light of Eremitical Tradition. He notes that until the Council of Trent (16th C) there were uneven attempts to deal with this form of life at diocesan synods -- though with the Gregorian reforms there were some papal attempts to tighten controls over this form of life. After the Council of Trent bishops were "encouraged to use whatever means necessary to reform the life of clergy and religious" and the result was that many countries "adopted the medium of the diocesan synod to regulate the relationship between hermit and priest, and hermit and bishop." Spain and France in particular adopted such means of regulating individual hermits including a pledge of obedience to the diocesan bishop. In the case of authentic hermits this was done "to offer security and protection" to these persons.

But fraudulent hermits (or those who were false in the sense of being inauthentic) were indeed a problem and a number of steps were taken to control this. In the sixth century hermits were seen as a kind of monk and were required to spend a period of time in a monastery in order to prove his vocation. Hermits who spent "strict training in a monastery" would then be allowed to leave to live as a "full solitary". Miles notes that only then would their "aversion to common life [be] seen as legitimate." (Though technically correct perhaps, I find the historical use of the term aversion here strikingly infelicitous!) After the Council of Trent Pope Benedict XIV proposed a set of norms for the hermits in the diocese of Rome and encouraged other dioceses to do something similar. This work by Benedict XIV recognized "four kinds of hermits that had existed up to that point: [those] linked to a religious order, [those] that lived as a group or congregation under the rule and direction of the diocesan bishop, those that lived completely alone and also under the direction of the bishop and finally, the false hermits." Miles DHET, 85 (Emphasis added.)

With regard to the last group, Spain (including its colonies and territories), for instance, generally required hermits "to be received and instituted in a legitimate way by the diocesan Bishop and remain obedient to him." Miles writes, "Those unwilling to follow this practice were outlawed in most parts of the territory (Mexico)." A number of punishments were associated with infringements of the established legal practice including excommunication (some dioceses in Spain) and in some "false hermits might even find themselves in jail." (Miles, 86) In most countries bishops were similarly directly responsible for the hermits living in his diocese. Minimum ages (40 years) were set by synods as were the permissions or prohibitions of single women pursuing this vocation, candidates were vetted, conditions for moving from one hermitage to another were established as were conditions re wearing a habit and the nature of the habit (e.g., it could not be the same as those worn by established and recognized congregations of monks), etc. Other conditions that were legislated included conditions of life in cell: women were prohibited entry, solitaries could not leave their cells and loiter outside, other situations leading to scandal were regulated and so were the norms for begging for alms. (Especially hermits were not allowed to range far and wide or beg at all hours. The vocation was solitary and sedentary rather than one of peripatetic mendicancy and this had to be respected.)

It seems clear from all of this that the term "false hermits" had two overlapping senses. The first was folks who were under no ecclesiastical authority or direction but who wandered the diocese calling themselves hermits, begging for alms, dressing in habits sometimes mimicking those of clerics and monks, and generally living a life of pretense in this way. The purpose of these varied diocesan norms was indeed to prevent false hermits of this type from operating with impunity. Additionally the norms helped protect the marriage bond and Sacrament of matrimony by preventing married persons from becoming hermits (all Spanish dioceses legislated this) and some excluded single women from living an eremitical life. (Thank God some other countries did not adopt this norm!) The second type of false hermit was as important, namely legitimate hermits who were giving scandal or substituting individualism for an eremitism the Church recognized as authentic. These too were living lives of pretense though it was the more serious pretense of hypocrisy and actual infidelity to an ecclesial commitment and commission.

The distinction between these norms and canon 603 comes from the fact that the contem-porary Latin Church had not had solitary hermits for at least a century and a half. Dioceses were not plagued with false hermits in at least the first sense. Moreover, as I have explained before monks in solemn vows were discovering eremitical vocations but had to be secularized in order to pursue their call to be hermits. Bishop de Roo wrote an intervention for the Second Vatican Council listing five positive reasons (cf On Betraying the Eremitical  Vocation) for recognizing eremitical life as a state of perfection. He was not proposing the Church deal with abuses. My objections to what the canonist was supposed to have said dealt with the application of general historical conditions to the development of canon 603 per se. In no way would I try to suggest diocesan canons were not formulated to fight abuses nor that c 603 could be used in this way if necessary, but the fact is that was not the situation leading to canon 603 itself. This is not why canon 603 was created and promulgated.

By the way, it is also important to note that contrary to the arguments of those who say c 603 is a needless and even destructive instance of increased institutionalization of eremitical life, when viewed against this background c 603 actually represents a less onerous and more flexible instance of canonical institutionalization than has often been the case in Church history. I would argue this is precisely because its roots are positive and an attempt to codify in some protective and nurturing way a precious and prophetic charisma of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the argument that canon 603 is a deviation from and even a distortion of the traditional practice of just going off on one's own to live as a hermit is even more clearly specious than I have demonstrated in the past. Far from being the norm for hermits in the Roman Catholic Church, the examples mentioned above point to a widespread ecclesiastical practice of discouraging or even prohibiting this form of eremitical life as "false". The Church has always acted (though perhaps not always carefully or consistently enough) in a variety of ways to protect a fragile but vital vocation from multiple kinds of "falseness." In this, and in other things, law is used in an attempt to serve love.

References in this article are mainly taken from the doctoral dissertation mentioned. I am not sure how available it is generally but again, the work is entitled, Canon  603 Diocesan Hermits in the Light of Eremitical Tradition by Mark Gerard Miles. Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome 2003.

Further Questions on Increased Institutionalization

Sister Laurel, is the following portrait reflective of something happening today with regard to your vocation?

 [[[Poster] has noted from internet blogs, articles and updates, that there is a growing trend among some hermits, mostly the canonical approved variety, that some through much wordage and repetition, based upon assumed authority, or even stated expertise, have begun to make regulations by setting precedence. What can evolve are rules, laws, set ways of how this or that must be done, called Precedent Law. Noticed a few Dioceses have bought into it, adopted the regulations and are imposing them. Perhaps without even knowing from whence they came. . . .

These more highly developed, highly educated clubs and club makers even create certain ways the others are initiated. They develop ceremonies, and certain clothing to be worn, or at least to have a pin to wear, and a handshake and lots of people at the ceremony. And then certain parts of the ceremony, and words said, certain words, and pledges, and then they are identified by certain letters after their names, as belonging to this or that club, and then they are to have certain body positions at certain times, and then publication of who is in the club or sorority. Everyone can know who is this or that, and some members and some clubs are very important indeed, more important than other clubs or other members of other clubs. Or in the hermit vocation? Is that what CL603 has in mind for hermits? Where did all this hoopla come from? Who is making up these rules? Is it one person, or a handful? By what authority and right?]]

Hi there. I have responded to a portion of this passage in the past, so I would recommend you look for those posts listed under "increased institutionalization" of the eremitical vocation.

However to summarize what I have said there: Diocesan eremitical life is both in continuity with and distinct from the lay eremitical life of the desert Fathers and Mothers. Because it is a form of consecrated life, and thus, a canonical or public one, it does indeed have requirements which must be met, and guidelines for admitting to profession which help ensure the one being admitted will live the life well and with perseverance. The Rite of Profession used by most dioceses is that for cenobitical religious --- though with some slight adaptations for the solitary nature of the life. Still, this Rite is canonical or normative and it includes provisions for clothing, the giving of a ring or other symbols of profession (including cowl, crucifix, Office books, etc), prescribed prayers (including the prayer of solemn consecration in the case of perpetual profession), etc. There is nothing excessive about any of this. nor anything individualistic or experimental. It is the way the Church does canonical (public) professions, the way she receives public vows and consecrates an individual to God in a particular form and state of life. The idea that some small group of hermits is making such stuff up is silly.

At the same time the canonical solitary eremitical vocation is relatively new and everyone is finding their way here. There is certainly dialogue going on regarding what is necessary to live the life well. Similarly there is concern among some diocesan hermits that the vocation itself is endangered by some professions. Despite being a flexible and highly individual vocation, Canon 603 also has normative elements which MUST be lived to be true to the life. The most important of these is "the silence of solitude" which is far more than some solitude and some silence. This is truly the defining characteristic or charism, and therefore the gift quality of the life which hermits live for the world. Thus, this element, which is part of the desert or hesychastic tradition and may not be understood automatically by Bishops or apostolic and ministerial religious, is also one which is easily transformed (and distorted) into merely external silence and solitude or into degrees of these things which are simply a bit more than most people today know in their own lives. It is hermits actually living the silence of solitude which is crafted from a life of prayer who help Bishops and candidates for profession to understand the nature and key position of this element of the canon.

The dialogue going on also sharpens our sensitivity to and rejection of stereotypes. What is the place of mental health in the eremitical life and why? Is this a vocation for the merely selfish and introverted or is it something more? What degrees of engagement with the world around them is the hermit allowed and for what reasons? And then there are simply fundamental questions which must be dealt with in every diocesan hermit's life: What formation, whether initial or ongoing, is required for this life and where does one get this? What age should a person be before becoming a solitary hermit and why? What is the difference between a hermit and a relatively pious person who merely lives alone? How does one make the necessary transition from the latter to the former? What is the role of the diocesan delegate in the hermit's life? What about the role of the diocesan Bishop? How does the diocesan hermit relate to her parish? What role do they have in allowing her to live her life well? How does she live poverty while also being required to support and provide for herself? And so forth.

All of these questions and more have to be worked out on the basis of the desert tradition and lived experience in dialogue with the institutional church. I see the dialogue as a healthy thing. Canon 603 may imply many of these but it does not spell them out. One could say that doing so is part of the vocation of the diocesan hermit today --- even as it is carried out from the solitude of the hermitage.

Finally the author you have cited refers to clubs and in a cynical way to all the trappings of secret clubs adopted by children and perhaps some adults as well --- secret handshakes, body postures, pins, post-nomial initials, positions of status or power, etc. I think most of this is nonsense. It is true that diocesan hermits use initials after their name to indicate their public vocation --- just as religious men and women indicated their standing in a congregation. Part of the reason for this is because it makes clear that consecrated life is no longer open simply to people living in community. Further, there are or have been several different umbrella groups formed to assist people interested in solitary life or diocesan hermits and those aspiring to eremitical life. My sense is they are all fairly inclusive.

I belong to the Network of Diocesan Hermits which is just what it says it is --- a network of those already professed under canon 603 from a number of countries who face issues that religious and lay hermits do not. We allow those aspiring to profession to join an associates group so they can talk with us and one another about the journey they are on. We mentor those whose dioceses request this but we do not replace spiritual directors. We do require verification from the person's diocese that they are either professed as diocesan hermits or accepted to proceed with a more official discernment of a canon 603 vocation with their diocese, but this is about all there is in terms of rules. No one who wishes to join is excluded so long as they are really diocesan hermits or accepted aspirants discerning the life. In any case we are not setting up rules about what canon 603 life must look like, etc nor would any of the members recognize the group in the cynical parody in the passage you cited.

In any case no hermit alone has much ability to shape the praxis of the church in regard to diocesan hermits. Certainly none of us imposes regulations on dioceses or does anything more than participate in an informal dialogue with the Church through the hermit's relationship with her Bishop. The whole idea that dioceses are adopting requirements set up by a few hermits is ludicrous and out of touch with the reality of how the church actually works. At the same time there is no doubt that Bishops listen to the experience of hermits and those who are in contact with them, what works, what is prudent, and the things that are not. We hermits too are concerned with precedents that are destructive of the vocation generally. However, making a point of view known and "imposing it on the church" in some way are very different things. The bottom line in all of this is that the criticism of the person you cited is NOT accurate or reflective of the situation as I know it.

Kohlberg's stages, Ego, and the Desire for Renown

Sister I read the following online. It was written last September and I wondered if you could comment on it since you have written on the issue yourself.

[[As for someone who keeps tabs on such matters has informed, there is still the niggling over what hermits call themselves or not, whether a Catholic hermit or a whobody hermit, whether Jesus' Catholic hermit or Canon Law's Catholic Hermit. Whether a priest can call a hermit a Catholic hermit, or whether a Bishop must call a hermit a Catholic hermit.

Of course, ultimately and presently, it does not matter. Such niggling only brings the nigglers to the imprisonment of Kohlberg's fourth stage (or even down to the second) of moral development. To a hermit of Christ, a Catholic hermit without identity, it does not matter. It does not matter to pew Catholics, nor to non-Catholics. And it will never matter to anyone but those few who are caught up in identity and need for renown in the visible Church.]]

Yes, I have read the comment, but as you note, it was a while ago. In fact I also responded to a question regarding another post from the same blog just a month later so I am certainly familiar with it. The author has an interesting and, to my mind anyway, somewhat cynical perspective on diocesan eremitical life. The question from the same time period I already responded to had to do with visibility as a betrayal of the authentic eremitical vocation. In answering that I referred to the essential hiddenness of the hermit life. I also clarified the source of Canon 603 and how both Canon Law and the Catechism impact the life of the canonical hermit --- for they do so quite in different ways. At this point I should note that the blogger in question is no longer adding posts to this blog, and claims to have moved beyond the designations "hermit" or "Catholic hermit" --- though of course the older posts are still extant and apparently still being read. Because of that, I suppose I will continue to respond to occasional questions regarding older posts.

Kohlberg's Stages Misunderstood

In dealing with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, it is probably important to clarify that, at least as I understand the matter, when one moves to another stage of moral development, elements of the earlier stages do not simply drop away. Instead, they are transcended through integration into a more comprehensive and less one-sided or undifferentiated stage of moral decision-making. So, for instance, a person who went through a stage in moral development where law was their driving concern (and we all do this) may still allude to law in making moral decisions without becoming legalistic, or to the place of authority (4th stage development) without subscribing (or regressing) to a "law and order" way of justifying moral behavior and choices. We see this in people who respect the law and authority but who are capable of creative responses to moral situations law is too general to address. That person might well refer to law or legitimate authority, but be quite far from being driven by a "law-and-order" mentality or legalism of any kind. In fact, it is a sign of relative maturity that in their creative responses to reality they can allow law and authority a proper place.

Thus, one may be well-anchored in what Kohlberg identifies as the post-conventional or more mature and less self-centered stages of justifying moral decisions and still point out that law is important. The same with genuine authority. My own position that Canon Law serves love in various ways (to the extent this is actually true and allowed to be true) is an example of this kind of justification I think. What is preeminently important in determining what is moral (and truly human) here is charity, but the person who loves well does not simply or generally jettison law or authority in the process. Neither does a theologian who refers to authority in the Church, or to the rightful (pastoral!) application of canon law, automatically regress to earlier stages of moral development and motivation in so doing. The opposite is more likely true if the emphasis is truly on the pastoral. On the other hand, the person who dismisses the rightful place of law and authority in life may well be regressing to a more infantile and individualistic "anything goes so long as it serves me" stage of moral decision making.

So Who Cares?

The second point the poster makes is that who is or is not a Catholic hermit does not matter to anyone except those "few who are caught up in identity and need for renown in the visible Church." I suspect the author meant ego rather than identity (for existing in Christ is a matter of significant identity, though not of ego) but I can only respond to what she said. Of course I disagree, and I do so because words have meaning and the meaning of words (and the lives and other realities they describe) is important to people. As I have noted before, there is a thing called "truth in advertising" and if one says they are a Catholic Hermit, others have the right to expect that they are using the term in the way the Catholic Church uses it and have accepted all the rights and commensurate obligations which are linked to it. That is only fair and only charitable to others who seek to understand and trust the reality to which the term points. It is also only fair to the word itself, for to use it any way one wishes is to empty the word of meaning and make it untrustworthy or unbelievable. As I have noted before, a word that comes to mean anything at all simultaneously comes to mean nothing whatsoever.

This blog has noted a number of times that the term Catholic Hermit indicates a public vocation accepted and lived out in the name of the Church, and perforce, it therefore means that others necessarily have a right to certain expectations of the one so designated. They do not necessarily have the right to those same expectations when the person is a privately dedicated hermit. Again, while this emphatically does not mean that the lay hermit is less a hermit or lives the life less well than the diocesan hermit, it does mean that 1) the diocesan hermit is responsible to the Church and in a formal and objective way that differs from the more private responsibility of the lay hermit, and 2) this results in expectations on the part of the faithful which are their right by virtue of the hermit's public profession and consecration.

To argue that speaking of the import of canonical standing or the designation "Catholic Hermit" and all these things mean for the hermit and others is "niggling" or that people in the pew don't care who is called these things is naive, and perhaps disingenuous. If a person showed up at Mass and introduced herself as a "Catholic Hermit", but later on made it clear that she really only meant she was Catholic and living a relatively pious life alone, one doesn't have to think hard to see what the result would be. It would be especially problematical if, for instance, that person calling themselves a hermit proved to have serious emotional difficulties and used the term hermit to justify social isolation, an inability to love people, or a spirituality which was so individualistic as to interfere with one's capacity to participate in or build community. In all these instances the person would be furthering destructive stereotypes of the term "hermit" --- something which is, unfortunately, not uncommon. (Remember the post about Tom Leppard.) It would, if qualified as the life of a "Catholic Hermit", be especially detrimental to a general understanding of the vocation the Church has only recognized in Canon Law for the first time beginning just 28 years ago.

Of course, it is absolutely true that most people are unlikely to care which Canon prohibits the use of the term "Catholic" for individuals and groups except as appropriate authority allows, but they will surely care whether a person IS what they claim to be or not, especially if they are not using the terms in the same sense the Church does more generally. The above examples of stereotypes aside, consider a person showing up at a parish in a habit, or using the title Sister or Brother (and expecting others to do likewise in their regard) because by baptism we are all sisters and brothers to one another. Would a parish congregation really not care that the title and garb were self-assumed? Would it really not matter that the person has no authority to do this, no formation, no legitimate supervision, no formal and binding commitment in law, and apparently, no real concern for or responsibility to the people (or local church and community) to whom they are presenting themselves? I have to say my own parish and diocese would certainly care. In any case, even if they failed to care would this be a cogent argument? Do we really want to say, "No one really cares about the truth here, so it doesn't matter"?

On A Desire For Renown

Finally, a note regarding identity and being caught up in the need for renown. First, as noted above, ego and identity are very different things and should not be confused with one another. As Christians we have a unique identity in the world. It is a significant identity, and one which is a gift to us and to the rest of the church and world whenever it is lived with integrity. To be clear about our own identity can be a way of honoring the Spirit who graces us and forms us in this identity. To indicate that one is a diocesan or "Catholic" Hermit is a way of being clear that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church this way, and in fact, in one's own life specifically. Since this work is essentially redemptive and a source of hope to many, it is no small matter! And if this is true, then admitting one's identity in the Church is a piece of humbly accepting oneself and glorifying God. It need have nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for personal renown, so one ought to be wary of judging motives on the basis of external conditions alone.

For instance, I have a blog and this last year did a podcast. Did (or do) I do those for personal renown, or because these serve the Church and this vocation by helping people become aware of it and transcend some of the stereotypes which still attach to it? The external reality (the blog, the podcast) is the same, but the motives cannot be seen merely by looking to the external reality. The same is true of habit, title, and post-nomial initials. Did I adopt and do I use these because of ego and a desire for renown, or is there a more legitimate reason? As the blogger you quote also says, "The habit (externals) does not make the person." True enough but this truth cuts two ways: it may refer to the arrogant or hypocritical religious (or hermit) in a habit, of course, but it may also refer to the person who is smug and condescending in his "hiddenness" or exterior obscurity while judging the other on appearances. The simple fact is that most likely there are elements of both stellar motives and less stellar ones present in any person's divided, ambivalent heart. Once again, last Sunday's parable of the weeds and wheat is appropriate here, I think. When dealing with the motives of another, we must allow these to stand and grow alongside one another for fear of uprooting (or in this case, mis-judging) what is of God. We should trust the person to deal with her own ambivalence or ambiguity over time. Judgment is rightly and ultimately left to "God and his angels."

Regarding hermits and renown more generally though, it should be recalled that they have, at times, been drawn kicking and screaming (or the inner equivalent of that) --- but obedient nonetheless --- into the ecclesiastical and even political limelight, sometimes becoming Cardinals and even Popes in the process. One hardly considers they agreed to this as part of a hunger or drive for renown (much less a regression to a more primitive stage of moral decision-making defined in terms of self-interest and benefit). My mind goes back to Peter Damian (Camaldolese) who was one such hermit-Cardinal and Doctor of the Church. He was a reformer and prodigious writer, battling against simony and other problems through open letters and pamphlets. Was he accepting of the title Cardinal (etc.) because he was hungry for renown? Did he get involved in questions of reform and renewal out of mere self-interest? A prudent or judicious person would hardly suggest this without real evidence!

Followup Question: Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and Profession under Canon 603

[[ Sister Laurel, in one post on the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb you referred to persons who use the term "hermit" in metaphorical ways. Are you saying you believe they were not real hermits? Maybe it is more that they are examples of the term hermit being enlarged rather than "emptied of meaning." Have you considered this?]]

With regard to the Intercessors I have to first say I do not know enough about the way the members lived to draw a conclusion one way or another. The two things I do know about them suggest that perhaps the term "hermit" is meant to indicate a dedication to some form of desert spirituality and a life with some added degree of solitude (aloneness) and silence, but not in the same sense that Canon 603 requires. Similarly, I have heard or read that the "hermits" lived active and fairly social lives most of the week but set aside Saturdays for solitude, silence, and contemplative prayer. IF this is the case, then I would suggest this is neither eremitical life as I personally understand it, nor certainly as the paradigmatic canon 603 defines it. However, my concern in referring to a metaphorical usage was less with "realness" of the eremitical lives of the Intercessors per se as with the possibility of the situation they are now in contributing to a problem which crops up with regard to Canon 603 occasionally --- namely, the profession of those whose lives bear little or no resemblance at all to the life defined therein.

Misuse of Canon 603 in Professions:

Let me explain. While I believe the usage of the term "hermits" in the title of the former intercessors' community was metaphorical (they were not literally hermits as the church understands and codifies this vocation), it remains likely that despite being equivocal and somewhat confusing, the usage can still be of value in pointing to the place of silence and solitude in every life, and especially in ministerial or apostolic lives. Every life can benefit from desert spirituality, no matter how active that life because every life will experience times which especially bring home the fact that nothing but dependence on God will truly sustain or nourish authentically human life. However, with regard to those who wish to be professed under C 603 such equivocal usage and confusion would be contrary to the canon and detrimental to the vocation itself. Canon 603 does NOT define hermit in a metaphorical sense, nor does it do so in terms of silence AND solitude which merely need to be quantified in this or that way. It does not allow for vocations which are merely expressions of a metaphorical eremitism and loosely inspired by the early desert Abbas and Ammas, nor lives which are simply more alone or quiet than most people's. (Please cf the text of the Canon at the foot of this post for the defining or normative terms used in the Code.)

Instead, those professed under this canon must be hermits in a literal sense and as defined herein, thus spending their entire lives embodying more completely the vocation to solitary eremitical life and the charism C 603 describes as "the silence OF solitude." And yet occasionally we hear stories of people being professed under Canon 603 whose lives truly bear no resemblance to the life outlined there, often because C 603 is the only canon allowing for the profession of an individual and can seem to provide an opportunity for making vows when no other way is open to a person. Thus, for instance, in one diocese several years ago a woman was professed despite the fact that she is in every way living an active apostolic life. She works full time five days a week, sets Saturdays aside for silence, solitude, and contemplative prayer and frankly describes the term "hermit" as a metaphor for her life.

In regard to this specific case, let me say clearly and emphatically that this Sister sounds like a completely amazing person and is someone I would personally like to know. She is praised highly by those who know her and apparently works to the limits of her ability in giving her life for others in Christ. However, all of this notwithstanding, she is NO hermit and the life she lives cannot, even remotely, be considered a life of "the silence OF solitude," "assiduous prayer and penance," and "stricter separation from the world" which is part of the strictly non-negotiable nature of solitary or diocesan eremitical life. In her case (and precisely because she is remarkable) I truly believe Canon 603 was used as a stopgap way of professing her because nothing else was available --- which indicates possibly exemplary motives on the part of the diocese --- but I also believe it represented a serious and imprudent misuse of the Canon which actually endangers the very vocation it is meant to nurture, protect, and govern.

The Implications of Misuse of the Canon

Obviously this is a rather "gnarly" problem and one with which the Church will have to deal. Every individual profession sets or continues a precedent and in this particular case it sets a precedent which can easily and eventually empty the terms of Canon 603 of meaning. Further, if the precedent is repeated, if others with similar lives are professed, this could actually lead 1) to increased reluctance by Bishops to profess ANYONE under this canon --- something we actually do see today, 2) to increased interventions by the hierarchy imposing more and more rules, guidelines, etc, and 3) (when all else fails) to the actual suppression of the solitary eremitical life altogether. The latter has certainly happened in the past. Besides outright suppression, what we have seen at various points in the Church's life more generally is that either solitary hermits and their vocations are smothered in rules or swallowed up into communities as the church tries to regulate their lives, or the term "hermit" comes to be used merely metaphorically for any life of greater aloneness or relative silence and even as a synonym for isolated do-your-own-thing life, life characterized simply by misanthropy, selfishness, bizarreness, etc, etc.

In the first situation hermits may come or be brought together by bishops in what may initially be authentic lauras (which are colonies more than they are juridical communities) and then find that over time increased rules, structure, etc, invariably transforms the laura into a religious community. In this way the solitary eremitical life is thus lost and replaced by cenobitical life. In the second situation every element outlined in Canon 603 is perverted or otherwise rendered null or empty. What replaces eremitical life is an antisocial, eccentric life constituted less by Christian freedom than by some merely humanistic liberty, and the term "hermit" ceases to have real meaning for most people apart from this notion. (This allows for situations like the one I wrote about recently where "Tom Leppard" was identified by a reporter as a hermit, situations which do nothing more than reinforce stereotypes and makes the actual vocation unbelieveable and ridiculous.) When this happens the church can (and has) suppressed the vocation because it has come to represent abuse, misuse, distortion and a libertinism which is disedifying and even contrary to Christian discipleship.

The Importance of Canon 603 in protecting the solitary eremitical vocation

Thus, Canon 603 is significant because it allows in Law for the solitary eremitical vocation particularly. The entire stress in the Canon is on this, and this is really the first time in the history of the Church that this has occurred on a universal level. Given the very fragile nature of the vocation and the two major ways it has been imperiled in the history of the Church noted above (1) increased institutionalization and excessive oversight and 2) inadequate or lacking institutionalization and insufficient oversight which thus allows an "anything goes" kind of life), Canon 603 defines the life in terms of BOTH non-negotiable and universal elements AND individual flexibility ( via the individual Rule of Life written by the hermit herself and based on her experience of how God calls her uniquely). It is thus clearly defined, but also can have quite diverse and relatively flexible expressions.

I think the Canon is therefore masterfully written in a way which allows for fidelity to the traditional understanding of this life AND to the freedom and creativity in the specific living out of this which each hermit is also called. Canon 603 is an incredibly wise and prudent attempt to protect one of the most delicate vocations in the church. If it is misused though, if its essential elements are misdefined, disregarded, or treated as negotiable and a life professed under the canon in not truly defined by them and so, ceases to be a literal expression of these elements, the term hermit may become a mere metaphor, which, as important as that may be to some, is not at all what Canon 603 is meant for. In such a case it would not be a matter of the term hermit being enlarged so much as it would represent a genuine emptying of the term of meaning. It would also render the Canon ineffective in doing what it was truly meant to do, namely (again), to nurture, protect, and govern a very rare and fragile vocation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to Church and world.

Hence, my concern with metaphorical vs literal, and solitary vs communal or cenobitical in my post on the possibility of professing former Intercessors under Canon 603. In responding to the question I was not concerned so much with the nature of the HIOL's use of the term hermit (though I admit I don't like usage which confuses the issue of what is or isn't a hermit), but rather with whether this was a life which the church could somehow "automatically" profess under Canon 603 without separate and serious discernment or caution --- especially given the communal nature of the HIOL vocation. The question posed by the reader raised all kinds of caution flags in my mind, not regarding the HIOL themselves, but with regard to maintaining the vitality, meaning, and purpose of Canon 603 per se.

Text of Canon 603, Revised Code of Canon Law

Sec 1: Besides institutes of consecrated life, the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life by which the Christian faithful devote their life to the praise of God and the salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance.

Sec 2: A hermit is recognized in the law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.

On Visibility, Canonical Standing, and betrayal of the Eremitical Vocation

[[Dear Sister O'Neal,
Do you feel the visibility of your vocation detracts from the "hiddenness" of the eremitical life? Does living according to Canon 603 limit and taint the purity of the contemplative life? Someone calling themselves "Catholic Hermit" writes the following: [[This journey is for anyone, and to be consecrated by a canon law label or an increasingly visible, institutionalized hermit vocation would not allow for writing and living out the Order of the Present Moment, a spiritual order without temporal limits that confine by labels, definitions, visibility and temptation to personal hubris. While the hermit vocation is viable and willed by God for some, it is to be lived then, as the Church defined in the Catechism and then in CL603, which very much requires being hidden in Christ. Since the trend being promoted by some is not that, there is resultant taint and limitation in the label.]]

I have written about this before so I ask you PLEASE to check out posts with labels like "essential hiddenness," "eremitism and hiddenness" or "institutionalization of the eremitical life" which deal with the paradox of a public vocation which is also one of being "essentially hidden in Christ", etc. The obvious answer to your questions is no, I don't think there is any necessary conflict or detraction or else the Church would be guilty of this herself in promoting a public vocation under Canon 603. Further, it makes very little sense to 1) suggest that the Church, precisely in nurturing and governing the solitary eremitical vocation with specific definitions, requirements, ritual, etc is buying into increased institutionalization which is destructive of the vocation, and then 2) affirm that one should live the life just as C 603 and the catechism outline. What diocesan hermits and their Bishops are doing is exploring the meaning and limits of Canon 603 with their lives and commitments. This is what it means to live a vocation in the name of the Church. They are seeking to honor and foster precisely this meaning in her rituals, etc. Despite the elements of the canon sounding simple or obvious, the life defined in the Canon is NOT so very self-evident as the author of this statement would like.

The fact that I have needed to write about the distinction between lives of some degree of silence AND solitude and lives of the silence OF solitude, or that the term hermit is widely associated with stereotypes which look nothing like the life fostered and governed by C 603 should underscore this. The idea of married hermits, communities of "hermits" including parents and children, "hermits" who work full time in active ministry during the week and spend Saturdays in silence and contemplative prayer, misanthropic, selfish, or merely deranged "hermits." etc, also suggest that the nature of the life defined in Canon 603 (which precedes the Catechism in normativity and in publication date) is not so clear and self-evident as some would like. The same is true regarding the nature of the hiddenness of the life. Note, by the way, that hiddenness as a defining term is not included in the Canon anywhere and anonymity is certainly not alluded to. What is spoken of is "stricter separation from the world," "the silence of solitude," and "assiduous prayer and penance". If we are to understand what hiddenness is necessary or essential to the vocation itself it will only be as diocesan hermits live the vocation and contribute what they learn about it to the Church as a whole. In these and so many other ways the need to spell out what Canon 603 does and does not allow or call for, especially in regard to the contemporary world, is simply necessary if the Canon is to do its job in nurturing, protecting, and governing the solitary eremitical vocation.

Freedom is not the Absence of Limitations or Constraints

As far as there being limitations in the label "diocesan hermit" or C 603 hermit, yes indeed there are limits involved. Again, one can hardly suggest that exploring these limitations and the eremitical realm they define is problematical or that there should be no such limits while in the same breath affirming that "the trend promoted by some" diocesan hermits is contrary to the Canon." That is a bit like saying, "I am going to use the word hermit any way I would like --- none of these silly limitations or canonical definitions for me -- but you others, YOU must use the term as I define and use it!" In any case, are limitations necessarily perversions? Do they define a life contrary to eremitical freedom? I would say not necessarily. This is so not only because the absence of limitations creates meaningless amorphous blobs of reality and little more (actually, one can argue there would be nothing at all without limits or "lines" of definition), but because the very nature of Christian Freedom is that it is a life lived fully and abundantly within the constraints of life. Words, for instance, are free to have and take on meaning only to the extent they are limited by context and usage. Without limits (definitions or defining parameters) they are meaningless and are not free to be used fruitfully. Human lives are truly free not when there are no constraints, but when they are empowered to fullness and transcendence in spite of and even within and through various constraints. That is why Catholic theology (and the NT) defines freedom as the power to be the persons we are called to be within the spatial temporal reality of historical, embodied, existence.

The Freedom of canonical eremitical Life and the Present Moment

By the way, this notion of freedom is actually necessary to understand what it means to live in the present moment. Despite the author of the comment you cited desiring it otherwise, "the present moment" is a temporal designation but it is a paradoxical one. It does not mean ceasing to be temporal but rather discovering in the temporal the presence and meaning of the eternal. Living in the present moment means dwelling in a way which allows that "eternal now" (to use Paul Tillich's terminology) to become clear and lifegiving. It means living within space and time, but as those not bound in slavery to the past or in useless anxiety about or fear of the future. It means living within the constraints of space and time, but in a way which allows the eternal to fill and redeem it. It is an exercise in attentiveness, obedience, and freedom, but only insofar as one does NOT attempt to escape the limitations of time into some imaginary atemporal and non-spatial existence. When contemplatives speak of living in the present moment they speak of being completely present to whatever is at hand, however ordinary, however limited, but doing so in a way where eternity (God's own life) is allowed to break in and pervade that reality, or where that reality mediates God's presence (eternity) --- just as Christ's incarnation of the logos did for God in our world.

I don't particularly understand how one could suggest that canonical (diocesan) eremitical life would not allow for writing or living out "the order of the present moment," because of institutionalization, etc, unless of course one simply does not have or understand a call to this life. I have the freedom in my life to freely explore the infinite and eternal realm of union with God precisely BECAUSE of canonical standing. It is a freedom I possess because in being professed publicly I am also publicly free from the common requirement that my life make sense in worldly productive, competitive, and consumerist terms. The Church supports me in this at every point. She asks me in fact to do this in her name and on her behalf. And of course I am responsible to do so --- to do, in fact, what my heart yearned for. If my relationship with God and my experience of the silence of solitude ALSO leads me to write (or compose, or minister to some limited degree, etc, etc) I am completely free to do that.

Do I need permission for these things? Yes and no. If by permission one means prior authorization for every little thing, then no. (Big changes in my Rule, etc are a different matter.) However, what "permission" actually means ordinarily is the responsibility to genuinely discern the place of these and other things in an authentic eremitical life and generally my delegate or my Bishop (who share in this discernment process in varying ways) will permit or encourage this. Thus, I explore the "limits" (parameters) of this vocation with care and fidelity, prayer and reflection, and I act on what I discern. Regularly I meet with my delegate or my Bishop to inform them of what this means. Occasionally it becomes clear I have not discerned wisely or accurately as they reflect back to me their own perceptions (or as I realize in explaining my discernment that it was really inadequate!) So, again, this requirement of my vow of obedience is hardly a limitation of my freedom, but rather an expression and extension of it.

Concretely this means I am free both to fail and to succeed in this life, free to try again as often as I need precisely because I AM consecrated (set apart and specifically graced by God through his Church) as a diocesan hermit, free to explore everything it does and doesn't include, free to explore the gift this life is to the church and world, free in fact to understand my own life AS a gift when once I saw it as meaningless and unproductive. I am free to love, and therefore to minister in the ways my vocation and limitations in life permit --- and to constantly find I can transcend some of these limits because of the "constraints" of Canon 603. I am free to withdraw (in the sense of anachoresis) in greater reclusion, or to move into more activity at my parish or diocese and some greater visibility otherwise.

Will I make mistakes? Yes, and with the help of God and my superiors (not to mention that of my friends!!) I will also correct them. I am free day in and day out to spend my life in prayer, study, writing, and to explore the source and "limits" of human fulfillment and joy without worrying that perhaps I am called to something else. I am free to attend to the requirements of my own true self, to work on healing and integration, to give myself over to the process of redemption and becoming whole and holy as a result of God's love without fear that I am really being selfish. (What selfishness there is will soon be revealed and dealt with!) It is canonical standing with perpetual vows which guarantees these freedoms and many more. How can one argue that such constraints limit or prevent one's ability to dwell in the present moment???

Temptation to Hubris

And as for the accusation of "temptation to hubris", well temptation is not sin, nor is it something we need be protected from so long as we can triumph over it in the power of Christ. Indeed in the real "order of the present moment" we continually transcend or triumph over temptation. It is part of the dynamic of not being enslaved by anxiety or past memories, etc, which do still pull at us and the way we exercise continuing choices for God and his Christ -- choices which strengthen, purify and mature us. Hubris can easily be projected onto another, so we ought be careful concluding that a diocesan hermit who accepts public profession, wears a habit and/or cowl, writes a blog, or carries on her rightful ministry (which may include doing some theology or reflecting on the nature of eremitical life) is doing these things because of hubris. At the same time, we also ought be very careful not to call hubris a person's joy at being called or their very humble (i.e., honest) awe and pride that the Holy Spirit deigns to use her as s/he does!

When Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit exults in God my savior because he has done great things for me" we hardly identify that as hubris! I would say instead that she is rightfully and humbly proud. When she ponders these things in her heart we see the essential hiddenness of such a life. When she speaks to her Son regarding the needs of the wedding party or tells the disciples to "do as he tells you" at the Cana feast, we hardly fault her for failing in this essential hiddenness! We see very little of Mary in the Gospels really, but when we do see her she has a tremendous impact. It is important not to mistake this for the kind of visibility our world cultivates today and which eremitical life especially opposes.

Visibility of "the World" and Hermit Bloggers

While my life is not anonymous, it is essentially hidden, and besides what the term means in eremitical life through the centuries, it is hidden in ways the world seems no longer to understand. We all know people whose every daily detail goes on their blog or facebook page, or is put up on twitter. Within limits some of this is fine. We are a global village and some of this contributes to growth and maturation in this. But most of it is simply the inability to respect others, ourselves, the nature of privacy, and the need to aggrandize and publicize every aspect of one's life as a result. I will think more about this issue of visibility, what is acceptable, what drives it, etc but for now I can honestly say that my own limited visibility is not driven by anything more than the need to share what the Holy Spirit is doing through this relatively unknown vocation and the way it is a gift to Church and world. I believe that is what drives other diocesan hermits with blogs, for instance. It seems that our Bishops agree, by the way, or, of course, there would be no blogs!

However, even within this blog there are limitations in what I make known or "visible." I have been asked in the past to share more about my everyday life, and I have once considered allowing comments on this blog. Both possibilities I rejected as serious intrusions into my solitude, privacy, and essential hiddenness (of which this blog is actually an extension). In fact this blog serves as a kind of grill or turn --- or better, an anchorite's window on her world --- where I pass things out to the world outside the hermitage and the world has a chance to address or at least read what I share as well. But most of the time the world outside my hermitage has no sense of me whatsoever, and certainly no sense of what is happening on a daily basis in my life. I have the sense it is this way for other diocesan hermits with blogs as well. So, yes, my life has a certain visibility but as I have explained before, the fact that I am a diocesan hermit is a public matter; what goes on in my daily life is mainly something that remains between me and God (which includes my director and/or delegate).

Followup on the Institutionalization of Eremitical Life

[[Dear Sister Laurel, what I hear you saying is that hermits and their superiors are leading the way in the increased institutionalization of eremitical life and are doing so cautiously and only because lived experience leads to this. You said that love is prior to law. Is that right? Doesn't increased institutionalization endanger the hermit vocation? Is it really necessary to have public vows, rituals, religious and special garb, rings, initials after one's name, etc? Isn't all this elitist and doesn't it conflict with the individualism, simplicity, and hiddenness of the vocation? Also, is it the case that female hermits are forming clubs or groups which maybe they will allow male hermits to join? What is this all about?]]

Thanks for writing again. Yes, you heard me correctly regarding institutionalization (although I don't agree there is really much "increased institutionalization" going on). What there always is is reflection and dialogue about the nature of the vocation and how best to protect, and encourage its authentic growth. What I would stress again in regard to the issue of institutionalization though, increased or otherwise, is the need to maintain a balance between codification and individuality, etc. Generally Canon 603 does this by setting forth the essential characteristics of the life: silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, stricter separation from the world, vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, lived under the supervision of the local Bishop --- as well as mandating a Personal Rule or Plan of Life written by the hermit herself, and all of this for the praise of God and the salvation of the world. (Note therefore that the Canon itself protects the individuality and freedom of the vocation!)

Beyond this, as already mentioned then, individual hermits'(or their Bishops' and dioceses') lived experience continues to inform the contemporary approach to Canon 603, problems will arise, particularly helpful practices or guidelines will be developed, and other things will need to be addressed with norms or precedents (discernment, initial formation and its length, ongoing formation, ministry, etc). Most of these things are simply reflections of what is generally necessary for any person wanting to live healthily and fruitfully as a hermit. The solution to the tension between institutionalization and individual freedom continues to be the interplay between Canon 603, and the individual's own Rule as these are supervised by Bishop, and worked out with one's delegate, spiritual director, etc.

What we are speaking about on a deeper level in these questions is balancing the profoundly ecclesial or communal nature (koinonia) of the eremitical vocation with individual gifts, sensibilities, practices, weaknesses, and desires, or better stated perhaps, finding appropriate and effective ways a very individual vocation's ecclesial nature is best protected and expressed. In turn, this will help the individual and it will assist others in discerning such vocations. Additionally of course, it will ensure that an individual is living a vocation which truly contributes to the salvation of the world --- which is the very heart and reason for the eremitical vocation as it is for any other authentic vocation.

Throughout the history of eremitical life some degree of institutionalization has been necessary to prevent this vocation from becoming merely a refuge for excessive individualism and personal eccentricity, and to ensure that it retains the ecclesial dimension any truly human life or vocation always has. It is further necessary to ensure adequate formation, both initial and ongoing, and to make sure that vocational discernment is seriously undertaken by both the individual and the church. To mention a tiny part of eremitical history which I have noted before, the founder of the congregation I am associated with as an Oblate, St Romuald, was known as a reformer who went around sometimes gathering individual hermits into Lauras, generally giving them the Rule of Benedict to live under, and otherwise making sure they were living genuine eremitical lives and not eccentric, overly-individualistic ones.

Later (again to repeat history I have noted before) other Camaldolese like Peter-Damian continued reforming and reflecting on the ecclesial dimension of all hermit vocations. Sensitivity to koinonia was at the heart of their efforts. Even later, Paul Giustiniani determined that since the establishment of the Church's requirements that all faithful have regular access to the sacraments and so forth, solitary hermits living essentially cut off from these were now invalid. He saw the formation of Lauras as the best solution. Though Giustiniani's concern seems legalistic, it represents increased reflection on the ecclesial underpinnings of any vocation, but in particular, the eremitical call. Bl Paul saw the formation of Lauras as the best solution because Lauras could be established far from inhabited centers protecting solitude and at the same time these would serve to curb all the dangers that beset solitary eremitical life. They provided the mix of community and solitude so essential to even the vocation of the recluse. Throughout the history of the Church the tension between institutionalization and individual freedom has existed. At many points institutionalization served to protect the vocation itself, especially in its communal or lived-within-the-church and for-others dimensions. Once again koinonia is at the core of these hermits' concerns and sensitivities.

Canon 603 is an option which allows hermits the same standing as others with public vows, etc, but without demanding they give up their solitary hermit existence. It seeks to balance both dimensions precisely so hiddenness is eremitical hiddenness and not something else. It consecrates lives marked by the silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance, etc while it ensures they are instances of authentic and ecclesial vocations. Further, with some of the symbols you mentioned (ring, garb, ritual), it makes it clear that such vocations are lived in the heart of the church today witnessing to others. Of course it also makes clear that such calls come out of the church's own life, that they are mediated to the individual through God's church and not otherwise.

Certainly there are other options for living the eremitical life in the church today. Religious hermits (Camaldolese, Carthusians, Brothers and Sisters of Bethlehem, some Carmelite foundations, etc) are wonderful examples of one option. And of course, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear, lay eremitical life is always an option, and one which is less institutionalized than diocesan eremitism. For those who believe that "institutionalization" taints the purity or simplicity of the eremitical life, rather than protecting and enhancing it, this is certainly one way to go. From my own perspective such a path is at times more difficult than diocesan eremitism (especially in terms of perseverence and the freedom fostered by obedience), and in other ways (especially in terms of accountability on many levels), far less demanding. However, both are valid and significant ways to live an eremitical life today.

As for your last question, I really don't know what this refers to. Hermits don't have "clubs" nor are they generally or as a group given to gender bias. If you can clarify the reference for me it would help. Regarding elitism linked to rings, initials, rituals, etc please see other posts I have put up here on these. If these are inadequate, feel free to get back to me.

On the Growing Institutionalization of Eremitical Life

Well, Christmastide is almost over (marked by the Baptism of Jesus) and it is time to get back to some of the more regular things I need to do. Writing here is one of those (writing generally is one of those!), and responding to questions is a piece of that. One person writes as follows,

[[Sister Laurel, I read the following online . . . and wonder if you would comment on the growing institutionalization of eremitical life.]]

[[. . . has noted from internet blogs, articles and updates, that there is a growing trend among some hermits, mostly the canonical approved variety, that some through much wordage and repetition, based upon assumed authority, or even stated expertise, have begun to make regulations by setting precedence. What can evolve are rules, laws, set ways of how this or that must be done, called Precedent Law. Noticed a few Dioceses have bought into it, adopted the regulations and are imposing them. Perhaps without even knowing from whence they came. . . . is reminded of childhood. Something innate in little girls to want to organize, set up and play house, make a club. Sometimes they can find a little boy or two to come and play with them. Tell him what to do, and some do it. He is the daddy or baby brother to the little girls' house roles. Lots of rules. Do this. Do that. I'm the mommy. Do as I say.]]

My first response is this is a pretty cynical and simplistic (not to mention offensive) way of looking at what is happening in terms of eremitical life, and in particular, diocesan eremitical life. It reflects a rather common notion of the way law is related to life which should NOT be carelessly generalized. So, is there growing institutionalization? Yes, perhaps, but it is neither extensive nor particularly intensive at this point. If it exists it is also quite slow-growing, which I consider a good thing in the main. Canon 603 and the life it describes is an instance of this. Bishops have been, and continue to be, cautious with this vocation and that is generally a good thing. Do hermits themselves contribute to it to some extent? Yes, but usually with gritted teeth, ample cautions regarding the freedom and diversity of eremitical life, and with heels dug in to prevent these from being seriously transgressed against by over-legalizations and codifications. Most hermits will completely resonate with Dom Jean LeClercq's definition of the hermit life, "the hermit is the person who, in the church, is united to God with a minimum of structure." With canon 603's creation and implementation the trick was and still is to allow for sufficient institutionalization (which helps ensure a genuinely ecclesial vocation) while allowing for the simplicity and essential freedom of the life itself; everyone I know (of) is aware of and careful of this. So where does this move towards "greater institutionalization" currently come from --- at least as far as I am aware?

It seems to me the Church is beginning to have a larger number of canonical hermits with lived experience of Canon 603, its strengths, weaknesses, and essential values as lived out in the contemporary church and world. Because of this lived experience hermits inform their Bishops (or, if they have other ways of communicating, others who are concerned with consecrated life in the Church) of what is working, what is not and how things can be improved upon, what is absolutely necessary for the life, what variations are legitimate, which variations seem to be illegitimate in a general sense, what is prudent or not, etc. For the most part all of this comes from what the hermits themselves have found to be the case, what they are actually living on the ground, and particularly what they are living with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the Church's own monastic and eremitical traditions in dialogue with the 20 and 21st centuries. It does not, on the other hand, tend to come from Rome, or from the hierarchy more generally as an imposition from above or outside the life itself. It certainly does not come from women hermits needing to be "Mom" or to fulfill "house roles", etc!

One area that comes to mind which seems to call for greater institutionalization or formalization (though cautiously, VERY cautiously), and one I have written on before is that of formation of hermits. I have said that hermits are made out of the exigencies of life and the grace of God (remember Merton said hermits are made by difficult Mothers and the grace of God). However, a part of both of these is the personal formation an individual is responsible for getting or participating in on a lifetime basis. What I have noted about this in the past is that dioceses do NOT form hermits. They recognize and evaluate (discern) vocations when they come through the door of the Office of the Vicar for Religious, et al. They may also assist a person in getting further formation by referring them to communities who have agreed to help, seminaries who provide such, spiritual directors, etc, but in no case that I know of do dioceses take a complete novice to eremitical life and "form them" as hermits. Again, what dioceses tend to find (and something I have written about from my own experience) is that in some essential sense the person must be a hermit when she walks through the chancery door to petition for admission to vows under Canon 603.

Because this is the case, lots of questions are raised. Some include: what formation is necessary? Can anyone be a hermit even without formation? How does an individual achieve the necessary formation? (Must they be part of a religious community for some time, for instance?) What is required? Where is it best achieved? Who pays for it (the answer is ALWAYS the hermit herself unless she is part of a congregation for some of this time)? What happens if a person has no resources available to them? What is adequate formation for eremitical life and what is not? What happens to needs for therapy (if this is an individual need), direction, etc and how do these figure into the discernment of a vocation? To discernment about the quality of continuing in this vocation? How about ministry in the limited ways hermits may undertake ministry apart from their life of prayer: what constitutes adequate formation here and how is it undertaken? Who oversees all this: before profession? After perpetual profession? What is the Bishop's or diocese's role in all of this? What role does a "diocesan delegate" serve and is it a necessary role in assisting both hermit and diocese in fulfilling the demands of Canon 603 and this vocation?

Note well though, again, all of these questions are imposed or raised in the living of the life itself. They are not imposed or raised from the outside as though they are not intrinsic to the living of the life, or as though they reflect some legalistic or disciplinary mindset which merely likes to multiply requirements, for instance. Further, no diocesan hermits themselves are imposing such "regulations" on anyone. Hermits and their Bishops find that given certain prudential practices the hermit vocations they have experience with are good (exemplary, joyful, etc), and that without taking the time to be certain of these prudential practices or requirements, the vocations that have resulted can be a greater cause of scandal and disappointment.

Another area that comes to mind is length of time required before first profession or until perpetual profession. What is really generally necessary because of the nature of the vocation itself? How will this differ from person to person and why? The Canon does not spell this out and the canons for religious life do not fit eremitical vocations as neatly as one might wish --- though they are important considerations. Therefore, in general, what is a reasonable period of time for 1) living as a lay hermit before petitioning for profession? 2) temporary profession, 3) preparing in a conscious and discerning way for perpetual profession? Lived experience says that some dioceses have not allowed enough time in this entire process and so, have been imprudent, while others, for various reasons, have extended the time frames inordinately and perhaps harmed or at least endangered vocations in the process. Because of this it is true that hermits inform their Bishops (et al) regarding their own experience in this, while dioceses assess their own experience, and the result may be a precedent being set as a general guideline. Again though, the precedent stems from lived experience; it is not merely imposed from outside by someone with a bent for control, etc.

A third area that raises questions and calls for Bishops and Hermits both to answer on the basis of lived experience is ministry (or work) outside the hermitage (or apart from the strictly legislated elements of the vocation). Everyone needs to know that eremitical life involves a spectrum from complete reclusion to limited ministry and even work outside the hermitage. However, what is really legitimate and what is not if a person is to truly be and remain a hermit? Precedents are set here on the basis of a lived experience of hermits who grow in their appropriation of their vocation, or who caution against certain things because it really does seem to hinder or prevent such growth. Precedents are not set arbitrarily by lawyers or hermits with a penchant for legalism or control.

For instance, the Canon (603) defines the vocation in terms of "stricter separation from the world." It does not say absolute reclusion. It does not say, "no outside ministry." At the same time, it does recognize that the silence of solitude is primary and that this along with stricter separation from the world and assiduous prayer and penance demands one actually be open to being called to greater and greater degrees of reclusion, if God wills that at any point. Because of this a diocese might adopt the precedent that all outside ministry should be evaluated regularly to be sure the hermit's life is truly one where the silence of solitude and stricter separation from the world (etc) are foundational and not secondary to ministry. It is lived experience which serves as the basis for such a precedent.

Finally, it should be noted again that hermits also make sure their Bishops hear what is necessary to ensure the flexibility and freedom of the hermit life. What should NOT be legislated? What cannot be effectively legislated except in the hermit's own Rule or Plan of Life? Where should rules (as opposed to a Rule or Regula) give way to lived experience in a way which leads to exceptions being made? What are common instances of this? Again, as I have written before, ordinarily in the Church law serves love ---- or is certainly meant to serve love. This means love of God, love (in this case) of the eremitical vocation and tradition, love of the Church as People of God, love of consecrated life and the vows that serve freedom in this life. It is generally up to diocesan hermits and their superiors to determine law which works in this way and no other. At least with regard to Canon 603 the precedents I have seen and heard hermits speak and write about tend to be guided by this concern and this priority --- which translates into a concern for the integrity and charism of the vocation. In any case, control (or, as your poster noted, "an innate [desire] to organize," etc) is usually pretty far from the hermit's heart and mind.

I hope this helps. If it raises more questions or is unclear I hope you will get back to me.