Questions on Types of Hermits and Use of the term Lay Hermits

[[ Hi Sister, you usually write about 3 types of hermits. I wondered if you could explain why CICLSAL says there are 4 kinds? Also, you speak of lay hermits and you wrote about the hierarchical meaning of "lay" recently. Could you cite some official church document that speaks of lay hermits? Thank you.]]

Hi there yourself! You must be asking about the DICLSAL document, The Hermit's Way of Life in the Local Church (Ponam in Deserto Viam, Is 43:19) Guidelines. The difference between the way DICLSAL divides hermits and I do points to a significant oversight on my part really. DICLSAL includes hermits who are members of fundamentally cenobitical communities whose proper law (the law proper to the congregation itself which governs as well as canon law) allows for this option. Generally, I have overlooked this type of hermit not because they are unimportant, but because they do live eremitical lives, but under the proper law of the congregation. Discernment, resources, ministry of authority, Rule, etc., all fall under the congregational Constitutions and Statutes. In my mind it's a self-enclosed world, where one is professed as a member of a community and not as a hermit; though I am sure I have mentioned this option existing, it was this that caused me to overlook it, so thanks for reminding me of what DICLSAL lists as the four forms of eremitical life. (For readers not familiar with the document noted, the four types of hermit are:

1.  Clerical/Lay members of non-eremitical (i.e., monastic or apostolic) institutes of consecrated life living as hermits because it is an option and is regulated under proper law; (please note in this and other categories, DICLSAL has lay persons as members of an institute of consecrated life when lay is used in this hierarchical sense). In this sense of the word, one can be in the consecrated state and lay at the same time because one is not a cleric. 
2. clerical/lay members belonging to eremitic or semi-eremitic institutes of consecrated life whose lives are regulated under universal and proper law, that is under both canon and proper law.
3. clerical/lay faithful who live eremitical lives without professing the evangelical counsels, (please note that Ponans specifically affirms that all the baptized are called to live the evangelical counsels according to their own state of life, ( cf. Par 33); because of this the emphasis of the italicized and emboldened phrase falls on the word professing used in its technical or proper meaning. In this sense profession/professing always refers to a public ecclesial act and not to an act of private avowal no matter who witnesses the act); this also speaks specifically then to secular clergy and lay persons living as hermits without benefit of profession since promises to one's bishop notwithstanding, secular clergy do not profess the evangelical counsels while clergy who are members of institutes of consecrated life always do. Thus, both secular priests and lay persons who do not make public profession can live as hermits. The church recognizes this as a valid form of eremitical life.
4. clerical/lay members of the faithful professing the evangelical counsels by vows or other sacred bonds, in the hands of the local bishop, (C 603 or diocesan hermits).  [The profession of other sacred bonds is what is meant when the Catechism says without always making vows publicly. By definition, profession is always a public act, and with C 603 one need not use vows but can use other sacred bonds.]

I think it is clear just from the document you yourself referred to that hermits can be either clerical or lay members of the faithful. In all cases, DICLSAL is using the hierarchical notion of lay (i.e., anyone not in orders is laity). In the types noted above, members of institutes of consecrated life (i.e.,  religious women and men), whether eremitical, semi-eremitical, monastic or apostolic are either clerical or lay despite profession and consecration. While one could therefore refer to a lay hermit or a priest hermit, as I have done in the past for specific situations or persons, the better general solution is to refer to hermits in terms of their canonical status/standing, either non-canonical or canonical (or, alternately, non-canonical or consecrated. This would include those hermits mentioned above living their eremitical lives under the proper law of a congregation; they would be canonical religious (Benedictines, Carmelites, etc.) living legitimately as non-canonical hermits). This also avoids the confusing ambiguities of the term lay when the hierarchical sense contrasts with a vocational sense. If you want further evidence of the use of lay hermits (or hermits who embrace the evangelical counsels and remain in the lay state), please let me know.

I haven't written here much about Ponans, though folks have asked me several times about whether I had plans to do so or not. I am grateful for your questions; perhaps they will get me started doing some reflections on these important guidelines.

Please note: CICLSAL is now a Dicastery rather than a Congregation, thus the initials DICLSAL rather than CICLSAL.

Once Again: On Esteem for the Vocations in the Lay State

[[Sister, you wrote about Regina [Kreger] -- the new lay hermit --- on a way which makes it clear that you think a lot of the lay vocation. What makes her life different from yours? Is it the evangelical counsels? Is she called to a lesser degree of holiness? Lesser separation from the world? I am trying to hear what changes with consecration.]]

I've written about this a lot so let me give a brief answer and you can look up the specific topics. Every person is called to holiness, an exhaustive holiness, rooted in one's baptismal consecration. Every person who is baptized and a member of the laity is obligated to embrace the evangelical counsels though poverty and obedience will not be religious poverty nor religious obedience because 1) such persons (most anyway) are responsible for raising a family, and 2) they are free from having legitimate superiors. Still, while they have not received the second consecration associated with initiation into the consecrated state of life, and while they have not been graced in the way God graces those with the new and differing rights and obligations associated with the consecrated state, they have been consecrated in baptism and called to a life of genuine holiness.

There have always been lay hermits. Think Desert Abbas and Ammas. They live the evangelical counsels and the call to holiness rooted in the consecration of baptism. But they do not live this vocation in what the church calls "the consecrated state" because this state is entered through a second consecration and associated with rights and obligations beyond those associated with the baptized or lay state. Until 1983 there was no possibility of such a solitary hermit being admitted to the consecrated state of life (hermits in institutes of consecrated life are a different matter). That only came with canon 603. I would say the consecrated state differs from the baptized state in these terms. It is not better than the baptized state but it is different, both in the way it is constituted and in its rights, obligations, and expectations -- as well as the grace associated with these so that one might adequately live this state of life.

In terms of its call to holiness I would argue it is the same as the call to holiness in any other state of life, lay (single, married), or ordained. This is exhaustive. What is important to recognize is that  the life of the lay hermit may look exactly like mine, for instance; they may even live a more exemplary hermit life in greater solitude, poorer circumstances, etc. What differs is the presence or absence of the second consecration and the rights, obligations, expectations of the faithful, and the associated graces (which includes structures and relationships for the ministry of authority). Still, the call to holiness and the requirement of the evangelical counsels (as value or vow, but not profession) are very much part of the lay hermit's life. This is true by virtue of the sacrament of baptism; the second consecration is often called a "specification" of one's baptismal consecration.

Since Vatican II, a particular challenge and call the church has left the laity with is the refusal to see the lay state as a second class vocational state; they must esteem it appropriately. That means lay hermits need to clearly identify and claim the state in which they live eremitical life because it too is a way to live and come to an exhaustive holiness. To do so will be a significant witness to others and an affirmation of the potential of every life. Thus we have hermits in the lay, the consecrated, and the ordained states of life. In every case the well-lived vocation is a rare and admirable one which glorifies God and serves the Church.

Regina Kreger to Make private Vows as a Hermit

One of the things I have written about a lot here is the fact that it is entirely possible to be a privately vowed hermit within the Catholic Church as an alternative to consecrated eremitical life under canon 603 or within a canonical institute of hermits. Recently it has been suggested that this option is going away as c 603 becomes "the way of the Church". I have disagreed with that and continue to disagree. Lay hermits (hermits living their lives in the lay state but living excellent and paradigmatic eremitical lives exist and have done since the days of the Desert Abbas and Ammas who followed Christ in this. One discerns what is right for oneself and takes the steps necessary to achieving it. (If one believes they are called to consecrated eremitical life, one will discern this with the diocesan Vicar for Religious and/or Bishop.)




In the video above I was quite impressed with this hermit's clarity and ability to express the landmarks of her journey. Felicity (Regina's newly-taken hermit name*) has, like many who become hermits, had difficulties throughout her life that she has had to learn to live with and through. She speaks matter-of-factly about these from the perspective of one transcending them through the grace of God. She has clearly had the kind of redemptive experience I recognize as central to any eremitical life and frankly articulates that. For Felicity, it is private vows and a life of silence, solitude, simplicity and (because she is a Benedictine Oblate), conversatio morum, which are the way she recognizes God is calling her to live a call to holiness in the lay state. She is clear that she is not going to be a canonical consecrated hermit, but seems not to find any need to be one. Exactly!!  She strikes me as genuine, joyful, and someone I personally will learn from if I can** as she continues the tradition of eremitical life in the Church after the example of innumerable hermits from the Desert Abbas and Ammas onward.

I wish her very well in this  chapter of her journey and am grateful for the significant sharing this video represents!! Especially, I am glad to find a hermit clearly and courageously representing an edifying example of an eremitical vocation in the lay state. She especially indicates with her life how important and what a significant call to holiness life in the lay (i.e., the baptized) state is! Her witness is incredibly important to the whole church but hermits and those discerning hermit vocations especially will benefit.
______________________
* Regina can take a new name as she might at oblation as an OSB Oblate in some monasteries. This is not truly the same as a Religious name because she is not a religious, nor (unless she changes her name legally) can she use it in civil documents, for instance. She will not style herself as Sister, but in this private (in-house) way she will mark and celebrate the life step she is taking.

** I am hoping to be able to get a way to contact her occasionally.

Diocesan Hermits are Hermits of and for the Universal Church

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I watched a video where Joyful Hermit said those professed "under canon 603 belong to dioceses and those who are privately professed belong per se to the universal Church". Is that right? If I got her right she also says that privately professed hermits have always been the way the Church consecrated hermits. I think she meant that canon 603 is a new way of doing this with some extra requirements that she seems to think represents a kind of legalism. Is this correct?]]

Well, I suppose it depends on what else Joyful has said in this specific regard, but generally speaking, with the quote you have provided it sounds as though Joyful Hermit is saying non-canonical hermits are recognized as hermits by and for the universal Church, but canon 603 hermits are recognized only within a diocese. If so, she is incorrect. Canon 603 hermits are diocesan in the sense that they are bound in authority at the diocesan level. They are hermits of a specific diocese (a local Church) which, in the hands of the local ordinary, professes and consecrates them on behalf of the Universal Church. Their vocations are ecclesial in a Catholic or universal sense, but they must be responsible at the diocesan level or their vocations could not be effectively governed nor could the hermits be genuinely responsible or accountable to the whole Church. The Roman Catholic Church relies on the principle of subsidiarity. Governance in this case proceeds from the lowest or most local level upward precisely to facilitate genuine governance and accountability.

Thus, as a "hermit of the Diocese of Oakland" (Bishop's Decree of Approval. . .) I would need to have another bishop accept responsibility for my vocation if I were to decide to move to another diocese (and I would need my current bishop to verify I am a hermit is good standing in order to begin such a move and remain a diocesan hermit), but the fact that I can move from one diocese to another, marks my vocation as valid in and for the universal Church. Similarly, since canon 603 is the universal norm/canon for solitary eremitical life in the entire Church, and since diocesan hermits are governed by and responsible for the vocation defined in this universal norm, we can affirm their vocations are universal vocations -- callings in and for the universal Church. Again, this vocation is supervised and "created" (discerned, professed, consecrated, and governed) at the diocesan level (at the level of the local Church) but this is the way governance generally takes place in and on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

Privately vowed hermits (we don't use the term professed here because that implies a public rite involving a change in state of life!) have been the usual way of living eremitical life in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the centuries but this was not recognized as "consecrated life" or defined as part of the "consecrated state of life". In fact, the Church never understood eremitical life as part of the consecrated life unless hermits were members of religious congregations (Camaldolese, Carthusian, Carmelite, etc). Some anchorites came under the auspices of local Bishops, especially during medieval times. Even so, I don't believe these anchorites were considered to be consecrated though, rightly, they were highly regarded by their communities (villages). In @ 1963 in an intervention at Vatican II, Bishop Remi de Roo sought to get eremitical life included in Canon Law as a "state of perfection" -- what today we call "a consecrated state" of life. Only a long 20 years later when the Revised Code of Canon Law was published in October 1983 and included c 603, was eremitical life included in universal Law at all. If, as Joyful Hermit claims, hermits were always consecrated using private vows and always considered to exist in the "consecrated state" of life,  Bishop Remi De Roo would not have needed, much less ventured, such an intervention in the language ("state of perfection") he did. Neither would the dozen or so hermits he came to oversee as "Bishop Protector" have been understood to have relinquished their consecrated state of life in order to become hermits after leaving their monasteries.

As I have noted in the past, Canon 603 is now the universal norm in the Roman Catholic Church for establishing a solitary hermit in the consecrated state of life. There are no other norms, laws, "institutes," rules, statutes, etc for establishing a solitary hermit in law, and thus, as a consecrated hermit unless one is a member of a canonical congregation dedicated to eremitical life or at least allowing for it in their proper law. The Roman Catholic Church simply had not honored the solitary eremitical life in this way for almost 1600 years. (Eastern Catholic Churches have always honored it.) The Desert fathers and Mothers were lay hermits, not consecrated hermits; their prophetic lives were significant and they remain a model for all hermits, both non-canonical (lay, non-consecrated) or canonical (consecrated). About one thousand years later, when Bishops took anchorites under their auspices it was done to make sure these individuals were acting in an edifying manner and living genuinely eremitical lives. (Too often individuals tried to validate all kinds of insanity and wackiness with the name "hermit". The Church needed to attempt some governance over such cases. Additionally, it is possible the Church regarded such vocations with some trepidation insofar as they represented truly prophetic vocations -- as had the Desert Fathers and Mothers.)

In my experience, canon 603 was formulated and promulgated for the significantly positive reasons Bishop de Roo put forth at Vatican II (cf The Heart of the Matter: Reasons for including Eremitical Life as a "State of Perfection"); moreover, it is carefully implemented by most dioceses for these reasons as well as to limit the kinds of wackiness and nutcases often associated with eremitical "vocations". Law in c 603 serves to allow sound vocations which are well-supervised and edifying to the universal Church. In particular, it does not allow the kind of individualism represented by autocephalic (or acephalous!!) vocations like that of the person you cite.

The ability to move from place to place without supervision or genuine accountability is not a sign of serving the whole Church; instead it does not tend to serve either the eremitical vocation or the Church well. St Benedict saw this clearly when he referred critically to monks who moved from monastery to monastery without accountability as "gyrovagues" (cf the introduction to his Rule).  The Church, in requiring that one entering the consecrated life be professed in a recognized and "stable state of life", is clear that all ecclesial vocations must be adequately discerned, mediated, and supervised. They are simply too precious, too valuable, and too responsible to allow them to languish in a headless, unstable and individualistic context, or to let them become skewed due to an individual's unguided and eccentric readings of Church documents and theology.

We don't tolerate folks identifying themselves as Catholic Religious (or as consecrated) who (on a relative whim) may don a religious habit (or not), and make some sort of private commitment without vetting or real preparation -- even if they do so in the presence of the Tabernacle or a parish priest. We call these folks "lay persons" because of the dignity of their baptism and "lay hermits" to honor any genuine dedication to eremitical life lived in the lay (baptismal) state without benefit of canonical profession or consecration. (It should be underscored that some lay hermits live genuine, even exemplary, vocations with preparation and serious discernment of course --- but many, because of ignorance, eccentricity, or simple inability do not.) If, however, lay hermits insist on calling themselves "Catholic religious" or "consecrated hermits",  the Church will note they are  ignorant of the Catholic theology of consecrated life, possibly deluded, or even outright frauds --- and rightly so.

The Church has been entrusted with vocations to the consecrated state. She does not (and cannot) hand authority for these over to the individual. These vocations "belong" to the Church herself; they are ecclesial vocations. Such vocations are vetted (discerned and evaluated in an ongoing way), mediated, and governed by the Church herself in the hands of legitimate authorities precisely because they are gifts of the Holy Spirit which are the responsibility of and fruitful for the entire Church. Unfortunately, as you can tell from the questions I get re: these, videos and blogs like those you and others have sometimes cited are a good example of the negative reasons the Church requires ecclesiastical discernment, profession, and supervision for something as potentially individualistic and disedifying as an eremitical vocation.

Do Hermits Outgrow the need for Spiritual Direction?

[[Dear Sister, does it ever happen that a hermit kind of "outgrows" the need for a spiritual director? Is a director something they need in their early years but then do not need as they grow as hermits and Christ becomes their director? What would happen to you if you decided you no longer needed a director or moved to a place where the Sacraments were unavailable to you?]]

Thanks for your questions. I would have to say no, hermits do not outgrow the need for direction; their need will shift and change over time and circumstances in terms of the content and frequency of meetings, but the place of spiritual direction in any life dedicated to obedience is constant. For instance when I first began meeting with my director we tended to meet monthly or bimonthly. These days we ordinarily meet every two or three months and in times of significant growth or healing we may meet weekly or even more frequently on a temporary basis. In this way we honor the movement of the Spirit. Growth is always possible; more growth in wholeness and holiness is always something God calls us to. (And, by the way, God in Christ and the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS the actual director in an SD relationship. It just happens that God's presence is ordinarily mediated through the profound mutual listening for God so characteristic of the direction relationship.

More, it almost always helps to discuss what one has experienced or discerned with another --- both to be sure one is not mistaken or deluded and to allow another spiritually attuned person to hear one in all of this.  We need to externalize, articulate, and share what happens between ourselves and God as part of claiming it completely. Remember that it was during the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth that both women came to share a fuller knowledge of the way God was working in their lives and the life of the whole of their People. Neither understood this apart from this sharing with the other. This is a significant lesson occurring several times in the Gospel of Luke; another version of it is found in the story of the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, for instance. Experiences of prayer are rich, multi-layered things and our own growth is similar. Unless we can talk about these regularly with someone who knows how to listen and how to help us see more clearly --- someone on the same journey --- we will never really plumb the depths of our own lives to the degree God invites and to the degree our commitment to God requires. Our vision and perception will continue to be narrow and contained. Spiritual direction helps us see and share the joy of Christ's presence and activity in our lives in ways every disciple needs.

But there are additional reasons a hermit more specifically requires a spiritual director and regular meetings or conversations with her. The first is there is rarely another way for the hermit to be sure she is not substituting her own biases, blindness, woundedness and other significant limitations for the voice of God. Living in solitude often means being unable to check one's perception and interpretations with anyone.  One reads, thinks, studies, does lectio, writes and prays, all in an intimate relationship with the God who at the same time never ceases being WHOLLY OTHER --- except as God is incarnated and/or mediated through the heart and mind of another. A spiritual director acts in ways which serve this need for an incarnate God. It is no small ministry! 

Of course this WHOLLY OTHER God is our companion in all things and of course we bring all things to him, but to treat him as though he is just like us but bigger, communicates like we do, and engages in the heavenly equivalent of instant messages or mystical Skype calls, especially on a routine or regular basis, is simply nonsense --- and idolatrous nonsense as well. A good director can remind us of the eternal mystery of God even as she helps in the process of incarnation; she can help prevent our falling into idolatry or otherwise deluding ourselves. After all,  God, along with many other things, inhabits, touches, illuminates and  moves our hearts and minds; he empowers our will. Over time God makes us truly human and truly free. But from within every one of us he has constant competition in this. As I have said before, the demons we each battle are all-too-often the demons of our own hearts and far more often they are these demons than they are something assailing us from without!!! For a hermit who claims no need for regular competent direction or participation in the Church's sacramental life I would suggest such a battle has actually been lost in some sense.

Additionally, the temptation to individualism (even in the more extreme form of narcissism) is huge in our world and culture. Hermits are, at least in part, products of this same world and culture. It is SO easy to clothe the impulses to individualism --- even as narcissism --- in distorted religious and pious language and then mistakenly call what one is doing in this way "Eremitical life" or "Eremitical solitude"!! Similarly, it is possible to turn one's back on the whole of God's good creation outside the hermitage in an act which is selfish, uncharitable, and driven by ego-centeredness and call this (wrongly) what the Church calls "Stricter separation from the world"!! In order to really discern what is in her heart and what truly drives her the hermit MUST have a competent director who understands the spiritual life, is a regular practitioner of prayer, and is committed to her own growth in wholeness and holiness. (By the way, the notion that such a director must be a hermit is fallacious. It is, however, helpful if she is a religious who prays contemplatively and who has experience (my vote) in formation  work and at least as much experience living the vows as the hermit.)

Spiritual Direction is NOT Spiritual Counsel

Finally, as something which may clarify my answer, let me point out that while spiritual direction is sometimes located within schools of "pastoral counseling", spiritual direction is NOT essentially a matter of giving others counsel or advice. Spiritual direction is ordinarily a long-term form of accompaniment where the director journeys with the directee in her sojourn with God. It is not essentially geared to problem solving nor, as one blogger wrote recently, does it require "progress within six weeks" lest the director refer the directee to someone new!! Direction is NOT therapy (even if it were the putative six week deadline would be nonsense)--- though it is profoundly therapeutic. I have worked with my director (a Sister of the Holy Family) since about 1982  and, God-willing, I pray she will be able to accompany me on this adventure for many more years! I routinely accompany directees for 10-15 years and more unless and until they journey beyond what I have to offer them in my own competencies or a move or some other set of circumstances occurs to cause us to part ways. Progress, however, is usually only visible over longer time frames and patience as well as humility is necessary if one is to accompany someone in a journey to holiness.

Neither is a director about discerning what a directee should or shouldn't do. The point of direction, which again is rightly understood as a long-term relationship, is to assist a person in their OWN journey with God, to help them pay attention to God's presence in the depths of their being (heart) or the world around them and to respond in the best (most human, most Christian) way possible, to assist them in THEIR discernment (one does not discern FOR a directee!!!), and to support them as they (continue to learn to) obey the call of God to union. As I noted in the posts I put up on intense inner work (which may be a kind of specialization within the discipline and art of spiritual direction not all directors may do), a competent director ALWAYS works toward the enhancement of the client's freedom and wholeness. Since the journey toward wholeness and holiness takes the whole of a person's life and since this journey (especially the eremitical version!) is always fraught with dangers --- most especially the danger of fooling oneself in significant ways --- a competent director is simply indispensable.

Changes in My Own Eremitical Life:

Your question about major changes in my own eremitical life is really significant.  Remember that if a diocese admits a hermit to definitive (perpetual or solemn) profession it will be WITH an approved Rule which binds the hermit both morally and legally. This Rule will include all the necessary elements of the life including how she understands and lives the elements of the canon and evangelical counsels, how she provides materially and spiritually for herself, etc. Let's be clear then that an ongoing arrangement for regular Spiritual direction and sacramental reception is INVARIABLY required of the consecrated hermit by all dioceses as is a reference or evaluation from the hermit's director prior to profession. No one is professed under canon 603 without meeting these requirements and, in fact, without living under direction for some time prior to profession as well to ensure the hermit's life is sound. The need for ongoing competent direction in eremitical life is a traditional position through centuries of eremitism. For the most part dioceses recognize and admit no one even to mutual discernment until this fundamental piece of things is in place. The same is true of regular participation in the Sacramental life of the Church.

Thus, should there be a material change in the way the hermit lives she will need to modify her Rule. There is no avoiding or ignoring such a necessity if one is truly responsible. This modification might be approved by her delegate on a temporary basis in instances of less substantial change but if the change is substantial (say, for instance, that illness, a major move within the diocese, or other circumstances do not allow for regular Mass attendance, regular spiritual direction, etc.) then the bishop supervising the hermit and those involved with such vocations in the diocese will evaluate the situation and 1) approve the change, 2) deny or disapprove the change, as well as 3) evaluate whether or not the person is even capable of living c 603 eremitical life in the name of the Church if the hermit refuses or proves unable to live her Rule as approved. Everything will be discussed between delegate, hermit, director and diocesan curia; solutions to any deficiencies will be sought first, of course, but a hermit insisting she needs none of the elements which were required and written into in her canonically  approved Rule would find the diocese well within its rights to begin a process of dispensation of vows. You see, the Church rightly believes that certain arrangements are indispensable for living eremitical life well --- ESPECIALLY if one is going to do so in the name of the Church because she is publicly consecrated and commissioned BY THE Church to do so.

Dedicated Lay Hermits vs Consecrated Hermits:

Dedicated lay hermits (those hermits in the lay or baptized state who have not been professed and consecrated BY THE CHURCH but who have private vows instead) may believe they can do whatever they wish or discern is appropriate with regard to spiritual direction, regular access to sacraments, moving to remote areas, and any number of other things --- though NB, such a hermit's baptismal obligations do not cease to bind her --- but a professed and consecrated hermit (one with public vows, etc) is even less free to behave in this way. Not only is she bound by baptismal obligations, but she is responsible in conjunction with her diocese and diocesan Bishop for living a public ECCLESIAL vocation with public rights, obligations, and expectations, because she is bound canonically via both canon and proper law to a NEW AND STABLE ECCLESIAL STATE OF LIFE. She must, therefore, live her life fully and abundantly within canonical and institutional structures which govern and articulate this specific incarnation or expression of the eremitical life.

Of course all of what I describe as being true for the canonical or publicly professed hermit is true for me. My eremitical life is a very free and flexible one and my obligation to obedience is one which finds my superiors and myself working together to hear the will of God in all things not only for my own good, but for the good of this vocation and that of the Church herself. Because we are faithful in this I experience ever greater degrees of wholeness and authentic freedom in my life. Profoundly free though I am, I am NOT at liberty to simply go my own way without supervision or mutual discernment and permission --- meaning of course that I am not free to simply go my own way by asserting I have some special knowledge of the will of God which is shared by no one else simply because I have lived as a hermit since 1985 or a diocesan hermit since 2007. Going one's own way in relative isolation may be individualism or it may be the way some privately vowed (not professed!) hermits operate, but it is not the way a canonical hermit living solitary eremitical life in the name of the Church operates. To the degree she lives an ecclesial vocation in witness and charity to others she cannot and will not do so.

I sincerely hope this is helpful.

More Questions on Terminology: Lay vs Secular Hermits, etc.

[[Hi Sister, I haven't heard before of a secular hermit but what was really confusing in the following was the distinction between secular and lay hermits. Can you help me here? [[There are two spiritual states involved in an authentic hermit life. One is the Secular state which is anyone walking down the street doing their thing, and the other is the Consecrated state, in which the Church officially recognizes with an individual that he or she is definitely sacred by God's action. These hermits enter into an official relationship with God and the Church by a dedicatory ceremony after lengthy examination of their life and spirituality according to the Law of Canon 603 in the Church's Canon Law. I will not go into what that entails as there is ample material and readily available to read.. . .I should draw a further distinction between the Secular spiritual state and the Lay spiritual state. The difference is in the expression of Vows or promises by a Secular person for the dedication and direction of their lives, by God. Such persons may even decide it is beneficial to draw up a Rule which is a written declaration by the individual of how he or she will live their lives and direct them toward their spiritual goal and ideals.]]  Lay Hermit Intercessor. (Emphasis added)

Let me first say that, whether I wholly agree with some of the points (or posts) on this blog or not, I generally recommend it as an example of an important urban lay eremitical vocation. The author is living a simple, and it seems to me, truly eremitical life as a lay person and we need more folks following Mr. Miller's example. Not least this is because the Church is likely to have a number of genuine eremitical vocations among the retired, chronically ill, and elderly. Pastors need to be open to encouraging such vocations. If you have a chance, please take a look at the photography Michael does. Some, especially some of birds and waterfowl, is truly stunning.

I would argue that, in the post you cited, the distinction between lay hermits and secular hermits is not valid (and is not used) for at least two reasons. First, if a hermit is not consecrated or ordained they are in the lay state and this is true whether they make private vows and/or write a Rule or not.  Secular is not one of the three states of life recognized in the Church. It is a context in relation to which one lives in either the consecrated, ordained, or lay states. Secondly then, today we use secular less in contrast with religious as we do to refer to the context or locus of ministry in one's life and the way in which that life is conditioned by the evangelical counsels. Saeculum refers to the everyday space -time world of relationships and labor. The conditioning reality that modifies or defines one's relationship to this everyday world is the (public) profession of the evangelical counsels.

Most lay persons are called to secular vocations, meaning they are called to work in the various structures of this world, participate in building the economy, create and nurture families, and exercise real influence and power in this world in all the legitimate ways that happens. Especially they are called to live the evangelical counsels but not in the way a religious defines these. When used in this way every hermit, whether in the lay, ordained, or consecrated states, and whether they have a Rule and vows or not, are called to something other than a secular life. This is what makes their vocations "desert" vocations.  If one is trying to distinguish themselves from being a lay hermit by calling themselves a secular hermit because they have private vows and a Rule, the attempt is equally invalid. There is, in this sense, no such thing as a secular hermit.

Remember that the original distinction between religious and secular or lay stemmed from the fact that religious, are, to some extent formally distanced from or live a modified or qualified relation to this world, this saeculum; this is so because their vows change the way they relate in terms of economics (poverty), family and relationships (celibate chastity), and power (obedience). While everyone is called to live the evangelical counsels, not everyone is called to live religious poverty, celibate chastity, or religious obedience (with legitimate superiors, etc). Moreover, one form of consecrated life is radically and paradoxically secular and that is Consecrated Virgins living in the World. These women are given to God in the things of the spirit and the things of the world in a particularly challenging and contemporary vocation. These women are in the consecrated state but are called to live that consecration in a radical form of eschatological secularity. This is certainly a place where contrasting "secular state" with "consecrated state" simply doesn't work. Today then, we mainly speak of three states of life: lay, consecrated, or ordained and then qualify them in terms of their relation to the saeculum.

By the way, I am not convinced it is accurate to speak of the consecrated "spiritual" state of life either (though of course it is the result of the action of the Holy Spirit on these persons and their lives). The consecrated state of life (just as is true in the lay or ordained states) encompasses the whole of a person's self and life and is a legal state as well. In any case, I have never seen the Church refer to the consecrated or lay "spiritual" states and don't expect to see this usage adopted by theologians, etc precisely because these states involve the whole person, body, soul, and spirit. Recalling the comments  just made regarding consecrated virgins living in the world, here is another place using the phrase "spiritual" state, as in "secular spiritual state" is particularly misleading.  Again, it is not merely a "spiritual state" but involves the whole of the person and her life.

Personally, though I understand what Mr. Miller means, I would also be careful of using the term "official", as in "these persons enter into an official relationship with the Church". Every baptized person has an "official relationship" with the Church. That is, no one is an "unofficial Catholic!" Every baptized person is a consecrated and commissioned member of the Body of Christ we call Church. The person in the consecrated state of life, on the other hand, accepts a new set of legitimate relationships and legal rights and obligations which bind them beyond their baptismal relationships, rights, obligations, and expectations. They exist in a differently graced state of life with new covenants and commissioning, canonical vows, legitimate superiors, and so forth. It would probably be better to say that, generally speaking, those in the consecrated state of life have a canonical relationship with the Church which differs from those in the lay state. This difference is enough to justify speaking of canonical and non-canonical hermits, for instance, just as we speak of lay and consecrated hermits.

Finally, I would be very cautious in speaking of the Church recognizing the consecrated person or individuals as sacred. It is true that strictly speaking the Church sees individuals called to the consecrated state of life as "sacred persons" and their vocations as divine or sacred vocations, but this does not necessarily imply personal sanctity. (This is why Thomas Aquinas took such care in his discussion of the distinction between objective and subjective superiority.) Especially, this usage can seem to or actually denigrate the profound and foundational consecration and re-creation associated with baptism.  After all, with the Sacraments of Initiation every baptized person becomes a new creation, a person made holy (authentically human) by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. Generally speaking, many religious today, eschew the phrase "sacred person" because if they are sacred persons, then this seems to mean that those who are not in the consecrated state of life are not sacred. I tend to speak instead of "differently graced" or of being "differently bound in law and differently commissioned" or something similar. Certainly, none of this is without problems, overlaps, obscurities, and potential conflicts between VII and older ways of thinking and speaking. The Church is still finding her way here precisely because what was done at Vatican II attempted to do justice to the nature and dignity of lay life, but in some ways Vatican II created loose ends and these remain more or less unresolved theologically.

Summary:

The bottom line here is the Church recognizes three states of life: lay, consecrated, and ordained. In each of these we can find those who live their lives in the midst of the saeculum with no public vows to qualify their relationship to the realms of relationships, power, and money. There are secular (diocesan) and religious priests, consecrated virgins who are religious (nuns in solemn vows) and those who are called to live an eschatological secularity under c 604 applied to women liuving in the world. Religious men and women have public vows which qualify their relationships to the realms of money, power, and relationships even if their ministry has them immersed in the saeculum. Hermits, by their very nature, are the exception here. Whether lay or consecrated and thus either privately vowed (or not) or publicly professed, hermits are, by definition, withdrawn from the world and cannot be considered "secular". We especially do not use the term secular hermit to distinguish between a lay hermit (a hermit in the lay state) with private vows and Rule and one without. As noted, in some ways this supposed distinction sounds like a way to argue one is no longer a lay person because one has made private vows. Private vows or no vows at all, such hermits are lay hermits. Again, the Church recognizes three states of life and secular is not one of these.

Related Question:

[[Sister Laurel, would you agree or disagree that the important distinction in hermits is between those who are privately professed and those who are publicly professed?]]

I agree that this can be seen as the most basic distinction, but it is also the case that one needs to be using the words "private" and "public" in the way the Church herself uses these. Similarly, one needs to be using the term "professed" as the Church does.

Namely, public vows are those which, 1) are associated with public rights and obligations beyond those that come with baptism, 2) with the exceptions ** mentioned below, are the necessary way one is established in a new and stable state of life, namely, the consecrated and/or religious state, 3) are necessarily associated with religious life and are essential for one claiming to be a professed religious, 4) are associated with vocations lived in the name of the Church (one becomes a Catholic Religious, Catholic hermit, etc.), and 5) involve canonical relationships (legitimate superiors, an approved Rule and the legal and moral obligation to live one's Rule, etc.) which are meant to ensure the integrity of the vocation itself and one's vocational response. If one speaks of public vows ALL of these things are necessarily implied.

(**The exceptions referred to above are consecrated virginity and c 603: CV's make no vows but do make a significant commitment; c 603 hermits may use a form of commitment using "other sacred bonds". Both involve God's consecration of the person mediated through the ministry of the Church. It is in this way these persons enter the consecrated state.)

Meanwhile, private vows are those which 1) are not associated with public or canonical rights and obligations beyond baptism or whatever state the person is already in, 2) do not initiate or establish one in a new and stable state of life, 3) are not religious vows which, by definition, are public, 4) are not associated with public vocations lived in the name of the Church (one does not become a Catholic Hermit with private vows), and 5) are not associated with the establishment of canonical relationships meant to ensure the integrity of one's vocational response. (That is, they do not involve legitimate superiors, or legal obligations to live one's Rule, but they do involve the moral obligation to live one's Rule or Plan of Life.) If one identifies oneself as privately vowed ALL of these limitations or exclusions are necessarily implied.

So, in summary, yes, one can certainly assert that the one distinction that "matters" for a hermit is that between public and private vows so long as one is not trying to reduce or even trivialize the meaning of these terms to their more common senses of known and unknown to others or informal and formalized. In other words, if one asserts this is the only distinction that matters then one needs to explain why they are such significant terms in the life of the Church. Most of my efforts in speaking about this in the past has involved  "unpacking" the way the Church uses these terms to speak of non-canonical and canonical eremitical vocations and the significant but differing commitments and obligations associated with these.

Finally, it is important to note again that the term profession is used only with public vows and consecration, that is with vows which initiate one into a new canonical state of life with new rights and obligations. Otherwise one speaks of (making) private vows, or private dedication, but not private profession. That is a distinction your own question obscures --- though it is also, understandably, a very common error in usage.

Some Reflections on Why Canon Law is Important to the Diocesan Hermit

[[Hi Sister, have you always been interested in Canon Law? Do diocesan hermits have to have this kind of interest or knowledge? (Suppose I couldn't care less about this kind of stuff, could I still be a hermit?) One friend said that hermits usually don't care about laws, their freedom is contrary to that and everything I have read about hermits stress their freedom. Is there some way in which he is right or are consecrated hermits kind of "law and order types"? Are those hermits who do their own thing misrepresenting this vocation?]]

Have I always been interested in Canon Law? Nope, definitely not. My own interest is very limited and circumscribed, namely, it is confined to canon 603 and to the life defined there. In a broader sense that and my own history means being interested in the canons on religious life as well; after all a number of those apply to those professed as c 603 hermits, but I can't say canon law per se holds much interest for me apart from the life I have been commissioned to live in the name of the Church. Theology is a much more compelling and pervasive interest for me and my interest in this canon specifically often has to do with the theology and spirituality it seeks to express and protect. Often this involves ecclesiology (theology of the Church) and the way individuals are made responsible for embodying theological truth.

Thus, my interest has also grown over time. It has been spurred by several ideas which are integral to canon 603, not least, 1) the ecclesial nature of the vocation, 2) the amazingly beautiful combination of non-negotiable elements and individual flexibility c 603 codifies, 3) the responsiveness of this canon to history and its capacity to reflect and protect the solitary eremitical tradition as part of the Church's own patrimony, and 4) the lesson that canon law follows life and law serves love. I don't think we necessarily always see these things clearly in canon law (or any law for that matter) but we do see it in the case of canon 603. Especially important here and with regard to #1 above is the way the canon (and canonical standing more generally) creates stable relationships which are essential for ecclesial vocations. The idea that the canon legislates, establishes, and protects those relationships necessary to live this life well and in a prophetic way was tremendously surprising and impressive to me.

While canonical hermits do not usually need much of this kind of knowledge (we have canonists and Vicars who handle canonical details with regard to vows and other things), some, like myself, are interested to the degree that c 603 is new and codifies in universal law a new form of consecrated life. Thus, we tend to be interested in this canon, how it came to be, why it exists, and so forth, and some few of us reflect on the way the canon works in our own lives and the vocation more generally; as noted above we are interested in the relationships it establishes in law, the purpose of these, what we would be living apart from the canon and how it differs because of the canon and things like this. Because as hermits our need for legal recourse or canonical consultation is rare at best once we have been admitted to perpetual profession we are ordinarily otherwise completely free to follow our own Rule of Life without worrying about canonical matters. On the other hand, most of us do have an interest in the canon and its normative character when this is being denied or contravened publicly by folks pretending to represent consecrated eremitical life. In any case at least one diocesan hermit here in the US is a canonist working for a diocese so an interest in canon law is at least not antithetical to the eremitical life!

Am I a Law and Order Type? 

I don't think I am particularly a "law and order" type, nor are most of the hermits I know. Of course we respect law and see its importance in society and the life of the Church. We are not antinomians or anarchists. Rather, we recognize that c 603 is an historic canon and those I know do feel both honored and obligated to live our lives with a real cognizance of what is finally possible in universal law because of it. There is something really startling and humbling when one realizes one is part of a long-awaited and fought for extension of an ancient tradition into a contemporary situation, and therefore, that one is part of a relative handful of hermits now living a new ecclesial vocation in the name of the Church. Personally, I believe the eremitical vocation has the capacity to redeem (heal and give meaning to) the lives of many people who are isolated by life's circumstances and I feel proprietary about the significance of the canon for this reason as well.

Sister Ann Marie OCSO signs Solemn Vow Formula

Especially clear to me is that if the canon is to be used in this way however, it needs to be mediated by the Church and cannot simply be one more occasion of the divisive, individualist, "do your own thing" tendency of our modern world. As far as I can see, that tendency only leads to greater isolation and greater need for redemption. We all know how empty a life of merely "doing your own thing" can be. Imagine how that is exacerbated when one is already searching for meaning, or already feels isolated or as though they do not fit in! My own experience of this vocation says that whether lived canonically in the consecrated state or non-canonically as a hermit in the lay state, for instance, the eremitical life lived in the heart of the Church witnesses to a solitude which is dialogical and contrary to any individualistic isolation. Canon 603 recognizes this clearly when she defines the life as one "lived for the praise of God and the salvation of the world." If the eremitical vocation is allowed to be degraded into another instance of "do your own thing" or "don't give a damn about the Church's laws or decrees", etc, then we will have lost one of the really unique gifts of the Holy Spirit!

Misrepresenting Facts to the Vulnerable, A serious Pastoral Matter

Thus, when a person who neither understands canon 603 nor lives under it or in an institute of consecrated life, but still falsely claims to be a "professed religious" and "consecrated Catholic Hermit" while writing, [[Perhaps it is best for all of us, and maybe especially us consecrated Catholic hermits, to not get too caught up in the ins-and-outs of the temporal Catholic rules and laws and the raft of interpretations of those rules and laws]] it strikes me as particularly self-serving and pastorally insensitive. (Neither is it particularly accurate; a single  two paragraph canon is hardly a raft of laws nor is c 603 exactly a hotbed of interpretive controversy.) It especially says to me this person has not really understood the reason the Church takes care whom she consecrates and how, whom she professes in this or that vocation and why. In my experience people searching for a way to belong, a way to redeem their own isolation, a way to ensure the meaningfulness of their lives are legion in our world --- and perhaps especially in our culture. They are also more vulnerable to people offering a less difficult or at least more individualistic way to embrace religious life.

We do these persons no favors when we tell them to do whatever they wish, call themselves whatever they wish and never mind about the "temporal laws" of the Church. We do them no favors when we misrepresent facts, misread texts, or treat Canon Law as though it is an option we can ignore while arrogantly calling ourselves "consecrated Catholic hermits" and thus claiming under our own authority a designation only the Church herself can permit us to use. Especially we do these persons no favors by encouraging them to embrace pretense in the name of the God of Truth.

In the end to do that is to betray their deepest longings and treat them as though they are either too unimportant to God to be called to live a significant (meaningful) vocation, or simply too weak to bear the vocation God truly HAS extended to them. This is so because in the Church, standing in law ("status") is always associated with the gift and challenge of responsibility. We do not recognize a person's real dignity nor show genuine respect for them by extending standing (much less allowing them to pretend to standing which is) without commensurate responsibility. In any case, while the institutional Church is not perfect, generally speaking she uses canon law to order and protect her charismatic life, not to stifle it. She uses law to make certain that freedom is not degraded into an irresponsible license. The diocesan hermit does something similar with her Rule and, of course, Canon law, legitimate superiors, and the other mediatory structures and relationships of the Church. These things ordinarily help INSURE the freedom of the hermit, they do not hinder it.

Authentic Freedom:

You see, authentic freedom is the power to be the persons we are called to be in spite of limitations and constraints. In the diocesan hermit vocation, or any vocation to the consecrated state in the Church God calls the person and that call is mediated through the structures of the Church. The charismatic dimension of the Church is always mediated in this way. Catholic hermits are not folks who simply do whatever they want (your friend's more commonly held sense of what it means to be a hermit sounds like more of a stereotype to me); they are persons who do what God wills; Catholic hermits are those who live an eremitical freedom (the will of God) as that is mediated not only in solitude, but in and through the structures of the institutional Church.

In my own experience the Church's canon law here provides some of the necessary structure permitting a person to concern themselves wholeheartedly with prayer, the silence of solitude, and the rest of the eremitical life without concern for whatever the world says, believes, values, etc. Moreover, they do so within the very heart of the Church. That is true whether they do so as canonical (consecrated) or non-canonical (lay).  In fact, that is true even when they are fighting for a new way while accepting the current truth of their situation. (The monks who accepted secularization while struggling for something like Canon 603 and living under the protection of Bishop Remi De Roo are exemplars of this kind of creative and risky freedom.) Freedom involves constraints. License is a different matter.

Doing your own thing may pass for freedom, at least for a time, but such persons tend to find they are marginalizing themselves and exacerbating their own sense of unfreedom and meaninglessness. In theological terms they are opting not for the way of the Kingdom and the Life of the Spirit but instead for the way and spirit of the world. The irony is that such persons are therefore more apt than those living fully within the Church's constraints and structures (canonical, liturgical, theological, etc) to be in a destructive bondage, whether that is to insecurity, shame, their own personal failures in life, a fear of meaninglessness, loss, grief, illness, or whatever drives a need to define themselves; whatever creates and grounds this kind of arrogance is not a symptom of freedom but of slavery.

Living Eremitical life inside and Outside the Church:

But let me be clear. A person who truly lives the hermit life without doing so under canon 603 is still a hermit and can live the life in a completely authentic and exemplary way for others --- whether those folks are hermits or not. In this these hermits would be in line with the Desert Abbas and Ammas who actually lived their lives in protest to the worldliness of the Church that had allied itself with the State after Constantine's Edict of Milan. If one has not been consecrated through the mediation of the Church as part of an Institute of Consecrated Life or under c 603, one can certainly still live eremitical life as a lay hermit, a hermit in the lay state of life (or, if one is a priest, in the clerical state of life).

One could also leave the Church and pursue an eremitical life in open protest to what one might see as the Church's compromises with worldliness (and the way some folks write of Canon 603 and the Church's use of law more generally seems suggest they see these as a terrible compromise with worldliness). I personally think this is unnecessary and misguided; I would not understand it but it is a choice I would respect at the same time for its honesty. What is not okay, what I personally cannot respect, is effectively thumbing one's nose at the Church's clear understanding, law, and sacramental structures while fraudulently calling oneself a "Catholic Hermit" and thus, claiming one is living this life in the very name of the Church. I do think that is a clear misrepresentation of this vocation. Of course, if any person claiming to live eremitical life in the name of the Church is also not really living an exemplary eremitical life but instead is merely trying to validate personal isolation and failure, that, it seems to me, would also be a serious misrepresentation of what the Church understands as the eremitical vocation.

Followup Questions: The Meaning of "Institutes" and other things

[[Hi Sister, so when c 603 says, "Besides institutes [not the institutes] of consecrated life the Church recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life," she is specifically recognizing solitary hermits who are publicly professed to be religious? Is this part of the reason c 603 hermits are not allowed to form into communities? Do some people fail to recognize c 603 hermits as religious? Is it usual for communities to call themselves institutes? It is not a terminology I am familiar with and the blog you referred [readers] to seems to understand "institutes" as meaning some kind of statute or law or something. She misquotes the canon with "Besides "the institutes" of consecrated life. . ." and also writes, "CL603 has some additional requirements beyond what all consecrated Catholic hermits must live per the institutes of the Catholic Church," and "all Catholic hermits must profess the three evangelical counsels according to the institutes of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." [Also] why if we are all consecrated does the phrase "consecrated life" or "consecrated religious" only refer to those with public commitments?]]

Really excellent questions! Yes, when canon 603 speaks in this way it is outlining the specific new canonical reality known more commonly today as the solitary consecrated or diocesan hermit. In this canon the Church is saying, as commentators made clear in the Handbook on Canons 573-746, that for the first time hermits with no ties to a congregation or institute are to be considered religious. These hermits have entered the consecrated state of life through profession (which is defined by the church as the making of public vows) whether they come from the lay or clerical states; they live according to an approved Rule of Life and under the supervision of the Bishop who is their legitimate superior. Other canons will apply to their lives therefore, but c 603 defines the central or "constitutive" elements of the solitary canonical eremitical life.

In other words, canon 603 is not a set of "additional requirements" added to other "institutes" of the Catholic Church (I agree this does sound as if the person you are citing believes "institutes" are like statutes to which the elements of c 603 have been added but the use is unclear; unfortunately the error is made less ambiguous in a later post where she mistakenly writes, "The two previous posts cited the appropriate institutes and laws. . ." so it seems to me this blogger is possibly confusing the term "statutes" with the term "institutes"). In any case c 603 is instead a new canon defining a new though also very ancient form of consecrated life for the first time ever in universal law, namely the solitary diocesan eremitical life which stands side by side with Institutes (communities) of consecrated life. Religious who are publicly professed under other canons (CIC, 573-746) and their institute's proper law are not bound by canon 603 at all. Nor are lay hermits though they may well find it instructive and helpful in structuring their own lives .

You see, persons desiring to enter a semi-erem-itical institute were already able to do that apart from this canon while those desiring to create actual communities (groups with common Rule, common superior, common constitutions, common habit and finances, etc) will find the processes by which they can do so also exist apart from canon 603. As you rightly point out, canon 603 is not meant for the establishment of institutes or communities in this sense; lauras (colonies of already-professed diocesan hermits) can be formed so long as they do not rise to the level of an institute or community. In such lauras the hermits will retain their own Rule, their financial independence, and so forth while accommodating and contributing to the needs of the group as is reasonable. Individuals professed as members of an institute do not retain their vows should the institute dissolve or be suppressed --- though transfer to another institute is possible. Hermits professed under c 603 retain their vows and obligations should a laura dissolve or be suppressed. They cannot transfer these to an institute. Thus, they must retain the elements of c 603 (their own Rule, etc) as individually worked out even when they form a laura. (cf posts under label, canon 603 Lauras vs Communities) By the way, canon 607.2 defines an institute this way: [[ A religious institute is a society in which, in accordance with their own law, the members pronounce public vows and live a fraternal life in common. The vows are either perpetual or temporary; if the latter, they are to be renewed when the time elapses.]] Thus c 603 hermits are solitary hermits who exist as religious beside (as well as and alongside members of) institutes of consecrated life.

It tends, as far as I am aware, to be the case that the term "institute" shows up in official documents like consti-tutions and things. Most of us have never heard anyone ask a religious, "What institute do you belong to?" We are used to hearing and using terms like community, congregation, or order for instance. But institute is a universal term which allows canon law to speak of the conditions which bind every canonically founded group or community in the Church without getting bogged down in their differences. It also has the value of indicating this is a reality founded by human beings with an institutional structure as well as a charismatic nature. I don't know much more about the history of the term than that. In any case, in c 603, the reference, "Besides institutes of consecrated life. . ." does not mean besides other canons or statutes referring to consecrated life. It means besides (along with) congregations or communities (etc) of religious, the Church now recognizes diocesan hermits or anchorites in law.

While every baptized person in the Church is consecrated in baptism, relatively few enter what is called the consecrated state of life. This means that the person takes on additional legal and moral rights and obligations besides those which come with baptism. Today we refer to those consecrated in baptism as laity because in baptism they are consecrated as part of the Laos tou Theou or "People of God". To say one is part of the laity is an incredibly important statement which identifies a commission of tremendous significance. This is not merely an "entrance level" vocation. The "consecrated state of life" or "consecrated life" is a reality one enters first by the combination of self-dedication (profession) and Divine consecration and through these, by taking on additional public (legitimate or canonical) rights and obligations through public profession and/or consecration. This is not a "step up" from baptismal consecration if "step up" means "superior to". Instead it is a public specification of one's baptismal commitment centered on a specific and "second" consecration by God in which one is enabled to respond to the specific grace of this way of living within the People of God or Laos tou Theou.

To speak of lay hermits is to speak of those living the eremitical life by virtue of their baptismal consecration alone either with or without private vows. To speak of a consecrated hermit is to speak of those who have thereafter entered the consecrated state of life through public profession and this new or second consecration (which is solemnly celebrated only with perpetual profession). As I have said a number of times here, the consecrated hermit is also referred to by the terms "Catholic Hermit" because s/he is explicitly commissioned by the Church to live the eremitical life in the name of the Church, or "diocesan hermit" because his/her legitimate superior is the diocesan Bishop. While she of course still belongs to the Laos and is laity in one sense (hierarchically speaking she is not a cleric so she is lay), vocationally speaking she is also a "religious" or "consecrated person" as a lay person with private vows alone would not be.

(By the way, I don't know anyone who currently denies c 603 hermits are religious. As noted above, canonists in the Handbook on Canons 573-746 make it clear that canon 603 extends the use of this designation to those without a connection to an institute. When canon 603 was first promulgated hermits professed accordingly were distinguished from religious hermits, that is from hermits belonging to communities or institutes of consecrated life; one would read canonists who said "canon 603 hermits are not religious", but over time usage has changed and greater clarity has emerged on this issue by virtue of analysis of all the canons which apply to c 603 life and the similarity of this form of vowed life to that of all religious.)

Because those in the consecrated state of life are commissioned to live a specific form of life (eremitical, religious, consecrated virginity) in the name of the Church and because this is associated with specific public rights, obligations, and expectations on the part of the whole People of God (and the world!), the term "consecrated life" tends to be reserved for these forms of life alone (also cf CCC paragraph 944, [[The life consecrated to God is characterized by public profession of the evangelical counsels. . .in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.]].

Followup Questions on Ecclesial Vocations, Canon 603, Freedom, Constraints, and Commitment

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I am so profoundly grateful for the article in which you tackle some of the differences between lay and canonical eremitism.  One thought that struck me was, when a person opts to remain a lay hermit (or solitary as in the Episcopal Church), might that imply that the words, the obligations, of Canon 603 could be modified?  Well, now, I mean, what if my understanding of solitary life is different in some ways? ]]

Of course one can remain a lay hermit in either Church community and act with the same Christian freedom but with greater liberty in some ways as well. While I think that canon 603 is remarkably adaptable (witness the fact that no two diocesan hermits write the same Rule, follow the same horarium, or approach the question of active ministry in exactly the same way), and while I have never found the relationship with superiors to be onerous, it is true that in accepting the rights and obligations associated with a public commitment to and under canon 603, I am not able to simply explore anything that captures my imagination or shape my life in any way at all. While I think the non-negotiable elements of canon 603 apply to any form of eremitical life worthy of the name (and here I mean stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance as well as some form of the evangelical counsels and the notion that this is lived according to a Rule the hermit herself writes --- all for the praise of God and the salvation of the world --- I can't really imagine or recall a meaningful or authentic eremitical life that wasn't an expression of these in one way and another) the other elements are not strictly necessary and certainly not in the same way for lay hermits.

You clarify your question when you write: [[I do not feel that my vocation is an ecclesial one.  It would exist if there were no institutional religion on the face of the earth.  Ideally, the church and its structures should be supports for spiritual life, not members of the church living to support the church qua institution, and a top-heavy one at that. Yes, Jesus described us as part of himself, himself and the father as one, so that we are all members one of another.  But where does he say that law should be multiplied and that each personal spiritual expression must be defined by a hierarchical structures of men? I take advantage of the church for my prayer.  I go on retreat at RC retreat houses.  But any manifestation of institutionalism just doesn’t work for me.  I feel as if, were I much younger and went through the steps to become a professed Hermit, I would probably then run away to have more freedom.  And I know the freedom of life in Christ.  It’s just that that is not quite the same as any hypothetical freedom of life in the Church.]]

The Church seems pretty present in your life:

 Well, first of all let me point out that in "taking advantage" of the Church as you describe, or even in considering canon 603 as a guide for your life in some way, reading about hermits (much less articles BY hermits!), considering writing for your church publication or newsletter, seeking spiritual direction, etc, etc, you are indeed dealing with expressions of the institutional church. While an institution, organization, or even an organism can become deformed or dysfunctional the simple fact is that even the simplest grouping of people will have institutional elements, rules, customs, standards, values, common beliefs and practices (rituals, etc), boundaries, and so forth. In your own home I know for a fact that you have instituted (note that word!) some of these in order to protect and nurture the quality of your eremitical (solitary) life. Because of this you also know, I think, that the constraints applied here have led to a real freedom to pursue your vocation as you perceive and receive it from God.

I think what you are concerned with is not the institution of the Church which is a living reality manifest in even the least among us (which is one reason Peter Damian referred to hermits as eccesiolae -- little churches) but, as you say, institutionalism, which is a rather different animal. To that end I would caution you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Similarly, I think you are confusing freedom with license to some degree. The same caveat applies here. When I chose to seek admission to vows, whether as a Sister in community or as a solitary hermit under canon 603 it was my experience that I was choosing among goods and that though there were significant constraints in the choices I had made, these served a deeper freedom.

No place we go or choice we make in this world is free from constraints --- even when those are the constraints of age or heath or intelligence, etc. The task is always to choose that set of constraints (or embrace them in a way) which allows God to do the very best within and with these. To do otherwise is indeed to choose a merely hypothetical freedom and to mistake mere license for genuine freedom. So long as we are not choosing sin vs faithfulness or indulging our falsely autonomous self I think our choice is always not so much freedom versus unfreedom as it is the choice between one expression of freedom and another one, one set of constraints and another one. If the constraints associated with the expression of freedom you choose do not serve you well or are impossible to bear, then by all means, you should select a different expression of freedom (by which I do not mean a different version of freedom) with a different set of constraints insofar as that is possible or prudent --- for sometimes, as you well know, our inability to bear constraints points to our own need for growth, faith (trust), and conversion. That is one of the key lessons of monastic (and eremitical) stability.

On Constraints and Commitment

One point here, of course, is that we cannot do away with constraints. That is simply impossible. Constraints help define our truest freedom. They are the result and the way of genuine commitment! Commitment always entails both constraints and freedom; in fact the language of commitment is that of responsibility and obligation. Both curtail our liberty while they lead to a more profound freedom. Another is that the constraints  themselves are not the point; the reality (or true freedom) they serve is. You also write: [[If it comes right down to the truth of the matter, I feel very deeply and definitely Christian, and called at the same depth to a life of liberty in solitude, with no one and no rules or expectations of how I’m going to live.  I trust myself, I trust in Jesus to lead me.  Because I’ve begged for this opportunity for so many years, studied about it, lived bits and pieces up until the past few years when I’ve been able to “grow” it, I feel pretty clear that the openings which have come my way, in bunches and with the feel of God all over them, this is what I’m called to. ]]

You may recall that  at one point when you wrote me before you said, [[I am writing a provisional Rule of Life and the variety of hermit lives and Rules raise some questions for me. For instance] if someone is a true Christian, and who can judge that?, and says she is a hermit, lives alone sincerely giving herself to prayer, to the heart of the world and by extension and above all, to God, what makes her less a hermit? Less "worthy" (and I know how you hate that distinction) of being called a hermit?]] I responded: [[Dear Poster, Thanks for your questions! If you take a look at the content of your conditional sentence above you will see that you have laid down some very stringent requirements for recognizing someone as a hermit (although I personally would switch God and world in your sentence so that the heart of God comes first and then the heart of the [next] world by extension). Essentially you have described what I refer to as the distinction between a person merely living alone (implicit in your post) and a desert dweller or hermit (which you actually describe explicitly):

IF someone is a true Christian

IF she consciously claims the life of a hermit (desert dweller) and lets that define her (desert spirituality)

IF she lives alone (or, in cases of real need, with a caregiver who does not get in the way of her Rule and actually allows her to live it as fully as she feels called)

IF she sincerely gives herself (not just a bit of time here or there) to prayer, (add penance, silence, solitude and the silence OF solitude).

IF she lives in the heart of God (or is genuinely committed to doing so) and by extension gives herself to the world in this way. . . (all of this I refer to especially as the silence of solitude). The devil is in the details.]]

Definitions as Constraints that Free Words to Have Meaning

I might also have noted in that post that your very description implies a set of constraints which allow you to see or establish the reality of someone and the genuineness of their commitments. Definitions are nothing more than constraints which allow (i.e., free) a word to be meaningful in a particular way. If you look carefully at your own life you will finds rules and other constraints galore. There is simply no meaningful or truthful life without them, and there is certainly no way to be the persons God calls us to be without them. Freedom, after all, is the power to be the persons God calls us to be and that also means not being the persons so much of reality (including our own super egos) tells us we can or cannot, must or must not, should or should not be.  The whole question is full of constraints --- those we must embrace to be true to ourselves and those we must eschew at the same time if we are to reject or at least refuse to collude with our false selves. Sin is a reality; false selves are realities; the presence of cultural voices and norms which militate against truthful or authentic humanity not only exist, they are rampant.

In my own life I also trust myself and I certainly trust Christ to guide me. He has never failed in that. But I also know myself as sinful and I know that the Rule I follow, the Canon which governs my life, the Word of God I focus my life on and in, the Sacraments that only come through the institutional Church, and  the superiors I am obligated by vow to listen carefully to in obedience, are some of the privileged and necessary ways I hear Jesus speak to me daily, sometimes even moment by moment. That is especially true not only with regard to Scripture and prayer, but with regard to my delegate, to those friends who know me well and challenge me to transcend and leave behind the false self who so often is too much a dominant voice in my life. Even so, I do not always listen well or respond generously or lovingly. These bits of "institutional life" are part of the way Christ speaks to me, but for that very reason I also need them to help mediate the grace which transforms my mind and heart. To be frank, I believe anyone who says they can hear Christ adequately apart from the institutional Church is probably kidding themselves. Calling the ecclesial the body of Christ is not merely some touching bit of poetry; it is also literally true.

You see, I could not say with you that my vocation would exist "if there was no institutional religion on the face of the planet". If Christ's church did not exist neither would my vocation; that is true because it is profoundly Christian in every way, not simply because it is a formally ecclesial vocation. I need Christ --- not least to call me to authenticity in the desert. I need Christ to show me the difference between isolation and solitude, between real independence in God (what Tillich called theonomy) and individualism, between the eremitism of the Tom Leppards of this world and his own. And that means I need the mediation provided by the Body of Christ. There is no resurrected Christ unless there is also still an embodied Christ and that implies a Church. By the way, while I am sure you meant no offense, let me point out there is absolutely nothing hypothetical in the freedom to which Christ has called me through and within his Church. I sincerely wonder if you and I are really all that different.

Discerning one is not Called to an Ecclesial Vocation:

The bottom line, however is that you have clearly identified that for the time being at least you are NOT called to embrace an ecclesial vocation. There is a thread of anti-institutionalism running through your heart and mind which, in some ways mirrors the concerns and lives of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. The difference is that the Desert Fathers and Mothers truly loved the Church and worked at their lives as an important part of being and encouraging the existence of what they perceived to be the TRUE Body of Christ and its Gospel. You see, they were committed to that and that made their vocations ecclesial in yet another and profound sense. While I don't think you are entirely different than they are they did have rules, customs, mentoring, etc to prevent them from simply going their own way on a whim (or in the clutches of the noonday devil!). I believe that is also true of you but some of what you have said makes me wonder. In any case, your desire to be entirely free of rules, etc means you will spend a lot of energy and time re-inventing the wheel. In some ways it will mean you will fail unnecessarily. In some ways it means that bias will keep your heart closed to some of the central ways Christ's presence comes to us and challenges us to commit ourselves and be remade. But it also means that to the extent you are truly committed to and in Christ you may discover a way to be a prophetic presence in the world which I will not.


As to your original question none of the essential terms of the canon can be modified in any significant way if one wants to live the vision of the eremitical life Christ's own Church sets forth as consistent with her tradition. Remember that the central elements of this canon were also lived by the Desert Fathers and Mothers who ALSO were engaged in a profound and extensive criticism of the worldliness of the Church. Indeed, they are part of these elements' very source as normative.

How you or anyone else chooses to embody these elements is actually part of the flexibility of the canon --- within limits of course (remember words can be emptied of meaning). Part of the canon need never apply to you, namely section 2 which reads, [[A hermit is recognized in law as one dedicated to God in a consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by a vow or other sacred bond, in the hands of the diocesan bishop and observes his or her own plan of life under his direction.]] You need never embrace any part of this section of the canon. You, like many other lay people will live as a hermit or solitary in exemplary ways perhaps, but you will simply not do so in the same way as one publicly professed/consecrated in an ecclesial vocation.