Clarifications, Part II: Verifying the Identity and Standing of Consecrated Catholic Hermits

[[What the author seems to be saying is that any Catholic can become a consecrated Catholic hermit merely by making private vows. She DOES seem to be saying canon 603 is merely an option for solitary consecrated hermits that Bishops may or may not use --- whatever they prefer. So here are my questions: if any of this is true what prevents a completely mad person who is out of touch with reality, simply can't get along with others, and has crazy ideas of God and religion from making these private vows and then calling themselves a Catholic Hermit? What prevents them from pretending to represent the Catholic Church's understanding of eremitical life? Do pastors check out people introducing themselves as "consecrated Catholic Hermits?? And where does their supposed "consecration" come from? It doesn't seem to be from God or the Church. Does the Catechism really support [corrected typo] this the way Ms McClure says it does? You haven't explained how Ms McClure goes wrong there yet have you?]]

Now that all the vocabulary and the text of the CCC is out of the way (and has established the meaning of Consecrated Life in the section Ms McClure referred to) I can answer your other questions.

One of the reasons the Church is so careful about vocations which are mediated and celebrated with public (canonical)  professions and all that goes with those is precisely to prevent the problems you envisioned and others as well. Public vocations are carefully discerned and recognized as literal gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church and World. Canonically consecrated hermits represent God's own vocational "creation" and image the Church's vision of eremitical life; thus they are responsible for continuing the desert tradition in a divinely empowered, humanly attentive, mindful and dedicated way. Moreover, they do this in the name of the Church who has discerned the vocation with them, admitted them to profession and mediated and marked their consecration by God as an act and continuing reality in which the Church shares publicly. In this way God in Christ entrusts them with this sacred and ecclesially responsible identity, charism, and mission on behalf of God and all those God holds as precious.

There are fraudulent "Catholic Hermits" out there. That's a sad but real fact. Sometimes they are just as you have described them, at least somewhat mad and out of touch with reality with crazy ideas of God, spirituality, etc. Sometimes they are entirely sane with a sound theology and spirituality but have not been able to be admitted to profession or consecration. For these persons it may simply be difficult to accept the fact that they cannot be consecrated and are asked to remain lay hermits (hermits living eremitical lives in the lay or baptismal state alone). These latter may not understand why they are not "Catholic hermits" since they are Catholic AND hermits; more, they may be WONDERFUL hermits and a gift to the Church in every way, but the truth remains --- they have not been consecrated or commissioned to live this life in the name of the Church. Unless and until they have been given and accepted this constellation of rights (and obligations) in a public (canonical) rite of profession and consecration they are not Catholic Hermits.

These latter vocations may be from God as much as any consecrated  hermit's vocation is from God. The difficulty is in knowing whether that is the case or not. Similarly these vocations may be exemplary in ways we would expect either any dedicated or consecrated vocation to be, but again, there is simply no way of knowing. The Church has had no place in discerning, forming, receiving the individual's dedication, and has no role in supervising the vocation or assuring ongoing formation. For someone to live eremitical life in the name of the Church these are just some of the things which must be squared away or provided for. There is nothing excessive in these requirements; they protect people and they protect the vocation itself. In a society and culture whose driving pulse seems to be individualism and where it would be so easy for a consummate individualist to call themselves a hermit --- and even a "Catholic Hermit" at that, precautions must be taken. Because canonical hermits represent the Church in ways a lay hermit does not one must be able to trust they are who they say they are. Otherwise people can be hurt.

Generally pastors do check on the credentials of a consecrated person showing up in their parish unless, of course, the person is already well-known and established. But yes, in the case of a consecrated solitary hermit the pastor would either ask around (other pastors, et al) or contact the diocese and be sure the hermit 1) is professed and consecrated under canon 603, and 2) is in good standing with the diocese or chancery. Diocesan hermits, as I have noted before have a certain stability of place and cannot move from the jurisdiction of their legitimate superior (local ordinary) unless the bishop of a new diocese agrees to become responsible for her and for her vows.

Most diocesan hermits possess a sealed (meaning embossed or stamped with the diocesan seal) and notarized affidavit issued at profession testifying to their canonical standing and providing the date and place of profession and consecration. (This is akin to a baptismal or other sacramental certificate and a copy is kept in the person's file at the chancery.) A pastor could easily ask to see such a document (or a hermit could simply present it as a courtesy); in its absence he might ask who the hermit's legitimate superior is --- expecting the response to be the local bishop and probably an assigned or chosen delegate. If the hermit is a member of an institute of consecrated life and is in the parish while on exclaustration, for instance, then she would again have the proper paper work to establish her bona fides for the pastor. When this is all squared away the way is open for introducing the hermit to the larger parish membership in a way which establishes the authenticity of the hermit's ecclesial identity and place in the life of the faith community. (None of this need detract from the significant role lay hermits play in the life of a faith community by the way, and they too can be identified as the lay hermits they are.)

On Living Under Obedience as a Consecrated Hermit

[[Hi Sister, I am wondering how a contemporary hermit lives obedience in the religious life?  Of course you are obedient to your vows, but in daily life, in choosing your occupation (or a decision not to have one), do you have a way of living under obedience.  If not, does this present problems in striving for holiness?  I don't want to bother with all the ramifications of the subject, as I am sure you are aware of them all, and we need not go into a lengthy theological discussion.  I was just wondering. Thanks,]]

Thanks for the questions. Remember that obedience means first of all hearkening to the will of God as it comes or is mediated to us in many ways. Those include not just one's vows, but also Scripture, prayer, liturgy and the Sacraments, the ordinary circumstances of life, one's Rule or Plan of Life, the discernments of one's legitimate superior (Bishop and delegate), other significant persons in our lives (pastor, spiritual director, physicians, good friends, et al) and of course, the voice of God in one's heart (which is usually involved in all of these others). It seems to me that contemporary consecrated hermits (and other religious) learn obedience and grow in their responsiveness to God by attending to God's voice as it is mediated in ALL of these ways (and some I may not have mentioned).

In other words, obedience is not limited to one or two channels, like vows and legitimate superior --- though of course these are privileged ways God can and does speak to us. Several of these many channels of God's will are not only privi-leged ways to living in obedience but they are also ways the hermit is bound in law; specifically, I am thus bound, both morally and legally by vows, Rule, and legitimate superior (the Diocesan Bishop and my delegate). (While in spiritual direction I feel called to an obedience every bit as real and life giving as with any of these others it is not a legal bond.)

I am not quite sure I understand your question about choosing an occupation or not to have one. I am a hermit and that IS my occupation. However, if you are referring to discerning a way of supporting myself as a hermit then it is certain that my state and form of life, and of course my Rule, limit significantly the kinds of occupations I may choose to engage in. Beyond this, of course, my bishop and delegate might have some significant input in certain situations, but generally the decision about forms of work I may undertake are limited to consideration of 1) the education and training I have for them, 2) whether I can continue to live my Rule with integrity and still undertake whatever form of work is being considered, and 3) whether this form of work is consistent with the life of a consecrated hermit and religious. It may be that in some special circumstances some kind of temporary dispensation or waiver may be needed in order to adopt a form of work I would not ordinarily do but in such a case it would need to clearly be temporary (I would argue a definite time frame and limits need to be specified) and I would need not only to have discerned the wisdom of such an accommodation but my Bishop and/or delegate would need to approve.

A c 603 hermit lives her entire life under obedience --- though this does not ordinarily mean under the micromanagement or detailed commands of superiors. It means under the sway of God as his Word and will come to her in Scripture and prayer, in the everyday circumstances of her life, and so forth. The hermit's Rule governs her entire life and, as already noted, she is bound morally and legally to honor and live that out with integrity. Personally, I reflect on my Rule a lot. It engages me on a number of levels; not only does it legislate but more fundamentally it inspires and reminds me who I am, to what I am called, and why I am committed in the way I am. From my perspective it is more deeply and extensively compelling in terms of obedience than even legitimate superiors. This is one of the reasons dioceses have to be sure that hermits have been given every opportunity over time to develop a mature and livable Rule before they admit a hermit to vows of any sort.

I hope this is helpful and gets to the heart of your question.

Replying to Objections and Misunderstandings

[[Hi Sister, does a Catholic (c 603) Hermit require a legitimate superior? One blogger writes that there is no mention of the hermit having a superior nor requirement to adopt a personal Rule of Life, no such thing as a lay hermit, no requirement for any kind of stability, and that the term dedication is never used to describe a Catholic Hermit's profession of the evangelical counsels. Can you respond to these assertions? I have included the post below.]]

Thanks for your email. Yes, I saw the post (or posts) several months ago. I have written about all of these assertions in one way and another here so it did not seem necessary to respond, but since you ask, and since the post is actually being read perhaps I do need to cite and respond to the assertions in a more direct way. Maybe all these points need to be present in a single post I can simply link people to in the future. (While I do welcome all questions and will continue to do so, that would be a relief from having to write the same stuff yet again!)  In any case, let me be clear that, as far as I am aware, none of these points is a matter of interpretation on which reasonable folks may differ. The assertions made by the poster cited seem to me to be rooted in misunderstanding or actual ignorance of language and usage many of us, myself included, take for granted. Probably we ought not do that. In any case, I have broken up the post you have supplied and answered each point below. I sincerely hope this is helpful.

[[There is no mention of the hermit having a "Superior" in either The Catechism of the Catholic Church or in Canon Law 603. The latter does state that the hermit who publicly professes the three evangelical counsels into the hands of the diocesan bishop, is to live his or her proper program of living under the diocesan bishop's direction. Thus, the hermit's director is by [church] law to be his or her bishop.]]

When a canon says that one makes their public profession in the hands of another (for instance, the local ordinary or diocesan Bishop) they are identifying that person as the legitimate superior of the one making their profession. As noted in other posts, the act of making one's profession in the hands of another harks back to feudal times when folks made acts of fealty in the hands of their political and legitimate superiors. Today there is a clear sense of intimacy about this act because it establishes a legal or legitimate relationship (and a moral one as well) in which the two people entrust themselves to this relationship -- though in very different ways -- so that a God-given vocation can flourish.

The meaning of this act was immeasurably enriched and made clearer to me when I first met with Archbishop Vigneron on the Feast of the Sacred Heart. At the end of that meeting he extended his hands and I rested mine in his while we both prayed for the process of discernment we were embarking on together. Later, when I made my vows in his hands while resting them on the book of Gospels, I recalled that first meeting and time with others where prayer was linked to resting my hands in theirs. It was especially poignant because of this. These relationships have been life giving to me and a source of the mediation of my vocation.

The bottom line here is that the actual words "legitimate superior" are not necessary. The concept is clearly present throughout. Canon 603 refers to public profession, to being recognized in law and to making one's profession in the hands of the local Bishop under whose direction the hermit will live her life. All of these imply or explicitly refer to the reality of legitimate superiors. Direction, for instance, does not mean spiritual direction (as in the work of a spiritual director per se --- even if that person is the bishop!) but rather is the general term for the exercise of authority by a legitimate superior. Meanwhile, the obedience owed one's legitimate superior differs in character from the general obedience one owes one's spiritual director, Scripture, one's pastor, et al. and this is clearly referred to via the presence of references to canon law and a personal Rule, Plan, or Program of Life.

As I wrote a while back, if one wonders if a hermit is legitimate (canonical), that is, if she is canonically commissioned to live her life in the name of the Church then ask her who her legitimate superior is. That works for any religious one is doubtful of as well. In a solitary hermit's case this will ALWAYS be the local diocesan bishop.

[[Rule of Life: Again, adopting an individual rule of life is not stipulated per se in the institutes of the Catholic Church or CL603 per the consecrated eremitic life. However, history and tradition of eremites who successfully and heroically lived a holy hermit life, as well as prudence and wisdom, suggest that determining and being true to a rule of life is a positive inclusion.]] and also [[ Can. 603 §1. In addition to the 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 withdrawal from the world, the silence of solitude, and assiduous prayer and penance.]]

The phrase "institutes of the Catholic Church" as some sort of law or statutes is not recognized usage. In any case, Canon 603 does not read "the institutes". Instead it says, "besides institutes of consecrated life canon law also recognizes the eremitic or anchoritic life" and by this it means, "Besides congregations, Orders, and communities of consecrated life canon law (the Church) also recognizes solitary consecrated eremitical life" and does so specifically in this canon. This portion of the canon outlines c 603 as the single recognized way to public profession for hermits who are not part of institutes of consecrated life. Regarding the assertion that a Rule is not an explicit requirement of canon 603, the canon also reads, "and observes his or her plan of life (vivendi rationem) in (the Bishop's) hands." The plan of life is ordinarily written out and approved by the Bishop. (The approval is formalized in a Bishop's decree of approval.) Sometimes it is called a Rule or "regula" or even Rule or Program of Life but what is really clear is that the canon specifies such a Rule or Plan.

[["Lay hermit": There is no such term or category as "lay hermit" in Church Law, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church Tradition, or Church History. Hermits [eremitics] are specified under the category of "The Consecrated Life," specifically 920-921, in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. In the 20th century, they are also specified in Canon Law 603. (The hermit vocation, by virtue of the required inclusion and profession of the three Evangelical Counsels [celibacy, poverty, obedience] and by specified program of life, preclude a hermit from being a lay person. ]]

There is no need for such a term in most discussions in canon law, etc. The reality is understood and, for instance, may be said to be referred to in canon 603.1. (603.1 refers to hermits generally and may thus also speak to lay persons who live as hermits. Canon 603.2 refers specifically to those recognized in law and who are consecrated hermits and together with 603.1 is a governing canon of their lives.) Paragraphs 920-921 of the Catechism may, despite their awkward location, also refer to both lay and consecrated hermits or they may in fact refer only to those who are consecrated.  In any case, whether the term lay hermit itself is ever used (and it IS used cf the reference to Fr Mark Miles' Dissertation below in the paragraph beginning, "As I have written here . ."), the reality is clearly present in canon law. Here, without citing every canon specifically, is why I say so.

Vows may be private or public. Except for the consecration of virgins living in the world only when a baptized person makes public vows and is consecrated by God through the mediation of the Church in a public juridical act does that person enter the consecrated state of life. Those hermits making private vows remain lay persons if they were already lay persons and ordained if already ordained but they do not enter the consecrated state. The term "lay hermit" simply means a person in the lay state who is living as a hermit. It is distinguished from "consecrated hermit", "diocesan hermit", consecrated religious, and professed religious because all of these imply public profession and consecration through which one enters and takes on the legal (and moral) obligations and rights of the consecrated state. Since anyone may make private vows or write a Rule or program of life and live it there is nothing in these per se which preclude one from being both lay and a hermit. The majority of hermits have, in fact always been lay (or non-canonical).

As I have written many times here the unique thing about canon 603 is that for the very first time in universal law the solitary eremitical vocation is recognized in law as a "state of perfection"  and those consecrated in this way are recognized as religious in the RCC.  In other words, there were no solitary consecrated hermits prior to canon 603. Nor are there solitary consecrated hermits in the Western Church apart from canon 603. Canon 603 was created for the very purpose of admitting solitary hermits to consecration. Today the term lay hermit is used to distinguish those (non-clerical) solitary hermits who have not been admitted to the consecrated state under canon 603. I am reminded of Thomas Matus, OSB Cam's account of the life of Nazerena. He notes and Father Mark Miles emphasizes the importance of the following: [[On 2nd February Nazarena entered the Camaldolese Benedictine Monastery of St Anthony on the Aventine  . . The important fact is that eventually Nazarena obtained an interview with the Cardinal Secretary of State who authorized her to live as a lay anchoress in the same Camaldolese Monastery. . .]] Canon 603: Diocesan Hermits in the Light of Eremitical Tradition. Miles, Mark Gerard, Rome 2003.

Remember that vocationally speaking the Church recognizes three states of life: lay (especially the married state of life), consecrated, and ordained. (Hierarchically speaking there are only two, lay and ordained.) A hermit may be a member of any of these states of life.  Whether one is lay or ordained, initiation into the consecrated state (except in the single case of consecrated virginity) requires public profession and consecration. To say that private vows preclude a person from being a lay person is to misunderstand the nature and necessity of public profession in the initiation of one into the consecrated state. Unfortunately, it also denies that private vows of the evangelical counsels are even possible for those in the lay state. Moreover it says that the Church has two routes to living in the consecrated state of life, one which is canonical and under the direct supervision of legitimate authority and one which is not. Of course, this is hardly the way the Church works with regard to the gift of consecrated life.

[["Stability" (remaining in one locale): This is not required but may be what the hermit's earthly superior requests of the hermit. Some religious orders, whose members live as hermits, include "stability" in their professed three evangelical counsels.]]

Canon 603 does in fact require a form of stability of the diocesan hermit precisely because she lives her life under the supervision of the local Bishop and he is her superior in law. She must remain within the diocese where she has been professed unless another Bishop agrees to accept her as a diocesan hermit and allows her to make (or live her) vows in his hands. Since her own Bishop is relinquishing jurisdiction, he must also agree to the move and will confirm that the hermit is professed under canon 603 and in good standing in the diocese. In any case, though it may be transferred through a kind of excardination and incardination similar to the transfer of diocesan priests or somewhat analogous to the transfer of stability of monks and nuns moving to new monasteries, etc., stability is definitely required of the diocesan hermit. This is part of the legal relationships which obtain with public profession and consecration. Moreover, we can assume this means they are the will of God because they are an important way of protecting and nurturing this vocation for the benefit of the entire Church.

[["Dedication": There is no such term used to describe a Catholic hermit's profession of the three evangelical counsels [poverty, celibacy, obedience] and one who lives in accordance with the stipulations per Consecrated Life of the Church: The Eremitic Life, in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. [The term "dedication" is often used currently by Protestant Evangelicals and those of other denominations who do not practice infant Baptism; such as: make a "dedication" of their children to God or to live a godly life.]]]

Canon 603 reads as follows: [[A hermit is recognized as dedicated to God in the consecrated life if he or she publicly professes the evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond. . .]] One's public dedication to God is marked by one's profession of the evangelical counsels via vow or other sacred bond. In other words one's profession represents a dedication to God. Vatican II consistently used the term "dedication" or similar terms meaning the giving of self to refer to the human dimension in public profession. The Divine element or dimension was referred to as "consecrare," since only God may sanctify, set apart as sacred, or consecrate. I admit that in light of all this it is hard for me to understand how one can contend there is no such term as "dedication" [or to dedicate] used to describe a hermit's profession of vows. On the other hand the distinction between dedicare and consecrare is profoundly Scriptural so it does not surprise me that some Protestants honor it in referring to the dedication of their children to God prior to sacramental baptism. Evenso, the attempt to deny this is part of the normative language of the Roman Catholic Church in speaking of public professions or of canon 603 itself is simply wrong.


One of the problems with the usage in the blog you have referenced and another possible source of misunderstanding is that the author uses the term Catholic Hermit to refer to any person who is Catholic and living as a hermit. I (and the Church herself) use the term Catholic Hermit to refer to any person who has embraced and been authoritatively admitted to a specifically ecclesial vocation which is lived in the name of the Church. To repeat myself (cf other articles on cc 216 and 300) there are canons which specify one cannot apply the term Catholic to an enterprise or role unless proper authority permits it. For instance, not every theologian who is a Catholic can call herself a Catholic Theologian (and her theology may indeed be profoundly Catholic nonetheless). Only those exercising this role with a specific mandatum may do so. Sometimes the mandatum is withdrawn and the person, though profoundly Catholic, is no longer allowed to consider or refer to themselves as a Catholic Theologian.

Not every religious institute may do so either, nor may every Catholic who is a hermit. A Catholic Religious Institute lives religious life in the name of the Church and is specifically authorized to do so. So too with a Catholic Hermit. Whenever one sees " a Catholic x or y", whether this is a person, an institute, radio station, or role it means (or should mean) this reality is and does what it does in the name of the Church. It means there has been a specific commissioning by appropriate authority to act in the name of the Church. The Catholic hermit lives the eremitical life in the name of the Church because the Church, in professing and consecrating her publicly has commissioned her to do so.

[[Married hermits: Both parties need to agree to their marriage rights being dissolved and with the choice to enter consecrated life and to choose celibacy. This may occur if they are older and the high calling and purpose of the married state of life is fulfilled so that the required Evangelical Counsels (poverty, obedience, celibacy) of the consecrated state of life could be met.]]

Marriage rights are not simply dissolved. Remember that Marriage is a Sacrament in which two persons become one flesh. The reason the Church does not allow divorce is because she understands that this bond is created by God and cannot be dissolved by man. Though it involves these, it is much more than the establishment of certain rights and obligations. If it is determined that no true sacramental bond was created then the marriage can be annulled, that is declared null or empty. An Annulment does not dissolve marriage bonds; it establishes publicly that no true (sacramental) marriage ever occurred. Neither does civil divorce end the sacramental bond; instead it puts an end to the civil rights and obligations associated with such a bond. This is why an annulment must also be sought after a civil divorce.

By the way, I should point out that every Christian is called to live some form of the evangelical counsels. Married persons are not called to religious poverty or religious obedience, but they are certainly called to a profound stewardship of this world's goods and a simplicity of life that is edifying; they are also called to an obedience to the Word and will of God which is profoundly challenging and world-changing. Private vows may include or specify the evangelical counsels but for married persons these will not include obedience to a legitimate superior or the relinquishing of one's own will. Neither will they include a commitment to poverty which is inappropriate for the effective raising of  and care for children. Finally, again, lay hermits (hermits in the lay state) may or may not make private vows. They make sense if care is taken, but they are not required nor, again, do they initiate one into another state of life.

The idea that two older people may have "fulfilled the purpose of their marriage" --- which apparently refers to having and raising children is completely preposterous since one purpose of marriage is to bring one another to God and the commitment is one unto death. Having and raising children so they too may know God is likewise a significant purpose of marriage but not the whole of the matter. No person who is validly married can be admitted to public profession or to the consecrated state of life. This is because one must be free of all such bonds to take on the life bonds of other state of life. Similarly, one in the consecrated state of life cannot attempt marriage. Nor can one in the ordained state. If one makes vows of poverty, chastity and obedience while married they must be private vows. (I am not suggesting such vows are prudent or not, only that they must be private.) Such vows do not initiate (or attempt to initiate) one into a new state of life nor do they dissolve one's marriage, for instance --- which is another assertion the poster you cited has made in these posts.

Addendum: The Church as such has kept the requirements for hermits simple. It is diocesan Bishops who have added provisions for public profession of diocesan hermits.

While the Church as such has done a remarkable job of recognizing the freedom of the hermit and kept legal requirements to a minimum, the Revised Code of Canon Law and c 603 is universal law, not merely diocesan. Canon 603 and the recognition of and provision for canonical hermits in the consecrated state is binding within the entire Western (Latin) Church. It is true that each diocesan bishop is called upon to implement this canon as seems best to him while maintaining the character of canon 603 life outlined therein, however, he does so in service (and obedience) to universal law. It is also true that we tend to call c 603 hermits "diocesan hermits" but this is done to indicate 1) who the hermit's legitimate superior is, and 2) the specific stability attached to her commitment. It is akin to recognizing a Religious Institute as one of diocesan right. This designation does NOT mean the hermit is not recognized by universal law within the entire Church.

I hope this is helpful.

Followup Questions on Discerning With One's Bishop

[[Hi Sister Laurel, your posts about legal standing and what happens if a diocesan hermit disagrees with a Bishop give the impression that the relationship between hermit and legitimate superiors is oppressive. Am I mistaken? I admit I don't really care for the way the Church seems to want to be in charge of our lives or make moral decisions for us. Have you ever had a disagreement with your Bishop where you needed to rethink things and come to a different conclusion on them about the way you live your life?]]

Well, I am more than a little sorry if that is the impression I have given. It was certainly not my intention nor does it correspond to my experience. In my own experience the place of law and legitimate superiors do not ordinarily interfere with my freedom or my choices at all. When I think or write about the freedom of this life I have tried to make clear that there are constraints, as in any life, but that these qualify and focus my life in ways which serve my ability to explore the depths of eremitical solitude in the name of the Church. That is the fundamental thing I have been called to, the fundamental thing I have committed to doing, and it is the thing which my superiors and law itself are responsible for assisting me to do with integrity. Let me be clear that no one is heavy handed in this matter. Neither my Bishops (there have been several) nor my delegate simply tell me what to do. The point of my post regarding a disagreement with one's Bishop was that when there were differing conclusions with discernment in a genuinely serious matter (and whether or not hermits may work full time, especially in highly social situations, is one of these) a hermit may be asked to resolve the situation differently than her original discernment led her to do. This was because her vocation is an ecclesial one which is responsible for and affects more than her own life alone.

Unfortunately, the hermit may not see this as clearly as her Bishop or delegate (though she might also see things more clearly, as might other diocesan hermits who live the life and are knowledgeable about the tradition); in such cases it is important that all parties share their own discernment in the process of seeking a resolution to the problem at hand. It remains true that if the Bishop should decide that whatever the best solution to the hermit's need for financial support, it is not (and can never be) full time work, she will not be allowed to do (or continue in) this. Hopefully, both Bishop, hermit, and the delegate will work together to seek a better solution which ensures the hermit's ongoing wellbeing but also protects her witness to the solitary eremitical life and the integrity of the eremitical tradition itself. Part of the reality of any vocation is ongoing discernment of the ways God is calling us and our continuing responses to that. A vocation is less something we "have" than it is something we receive and respond to freshly day by day.

One of the important pieces of standing in law is that one is, for the most part,  protected against arbitrary actions by others which might interfere with this ongoing responsiveness. If you have ever lived in a community or situation in which "power figures" inappropriately dictated what members might or might not do in the name of "governance", you will know what I mean when I say that standing in law can prevent and protect one from such vagaries of personality and agenda. Experiments in the governance of religious life have sometimes left openings into which stepped those whose (perhaps unconscious) desire was more for power than service. When I write about the relationships which are essential to the canonical eremitical vocation I am speaking about relationships that allow a hermit to live freely in the heart of the Church and devote herself to the silence of solitude while these others provide feedback and a sense of the needs of the Church more generally. It is, in my own experience, a true dialogue in which people cooperate for the good of the Church, her proclamation, and the eremitical life entrusted to her by the Spirit and is not at all oppressive.

I have not had had any situations in which the way I live or propose to live my life have conflicted with the way a Bishop, Vicar, or others discern is appropriate. I have, on the other hand, certainly had conversations with my delegate which have caused me to rethink things and modify the way I live. Similarly we have had conversation which have furthered or clarified my own discernment in matters and occasionally we have had conversations where my own failure to adequately discern a course of action was "unmasked". (Actually, it was only unmasked to me, not to anyone else. As I once recounted here, my delegate once said, "I will be interested to hear your discernment [in this matter]" and my immediate thought was, "Busted!" because I knew at the moment she made the comment that I had not really done a thoughtful discernment.) It was pretty funny really. Certainly the demand that one discern seriously and discuss the process with superiors is not oppressive because in all cases my decisions are my own! Sometimes they simply aren't made alone. In my experience this ("I really am interested in hearing your discernment"--- whether stated implicitly or explicitly) is more typical of the way conversations go between myself and any superiors than simply being dictated to.

What Happens When the Bishop's Discernment clashes with that of the Diocesan Hermit?

 Dear Sister Laurel, thank you for your response to my question about elderly and infirm hermits. I am the one who asked whether their vows would be dispensed. I am glad you also thought the blogger mentioned made some good points. She mentioned two other situations. One of them which dealt with full time work you have already responded to indirectly in a separate question. The blogger asked: [[ What if a hermit's financial circumstances are such that a change has occurred, and he or she needs to work part time or full time and the job available or to of which the hermit is capable is among many people or in highly interactive and noisy environment? Do they then need to be removed as hermits? Do they cease being part of the Consecrated Life of the Catholic Church? Would any charitable or wise spiritual director (bishop or not) demand the hermit's withdrawal, or negate the consecrated vocation? Would church law no longer recognize those who are CL603 hermits--with the bishop making a public statement to that effect?]]

The second one has to do with wearing a habit. She wrote the following: [[What if a hermit goes along wearing a habit for awhile, approved by spiritual director (or a bishop), and then realizes it prohibits the degree of passing unnoticed or being hidden from the eyes of men--that the hermit and his or her director have determined to be best for that particular hermit? What if the hermit decides to dress so as to blend in and not be noticed as different or be mistaken as a consecrated religious if not in the religious life? And is it wrong for a hermit to wear a habit if and when no longer a part of the consecrated life of the church as a religious? These aspects are determined by the hermit and his or her director, for there are always personal, individualized, and unique considerations to be made. Not up to others to judge.]]

So here are my questions. Can [a] person's spiritual director determine these kinds of things? Can  Bishops demand something other than the person's SD and the person discern are best for him. Should someone continue wearing a habit if they have left the consecrated state?

Thanks for writing again. Regarding the place and role of a spiritual director in such matters, the spiritual director will work with a person to help her discern what is best for herself and her vocation at any given point in time but cannot decide this unilaterally and sometimes may not agree with the decision at all. It is not her decision. Ever. She is not a legitimate superior but one who assists a client be attentive and responsive to the voice and movement of God in her life. Similarly if a directee working together with her SD discerns something seems to be the best decision or course of action, etc. this absolutely does not mean a Bishop must automatically agree with this discernment if he is the person's legitimate superior. (By this I mean if he is more than her Bishop but has assumed the place of legitimate superior in the rite of perpetual profession made in his hands.)

The Bishop will certainly consult with the  person in this  matter and she will share her discernment with him; he may also ask the SD to contact him with her opinion in the matter, but, so long as there is also a delegate in the picture, this is unnecessary and unlikely due to the confidential nature of the spiritual direction relationship. On the other hand he will speak with the hermit's delegate since she serves in precisely this role for both the hermit and the larger Church. Remember that the Bishop has other concerns and perhaps a wider vision of the matter at issue which must be accommodated as well as this specific discernment by the hermit. For instance, in the case of a consecrated solitary (diocesan) hermit let's suppose she determines (with her director's assistance) that it would be best for the hermit to work full time in a highly social job and that she believes the hermit can do this for a period of months without it adversely affecting her vocation. However, let's suppose the Bishop says no to this because as he understands things, 1) the canon does not allow this, 2) the witness it gives to the local and possibly the universal Church is disedifying, and 3) he is not entirely convinced the discernment is really cogent for someone with a genuine eremitical vocation.

In such a case the Bishop will make a decision which contradicts the hermit's own discernment and he is entirely within his rights and obligations as Bishop to do so. If a hermit cannot live with this, then she will have to decide what happens next. Will she obey or not? Will she seek dispensation from her eremitical profession or not? Again, the Bishop has concerns which overlap those of the hermit (both are concerned with her vocation specifically and the eremitical tradition generally) but he is responsible canonically to protect c 603 and the consecrated eremitical life it expresses. Sometimes what seems best for the individual hermit is not also what is best for the Church or for the vocation more generally.

The hermit has to try and get her mind and heart around this fact and either embrace the sacrifice it requires --- if this is possible without compromising her own conscience --- or she will need to find another good-conscience resolution which protects not only her own vocation but the solitary eremitical vocation more generally. However, in such a significant matter -- a matter which weighs directly on the integrity and meaning of the canon --- if she cannot do this and the Bishop is unable to assist her to achieve a workable resolution while standing by his own prudential decision on the matter, then yes, the hermit's vows will very likely need to be dispensed and the hermit will cease to be a consecrated hermit in the Roman Catholic Church. You see, the Bishop, as the hermit's legitimate superior can certainly demand something the hermit does not  feel is the best thing for her. This will usually not be done facilely and not without consultation, but it can happen. The judgment is NOT the individual hermit's alone precisely because her vocation is an ecclesial one; others (the church at large, other diocesan hermits or candidates, their own Bishops, etc.) have a stake in the decision being made and the local Bishop and to a lesser degree, the diocesan hermit's delegate, have responsibilities for making binding judgments in these cases.

On Wearing a Habit if One has left the Consecrated (religious) State?

Should someone continue wearing a habit if they leave the consecrated state? No. While I understand the allure of such a decision and the difficulty of letting the habit go, the fact is that habits are symbols of public vocations. They are ecclesial symbols and the individual does not have the right to adopt these without the Church's permission and supervision. (A spiritual director, by the way, would not of him or herself have the right to grant this permission.) I wrote recently that symbols are living things, that they are born and can die but they cannot simply be created by fiat (cf, On Symbols and Ongoing Mediation or, On the Significance of the Designation Er Dio). When we are clothed with the habit and/or prayer garment (something the Church does, usually through the mediation of an institute of consecrated life, but also in the profession of hermits) we accept this symbol as our own; we step into a stream of living tradition and witness to it with our lives.

One of the reasons diocesan hermits do not adopt the habits of specific congregations (Dominican, Franciscan, Carthusian, Camaldolese) for instance is because they are not professed as part of this tradition. Their lives are neither canonically committed to nor shaped by members of these congregations who teach and model for them what this habit means in the history of the Church and the life of a religious of this specific spiritual tradition. In any case, the bottom line is that the wearing of a habit is an ecclesial act, an act of witness which the Church commissions and supervises. It is part of the rights and obligations associated with consecrated life. If one leaves the state she leaves these rights and obligations as well. Again, with rights come obligations and both rights and obligations are mediated by the Church, not by the individual.

[[The blogger also wrote, [[Again, no consecrated Catholic hermit is like another anymore than there are two fingerprints the same in the whole world or that have ever repeated throughout the history of mankind.]] I think this blogger was trying to suggest that Canon law cannot place arbitrary constraints on an individual hermit and that each hermit is free to discern what is best for themselves. She seems to have a fundamental belief that canon law is harmful, especially in regard to hermits. Can you comment on this opinion?]]

I have written recently about the profound characteristics shared by diocesan hermits in spite of their uniqueness here: Significance of Er Dio as post-nomial initials. I don't want to repeat that since it is quite recent but I do suggest you take a look at it if you missed it or perhaps simply to refresh your memory. It is true that every consecrated hermit differs from every other hermit just as individual fingerprints differ. But all fingerprints have shared characteristics or overarching patterns of whorls, arches, loops and their subsets. Eremitical life also has such patterns and basic characteristics. Canon 603 lists these and the hermit uses them to define her life with her own necessary flexibility as she codifies these in her Rule or Plan of Life. Any individualism is at least muted and (one hopes) transformed by this process of configuration and the conversion it empowers. Hermits differ one to another, yes, but to the extent they are authentic hermits their differences represent a variation on a more important shared theme and charism, namely, the silence of solitude they are each and all called to live in the name of Christ and (for those who are ecclesially professed and consecrated) in the name of his Church. I believe that canon law is important for protecting a rare and fragile though vital ecclesial vocation; I have written about that here several times so please check out past posts on this. My opinion has not changed.

On shifting discernment regarding wearing a habit:

There was also a slightly different question posed in the passage you cited re the wearing of a habit, namely, what does one do if one is granted permission to wear a habit and then decides down the line that doing so conflicts with the hiddenness of the life, for instance? Ordinarily a bishop gives permission for the wearing of a habit and may also approve the habit itself. He does not typically mandate the wearing of a habit. If a hermit discerns that the positive reasons for wearing a habit conflict with something as essential as the hiddenness of the eremitical life, the hermit will take a couple of steps in moving towards relinquishing the habit: 1) she will discuss the matter (director, delegate, and perhaps, her bishop) to share her discernment; these persons are able to evaluate the degree and quality of discernment achieved, 2) she will rewrite the portions of her Rule that deal with wearing the habit and anything in her treatment of the vow of religious poverty which is affected, and 3) she will seek approval for these changes (if, in fact, her Rule addressed these things in the first place). A bishop may or may not approve such changes in the hermit's usual praxis and/or Rule, but if the discernment is good it is unlikely he would disapprove.

Postscript: there has been some confusion, I believe, because in Canon 603 the hermit is said to live her life "under the direction of the local Bishop". This has caused some to write "under their director's authority (whether bishop or not)" [paraphrase] and similar things. However, "direction" in canon 603 does not refer to a bishop doing or serving as spiritual director nor does it elevate the ordinary spiritual director to the same role as the Bishop; such levelling and confusion of roles is a serious misunderstanding of the language being employed here. Instead, the term "direction" (and thus, the director) refers to the general current usage in religious life where a director is a superior under whose legitimate supervision one lives one's life --- as in the case of a novice director or director of candidates, etc. Thus, to avoid confusion when speaking of canon 603, I tend to speak of "director" for spiritual director and  of "legitimate superior" under whose supervision  (rather than direction) one lives as a canonical hermit to refer to the local bishop. I will also use Director (capitalized) for the delegate and director (lowercase) or SD or spiritual director for that role/person.

If Vows are not Legitimate are they Illegitimate?

[[Dear Sister, when you use the term "legitimate" in regard to public vows or canon 603, is the opposite meaning illegitimate? If public vows are legitimate does this mean private vows are somehow illegitimate?  Why can't I enter consecrated life by consecrating myself?]]

Thanks for this question (you will find your second one appended below)! It is one of those "simple" questions that can unmask the source of profound misunderstandings. Recently another blogger protested that private vows were every bit as legitimate and valid as canon 603 vows. That would be an unobjectionable statement if, as you suggest, the opposite of legitimate in this context is illegitimate in the sense of invalid. But when we are speaking of public vows, "legitimate" means "in law" (canonical = normative) and the opposite is "private" or non-canonical -- as in a private commitment which is not binding in law/canonically, does not lead to additional canonical rights and obligations, etc. There is absolutely no intention of suggesting that such private vows are illegitimate in the more common sense of invalid. They are  ordinarily entirely valid but they also have a different character than public (that is, canonical) vows which effect something very different, namely standing in law.

You see, when someone petitions to be admitted to and accepts legal standing (as occurs through public profession, ordination, etc) one enters into a covenantal identity vis-à-vis  the Church. The diocesan hermit does so under canon 603 and as part of this spiritual and legal covenant she comes to live this life in the name of the Church. The Church specifically authorizes this and, on her part, supervises and governs this vocation through legitimate superiors, canonically approved Rule of life, and Canon law. She keeps a file on the person's admission to profession and consecration, and, as mentioned before, she notifies the parish where that person's baptismal record is kept of this additional "sacramental" change in her legal standing in the Church. (Our baptismal records are amended any time we marry, are professed, ordained, consecrated, etc. They are not amended to reflect private vows, however, because these do not lead to any change in our canonical standing in the Church --- no change in our state of life, that is).

All of this underscores two things. First,  some commitments (including canon 603) establish a person in a new state of life; the Church takes care to mark, record, and govern such commitments precisely because they are undertaken in her name and lived out in the same way. Folks to whom these persons minister are given the right to expect these vocations are lived with integrity. They have a right to expect the Church (hierarchy and formation personnel, etc) has 'vetted' these folks and discerned as well as they can the authentic character of their call. The assembly or ecclesia more generally have a right to expect these same people have ascertained the individual's preparation for profession, consecration, or ordination, and not admitted anyone to these prematurely or if the person is simply unsuitable. Second, all of these things are done to help insure ministry in the Church is done well and responsibly. If one teaches, preaches, or (as in the case of c 603 hermits for instance) lives one's life in the name of the Church, the Church necessarily participates in these callings to govern them canonically.

Again, in the canonical sense, private vows are entirely valid but they are not "legitimate" (so to speak) or canonical as public ones are legitimate/canonical simply because they do not establish a person in law --- in this case, as a hermit with a public vocation to consecrated eremitical life recognized as such by the Church. (N.B., definitive or perpetual profession is accompanied by a prayer of consecration which the Bishop prays with outstretched hands over the hermit. These discrete acts are part of the same overall 'setting apart' and commissioning which is called by the name profession or consecration. In this overall dynamic, the hermit dedicates herself in the making of vows, etc., while God consecrates her and sends her forth to live this vocation in God's name and in the name of the Church through the Church's mediating ministry.)

When a person makes private vows as a hermit they dedicate themselves to God and his service in their baptized state; they do not enter the consecrated state of life but reflect the significance of baptismal consecration and the law that binds every Catholic lay person. This is their legitimate and (if unmarried) sacramental state of life; similarly it is their hierarchically and vocationally defined state of life. Again then, their vows are private and valid but do not change their standing in law, that is, their legitimate or canonical state.

All of this is meant as a reflection of the simple fact that God's consecration of an individual, like God's consecration of Bread and Wine, for instance, is ALWAYS mediated through the structures and channels of the institutional Church. In the case of the consecration of solitary hermits, the Bishop acting in the name of the Church serves as the mediator of  the individual's profession (dedication) and God's consecration of that person. It is through this mediated event that a kind of covenant is accomplished and new standing in law is acquired, new rights and obligations are extended to and embraced by the newly professed and/or consecrated person. All of this also indicates the reason such vocations are known as ecclesial vocations; their existence, governance, embodiment or living out, etc., are ecclesially mediated realities.  In private vows, on the other hand, the Church does not act (that is, no one acting in the name of the Church acts) as mediator of any such realities. This makes the act valid but entirely private and without a change in legal or ecclesial standing (without change from lay state to consecrated state, for instance) nor, therefore, the correlative shift in legitimate (ecclesial) rights and obligations.

[[If God consecrates the person, can someone claim this has happened [because of a private dedication of self] and then say it is by their fruits that you know they have been consecrated?]]

No. Consecrations in the Church are always mediated (and public) realities. One cannot claim one has been consecrated without such public (acting in the name of the Church!) mediation any more than one can claim they have consecrated bread and wine themselves (that is, claimed that God has done so through them) unless they have been made capable of mediating God's powerful presence in this specific way. In the Catholic Church it is the Sacrament of Orders which makes a person capable of mediating God's hallowing power and presence in this way. The person is sacramentally configured or ordered to receive the specific graces needed for such an ecclesial action. At the same time, the Sacrament of Orders is mediated to the priest by Bishops acting in the name of the Church and with the ecclesial authority to do so. Consecration works analogously with the consecrated person made capable by God of receiving and mediating the graces associated with her specific vocation. This consecration is always a mediated act accomplished by God through the agency of the Church and those acting in her name in this specific way.

The fruits of one's life may be wonderful and if one has been consecrated one certainly expects to produce such fruits in abundance, but the presence of wonderful fruit does not prove God has initiated one into the consecrated state of life independent of the Church's formal, canonical, and liturgical mediation. (Actually, I would argue that if one has not been initiated into the consecrated state of life, then such fruit witnesses to one's baptismal consecration and challenges one to acknowledge this as the significant reality it is.) But to argue that the fruits of one's life automatically point to the fact of initiation into the consecrated state is a logical fallacy. "If A then B" does not necessarily imply, "If B then A". Think of it this way: if a sick child goes to the doctor, is diagnosed with a bacterial infection, gets an antibiotic injection, and then begins to feel better, one can reasonably conclude the injection helped cause the improvement. But if, after a trip to the doctor, a sick child starts to feel better, one cannot necessarily conclude from this that they got an injection anymore than one can necessarily conclude the doctor did brain surgery or gave a placebo or maybe assured them they were NOT going to get an injection which made the child laugh and helped them feel better.

The bottom line in all of this is that initiation into the consecrated state is always a mediated event. Someone intentionally acting "in the name of the Church" admits a person to and mediates this consecration. Further, mediation of one's life in this state is a continuing reality with both liturgical and canonical dimensions. It extends not only to the mutual discernment of the vocation and the formal, liturgical mediation of the call itself by the Bishop at the time of definitive profession, but also to the extension of rights and obligations as well as to the legitimate relationships established to govern and supervise the vocation. All of these things participate in the continuing mediation of God's call to the person and the person's continuing response to and embodiment of this vocation.

This is precisely why such vocations are called ecclesial. At every point the individual lives the charismatic aspect of her vocation in light of the Church's own liturgical and canonical mediation and governance. Similarly, it is this dynamic covenantal relationship that constitutes the "stable state of life" one enters upon definitive profession and consecration. The hermit's Rule is the pre-eminent symbol of all of this but there are other symbols as well, legitimate superiors, religious garb and prayer garment, title and post-nomial initials. All of these point to a stable state of life which is dependent upon the Church's own continuing mediation.

Should one leave this stable state of life one also leaves the specific symbols and structures which are part of the mediation of this vocation. They will leave both the rights and obligations of the state, the Rule, the identity and its markers, legitimate superiors, etc. One does not leave the Church of course, nor does one cease to have been consecrated by God, but one leaves the consecrated state of life and returns to the lay state of life vocationally speaking.  On the other hand, if the Church never admits one to the consecrated state, never liturgically nor canonically mediates God's own consecration of the person, then the person has never been consecrated and never been given the right to live eremitical life in the name of the Church as a Catholic hermit.

Private and Public vows, an Unofficial Terminology?

[[Dear Sister Laurel,  what you have said about private vows and public vows is clear to me. The first is a completely private commitment; the other refers to one where one takes on public rights and obligations in law. Is this your own personally coined terminology or is it official? I ask because one blogger said, [[To recapitulate, the distinguishing difference in the unofficially coined terms "private profession" and "public profession" of vows is as follows. The former profession of vows are not required by Church law to be professed in the hands of the hermit's local ordinary. . .while the latter profession of vows is thus required, and thus becomes a public record per church law.]]

Unofficially coined?? No, the usage is both longstanding and normative in the Roman Catholic Church;  the 1983 Code of Canon Law reads as follows: [[Can. 1192 §1. A vow is public if a legitimate superior accepts it in the name of the Church; otherwise, it is private.]] Please note: this normative usage has absolutely nothing to do with notoriety or lack of notoriety (i.e., anonymity). Legitimacy (whether something is binding in law or not) is the key here. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law both private and public vows were also possible. One source summarizes the matter as follows, [[ According to their juridical form, they [vows] may be private or made with the Church's recognition. . .]] The phrase "Church's recognition" refers to "recognition in law" and the extension of canonical (that is, public) rights and obligations in law through the Church's reception of such vows just as was the case in c 1192 of the 1983 revised Code.

I will say that the Church does not officially use the term "private profession" though, and that this is a bit more canonically obscure a matter than the simpler usage, "private vows" and "public vows". That is because the definition of profession is the making of a commitment which initiates one into a new and stable state of life. In other words, the public and canonical nature of the commitment is part of the very meaning of the term itself. In any case, since private vows do not initiate into the consecrated state of life, it is not really accurate to speak of a private profession (though I have also made this mistake, and did so until just a few years ago). By the way, profession is more global than the vows themselves; it is a definitive act of commitment or dedication of self which ordinarily uses vows as the "most solemn and binding way to express. such a [dedication]". (Schneiders, Selling All) Thus Canon 603 hermits may use other sacred bonds to express their definitive dedication of self.

Postscript: When canon 603 speaks of making vows (etc) "in the hands of" the local Bishop, this indicates that he is or will be from this moment forward her legitimate superior. The symbolic action "in the hands of" is historically based and reminds us of times when members of a society made an oath of fealty, for instance, in the hands of the Lord or King. Today public vows are made in the hands of legitimate superiors whether this occurs in religious institutes or with Canon 603. Both parties are bound in a covenant relationship though only the individual making the vows (sacred bonds) is bound by these specifically. The symbolism is one I find quite powerful, especially when stripped of feudal overtones and connotations to be replaced with those of mutual respect and even affection.